April 6, 2026 • 34 mins
The President says screw Europe, Congress says screw the American people and the Olympics finally takes a stand on men in women's sports. There is a lot of flipping the proverbial bird going on in this week's "did they really just say that" cuts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It says screw Europe, Congress says screw the American people,
and the Olympics finally takes a stand on men in
women's sports. There's a lot of flipping the proverbial bird
going on this week, and are did they really just
say that cuts?
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I'm Nancy Shock, screw it all, I'm Ben Parker.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
This is newspipe.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
The UK was very afraid to give us because they
didn't want to get dragged in one thing.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
We're very disappointed, I'll say it publicly. We're very disappointed
with NATO because NATO has done absolutely nothing. We'll come
to their rescue, but they will never come to ours.
Speaker 5 (00:45):
And it is unconscionable to me that the Democrats would
force some sort of negotiation at three o'clock in the
morning and try to hoist this upon the American people
and then get on their jets and go home for
their holiday and pretend and think that we're going to.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Go along with that.
Speaker 6 (01:00):
Zones give performance advantages in sports that rely on strength, power,
or endurance. At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins
can be the difference between victory and defeat. So it's
absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological
males to compete in the female category.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
To come long enough, that's all I gotta say. That
was the IOC, the International Olympic Committee announcing no more
trans women in Olympic sports that chromosomes count. Here's the
full cut, cut one hundred.
Speaker 6 (01:32):
The scientific evidence is very clear male chromosomes give performance
advantages in sports that rely on strength, power, or endurance.
At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be
the difference between victory and defeat. So it's absolutely clear
that it would not be fair for biological males to
compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports,
(01:55):
it would simply.
Speaker 7 (01:56):
Not be safe.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
So we're following the sciences. Understanding science will out okay,
with following the science a.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Rational, reasonable response to a strange situation. And I say
good to the IOC. Just took them too long. I mean,
women were injured in the last Olympics because of that
particular policy that they were afraid to come out and
say it. But it's and I'm not saying this is
any kind of cause and effect, but it seems to
(02:26):
me that since President Trump got in office and said
enough of this, DEI stuff people. It's like saying the
Emperor has no clothes and that people are finally going
you know what, that doesn't make sense. And you know,
I think that that's that's appropriate.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
You can push aside. Look the social impacts of transgender
and and the LGBTQ community and all that, that's fine.
That's one thing. On the other side with the athletes
and the and of what the IOC said, it's it's
just common sense, regardless of where you are on the
socialist Yah, fine, I agree. Look, if you want to
be a transgender man, transgendered woman dressed like an astronaut,
(03:03):
I don't. It doesn't matter. But you can't just put
people in danger because you want to win a gold
medal at the Olympics and you can't even qualify for
the Olympics as a man.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
I completely agree that I support trans rights, but that
does not mean I support an unfair advantage for trans people.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
And that is what this was.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
It was. I mean, do you think that was fair,
the allowing trans women to compete in women's sports?
Speaker 2 (03:30):
It was not fair. And by the way, I don't
have anything to back this up other than common sense,
and maybe that's maybe i'd need more than common sense
these days. But I think a lot I don't know
if it's a majority or plurality or whatever it is,
but I think a lot of transgendered people also feel
that way. I agree with you.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
I think a lot of them did, absolutely, And a
lot of Democrats also thought it was bizarre. I'll play
one for you, Steven A. Smith. You know, if you
watch ESPN, if you our sports at all, you know
Stephen A.
Speaker 8 (04:01):
Smith.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
And he is a raging liberal And he was on
HBO with Bill Maher and this is what he said
about trans women and women's sports cut one on one.
Speaker 9 (04:10):
Biological men should not be competing against biological girls in sports, poo.
I am a supporter of the LGBTQ plus community. I
don't want to get in the way of anybody's civil rights,
civil liberties.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Or anything like that.
Speaker 9 (04:29):
But what about protecting your young ladies, young ladies going
up against men, you.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Know, biological men. There is no excuse for that. And
by the way, you know what you could be.
Speaker 9 (04:40):
You know, Liam Thomas, for example, was you know, was
a male and he was ranking like a yeah, the swimmer,
he was ranked like over four hundredth in the world.
And then she and then he became a she. Okay,
he became you know, transitioning and number one.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Yeah, I mean that's that's the example. Most of us
know because of Riley Gains. God bless her got after
and said this is unfair and not that, but Leah
was making us feel very uncomfortable and women's locker rooms
because Leah was an intact male. Leah hadn't gone through
surgery or anything else. So this is what you know.
(05:16):
Finally the IOC stood up because that's the pinnacle of
of amateur sports. And I think that it was about
time and what took them so long? But it's not
This is not a political issue, as Stephen A. Smith demonstrates.
I think this is a common sense issue.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
I think fear took some of these people so long.
They're like, well, they'll react badly.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
They're gonna call me a misogynist or a racist. They say,
I hate trans people, none of the above, right, you know,
I have I have friends, and I know that sounds
like the old cliche racist. So I have friends. I
have friends who are who are are trans, and I've
discussed this with them and they know how I feel
about it. And one of them agrees with me, one
of them doesn't, of the two that I've discussed it with,
(06:01):
and it's this is not political. This is about fairness.
And I think the IOC has finally stood up for
fairness and I think that was appropriate, which is perfect.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
And by the way, go do whatever you want with
your you know, again, the social aspects of it. And
you want to be a man when you're a woman,
or vice versa. You want to be trans, you are trans.
I don't want to say want to be because you
know some just are. I mean, they are so whatever.
But you just can't look at this and say, well
that seems fair. Let's just have some person who was
(06:30):
born a male who wants to be a female. Let's
just have them compete with the women win all the
gold medals. Imagine how any gold medals you could win.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
I can actually, you know, as they take away some
of your depending on your sport, they take away your
opponents in an ambulance like boxing.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
That was basically there are sports where there isn't touching
or hitting or pushing or stuff stuff like that. But
even so, like for example, you're not going to get
injured in swimming, You're not going to get injured, but
the advantage.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Is clear, Yeah, absolutely clear. And Steven A. Smith, you know,
brought it right out. That's exactly what happened with Leah Thomas.
So I don't I think that allowing trans athletes to
compete and notice that you don't have it the other way.
Don't have trans men competing in immense stories badly because yeah,
because there's no advantage to it. So that's why it
wasn't fair. Just wasn't fair.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
I don't look, I don't want to get into the
psychological part of anything, but but I think some of
these transgendered women men who transition to women, I think
I think some of them have some issues with their
own self esteem or they want.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
It's a hillacious road that they have to walk. It's
horrible and it's you you know, and it was worse,
it's gotten better, and it's a big decision. It's not
taken lightly. And these people go through a lot, and
so I can understand why they're hyper super sensitive to
things and maybe overly so because of everything they've been through.
(07:55):
And I think that's you know, I get it, But
you don't get an unfair advantage.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Maybe winning a hundred gold medals at the Olympics would
make me feel better. Yeah, maybe, yeah, maybe I would
just give everybody a medal, like we're.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Doing a yeah, participation medal everybody. Yeah, that's that's killing
our school system. What also wasn't fair this week is
what the Democrats did in Congress in regard to the
Save Act and the funding of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Democrats were happy to pass a funding for everything
(08:29):
but DHS, which includes the TSA, which you know, I
got to say, given the fact that we're under huge
or increased national security threats, is incredibly irresponsible to do.
But this is Speaker Johnson responding to what the Democrats
did at three o'clock in the morning on the House floor,
Cut fifteen A.
Speaker 5 (08:50):
And it is unconscionable to me that the Democrats would
force some sort of negotiation at three o'clock in the
morning and try to hoist this among upon the American
people and then get on jets and go home for
their holiday and pretend and think that we're going to
go along with that. So we're going to do something different.
