Unnamed Sources

Unnamed Sources

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I saw at least two joggers that were like definitely
mid jog when the rain really started coming down, and
it was coming down pretty good. I mean, this is
the kind of rain that Sattle Creek is like, you
get your kayak out.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Am I Right?

Speaker 1 (00:12):
But that's the I mean, it's the perils of running
when it's cloudy out.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
I've been there. It's just like.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
Should I or shouldn't I? And sometimes it just shouldn't ye.
For whatever it's worth. We are learning about different things
in the news about the attack on Iran and how
that has permeated, how that happened, how things went down,
and leaks, right, and this is just one of those things, right,

(00:42):
I don't want to get too in the weeds about
because stuff happens. How many times have we I mean, Matt,
you and I are big sports guys, and this happens
in sports all the time, where it's like an anonymous
leaker says, this guy wants a trade, an anonymous leaker
says this is about to take place with this guy's contract. Right,
you do that with the news too, I mean literally,
an anonymous source says this happened. It happens literally all

(01:05):
the time. Is there any way to prevent that from happening?
I mean, it wasn't all that long ago. You remember,
you know, a couple months ago where they had that
what was that app to signal app that, uh, some
journalist from the Atlantic was added into a conversation that
was supposed to be you know, just amongst the people
who were in the like the people who were just
in the in the mix at the national security stuff.

(01:28):
I don't know, it feels like it happens a lot.

Speaker 3 (01:31):
Is that?

Speaker 1 (01:32):
Am I wrong for saying that? I don't think so.
I feel like, how do you change that?

Speaker 2 (01:36):
You really can't?

Speaker 1 (01:37):
How do you protect yourself against that? It's just like,
all right, nobody say anything to anybody.

Speaker 2 (01:41):
You would have to have.

Speaker 3 (01:42):
A worldwide agreement that no one could ever violate that
we never take information from unverified or unspecified source anonymous sources.
Who's ever gonna agree to that?

Speaker 4 (01:54):
No one?

Speaker 1 (01:55):
Right, because you wouldn't share the information if you couldn't
be anonymous.

Speaker 3 (01:59):
And right, And there are circumstances where it's important for
you to remain anonymous because maybe the information you have
could get you in trouble.

Speaker 1 (02:07):
Big sensitive, I mean, not just trouble as in like
people would hate you. You could be like a target
at that point, right, and nobody wants that.

Speaker 2 (02:15):
That's bad. Now.

Speaker 1 (02:17):
I don't know if that technically goes all the way
down to the guys who are on Twitter using fake
names and fake aliases to hide behind whatever terrible thoughts
and insults that they're throwing at people because they have
no accountability to it. But it's kind of the same thing, right,
people are willing to say stuff when they aren't getting
their name attached to it, then otherwise they wouldn't be

(02:39):
right as we kind of made Edward Snowden a really
big name because he was willing to put his name
on it, right, And it's a dangerous thing to be
doing because and he was a good example of what
could happen. So I don't know, man, that is that
is crazy. It is wild stuff now beyond beyond that, right, Like,

(03:02):
so so what do we what do we know? What
do we what are we dealing with here? And the
movement of our military on what they called Operation Midnight Hammer, which,
by the way, can we can we agree maybe the
coolest name for an operation that you could think of?
You get a couple of beat two stealth bombers, and

(03:23):
you drop a couple dozen bombs in bunk bunker busters
and they drop deep into the ground and they go
boom and knock out a bunch of nuclear weaponry. And
the next thing you know, the President is announcing we
have successfully targeted hit Iran. They have been obliterated, their
their nuclear weaponry has been obliterated, and we are going

(03:44):
to be looking for piece next that kind of thing, right, So,
I mean, it's pretty it's pretty crazy, right to think
about it from that perspective. And you're naming the mission
operation Midnight Hammer. I'm giving that a nine point five
out of ten. I don't know if you could have
done better.

Speaker 3 (04:00):
A lot different than Operation Midnight ham Sandwich, which I've
participated in, but probably wouldn't sound as.

Speaker 1 (04:08):
If there was a military operation that you would name
Midnight ham Sandwich.

Speaker 2 (04:12):
What would it be?

Speaker 1 (04:12):
A military operation? We name it Operation ham Sandwich. I
guess if one of the mid Nightham Sandwich barrick somewhere
that was low on rations, you know, you have a
food to a military based operation Midnight ham Sandwich success.

