Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I went to Michael's trip dot com and I haven't
seen him falling down.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Very disappointed. And I saw what I went to Michael's
trip dot com and I didn't see him fall down.
It's very disappointing.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Well, just watch me stumble out of the studio when
I get done. And you should put.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Cameras here and take a video of that, especially on Friday,
after all the shots that you take in in the
last hour.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Yeah, I'm I'm I'm ahead of schedule today.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
That's happening. Start to worry, that's about right.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Yeah, I can't stop whether they keep getting the large
or switched to the.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
What do they call it the extra large?
Speaker 3 (00:44):
No, they have a name for it. What is that
name that Sonic drive in they have?
Speaker 1 (00:53):
They have.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Small, medium, large, and hang on, just hang on, nobody cares.
Here's Route forty four, Route forty four.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Oh okay, Yeah, that was important enough to install a show.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
My brain got stuck on it and I wasn't going
to just drop it and then sit here and worry about.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Yeah, just like the laptop story. Yeah, totally worth it.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
It's Friday, and I don't care. Here's anybody else. Everybody's
just supposed to get through the day and go home
and have a nice.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Weekend and watch the Broncos beat the Raiders the Raiders.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
On Sunday and listen to the Weekend with Michael Brown
on Saturday over on Freedom.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
I was a little worried that the Broncos Raiders game
might be one of those trap games because the Raiders
are out of playoff contention. There's no way, and they've
got what two wins or something something terrible. It's like, oh,
the Bronco has been playing down to their competition or
up to their competition. It's just like, I don't want
it to be bad. But after talking to several of
the big, big brained Broncos guys around here, they're like, nah,
(02:03):
the Raiders are just that bad.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
It's gonna be like forty four to ten.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
So they're not They're not going to come in extraordinarily
motivated just to rain them the Broncos parade.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
No, okay, the Broncos, excuse me, the Raiders and organization is.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Just in shambles right now.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Yeah, so it should be a great game, forty four
to ten.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Is that State em in Vegas actually finished or are
they playing somewhere else and things.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
No, it's brand new. It's it's been two years or so. Okay, right,
the super bowls there. It's been to Vegas lately.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Not since they finished the super Bowl, since this thing either.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
But everybody tells me that it's that. You know, it
used to be a reasonable place to go for you know,
like I've been a lot of concerts there and shows
and stuff, and you could eat fairly well. And now
I understand that it's just extraordinarily expensive. Getting the cheap
hotel rooms is impossible. And then Nickel and die me
to death on every little thing. Yeah, resort fees, yes's right. Oh,
oh you need to go you need to go to
(02:57):
the bathroom. No, you know, they got like a one
armed bandit to use to go to the bathroom in
your hotel room.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Yesterday or yes yesterday. The United States Supreme Court, in
this case involving the Texas legislature redistricting their congressional seats
and of course along with that, their state representing state
Senate seats, issued an emergency shadow docket decision that let's tax.
(03:29):
Let's Texas go ahead and use their heavily pro Republican
congressional map for twenty twenty six, even though a three
judge panel had already found the map likely unconstitutional as
racial as a racial gerrymander. The conservative majority, however, framed
the case as about deference to state legislatures, the presumption
(03:53):
of good faith, and also trying to avoid last minute
disruption of elections. The liberal justice on the court instead
warned that the court is effectively green lighting sophisticated racial
gerrymandering so long as they are packaged as just politics.
Now I'll explain that more in depth in just a second.
(04:15):
But you cannot draw congressional district and it's that matter
of state. And I may have state repend state Senate,
but you cannot draw congressional districts based on race. You can, however,
draw them purely on political grounds. What's interesting here is
(04:37):
this Latino group that sued that claimed that it was based
on racial gerry mandering, didn't show that.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
And didn't offer their own map to show that.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Hey, listen, this is how they did it based on race,
and this is how you would do it based otherwise.
