Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, when you were doing your interweb search for
all of that stuff on Lexus and whatnot, I just
have to ask, since you didn't get any results, is
it because there were no results? Or is it because
you forgot to turn your computer on or forgot to
double click?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Just asking, you know now that you mentioned it. The
screen was dark and I kept hitting you know, the
button to lighten the screen, and it kept remaining dark.
Maybe I forgot to plug it in. Maybe I forgot
to you know, boot and reboot or do all day.
You raise a very good point, and that promo is
really beginning to bug me, because.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Don't worry, you only going to listen to it for
other week.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Because we really are excited about going over to Koa
starting at nine o'clock on November ten. But we don't
really love you guys. There's only a few of you
that we even kind of like most city. We really
just uh but yeah, we tolerate, yeah, but we still
(01:05):
want you to come over.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
We tolerate you just about as much as you tolerate.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Us, exactly. So if you need, if you need that
kind of passive, regressive, you know, mutual kind of hatred
to get your day going. I mean we're like caffeine.
We're just we kind of get you going. We get you,
we get you ready to go face your dumbass boss.
Is what we do. Well, then you got it tween
at nine o'clock on KOA starting on Monday.
Speaker 4 (01:26):
And real quick, I am going through some of the
rules of engagement and far too many of them still
reference six point thirty k How so those will not
be moving over to KOA next week?
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Well, you mean the old ones.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
You're talking correct, the old ones.
Speaker 4 (01:40):
I'm just filtering through all of those right now, and
they I mean, we appreciate.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
You know, on the Adobe audition, if you double click,
you can then you can highlight where they say that.
Then you know, get delete and it'll take that out
and then you can squeeze it back together.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
And it'll That would mean work for me.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
That means editing, which is I thought what a producer did.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
No, No, you've got that way wrong. So that would
be work fun with me over there. I want them
to do the work. So if we just need new
ones and send them to Dragon at iHeartMedia dot com
or leave them in two talkbacks, because the talkbacks are
only about thirty seconds, and we're looking for the rules
engagement should be a minute or under. So just send
us new ones because all these old ones are gonna disappear.
Speaker 5 (02:27):
We can't carry them over. Here's why that work. Here,
here's why you and I are such a good team.
Because you refuse to do any producer work that you
should be doing, I kind of request that you do it. So,
knowing how the audience feels about me versus you, they're
listening to me ask you to actually do producer work,
(02:49):
and they're saying, no, screw you, Brown, We'll take we'll
take care of dragon. So we'll end up getting some
new rules of engagement and I'll be the one looks
like an idiot again.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
And I'm happy to edit several talks backs together.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
That's easy peasy. But editing out k how from the
older talkbacks depends on.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
The definition of edit. So if you've got to move
the cursor more than an inch.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
That's too much, worse, terrible, it's just tear at my wrist.
It just sounds like a concrete mixer. Just you can't
do it, you know, send us new talkbacks either or
new new rules of engagements, either through talkbacks, or you
(03:32):
can email me dragging at iHeartMedia dot com.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
I want to revisit a case that knows how there's
just no segway we just don't.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Care about, and I can always depend upon that.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
To just this revisited case. They got a lot of
attention when it first broke, and then, like everything else,
everyone's all spun up and outrage just about it, and
we're gonna talk about it, and then any kind of
disappears and goes away, and then something new comes along
or the thing that we are outrages about and really
mad about. They realize that we're right in there wrong
and so now we gotta get us outraged about something else.
(04:08):
So now they bring up something else we can get
mad about. Isn't that how it works.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
I'm working on some.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Notes about politics and are religion or politics as religion.
Maybe I can finished that this week and I'll talk
to you about because I think politics has become a religion.
So rather than you know, we like all the congregants
in the Church of the climate activists go and they scream,
you know, they praise guya and they talk about saving
(04:37):
the trees and they do all of that well over
here in the church of politics. We all just you know,
on the right side, that all the pews on the
right side screaming, all the people on the left side,
all the people in the left lives screaming all the
people on the right side, and the minister just tries,
which is actually the minister in the choir and the
(04:58):
deacons and the elders, they all set up front and
they just keep us all yelling at one another. And sometimes,
don't get me wrong, the yelling is justified because they're idiots.
We're not. And you know that's true, don't. You can't
deny that. But they keep us stirred up so they
can go on doing their crap that they do, and
then we miss the big The big picture drives me
(05:20):
crazy like this. Mock mood Khalil. Just rack your brain
for a moment. Mock mood Khalil. Oh, that's drag Dragon.
Is that name ring about you? Remember that name?
Speaker 3 (05:36):
I'm busy working back here.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Wait a minute, you just said you don't do any work,
So what are you doing now?
Speaker 4 (05:41):
I don't do any work for you. Oh, who are
you asking about?
Speaker 3 (05:46):
What?
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Mock mood Khalil.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
He was somebody who did something that we're pissed off about.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Am I wrong? You know? The great thing about moving
the KOA is this hour disappears.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Yeah, but the same kind of dumbassy happens.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Well, yeah, I'll just be more compressed, more contact.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
This hour, nine o'clock hour. It stays the same this
hour because we're you will go.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I'll just say that we will have been done. Y
it is we will have been done. Yeah, right now,
WI should be glorious. Glorious. Anybody that's ever worked in
radio will tell you four hours it's just too much,
too much. Mont lu Khalil he was the faith of
the Columbia University antisemitic protests about the war and Gozza,
(06:34):
which is also kind of disappear because we're all talking
about food stamps, we're all talking about snap, we're all
talking about the government closure, we're talking about all the
planes falling out the sky. Look in the sky. It's
a bird. It's a plane. No, it's just a plane
falling out the sky. He was the guy that volunteered
to negotiate with the cops and the university in Columbia
(06:55):
University to try to reach a some sort of resolution
and eliminate the takeover of parts of the campus by
those radical pro Palestinian rioters who were threatening the Jewish
students and actually destroyed damaged university property last fall. I know,
(07:17):
last fall. It seems like so long ago, you know, Oh, Michael,
don't stretch my brain. I can't think that far back.
And we wonder why history's dead. So after the election,
Muhammad was targeted for deportation by the Trump administration. Their
reasoning was the legal basis for it was that he
was only in this country in a student visa. They
(07:40):
initially detained him under an Immigration and Nationality Act, Statute
Title eight, section twelve twenty seven. What does that act
do that gives the Secretary of State the authority to
determine if a visa holder's continued presence quote would had
potentially serious adverse forour and policy consequences for the United States.