Speaker 2 (04:27):
Sir nice, Nice, I think I think You're onto something.

Speaker 1 (04:31):
Anyway, we had jacob Oldort, who was the director of
Center of American Security at the America First Policy Institute,
has come out with the damage as the assessment continues.
And again, if we're not seeing this with our own
two eyes, can we really know for sure? Because we're
getting told different things from a bunch of different people,

(04:52):
and some of the stuff that is being told is
moderately consistent with each other. But this is an outside person.
And jacob Ola Dart who was the director as mentioned
of the Center of America Security at the America First
Policy Institute, and yeah, I said, both the US and
Israel said they have achieved their objectives. Israel presumably had
planned around this for many years. Israel says that it's

(05:15):
met its objectives, which was destroying Iran's ability to enrich uranium.
So that's good, that's that's what in At this point,
it's just a matter of how can Iran do this
and find a way to kind of like still look
like they want right, because Iran's telling its people it's
like it's okay, we were good, they didn't do much.
And I think I think I saw this. Iranian TV

(05:40):
said something like they're there, they've announced and are working
on getting a like a celebration put together for their
victory over America. I mean, is that that's weird, isn't it?
What did they win?

Speaker 2 (05:53):
Like?

Speaker 1 (05:53):
How can you spin what happened to them? A victory
for Iran? Now again, Donald Trump says is social within
the last little bit said, the Democrats are the ones
who leaked the information on the perfect flight and the
nuclear sites in Iran, and they should be prosecuted unless
you have names, there's no way, right, like the Democrats? Okay,
so which ones? Which ones? So that's that's kind of

(06:16):
my thing, right, It's like, what if you can name
some Democrats who had that information and they like leaked
it anonymously to seeing in and said, hey, by the way,
they didn't actually obliterate all this stuff. The head of
the nuclear watchdog for the United Nations, Director Rafael Grossi,
from the International Atomic Energy Agency, he said that the

(06:38):
damage done by the US and Israeli strikes at these
nuclear facilities it is very very very considerable. Three varies.
When have you ever seen the triple vary? Very very
very considerable. What does that mean? Considerable? That it was
considerable damage, Although he did say to a French broadcaster
that he thinks annihilated is too strong of a word
for what happened, but he says it suffered in ormist damage.

(07:00):
And that's coming from the International Atomic Energy Agency, So.

Speaker 2 (07:04):
Not that it, you know, maybe obliterated.

Speaker 1 (07:07):
Annihilated maybe too strong of a word for some, but
very very very considerable damage according to Raphael Grossi from
the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Speaker 2 (07:19):
It's very strange either way. That's what we know.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
Operation Midnight Hammer a success. Now, who are those pesky
Dems who decided that they were going to leak information
to the public in a way that it was going
to sound like this submission somehow failed to be a
stain on President Donald Trump. I guess we may never
know got more where that came from. And if you
want to call in, phone lines are open four oh

(07:42):
two five to five eight eleven ten four h two
five five eight eleven ten, talk to you next on
news Radio eleven ten kfab and Raise Songer. And also
what we're learning from the Center of American Security at
the America First Policy Institute. All this stuff right, and
it feels like, based on everything that we know, the

(08:03):
three major areas Ford out, Isfahan and Natans, the uranium
enrichment sites and the sites where there were nuclear weapons
being developed have been hit by bunker busters or Israeli attacks,
and that is we have now learned of the triple vary,

(08:26):
which was used by the IAEA's director, that the damage
is very, very, very considerable. So there is no debate
that Okay, maybe annihilated or obliterated it might be too
strong of a word, but there's no doubt massive damage
has been done here. So what would lead someone to
get information with legitimate intelligence and also theoretically twist it

(08:50):
in a way that liberal media could grab it, write
it up as some sort of failure in Operation Midnight
Hammer and lead the American public Australia to thy I
think that actually nothing was damaged in Donald Trump's doing
a victory lap for absolutely nothing. I have one word
for you politics. Does that sum it up? Politics? American politics,

(09:11):
bipartisan politics, and my partisan I mean partisan bipartisanants like
both sides would do this. If a democratic president was
in charge and this actually occurred, think about the situation
we would be hearing about it. And first of all,
this would be a very strange thing for a democratic
president to do. Is to actually engage the military into

(09:31):
striking the opposition like this to destroy possible nuclear in
uranium enrichment nuclear weaponry. But the idea of that happening,
just think about it. There would be Republicans lining up
down the hall to speak out against this, saying that
this is bad, we are getting ourselves involved in a
foreign war, this is a terrible deal. The president is irresponsible.