And then the other point I want you to fully
understand is you can draw CongressI districts, state legislators, state legislatures,
and or these districting commissions that some states like California
(05:10):
put together. Can do it based on politics because it
is a political issue, it is not a legal or
a judicial issue. So back in well, not back this year,
Texas enacted these new congressional maps, and they were designed
specifically to increase the number of Republican held US House
(05:30):
seats from twenty five to I would say, anywhere from
thirty to thirty eight by reconfiguring districts in these fast
growing metro areas like San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Harris
County to Houston, and of course along the I thirty
five in the Gulf Coast corridors. A three judge Federal
(05:54):
District court two judges and the majority of one descending
conducted a nine day evidentiary hearing concluded that there was
substantial evidence that race, not just politics, drove the key
line to drawing decisions, and then it preliminarily enjoined US
in the twenty twenty five map and ordered Texas to
go back to their twenty twenty one plan to use
(06:15):
in twenty twenty six. So then Texas immediately sought emergency relief.
They argued that the new map was the status quo,
that challengers had not offered a viable alternative map that
preserved Texas's avowed so called partisan goals, and that changing
the rules near candidate filing deadlines would, indeed, and I agree,
(06:36):
would create confusion, confusion, and irreparable harm to both the
state and to the voters. So yesterday the Supreme Court's
conservative majority granted Texas request. It stayed the lower court injunction.
Chimney Christmas. At some point, doesn't Chief Justice Roberts want
to say to all of these lower court judges, stop
(06:59):
it with the in jumptions.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Just stop it.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
You're obviously you the judges are obviously playing politics. Now,
I'm not gonna make that specific argument in the Texas case,
but once again, here we are facing an injunction that
gets overturned. Anyway. Back to the lower court, they granted
Texas a request, they stayed, which means they overruled the
(07:26):
lower court's injunction, and they order that the twenty twenty
five map be used while the litigation still proceeds. That effectively,
I mean, for practical purposes, anyway, settles what map will
govern the twenty twenty six mid terms. Now, why do
I say that, because the litigation can proceed.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
But this is.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
We're getting almost to mid December, and the filing period
for the twenty twenty six midterms will come up pretty soon,
in the next say, three or four months. Just I'm
not sure what Texas deadlines are, but I know in Colorado,
for example, we've got we have, like you know, March
and April deadlines. Litigation will obviously go way beyond that.
(08:13):
So effectively, the twenty twenty six map with these new
anywhere between thirty and thirty eight Republican seats, will be
the one in which people will file to run, and
assuming that they are predominantly Republican seats, Texas will increase
the majority in the House, which in my opinion, my
(08:34):
partisan opinion, is a good deal. Now, the order was
the order from the US Supreme Court was unsigned, but
it was accompanied by a short explanation that the disrect
court quote and properly inserted itself into an active primary campaign,
causing much confusion and upsettling the delicate federal state balance
(08:56):
in elections. They continued that Texas was likely to succeed
and the reason for that is, the lower court did
not respect the presumption of legislative good faith, and then
they demanded the lower court did demanded too little of
the plaintiffs in defining an alternative map that would be
(09:16):
consistent with the state's political objectives. Of course, Justice Kagan,
writing for the three liberal justices, she of course descended,
and she accused the majority of reversing a one hundred
and sixty page trial based finding of likely racial jerry
mandering over a holiday weekend on a cold record, and
(09:37):
abandoning minority voters that the district court found were sorted
by race. No if it so what if they make
the decision on the weekend that you know, let me
make a comment that is absolutely non legal whatsoever. But
I think that a liberal judge complaining that, hey, it
(10:03):
was cold and snowy over the weekend in DC, and
it was of Saturday, and it was a Sunday, and
you made this decision over a cold weekend and we were,
you know, we were once set home by the fireplace
and you know, drink hot chocolate with marshmallows. That's so
stereotypical liberal.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
I don't want to work, Yeah, I don't want to
jump in pretty lazy reasoning in my opinion. Now, there
are several strands of existing doctrine and institutional preference that
really explains why the conservative majority moved quickly in Texas favor. First,
the Court has repeatedly held that political jerry mandering partisan
(10:47):
jerry mandering, unlike racial jerry mandering, is a political question,
and political questions are outside the reach.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Of the federal courts. Hallelujah. We need to focus on
that more.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
What is a true, you know, judicial decision versus a
political issue. We've gotten way off that that dividing line,
and we now have courts actively deciding what I think
are purely political decisions. And that's where the left and
that's why the left wants to pack the court, because
(11:23):
they've got activist judges deciding political decisions. So therefore, if
you were to pack the court, you could have you know,
those thirteen judges making political decisions for you, and then
Congress can just wipe their hands of actually performing their
legislative duties, sit back, collect their paychecks, go to the
cocktail parties, not do a damn thing. Oh wait a minute,
(11:44):
that's kind of what they're doing now in the Texas order.