We're going to do the responsible thing. Republicans are going
to continue to govern and do the right thing morally, politically, legally,
(09:13):
and politically. We are going to take care of those
who take care of us. The employees and the Department
of Homeland Security have gone without funding and without paychecks
for forty two days. It's the second longest shutdown in
US history, bested only by the longest shutdown in US
history that these same radical Democrats hoisted upon the government
(09:34):
in the fall of last year. Forty two days they
have gone without pay.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Yeah, because because Donald Trump, you wanted to have a
DHS take part in deportation of immigration and in crime control.
We can't allow that to happen, because Donald Trump is
behind the initiative. So let's kill it so that everybody's
in danger.
Speaker 10 (09:54):
Now.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Steve Scalie, before you go on Steve Scales, he's the
House Majority leader. He went on Fox to kind of
explain exactly what is being unfunded by the Democrats here
cut sixteen A.
Speaker 11 (10:05):
About ten percent of the department is unfunded in this bill.
You know it's unfunded in this bill that they sent
us things like human trafficking investigations, cyber investigations. These are
major components. There's seven thousand, almost seven thousand ICE and
CBP personnel that will be defunded in this bill at
(10:27):
a time by the way of heightened national security. We've
had threats, terrorist threats on our homeland in just the
last few weeks. We've had violent illegals in our country
kill Americans in the last week, just in the last week.
This is not a time to be defunding the Department
of Homeland Security, any part of it.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Yeah, I could agree more.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
You know, here's the thing, And I know a lot
of the Democrats and probably a couple of Republicans here
and there have their panties in a water about ice, right,
And look, there are there issues with ice, sure, why not,
there's issues with everything, But this is not You're not
voting to like, authorize a war but your anti war.
You're not voting to authorize, i don't know, changing some
motor vehicle law somewhere in some state house somewhere. Just
(11:11):
look at these are real people who have jobs. And
not only that, not forget that, which you shouldn't, because
they are real people who have jobs and need money.
But these are people who do things that keep us safe.
Whether it's TSA or whether it's that child exploitation thing.
Get this crap done, and stop holding up an entire
system for the one or two things that lil like
(11:36):
it a little that let's hold up the whole world
for it. Sorry, I overreact, probably that's pretty.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Funny, which so well, you know, what's really interesting to
me is that you don't normally agree with the mainstream media.
You know, you're you're kind of an outlier.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
An outlier yet.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Yeah, but the mainstream media are themselves who are historically,
meaning in the last ten years fifteen years, our supportive
of the Democratic Party and anything anti Trump. But even they,
even historic, the mainstream media are having a difficult time
(12:14):
thinking that what the Democrats doing is helpful to the
American people and in fact is not putting them in jeopardy.
And there's an example of them starting to stand up
and say what the bleep to Democrat lawmakers and in
this case John Carl of ABC, you're about to hear
he's going to call out Democrat Senator Chris van Holland
(12:37):
for holding up DHS because of their issues with ice
cut ten.
Speaker 7 (12:43):
I guess what's confusing here is you have fought and
blocked the funding for the Department of Homeland Security because
you object, as you just outlined, to what ICE has
been doing, and you wanted to force changes. And yet
the only thing that has been assured throughout all of
this is that ICE already has the money because, as
(13:03):
you said, seventy five billion dollars passed in the budget
bill last year. So you're holding up the entirety of
the Department of Homeland Security because you object to ICE
and you want changes to ICE. But through it all,
ICE continues to have the money.
Speaker 12 (13:18):
Here, John, we're not holding up all of the money
for all the Department of Homeland Security.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
That's just a false statement.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Yeah, that's what he says. Now that, my friends, is
what's called a bold faced lie. And John Carl is
not going to stand for cut ten A.
Speaker 12 (13:33):
We have said repeatedly, well repeatedly, we should fund TSA,
we should fund FEMA, we should fund the Coastguard. We
are not prepared to give ICE another ten billion dollars
on top of the money they already have and are
using in many of these lawless operations. We're not going
to give them another ten billion dollars unless they make
(13:56):
fun You're holding up the killing of a marea consistent.
Speaker 7 (14:00):
And fighting over that additional ten billion dollars. You are,
you're holding up the rest of department.
Speaker 12 (14:05):
We're not holding it up. I mean you're saying, you know, John,
we're not holding it up. We have now voted ten threat.
Speaker 7 (14:11):
But you're holding up unless it doesn't include money for ICE.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
That's just a fact.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Yeah, it is just a fact. And that's that's a
friendly that's a friendly mainstream. That's John Carl of ABC.
He's a friendly guy when it comes to Democrat you know, agenda.
And even he's going, ah, no, this is what you're
doing is wrong because they're not funding TSA and Department
of Homeland Security during a reised national threat level. O MG,
(14:39):
we're at war with freaking Iran, who uses terrorists, who
sets some loose like you know, letting ants out of
a box and to come to the US, and there's
a raised terrorst threat specifically because of that. Instead, we
have people like like Van Hollins there, I mean, people
like failed VP candidate Tim Waltz, you know, completely oblivious
(14:59):
to the harm that they're doing.
Speaker 10 (15:01):
Here.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
He is, here's Governor Tim Walld's flipping out over ICE
being at the airport, saying this isn't This isn't normal.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Cut twelve, This is not normal.
Speaker 13 (15:09):
These guys aren't doing a damn thing. They weren't qualified
to be here in Minnesota. They're not qualified to be
at the airport, and they are dang sure not qualified
to be anywhere near a polling station. But I would
be absolutely shocked if he is not already making plans.
I mean, democratic states are seeing this assault. We have
the most secure, fairest elections anywhere, and they're still coming
(15:32):
for it.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
But bear in mind he was qualified to run for
vice president.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Yeah, by the way, it's most fair, not fairest. But anyway,
you know, they're not qualified, not doing anything in the airports.
They've saved people, did you say that story? They saved
a baby who stop breathing in a line. They have
eliminated the crush lines at the airports. They have done
a lot to protect and save people. He has no
idea what he's talking about. But what he's doing there
(15:58):
is fear mongering. Let's just throw election.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
Thing at the end.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
Oh they're gonna take They're going to beat you up
at elections. What he's doing besides ignoring the national threat level,
he's also fear mongering so that people who I would
maybe call low information voters who haven't made the effort
to find out what the truth of the matter is
think that ICE agents are looking for trouble at airports.
I want to give you this. Here's an example. This
(16:21):
is a liberal approaching two ICE agents at an airport
and starts screaming at them because he believes people like
Tim Walls cut thirteen.
Speaker 14 (16:31):
Do you might helping me figure out? How you guys
are helping? I keep asking, but nobody seems to know.
A seven or eight of y'all that were just leaving
and they didn't answer. They kept running away. So what
are you doing here to help?
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Why are you so stressed though?
Speaker 14 (16:46):
Why don't you just answer the question I don't have
You're right, you don't have to. That's classic ICE behavior,
But you should answer it because I'm paying your job.
I'm paying your salary.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Okay, thank you.
Speaker 14 (16:56):
So you're here, not welcome, you're stealing from the American people.
But why don't you just answer? How are you helping?
Look at these long lines?
Speaker 7 (17:03):
Upset?
Speaker 14 (17:05):
Because you guys are terrorists and thugs?
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Why would I not be upset? Everybody should be upset
at you. That's your own opinion. It's not an.
Speaker 14 (17:12):
Opinion, that's fact.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
It's fact.
Speaker 14 (17:16):
The majority of Americans hate your guts.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
That's a fact.
Speaker 14 (17:18):
Okay, because they're using our tax dollars.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
You have a nice tack. You know, he couldn't he
he couldn't, he couldn't finish. So he keeps going on
screaming at them, and you're just gonna hear the Ice
agents just can't stop laughing. Cut thirteen A no thoughts.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
You guys are the foot soldiers of a fascist regime,
right is that?
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Is that not?
Speaker 7 (17:40):
What it is?
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Is that funny?
