All Episodes

January 14, 2025 • 34 mins
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Brannie.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
If dumb Assy takes off, I sure don't want you
to be sad for.

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Not getting credit.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'll run to target and get you a participation trophy.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
And Kevin from you. I'd put it right up there
on my mantle, right right next to all my other trophies.

Speaker 3 (00:21):
Yeah, right next to the photo of the grand kid.

Speaker 1 (00:23):
Yep, that's right, yeah, yep. In fact, I'd have to
go redraft my will to make sure that it went
to a good cause afterwards, you know, like a really
nice landfill, not just you know, an average landfill, a
nice landfill. So I asked Dragon to go back, and

(00:43):
the junior Senator from New York, Christian Jill Brown, started
questioning Pete heggslist about women in combat and that swerved
into I think gay's and lesbians in combat, and I
didn't get to see what his response was. So we're
going to play that in just a minute. But before
we get to Jill a brand, this is the line

(01:06):
of questioning that Democrats are going to focus on. For example, Uh,
Senator Reid uh ask this question Greece by a jag officer.
By the way, would you explain what a jag off is?
He was first asking about some jag officer, which is

(01:27):
you know, the lawyers in the military, to put it
in layman's terms. But then, uh, there's a there's a
slang called a jag off j A G O F F.
In case you think I'm mispronouncing it, it's it's a
I think the origin is is uh, Western Pennsylvania. It's
like it's like a Pittsburgh kind of thing. Is where

(01:49):
it originated. A jag off is kind of a stupid,
dun lazy person Greece by a jag officer. By the way,
would you explain what a jag off is?

Speaker 2 (02:00):
I don't think I need to, sir. Why not because
the men and women watching understand.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Well, perhaps some of my colleagues don't understand.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
It would be a jag officer who puts his or
her own priorities in front of the war fighters, their promotions,
their medals, in front of having the backs that those
are making the tough calls on the front lines.

Speaker 1 (02:23):
I love it. Uh. I think they've walked into a buzzsaw.
And I don't think the Democrats realize it. I think
they're they're so consumed with you know, they he has
a tattoo, hey, Dragon, Jill, he has a tattoo. Oh
dear God. Yes, now, I forget it's a particular it's

(02:44):
a Christian tattoo. In fact, if you want to see
a picture of Pete Haigs's tattoo, don't look for pictures
of his tattoo online. Instead, go online and look for
the floor of the National Cathedral and find online a

(03:05):
copy of the funeral program for Jimmy Carter. Because that
same cross is on the floor of the National Cathedral
and is on the program for Jimmy Carter's funeral. Yes,
it's our Christian cross. I forget the exact name of it.

(03:26):
I don't I'm not that familiar with it. Let's do
this one too real quickly before we get to Jilli brand.

Speaker 2 (03:38):
This is unlike the current administration. Politics should play no
part in military matters. We are not Republicans, we are
not Democrats. We are American warriors. Our standards will be high,
and they will be equal, not equitable. That's a very

(03:58):
different word.

Speaker 1 (04:01):
We need to absolutely now, Dragon, can we hear the
Senator from the great State of New York, Christian Jill Brown.

Speaker 4 (04:09):
I want to thank you for your willingness to serve
in this capacity.

Speaker 1 (04:12):
Thank you, Senator.

Speaker 4 (04:13):
I have many concerns about your record, and particularly your
public statements, because they are so hurtful to the men
and women who are currently serving in the US military.

Speaker 1 (04:24):
Book. I thank you for your willingness to serve. However,
I got a lot of concerns about things you have said,
because things you have said have been hurtful. Well, you
mean like a drill sergeant chewing your ass out about something. Wow,
are we putting such pansies in our military that things

(04:48):
he have said are hurtful and somehow that's going to
disqualify him from being the Secretary of Defense? May Democrats
are Tolley lost?

Speaker 4 (04:59):
You harmful to morale, harmful to good order and discipline
if you are saying that women shouldn't be serving in
the military, and I'm going to read your quotes because
the quotes themselves are terrible. You will have to change
how you see women to do this job well, and
I don't know if you are capable of that. So
I want to press on these issues that my colleague

(05:21):
jan Shaheen brought up because she said it so well. So,
first of all, you answered your questionnaire. Do you believe
that any American who wants to serve in their country
in the military and can meet objective standards that by
the military should be allowed to serve with that limitation.
You've said yes to that question, but then in all
of these other circumstances you've denigrated active duty service members.

