06-19-25 - 9am - Sex assigned at birth and the Biden Cover-Up

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
They had a story about the hearing that occurred yesterday
on Capitol Hill about the autopin and Joe Biden's cognitive decline,
and you know the who, what, where, when, and why
the five w's about all of that. I didn't hear
any of the hearing. I've got a couple of clips

(00:21):
from it, but apparently the Democrats didn't want to show up.
They didn't want to talk about it, which reminded me
of Jake Tapper and Alex whatever his name is. I
just don't care, the co author of the book Original Sin,

(00:42):
the book that, if you may recall, I didn't want
to give Jake Tapper any money. So Dragon did a
little research and found out that Barnes Noble has a
return policy on books that you've bought that are still
in pristine condition. So I bought the I read it

(01:02):
was disappointed. Found out a few things that were I
mean nothing that was earth shattering, other than finding out
the names of the few of the people that were
really running stuff, the pollit Bureau within the White House
that took over when Biden's decline occurred, and that the
decline was visible to these staffers long before, well actually

(01:30):
before the twenty twenty election, they were worried about it.
Then Jake Tapper is on the book tour, and he
had something to say that fascinates me, because I want
to talk about language in a minute. Well, hey, I
forgot I did something wrong. Here, imagine that I did

(01:50):
something wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:51):
George Orwell once wrote that quote, We're all capable of
believing things which we know to be untrue, and then
when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts
so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it
is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time.
The only check on it is that sooner or later

(02:14):
a false belief bumps up against a solid reality, usually
on a battlefield. Now, when George Orwell wrote that he
was talking about World War two, he wrote, quote, the
Germans and the Japanese lost the war quite largely because
the rulers were unable to see facts which were playing
to any dispassionate eye. And then he said, and this
is one of my favorite quotes ever. To see what

(02:37):
is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle, And.

Speaker 1 (02:44):
To see what's in front of one's nose requires a
constant struggle and.

Speaker 2 (02:52):
Struggle, and that's the lesson for me. We all saw
it happening, and we all refused to see it.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
Oh, oh, I'm giddy. I'm so giddy. H an admission
against self interest. We all saw it happening, and we
all refuse to see it. Who is we all? You
saw it? I saw it? All of us saw it.

(03:22):
So who's we all?

Speaker 3 (03:24):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (03:25):
The cabal is we all? Yeah? The cabal is we all?
They all saw it, they refused to see it. Let
me interpret that for you, because that's a cover your
ass kind of quote. We all saw it happening and

(03:46):
we refuse to report it. Yeah, that's what he's really saying.

Speaker 2 (03:51):
And maybe some of it, maybe some of your exceptions,
but as a general node and it can be tough
in the world where in especially I mean orwell didn't
even know, I mean, he didn't have social media to
deal with, right, he didn't have Fox.

Speaker 1 (04:08):
But what if I recall correctly, Fox News did report
on the cognitive decline of Joe Biden. So is Jake
Tapper saying that it's really difficult to we all saw

(04:28):
it happening, and we all refuse to see it, and
that was hard to do because Fox News is over
here reporting on it. This guy just continues to step
in this big pilot poop and doesn't even realize he's
Or maybe he does, but I don't think he realizes
the big pilot poop that he keeps stepping in, and
he keeps adding to the pilot poop too. We all

(04:50):
saw it happening, and we all refuse to do it.
But he can't. He wants to go back to Orwell
and say, well, Orwell was dealing with World War two
here he didn't have. Well, we have to deal with
we have to deal with social media, we have to
deal with Fox News. I've got a question for you, Jake,
What does social media have to do with you reporting
the truth? What does social media have to do with

(05:13):
you reporting, you know, the facts or the observations that
you have as a reporter. You know, sometimes reporters we
want to believe that reporters will always just telling you No,
we don't want to believe. We want to believe that
reporters should always just be telling us the truth. Well,
I actually believe that reporters can't always tell us the truth.

