12-2-25 - 10am - Seditious Six and Posting with A Gun

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I just turned Michael Brown on on my iHeart. I
have heard almost nothing but commercials for the last five minutes.
Is this how it's going to be now that he's
on KOA, that I hear thirty seconds of talk from
Michael Brown and five minutes of commercials from KOA. Sorry,
I'm going to switch back.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
I'll watch your podcast.

Speaker 3 (00:22):
Michael. I love you, sweetheart, I love you. But methink
that AL might exaggerate just a little bit, just.

Speaker 4 (00:31):
A touch, just a touch a bit, Michael Brown. Clock
has not changed from the other station to this station.

Speaker 3 (00:38):
Thing has changed, well, the only thing is change. We
flipped in the last hour, correct, we flipped in the
last hour, But the clock is exactly the same. I
think again, this is this is a wonderful example of
perception because you tune in, probably and you do hear
the last thirty seconds and something I'm saying properly, and
then we go into a commercial break and the commercial breaks.
But the commercial breaks are the same as they were

(01:00):
over there. But here's the thing that I will caution
you about if you want to listen to really, can
I pack myself on the back here right, hurt yourself.
I'm going to stretch back here. If you want to
listen to really quality radio, well you wouldn't be listening
to me. But if you really want to listen to
quality radio, you're going to find that the clock is

(01:26):
virtually the clock in terms of minutes of commercials versus
minutes of talk is virtually the same across the entire country.
Do you know where it's different? Are on tiny little
stations in little towns in rural America that don't have

(01:47):
any sponsors and they don't have any overhead costs, and
so rather than getting the thirty eight minutes to talk
and thirty two minutes of commercials, you might get forty
four minutes to talk and what would that be? Sixteen
minutes of commercials or something. But then you're not going
to get the quality radio that you get here. It's
the cost of doing business, babe, it's the cost of

(02:08):
doing business. But in terms of your perception, our clock
is exactly the same. Yeah. Now, the only thing was
that last hour I was taken up by at least
six minutes of Dragon Redbeard trying to fix.

Speaker 4 (02:24):
And arguably, though she's not wrong, when you listen to
the podcast, you get far less commercials in it.

Speaker 3 (02:30):
Because but I would caution you it's zero commercial. I mean,
it's not zero commercial. It's not zero, right, It's not zero,
It's not zero. So let's talk about the ongoing deep state,
deep state operations of the so called Seditious Six. And
again I keep emphasizing it. I don't think it a sedition.
I just like the alliteration of the seditious six. Yes, Now,

(02:56):
this is another story that I've really talked about a
lot before Thanksgiving and post Thanksgiving. But one element that
I've had a difficult time trying to figure out precisely
is where this clearly coordinated deep state effort started and
who are the money people that are funding it. After all,

(03:18):
those six Democrats would never put themselves at such great
legal risk without the likelihood of enriching themselves and assurances
that they're massive legal bills that they could face would
somehow get reimbursed. And they damn sure didn't just concoct
this plan of their own volition without having coffee in

(03:41):
say the Capitol lunch room one day and then or
getting on a team's call or zoom call and talking
with their funders and the production people and the audio
people and the video people and the people that wrote
the script, and the people are doing the fight, and
the people that the lawyers. There's all because you always

(04:03):
have to have a lawyer involved. Don't need no damn engineer,
as we prove right here this morning, you don't need
no damn engineer. You just need a you know, extraordinary
producer like Dragon red Beard to come in and fix
I say, I'm scared to even touch it now. I'm
afraid it'll just you know, won't work. What I find
funny about the fact this didn't work is how much
do we bitch about the technology across the hallway? And

(04:26):
then I've been on air over here for what maybe
has it even been a month now? No, it's not
a month. I've even been a month yet, and already
we had something.

Speaker 2 (04:33):
But it still says iHeart out front, doesn't it.

Speaker 3 (04:36):
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Yeah, I forget about that.
I just see this common Spirit studio thing here, and
I think.

Speaker 2 (04:44):
Oh wow, it's a lovely countertop.