(05:43):
We have hundreds, hundreds of women who are currently in
the infantry, lethal members of our military serving in the infantry,
but you degrade them. You say we need moms, but
not in the military, especially in combat units. So, specific
to Senator Kahn's question, because Senator Conton was giving you

(06:04):
layups to differentiate between different types of combat and specifically,
as Secretary, would you take any action to reinstitute the
combat arms exclusion for female service members, knowing full well
you have hundreds of women doing that job right now
and the standards your two mile round, Tom is about

(06:26):
the Army combat fitness test. It is not the requirements
to have an MOS eleven Bravo, which is the infantry.
These are the requirements today for people serving in the industry,
men and women. They are gender neutral, and they are
very difficult to me. They have not been reduced in
any way. And our combat units, our infantry is lethal,

(06:51):
So please explain specifically, because you will be in charge
of three million personnel. It is a big job. And
when you make these public statements, and I get you
are not Secretary of Defense, then I get you were
on TV. I get you were helping veterans. I get
it was a different job. But most recently, you said
this in November of twenty twenty four, knowing full well

(07:12):
you might have been named as Secretary of Defense.

Speaker 1 (07:14):
Defense.

Speaker 4 (07:16):
So please explain these types of statements because they're brutal,
and they're mean, and they disrespect men and women who
are willing to die for this country.

Speaker 2 (07:26):
Col Senator, I appreciate your comments, and I would point
out I've never disparaged women serving in the military. I
respect every single female service member that has put on
the uniform, past and present. My critiques, Senator, Recently and
in the past, and from personal experience, have been instances
where I've seen standards lowered. And you mentioned eleven Alpha

(07:49):
leven Bravo Mos places in units, and it the book
that has been referenced multiple times here, the War on Warriors.
I spent months talking to active duty service members, men
and women, low ranks, high ranks combat arms and not
combat arms. And what each and every one of them
told me, and which personal instances have told shown me,

(08:12):
is that in ways direct, indirect, overt, and subtle, standards
have been changed inside infantry training units, ranger school, infantry
battalions to ensure the one example.

Speaker 4 (08:27):
Please give me an example. I get you're making these.

Speaker 2 (08:29):
Generals quotas to have a certain number of female infantry
officers or infustry enlisted, and that disparages those women.

Speaker 4 (08:37):
Commanders do not have the entry. Commanders do not have
to have a quota for women in the infantry. That
does not exist. It does not exist, and your statements
are creating the exist.

Speaker 1 (08:51):
Here's what you need to understand about what the law
may say versus what actually occurs in the agency, whether
that's d O, d DHS, the Secret Service, or anything else.
So take the Secret Service for example. It's a it's
a glaring example because we saw it on television. So

(09:15):
the Secret Service, I'm sure would claim that they've not
changed their standards at all. Their standards are that you
have to be fully capable of handling what is trump
weigh two hundred and thirty five pounds or something whatever, you, weiys,
you've got to you have to be capable of handling
a six foot four to two hundred and forty pounds guy,
of man handling him so that you can get him

(09:37):
secured and back into the beast or wherever to protect
him from being assassinated. And yet we saw hmm. Seems
to me that the one woman that could barely put
her her service weapon back back into her holster and
probably couldn't run a flight of stairs without her heart
rate soaring up to its maximum.

Speaker 3 (09:57):
Capacity, they would need to be able to do something
what happened oh forty five minutes ago or so, when
the protester got up and shouted, and exactly the members
of the faculty picked him up and dragged Hiss out.

