Exploring Political Polarization: Economic Inequality, Media Influence, and the 'Defund the Police' Movement

Get ready to climb the steep slope of political polarization with us and our expert guest, Kenneth Hall from The Hollas Group. We take you through a maze of economic inequality and social unrest, amplified by the relentless noise of media outlets and social networks. Hall enlightens us with his expertise on how these factors impact our daily lives and the legislative challenges faced while ensuring that our law enforcement has access to life-saving ballistic armor products. 

Ever questioned how bureaucracy affects US businesses or how Libertarianism and regulation can impact innovation? We dissect these issues and more, exploring the contrasting paths of trade secrets versus patents for small businesses. Joining us in this crucial discussion is Hampton Dowling, who further enriches our dialogue with his global experience dealing with political polarization. 

In the final act, we toss the spotlight onto media influence on global perception and business. Experience the stark comparison of media landscapes in Europe and the US and the challenge of discerning reliable information. We look into the consequences of stifled free speech in education, politics, and hiring practices. To wrap up, we engage in a critical analysis of the 'defund the police' movement, featuring insights from our guest, George Chavez, a retired police detective, and former marine infantry. Brace yourselves as we dive headfirst into the turbulent waters of these pressing issues that continue to shape our society and the world.

Transcript

Nicolas Putnam: 0:00

In a nation once united, political polarization and divisiveness have taken center stage, the ideological battlegrounds stretch far and wide, infiltrating our homes, workplaces and halls of government. Today we delve into this deepening chasm of discord, aiming to understand the roots of our nation's division. Here in the US, we are a collection of people with a tapestry of diverse perspectives and beliefs and, as of late, have found that tapestry entangled in a web of animosity and mistrust. Red and blue states paint an ever-widening divide that threatens the very fabric of our democracy. But beyond heated debates and partisan rhetoric lies a struggle to find common ground, to bridge that gap that separates us and rediscover the shared values that define our nation. The forces driving this political polarization are multifaceted. Economic equality, social unrest and a relentless flood of information from media outlets and social networks all contribute to the disintegration of civil discourse. We are now witnesses to a clash of ideologies where compromise often feels like a distant dream. But what led us to this point and, more importantly, is there a way back? The ramifications of this division stretch far and wide. Families and friendships are strained or even cut under the weight of opposing political beliefs, Communities fracture alongside ideological fault lines, and while each side steadfastly defends their version of the truth. The consequences of this toxic polarization are dire, as we find ourselves unable to tackle other urgent issues that demand our collective attention. At America's frontline, we believe the path towards reconciliation begins with understanding. By seeking to comprehend the perspectives of those whom we disagree, we open the door to constructive dialogue. You can be a part of this discussion as well. Just drop a line in the comments or email us at americasfrontlinepodcast at gmailcom.

Nicolas Putnam: 1:57

This journey will not be without obstacles. The echo chambers of social media algorithms reinforce our existing biases, shielding us from diverse opinions and further entrenching our divisions. The onus is on us, as citizens, to actively engage in civil discourse and challenge our own preconceptions. We must resist the allure of simplistic narratives and recognize the complexities that lie beneath the surface. But how do we navigate the treacherous waters of political polarization while preserving our democratic ideals? How do we ensure that robust debates don't devolve into personal attacks, and how do we reclaim the spirit of compromise that wants to find our nation? Some say we must hold our leaders accountable, demand transparency and reject the allure of divisive attacks. We must cultivate a culture that values critical thinking, respect and the pursuit of common goals. The road to a more united America is fraught with challenges, but our future depends on our ability to rise above them and find common cause in the values that unite us.

Nicolas Putnam: 2:57

Join us today as we navigate the complexities of political polarization on America's frontline. Today we have Kenneth Hall, visionary CEO of the Hollis Group. The Hollis Group is a pioneering holding company revolutionizing ballistic armor materials for law enforcement and the military, with experts with expertise in supply chain management, manufacturing and navigating the intricate world of politics. Ken is a seasoned expert in overcoming political red tape to secure contracts for his life saving products. His dedication extends beyond business as he actively advocates for women's rights, fighting to ensure that women have access to form fitting body armor a matter of life and death. Ken brings firsthand experience of the impact of political polarization on real people's lives. Those are the broad strokes, Ken. Thanks for agreeing to be a part of this. I know, by trying to schedule this, how busy you are as a CEO. I'm glad that you took the time and we're very appreciative of it.

Kennith Hall: 4:06

Well, thank you for having me. This is an important subject and it's obviously of huge importance right now in our political environment. The discourse that is going on seems to be talking past each other. You have two philosophies, basically, as I see it. You have the central hive philosophy that is being reinforced in all of our colleges and all of our settings, and then you have the way that was prior to the last decade or so, where you had individual schools teaching local values and run by the local PTA and school boards. Those schools tended to reflect the personality of that neighborhood and not so much the personality of Washington DC. So I think what we're ending up with is this basic conflict between, basically, anarchy and totalitarianism, and we fluctuate in between those two in our society right now without a true understanding of the founding and why we're here.

Nicolas Putnam: 5:17

That's a pretty bold statement, ken, very well explained. Let's talk more about that. But before we dive into it, why don't you tell us a little more about the Hollis Group?

Kennith Hall: 5:28

The Hollis Group was started to address a couple of problems.