Speaker 3 (04:47):
It's a lovely countertop, granite depot maybe sots, let's go
back to this seditious six. Here's here's what I come
up with, and in the in this landscape of contemporary
American politics. That's what we lived in. Few spectacles are

(05:11):
as disheartening as the spectacle of you know, conservatives rallying
around symbols of natural identity, flags, anthems, and oaths Conservatives no, no,
of course not, while simultaneously undermining the very institution that
those symbols represent, performative patriotism, the American flag. All of

(05:34):
that is all part of what is going on in
this country. Ron Conway is a billionaire. He's a Silicon
Valley legend, done in some circles as the godfather of
Silicon Valley, the founder of the investment fund sv angel.
He's made himself very, very rich. He's been very precient

(05:58):
early investments in tech titans like Google, Airbnb, Facebook, coin
based open Ai, Door, dash, Pinterest. The list just goes
on and on. In fact, if you want to read
about him, you can go to his website. It's svangel
dot com. Of course, you go to the about page
and look at the team. He is a super rich,

(06:20):
super rich tech mogul that you've never heard of. I
never heard of him, and like so many of his
Silicon Valley peers who swing libertarian, Conway is actually a
rabid lefty and he uses his riches as leverage for
leftist causes. And if you want to learn about that,

(06:41):
go to this website, follow the crypto the crypto, follow
the crypto, follow the crypto dot org, and then go
to individuals and search for Ron Conway. Follow the crypto
dot org under individuals Ron Conway. So that brings us

(07:02):
back to the so called Seditious Six. In addition to
Conway's contributions just at large to the Democrat Party at
both the state and the federal level, and then his
particular contributions to leftist political action committees, and his generalized,
i would say, just a generalized massive influence behind the scenes,

(07:24):
he is a political contributor to the two senatorial and
most vocal members of the so called Seditious Six, Mark
Kelly and Elisa Slupkin. If you go to OpenSecrets dot org,
OpenSecrets dot org. I've for maybe enough for this new

(07:44):
people to the program. But that's that's a website. I know.
I know Helen ellen Miller who started Open Secrets. She's
a friend of mine. She's a lefty. Oh, I've got
lefty friends, Yes, I have friends all over the political landscape.
I really like what she's done. Well, I think she's

(08:05):
since sold it off. But OpenSecrets dot org is better
than going to the Federal Elections Commission website because at
OpenSecrets dot org you can look up past campaigns, current campaigns,
you can look up by industry, you can find everything
about political contributions at that website, OpenSecrets dot org. I'm

(08:27):
a fan of it. If you if you don't get it,
and when you go to OpenSecrets dot org and you
look up Ron Conway, there are numerous contributions to Mark
Kelly now summer large, twenty six hundred dollars here, twenty
nine hundred dollars here, then eleven hundred and seventy nine dollars,

(08:50):
let's see, I've got a couple of screen shots, and
then to at least slapped in thirty three hundred dollars.
Not huge amounts. But the reason they're not huge is
because of McCain, Feingel federal limitations on campaign contributions. But

(09:12):
here's what a lot of ordinary folks don't understand about
what people like Ron Conway do. Guys like him form
very tight circles of influence that attract similar contributions from
their peers over and over and over again. So when
he's out at the French Laundry having lunch with Devin Newsom,

(09:36):
he will tell all of the people at the table, Hey,
I'm giving some money to Mark Kelly and Alisa Slotkin
because we get a little project going on and I
could use your help. So then you'll find a bunch
of other people that you don't think are related to
Ron Conway, but indeed they're exactly. They all met at
the French Laundry, they all have lunch together. But let's

(09:58):
focus for a minute of Mark Kelly. You can find,
if you dig deep enough, the connection between Conway and Kelly.
Because US senators are required to file annual financial disclosure statements,
something I had to do every single year. It didn't
bother me because, you know what, I had nothing to hide,

(10:20):
and I knew that as a so called public servant,
as the Undersecretary of Homeland Security, I'm required by law
to file financial disclosure statements. Well so are US senators.
But if you poke around on Mark Kelly's disclosures and
you start looking through his air quote here, candidate disclosure
guess what. Oh, he has ownership of shares in a