(08:03):
Now I think that it does. He's he's protesting and
actually giving material support to a terrorist foreign terrorist organization.
He's shouting river to the seas anti submittic, he's destroying
public property, he's engaged in illegal activities, and I think
yet he should have been deported. But it was later
(08:26):
determined that when he applied for his visa, and then
when he saw permanent resident alien status, he did not
disclose his association with certain foreign groups. Now, since this
story occurred back in the fall last fall, I guess
it's this fall now last fall. There have been some
(08:50):
twists and turns in this story, and I don't want
to delve into any particular issue in that regard here,
but to summarize it, it was not true that Khalil
was in US only on a student visa. I'm always
shocked at what it's not that I think I know
(09:13):
so much. I truly am shocked sometimes about what I
don't know, and then I'm pissed off when I find
out that what I don't know is because nobody in
the cabal has told me. And I know that stupid
on my part. I should not ever rely on the
cabal because they're always engaged in acts of omission and commission. Well, this, y'all,
who was married to a US citizen, so yet an
(09:37):
application pending for permanent resident alien status as the spouse
of an American citizen. So it's transparently obvious that he
had received favorable treatment from the Biden administration in the process,
as he did obtain a green card in a very
short time, and that allowed him to work while his
(09:59):
application for a permanent resident alien status was being resolved. Now,
because it was based on marrying a US citizen, that
process can be lengthy because they want to combat marriage fraud. Hey,
you want to get married. Sure, it'll be uh twenty
five thousand dollars, and then you can get your resident
(10:19):
alien status card and then I'll divorce you the minute
after you get it. We're never gonna live together. We're
never gonna you know, we're not gonna copulate the copulate.
We're not We're not gonna consumate. We're not gonna consummate
the marriage by copulating. How about that. I was trying
to spit something out there. But anyway, we're not gonna
do it. We're not gonna do it. Uh, this is
(10:40):
all a fake married. He filed a petition for a
rid of habeas corpus in New Jersey Federal Court challenging
the legality of his detention, claiming that the statute being
relied upon by the Trump administration was unconstitutionally vague. So
the judge and new jury agreed. No, you're shocked by that.
(11:04):
He found that because Khalil's conduct in leading the protest
movement was ostensibly I put that word in there because
I don't think it was covered by the First Amendment,
and that the statue was too vague and what kinds
of conduct could be relied upon by the Secretary State
of making his decision to deport somebody. Now, the lawful
(11:26):
resident alien did not have sufficient notice, by the language
of the statute what kind of activity might subject him
or would subject him to deportation, or what kind of
activity was protected by the First Amendment. Now, I think
that's ludicrous. You're supposed to give them notice of every
(11:48):
possible activity that might be protected by the First Amendment,
or that you have to give them notice of every
possible kind of activity that might subject you to deportation.
If you think the statute convoluted, complicated, and absolutely unreadable today,
imagine trying to put that into statutory language. But Trump
(12:09):
shifted the basis for the removal, or technically Rubio did,
alleging that Khalil had been untruthful on the visa application
and later his application for resident alien's status because of
this failure to disclose his association with certain groups that
actually supported terrorist activities abroad. Had he done so, had
(12:35):
he tell had he told the truth, that too would
have formed the basis to deny him of visa to enter.
So do I lie about it and get in and
know that I might get caught? Or do I tell
the truth and never get in? So you lie about it,
(12:56):
You get in, hoping that because the system is so
screwed up that you may get by with it for
quite a while. In September September twelve, to be precise,
the immigration to the judge agreed. He issued an order
of removal. In a twenty two page opinion, jud you
(13:16):
got nothing better to do here, he wrote this. This
Court finds that the respondent's lack of candor on his
I four eighty five was not in oversight by an uninformed,
uneducated applicant. After all, he's going to Columbia. Rather, this
Court finds that respondent willfully misrepresented material facts for the
(13:38):
sole purpose of circumventing the immigration process and reducing the
likelihood his application would be noted, would be denied. This
Court cannot and will not condone such an action by
granting a discretionary waiver. It is hereby further ordered that
responded be removed from the United States to Algeria or,
(14:02):
in the alternative, to Syria. If I knew that I
got caught lying and I might be sent to Algeria
or Syria, I might be prone to tell the truth. Yes. Anyway,
back to the story, he gets released on bail since
(14:22):
early in the Habeas Corpus case in New Jersey, the
judge there found he was likely to prevail on the
merits and order that he not be detained pending the
outcome of that case. So after the Immigration judges order
in September twelve in which he was ordered sent to
Algeria or Syria, this dirt bags lawyer filed a fourth
(14:45):
amended petition for habeas relief in New Jersey, claiming that
the deportation effort was retaliatory and vindictive in response to
his First Amendment protected activity. Do you get what's going
on here? If they were to win, let's just say
(15:06):
for a moment, if they were to win, then couldn't
every person who's subject to a deportation order claim that
the deportation order is retaliatory and vindictive? Because well, I
was just felt, you know, I was out with a
uh Loraza campaign trying to get you know, Hispanic right reinstated.
(15:28):
Ays like in my first amendment. Yeah, it sucks to
be you, doesn't it. Maybe you shouldn't do that. The
immigration process, now going forward, moves to an appeal with
the Board of Immigration Appeals. After that, if he loses,
Khalil would have the right to file a petition for
review with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And that's
(15:52):
because his immigration case was filed in LaSalle, Louisiana. Fifth
Circuit covers Louisiana. But just a few days ago, Khalil's
attorney filed a letter, literally a letter with the New
Jersey District Court judge presiding over this Habeas Corpus case
about the pace of proceedings in the immigration courts. Now
(16:13):
bear in mind the following satutory language from the Immigration
of Nationality Act, Title eight, Section twelve fifty two General
Orders of Removal. This is section twelve fifty two to
a one. If you're keeping along in your law school notebook.