Kennith Hall: 5:32

We believe that, in order to address the current cycle of shooting and mass shootings and everything else, that we needed product that was designed for that specific threat. In doing so, we came to realize that our patrol officers are the first line and our infantry is the first line, and that's where we maybe lack some technology. We're putting a lot of focus on new gadgets and new research and DARPA and everything else, but in truth, when everything boils down to where the boots hit the ground and shooting it in a school environment or shooting in a mall, the patrol officer is the first one to get there and if he has to wait for equipment, if he has to wait for backup, if he has to wait for anything, that time elapsed is basically results in carnage. So we wanted to reduce that time. So our products are focused on for law enforcement at least on reducing that time and protecting the officer, giving him the courage to trust in his equipment and move to the threat as quickly as possible and confront the threat.

Nicolas Putnam: 6:42

But that only works if he has something with him, right? So if he has this ballistic armor with him, whether it be a vest or the shield he's still asked to have it. So how do you get that product into every officer's hand, or do you place it at a venue, and what kind of legislation is needed to make that happen?

Kennith Hall: 7:07

Basically, we're addressing two segments of America. One is the supply chain issue, because that's as relevant as anything. The majority of our critical materials and minerals is supplied by China. The United States has neglected to follow its own rules. Actually, from the military into source, through domestic sources, from start to finish, we've identified some very critical materials that put the United States in a vulnerable position and we are moving quickly to address that. So we are taking on manufacturing from its actual source, in other words, whatever the original material is, or the mine, or the crop, or whatever it might be, and we're addressing developing that supply chain from that point all the way through to our product. In so doing, we're also trying to increase our manufacturing capabilities enough to supply our competitors, believe it or not, because our product we may not be able to supply enough at one time, or at least at any given point, to meet the nation's needs to defend ourselves. So by assisting and turning our competitors into clients, I think we're doing the nation a service. We're not thinking of ourselves, we're thinking of the nation. So when you deal with that supply chain after that, now you have to address the two threats.

Kennith Hall: 8:33

One we know is body armor. Now, body armor comes in various levels of protection and various forms of flexibility. So soft body armor typically is handgun rated and our police officers today typically wear handgun rated body armor. But more and more the threat they're facing is a rightful threat. It's an AR, it's an AK, it's something along those lines, and that gives pause. So in the past the training that the officers receive has been moved to the threat wait for backup and then move ahead. Or if they go to a domestic dispute, which is becoming one of the most violent possible events that occur, they're going there with simply, you know, concealed body armor, which is handgun rated, but they're being met by shotguns and rifles. We've had a lot of ambushes recently. So again, we're trying to make an impact in those areas, in the body armor market and in the hand held shield market, because we think it's been under utilized. We're pushing to have a hand held shield rifle rated, lightweight, with offensive capability, in every officer's hand in the United States and Canada. I think that's great.

Nicolas Putnam: 9:58

So you're. You ran into supply chain issues and you just decided we're going to take this raw mineral and dig it out of the ground here, and is that going to be in the US or in North America? The mining of this raw material?

Kennith Hall: 10:15

One of our most critical materials is a material that is very important to the ballistic industry. It's also very important to nuclear industry and anything that comes in between. It's in virtually every weapon system the United States makes, and the solo source for the United States is China. Now I don't want to think 100%, because India makes a little bit and several other nations have made very small portions. But the largest mine in the world for this material is owned jointly by China and Turkey and that's where almost everything comes from, and they can do it so cheap that over time the US companies that made that product. It's cheaper to buy it from them, so we'll just buy it from them and nobody has looked at it, probably in 20 years.

Kennith Hall: 11:17

So unfortunately, or unfortunately, I come from the old school, so I start tracing everything back and I found out that there is no domestic supply. Now the one mine in the US that deals with what we're dealing with is has been around for over a hundred years and it's probably got about ten years of life left. It's controlled by China. We did locate a new source in the United States that has a 50 year projected lifespan. We do not own that source, but we have allied with that source to supply the United States. We have also discovered two other Probable mining sources and we have partnered with companies in Canada to develop those those sources. So we are working everywhere that that we are legally qualified as the domestic source To develop this new supply chain to supply, to make sure that that if we have to go on a war footing we have enough of this product to do the job. Currently, if China shut us off, we have eight months of supply in the United States and I've had that confirmed by the highest levels of the Pentagon.

Nicolas Putnam: 12:27

I mean, it sounds like you know what you're doing.

Kennith Hall: 12:30

We discover a lot in our, in our resources and our in our when we're developing these products. Of course, you address each thing as it comes up, so we learn a lot, we adapt quickly and we try to make decisions that are in the best interest of the nation as well, as you know, for our stockholders well.

Nicolas Putnam: 12:50

So with your, with this kind of a business, can you have to be pretty integrated with government back to you know our issues with the polarization in this country. What what's affecting your business right now?

Kennith Hall: 13:11

The things that affect our business right now. Number one, you know, the overall economy. It's it everybody's holding on to, to cash resources. We are growing at exponential rates and we're always seeking additional support money. We also have experienced kind of a counterintuitive response from government, including Department of Defense and the up on the hill. So we Went up on the hill to talk to different congressmen and senators and in Both both sides of the fence we were received kindly by most and Then they explained why they can't really help. This is what you told us is amazing. We, oh, I didn't know that was a problem. And here's the problems we have in helping you.