(10:46):
private equity firm called sv Angel, mister Conway's investment firm.
I'm shocked, Well, what a goens. I never thought there
were any coincidences whatsoever. In fact, he he categorizes his

(11:11):
the value as none or less than one thousand dollars
in two separate investment funds. Now, that's because the financial
disclosure requirements are categorized in these very broad categories none
to less than one thousand one dollars. But when you

(11:33):
look at the income, he has income between fifteen thousand
and fifty thousand dollars in each of the two funds.
That's a pretty good return. Yes. So I followed up
my digging into that by looking at Kelly's disclosures in

(11:54):
following years after you'd take an office. And curiously, if
you look at Kelly's same disclosures for his first year
in off, he no longer lists the sv Angel holdings.
Now I would just guess, totally guessing on my part,
that he did that to try to eliminate the appearance
of impropriety under the rules of the Senate Ethics Rules.

(12:15):
But the original physical connection between Conway and Kelly is
quite clear. On October sixteenth, twenty twenty five, just a
couple of months ago, now, well not quite two months ago,
Conway resigned to great fanfare from Salesforce. He was a
shareholder and a director at Salesforce. He resigned with again

(12:40):
with a lot of florism, fanfare, a lot of financial
media coverage of it from the philanthropic arm of Salesforce.
Mark Benoff, who is a longtime friend of Conway, all
for President Trump to send the National Guard troops to

(13:02):
San Francisco to battle crime and to battle that city's
incredible destructive FENANL epidemic. Well, apparently, Conway, the sv Angel
equity fund owner, told his friend over at sales First
Force this, it saddens me immensely to say that, with

(13:24):
your recent comments and failure to understand their impact, I
nearly I now barely recognize the person I have so
long admired. You find that quote in the New York
Times now got me to thinking if Mark Kelly oppose
National Guard deployments in support of urban crime fighting and
feel the need to encourage National Guard members to disobey

(13:47):
lawful orders. Before October sixteen, twenty twenty five, So if
you do a limited data search or i'm sorry, date
search on Google before that date, you don't really find
it anything. But in fact, what I found was quite
different from the rhetoric we've seen from the so called

(14:08):
seditious six. For example, in August of twenty twenty five,
at a town hall in North Carolina, military and veterans'
issues were the focus of the discussion, and despite the
fact that Trump had already ordered the National Guard troops
to LA and DC, Mark Kelly addressed none of the
issues that today seemed to be his favorite topic, And then,

(14:34):
in an interview with a local Arizona news station around
the same time as the North Carolina event, Kelly seemed
to tacitly acknowledge Trump's legal authority to federalize the National
Guard troops and to send him to support the fight
against crime in other cities. So what changed, Why did
he go from one extreme to the other? I don't know,

(14:57):
But the timing of Conway, that's the finn in seers
his meltdown regarding the National Guard deployments is very suspiciously
close to the timing of when Mark Kelly decided to
put together the video Now, in early November, Kelly and
slump can introduce the quote No Troops in Our Streets Act,

(15:20):
which attempted to try avoid President Trump's constitutional and statutory
authority as commander in chief, and he posted all about
it on his website. You can go to Kelly Senate
dot gov and you can read all this press releases
about that. Then, of course, on November eighteen, the Sedition
six led by Kelly and Slotkin, That's when they launched

(15:45):
the video. Hmm, follow the money. I think there is
clearly a financial connection between Kelly and Conway that predates
Kelly's election to the Senate. Conway is a behind the
scenes left as power broker, and before Conway went public
with his visceral opposition to the National Guard deployments, Kelly

(16:07):
was generally just non committalist to the importance and legality
of those deployments. But after Conway's blistering attacks on his
friend over at Salesforce, Kelly Mark Kelly all of a
sudden became so opposed to the National Guard deployments that
he began calling for a sort of limited military coup.
Huh was that at Conway's behest let me could be?

(16:30):
Could not be Everything I just said is clearly circumstantial,
doesn't prove anything conclusive. But because of my simple understanding
of how Washington, DC works and how these people, and
when I say these people, I'm talking about senators and congressmen,
how they just virtually I mean they're like wind mills.