Judicial review of the final order of removal other than
(16:34):
an order of removal without a hearing pursued to another
section is governed only by Chapter one fifty eight of
Title twenty eight. Okay, well, what do those say? Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, including these other titles, and
these other titles, no court shall have jurisdiction to review,
except as provided in sub Section E, any individual determination,
(16:58):
or to entertain any other cause or claim arising from
or relating to the implementation or operation of an order
suit to Section trailer in the words, you can'tnot review
these things. So the provision under which this Khalil has
filed his havieus petition in New Jersey. The significance of
that language is this, with one of very narrow exceptions statue,
(17:21):
the New Jersey Court does not have any jurisdiction to
address any issues that have arisen in the immigration court
proceedings in Louisiana. It's outside this judge's jurisdiction. Yet in
the letter submitted by his attorneys, they tell the New
Jersey judge that, according to the statue, has no jurisdiction
over the removal. That after the order of removal in
(17:44):
September twelve, Khalil filed a timely notice of appeal with
the Board of Immigration Appeals. He did that on October nine,
nowt shockingly, in response the Board of Immigration Appeals provided
transcripts of all the procededge in the Immigration Court and
set the date for its open brief for November twelve,
(18:06):
nine days from today. If the government reply due today,
because the hearings are not required, take at issue its
order any day after that, or even earlier if the
government files its reply earlier than today. I don't whether dinner, Michael.
Speaker 6 (18:22):
I hear your promo inviting us to come over to
the KOA radio station with you. I will accept that invitation. However,
I'm going to need a ride, and probably some of
the other goopers will see You're probably going to need
to get a bus. Of course, you can get one
of them, a little short buses for us.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
If you go to the website, Michael says, go here
dot com. There is a uber account that you just
need the code and that'll provide you all rides to
the studio. So you don't have to worry about that.
We picked that up for you, and then when you
get here, we'll give you your check for listening.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
To And don't worry. It's a short code.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Is a lot short code?
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Oh yeah, short bus.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yes, it's a very short bus. Indeed, in every way
you can possibly imagine. Let's go across the pond for
a minute. So French President Emmanuel mccroome says that Europeans
need to stop relying on social media for their news,
and what they ought to be doing is they ought
to be looking at traditional public media. So he spoke
(19:31):
in Paris last week and he claims that people are
completely wrong, his words, completely wrong to use social networks
for information and that what you should be doing is
depending on see if I can get this out without
choking journalists and established outlets the cabal. He suggests you
(19:53):
should listen to the cabal to get all of your news, which,
by the way, dragon, don't let me forget. I've got
to figure out exactly what CN and Fox News are
so that I can change it from channel nine and
whatever the hellse why don't know what they watching with.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Her some Twitter? We'll figure it out.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Well, you know that should be part of your job
description every morning that you know, as I come legally
come in, you should already have the channels changed for me.
Speaker 4 (20:22):
No, no, I'm not gonna do it anymore. Oh okay,
thought about it? Not going to now.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Wait, what's this? Not do it any more? Crap.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
No, you know, I can try and help you out
in the mornings, but now since you've demanded it, no,
it's not gonna happen.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
You never did anything in a year. You just told
me when they weren't working. Hey, TV's are buzzing today.
Speaker 4 (20:42):
When you come in every morning, aren't the lights on
and the blind's open? And see if that'll happen tomorrow, jerk.
I was gonna also make a pithy comment about how, hey,
wait a minute, doesn't the isn't the BBC, the uh
the governments broadcasting? So they're basically saying, hey, don't listen
(21:04):
to media, meaning you know, social media, right, listen to
our governmental.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Broadcast, listen to state sponsored propaganda, which, ah well, he says,
the social platforms are driven by a process of maximum excitement.
I find that freaking hilarious. How many times, for example,
on taxpayer relief shots, do we hear now the following
(21:33):
video may be a graphic, and we warn you get
your children, you know, out of the house, run, you know,
hide your kids at the grocery store, and then DVR
this and then come back and watch it in the
dead and night under the sheets when you're asleep, don't
let anybody see it. Kind of get you the what.
Step out of the kitchen, stand up out of your
(21:53):
big barc a lounger, and get close to the TV
and watch because there's gonna be blood and guts. You
gotta see the bladen guts, oh my gosh. And that
it's designed to maximize advertising revenue. Oh so listen to
a state sponsor where they don't care about advertising revenue
(22:14):
because they just think, you know, they don't care. He
claims that social media is destroying the foundations of Democrat debate.
Now he does that by claiming that X formerly Twitter,
is dominated by far right content, and then it's no
longer neutral because the owner, who you won't name, Elon Musk,
had decided to take part in the democratic struggle and
(22:37):
in the international reactionary movement, the international reactionary movement. Have
you ever gone over the Blue Sky, the alternative to X,
that's pretty much run by the Democrat National Committee. You
gotta go look at blue Sky sometimes one there's hardly
(23:00):
anybody over there, and two if you say anything, you'll
get banned immediately. So it's like they don't they don't
want any debate at least an x people actually do
engage in debate, So Macronkle's a step further, though, He
wants a quote much stronger agenda of protection and regulation
(23:21):
in Europe to rain in what he views as the
excesses of social networks government regulation they want to control.
We see, we tried that with Biden during COVID. They
tried to tell you what you could say and not say.
They deplatform people, People got lost their jobs, people got
fired for saying things that they you know, that they
(23:42):
said you shouldn't say. Now, he says he's urging Europe
to take back control of our democratic and informational life.
Now France, he warned the fringe had been naive in
allowing public debate to be shaped by foreign owned platforms
(24:07):
and algorithms that no longer respect neutrality. So to counter
what he calls a crisis of information, he wants a
new quote European agenda of protection and regulation. So it is,
in effect a plan to bring the digital world under
far stricter political control. You know what I want. I
(24:30):
want more government regulated television, radio, social media, newspapers, websites.
We'd all be better. It would be so much easier
to go through life if I could just come in
here in the mornings and just log onto my government
approved website and just give you the news of the
day and then give you my opinion and then get
(24:54):
fired or you know, disappeared. This sounds an awful lot
like the Chinese Communist Party. His attack is an attack
on how an entire generation gets its news. Over forty
percent of people under thirty, almost fifty percent of eighteen
(25:15):
to thirty year olds now rely on social media for news. Now,
you may say that's good or bad. I say it's
just a reality. So if, for example, if you don't
follow me on X, which you should be at Michael
Brown USA, you ought to be there because again, don't
let it control you. You control it now. I know
(25:37):
you can't completely control it because the algorithms, but you
can do like I do. You can set up lists
so you know, when you want to see what the
left is saying, you can go see what they're saying.
When you want to see what the right wing that
jobs are saying, you can go see what they're saying.