Kennith Hall: 14:06

I Was totally shocked to find out we received an invitation from a high-ranking person in the in the Department of Defense recently asking for us to come in and Explain to them what we found and why we're doing what we're doing. I couldn't have been received in a kinder way. The individual that we spoke with is in charge of basically all title three uses of money and also our domestic infrastructure, which I get up on my preaching you know pedestal there and preach that subject and she's not from my political persuasion and she couldn't have been nicer or more kind. So on One hand over on the hill we got this. Well, that's all great, I'm glad we know that, but we don't really have a great mechanism move forward.

Kennith Hall: 15:11

And then in the doD we got a good reception, but then it enters the bureaucracy. They have a way of doing things that that we we put in a proposal recently. It was rejected, not because of the content of the proposal, because we already had that approved. It was rejected because the paperwork didn't meet their criteria. The way we presented the information Didn't fit their narrow scope. So we want to talk about the problems in the United States. It boiled down to bureaucracy.

Nicolas Putnam: 15:41

So there's a white paper formatting.

Kennith Hall: 15:43

It is issue it is, and Again there's which is stopping what you didn't include this. That's because it doesn't apply to what we're doing, but it has to be there. Well, how do you answer a negative?

Nicolas Putnam: 15:56

They're wanting you to add things into it that don't allow you right. Right, which is how some of these things get through in the first place there is a whole industry.

Kennith Hall: 16:06

In just Writing these type of proposals, which, again, you're adding a layer of bureaucracy I can layer of cost, you're you're removing the talent from the proposal by putting this requirement in the middle. I, I, I, for that part, I, I'm a, I'm known to break Politics and break, you know, I'm a. Get to the point even if you have to break it's a little bit of glass. I Find it frustrating, but then again, I've met the nicest people and the people that have the best intentions in the world. So it's, it's this thing that's happened over time where we developed all this infrastructure. It's got to run through 20 people and it's got to meet these specifications. And unless you are a large company, you don't have the staff to meet all that requirement. You just don't. So I Think that probably boiled down bureaucracy, large government, large process. That's that's where we have a lot of this problem.

Kennith Hall: 17:05

And then you have the two philosophies that hit that. You have the Libertarianism side, which is closer, closest to anarchy not if you go to school today, by the way, I'll teach the opposite, but it is in fact true and then you, on the other side, you have the, the top regulates down and you just do what we tell you to do, which is more or less how we are right now. So they seek less innovation, even though they claim to seek it. But we want innovation from those people and those companies big enough that we already deal with. That we know. They know how we work. That's who we want to deal with. So companies like us are forced either to break the glass or to find a partner that can help us get through some of those hurdles.

Nicolas Putnam: 17:45

When you say break the glass, what? What steps are we taking or what steps are you taking?

Kennith Hall: 17:52

I'm taking steps to corner the market on certain supply chains and minerals.

Nicolas Putnam: 17:57

So you're taking it into your own hands.

Kennith Hall: 17:59

Yeah, I'm gonna put them in a position where they don't have a choice.

Nicolas Putnam: 18:02

You gotta once you become the supplier.

Kennith Hall: 18:05

You got to deal with me. They have to deal with you or they have to spend a large amount of money to try to get around it. But you, we're doing a pretty good job for a company our side at tying up some of our sources.

Nicolas Putnam: 18:17

You sound pretty well positioned.

Kennith Hall: 18:21

Well, and there are certain processes and even some people at DOD agreed with this format. We keep certain things as trade secret instead of patenting them. That ensures that we protect that information and the government's obligated to protect that information. For us they're obligated by law. It's actually better than a patent in a lot of cases. Problem is if people like me disappear, you got to leave that repository of information with somebody. That's the way we're dealing with it. We're just dealing with it by trying. We're not big enough to throw anybody around, so if we just hold all the food in our little pocket, somebody's got to come to us and ask for it eventually.

Nicolas Putnam: 19:07

That seems like a good strategy. Speaking of the DOD, I think we should bring on Hampton Dowling, who is a certified project manager for the DOD.

Kennith Hall: 19:18

I think that's a great idea. I happen to know Hampton, that's what he has to say I think he's a brilliant guy and he also understands the geopolitical implications of that.

Nicolas Putnam: 19:27

Hampton's a project manager for the US Department of Defense and an authority on defense and homeland security, with expertise in international business management, strategic planning and secure commerce and a myriad of other things that would take too long to list and probably even longer to understand. Let's just say he's well versed in navigating the complexities of political polarization. Hampton, thanks for coming in and spending some time with us today. How are you?

Hampton Dowling: 19:50

Hello, why from Washington, it's so nice to talk to you.

Nicolas Putnam: 19:54

Oh, it's great to have you.

Hampton Dowling: 19:55

Hello Ken.

Kennith Hall: 19:57

Hello Hampton, in the belly of the beast huh.

Hampton Dowling: 20:00

Yeah, that's right. Washington DC is significantly different than any other place in the country for sure, as I've become aware. Yeah.

Nicolas Putnam: 20:10

So Hampton, as an international man of mystery, what is your take on political polarization in the global landscape?

Hampton Dowling: 20:22

I don't think we're nearly as polarized as what many people may think. You'd be surprised. I've been traveling to Poland and Hungary recently and before that to Romania and Ukraine, estonia. Their views are very similar to those in the United States, which is just based upon the results that you see in polls and electoral behavior and business decisions. It tends to be rather conservative, not nearly as progressive as what you may be led to believe, which is largely conveyed by the media, by the press corps. And it's the same in Europe.