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Is that funny? Yeah? It is?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
That was that was. This is what people like Tim
Waltz a doing. People like Coquem Jeffreys when he went
out there and said they're gonna start killing people at airports.
They think it's okay to basically go after federal agents
who are trying to help a situation by alleviating the
crowding at the airport brought on by the Democrats because
they cut the TSA money out by the.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Way, and you know, I have a lot of bones
to pick with a lot of so called or alleged journalists.
These days. But here's the deal. First of all, and
I'm just going to break this down simply, you can't
just go whether you're a real journalist or a fake
I want to get streamed journalists and ask questions about
(18:30):
a government department or a government investigation of the rank
and file of that organization. You can't do it with
the cops. You can't do it with the firefighters, you
can't do it with the military. You have to go
talk to the people who actually can give you a
freaking answer, like a spokesperson or the general or whatever.
And here's the problem I have with these people. So
they want to get on Facebook and Instagram and social media.
(18:51):
Oh look, look how many hits I got questioning these
guys at the airport. You know what, take your little
journalistic frickin' cell phone, head over to the frickinon or
the Department of Homeland Security, get your ass into a
press conference and ask these questions. There they throw you
out the freaking window, you jackass these First of all,
I feel bad for these guys for a number of reasons.
(19:12):
These ice guys. One, look, they're just doing their job,
and I'm sure plenty of them are doing their job
just fine, thank you very much. And also again they
shouldn't have to be molested and I said it molested
by a jackass like this asking them questions that they're
not Look, you talk about getting paid by the government. Yeah,
their pay scale does not include a spokesperson for the
(19:34):
Department of Homeland Security and TSA. And that guy should
never be allowed to walk around with a freaking cell
phone recording crap. Again, that's the journalist in me or
who used to be a journalist when we used to
have journalists. But you know it's so ridiculous. Well, this
guy's just doing what the media won't do. Screw you
walking around in an airport with a cell phone harassing
(19:55):
people who are trying to do their job.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
You say you'd like to be harassed at your work
and having to and everything you do by somebody who
hates your company.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Met you, you know, get out of here, Get on
your plane and leave, or get out of the airport
and leave. Either way, be like act like a tree
and get the hell out of here.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Since we just I mentioned Tim Walls, I have to
play this cut. It's from the No King's Rally. Again,
a nonsensical thing. Since we don't have any kings. This
is Tim Watson Minnesota. I just wonder it's just to
remind you of.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Who he is.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Who this man who is who is actually telling Americas
to be afraid of ICE agents and that they're not
doing their job. This is uh Tim Waltz of the
governor of the most fraudulent state in the Union. This
has cut six, and.
Speaker 8 (20:43):
I will add a special, a special thank you, and
a special acknowledgement that we will never leave the side
of our Somali Minnesotans. Here's our pledge to you are
Somali Minnesotans, Your great grandchildren will still be here. When
(21:09):
that orange clown is in the dustbin of history, you
will be here.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Well, there's a reason why he's not running for office again.
It's because he has no shot in hell of winning
given this state of his state. I mean, it's rife
with fraud. As a matter of fact, Vice President Vance,
who's now the frauds are, is looking into Governor Waltz.
Cut five.
Speaker 11 (21:35):
What about your friend Tim Walls.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
I mean, you guys shared a wonderful moment on the
debate stage.
Speaker 15 (21:39):
I do feel very bad with for Tim Walls because
of what happened in the October twenty twenty four debate.
But unfortunately we're gonna have to maybe kick him again
a little bit because again.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Look, I don't know.
Speaker 15 (21:52):
To be clear, I don't know what Tim Walls knew
about the fraud that was happening in Minneapolis.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
But what I do know is that the depart Justice
is now going to look into it.
Speaker 15 (22:01):
We're now going to investigate it, and if he committed
a crime, we're absolute going to prosecute it.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
I think that there's going to be evidence. I don't know,
but I think you can't have that kind of fraud.
I mean rampant, rampant, overwhelming fraud in a state, statewide
without somebody either being complicit or turning a blind eye,
which in itself is also some a form of complicity.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
So no one is above the law. Is that what
we're saying?
Speaker 1 (22:29):
Yeah, that's a Democrat.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
We deal with science earlier. Now we're going to hold
democrats accountable. Everybody accountable.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
Oh my god, there's a pig flying by the window.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
But by the way, I do have to listen. I
got to be serious. From from the bottom of my heart,
I need to say a thank you to Tim walls.
Because of him and his brethren, we still don't have
a king in this country. And I think they've done
a hell of a job making sure that we don't
have any king fifty years. Thank you so much for
(22:58):
keeping it that way with your are rambling rantings and
lunacy on the streets. Because here's the thing, I think,
this is what I think to cheek, this is what
I think that we were going to have a king.
But then they looked over and said, on the fricking streets,
I'm not king. I don't want to be king of
that crap. So that's so thank you from the bottom
(23:20):
of my heart.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
I think that's really kind of you, very sweet, thank you.
The big story still is Iran, by the way, and
what the President says, uh, it'll be soon over to
a I would.
Speaker 10 (23:32):
Say that within two weeks, maybe two weeks, maybe three.
We're hitting them very hard. Last night we knocked out
tremendous amounts of missile making facilities. As you probably read
or wrote, we knocked out excuse me.
Speaker 14 (23:47):
Part of the very will be the US will be
gone or done with the warrants.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
I think we two of three weeks willie because there's no.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Reason for us to do.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Yeah, so he says it's going to be over fast,
but there's going to be some long lasting implications, and
maybe not the ones that you originally thought, not just
for Iran, because one of the things that were highlighted
by the conflict with Iran is the one way nature
of NATO and how Europe has gotten used to the
US basically doing all the dirty work. And President Trump
(24:19):
says that needs to change. He kind of intimated that
in the Oval, or actually at the I think at
the Cabinet meeting the other day, cut five A.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
The UK was very.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Afraid to give us because they didn't want to get
dragged in, but we don't want to get dragged into
their wars either.
Speaker 4 (24:38):
One thing, we're very disappointed, I'll say it publicly. We're
very disappointed with NATO because NATO has done absolutely nothing.
And I've always said twenty five years ago, I mean
I was somebody that wasn't a politician, but I was
always involved in politics and I understood politics. I said
twenty five years ago that NATO's a paper tiger, but
(24:59):
more important that.
Speaker 10 (25:00):
Will come to their rescue, but they will never come
to ours. And I want you to remember that we
said this, they didn't come to.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Our rescue, and it's sure a shooting. The Secretary of
State has focused on it as well. This is Marco
Rubio on Fox Cut twelve b.
Speaker 16 (25:17):
I've been one of the strongest defenders of NATO during
my time as a United States Senator because I found
great value in it. It wasn't just about defending Europe,
I said. It also allowed us to have military bases
in Europe that allowed us to project power into different
parts of the world when our national security was threatened.
If now we have reached a point where the NATO
alliance means that we can't use those bases, that in fact,
(25:38):
that we can no longer use those bases to defend
America's interests, The NATO is a one way street. The
NATO is simply about us having troops in Europe to
defend Europe. But when we need their help, not their help.
We're not asking them to conduct their strikes. When we
need them to allow us to use their military bases.
Their answer is no, Then why are we in NATO?
You have to ask that question. Why do we have
(26:00):
billions and billions of dollars hundreds of billions of dollars
over the years, trillions of dollars, and all these American
forces stationed in the region. If we can only use it,
we can in our time of need. We're not going
to be allowed to use those bases.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
NATO not assisting talk only.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
Yeah, I think that's excellent, and apparently Mark or Ruby
agrees with you. Cut thirteen B.
Speaker 16 (26:21):
I think there's no doubt. Unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded,
we are going to have to re examine that relationship.