I don't want the government making that decision for me,
and I would say that if all the people thirty
(25:58):
and under have realized is that that putting to the
networks is dead, absolutely dead. So I guess he thinks
that they ought to return the days of just reading,
which half of them probably can't do, at least in
this country, or just relying on state controlled media, which
(26:22):
I find astonishing and not astonishing. Astonishing because they're saying
the quiet part out loud, and not astonishing because that's
what they really believe. It's frightening. You didn't have to
say this, but you know, democracy, a republican form of government,
(26:42):
libertarian leaning government, however you want to describe it. A
government that is founded on democratic principles. That's astonishing because
that depends on access to competing points of view, not
on state manage TV or subsidized newspapers. The Crown can't
(27:04):
seriously believe that it would be good for government if
Europeans are for politics, if Europeans are driven back to
getting their news from government aligned networks. But that's what
they believe. But more importantly, I want you to understand
why they believe it, because they've lost control, whether it's
(27:25):
populism or it's just that individuals themselves are waking up
and making their own decisions about what they consume, how
and when they consume it. And I'm not talking about food.
I'm talking about everything that we consume. We're now we've
reached the we've reached the stage, I think, at least
in America. I can't speak for the French or the Brits,
(27:46):
but I think in America we've kind of reached the
point where we want everything that we consume to be
somewhat bespoke, and by that I mean unique tailored. We
want it to be uniquely for us. We want to
be able to discern. Oh, that's really I understand they're
coming from a leftward point of view. I understand like
(28:08):
when you tune in here, you expect me to talk
and give opinions from a right leaning point of view.
And that's not gonna change over there either. By the way,
I don't know why, but some of you express concerns
that I'm not dragonized somehow, are not gonna be the
same people over there as we are here. Oh baby,
let me tell you, We're gonna wake it up. Over there.
We're gonna wake it up. Then Macrome goes on and
(28:31):
blames foreign interference. He accuses the Russians of being the
biggest buyer of fake accounts to try to destabilize European democracies. Okay,
let's say they are, because I believe that Russia does
engage in denrift disinformation and they do use fake accounts
and bots to try to get that across. That's why
we need to learn. Here it comes one of my
(28:53):
favorite phrases. We need to learn to be more discerning
consumers of news. It's our responsibilit just like feeding the
poor and the hungry, that's our responsibility. Why isn't that
every time we turn around, the solution to everything seems
to be more government. Mister McCrone, take your lovely wife
(29:15):
and sit down and shut up.
Speaker 5 (29:17):
Michael, I know you said that you don't need a
fourth hour because it's too much, and Dragons said it's
too much, and I'm here to.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Tell you I think it's too much, so I can't.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Wait for you to move so you.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
Don't have a fourth hours.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
I don't know what you are just talking about, but
you completely lost me, you know what, except that, with
all due respect, you sound like you might be mature?
Can I use that word?
Speaker 3 (29:45):
Was that your mom that left that talkbacks? She doesn't
even know.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
No, no, I promise you that was not my mom.
She does not even listen to me. So there's that.
But I mean she sounds like she could have been
my mom. Dad was hurtful. That was really hurtful. And
now I'm just kind of why I go on, good, Well,
(30:12):
if I don't, what are you gonna do? You can't
let the alarm go off, so you got to say something.
What are you gonna say? I think I got a
new job. White House Tours are going to reopen in December.
I think they should hire me to go do the
White House tours, don't you.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
This is where the cocaine was left. Monica was right
about here.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
On what was it Thursday or Friday? I went over
to Mandy show a rod brilliantly for their stupid little
trivia game, all questions about George W. Bush. Gee, I
wonder who won yours truly. Senator John Fetterman has admitted
during a recent interview that it that his party, the Democrats,
(31:02):
are responsible for the government shutdown. Yes, yes, quote. I
feel like the Democrats really need to own the shut down.
I mean, we're shutting it down. I know why they
claim because they want to address the tax credits, and
I fully support that. Now the current budget impass it
(31:25):
directly stems from the Democrats attempts try to make permanent
certain COVID Era ATACK subsidies that are tied to Obamacare.
Republicans who have never voted for Obamacare have called for
the passage of a short term continding resolution so they
can reopen fund the government and then address any disputes
(31:48):
over any other subsidies, particularly Obamacare and any other programs.
It's not just those subsidies that they've thrown into this mix,
but a bunch of other stuff now. Fetterman generally supports
measures to keep the government funded, and he has emphasized
that he has a consistent record on these votes, saying
(32:09):
I voted for all of their crs. I voted for
all of our crs every single time. That stroke really
did something. That stroke gave him some rationality, or maybe
he just couldn't communicate it after the stroke. But man,
this guy is again. I don't get to it, don't
(32:30):
get don't I don't get too excited. But at least
he's willing to stand up to Chuck Schumer. In the
entire Democrat leadership and say this is just stupid, just stupid.
He points out the risks for millions of Americans who
are dependent upon SNAP. We can't be putting forty two
million people who rely on food stamps in danger because
(32:51):
of political gridlock. I wish he would go one step further, though,
and say, why don't we figure out a way to
get some people off food stamps so we don't have
this problem now. He says he wants to extend the
Obama health care subsidies, but he's still critical of the
tactics because his argument is that is shut down as
(33:11):
leverage is hyptocritical. He says, it was wrong when the
Republicans did it, it's wrong now that we seem to
be driving it. This kind of adds to at least
my perception of one of the most outspoken and yet
unconventional voices in the Democrat Party that has truly been
(33:35):
taken over by the Marxist and the communists. I believe
that the majority of Democrats, both in leadership and in
their general legislative pool in their caucus, are truly Marxists
at heart. I think he is the exception. I think
that John Fetterman is starting to appear, at least to me.
We can argue it. I'd be happy to argue it.
(33:57):
He appears to be just an old school liberal Democrat.
He thinks the government I'll be doing a lot of stuff.
He thinks the government, you know, big government's okay. He
you know, he just you know, big spending is okay.
You know, higher taxes are probably okay. He probably he's
probably for all of that stuff, but he's not necessarily
for the Marxism like AOC and Bernie Sanders about you know,
(34:21):
we shouldn't have any billionaires or whoever it was that
said that. He said that just last month that he
would consider vacking me a Republican led effort to abolish
the filibuster, calling that procedural tool a weapon for gridlock.
Now I disagree with him on that. I think the
gridlock is good. It forces people to stop, slow down,
(34:43):
and figure out a way to compromise. And if they
don't do it, you know what, there is a really
you can say it's sick or whatever, but if it
shuts down stays shut down, I don't care. It's going
to hurt the economy at some point. If I know,
we talk about passenger travel, air travel. What happens when
(35:03):
fad X can't deliver it first thing tomorrow morning because
air traffic control says, yeah, we got to space you
out further, and your taking off is delayed for two
hours or ups same thing. Then people start getting upset
Hey, Michael, when you were doing your interweb search for
all of that stuff on Lexus and whatnot, I just
have to ask, since you didn't get any results, is
it because there were no results? Or is it because
you forgot to turn your computer on or forgot to
double click?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Just asking, you know now that you mentioned it. The
screen was dark and I kept hitting you know, the
button to lighten the screen, and it kept remaining dark.