Hampton Dowling: 21:14

In France, just this week in Paris, you wouldn't know this, but there were over 40,000 or 50,000 people marching in the streets against the current president, wanting to have some of their basic rights protected. But that's nowhere in the press corps. Same in Sweden. They have tremendous immigration issues that are really creating a negative influence on the level of crime. It's just increasing at an exacerbated rate. You don't really hear about that very much.

Hampton Dowling: 21:51

People tend to watch just basic things that are right and wrong. Businessmen understand basic, sound business principles. They want the ability to conduct business in a transparent and fair manner. So when you have governments that are somehow brought to power somehow depress all those rights and levels of accountability and responsibility. It does create a problem. If you control the message and the messenger, then sometimes the audience, which is the general public. Their views aren't necessarily widely viewed or understood. Also, a minority of people that are in positions of influence are often presented as maybe a majority, when that's not necessarily the case. The news and the media that's presented just in daily television in some countries in Europe is entirely night and day different than what we have in the United States. I haven't really found a lot of differing views, certainly not to the extent that maybe we are led to believe over here in the United States.

Nicolas Putnam: 23:17

When you say we have, we're looking at different news feeds. What's happening in one country is maybe not something that we're seeing in. Vice versa. How do we really know what's going on? How is the public supposed to know? Obviously, you know, you're well-traveled, you're seeing these different news outlets and you're seeing things as they happen. How's the general public meant to get a grasp on what's really happening?

Hampton Dowling: 23:53

Well, it's a challenge. Before your time, nick Ken and I grew up where we had the Nightly News, four or five news broadcasts. The ethics of journalism were different than they are today just because of the sources of journalism were fewer. They were followed more traditional roles and responsibilities when it came to reporting the news and editorial comment. Well, today, the number of news sources quote unquote are endless. It really confuses, just confuses the bandwidth that the typical American or European has on a given day to absorb what's going on in the world.

Hampton Dowling: 24:48

The responsibility is unfortunately put on the individual, who has to take time to sort through those sources of information that they feel are credible, provide balanced information. Individuals are forced to ask questions that they perhaps weren't required to do earlier. We trusted the news before we listened and we said well, that's pretty much the way it is, unfortunately, just not the way it is today. The responsibility is put on the individual to sort through what's fact versus fiction, right versus wrong. It takes time to do that. Even then, you may not get it entirely right.

Hampton Dowling: 25:30

It's a challenge. It really is a challenge. Just sitting next to people on an airplane and you strike up a conversation, it doesn't take long to figure out, maybe, what their particular views are on most anything. You don't have to get involved in a lengthy conversation, but you can sense that I haven't really run into a very many people that have a strikingly different view than just people wanting to do things right versus wrong and have freedoms and live a normal life, have economic choices Rather than a world that doesn't not full of inflation, low crime. People get it. People do get it. You see them expressing themselves in the streets all over the world, but unfortunately you won't necessarily see it on the evening news.

Nicolas Putnam: 26:25

How is that affecting business that's being done between nations?

Hampton Dowling: 26:31

Oh, quite a bit A lot. Those nations that are free market based, they really look at free trade, followed generally Western business practices. Those countries are continuing to move forward in a manner that's safe. That's positive. But the minute government gets involved that's a problem. We see that in the UK. We're seeing that in the Netherlands. Just last week there were over 30,000 Danish farmers taking to the roads with their tractors just to protest against very progressive regulations of which the public didn't vote for.

Hampton Dowling: 27:20

I'm not involved in their politics, but you just see that business is affected when government regulation comes into play, especially when it's not approved by the electorate. Business is largely controlled by regulations and regulations are driven by public policy. Those governments that have very progressive, rather hard for lack of a better, more accurate term rather liberal policies, business is constrained. We're seeing that here in the United States. That's why there's an overwhelming number of companies that we're seeking to do business in the United States just three or four years ago are now exiting the United States and going to countries like Vietnam, indonesia, even some African countries. They're going to Estonia, going to Romania, even Italy. Amazingly, the cost of doing business, the ability to do business, is much easier.

Nicolas Putnam: 28:30

What steps can we take to counteract that, or can we?

Hampton Dowling: 28:37

Well, I really have a lot of faith in people. Depending on the society that you're in, the population can be more reactive than in other countries. In the United States it takes a lot longer for us to get motivated about causing some changes, but it does happen. We have to apply upon the election cycle to drive that In some countries. Well, change is driven into the streets. We're seeing that in France today, seeing that in Argentina, seeing that in Guatemala. That's a hard question to answer.

Hampton Dowling: 29:23

The United States is the third most populous country in the world, third largest country in the world, the largest economy in the world, the most diverse economy in the world. We have probably the most diverse population in the world. Change in the United States is something that's hard to put your finger on. Compared to maybe what it was in the 50s, the 60s or maybe in the early 80s, we go to more cosmopolitan or more uniformly demographic countries. Change is rather more predictable and follows more predictable lines. I think that in the US, we have to follow the electoral process there are some people have doubts about that process today which causes some other interesting challenges. I think the next year to two years should be rather interesting to see how the United States moves forward, with perhaps reeling in the arm of government.

Nicolas Putnam: 30:22

Well, it sounds like Ken had something to say as well.

Hampton Dowling: 30:27

You know, after we do that I can't imagine Ken not having something to say.