We're going to have to re examine the value of
NATO and that alliance for our country. Ultimately, that's a
decision for the president to make, and you'll have to
make it. We're going to finish the job here. As
I said, we're very very close to achieving our objectives
on all of these things that I've outlined. But I
do think, unfortunately we are going to have to re
(26:43):
examine whether or not this alliance that has served this
country well for a while is still serving that purpose,
or is it now become a one way street where
America is simply in a position to defend Europe. But
when we need the help of our allies, they're going
to deny US basing rights, and they're going to deny
US overflight. I think these are very legitimate questions that
we need to be asking, and this are going to
(27:04):
have to be very carefully examined after this conflict.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
So it might be by by NATO. What do you
think are you for or against that should we pull
out of NATO? I mean, what benefit are we getting
from it?
Speaker 2 (27:13):
We pay the bills, Well, they haven't helped us. Well,
here's of course the thing. I mean, in theory, it's
a great idea to have a group of countries together
that have each other's backs and everything else. So you
kind of want an organization like that. But if it's
not doing anything, why do we need an organization like that?
Maybe it's not necessarily time to get rid of the
concept just what's in practice now and start a new
(27:37):
one called we actually give a crap about our neighbors
something like that. I don't know, you could name it
anything you want, but yeah, So I like the idea
of NATO, and I think most people do right. It
helps protect the fences, et cetera, et cetera. But if
you're not going to do anything, or you're just gonna
thumb your nose when help is needed from you, then
(27:59):
stick the thing write up your nose instead.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
I like that, Wygak. We actually give a crap. Yeah,
so I'm with you. I completely agree with that, and
I'm with Mark or Rubio. I used to I was
very big proponent of NATO. But if it is a
one way street, if they just use us to pay
the bills but don't actually help us when we when
our government has decided to do something, then I see,
(28:23):
I'd rather use the money for something. I'd rather give
them money to Artemis trying to build its base up
on the Moon so we can have, you know, space
dominance at this point, so we can't like these wishy
washy people who won't help us gain ascendency there. Maybe
that's a hawkish of me, which I've never thought of
myself as before, but you know, hey, I'm pretty pissed
at NATO at this point.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Imagine what Space Force could do launching attacks on a
ran from the moon.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Oh my god, it'd be all over No, I like, wygak.
I'm gonna get a T shirt made like that?
Speaker 2 (28:51):
Why gak?
Speaker 1 (28:52):
So every week we end with a truth control and
most of the time not all the time. Most of
the time it's President Trump, and it is this week two.
He was speaking to reporters in the Oval office this
week and he was asked about his presidential library. If
you saw it going up, it looks like very similar
to the Trump Tower in New York. Very nice, very
(29:13):
nice building compared to what President Obama has built, which
is a prison outside of outside of Chicago. But he
President Trump was speaking to the reporters and he says,
maybe his library is going to be a hotel cut Tennessee.
Speaker 15 (29:28):
Here's a posted a photo of what will be the
Trump presidential library.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
It's a huge skyscraper in Miami.
Speaker 14 (29:35):
Is that all a library?
Speaker 2 (29:36):
What else is going on?
Speaker 10 (29:37):
Well, it's a library, it's a museum or a library.
It's a presidential but I wouldn't start till I'm out
of office. I don't believe in building libraries or museums.
It's really like they brock Hussein. Obama won in Chicago
and not a good location and it's a very unattractive
building that's seriously late and seriously over budget. I think
(30:00):
going to see a great one here and it'll go
up on time, on budget. Best location in Miami best.
They say it's the best block in Miami, in the state,
or where people live in flor No, it's going to
be most likely a hotel. You know, this concept could
be office, but it's most likely going to be a
hotel with a beautiful building underneath and a seven forty
(30:21):
seven Air Force one in the lobby, which is going
to be a trick.
Speaker 1 (30:26):
Okay, So one is President Trump serious? Is he is
his library going to be a hotel because that is
what he's famous for.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
The building you know above it would bees and below.
Speaker 1 (30:35):
At the museum, well, you know, I you know, trust
him to find a way to make it pay for itself.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Why not?
Speaker 1 (30:41):
I mean, because I don't think a building like that
in the middle of Miami could pay for itself on
museum entrance fees. But as a hotel and a in
a function space, maybe you could. I do love the
idea of the Air Force one in there, because they
put one. They put one in the Reagan Library in
California when when they do the Republican debate there where
(31:02):
they had like ten of the candidates lined up with
the Air Force one behind. It was a beautiful I
would go if for no other reason to see Air
Force one at that library. So I think that's a
but I agree it's a trick. That's a big freaking
airplane to put in a lobby.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
First of all. And of course it's just drawings now
in sketches and whatever. They have the plans, but you know,
and of course you can do anything in pictures that.
Sometimes you know when when it comes to building it,
somebody says, hey, that looks nice. We can't build that,
you know, with technology, right, But.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
He's a builder, he knows what it is.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Yeah, I got a better idea anyway, And this will
work perfect. Okay, it's the Donald Trump Library, museum, hotel,
and casino. You're just adding one extra thing from the hotel,
just a casino. So you've got the ground floor in
the basement there will be the whole museum, and you'll
have the Air Force one, and you'll have all the
(31:55):
places where you can go and look and sit and
watch a show about Donald Trump's life and history. And
then like the second and third floors, they can be
the casino. You have a nice floor there with the casinos.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
The only problem is I don't believe you can have
casinos in Florida.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Donald, Well then maybe we got to move it. But
here so so, and then you have a couple of
floors of of of casino, and then you go upstairs
and you've got all the hotel rooms. Maybe maybe on
on top you can have like one of those rotating
restaurants that looks over Miami. This is a this is
you can really get think I think everybody should.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
But the question remains, is he telling the truth or
is he trolling? Is he trolling the damas by saying
he's going to an Obama by saying he's going to
make it into hotel or does he really mean it?
Speaker 2 (32:39):
And I think I don't think he's trolling. I think
he wants to make it.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
I think he is too.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
He can I mean, look a museum we have, I
mean we have museums all over the place. I mean
this is a presidential one. But so you can have
like okay, over here is the museum, and then over
here we have this, this, this, and a showroom and
and and a big movie theater and all this other stuff.
I mean it's done everywhere. Look, would it change the
fact that it's a wedding venue that perfect a three
story museum. Let's say, would it really change the three
(33:07):
story museum? And I'm just making that up. I don't
know what it Olympican if there's a twenty five or
fifty story hotel.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
Above it, No, don't think it.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Well you stay at look at these people. I mean,
it happens in Vegas all the time.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Right, Miami would be pretty happy about it. She's just
going to bring in a lot of tourism, of course.
Speaker 2 (33:22):
And by the way, it's location, you know, South Florida,
you've got access to obviously to the whole world because
you're closer to South America where you've got lots of
money people, and you got they can come in from
Europe and may.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Immigrants, and there's.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
All kinds of people to come in.
Speaker 1 (33:38):
But no, no, I'm saying illegal immigrants. Something you could
have like a detention center through the to the lobby
of it on their way to the airport to be
flown back to South.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
I thought I thought you were going to say we
could use them for housekeeping.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
Now, well we could actually except that that would kind
of defeat the purpose. But I think we just put
a a an ice line, a quorter patrol iceline through
the lobby. Anyway, let us know what you think is
does President Trump mean to build a hotel as this library.
I think Ben's right. I think he does. But you
can let us know. You can contact Ben and I
on x at news by three or on Facebook at Newsbye.
(34:11):
We upload a new episode every single Monday, so please
check back next week and see what new offerings we have. Meanwhile,
have a great week.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
I'm Nancy Shack, I'm Ben Parker.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
This is news Bite.
It says screw Europe, Congress says screw the American people,
and the Olympics finally takes a stand on men in
women's sports. There's a lot of flipping the proverbial bird
going on this week, and are did they really just
say that cuts?
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I'm Nancy Shock, screw it all, I'm Ben Parker.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
This is newspipe.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
The UK was very afraid to give us because they
didn't want to get dragged in one thing.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
We're very disappointed, I'll say it publicly. We're very disappointed
with NATO because NATO has done absolutely nothing. We'll come
to their rescue, but they will never come to ours.