Speaker 1 (10:12):
So they literally picked up a protester by the legs
and the shoulders and dragged his fat ass out of
the earring room. So to be a US Capitol police officer,
you have to have the physical ability to do that.
That's the standard. But there's a difference between what's mandated
by the law and what's actually implemented. So if you're

(10:34):
under this, you know, either overt or covert pressure to
make certain that you have a diverse, you know, unit,
then you're going to exercise your waiver capacity, which you
have in order to meet the DEI requirements, regardless of

(10:54):
what the law says. And how do you get by
with that? Because nobody's willing to call you out on it.
There's nobody in the chain of command that's going to say, wait, wait,
what's laurd asked doing here on the secretion? How do
you think that woman got on the presidential detail because
nobody in leadership was willing to stand up and say,

(11:16):
just by an objective look at the woman, I don't
think she has the ability to do what she needs
to be doing on a presidential detail. If that woman
shows up put Trump's detail on January twentieth, then I
just give up. I just totally give up. We have
no standards whatsoever. But that's how it happens. And what

(11:37):
the senator's doing is she doesn't care what his answer is.
She doesn't care what Pete Hegsas says in regards to that,
because that's not her point. She's playing And I think
you probably think that I'm going to say that she's
playing to her voters. She's not. She's playing to the media.

(11:59):
She's to the cabal because she knows. In fact, I
bet before long I will all guess what it's already
shown up. In fact, just hold your horses back there, dragon,
let me show you what's already shown up in our
clipping service. Because this proves my point about who her
audience is.

Speaker 4 (12:20):
They are so hurtful to the men and women who
are currently serving in the US military, harmful to morale,
harmful to good order and discipline. If you are saying
that women shouldn't be serving in the military, and I'm
going to read you your quotes because the quotes themselves
are terrible, you will have to change how you see

(12:40):
women to do this job well. And I don't know
if you are capable of that. So I want to
press on these issues that my colleague jan Shaheen brought
up because she said it so well. So first of all,
you answered your questionnaire. Do you believe that any American
who wants to serve in their country in the military
and can meet objective standard and.

Speaker 1 (13:00):
Can meet objective standards? Now anybody is going to answer
and should answer this question yes, because the question was
do you believe that anybody, any American who can meet
objective standards should be able to serve in the military. Well,
the answer to that is yes, I believe that. I
don't care what your sexual preference is. I don't care

(13:23):
what your genitals are. I care that you can meet
objective standards to serve in the military. But she doesn't
let it go there there.

Speaker 4 (13:33):
Do you believe that any American who wants to serve
in their country in the military and can meet objective
standards that by the military should be allowed to serve
with that limitation. You've said yes to that question, but
then in all of these other circumstances you've denigrated active
duty service members.

Speaker 1 (13:49):
See the point I want to make here is Dragon's
playing what was on live television. We have a service
that provides us clips so that we can use odds
on our programs that occur either you know, almost I
can go back, I can go back decades on this
service and find audio. She's playing to the cabal because

(14:14):
she knows that regardless what his answer is just making
any difference what he says. He could says, I think
you're full of feces. Now, well, that actually might get
some attention. But he could just pick he could be
picking his nose right now, nobody's going to care because
all the Kabal cares about is the question. The answer
is irrelevant. Dragon.

Speaker 4 (14:34):
You may continue not there are not quotas. We want
the most lethal force. But I'm telling you, having been
here for fifteen years listening to testimony about men and
women in combat and the type of operations that were
successful in Afghanistan and in Iraq, women were essential for
many of those units. Would ranger units went in to

(14:54):
find where the terrorists hiding in Afghanistan or in Iraq,
if they had a woman in the unit, they could
go in talk to the women in a village, say
where are the terrorists hiding, where are the weapons hiding,
and get crucial information to make sure that we can
win that battle. So, just you cannot denigrate women in general,

(15:15):
and your statements do that we don't want women in
the military, especially in combat. What a terrible statement. So
please do not deny that you've made those statements. You have.
We take the responsibility of standards very seriously and we
will work with you. I'm equally distressed you would not
meet with me before this hearing. We could have covered
all of this before you came here. So I could

(15:37):
get to the fifteen other questions.

Speaker 1 (15:38):
That I wanted to tell you, distressed that you would
not meet with me. Now, I don't know the circumstances
under which he could not arrange a meeting. Maybe you know,
maybe she had a scheduling conflict. Maybe he did. Maybe
he didn't think it was worth his time because he's
not going to get her vote. She's not a persuadable senator.
And he this is a this is a compact rushed

(16:03):
confirmation schedule because you now have Republicanism control. You have
in six days, you need to have the commander in
chief needs to have his death sack in place. So boom.