(05:36):
I'll give you an example. A reporter shows up at
a crime scene, he shows up in a giant automobile accident,
he shows up at oh, I don't know, Trendo or
Ragua out of the apartments in Aurora. Once again, all
they can report is or are their observations. Here's what

(05:57):
we see, Here's what law enforcement is telling you, Here's
what some neighbors told us, all of which may be
factually incorrect. So, reporters, I don't believe that reporters should
should be held to the standard of always just telling
us the truth. Sometimes all they can tell is is
just what we observe. But you can tell us that objectively. Hey,

(06:21):
I'm talking to officer so and so. Now you know that.
And I think this is how I would do it
if I were a reporter. I'm talking to officer so
and so. Officer so and so, what can you tell
us about the crime scene? And what can you tell
us about what happened? An Officer so and so tells
you something, I would then say, well, that's what the
officer says. But however, the investigation is not complete. And

(06:44):
now I'm certain there are parts of the investigation that
he knows about that he can tell us. So Officer
so and so is not telling us everything he knows.
He's just telling us what he is can or is
allowed to tell us. Or let's talk to the neighbor,
and you know the neighbors always well, you know, you know, well,
Shannon was such a nice guy. He was always quiet,

(07:05):
kept to himself, not very funny, just never said anything
witty or anything. He was just kind of an odd character.
And then suddenly when crazy and killed everybody. We're all
shocked by Shannon doing that. Oh my gosh. Well that's
one person's point of view. If they asked me, I
would have said, We've always known Shannon was crazy. We

(07:25):
always knew that any moment he's going to go off
the deep end and he was gonna murder everybody. We
were all just waiting for what was gonna be the
one little trigger point to send him off the deep end.
Who's right the first person or the second person, probably
neither of us, something probably in between. The reporters just
reporting on the observations. They couldn't even do that. And

(07:52):
they're blaming social media and they're blaming they're blaming Fox News.
I don't know whether you realize this or not, but
in every newsroom in the country. I think I can
make that absolute statement. I think every newsroom in the country.
Now there may be some little market somewhere, some tiny

(08:12):
little television market that I don't realize that they don't
have the resources to do it, but in every because
I've been in every news station in Denver, every single one.
And I've been in the newsrooms and the green rooms
and the production rooms and the editorial rooms of the

(08:35):
Washington Post and the New York Times, not the Wall
Street journal I don't think I've been in the newsrooms
of all the local television stations. I've been in the
newsrooms of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, whom I'm missing, Newsmax,
all of the I've been, and you know what, they

(08:56):
all have everybody that I just described everybody else. So
everybody's watching it. Every television station is watching every other
television station. They're all watching each other because they do one.
They don't want to get scooped. They want to hear
what they're reporting. They're all covering the same crime scene,
they're all covering the same political story, they're all covering

(09:18):
the same you know, individual but they want to see
what everybody else is saying, because they might get something,
you know, right here in our own newsroom. You know,
iHeart no longer really has what I would call Remember
Jerry Bell, the intrepid reporter for KOA News. Jerry was
always out about town. He was actually a news reporter.

(09:39):
We don't really have those anymore, you know, just because
of budget cuts and everything else. But we now have one, two,
three four of us. We have at least seven screens
out there in the newsroom. And what are they doing.
They're watching everybody else. Now what am I doing? Is
I sit in here. I've got one, two, three four five,

(10:02):
I got six screens in front of me, two of
which are permanently affixed to I mean, somebody could change it,
but I and flip it right back to see it
in in fox because I want to see what the
polar opposites are doing. And so if I see a
breaking news story, I might boom real quickly go online
so I can report about a breaking news story. The
point I'm trying to make about Jake Tapper is he's

(10:24):
a lion sack of poop. He knew it. He's just
trying to sell books. I don't begrudge. I'm trying to
sell books. I don't encourage you to go buy it.
You know, wait till it comes out at the library.
But you know, I'm sorry, excuse me, Wait till it
comes out at the library, and then you can go
look at it. But my, what a load of crap.

Speaker 2 (10:45):
George Orwell once wrote that quote, we are all capable
of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then when we are finally proved wrong, in impudently twisting
the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually.
It is possible to carry on this process for an
indefinite time. The only check on it is that sooner

(11:06):
or later a false belief bumps up against a solid reality,
usually on a battlefield. Now, when George Orwell wrote that,
he was talking.

Speaker 1 (11:15):
About World War two.

Speaker 2 (11:17):
He wrote, quote, the Germans and the Japanese lost the
war quite largely because the rulers were unable to see
facts which were playing to any dispassionate eye. And then
he said, and this is one of my favorite quotes ever.
To see what is in front of one's nose needs
a constant struggle. And that's the lesson for me. We

(11:38):
all saw it happening and we all refused to see it.

Speaker 1 (11:45):
Wow, what in the mission? Now? If Tapper, in an
effort to sell books, is willing to make that admission
against his own self interest, in other words, he's in
diet his own industry, then you don't need me to
tell you that the cabal lies to you all the time.