Speaker 5 (00:45):
And it is unconscionable to me that the Democrats would
force some sort of negotiation at three o'clock in the
morning and try to hoist this upon the American people
and then get on their jets and go home for
their holiday and pretend and think that we're going to.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Go along with that.
Speaker 6 (01:00):
Zones give performance advantages in sports that rely on strength, power,
or endurance. At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins
can be the difference between victory and defeat. So it's
absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological
males to compete in the female category.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
To come long enough, that's all I gotta say. That
was the IOC, the International Olympic Committee announcing no more
trans women in Olympic sports that chromosomes count. Here's the
full cut, cut one hundred.
Speaker 6 (01:32):
The scientific evidence is very clear male chromosomes give performance
advantages in sports that rely on strength, power, or endurance.
At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be
the difference between victory and defeat. So it's absolutely clear
that it would not be fair for biological males to
compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports,
(01:55):
it would simply.
Speaker 7 (01:56):
Not be safe.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
So we're following the sciences. Understanding science will out okay,
with following the science a.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Rational, reasonable response to a strange situation. And I say
good to the IOC. Just took them too long. I mean,
women were injured in the last Olympics because of that
particular policy that they were afraid to come out and
say it. But it's and I'm not saying this is
any kind of cause and effect, but it seems to
(02:26):
me that since President Trump got in office and said
enough of this, DEI stuff people. It's like saying the
Emperor has no clothes and that people are finally going
you know what, that doesn't make sense. And you know,
I think that that's that's appropriate.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
You can push aside. Look the social impacts of transgender
and and the LGBTQ community and all that, that's fine.
That's one thing. On the other side with the athletes
and the and of what the IOC said, it's it's
just common sense, regardless of where you are on the
socialist Yah, fine, I agree. Look, if you want to
be a transgender man, transgendered woman dressed like an astronaut,
(03:03):
I don't. It doesn't matter. But you can't just put
people in danger because you want to win a gold
medal at the Olympics and you can't even qualify for
the Olympics as a man.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
I completely agree that I support trans rights, but that
does not mean I support an unfair advantage for trans people.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
And that is what this was.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
It was. I mean, do you think that was fair,
the allowing trans women to compete in women's sports?
Speaker 2 (03:30):
It was not fair. And by the way, I don't
have anything to back this up other than common sense,
and maybe that's maybe i'd need more than common sense
these days. But I think a lot I don't know
if it's a majority or plurality or whatever it is,
but I think a lot of transgendered people also feel
that way. I agree with you.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
I think a lot of them did, absolutely, And a
lot of Democrats also thought it was bizarre. I'll play
one for you, Steven A. Smith. You know, if you
watch ESPN, if you our sports at all, you know
Stephen A.
Speaker 8 (04:01):
Smith.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
And he is a raging liberal And he was on
HBO with Bill Maher and this is what he said
about trans women and women's sports cut one on one.
Speaker 9 (04:10):
Biological men should not be competing against biological girls in sports, poo.
I am a supporter of the LGBTQ plus community. I
don't want to get in the way of anybody's civil rights,
civil liberties.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Or anything like that.
Speaker 9 (04:29):
But what about protecting your young ladies, young ladies going
up against men, you.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Know, biological men. There is no excuse for that. And
by the way, you know what you could be.
Speaker 9 (04:40):
You know, Liam Thomas, for example, was you know, was
a male and he was ranking like a yeah, the swimmer,
he was ranked like over four hundredth in the world.
And then she and then he became a she. Okay,
he became you know, transitioning and number one.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Yeah, I mean that's that's the example. Most of us
know because of Riley Gains. God bless her got after
and said this is unfair and not that, but Leah
was making us feel very uncomfortable and women's locker rooms
because Leah was an intact male. Leah hadn't gone through
surgery or anything else. So this is what you know.
(05:16):
Finally the IOC stood up because that's the pinnacle of
of amateur sports. And I think that it was about
time and what took them so long? But it's not
This is not a political issue, as Stephen A. Smith demonstrates.
I think this is a common sense issue.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
I think fear took some of these people so long.
They're like, well, they'll react badly.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
They're gonna call me a misogynist or a racist. They say,
I hate trans people, none of the above, right, you know,
I have I have friends, and I know that sounds
like the old cliche racist. So I have friends. I
have friends who are who are are trans, and I've
discussed this with them and they know how I feel
about it. And one of them agrees with me, one
of them doesn't, of the two that I've discussed it with,
(06:01):
and it's this is not political. This is about fairness.
And I think the IOC has finally stood up for
fairness and I think that was appropriate, which is perfect.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
And by the way, go do whatever you want with
your you know, again, the social aspects of it. And
you want to be a man when you're a woman,
or vice versa. You want to be trans, you are trans.
I don't want to say want to be because you
know some just are. I mean, they are so whatever.
But you just can't look at this and say, well
that seems fair. Let's just have some person who was
(06:30):
born a male who wants to be a female. Let's
just have them compete with the women win all the
gold medals. Imagine how any gold medals you could win.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
I can actually, you know, as they take away some
of your depending on your sport, they take away your
opponents in an ambulance like boxing.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
That was basically there are sports where there isn't touching
or hitting or pushing or stuff stuff like that. But
even so, like for example, you're not going to get
injured in swimming, You're not going to get injured, but
the advantage.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Is clear, Yeah, absolutely clear. And Steven A. Smith, you know,
brought it right out. That's exactly what happened with Leah Thomas.
So I don't I think that allowing trans athletes to
compete and notice that you don't have it the other way.
Don't have trans men competing in immense stories badly because yeah,
because there's no advantage to it. So that's why it
wasn't fair. Just wasn't fair.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
I don't look, I don't want to get into the
psychological part of anything, but but I think some of
these transgendered women men who transition to women, I think
I think some of them have some issues with their
own self esteem or they want.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
It's a hillacious road that they have to walk. It's
horrible and it's you you know, and it was worse,
it's gotten better, and it's a big decision. It's not
taken lightly. And these people go through a lot, and
so I can understand why they're hyper super sensitive to
things and maybe overly so because of everything they've been through.
(07:55):
And I think that's you know, I get it, But
you don't get an unfair advantage.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Maybe winning a hundred gold medals at the Olympics would
make me feel better. Yeah, maybe, yeah, maybe I would
just give everybody a medal, like we're.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Doing a yeah, participation medal everybody. Yeah, that's that's killing
our school system. What also wasn't fair this week is
what the Democrats did in Congress in regard to the
Save Act and the funding of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Democrats were happy to pass a funding for everything
(08:29):
but DHS, which includes the TSA, which you know, I
got to say, given the fact that we're under huge
or increased national security threats, is incredibly irresponsible to do.
But this is Speaker Johnson responding to what the Democrats
did at three o'clock in the morning on the House floor,
Cut fifteen A.
Speaker 5 (08:50):
And it is unconscionable to me that the Democrats would
force some sort of negotiation at three o'clock in the
morning and try to hoist this among upon the American
people and then get on jets and go home for
their holiday and pretend and think that we're going to
go along with that. So we're going to do something different.
We're going to do the responsible thing. Republicans are going
to continue to govern and do the right thing morally, politically, legally,
(09:13):
and politically. We are going to take care of those
who take care of us. The employees and the Department
of Homeland Security have gone without funding and without paychecks
for forty two days. It's the second longest shutdown in
US history, bested only by the longest shutdown in US
history that these same radical Democrats hoisted upon the government
(09:34):
in the fall of last year. Forty two days they
have gone without pay.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Yeah, because because Donald Trump, you wanted to have a
DHS take part in deportation of immigration and in crime control.
We can't allow that to happen, because Donald Trump is
behind the initiative. So let's kill it so that everybody's
in danger.