Maybe I forgot to plug it in. Maybe I forgot
to you know, boot and reboot or do all day.
You raise a very good point, and that promo is
really beginning to bug me, because.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Don't worry, you only going to listen to it for
other week.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Because we really are excited about going over to Koa
starting at nine o'clock on November ten. But we don't
really love you guys. There's only a few of you
that we even kind of like most city. We really
just uh but yeah, we tolerate, yeah, but we still
(01:05):
want you to come over.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
We tolerate you just about as much as you tolerate.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Us, exactly. So if you need, if you need that
kind of passive, regressive, you know, mutual kind of hatred
to get your day going. I mean we're like caffeine.
We're just we kind of get you going. We get you,
we get you ready to go face your dumbass boss.
Is what we do. Well, then you got it tween
at nine o'clock on KOA starting on Monday.
Speaker 4 (01:26):
And real quick, I am going through some of the
rules of engagement and far too many of them still
reference six point thirty k How so those will not
be moving over to KOA next week?
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Well, you mean the old ones.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
You're talking correct, the old ones.
Speaker 4 (01:40):
I'm just filtering through all of those right now, and
they I mean, we appreciate.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
You know, on the Adobe audition, if you double click,
you can then you can highlight where they say that.
Then you know, get delete and it'll take that out
and then you can squeeze it back together.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
And it'll That would mean work for me.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
That means editing, which is I thought what a producer did.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
No, No, you've got that way wrong. So that would
be work fun with me over there. I want them
to do the work. So if we just need new
ones and send them to Dragon at iHeartMedia dot com
or leave them in two talkbacks, because the talkbacks are
only about thirty seconds, and we're looking for the rules
engagement should be a minute or under. So just send
us new ones because all these old ones are gonna disappear.
Speaker 5 (02:27):
We can't carry them over. Here's why that work. Here,
here's why you and I are such a good team.
Because you refuse to do any producer work that you
should be doing, I kind of request that you do it. So,
knowing how the audience feels about me versus you, they're
listening to me ask you to actually do producer work,
(02:49):
and they're saying, no, screw you, Brown, We'll take we'll
take care of dragon. So we'll end up getting some
new rules of engagement and I'll be the one looks
like an idiot again.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
And I'm happy to edit several talks backs together.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
That's easy peasy. But editing out k how from the
older talkbacks depends on.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
The definition of edit. So if you've got to move
the cursor more than an inch.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
That's too much, worse, terrible, it's just tear at my wrist.
It just sounds like a concrete mixer. Just you can't
do it, you know, send us new talkbacks either or
new new rules of engagements, either through talkbacks, or you
(03:32):
can email me dragging at iHeartMedia dot com.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
I want to revisit a case that knows how there's
just no segway we just don't.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Care about, and I can always depend upon that.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
To just this revisited case. They got a lot of
attention when it first broke, and then, like everything else,
everyone's all spun up and outrage just about it, and
we're gonna talk about it, and then any kind of
disappears and goes away, and then something new comes along
or the thing that we are outrages about and really
mad about. They realize that we're right in there wrong
and so now we gotta get us outraged about something else.
(04:08):
So now they bring up something else we can get
mad about. Isn't that how it works.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
I'm working on some.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Notes about politics and are religion or politics as religion.
Maybe I can finished that this week and I'll talk
to you about because I think politics has become a religion.
So rather than you know, we like all the congregants
in the Church of the climate activists go and they scream,
you know, they praise guya and they talk about saving
(04:37):
the trees and they do all of that well over
here in the church of politics. We all just you know,
on the right side, that all the pews on the
right side screaming, all the people on the left side,
all the people in the left lives screaming all the
people on the right side, and the minister just tries,
which is actually the minister in the choir and the
(04:58):
deacons and the elders, they all set up front and
they just keep us all yelling at one another. And sometimes,
don't get me wrong, the yelling is justified because they're idiots.
We're not. And you know that's true, don't. You can't
deny that. But they keep us stirred up so they
can go on doing their crap that they do, and
then we miss the big The big picture drives me
(05:20):
crazy like this. Mock mood Khalil. Just rack your brain
for a moment. Mock mood Khalil. Oh, that's drag Dragon.
Is that name ring about you? Remember that name?
Speaker 3 (05:36):
I'm busy working back here.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Wait a minute, you just said you don't do any work,
So what are you doing now?
Speaker 4 (05:41):
I don't do any work for you. Oh, who are
you asking about?
Speaker 3 (05:46):
What?
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Mock mood Khalil.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
He was somebody who did something that we're pissed off about.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Am I wrong? You know? The great thing about moving
the KOA is this hour disappears.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Yeah, but the same kind of dumbassy happens.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Well, yeah, I'll just be more compressed, more contact.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
This hour, nine o'clock hour. It stays the same this
hour because we're you will go.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I'll just say that we will have been done. Y
it is we will have been done. Yeah, right now,
WI should be glorious. Glorious. Anybody that's ever worked in
radio will tell you four hours it's just too much,
too much. Mont lu Khalil he was the faith of
the Columbia University antisemitic protests about the war and Gozza,
(06:34):
which is also kind of disappear because we're all talking
about food stamps, we're all talking about snap, we're all
talking about the government closure, we're talking about all the
planes falling out the sky. Look in the sky. It's
a bird. It's a plane. No, it's just a plane
falling out the sky. He was the guy that volunteered
to negotiate with the cops and the university in Columbia
(06:55):
University to try to reach a some sort of resolution
and eliminate the takeover of parts of the campus by
those radical pro Palestinian rioters who were threatening the Jewish
students and actually destroyed damaged university property last fall. I know,
(07:17):
last fall. It seems like so long ago, you know, Oh, Michael,
don't stretch my brain. I can't think that far back.
And we wonder why history's dead. So after the election,
Muhammad was targeted for deportation by the Trump administration. Their
reasoning was the legal basis for it was that he
was only in this country in a student visa. They
(07:40):
initially detained him under an Immigration and Nationality Act, Statute
Title eight, section twelve twenty seven. What does that act
do that gives the Secretary of State the authority to
determine if a visa holder's continued presence quote would had
potentially serious adverse forour and policy consequences for the United States.