(12:08):
Or they put it, they present it in such a
way that you can't believe you My eyes must be
lying to me.

Speaker 2 (12:16):
And maybe some of it, maybe some of your exceptions,
but as a general node, and it can be tough
in the world we're in, especially I mean, or I
didn't even know. I mean, he didn't have social media
to deal with, right, he didn't have Fox. But to
see what is in front of one's nose needs a

(12:37):
constant struggle. And like, sometimes the reality is right there.

Speaker 1 (12:42):
And we didn't report on we, you know, to report
on it. So the Democrat or the Senate decides to
hold a hearing on the cover up of Joe Biden's
mental decline. Democrats didn't show up the visuals.

Speaker 3 (13:04):
Sometimes it's really as true a picture speaks louder than words.

Speaker 1 (13:07):
It's worth a thousand words.

Speaker 3 (13:08):
And here all you have to do is look over
at this side of the dioce to see that the
stone wall continues. I mean, from the party that lied
to this nation for four years. Let's just take a
look at some of the things that our colleague said
on the Democrat side when their own Justice Department was
concluding that Joe Biden, who, let's not forget, illegally took

(13:30):
classified documents, illegally took classified documents and kept them in
his garage and his freezer. I mean, lord knows where
he just certainly didn't know. Their own Justice department interviewed
the guy and concluded he could not form the requisite
mental state to stand trial. He did not have the
mental ability to stand trial. And what did our Democrat

(13:52):
colleagues say. Vice President Harris says, oh no, no. The
way that the her report characterized the president's so wrong.
The President's demeanor is totally fine. Senator Smith, what the
hers said about the president not remembering his son's death
so unfair. Senator Kane said, this is grand standing. Senator
Fetterman said, it's just cheap shots. You had other senator saying,
Senator Ausoff. In February of twenty twenty four, twenty twenty four, saying,

(14:16):
and I quote, I found the president to be sharp, focused, impressive, formidable,
and effective. In June twenty twenty four, Congressman Jeffries insists
Biden was and I'm quoting again, incredibly strong, forceful, and decisive.
Where are they now? They don't want to answer for
any of those quotes now.

Speaker 1 (14:37):
As he gestures to the empty, totally empty Democrat side
of the hearing room.

Speaker 3 (14:44):
They lied to us for four years, and we know
they lied. They know they lied. It's why they're not here.
They don't want to answer a single question. They can't
bear to show their faces in public.

Speaker 1 (14:54):
They know bear to show up their faces in public.
It's so so true, So they lie to you. They
don't report what they know themselves to be true right
in front of their nose. As Jake Tapper says, So
that means that the news outlets use language, and that

(15:19):
language is the language of advocacy, it's not the language
of neutrality. All the editorial decisions that are made in
all the newsrooms all over the country, broadcast, print, whatever,
those editorial decisions have an impact far beyond the audience

(15:40):
consuming news produced by any one newsroom, because what happens
is all of those Now, remember the scene that I
set Locally and nationally, they're all watching one another. So
what happens is they're able to shape public perception, They're

(16:01):
able to advance an ideological agenda, and at times they
can actually mislead on a huge scale. Now some would
argue sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not. I'm just cynical
enough to believe that the majority of the time, like binty,
nine point nine percent of the time, it's actually intentional.

(16:24):
They have learned that to have that kind of impact
on whatever kind of national issue or controversy or issue
that we're talking about, all they got to do is
to co opt key or create news influencers. You know,
all the talking heads turn to almost always the same
other talking heads to bring on their shows to give

(16:45):
their opinions. And then you take something like the Associated Press,
which then kind of gathers all of that up in
a collect even then spreads it out to everybody else.
And then they use you know, online dictionaries, or they
use fact checking groups, or they for that matter, they
use the journalism schools, and they use all the think tanks. Washington,

(17:10):
DC is just littered with think tanks. And I'm not
just liberal think tanks, not just you know, just not
the Center for American Progress, but the Heritage Foundation, and
so news outlets go to those think tanks to get
the narrative that they're going to use in their reporting,

(17:31):
and then in the reporting itself they start using language,
and the language is used to make certain that they
get the narrative across. You know when that hit me
yesterday when I we had the breaking news about well,
it's up on the Fox News right now, Legacy meet
legacy media, meltdown over Scotis trans ruling. Legacy media is

(17:57):
something about legacy media ditches journalism. Well, guess what that
fits in exactly with what I just right now I
want to talk about, because the language that they use
is the language that hold it someone like I might
use in a courtroom to advocate, or language that I