Kennith Hall: 30:30

Oh, my goodness. Well, in hearing you talk, several things came up. You were talking about the Netherlands and Sweden, a lot of that. Those problems are existing because of the green agenda and they're trying to eliminate accepted methodologies and fertilizers. We're having some of the same issues in the United States.

Nicolas Putnam: 30:56

What I would like to know Hampton.

Kennith Hall: 30:57

Is this global agreement, if you will, between most of the organized countries to go green and to eliminate certain forms of fertilizer? Is that not going to impact our food production?

Hampton Dowling: 31:16

And our food production is going to impact the political scene. There's always a catalyst, there's always a cause and effect, and for in the particular case that you just raised, which is over in Europe, yes green, more sustainable political policies have been driven very hard and they've been well-funded and created and sponsored for the most part.

Hampton Dowling: 31:40

And it's just a matter of public record, it's not a theory, but it's driven by the World Economic Forum, the World Bank, the IMF, the European Parliament, which is not elected by the constituents of the European Union, and it has a lot to do with control and with power. That's why you just see people and businesses taking a very strong right turn, wanting to see those changes reeled back in. It is going to affect food production. Part of that is a goal that's been put in place in black and white by organizations called the World Economic Forum and the IMF, within the, even certain agencies within the United Nations. That affects that's all driven by politics affects food prices, it affects inflation, it affects nutrition, it affects the role of pharmaceutical companies that have a play in agriculture, as perhaps driven by regulations that, by and large, either business doesn't want or the people don't even know about and wouldn't have approved if they were asked to. So, yeah, it is very complicated and, again, when the public generally isn't made aware of it, that's a problem. They find out really after something has been implemented and that's what we're seeing in Europe today is a lot of reactionary activity, because the general population didn't vote for a lot of this and their rate of inflation is significantly higher than here in the United States.

Hampton Dowling: 33:21

I just bought a Big Mac and Fries in Amsterdam. Just a Big Mac and Fries cost $17 US after conversion.

Nicolas Putnam: 33:32

There's no reason for that $17 for a Big Mac and Fries. That's outrageous.

Hampton Dowling: 33:41

And all their. I don't know I tried to remember where I read this, it was national publications like Wall Street Journal or something but of the popular restaurants that are serving plant-based food products, On any given week, they have to throw away 80% of their inventory because people don't buy it, they don't want it. Why do they do that? Why do they make the business decision to bring that into their menu and into their value proposition? I don't know. I think a lot of it is subsidized, but it's different in Europe than it is in the United States. But I know that over here in the US, Burger King throws away the vast majority of their food-based menu products. So all this is driven by agriculture, public policy and a sustainable political ideology.

Kennith Hall: 34:39

These companies, who used to be profit motive and making money for their stockholders, seem to be sliding to the left Now. Do you think that has that is caused by the graduating classes from most of the elite colleges and their MBAs? They seem to all have a singular ideology and they seem to be willing to take profit risk to make some of these changes, and I know there's been tremendous pushback in the market on some of those decisions, the target and some of the others coming to my mind. But give me your you know you're an MBA. Can you please give me your position on that? How is the current education system and college systems? How are they driving this problem?

Hampton Dowling: 35:29

The influence in our academic institutions is very pervasive. It is, there isn't any doubt. I mean, you really can't avoid it. It has become a very progressively influenced environment, whether it's freedom of speech, freedom of thought, the type of classes and just the useless majors that have been pushed upon the students so that they're really just not properly prepared to enter the global marketplace, much less the United States. When it comes to nurturing the future executives, we have some very bright students leading our institutions. They're the brightest, the best in the world, but they're the introduction to basic economic principles, and what are the drivers to, you know, to capitalism, to free trade based economies, is skewed. Their view of what that is and why it's important and what are the sustaining factors for those economic vehicles, is skewed. It is influenced. See that in their decisions.

Hampton Dowling: 36:51

The shareholders, though, are shareholders. They're looking for value in the companies in which they've made an investment, and, again, it takes time for a company's valuation to be affected by some of these decisions that are brought forward by people that may not necessarily have a lot of experience in the business place. Vice presidents today tend to be younger. They don't have a lot of experience. They move from company to company on a more frequent basis. That has an effect on their level of common sense, their level of acumen they have in looking at certain business situations. And you're seeing a lot of companies today are making very poor business decisions where they're making investments and they're also taking subsidies from the US government based upon certain agreements, and that's unfortunate. But shareholders push back when their companies don't have value, when they don't see increased dividends, when they see a company not not being innovative, not really going to where it's clear in their minds that the company should be going, showholders are going to push back.

Hampton Dowling: 38:04

But you're right, ken, the sources of education today are significantly influenced and the students that are entering the workforce today don't have the practical experience that perhaps people of their same age had years ago. They don't have summer jobs, didn't grow up with the same secondary and university type of experience. You know, didn't work a part-time job through college. You know, today kids don't even, aren't even taught penmanship. Some places are not even taught basic arithmetic. So when there's an answer that's software driven, then why does a student necessarily know how a solution was actually calculated and formulated and what does that mean in terms of the broader business space? I mean, these are all very generalized comments, but we do have a problem in the United States with that regard. We absolutely do.

Nicolas Putnam: 39:05

Thanks, hampton, appreciate that perspective and all your insight, especially on a global level. What are your thoughts on on the education?