(08:03):
Now I think that it does. He's he's protesting and
actually giving material support to a terrorist foreign terrorist organization.
He's shouting river to the seas anti submittic, he's destroying
public property, he's engaged in illegal activities, and I think
yet he should have been deported. But it was later
(08:26):
determined that when he applied for his visa, and then
when he saw permanent resident alien status, he did not
disclose his association with certain foreign groups. Now, since this
story occurred back in the fall last fall, I guess
it's this fall now last fall. There have been some
(08:50):
twists and turns in this story, and I don't want
to delve into any particular issue in that regard here,
but to summarize it, it was not true that Khalil
was in US only on a student visa. I'm always
shocked at what it's not that I think I know
(09:13):
so much. I truly am shocked sometimes about what I
don't know, and then I'm pissed off when I find
out that what I don't know is because nobody in
the cabal has told me. And I know that stupid
on my part. I should not ever rely on the
cabal because they're always engaged in acts of omission and commission. Well, this, y'all,
who was married to a US citizen, so yet an
(09:37):
application pending for permanent resident alien status as the spouse
of an American citizen. So it's transparently obvious that he
had received favorable treatment from the Biden administration in the process,
as he did obtain a green card in a very
short time, and that allowed him to work while his
(09:59):
application for a permanent resident alien status was being resolved. Now,
because it was based on marrying a US citizen, that
process can be lengthy because they want to combat marriage fraud. Hey,
you want to get married. Sure, it'll be uh twenty
five thousand dollars, and then you can get your resident
(10:19):
alien status card and then I'll divorce you the minute
after you get it. We're never gonna live together. We're
never gonna you know, we're not gonna copulate the copulate.
We're not We're not gonna consumate. We're not gonna consummate
the marriage by copulating. How about that. I was trying
to spit something out there. But anyway, we're not gonna
do it. We're not gonna do it. Uh, this is
(10:40):
all a fake married. He filed a petition for a
rid of habeas corpus in New Jersey Federal Court challenging
the legality of his detention, claiming that the statute being
relied upon by the Trump administration was unconstitutionally vague. So
the judge and new jury agreed. No, you're shocked by that.
(11:04):
He found that because Khalil's conduct in leading the protest
movement was ostensibly I put that word in there because
I don't think it was covered by the First Amendment,
and that the statue was too vague and what kinds
of conduct could be relied upon by the Secretary State
of making his decision to deport somebody. Now, the lawful
(11:26):
resident alien did not have sufficient notice, by the language
of the statute what kind of activity might subject him
or would subject him to deportation, or what kind of
activity was protected by the First Amendment. Now, I think
that's ludicrous. You're supposed to give them notice of every
(11:48):
possible activity that might be protected by the First Amendment,
or that you have to give them notice of every
possible kind of activity that might subject you to deportation.
If you think the statute convoluted, complicated, and absolutely unreadable today,
imagine trying to put that into statutory language. But Trump
(12:09):
shifted the basis for the removal, or technically Rubio did,
alleging that Khalil had been untruthful on the visa application
and later his application for resident alien's status because of
this failure to disclose his association with certain groups that
actually supported terrorist activities abroad. Had he done so, had
(12:35):
he tell had he told the truth, that too would
have formed the basis to deny him of visa to enter.
So do I lie about it and get in and
know that I might get caught? Or do I tell
the truth and never get in? So you lie about it,
(12:56):
You get in, hoping that because the system is so
screwed up that you may get by with it for
quite a while. In September September twelve, to be precise,
the immigration to the judge agreed. He issued an order
of removal. In a twenty two page opinion, jud you
(13:16):
got nothing better to do here, he wrote this. This
Court finds that the respondent's lack of candor on his
I four eighty five was not in oversight by an uninformed,
uneducated applicant. After all, he's going to Columbia. Rather, this
Court finds that respondent willfully misrepresented material facts for the
(13:38):
sole purpose of circumventing the immigration process and reducing the
likelihood his application would be noted, would be denied. This
Court cannot and will not condone such an action by
granting a discretionary waiver. It is hereby further ordered that
responded be removed from the United States to Algeria or,
(14:02):
in the alternative, to Syria. If I knew that I
got caught lying and I might be sent to Algeria
or Syria, I might be prone to tell the truth. Yes. Anyway,
back to the story, he gets released on bail since
(14:22):
early in the Habeas Corpus case in New Jersey, the
judge there found he was likely to prevail on the
merits and order that he not be detained pending the
outcome of that case. So after the Immigration judges order
in September twelve in which he was ordered sent to
Algeria or Syria, this dirt bags lawyer filed a fourth
(14:45):
amended petition for habeas relief in New Jersey, claiming that
the deportation effort was retaliatory and vindictive in response to
his First Amendment protected activity. Do you get what's going
on here? If they were to win, let's just say
(15:06):
for a moment, if they were to win, then couldn't
every person who's subject to a deportation order claim that
the deportation order is retaliatory and vindictive? Because well, I
was just felt, you know, I was out with a
uh Loraza campaign trying to get you know, Hispanic right reinstated.
(15:28):
Ays like in my first amendment. Yeah, it sucks to
be you, doesn't it. Maybe you shouldn't do that. The
immigration process, now going forward, moves to an appeal with
the Board of Immigration Appeals. After that, if he loses,
Khalil would have the right to file a petition for
review with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And that's
(15:52):
because his immigration case was filed in LaSalle, Louisiana. Fifth
Circuit covers Louisiana. But just a few days ago, Khalil's
attorney filed a letter, literally a letter with the New
Jersey District Court judge presiding over this Habeas Corpus case
about the pace of proceedings in the immigration courts. Now
(16:13):
bear in mind the following satutory language from the Immigration
of Nationality Act, Title eight, Section twelve fifty two General
Orders of Removal. This is section twelve fifty two to
a one. If you're keeping along in your law school notebook.