(09:52):
Congress should have had to say and whether or not
this should happen, trust me, it would happen that way,
No chance it would not. I am being as fair
as I can. And if you think that if a
Republican or if a Democrat president of this, and Republicans
wouldn't be lining up to try to discount it, even
through anonymous sources and running to you know, Fox News

(10:12):
or Newsmax or the Daily Wire or wherever oan name
your conservative news network. Okay, that would lead to an
outcry saying that this actually wasn't as successful as the
president is making it sound like this was an abject
failure and this is bad and why is that the case?

(10:35):
Because Republicans are asking that, and Donald Trump's asking that,
and everybody in the second in the defense Department is
saying this, this should be celebrated. Why are you rooting
against our military? Why are you rooting and trying to
stain this incredible bravery from these b two bombers or
pilots and crews our military in the Middle East that

(10:55):
knew that they were going to be put into kind
of a dangerous situation with an angry Iran as soon
as this attack occurred, and you're discounting that because of
one anonymous source and it wasn't even accurate information because
of politics. As soon as you say the other side

(11:16):
has done something good, as soon as you say that
the other side has been productive and is doing things
that are good for America, you are undermining your own
political party, your own political movement, and in a lot
of ways yourself. See the sweater man, John Fetterman, who
is regularly touting positivity about this current administration, talking about

(11:39):
common sense and saying stuff like, you know what, I
think that this was a good thing. I think it
was important for the president to go to Iran and
eliminate a nuclear threat. And every Democratic supporter that he has,
every supporter that he may have or friend that he
has in the Senate that are fellow Democrats. They are
now saying, we need to get rid of this guy.

(12:00):
Think about it from that perspective, We're just going to
be talking in circles, ladies and gentlemen.

Speaker 2 (12:03):
That's all this is.

Speaker 1 (12:04):
I'm not saying it's a waste of time to discuss
it and debate it, but I am saying that it's
never going to change. We are going to literally be
talking in circles here. If Democrats like John Fetterman decide
that they're going to go out of their way to
actually compliment or say nice things about a Republican administration,
it is going to harm their voter base, and it's
going to lose them friends in their political party, therefore

(12:27):
losing them influence altogether, and potentially knocking them out of
their position. Whereas if you decide that you're just going
to be combative against the opposition, even if they are
in charge, even if you do in your heart think
they're doing the right things, but you don't say that
out loud and said you're going to fall in line
and say that this is bad and that the President
of the United States is overstepping his lines and his boundaries.

(12:50):
And I don't care whether or not he thought that
this was something he should do. Congress should have had
to say first, this man needs to be impeached like
AOC and some of the other radicals in the political
left believe if they do that, they at least keep
their democratic voter base happy, they keep all their Democratic friends,
and they are setting themselves up to try to brainwash

(13:11):
their side.

Speaker 2 (13:11):
And this is both sides.

Speaker 1 (13:12):
By the way, they get to brainwash their site even
further into believing that to be the case, giving them
ample reason to continue to vote them out and put
Democrats back in charge. It works the other way too,
It is not just that side. So yeah, as much
as I would like to say that, yeah, every Democrat
should be lining up and praising the President for his
strengthening NATO, you could make the argument, after what we

(13:34):
heard this week, NATO is stronger than it ever has
been and it has everything to do with Donald Trump.
Twelve months ago, these liberal people on the left were
saying that Donald Trump was going to pull out of NATO,
he was going to destroy NATO, he thought NATO was
bad and he was going to blow the whole thing up.
And this week the NATO Secretary General straight up said

(13:54):
he deserves all of the credit and all of the
praise forgetting all of the countries almost three dozen that
are a part of NATO to agree on putting up
to five percent of their GDP into their defense funding
as allies of NATO within the next decade. And he says,
it's Donald's Trump's doing strengthening NATO to a point it
has never been before. But you think any Democrats are

(14:16):
lining up to say, wow, he did a really good
job there, That would be political suicide for them. It's
just the unfortunate reality of a two party system, and
that's what we have to live with here in the
United States of America. And you might be thinking, well,
we need a third party that will actually play both
sides and be able to compliment people on the left
in the right when they actually do something good. Okay,
you tell me how that's going to work out, because
every time an independent candidate that feels that way, we're