Kennith Hall: 39:18

Well, if I were to be elected at any point in fantasy land, that would be the first department that I defunded and tried to abolish. I think we do our country a disservice by having a monocular view on education. I don't think that we are served by a certain political group or ideology mandating the philosophies that are taught in our colleges and our grade schools, for that matter. Okay, we used to teach. The purpose of education was to teach people to think. I think we're teaching people to accept the, the ideology that they're being presented now. I don't think we teach.

Kennith Hall: 40:02

I personally will not hire a college graduate that hasn't had a job and prove that he makes appropriate decisions, because I have not. I have a lot of college students that I've adopted, basically, but they come out and I have to educate them. I have to teach them where they were lied to and I mean lied, I mean current academics changing definitions and changing political charts. It's scary the length to which they will go to indoctrinate our children to their point of view. They don't leave it to them to make a decision. They tell them what to do, which is why we don't allow dissent on college anymore, which is why you see on the news every night.

Kennith Hall: 40:47

Certain political activists are going on campus and challenging that to happen, and then you're seeing these student bodies come out at the advice of their their counselors and to shut debate and to shut dissent down. There is no place for dissent on our colleges. That is the opposite of what they were designed to do originally. If you go back to early England and the colleges that were there, they had debate societies that were honored and revered. Today they're despised and done away with. Instead, they go to a cry room with crayons. Would you hire an executive that needed a cry room and crayons to deal with his stress? I won't.

Nicolas Putnam: 41:43

Other than defunding the entire educational system. What are some steps we could take to have healthy debates and bring back some healthy dialogue and start some conversations that will lead to I don't want to use the word compromise, but to a place where it's meaningful for everyone? Well, I think, first of all, we have to get back to the point of view that what I believe is not necessarily what you have to believe Right now.

Kennith Hall: 42:14

One of our problems is I have the belief whatever you want to do is cool, I don't go do it, and what you create will be reflected in what you receive. I'll do my thing. I'm not asking for anybody to support me or be behind me, I'll just make my own decisions. Some of the other people say well, I'm correct, therefore you must do what I say, and if you don't, you're offending me. Therefore you're affecting me. That was not how this country was designed to be, to be run.

Kennith Hall: 42:43

The United States has always been a beacon of freedom and it's been different than other countries. What some in the United States seem to work with is the fact that what some in the United States seem to want to do is become equal to, or the same as, european society or what they consider to be the acceptable society, whether they're socialistic fascists and they don't realize that they're slipping quickly towards fascism. And I think that what we've always valued here is the fact that we can each do our own thing, we can each seek our own happiness, and if you disagree with me, we can have that discussion, but we can walk away. Friends, I have lots of friends that I disagree with and I don't particularly get angry during the conversation. It's not personal to me but I have some other friends that can't have that conversation because it is intense, anger and intense and that's teaching that or wherever that has come from. I think it's a good majority of our problem, this thing that we can't have descent and you can't, you're not allowed to say what you want to do. If it offends me that we got to get rid of that. So I think those are the changes we really need to identify and again, I think we need to get back to supporting the Constitution.

Kennith Hall: 43:57

The Supreme Court some of their recent decisions for free speech are just going to have a tremendous impact as long as the current administration and our education systems and all that don't spend all their time trying to get around the decision. But that's the problem. They don't accept the decision, they just try to figure a new way around it. I have to admit I'm guilty of that a lot of times. I read the rules to find out what they didn't think about, but nevertheless I think that I think when you're looking for a way to get around the Constitution, that's treason in my opinion. When you take an oath to support and defend the Constitution again, you know enemies, foreign and domestic, and you choose to undermine the Constitution. To me, that's not a faux pas, that's treason, and we have a lot of people in government that I consider treasonist. So I mean that's strongly stated, but it's a truth. That's just what I think.

Nicolas Putnam: 44:57

Well, the Constitution was written for us, not for the government.

Kennith Hall: 45:00

That's correct. It was a limit, not permission, and those things that are not in there should revert to the state, ie education, get it out of the federal government and put it back to the states. That will reflect the nation better than what we have.

Nicolas Putnam: 45:16

Well, let's hope there's some change coming down the pipe and let's hope that we can talk about it and have healthy conversations.

Kennith Hall: 45:21

I hope people can talk without getting angry and listen to each other's point of view. I think that will go a long way towards solving the problem.

Nicolas Putnam: 45:27

I think it will too.

Hampton Dowling: 45:28

Well, I can add one point to that the more informed the public is, the better decisions that will be made. The challenge goes back to part of our earlier conversation is that where do people get their information and is it credible In a society like that we have today across the world, across the globe it you know, more business decisions, more purchases, are made on an iPhone. Almost 98% of all purchases made in the United States, around the world, are originated on a mobile device and the overwhelming majority of information, news, features, entertainment, that certainly the age group of 45 years and younger, where it originates from, is typically on a mobile device. So you know, the challenge is to provide the information, make the right information available to them if they choose to seek out the right information, and a well-informed electorate will make the right, the right decisions.

Hampton Dowling: 46:41

The United States being different than most most countries is that we don't make political decisions in the streets. We make it in the voting booth and, as long as there is integrity there, that we look for a strong individual that's going to represent us in the proper legislative bodies or as the president. That was a problem in the last electoral cycle. A lot of people have questioned that and I think they they're quite right to make those questions. So it would be very interesting how things move forward, because we do need to make some changes so that the right business climate can be created, so that the economy can get on the right footing, that our school system can have the proper representation, parents can have the right role to play with their kids as they grow up to enter society. So it all boils down to the individuals us you and me, our parents, our friends If we're well-informed and we make the right decision ultimately, that's where change will occur in the right and thoughtful manner.