(16:53):
And I don't mean like wind turbines. I'm talking about
wind mills on the old farm down home, those wind
mills that just you know, they creak and they make noise,
and they pump up the water for the cattle, and
they just swirl around. And if you ever grew up
and they have Oklahoma panhandle like I did, they make
a lot of noise if you don't maintain them very well,
and they just swing around and they're just they're just
whirling and pumping and moving all the time. That's politicians.

(17:18):
That's exactly how I observe those people in their natural habitat.
And I'm telling you this points to me that there
was something suspicious going on. And I think Ron Conway
is just the is the guy that we've been looking for.
He's the guy that my belief is he's funding all

(17:40):
of that production.

Speaker 2 (17:42):
Michael, I drive a Dodge. I hate McDonald's and I
listen to your show.

Speaker 3 (17:48):
I'm not worried about quality, and that's why I love
the audience. Goobers are the best, absolute best, and that's
why we don't give a flying rip about quality ourselves.
We just come in and fly by the seat of
our pants. A British citizen, John mischlu Booth, got himself

(18:15):
arrested in the United Kingdom after he posted a photograph
of himself legally holding a gun while on a vacation
trip in Florida. Got it now. This has sparked pretty
widespread debate about free speech, police powers, and of course
the obvious difference is between the United States and the

(18:37):
United Kingdom gun laws. So again for the people in
the back of the classroom that are the slow learners,
this is a British citizen on holiday, as the Brits
would say, on holiday in Florida. He goes to a
gun range. He's holding a long gun, and he gets

(18:57):
a selfie taken of him holding the long gun at
it looks like an outdoor range, posts it to his
social media accounts while he's in Florida, and then goes
home back to the United Kingdom, got it? Can I
move forward now? Thank you? So this guy is an
IT consultant from West Yorkshire. He took the photo of

(19:21):
himself holding a shotgun at at this place in Florida
in August. The firearm was legally owned in the United States.
The guy, John rischloeu Booth, not John Wilkes Booth. John
rischloeu Booth was under supervision at the time, reportedly receiving

(19:42):
instruction from a former Special Forces operative. Booth posted the
image on LinkedIn I hate LinkedIn as part of a
routine update about his day in his professional activities. Then,
upon returning to the United king m he gets a visit.

(20:02):
He gets a knock on the door by the West
Yorkshire Police after somebody, someone, well Michael who I don't know,
someone raised concerns about the photo. That's the best way
I can describe it. So the cops show up at
his door, they warn him about the impact of social

(20:24):
media posts, and then eleven days later, no wait, they
show up one day. Let's just say they showed up today,
not mister Booth. Somebody. We can't tell you who, but
you know you can't confront your witnesses, can't confront your accusers.
But you know, somebody complained that they saw your post
on LinkedIn and it made them uncomfortable.

Speaker 5 (20:46):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
If I got in trouble for every time I made
somebody uncomfortable, I'd be in trouble all the time, which
I pretty much am anyway. And then after that encounter
they come back eleven days later hmm and arrested him
late at night. The allegations include possession of a firearm

(21:09):
with intent to are you ready for this? With intent
to cause fear of violence? And stalking Now part of
that is based on another unrelated photo on his profile.
He was held overnight before being interviewed, released on bail,

(21:30):
but endured a series of follow up visits by the
POPO over a thirteen week period. Ultimately, the Crown Prosecution
Service dropped the most serious charges owing to insufficient evidence,
but Booth still faced a public order offense based on
a different post. That's according to Breitbart Now. The case

(21:52):
obviously attracts criticism from public figures and sparked a pretty
wide debate about police priorities and freedom of expression. Uh,
not here there, But there's a big difference between here
and there. Although the difference is getting narrower and narrower

(22:13):
and narrower, critics, including Elon Musk side of the situation
is an example of process as punishment, something that is
very real. Process as punishment. I often hear people say, well,
you know what, I'd be willing to fight that in court. Really,

(22:34):
would you? Really? I had clients I used to have,
you know, went back when I actually practicing law. I
no longer practice, So don't ask me a much legal questions.
Don't if I'm at it, if i'm at it, if
I'm at a cocktail party, don't come up and have
me a contract and say, hey, would you review this
for me? No, I'm not going to do it, and
I can't charge you for it because I no longer practice.