(14:38):
to compliment somebody on one side, well the other side
will say, ah, you can't believe them, they're a terrible person.
And then you know they'd go and compliment the other side.
And now all of a sudden, the political opposition would say, well,
wait a second, you can't compliment them. You're completely out
of your mind. There isn't enough there to win, not
just the middle, but you'd have to win the peripheral
on both sides. And it have to be a very

(14:59):
interesting candidate or somebody who's really good at rallying people,
an incredible speaker, and I'm just not sure that kind
of person exists to overcome both the Democratic and Republican machines. Sorry,
this is just going to have to be the way
it is, and it's going to be through anonymous leaks.
You know, that's how it's going to work. Got more
on the way if you want to call four h
two five five eight eleven ten is the number? Four
oh two five five eight eleven ten. News Radio eleven ten, Kfab.

Speaker 5 (15:22):
And Marie Sunger.

Speaker 4 (15:23):
In a world where Iran is making nuclear weapons and
the United States feels like it's.

Speaker 2 (15:32):
Their time to shine.

Speaker 4 (15:34):
Enter Operation Midnight Hammer now showing in all theaters, starting
fighting or something like that.

Speaker 2 (15:41):
Now see what I mean.

Speaker 1 (15:42):
I don't know if this operation is going to get
the movie, but you know, you pick it up.

Speaker 2 (15:47):
What a putting down?

Speaker 1 (15:49):
Yeah, And Donald Trump goes on his social media here
in the last half hour or so and says it
was the Democrats who leaked incorrect information anonymously to the
media and they should be prosecuted. And so we're trying
to figure out, Okay, so how do you stop this?
What would be the consequences for someone who gets caught
doing something like this with classified information or information they

(16:11):
shouldn't be sharing to other people. Well, full lines are
open if you've got some ideas. Four h two, five, five, eight,
eleven ten. Todd has called us today, Todd, welcome to
the show.

Speaker 5 (16:19):
How are you doing.

Speaker 2 (16:20):
I'm good man, what do you think?

Speaker 4 (16:21):
You know what?

Speaker 5 (16:22):
I'm just so sick and tired of this. Somebody needs
to be prosecuted, find put in jail. It needs to stop.
Same thing with the Faith News and people who docks
other people. They need to be held accountable or else. Yes,
it will continue. Yeah, I guess, yeah.

Speaker 2 (16:41):
I guess Todd.

Speaker 1 (16:42):
We got to be careful about the infringement of the
First Amendment with the press, which is my to one thing,
like the media can kind of do what they want
based on that, and it's up to us to be
able to discern what is or isn't the truth As
far as if we can find names of people who
are sharing classified information, I mean, they've gotten military people
on before, and they've served a lot of time because
of that. Uh would you would you say that that

(17:04):
would be appropriate to you know, find or jail somebody
who would be in Congress that's leaking that stuff to
the media.

Speaker 5 (17:10):
Absolutely, And I think we have the intelligence, we know
who they are. I believe that we can we can
figure that out pretty quickly. I think.

Speaker 2 (17:17):
Yeah, I think I'm with you on that, Todd.

Speaker 1 (17:19):
And it's not because I don't want people to be
able to share information, but it's it's damaging when you
are hiding behind an anonymous you know, figure, and it's
not entirely accurate, and it's not something that is for
public consumption. To that point, I think I'm with you
on that. We just got to be careful about the
media part of that. I appreciate it, Todd. Thanks for

(17:41):
the call, man, Ye all right, you too. Yeah, So
again this goes back to my point. And I also
did another little you know a few minutes on this yesterday.
We cannot look at your media outlets, including CNN and
just call it news or journalism. It may be by

(18:01):
definition journalism, but that's it's not the cronkite Barbara Walters,
you know, Grantlin Rice. Journalism that people you know, grew
up on in news and sports in the past, where
you know, you really trusted what you read and it
was the news. Now it's one of those situations, one
of those things where it's about entertainment. It's about leaning

(18:21):
in to, you know, the audience that you already have
and wanting to strengthen that audience and speaking to that group.
That's why all the news networks kind of have a
bit of a different feel to them, even the ones
that generally agree. AMSNBC and CNN, they see things very liberally,
but they don't say it the same way. They don't
speak to the exact same group of people. They kind
of are leaning, you know, MSNBC's even a little bit