Speaker 3 (16:19):
I may be kind of new to this whole and
you had a question, this whole confirmation hearing stuff. But
isn't this supposed to be like A Q and A.
Isn't she supposed to ask a question, He's supposed to
answer it, Then she's supposed to ask another question. Then
he answered it so far and back and forth? Right,
that that's how this is supposed to be.

Speaker 1 (16:38):
Yes, that is how it is.

Speaker 3 (16:39):
She's not supposed to be he's she's been speaking for
ten minutes and he gave a three minute answer.

Speaker 1 (16:46):
Maybe maybe this is show and tell. You may continue.
I guess you can't continue, can you? Yeah, you gotta
take a break dragon. If you could take a break,
you shout up and take a break dragon.

Speaker 4 (17:22):
Her ability would be to absorb more bullets than host.

Speaker 1 (17:28):
I didn't quite catch that. Whose ability would be? What
her ability?

Speaker 3 (17:33):
So I'm assuming he's referring to women in combat to
catch more bullets. I don't leave him.

Speaker 1 (17:42):
I know, Okay, I don't get it. I don't get
it anyway. Uh, speaking of the wildfires, well, maybe you weren't,
but I was so just burning down of l a
kind of demonstrates that it's just not feasible to live

(18:04):
under this Marxist infiltration that's affecting all of our politics.
The Wall Street Journal had an opinion about how the
left turned California into a paradise lost government over its
policy regarding wildfires, and she lists a few of the reasons,

(18:29):
and one of the reasons is that, according to environmental radicalism,
humanity ranks last among life forms. We rank even below plants.
I had a hard time really kind of processing this
journal article, but it starts out this way. The Los

(18:50):
Angeles Department of Water and Power in twenty nineteen sought
to widen to widen a fire access rote to replace
old wooden utility poles in Topanga Canyon that abuts the Palisades.
Replace those old wooden poles you know, which are going

(19:11):
to look like Roman candles or something with steel ones
in order to make the power lines fire and wind resistant.
In the process, crews removed and estimated one hundred and
eighty two Bronton's milk vetch plants. Dragon, don't give missus
redbeard row Bronton's milk vetch plants in your garden.

Speaker 3 (19:33):
Of course everybody does.

Speaker 1 (19:35):
Well, that's what I thought, because that's why it's an
endangered species. So the utility, the Department of Water and
Power in LA halted the project because state officials investigated
the destruction of these plants. A year later. This is
twenty nineteen. So now in twenty twenty, the California Coastal

(19:59):
Commission issued a cease and desist order, find the utility
two million dollars and required mitigation for the project's impact
on the species. Well, progressives ought to be the Marxists
ought to be pleased to hear that since the milk
vetch requires wildfires to actually propagate. Well maybe maybe now

(20:23):
you're gonna find this endangered species plant everywhere. Yeah, it
actually requires wildfires to propagate. And this dumb assery of
of these stupid creamy weenies. They ought to be pleased
to hear that since the milk vetch, uh that it
helps explain that the shortage of water to put out

(20:45):
the fires. The smelt protection restrictions restrict the amount of
water that flows from the states north to the south.
This has led to billions of gallows of water being
flushed out to the Pacific Ocean every single year. And
speaking of the fish, the smelt, which nobody seems to
want to talk about that everybody wants to seem to
deny that fact. But that's exactly what happened. Now, just

(21:09):
because it happened, you know, ten or twenty years ago,
doesn't mean that it's still having effect. It's still having
an effect. So, speaking of fish, Karen Lout largemouth bass.
Largemouth bass has taken heat for cutting the Los Angeles
Fire Department budget. But what if I told you that
that may not really be true. The fire budget did

(21:34):
not shrink since city leader's last fall. Just this past
fall approved a new union contract that boosted the pay
and benefits of the firefighters by seventy six million dollars.
That amounts to about twenty thousand dollars per firefighter. Now,

(21:54):
even before they got the rays, i'd asked dragging the
he got a twenty thousand dollars pay raise. But I
don't want to embarrass him because I know he got
a twenty five thousand dollars pay raise. Even before this raise,
firefighters on average earned about two hundred thousand dollars plus

(22:15):
benefits that are valued at about ninety thousand dollars. So
as a firefighter with the LAFD, you make about on
average two hundred ninety thousand dollars a year. Most of
them retired aged fifty five, and with their pension system
they get about ninety percent of their final salaries even