Speaker 10 (09:54):
Now.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Steve Scalie, before you go on Steve Scales, he's the
House Majority leader. He went on Fox to kind of
explain exactly what is being unfunded by the Democrats here
cut sixteen A.
Speaker 11 (10:05):
About ten percent of the department is unfunded in this bill.
You know it's unfunded in this bill that they sent
us things like human trafficking investigations, cyber investigations. These are
major components. There's seven thousand, almost seven thousand ICE and
CBP personnel that will be defunded in this bill at
(10:27):
a time by the way of heightened national security. We've
had threats, terrorist threats on our homeland in just the
last few weeks. We've had violent illegals in our country
kill Americans in the last week, just in the last week.
This is not a time to be defunding the Department
of Homeland Security, any part of it.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Yeah, I could agree more.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
You know, here's the thing, And I know a lot
of the Democrats and probably a couple of Republicans here
and there have their panties in a water about ice, right,
And look, there are there issues with ice, sure, why not,
there's issues with everything, But this is not You're not
voting to like, authorize a war but your anti war.
You're not voting to authorize, i don't know, changing some
motor vehicle law somewhere in some state house somewhere. Just
(11:11):
look at these are real people who have jobs. And
not only that, not forget that, which you shouldn't, because
they are real people who have jobs and need money.
But these are people who do things that keep us safe.
Whether it's TSA or whether it's that child exploitation thing.
Get this crap done, and stop holding up an entire
system for the one or two things that lil like
(11:36):
it a little that let's hold up the whole world
for it. Sorry, I overreact, probably that's pretty.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Funny, which so well, you know, what's really interesting to
me is that you don't normally agree with the mainstream media.
You know, you're you're kind of an outlier.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
An outlier yet.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Yeah, but the mainstream media are themselves who are historically,
meaning in the last ten years fifteen years, our supportive
of the Democratic Party and anything anti Trump. But even they,
even historic, the mainstream media are having a difficult time
(12:14):
thinking that what the Democrats doing is helpful to the
American people and in fact is not putting them in jeopardy.
And there's an example of them starting to stand up
and say what the bleep to Democrat lawmakers and in
this case John Carl of ABC, you're about to hear
he's going to call out Democrat Senator Chris van Holland
(12:37):
for holding up DHS because of their issues with ice
cut ten.
Speaker 7 (12:43):
I guess what's confusing here is you have fought and
blocked the funding for the Department of Homeland Security because
you object, as you just outlined, to what ICE has
been doing, and you wanted to force changes. And yet
the only thing that has been assured throughout all of
this is that ICE already has the money because, as
(13:03):
you said, seventy five billion dollars passed in the budget
bill last year. So you're holding up the entirety of
the Department of Homeland Security because you object to ICE
and you want changes to ICE. But through it all,
ICE continues to have the money.
Speaker 12 (13:18):
Here, John, we're not holding up all of the money
for all the Department of Homeland Security.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
That's just a false statement.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Yeah, that's what he says. Now that, my friends, is
what's called a bold faced lie. And John Carl is
not going to stand for cut ten A.
Speaker 12 (13:33):
We have said repeatedly, well repeatedly, we should fund TSA,
we should fund FEMA, we should fund the Coastguard. We
are not prepared to give ICE another ten billion dollars
on top of the money they already have and are
using in many of these lawless operations. We're not going
to give them another ten billion dollars unless they make
(13:56):
fun You're holding up the killing of a marea consistent.
Speaker 7 (14:00):
And fighting over that additional ten billion dollars. You are,
you're holding up the rest of department.
Speaker 12 (14:05):
We're not holding it up. I mean you're saying, you know, John,
we're not holding it up. We have now voted ten threat.
Speaker 7 (14:11):
But you're holding up unless it doesn't include money for ICE.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
That's just a fact.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Yeah, it is just a fact. And that's that's a
friendly that's a friendly mainstream. That's John Carl of ABC.
He's a friendly guy when it comes to Democrat you know, agenda.
And even he's going, ah, no, this is what you're
doing is wrong because they're not funding TSA and Department
of Homeland Security during a reised national threat level. O MG,
(14:39):
we're at war with freaking Iran, who uses terrorists, who
sets some loose like you know, letting ants out of
a box and to come to the US, and there's
a raised terrorst threat specifically because of that. Instead, we
have people like like Van Hollins there, I mean, people
like failed VP candidate Tim Waltz, you know, completely oblivious
(14:59):
to the harm that they're doing.
Speaker 10 (15:01):
Here.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
He is, here's Governor Tim Walld's flipping out over ICE
being at the airport, saying this isn't This isn't normal.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Cut twelve, This is not normal.
Speaker 13 (15:09):
These guys aren't doing a damn thing. They weren't qualified
to be here in Minnesota. They're not qualified to be
at the airport, and they are dang sure not qualified
to be anywhere near a polling station. But I would
be absolutely shocked if he is not already making plans.
I mean, democratic states are seeing this assault. We have
the most secure, fairest elections anywhere, and they're still coming
(15:32):
for it.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
But bear in mind he was qualified to run for
vice president.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Yeah, by the way, it's most fair, not fairest. But anyway,
you know, they're not qualified, not doing anything in the airports.
They've saved people, did you say that story? They saved
a baby who stop breathing in a line. They have
eliminated the crush lines at the airports. They have done
a lot to protect and save people. He has no
idea what he's talking about. But what he's doing there
(15:58):
is fear mongering. Let's just throw election.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
Thing at the end.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
Oh they're gonna take They're going to beat you up
at elections. What he's doing besides ignoring the national threat level,
he's also fear mongering so that people who I would
maybe call low information voters who haven't made the effort
to find out what the truth of the matter is
think that ICE agents are looking for trouble at airports.
I want to give you this. Here's an example. This
(16:21):
is a liberal approaching two ICE agents at an airport
and starts screaming at them because he believes people like
Tim Walls cut thirteen.
Speaker 14 (16:31):
Do you might helping me figure out? How you guys
are helping? I keep asking, but nobody seems to know.
A seven or eight of y'all that were just leaving
and they didn't answer. They kept running away. So what
are you doing here to help?
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Why are you so stressed though?
Speaker 14 (16:46):
Why don't you just answer the question I don't have
You're right, you don't have to. That's classic ICE behavior,
But you should answer it because I'm paying your job.
I'm paying your salary.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Okay, thank you.
Speaker 14 (16:56):
So you're here, not welcome, you're stealing from the American people.
But why don't you just answer? How are you helping?
Look at these long lines?
Speaker 7 (17:03):
Upset?
Speaker 14 (17:05):
Because you guys are terrorists and thugs?
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Why would I not be upset? Everybody should be upset
at you. That's your own opinion. It's not an.
Speaker 14 (17:12):
Opinion, that's fact.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
It's fact.
Speaker 14 (17:16):
The majority of Americans hate your guts.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
That's a fact.
Speaker 14 (17:18):
Okay, because they're using our tax dollars.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
You have a nice tack. You know, he couldn't he
he couldn't, he couldn't finish. So he keeps going on
screaming at them, and you're just gonna hear the Ice
agents just can't stop laughing. Cut thirteen A no thoughts.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
You guys are the foot soldiers of a fascist regime,
right is that?
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Is that not?
Speaker 7 (17:40):
What it is?
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Is that funny?
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Is that funny? Yeah? It is?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
That was that was. This is what people like Tim
Waltz a doing. People like Coquem Jeffreys when he went
out there and said they're gonna start killing people at airports.
They think it's okay to basically go after federal agents
who are trying to help a situation by alleviating the
crowding at the airport brought on by the Democrats because
they cut the TSA money out by the.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Way, and you know, I have a lot of bones
to pick with a lot of so called or alleged journalists.