(18:43):
further to the left of CNN, but they're also the
tone and the programming it is designed for people who
already have those thoughts. We have to we can't get
fooled by that. The American public can't just look at
that and say, well, that must be the truth. We
know that it's not true. And that goes for conservative
leading news sources as well. These are entertainment companies. They

(19:06):
have information, they share information, but they also spin it
to appease the audience that they've already got built in.
And I don't want to be violating the First Amendment
by throwing people in jail because of the stuff that
they're you know, sharing in their story. So that is
a few steps too far toward I don't know, state
run communist level journalists. Whenever you have a state run

(19:31):
television that is literally funded by the government, they say
what the government wants them to say. And especially in
countries that don't really have that many free elections or
anything like that, it's kind of dystopian. It shouldn't be
existing at this point. I also got an email here,
completely off the record from what we were just talking about.

(19:52):
Greg says, do me a favor. Could you tell people
to turn their headlights on so you can see the
cars outside. It's kind of dark and certain spots heavy rain. Yeah, YadA, YadA.
Now he sent this a bit ago, so hopefully Greg,
now it's not too late for me to tell people
to put their headlights on. People forget that, right, Do
you have a car that automatically turns the lights on,

(20:13):
mind does yep, And sometimes it just doesn't trigger. When
you're you know, out there in the middle of the day,
it's still hard to see whether it's you know, fog
or mist or rain, and it's difficult to see a
car until you're kind of right up on top of them.
So it might be one of those scenarios where maybe
you've flipped the lights just on.

Speaker 2 (20:30):
Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (20:32):
And David also says, how about the voice of NFL
films from the seventies to be the announcer to talk
about Operation Midnight Hammer. You remember you know his name?
There's two really good ones. He's speaking of, John Facinda,
John Facinda. If you look up John Facinda NFL films,
that guy's voice, his voice over slow motion like super
slow mo NFL highlights from the nineteen sixties and seventies.

Speaker 2 (20:55):
There's nothing better.

Speaker 1 (20:56):
I'll sit and I'll binge watch a bunch of that
stuff with the NFL film's music behind behind it, right.
And then the other one is Harry Callous who also
has an incredible voice.

Speaker 2 (21:06):
May he rests in peace.

Speaker 1 (21:07):
Also he was the voice longtime voice of the Philadelphia
Phillies and did some NFL films work and some narration
those two voices. If I could have anybody's voice, Harry Callous,
John Facinda, those are the guys, And wouldn't you would
you trade your current voice to have John Facinda's voice
in this industry?

Speaker 2 (21:26):
Probably? Right? Yeah, I think that would be beneficial. For sure.

Speaker 1 (21:30):
You could do voiceovers for anyone you would, People would
be lining down the block.

Speaker 2 (21:33):
Would you rather? Would you trade your voice for mel
Blanc's voice?

Speaker 4 (21:36):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (21:37):
For sure? Absolutely. I love character acting and he was
the best. Yeah, could maybe you could consider him the
absolute best in our days and times. You could consider
Billy West Billy West the greats. He does a lot
of voices on Futurama. He did Doug Funny, Doug Funny.
He also did the honey Bee and the Honey h
Cheerous Honey not Cheerios commercials, among many of the Tom Kenny.

Speaker 1 (22:00):
Time Ken SpongeBob, He's SpongeBob. He's Roco from Roco's Modern Life.
He's half for from Rocko's Modern Life.

Speaker 2 (22:07):
Not Roco.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
He's halfer in Rocko's Modern Life. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so
uh there you go. I trade, I trade let's let's
get let's get some of those guys on.

Speaker 2 (22:16):
That'd be fun.