(18:18):
might actually use even on air to advocate. The difference
is I'm not a journalist. I'm not trying to report
the news. I'm trying to tell you my opinion about
the news. We've always known Shannon was crazy. We always
knew that any moment he's going to go off the
deep end, and he was going to murder everybody. We
were all just waiting for what was going to be
the one little trigger point to send him off the

(18:39):
deep end. Producer Shannon the scoop with the issue of
covering for the president. In the newsroom, they don't want
to get scooped about stories that they are covering. They're
not covering Joe Biden's cognitive decline. Now, once the damn broke,

(19:01):
they had to do something, But don't conflate those two.
You're missing my point. Every single newsroom, including this one
out here, nobody wants to get scooped. They want if
ABC in New York, in the ABC studios, in the

(19:24):
assignment desk, in the producer's offices, in the editorial offices.
There are more televisions than you'll find in every Best
Buy combined in the country, and those television screens are
all tuned to all of their competitors everybody. You think
about all the cable channels, I mean, it's like what

(19:44):
it is like walking into a Best Buy because they're
always watching everybody else. Because if suddenly Bloomberg is covering something,
then CNN's got to jump on it. If Fox is
covering something, then by god, and again I'm not talking
about covering up Joe Biden's decline. I'm talking about you know,
let's just take the opposite. For example, Donald Trump farted

(20:06):
in public, Oh my god, and you know what somebody's
covering that. Oh my goodess, Trump farted in boat. We
can use that too to go attack Trump. So they all,
like a bunch of lemmings, all jump on it. Locally,
if something happens, you know, there's an explosion somewhere. That's
why they also have scanners. When when something happens locally

(20:29):
or in a state or in a region, then they
all want to know that so they can get to
the scene, fly their helicopters, get in their weather be
skit of whatever they're going to do, and go cover
it because they want those eyeballs on their television, not
somebody else's TV screen. So don't conflate the cover up
with trying to be the scoop, trying to get a scoop.

(20:52):
That's why they all watch each other. I get your point,
but you're conflating the two things. Now, let's go back
to the idea that they're all trying to push a narrative,
which is what they were trying to do with Biden.
Go back and listen to what Holly was saying in
that hearing. None of the Democrats showed up because they

(21:16):
had the Republicans had the receipts for everything Democrats had
ever said covering up for Joe Biden. So they don't
want to be confronted with that. Plus they don't want
to participate in anything that might show or somehow stain
them because now everybody's covering up for the Democrat Party.

(21:38):
They knew it. And in fact, the one thing that
I would say that came out of Tapper's book that
wasn't a surprise but just an affirmation for me, was
the Democrats knew he wasn't in good shape. Kamala Harris
knew he wasn't in good shape. Yesterday, when the Supreme

(21:59):
Court case about the Tennessee bill on transgender Kids and
gender affirming care, I made a note to myself about
the term gender affirming care, because that is the term
that now the cabal uses to describe hormone therapies that

(22:20):
inalterably change a person's bodily functions, surgeries that irrevocably change you.
I mean, you castrate yourself, You cut your penis off,
you have a double mass stectomy. Yeah, pretty permanent. I

(22:42):
mean you can do some you can do some sort
of cosmetic changes to try to reconstruct things, but it's
never going to be the same. So we don't Well,
for example, the AP style book endorses that phrase because
they want to frame the treatments as being supportive and

(23:04):
positive as opposed to the horrible negative aspects that come
along with that. We again, we've got the data that
shows that many people that go through the so called
gender affirming care end up suicidal, depressed, and trying to
reverse it, and then they're stuck with the fact that

(23:26):
many things that can't are irreversible and they cannot do it.
One issue with that tact is the traditional purpose of
the news is not to be supportive and positive. It's
supposed to relay facts. It's supposed to relay various positions
in debates and controversies. But the Associated Press style Book,

(23:50):
their position, such as a term on gender affirming care,
turns so called journalists putative journalists into advocates and advocates
on one side of an issue in it on an
issue that has a multifaceted debate going on around it.

(24:15):
It's easy to say I'm either for or against transgender surgeries,
but there actually is gender dysphoria. I am opposed to
miners having any sort of hormone therapy or gender affirming
care or transgender surgeries because eighteen year olds, even though

(24:38):
we send them off to war, at least in war,
they're ordered to do certain things, and they're commanded to
do certain things, and they're trained to do certain things.
But I really don't want eighteen year olds voting. I
think they're too stupid. And I know some eighteen year
olds that are brilliant, but they're the exception. So when

(25:01):
the AP style book says gender affirming care is the
proper phrase to use for transgender surgeries, they're trying to
eliminate all of the other discussion about the harmful effects
of transgender surgery. That is what turns the journalists into advocates.