Nicolas Putnam: 47:44

I think that's solid advice. Thank you, Hampton. Before you defund the entire education system, let's talk a little bit about defunding police. I want to bring on George Chavez. He's a retired San Antonio police detective with 20 years of service. He served on their tactical response unit, crime response unit and he was a physical training and defense tactical instructor at the police academy. He's also a former US Marine infantry. He's trained over 200 or 2,000 officers and deputies nationally in the use of the police baton. He's also the president and founder of viciously loyal, an apparel company with a message of service. Hey, George, how you doing.

George Chavez: 48:35

Hey gents, how y'all doing today?

Nicolas Putnam: 48:37

Doing great.

George Chavez: 48:38

It's good to see most of you.

Kennith Hall: 48:41

Wonderful to hear from you, George.

Nicolas Putnam: 48:44

George, as a retired Marine and police officer, what have you observed? Have you observed any political polarization manifesting in your experience?

George Chavez: 49:03

Well, of course, we all lived through it. We all saw the defund the police movement, which was man. It was catastrophe in most major cities. I think the messaging was all wrong in that If anybody would have told me that five, seven years ago that I would hear this message of defund the police, I would have said no way. But we've always talked about language that says reimagine or rethink what the police job is, and I guess specifically I mean that in the mental health realm. So if anybody I think the language was completely wrong on that and some people took it and ran with it Defund the police was not a good concept. But if you were to tell me even five, even 10 years ago, hey, let's reimagine what we're gonna do with our police force and how we're gonna use them, I would have been all ears.

Nicolas Putnam: 49:50

You're a Marine as well. Served our country and the community as a police officer. What key values are missing and or maybe causing this polarization?

George Chavez: 50:04

God. That's a very large onion appeal, right? What key values. I don't think policing has changed all that much in G's 200 years. When I would instruct or tell police officers, I would always tell them remember the course that you're going through. It's not the police officer's course, it's not even officer's course, it's called the peace officer's course. And what I would try to tell these young men and women is that remember what that means. You are bringing the peace. That usually to the way of using your intellect, your verbal skills and whatnot, it might come in the way of a use of force, but really, truly, we are bringing the peace.

George Chavez: 50:42

I also think there's a misunderstanding in the general public of what it is that we do. I remember there was a famous article or an article that I really liked. He had done a lecture and he had talked about police authority and what authority police had. This lecture was not in high school, it was not at college. It was actually done at people who are getting their master's degree. These are people who had already had their degrees and they were getting a master's degree. He said that after he was done with his lecture about police authority and what police can do in a given situation. He had a line of people coming up and asking and talking about police authority and they had no idea that police had the authority to do X. And I think that in the general public there's a misunderstanding. I cannot tell you how many times in 20 years in the streets of San Antonio that people in a given day or week would come over during a police interaction and say, hey, you can't do that. Hey, you can't do that. And technically, yes, we can. It's just they don't understand our authority or what we're there to do. So there's a big, huge misunderstanding and a huge gap in that. I also say this right, all this misinformation or, I guess, narrative that's being pushed out.

George Chavez: 51:51

I tell this story. This happened not more than maybe four years ago. About four years ago I got into a situation where I almost had to shoot somebody, almost had to take him to the human life Having. You know, I did some time in the Marine Corps and then, of course, having been the police department for a long period of time working some of the worst parts of San Antonio, this is the closest I had come to shooting somebody.

George Chavez: 52:14

I'm telling some friends of mine who are maybe a little bit more left leaning about this story and I got emotional during telling it because you know I didn't want to kill anybody. Anyway, long story short, at the end of the story my friend's wife says if only most police officers thought the way you did. And that hit me very hard. Here's a very well-educated woman who actually thinks that most police officers are out there thinking that they want to harm somebody or God forbid, shoot somebody. So there's obviously a messaging problem that goes along with policing and what we do, how we get our job done and what our end result is, or what we want the end result to be. So there's a believe me, there's a large onion appeal.

Kennith Hall: 52:54

George, quick question or get your point of view. It seems like a lot of the discourse that has happened regarding defund the police, regarding a lot of the protesting and things that are going on seems like it followed the last election and in a lot of those cases, very left-leaning district attorneys were elected and, prior to that, again dealing with law enforcement. Having known you for a little bit, it seems like law enforcement and district attorneys were always worked together and it seems like now they're at opposition in many high population areas and that seems like that's getting a lot of attention by the media driving the discourse. What is your opinion on that?

George Chavez: 53:44

Well, I would say I want to be careful here. I still do have a lot of friends and some family and law enforcement in this area and of course I live here. So I will say that the district attorney's job is to of course prosecute criminals and we have to bring those cases to them. I would say that in an area where crime has risen here in San Antonio, I think that it would do people good to look at what your district attorney is prosecuting and what they're letting go by the wayside. I want to be very, very careful here.

George Chavez: 54:17

I don't want to get too political, but I would say that I don't disagree with the narrative that in this last wave of elections it has gone far to the left when it comes to district attorneys and their prosecution of certain criminals. Just because something is someone's caught doing a nonviolent crime does not mean that individual solely commits that crime. I think it's a big misnomer in the public that when somebody just gets convicted of theft or a nonviolent crime, that that's all they commit. So when you're letting someone go or giving somebody a lighter sentence because you think it's a nonviolent crime, that's the same individual that can commit that nonviolent crime. I mean commit that violent crime the very next day. So yes to your point, ken.