(22:57):
But I would have clients come to me and say, hey,
you know what, I want to sue so and so
because they did something wrong. And I look at it
and say, yeah, well they did do something wrong. This
person you want to sue probably doesn't have any assets,
so if you win, you're probably not gonna be able
to collect anything. Maybe you can collect their old whatever
with an old buick that buber drove. What does he

(23:18):
saying to talk aback. You might be able to collect
the old bully dodge, a dodge and old dodge. You
may be able to collect the old dodge or something,
but it's not gonna be worth anything. And here's what
you're gonna have to go through to get to that point,
to win the lawsuit. And oh, by the way, if
he hires a lawyer, they're going to countersue you. And
even if they don't countersuit, you're gonna have your butt
dragged through depositions and interrogatories. They're going to ask all

(23:41):
sorts of questions that may be totally irrelevant. But in
a deposition or in interrogatories, they can ask you whatever
they want to ask you. It's only when we get
to court that we can object. So you'll have to
answer the question. Even though I say in a deposition
I object, the other lawyer will say that's fine, you
still have to answer the question. That's process as punishment.

(24:06):
So merely sharing a legal activity from abroad, I don't
think Merrit's police action at home now Booth describe the
ordeal as orwell, with some commentators liking it to real
life echoes of a dystopian government overreach, which I think
that it is. And now the incident has prompted discussion

(24:27):
on the role of police in regulating social media content
and the tension between British public order laws and individual freedom. Well,
I can just tell you summarily without going into much detail. Eh,
the public order laws allow them to come and at
least question you, if not arrest you, if you post

(24:51):
something on social media that somebody that maybe doesn't even
follow you, but I just show it to them and
it makes them uncomfortable. Oh oh, I made somebody uncomfortable
by I didn't know it because I just put it
up by social media and somebody else looked at it. Now,
since then, mister Booth has expressed a deep mistrust of

(25:13):
the United Kingdom police and stated his desire to relocate
to Florida permanently because of the psychological toll and the
loss of confidence in the British authorities. Now that's fuel
calls for legal reform, but government officials suggesting the need
maybe we will, maybe we won't clarify the boundaries of

(25:35):
criminality online, and maybe we will or will not ensure
that policing focuses on serious crime rather than social media monitoring.
And the prosecution of legal activities that are conducted abroad.
This story amazingly exemplifies the ongoing struggles over free speech
digital policing in the intersection of national law with global

(25:57):
travel and online expression, and highlights the fundamental differences between
us and them when it comes to personal liberty and justice.
You think they're going to do anything. Of course, they're
not going to do anything. But the lesson for us
to learn is when you hear for calls for government regulation,

(26:20):
which there are. For example, right now, Mike Lee, the
senator from you, the senior Senator from Utah, and somebody
else I forget who doesn't matter, but Senator Mike Lee,
who I believe is a very good constitutional expert, has
introduced a law federalizing the requirement for all apps in

(26:40):
app stores. Whether it's Android or Mac, doesn't make any
difference that if it is pornographic or an adult dating
site or anything else that might you know, you might
not want someone under the age of eighteen or sixteen
looking at that. There would be a federal law that
would require the apps to verify the age of anybody

(27:02):
that's downloading it. I don't have a problem with that. Now,
poor Hub and others are objecting to it because they
say that, oh, we can't police this. Well, but you
put it out there for anybody, and you say it's
age restricted, but there's no one forceability until there's some
sort of federal regulation. And I look, I'm anti regulation,

(27:26):
but I don't want you know, fifteen year olds. And
call me naive if you want to, because I know
they do, but I don't want fifteen year olds. I
certainly don't want ten, twelve, eight, you know, six year
olds looking at poorn. So some regulation of online activity
is probably warranted, and I think it's certainly constitutional. Now
I'll get to that in a minute, and quite frankly,

(27:47):
I'll just take a break right down anyway.

Speaker 5 (27:49):
I cannot take women's basketball and women's sports being shut
down my throat constantly every morning by iHeartRadio. Every time
it comes on, I turn off the station for an hour.
I can't take it anymore.