These days. But here's the deal. First of all, and
I'm just going to break this down simply, you can't
just go whether you're a real journalist or a fake
I want to get streamed journalists and ask questions about
(18:30):
a government department or a government investigation of the rank
and file of that organization. You can't do it with
the cops. You can't do it with the firefighters, you
can't do it with the military. You have to go
talk to the people who actually can give you a
freaking answer, like a spokesperson or the general or whatever.
And here's the problem I have with these people. So
they want to get on Facebook and Instagram and social media.
(18:51):
Oh look, look how many hits I got questioning these
guys at the airport. You know what, take your little
journalistic frickin' cell phone, head over to the frickinon or
the Department of Homeland Security, get your ass into a
press conference and ask these questions. There they throw you
out the freaking window, you jackass these First of all,
I feel bad for these guys for a number of reasons.
(19:12):
These ice guys. One, look, they're just doing their job,
and I'm sure plenty of them are doing their job
just fine, thank you very much. And also again they
shouldn't have to be molested and I said it molested
by a jackass like this asking them questions that they're
not Look, you talk about getting paid by the government. Yeah,
their pay scale does not include a spokesperson for the
(19:34):
Department of Homeland Security and TSA. And that guy should
never be allowed to walk around with a freaking cell
phone recording crap. Again, that's the journalist in me or
who used to be a journalist when we used to
have journalists. But you know it's so ridiculous. Well, this
guy's just doing what the media won't do. Screw you
walking around in an airport with a cell phone harassing
(19:55):
people who are trying to do their job.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
You say you'd like to be harassed at your work
and having to and everything you do by somebody who
hates your company.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Met you, you know, get out of here, Get on
your plane and leave, or get out of the airport
and leave. Either way, be like act like a tree
and get the hell out of here.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Since we just I mentioned Tim Walls, I have to
play this cut. It's from the No King's Rally. Again,
a nonsensical thing. Since we don't have any kings. This
is Tim Watson Minnesota. I just wonder it's just to
remind you of.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Who he is.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Who this man who is who is actually telling Americas
to be afraid of ICE agents and that they're not
doing their job. This is uh Tim Waltz of the
governor of the most fraudulent state in the Union. This
has cut six, and.
Speaker 8 (20:43):
I will add a special, a special thank you, and
a special acknowledgement that we will never leave the side
of our Somali Minnesotans. Here's our pledge to you are
Somali Minnesotans, Your great grandchildren will still be here. When
(21:09):
that orange clown is in the dustbin of history, you
will be here.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Well, there's a reason why he's not running for office again.
It's because he has no shot in hell of winning
given this state of his state. I mean, it's rife
with fraud. As a matter of fact, Vice President Vance,
who's now the frauds are, is looking into Governor Waltz.
Cut five.
Speaker 11 (21:35):
What about your friend Tim Walls.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
I mean, you guys shared a wonderful moment on the
debate stage.
Speaker 15 (21:39):
I do feel very bad with for Tim Walls because
of what happened in the October twenty twenty four debate.
But unfortunately we're gonna have to maybe kick him again
a little bit because again.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Look, I don't know.
Speaker 15 (21:52):
To be clear, I don't know what Tim Walls knew
about the fraud that was happening in Minneapolis.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
But what I do know is that the depart Justice
is now going to look into it.
Speaker 15 (22:01):
We're now going to investigate it, and if he committed
a crime, we're absolute going to prosecute it.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
I think that there's going to be evidence. I don't know,
but I think you can't have that kind of fraud.
I mean rampant, rampant, overwhelming fraud in a state, statewide
without somebody either being complicit or turning a blind eye,
which in itself is also some a form of complicity.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
So no one is above the law. Is that what
we're saying?
Speaker 1 (22:29):
Yeah, that's a Democrat.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
We deal with science earlier. Now we're going to hold
democrats accountable. Everybody accountable.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
Oh my god, there's a pig flying by the window.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
But by the way, I do have to listen. I
got to be serious. From from the bottom of my heart,
I need to say a thank you to Tim walls.
Because of him and his brethren, we still don't have
a king in this country. And I think they've done
a hell of a job making sure that we don't
have any king fifty years. Thank you so much for
(22:58):
keeping it that way with your are rambling rantings and
lunacy on the streets. Because here's the thing, I think,
this is what I think to cheek, this is what
I think that we were going to have a king.
But then they looked over and said, on the fricking streets,
I'm not king. I don't want to be king of
that crap. So that's so thank you from the bottom
(23:20):
of my heart.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
I think that's really kind of you, very sweet, thank you.
The big story still is Iran, by the way, and
what the President says, uh, it'll be soon over to
a I would.
Speaker 10 (23:32):
Say that within two weeks, maybe two weeks, maybe three.
We're hitting them very hard. Last night we knocked out
tremendous amounts of missile making facilities. As you probably read
or wrote, we knocked out excuse me.
Speaker 14 (23:47):
Part of the very will be the US will be
gone or done with the warrants.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
I think we two of three weeks willie because there's no.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Reason for us to do.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Yeah, so he says it's going to be over fast,
but there's going to be some long lasting implications, and
maybe not the ones that you originally thought, not just
for Iran, because one of the things that were highlighted
by the conflict with Iran is the one way nature
of NATO and how Europe has gotten used to the
US basically doing all the dirty work. And President Trump
(24:19):
says that needs to change. He kind of intimated that
in the Oval, or actually at the I think at
the Cabinet meeting the other day, cut five A.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
The UK was very.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Afraid to give us because they didn't want to get
dragged in, but we don't want to get dragged into
their wars either.
Speaker 4 (24:38):
One thing, we're very disappointed, I'll say it publicly. We're
very disappointed with NATO because NATO has done absolutely nothing.
And I've always said twenty five years ago, I mean
I was somebody that wasn't a politician, but I was
always involved in politics and I understood politics. I said
twenty five years ago that NATO's a paper tiger, but
(24:59):
more important that.
Speaker 10 (25:00):
Will come to their rescue, but they will never come
to ours. And I want you to remember that we
said this, they didn't come to.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Our rescue, and it's sure a shooting. The Secretary of
State has focused on it as well. This is Marco
Rubio on Fox Cut twelve b.
Speaker 16 (25:17):
I've been one of the strongest defenders of NATO during
my time as a United States Senator because I found
great value in it. It wasn't just about defending Europe,
I said. It also allowed us to have military bases
in Europe that allowed us to project power into different
parts of the world when our national security was threatened.
If now we have reached a point where the NATO
alliance means that we can't use those bases, that in fact,
(25:38):
that we can no longer use those bases to defend
America's interests, The NATO is a one way street. The
NATO is simply about us having troops in Europe to
defend Europe. But when we need their help, not their help.
We're not asking them to conduct their strikes. When we
need them to allow us to use their military bases.
Their answer is no, Then why are we in NATO?
You have to ask that question. Why do we have
(26:00):
billions and billions of dollars hundreds of billions of dollars
over the years, trillions of dollars, and all these American
forces stationed in the region. If we can only use it,
we can in our time of need. We're not going
to be allowed to use those bases.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
NATO not assisting talk only.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
Yeah, I think that's excellent, and apparently Mark or Ruby
agrees with you. Cut thirteen B.
Speaker 16 (26:21):
I think there's no doubt. Unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded,
we are going to have to re examine that relationship.
We're going to have to re examine the value of
NATO and that alliance for our country. Ultimately, that's a
decision for the president to make, and you'll have to
make it. We're going to finish the job here. As
I said, we're very very close to achieving our objectives
on all of these things that I've outlined. But I
do think, unfortunately we are going to have to re
(26:43):
examine whether or not this alliance that has served this
country well for a while is still serving that purpose,
or is it now become a one way street where
America is simply in a position to defend Europe. But
when we need the help of our allies, they're going
to deny US basing rights, and they're going to deny
US overflight. I think these are very legitimate questions that
we need to be asking, and this are going to
(27:04):
have to be very carefully examined after this conflict.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
So it might be by by NATO. What do you
think are you for or against that should we pull
out of NATO? I mean, what benefit are we getting
from it?