Speaker 1 (22:17):
Uh, two forty six, we're taking a phone calls if
you're interested. I got some tickets to give away to
the Good Guy's Card Show happening in Des Moines, and
we're gonna have some fun. Hit me up for two
five five eight eleven ten. You're listening to news radio
eleven ten KFA B and Resung. This story is is
quite interesting about the uh, the backlog right of leaks

(22:38):
and I have to reference something that I watched. It's
not real, but it got me thinking about how often
this happens. And I've referenced this show before and it's
called House of Cards as Kevin Spacey and is was considered,
you know, a masterpiece of its time, and uh, as
much as I would love for, you know, us to

(23:01):
go back and revision his history and like Kevin Spacey
is a bad dude or all this stuff. Robin Wright
is in it. She's excellent in it as well. But
it's really about this guy who feels like he's kind
of he's in Congress. He's in line to kind of
move up and be like a high ranking cabinet member
and then that can gets pulled from him, and he
and his wife, you know, come up with kind of
a vengeance plan to work their way to the top,

(23:23):
no holds barred, and they do not care. And he
uses Kevin Spacey's character utilizes different avenues to do this.
He's playing people against each other in Congress, he's playing
that he gets in touch with somebody in the press
and becomes kind of an anonymous source to help, you know,
spread information, which is great for the publication because the

(23:45):
publication then gets the clicks and the attention, while also
it operates and works against the people that you know,
Frank Underwood, which is Kevin Spacey's character's name, what he's
trying to achieve, So they have to react and it
damages their reputation and they eventually end up, you know,

(24:06):
trying either getting out of the way or being pressured
to get out of the way, and eventually, you know,
no spoilers here, but Frank Underwood is utilizing all these
avenues to work into a higher office essentially. And I
mean he's not just two face, he's like eight faced.
But in politics in Washington, d C. Especially, and probably
in the unicameral to some extent, maybe if you're in

(24:28):
Iowa and their state legislature, you have to be able
to play that. You have to have kind of one
attitude with the colleagues that you're close with, a different
attitude with colleagues in your party that you're not super
close with that maybe you're trying to get their position
or get their their jobs. At some point it might be,
you know, going a completely different attitude toward people on
the other side of the aisle. And also working with

(24:50):
the media, both out loud and also maybe behind the
scenes as an anonymous source. And when you watch it,
and again it's a TV show, it's a highly dramatized
television show, and if you haven't seen it, you know
it's an interesting watch. It sometimes is quite uncomfortable because
of some of the crazy stuff that goes on, but

(25:11):
it's one of those things that the more that you
listen to the conversation that they're having and you watch
kind of the actions that are taking place and the
different responses that people have, it feels like it's a
realistic thing. It feels realistic that a politician could have
a media member in their back pocket and they have
a working relationship where the you know, there may be

(25:32):
money exchange, but really it could be the power exchanged
that the publication, say CNN in this leakage that we
had this week with the yearan situation that CNN is
going to get all this attention, all the clicks, and
everybody's going to be rushing to that story. It's good
for that reporter, for their name to be out there.
It's good that they got this first before anybody else
really knew it. It probably people in Congress for the

(25:53):
most part, not all of the knew some of the
information that was being shared, even if it wasn't, you know,
spun completely accurately. The scene then gets the attention and
they get the publicity. The potential politician I'll say Democrats
as we can imagine whichever Democrats that might be. They
end up getting some stain on the Republican administration that
pulls off this operation, and the next thing you know,

(26:14):
you know, we're aligning ourselves up for a lot of
questions that need to be answered. It adds to some turmoil,
It puts some adversity onto the administration and they have
to answer a lot of questions that otherwise they wouldn't
have to answer. It is a game. The whole thing
is a game. Are you ever going to get rid
of it? I don't know if you can. And if
you can't, we have Todd call in and say, if
you know what these people are, who they are, and

(26:37):
what they're doing, then my goodness, we got to hold
some of these people accountable to stop this from taking place.
And I don't know what the penalty for something like
that looks like, but maybe it's something that we can
look into, but it is quite interesting. I have a
couple of tickets to give away to the Good Guys
car Show. It's Good Guys Heartland Nationals, which is taking
place and that is going to be on not this

(27:00):
coming weekend, but next week in a week from tomorrow,
July fourth, fifth, and sixth at the Iowa State Fairgrounds,
a little bit of a jaunt from here, but it's
an incredible car show. Some of the greatest cars that
you'll ever see in person, and it's the Heartlean Nationals,
so people for are coming from all over the Midwest
to be a part of this and from all over
the United States. I have two tickets for caller number
forty four. Forty fourth caller, you win two tickets to

(27:22):
the Good Guy's Heartland National Tiking Place in Des Moines
next weekend. Call us now at four oh two, five
five eight eleven ten four oh two five five eight
eleven ten. Forty fourth caller gets the tickets and we'll
have another hour of action for you on news radio
eleven ten KFAB