George Chavez: 55:05

As best as I can say because I do want to be careful here is I would say that you have seen a rise in district attorneys not wanting to prosecute nonviolent offenses. You see it in the decriminalization of certain drug uses. You see it in them right in raising the amount of property crime where they really don't prosecute anything less than $750. Now this affects everybody, not just the small businesses but the individual. I think that's a big, big mistake when you hear about it nationally, and now we're seeing it even in my own beloved city where we're having the district attorney's office raise that limit where they're really not going after the criminal, and that's a dangerous road to go down. And, man, I really think somebody should cease and desist that kind of action in the district attorney's office. That's best I can say. Hope I answered your question there.

Kennith Hall: 55:57

Thank you, george. I really appreciate that. Your expertise in this area and having served on the front line is extremely important and I know, living in Texas, as I also have a property in Texas that the majority of the state is densely populated with people that own weapons, that are law-abiding citizens. Yet there are certain cities one specifically I'm thinking of where they have gone way to the left and they're experiencing an increase in crime and increase in all types of related issues. That is moving in a different way from the state as a total. Can you comment on that at all?

George Chavez: 56:44

Are you speaking about my brothers up a little bit north of us, maybe in our area, right? So yeah, no, listen, I'm a gun owner. I didn't grow up in a household with a gun. My father, we had four boys and a girl. We just didn't have weapons in the house. I do. I own now five weapons, one rifle.

George Chavez: 57:05

I think responsible gun ownership, I think, is a must and I've pivoted since then. Right, growing up I didn't see the purpose for a gun. Now, 30 years later, as old as I am, I think that every household probably should at least know to have a weapon or use a weapon. I think that people have a misunderstanding of what the gun is for. Yes, it's for hunting, it's a sportsmanship and what have you. But I can tell you, having been police officer in a big city, if it happens, the worst situation you could ever think of, which is, in my opinion, someone breaking into your home and you don't have the means to defend yourself. We are not seconds away, we are several minutes away. So to anyone who ever hears this or understands, what I'm saying is where did I ever take the report afterwards? And that's my best opinion on gun ownership Responsible gun ownership is that I don't own a weapon so I can look cool or so I can go and try to look away. I own a weapon to protect my family and I know, being a police officer for 20 years in the city of San Antonio, that if you were to call any of my brothers and sisters, they're not seconds away, they're minutes away. So I would say being a responsible gun owner is very, very important. I would say that defending your right to carry a weapon is very, very important and I think it also comes down from misunderstanding of I've heard it said before.

George Chavez: 58:28

People think there's a very simplistic way to handle gun control and there really isn't anybody who says that. I think that is not paying attention. I mean, just to give you a quick stat here in the city of San Antonio, right? I don't like it when people speak on huge statistics. They know nothing about it. This is in my own city From 2017 to 2021, there were over right at 15,000 firearms taken off the street just in the incorporated city of San Antonio. 2017 to 2021, 15,000 weapons taken off the street. I mean, think about that just in the city of San Antonio. So you're talking about a very broad issue where weapons are everywhere, and then we want to pass legislation to take the guns out of law-abiding citizens. I say this all the time the bad guy doesn't care about what law you make, he doesn't care how many you make, he doesn't care if you post a sign. He is going to do what he does. So to create any other laws that take guns out of responsible gun owners' hands, I personally my opinion. I don't agree with it.

Kennith Hall: 59:30

Well, thank you, George. I consider you a brother and the majority of what you and I try to do for the public, and thank you for your service, Thank you for what you've done for everybody. Yeah.

Nicolas Putnam: 59:45

George, you brought up some great points and talk about a polarizing subject when it comes to gun ownership and gun control. I think one of the points that you brought up is something not a lot of people think about, but the police are usually called when or as or after a crime has been committed. So that's one thing that I don't think a lot of people are thinking about when they're thinking about gun ownership and gun regulations is that you're going to be on your own for a little bit and if there's the police, yeah, they're there to help, but we're calling them for help and they have to get to us first. So thanks for bringing that up, and I appreciate your perspective and your insight. Thanks for taking the time with us to come on the show. We're going to have you back on, definitely for our next episode, which is going to cover immigration and border control. Since you're so close to the border in San Antonio, we know you have some experience with that, so we're looking forward to talking with you next episode as well. Thanks, george.

George Chavez: 1:01:03

Great. Thank you, George. Thanks guys, See you later, Ken. Bye, guys.

Nicolas Putnam: 1:01:08

Well, Ken, I think we learned a lot.

Kennith Hall: 1:01:14

It's amazing when you get a lot of learned people that have actual experience giving you the information they see. I don't hear a lot of this on the normal information channels and I think it's important that we address the facts, not the scenario.

Nicolas Putnam: 1:01:32

I think you're 100% right. Well, thanks, Ken. Thanks for coming on. Thanks again for your time. We've learned a lot today. I hope we can keep open dialogues about this. I think that's the best path towards combating polarization everything that we've been talking about. So we're going to have you back on next week as well. We're going to talk about immigration Looking forward to it. All right, Thanks for watching. Join us next week when we talk about immigration on America's Frontline.