Judicial review of the final order of removal other than
(16:34):
an order of removal without a hearing pursued to another
section is governed only by Chapter one fifty eight of
Title twenty eight. Okay, well, what do those say? Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, including these other titles, and
these other titles, no court shall have jurisdiction to review,
except as provided in sub Section E, any individual determination,
(16:58):
or to entertain any other cause or claim arising from
or relating to the implementation or operation of an order
suit to Section trailer in the words, you can'tnot review
these things. So the provision under which this Khalil has
filed his havieus petition in New Jersey. The significance of
that language is this, with one of very narrow exceptions statue,
(17:21):
the New Jersey Court does not have any jurisdiction to
address any issues that have arisen in the immigration court
proceedings in Louisiana. It's outside this judge's jurisdiction. Yet in
the letter submitted by his attorneys, they tell the New
Jersey judge that, according to the statue, has no jurisdiction
over the removal. That after the order of removal in
(17:44):
September twelve, Khalil filed a timely notice of appeal with
the Board of Immigration Appeals. He did that on October nine,
nowt shockingly, in response the Board of Immigration Appeals provided
transcripts of all the procededge in the Immigration Court and
set the date for its open brief for November twelve,
(18:06):
nine days from today. If the government reply due today,
because the hearings are not required, take at issue its
order any day after that, or even earlier if the
government files its reply earlier than today. I don't whether dinner, Michael.
Speaker 6 (18:22):
I hear your promo inviting us to come over to
the KOA radio station with you. I will accept that invitation. However,
I'm going to need a ride, and probably some of
the other goopers will see You're probably going to need
to get a bus. Of course, you can get one
of them, a little short buses for us.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
If you go to the website, Michael says, go here
dot com. There is a uber account that you just
need the code and that'll provide you all rides to
the studio. So you don't have to worry about that.
We picked that up for you, and then when you
get here, we'll give you your check for listening.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
To And don't worry. It's a short code.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Is a lot short code?
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Oh yeah, short bus.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yes, it's a very short bus. Indeed, in every way
you can possibly imagine. Let's go across the pond for
a minute. So French President Emmanuel mccroome says that Europeans
need to stop relying on social media for their news,
and what they ought to be doing is they ought
to be looking at traditional public media. So he spoke
(19:31):
in Paris last week and he claims that people are
completely wrong, his words, completely wrong to use social networks
for information and that what you should be doing is
depending on see if I can get this out without
choking journalists and established outlets the cabal. He suggests you
(19:53):
should listen to the cabal to get all of your news, which,
by the way, dragon, don't let me forget. I've got
to figure out exactly what CN and Fox News are
so that I can change it from channel nine and
whatever the hellse why don't know what they watching with.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Her some Twitter? We'll figure it out.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Well, you know that should be part of your job
description every morning that you know, as I come legally
come in, you should already have the channels changed for me.
Speaker 4 (20:22):
No, no, I'm not gonna do it anymore. Oh okay,
thought about it? Not going to now.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Wait, what's this? Not do it any more? Crap.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
No, you know, I can try and help you out
in the mornings, but now since you've demanded it, no,
it's not gonna happen.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
You never did anything in a year. You just told
me when they weren't working. Hey, TV's are buzzing today.
Speaker 4 (20:42):
When you come in every morning, aren't the lights on
and the blind's open? And see if that'll happen tomorrow, jerk.
I was gonna also make a pithy comment about how, hey,
wait a minute, doesn't the isn't the BBC, the uh
the governments broadcasting? So they're basically saying, hey, don't listen
(21:04):
to media, meaning you know, social media, right, listen to
our governmental.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Broadcast, listen to state sponsored propaganda, which, ah well, he says,
the social platforms are driven by a process of maximum excitement.
I find that freaking hilarious. How many times, for example,
on taxpayer relief shots, do we hear now the following
(21:33):
video may be a graphic, and we warn you get
your children, you know, out of the house, run, you know,
hide your kids at the grocery store, and then DVR
this and then come back and watch it in the
dead and night under the sheets when you're asleep, don't
let anybody see it. Kind of get you the what.
Step out of the kitchen, stand up out of your
(21:53):
big barc a lounger, and get close to the TV
and watch because there's gonna be blood and guts. You
gotta see the bladen guts, oh my gosh. And that
it's designed to maximize advertising revenue. Oh so listen to
a state sponsor where they don't care about advertising revenue
(22:14):
because they just think, you know, they don't care. He
claims that social media is destroying the foundations of Democrat debate.
Now he does that by claiming that X formerly Twitter,
is dominated by far right content, and then it's no
longer neutral because the owner, who you won't name, Elon Musk,
had decided to take part in the democratic struggle and
(22:37):
in the international reactionary movement, the international reactionary movement. Have
you ever gone over the Blue Sky, the alternative to X,
that's pretty much run by the Democrat National Committee. You
gotta go look at blue Sky sometimes one there's hardly
(23:00):
anybody over there, and two if you say anything, you'll
get banned immediately. So it's like they don't they don't
want any debate at least an x people actually do
engage in debate, So Macronkle's a step further, though, He
wants a quote much stronger agenda of protection and regulation
(23:21):
in Europe to rain in what he views as the
excesses of social networks government regulation they want to control.
We see, we tried that with Biden during COVID. They
tried to tell you what you could say and not say.
They deplatform people, People got lost their jobs, people got
fired for saying things that they you know, that they
(23:42):
said you shouldn't say. Now, he says he's urging Europe
to take back control of our democratic and informational life.
Now France, he warned the fringe had been naive in
allowing public debate to be shaped by foreign owned platforms
(24:07):
and algorithms that no longer respect neutrality. So to counter
what he calls a crisis of information, he wants a
new quote European agenda of protection and regulation. So it is,
in effect a plan to bring the digital world under
far stricter political control. You know what I want. I
(24:30):
want more government regulated television, radio, social media, newspapers, websites.
We'd all be better. It would be so much easier
to go through life if I could just come in
here in the mornings and just log onto my government
approved website and just give you the news of the
day and then give you my opinion and then get
(24:54):
fired or you know, disappeared. This sounds an awful lot
like the Chinese Communist Party. His attack is an attack
on how an entire generation gets its news. Over forty
percent of people under thirty, almost fifty percent of eighteen
(25:15):
to thirty year olds now rely on social media for news. Now,
you may say that's good or bad. I say it's
just a reality. So if, for example, if you don't
follow me on X, which you should be at Michael
Brown USA, you ought to be there because again, don't
let it control you. You control it now. I know
(25:37):
you can't completely control it because the algorithms, but you
can do like I do. You can set up lists
so you know, when you want to see what the
left is saying, you can go see what they're saying.
When you want to see what the right wing that
jobs are saying, you can go see what they're saying.