Speaker 2 (27:13):
We pay the bills, Well, they haven't helped us. Well,
here's of course the thing. I mean, in theory, it's
a great idea to have a group of countries together
that have each other's backs and everything else. So you
kind of want an organization like that. But if it's
not doing anything, why do we need an organization like that?
Maybe it's not necessarily time to get rid of the
concept just what's in practice now and start a new
(27:37):
one called we actually give a crap about our neighbors
something like that. I don't know, you could name it
anything you want, but yeah, So I like the idea
of NATO, and I think most people do right. It
helps protect the fences, et cetera, et cetera. But if
you're not going to do anything, or you're just gonna
thumb your nose when help is needed from you, then
(27:59):
stick the thing write up your nose instead.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
I like that, Wygak. We actually give a crap. Yeah,
so I'm with you. I completely agree with that, and
I'm with Mark or Rubio. I used to I was
very big proponent of NATO. But if it is a
one way street, if they just use us to pay
the bills but don't actually help us when we when
our government has decided to do something, then I see,
(28:23):
I'd rather use the money for something. I'd rather give
them money to Artemis trying to build its base up
on the Moon so we can have, you know, space
dominance at this point, so we can't like these wishy
washy people who won't help us gain ascendency there. Maybe
that's a hawkish of me, which I've never thought of
myself as before, but you know, hey, I'm pretty pissed
at NATO at this point.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Imagine what Space Force could do launching attacks on a
ran from the moon.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Oh my god, it'd be all over No, I like, wygak.
I'm gonna get a T shirt made like that?
Speaker 2 (28:51):
Why gak?
Speaker 1 (28:52):
So every week we end with a truth control and
most of the time not all the time. Most of
the time it's President Trump, and it is this week two.
He was speaking to reporters in the Oval office this
week and he was asked about his presidential library. If
you saw it going up, it looks like very similar
to the Trump Tower in New York. Very nice, very
(29:13):
nice building compared to what President Obama has built, which
is a prison outside of outside of Chicago. But he
President Trump was speaking to the reporters and he says,
maybe his library is going to be a hotel cut Tennessee.
Speaker 15 (29:28):
Here's a posted a photo of what will be the
Trump presidential library.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
It's a huge skyscraper in Miami.
Speaker 14 (29:35):
Is that all a library?
Speaker 2 (29:36):
What else is going on?
Speaker 10 (29:37):
Well, it's a library, it's a museum or a library.
It's a presidential but I wouldn't start till I'm out
of office. I don't believe in building libraries or museums.
It's really like they brock Hussein. Obama won in Chicago
and not a good location and it's a very unattractive
building that's seriously late and seriously over budget. I think
(30:00):
going to see a great one here and it'll go
up on time, on budget. Best location in Miami best.
They say it's the best block in Miami, in the state,
or where people live in flor No, it's going to
be most likely a hotel. You know, this concept could
be office, but it's most likely going to be a
hotel with a beautiful building underneath and a seven forty
(30:21):
seven Air Force one in the lobby, which is going
to be a trick.
Speaker 1 (30:26):
Okay, So one is President Trump serious? Is he is
his library going to be a hotel because that is
what he's famous for.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
The building you know above it would bees and below.
Speaker 1 (30:35):
At the museum, well, you know, I you know, trust
him to find a way to make it pay for itself.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Why not?
Speaker 1 (30:41):
I mean, because I don't think a building like that
in the middle of Miami could pay for itself on
museum entrance fees. But as a hotel and a in
a function space, maybe you could. I do love the
idea of the Air Force one in there, because they
put one. They put one in the Reagan Library in
California when when they do the Republican debate there where
(31:02):
they had like ten of the candidates lined up with
the Air Force one behind. It was a beautiful I
would go if for no other reason to see Air
Force one at that library. So I think that's a
but I agree it's a trick. That's a big freaking
airplane to put in a lobby.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
First of all. And of course it's just drawings now
in sketches and whatever. They have the plans, but you know,
and of course you can do anything in pictures that.
Sometimes you know when when it comes to building it,
somebody says, hey, that looks nice. We can't build that,
you know, with technology, right, But.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
He's a builder, he knows what it is.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Yeah, I got a better idea anyway, And this will
work perfect. Okay, it's the Donald Trump Library, museum, hotel,
and casino. You're just adding one extra thing from the hotel,
just a casino. So you've got the ground floor in
the basement there will be the whole museum, and you'll
have the Air Force one, and you'll have all the
(31:55):
places where you can go and look and sit and
watch a show about Donald Trump's life and history. And
then like the second and third floors, they can be
the casino. You have a nice floor there with the casinos.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
The only problem is I don't believe you can have
casinos in Florida.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Donald, Well then maybe we got to move it. But
here so so, and then you have a couple of
floors of of of casino, and then you go upstairs
and you've got all the hotel rooms. Maybe maybe on
on top you can have like one of those rotating
restaurants that looks over Miami. This is a this is
you can really get think I think everybody should.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
But the question remains, is he telling the truth or
is he trolling? Is he trolling the damas by saying
he's going to an Obama by saying he's going to
make it into hotel or does he really mean it?
Speaker 2 (32:39):
And I think I don't think he's trolling. I think
he wants to make it.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
I think he is too.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
He can I mean, look a museum we have, I
mean we have museums all over the place. I mean
this is a presidential one. But so you can have
like okay, over here is the museum, and then over
here we have this, this, this, and a showroom and
and and a big movie theater and all this other stuff.
I mean it's done everywhere. Look, would it change the
fact that it's a wedding venue that perfect a three
story museum. Let's say, would it really change the three
(33:07):
story museum? And I'm just making that up. I don't
know what it Olympican if there's a twenty five or
fifty story hotel.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
Above it, No, don't think it.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Well you stay at look at these people. I mean,
it happens in Vegas all the time.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Right, Miami would be pretty happy about it. She's just
going to bring in a lot of tourism, of course.
Speaker 2 (33:22):
And by the way, it's location, you know, South Florida,
you've got access to obviously to the whole world because
you're closer to South America where you've got lots of
money people, and you got they can come in from
Europe and may.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Immigrants, and there's.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
All kinds of people to come in.
Speaker 1 (33:38):
But no, no, I'm saying illegal immigrants. Something you could
have like a detention center through the to the lobby
of it on their way to the airport to be
flown back to South.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
I thought I thought you were going to say we
could use them for housekeeping.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
Now, well we could actually except that that would kind
of defeat the purpose. But I think we just put
a a an ice line, a quorter patrol iceline through
the lobby. Anyway, let us know what you think is
does President Trump mean to build a hotel as this library.
I think Ben's right. I think he does. But you
can let us know. You can contact Ben and I
on x at news by three or on Facebook at Newsbye.
(34:11):
We upload a new episode every single Monday, so please
check back next week and see what new offerings we have. Meanwhile,
have a great week.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
I'm Nancy Shack, I'm Ben Parker.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
This is news Bite.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Kingdom of Fraud
It’s the unlikeliest of criminal partnerships: a devout polygamist from an insular Utah sect joining forces with a shadowy Armenian tycoon from LA. The result - a billion dollar fraud conspiracy. In Kingdom of Fraud, investigative reporter Michele McPhee traces the origins of the extraordinary alliance between Jacob Kingston and Levon Termendzhyan. Together, the two men trigger the largest tax investigation in American history and weave around themselves a web of dirty cops, influential political relationships and transnational money laundering. All this is set against the backdrop of Jacob Kingston’s clan – The Order. A powerful and secretive polygamist organization in Salt Lake City. To whom Jacob is desperate to prove his worth. Kingdom of Fraud is produced by Novel for iHeart Podcasts. For more from Novel, visit https://novel.audio/. You can listen to new episodes of Kingdom of Fraud completely ad-free and 1 week early with an iHeart True Crime+ subscription, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. Open your Apple Podcasts app, search for “iHeart True Crime+, and subscribe today!