(22:38):
in overtaxed, overly costly California. Because I know several of
these firefighters, they live well as retired firefighters. Now DEI
can plant firefighters don't have to meet conventional requirements. Oh,
you mean kind of like the military like we just

(22:59):
heard with with Pete Haggeses and the Pentagon citizens who
are incinerated because female firefighters are not strong enough to
rescue them. Well, they get what they deserve. According to
Christine Larson, remember her, she was all concerned about you
know who. Don't dare ask me whether I can carry you,
you know, carry your husband out or not, because I
want to know what she's doing in the fire in
the first place. Here's why Los Angeles spent three hundred

(23:25):
and fifty million dollars this year on firefighter pensions and Bennie's.
Much of that would have been better spent, I think
probably on fire prevention, which made up a certain percentage
of the department's budget. Fire prevention. Now, many people think
that fire departments are solely there to put out fires.

(23:47):
That's not the case. Firefighters have whole sections with their
job is to do nothing but focus on fire prevention.
You got fire inspectors, you got education programs. You actually
do things that go out if to go out and
to mitigate against fires, to protect the public fund fires.

(24:10):
But then you have the problem of all the homeless
hordes that democrats have been the fortune to grow, combined
with the collapse of allegedly racist law and order, which
goes on daily in California. Last year, the Park fire,
which was the fourth largest in state history, was allegedly

(24:30):
ignited by a guy with two prior felony convictions who
was on pro for a dui. The Los Angeles Times
reported in early twenty one that twenty four fires, on
average were breaking out every single day in the city's
homeless encampments. A fire and encampment shut down an LA
Freeway last November, the second time that's happened in a

(24:51):
little over a year. So it kind of appears to
me that homeless illegal alien authorities allowed to run loose
despite having committed a felony might have started the Kenneth fire.
Then again, he says he was just using a bowtorch
to smoke marijuana. Indeed, Los Angeles may not be rebuilt,

(25:16):
and refugees are welcome only if you leave your liberal
policies behind. I don't know how long it's gonna take
or if they really will rebuild LA. Gavin Newsom is
already talking about I find this just I was gonna

(25:39):
say unbelievable, but it's not unbelievable. Gavin Newsom is already
talking about what he can do to stop speculators, to
stop people from coming in and buying up properties because
people can well, they simply can no longer afford to
rebuild there, rebuild there if indeed they decide that they're

(26:04):
not going to rebuild. And Gavin Newsom decides that what
he needs to do is to step in and stop
people from doing things like speculating and trying to buy
up Remember the example I gave yesterday about a family,
just a mythical family whose house is under insured. They

(26:25):
don't have replacement cost value on their insurance policy. The
foundation has been destroyed, the infrastructure of the water and
sewer system has collapsed. It'll have to be rebuilt and replaced,
and they don't have enough money to do that. Plus,
as somebody pointed out, which I forgot about, they'll have
to continue to pay their mortgages, and we need to
have a mortgage on the property. They'll continue to pay

(26:46):
the property taxes, the assessment won't go down, so they
will look to a speculator. They'll look to somebody who
can afford to buy that property and then rebuild on
it because they have the cash reserves to do Sovin
Newsom wants to stop that. And my first reaction to
that was why and under what authority do you do that?

(27:09):
So when you go back, remember, yes, I listed those
questions that Scott Adams had, the creator of Dilbert, about
what was really going on in California. So far, nobody's
really answered those questions, and instead it's left to Gavin
Newsom to come out and start talking about we're going

(27:29):
to rebuild. But I guess you're going to rebuild under
his terms. How can that be? How is it that
you have a governor who somehow thinks that he is
going to determine Oh, you're a speculator, because my very
first thought was his friends, his wealthy donors, or black

(27:53):
Rock or Vanguard or any of the other big funds
will swoop in, and just like they do with single
family homes in Colorado and other places, they'll swoop in,
they'll buy up the property, and then they've got new
property to develop, and the causing costs for that will
be even higher than what it is now. And with

(28:15):
government controls and new government mandates, and with people like
black Rock or Vanguard being able to comply with all
the new greeny weenie requirements, the cost of those houses
will become even more unaffordable for people who simply want to, Oh,
I don't know, work in California, maybe live in California.