I don't want the government making that decision for me,
and I would say that if all the people thirty
(25:58):
and under have realized is that that putting to the
networks is dead, absolutely dead. So I guess he thinks
that they ought to return the days of just reading,
which half of them probably can't do, at least in
this country, or just relying on state controlled media, which
(26:22):
I find astonishing and not astonishing. Astonishing because they're saying
the quiet part out loud, and not astonishing because that's
what they really believe. It's frightening. You didn't have to
say this, but you know, democracy, a republican form of government,
(26:42):
libertarian leaning government, however you want to describe it. A
government that is founded on democratic principles. That's astonishing because
that depends on access to competing points of view, not
on state manage TV or subsidized newspapers. The Crown can't
(27:04):
seriously believe that it would be good for government if
Europeans are for politics, if Europeans are driven back to
getting their news from government aligned networks. But that's what
they believe. But more importantly, I want you to understand
why they believe it, because they've lost control, whether it's
(27:25):
populism or it's just that individuals themselves are waking up
and making their own decisions about what they consume, how
and when they consume it. And I'm not talking about food.
I'm talking about everything that we consume. We're now we've
reached the we've reached the stage, I think, at least
in America. I can't speak for the French or the Brits,
(27:46):
but I think in America we've kind of reached the
point where we want everything that we consume to be
somewhat bespoke, and by that I mean unique tailored. We
want it to be uniquely for us. We want to
be able to discern. Oh, that's really I understand they're
coming from a leftward point of view. I understand like
(28:08):
when you tune in here, you expect me to talk
and give opinions from a right leaning point of view.
And that's not gonna change over there either. By the way,
I don't know why, but some of you express concerns
that I'm not dragonized somehow, are not gonna be the
same people over there as we are here. Oh baby,
let me tell you, We're gonna wake it up. Over there.
We're gonna wake it up. Then Macrome goes on and
(28:31):
blames foreign interference. He accuses the Russians of being the
biggest buyer of fake accounts to try to destabilize European democracies. Okay,
let's say they are, because I believe that Russia does
engage in denrift disinformation and they do use fake accounts
and bots to try to get that across. That's why
we need to learn. Here it comes one of my
(28:53):
favorite phrases. We need to learn to be more discerning
consumers of news. It's our responsibilit just like feeding the
poor and the hungry, that's our responsibility. Why isn't that
every time we turn around, the solution to everything seems
to be more government. Mister McCrone, take your lovely wife
(29:15):
and sit down and shut up.
Speaker 5 (29:17):
Michael, I know you said that you don't need a
fourth hour because it's too much, and Dragons said it's
too much, and I'm here to.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Tell you I think it's too much, so I can't.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Wait for you to move so you.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
Don't have a fourth hours.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
I don't know what you are just talking about, but
you completely lost me, you know what, except that, with
all due respect, you sound like you might be mature?
Can I use that word?
Speaker 3 (29:45):
Was that your mom that left that talkbacks? She doesn't
even know.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
No, no, I promise you that was not my mom.
She does not even listen to me. So there's that.
But I mean she sounds like she could have been
my mom. Dad was hurtful. That was really hurtful. And
now I'm just kind of why I go on, good, Well,
(30:12):
if I don't, what are you gonna do? You can't
let the alarm go off, so you got to say something.
What are you gonna say? I think I got a
new job. White House Tours are going to reopen in December.
I think they should hire me to go do the
White House tours, don't you.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
This is where the cocaine was left. Monica was right
about here.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
On what was it Thursday or Friday? I went over
to Mandy show a rod brilliantly for their stupid little
trivia game, all questions about George W. Bush. Gee, I
wonder who won yours truly. Senator John Fetterman has admitted
during a recent interview that it that his party, the Democrats,
(31:02):
are responsible for the government shutdown. Yes, yes, quote. I
feel like the Democrats really need to own the shut down.
I mean, we're shutting it down. I know why they
claim because they want to address the tax credits, and
I fully support that. Now the current budget impass it
(31:25):
directly stems from the Democrats attempts try to make permanent
certain COVID Era ATACK subsidies that are tied to Obamacare.
Republicans who have never voted for Obamacare have called for
the passage of a short term continding resolution so they
can reopen fund the government and then address any disputes
(31:48):
over any other subsidies, particularly Obamacare and any other programs.
It's not just those subsidies that they've thrown into this mix,
but a bunch of other stuff now. Fetterman generally supports
measures to keep the government funded, and he has emphasized
that he has a consistent record on these votes, saying
(32:09):
I voted for all of their crs. I voted for
all of our crs every single time. That stroke really
did something. That stroke gave him some rationality, or maybe
he just couldn't communicate it after the stroke. But man,
this guy is again. I don't get to it, don't
(32:30):
get don't I don't get too excited. But at least
he's willing to stand up to Chuck Schumer. In the
entire Democrat leadership and say this is just stupid, just stupid.
He points out the risks for millions of Americans who
are dependent upon SNAP. We can't be putting forty two
million people who rely on food stamps in danger because
(32:51):
of political gridlock. I wish he would go one step further, though,
and say, why don't we figure out a way to
get some people off food stamps so we don't have
this problem now. He says he wants to extend the
Obama health care subsidies, but he's still critical of the
tactics because his argument is that is shut down as
(33:11):
leverage is hyptocritical. He says, it was wrong when the
Republicans did it, it's wrong now that we seem to
be driving it. This kind of adds to at least
my perception of one of the most outspoken and yet
unconventional voices in the Democrat Party that has truly been
(33:35):
taken over by the Marxist and the communists. I believe
that the majority of Democrats, both in leadership and in
their general legislative pool in their caucus, are truly Marxists
at heart. I think he is the exception. I think
that John Fetterman is starting to appear, at least to me.
We can argue it. I'd be happy to argue it.
(33:57):
He appears to be just an old school liberal Democrat.
He thinks the government I'll be doing a lot of stuff.
He thinks the government, you know, big government's okay. He
you know, he just you know, big spending is okay.
You know, higher taxes are probably okay. He probably he's
probably for all of that stuff, but he's not necessarily
for the Marxism like AOC and Bernie Sanders about you know,
(34:21):
we shouldn't have any billionaires or whoever it was that
said that. He said that just last month that he
would consider vacking me a Republican led effort to abolish
the filibuster, calling that procedural tool a weapon for gridlock.
Now I disagree with him on that. I think the
gridlock is good. It forces people to stop, slow down,
(34:43):
and figure out a way to compromise. And if they
don't do it, you know what, there is a really
you can say it's sick or whatever, but if it
shuts down stays shut down, I don't care. It's going
to hurt the economy at some point. If I know,
we talk about passenger travel, air travel. What happens when
(35:03):
fad X can't deliver it first thing tomorrow morning because
air traffic control says, yeah, we got to space you
out further, and your taking off is delayed for two
hours or ups same thing. Then people start getting upset
Popular Podcasts
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.