(25:23):
But you know there's another problem gender affirming care. If
you just think, just think about those three words, gender
affirming care. Now, if like me, you believe there are
two sexes, two genders, male and female, then the phrase

(25:47):
gender affirming care. When you stop and you think about
the etymology of those three words that means that it's
it's some sort of services that are going to enforce
or what's another word for affirm? Okay, i'll the top

(26:12):
of my head. This thing is. Let's go through the
thesaurus assert, proclaim, a test, sure, justify, justify, So it's
it's procedures that would justify the sex of the person.
Gender affirming care, you're affirming the gender through the care

(26:35):
that you're providing to that individual. But that's not what
it means at all, So we've bastardized the language again. Biologically,
the interventions referred to often aim to actually alter or
suppress an individual's natural physiology reject. What what you really

(26:58):
do is you're rejecting their gender. You're not affirming it. Chromosomes,
reproductive systems, secondary sex characteristics remain unchanged at the cellular level.
So how can it possibly be affirming care in the
sense that they mean it. There's a study in the
Journal Clinical Indracinology and Metabolism from twenty twenty three Hormone

(27:25):
therapy does not alter an individual's biological sex markers, such
as their DNA. Okay, well, if you take that study
at face value, that you can give a female as
much testosterone or a male as much estrogen as you
possibly can. Of course, it's going to screw up their

(27:46):
minds and their bodies, but it's not going to alter
the sex markers that are contained in their DNA. So
when you call that therapy affirming, that is somehow saying
that you're applying a subjective validation of their identity, what
they're thinking or what they believe, over objective reality. It's

(28:10):
true that that's truly Orwellian. If Jake Tapper wants to
talk about or well in the sense of language, then
he completely misses the point. What about another phrase, sex
assigned at birth. There's a big controversy right now. The

(28:31):
state department wants your sex assigned at birth on your passport.
Makes sense to me, except a federal district judge has said,
oh no, you cannot do that. Well, then why do
we even have the phrase assigned at birth? Because you're
starting to hear that all over the place. How do

(28:52):
you get sex assigned at birth? How does that happen?
You know it and I know it too. Somehow, contrary
to the talk back suggests that a doctor's observation, you know,
they've the babies come come out, and you know, they're
they're getting ready to cut the cord and they're going

(29:14):
to you know, hold the baby up, you know, get
it to breathing and everything. And the doctor's thinking, why,
you know, the obstetrician turns to his chief nurse, how
many boys have I delivered today? Really? We haven't, not
any girls yet. I'll make this one a girl or

(29:35):
you know what. I had a big fight with my
wife this morning, so I think, you know what, this
is going to be a boy.

Speaker 3 (29:42):
No.

Speaker 1 (29:44):
For thousands of years, recording a baby sex has been oh,
look there's a vagina. Oh, look there's a penis. Oh,
maybe it doesn't make any difference anymore. I don't know. Now,
there are rare exceptions intersex that affects less than zero

(30:10):
point one percent of the population. So there's really no ambiguity.
There's no there's no subjective subjectivity in observing a baby
sex at birth. And then why do we have what
are called gender reveal parties even before the baby's born. Oh,
we had a sonogram done. Yeah, there was a little

(30:31):
thing sticking out there, so we decided it's a boy. Oh,
we couldn't find anythings sticking out so we're gonna have
a little pink party, Collie. And then there's whole thing
about biological sex that implies or something other than biological
biological sex, what as opposed to astrological sex? What's what?

(30:55):
What's my sex? According to my astrological sign? I'm a score,
you know, therefore I must be what? Uh? By, Just
stop and think about that. Biological sex as opposed to
there's some other kind of sex. Uh do you know

(31:16):
the other one they're working on. Died by suicide. We
don't like to talk about that. I mean even people
generally layman don't like to talk about it. The Associated
Press style Book now recommends committed suicide that you avoid.
That you avoid committed suicide because it stigmatizes mental health struggles.

(31:45):
Committed What that implies criminality? Died by suicide. That seems
like a stupid replacement. Yeah, well they died of cancer.
They died by suicide. Oh language, I'm just Surpriys make
frazines sometimes, m when