(28:36):
I don't think it gets rebuilt, or if it does,
it'll be more expensive than it was before. I'll be
right back. Yeah, we got a lot of text messages
telling us that they thought you were referring to the
fatass secret Service agent. So back to LA for just

(28:59):
a moment, because well, it's still going on, and I
think it's going to turn out to cost you a
lot of money. The Wall Street Journal is out with
the report it was updated this morning that this fire
is likely to be the costliest blaze in US history,
and that insured losses could be more than twenty billion

(29:19):
dollars or even higher. The fires continue to spread. Then
you look over the Drudge Report and it says the
headline over here is week from hell. Winds pick up
seventy mile an hour GUS. So this disaster continues today,
and wasn't it Listen Today's Tuesday? I think I think

(29:40):
the first d well we had the warnings last week,
and then the fire actually broke out, I think on
Tuesday or Wednesday. So we've had a week of this
now and there's no there's no end to it in sight.
Total economic losses from the fires are pegged at close
to fifty billion dollars, and that's double the estimate of

(30:01):
just a day earlier. That's according to JP Morgan. Other
estimates of the fire's economic toll will take it among
the nation's highest ever. The final tally of insurance losses
from natural disasters can vary markedly from the initial estimates
because you don't know. This is why FEMAX sends in

(30:23):
teams to do you know, surveys, and of course insurance
companies will do exactly the same thing, and then you
know state and local governments will do all of that.
But what do you think the most costliest wildfires in
US history by insured losses are See if you can

(30:43):
detect a trend. Now you may have to pay close attention,
but see if you can detect a trend, look at
the numbers, and then ask yourself, if there is a
trend and this is happening, then who's to blame or
what's to blame? The who?

Speaker 2 (31:00):
The what?

Speaker 1 (31:00):
Actually the five w who are were ben and why
is to blame for this incessant, continuous trend. He's the
top ten costliest wildfires in US history. The Campfire twenty eighteen,

(31:20):
California twelve point five billion, the Tubs Fire, California twenty seventeen,
the Woolsey Fire, California twenty eighteen. Oh, finally the Malle
Fires twenty twenty three. Now let's go back, the Oakland Fire,

(31:40):
California nineteen ninety one, the Atlas Fire, California twenty seventeen,
the Glass Fire, California twenty twenty, the CU Lightning Fire
California twenty twenty, the Thomas Fire, California twenty seventeen, and
finally the Marshall Fire in Colorado twenty twenty one. At
two point eight billion dollars. You get a trend the

(32:01):
ten costliest, and you have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
eight eight out of ten eighty percent of the costliest
fires in US history or California. So what do they
do well? They do actually cut the fire department budget,
despite my earlier comment that they don't. They just they

(32:22):
cut the operating budget. But then they increase the personnel budget,
and they increase and give one of the most lavish
pensions anywhere other than say a US senator or a
US congressman. They get a huge pension money that could
have been spent on fire prevention and fire mitigation, but

(32:43):
they don't do that. Why well, because what drives policy
in California, same thing as driving policy in Colorado for
that matter, things like DEI, things like radical environmentalism. That's
what drives police. See. And when you don't focus on
what's an inherently government issue, an inherently government program, firefighting, instead,

(33:10):
you have all these other tentacles around it that have
nothing to do with firefighting. DEI, What hell's I have
to do with firefighting? Again, it's meritocracy, Just like Haggs
is talking about on his nomination to be the second
death it is. It is can you put together a
military that's the strongest in the world, that can act

(33:32):
with deterrence, can create deterrence and if you actually have
to go to work and win, well, how about fire
departments that can actually, you know, mitigate against fires before
they occur, engage in fire prevention, and then if you
actually have to go to war with the fire, you
can actually win the fire. You can win the battle,
you can win the war. We don't. We have everything

(33:55):
in this country screwed up. In terms of priorities. Why
I believe, without any doubt in my mind that it
goes back to the infiltration of Marxism progressivism into our culture,
into our politics. Everything gets nationalized, and everything gets nationalized
with one objective, and that is to impose Marxism in

(34:18):
this country. And I know many people are sick and
tired of hearing about Marxism, but it's true. And until
we recognize it, and until we're willing to do something
about it, the country will collapse. Now, what I'm watching
on television right now is a great start. Is a
great start toward reversing that trend.
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know
Dateline NBC

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

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.