Speaker 3 (28:10):
I'm might just tell and I can't take it anymore.
Have we been? Have I been talking about women's basketball
to you?

Speaker 4 (28:17):
But yes, there are some women's sports updates played a
couple of times a day in some of our commercial blocks.

Speaker 3 (28:26):
And those last what those updates are two and a
half three hours long.

Speaker 4 (28:30):
Must be sometimes thirty seconds can feel that long.

Speaker 2 (28:34):
I think less than that. I think it's fifteen.

Speaker 3 (28:36):
I know exactly what's going on. It's that time period
between Thanksgiving and New Year's and people are really stressed out,
and we're kind of like just you and me, and
this program is kind of like walking into grandma's house
and you just want to smell the apple pie and

(28:57):
the turkey and the dressing and see, you know, the
gifts and everything. You sent that warm, cozy feeling, and
we're trying to provide that because you and I are
such warm, fuzzy people, of course, And instead they're getting
something about women's basketball and is pissing them off, and
they're calling and leaving a voicemail about it, because it's

(29:17):
like we have we have you know what, you know
what Dragon and I have control over in terms of
what we do here, kind of what we talked about.
That's it, and that's it.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
We don't even have control over the equipment.

Speaker 3 (29:34):
That's right. And during that break, I finally get a
response from the text line people. Yeah, and they're all
concerned that you don't have a log again and I've
tried to explain to them, you have a log in,
that's not the issue. The issue is that we're getting
kicked out and the keyword issue. Yeah so, but I

(29:56):
have some real people now, as opposed to just you know,
support app blank, calm whatever. Oh yeah, no, No, I
actually have real people. I got Ryan, I got let's see,
I got Ryan and Katie and raw Ball working on it.

Speaker 4 (30:08):
I was gonna give it about a day or two
longer and be like, no, I can't deal with it. It
locks me out after an hour. No, no, and then
they got to send me another.

Speaker 3 (30:17):
Come on, Well, here's the response so far. The implementation
of multifactory authentication and subsequent reduction in session time is
a response to a security incident, and this behavior is
somewhat expected. What the behavior on the part of us
objecting to it, or the behavior of someone trying to
who hacks a text line.

Speaker 4 (30:39):
I mean, I can kind of see it, maybe possibly
because there are contests that we do over the text lines,
and not just us, but other stations here in the
building to do.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
You know, hey, you've won.

Speaker 4 (30:49):
Kind of thing, but it and you don't want to
give off that kind of wrong thing. If somebody hacks
in and says to just a random texture and said, hey,
you won concert tickets, come down and you know whatever.

Speaker 2 (30:59):
So I can kind of understand that.

Speaker 3 (31:01):
But oh, a text originating apparently from like it's from
iHeart right, Yeah, yeah, you've won, come on down because
we got a check for a million dollars for you.

Speaker 2 (31:11):
Exactly I can get who would fall for that?

Speaker 3 (31:14):
If you know anything about I come on let's bed now.
Let's hope that you know that you know, managements not listening.
But who in their right mind would believe a text
from iHeartMedia that says, come on down to forty six
ninety five South Monico, you've won a million dollars.

Speaker 4 (31:33):
Oh wouldn't we do those keyword for cash things. They're
michele that or what one thousand dollars?

Speaker 3 (31:40):
And you're gonna believe the one that said, you know,
you would You're just that you're the kind of person
that would show it. You would drive from it, you
would get you get all the way home.

Speaker 4 (31:47):
If I entered into that contest and I get a
quote hacked text message response saying come on down, pick
it up.

Speaker 3 (31:56):
No, that's no, that's not what I said. The text says,
come on down, you have won a million dollars. Who's
going to believe that my mother would. That's I'm afraid
that's who would. I don't think you would, or anybody
that's listened to us for any length of time and
understands how cheap I heart is when it comes to
honorable salaries and bonuses and equipment and you know, everything else.

(32:19):
Blah blah blah blah. Oh man, now we're in trouble again.

Speaker 2 (32:24):
But you know, yep, it's break time.

Speaker 3 (32:25):
Oh oh my gosh, it is break time. I'll be
right back