The majority characterizes the current map is driven by pure
and simple partisan advantage and accepts that as a legitimate
state interest. Now, implicitly, they're treating the plaintiffs effort to
reframe the plaintiffs this is the Latino groups to reframe
(12:08):
the map, says racial jerrymandering. And that's an attempt to
re litigate what an earlier case rushou versus common Cause
closed off. And then the second point would be this
the court leans heavily on a presumption of legislative good
faith and a demand for very clear evidence that race
(12:29):
not merely correlated with partisanship, but actually predominated over partisanship,
and that race is what drove the lines. Now, the
practical point of that is that that raises the evidentiary
bar well beyond what the three judge panel thought it
had already met. The course said, no, you didn't meet that.
(12:53):
You didn't meet it whatsoever. And while that's a technical
thing that lawyers would understand, I want you to understand it.
Because the liberals are screaming that, oh, this is pure politics.
Our answer should be yeah, you're right, it is, and you,
as an Article three court have no business interfering in
(13:17):
political decisions made by a state legislature unless you can
overwhelmingly prove that what they did was based on race.
And in this case, the plaintiffs, this Latino group, came back.
They never showed with a map of their own, for example,
that which would be the easiest way to do it. Look,
(13:38):
if you drew a map, and we think the current
map is based on race, this is what a map
would look like without race. They never did that, nor
did they show or provide any evidence or any sufficient
evidence that what the Texas legislature was doing was based
on race. That's another example of moving away from implying
(14:05):
that everything that goes on in our political domain is
somehow racist or somehow based on race. And the court
is basically the Supreme Court is here saying we've got
enough of this. It's this is a political issue decided
by the Texas legislature. There's a presumption that they're doing
(14:25):
it on a partisan basis, which is fine. See right there,
the word partisan. Oh, Michael, they shouldn't be drawing on
a partisan basis. Well, how hell would you draw congressional districts?
They're politicians drawing districts that they think are going to
be advantageous to themselves, while still complying with previous rulings
(14:46):
about you've got to, you know, look at communities, you've
got to look at geography, you've got to look at
how certain areas are tied together in different you know,
cultures and things that all of that.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
But no, no, not going.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
To do that at all. Finally, the majority emphasizes that
they didn't supply that viable map that would preserve the
partisan objectives while fixing all of the allegations of racial gerrymandarin.
We were just doing politics and harder for challengers to
(15:21):
offer a court acceptable alternative. All of that fits a
broader pattern, tightening standing and advidentary rules for voting rights,
plain us, expanding state direction, I'm sorry, state discretion, and
treating racial sorting as constitutionally tolerable if the legislature can
(15:42):
positively describe it as in service of their partisan goals.
That's exactly what took place in this redistricting. But we
are so hell bent on trying to force race into
everything that the Court looked at it and said we
don't find any evidence. And you were given ample opportunities
(16:05):
you could have drawn your own map. You could have
presented evidence of showing where it was racially gerrymandering, and
they didn't do it. Now substantively, the current map, the
twenty twenty five Texas map, is engineered to both lock
in and expand GOP representation, even as the population in
(16:27):
Texas has been driven overwhelmingly by black, Latino and Asian
American communities that are concentrated in urban and suburban counties.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
So what the plan does.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
It creates or shores up several Republican leaning districts around Dallas,
Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin. And then it reduces
the number of genuinely competitive seats and cracking or packing
minority communities that had plausible claims to additional opportunity districts
under the Building Rights Act. And of course you'd have
(17:00):
to include the fourteenth Amendment too. So a lot of
political analysts estimate that this map could give Republicans roughly
five additional House seats compared with the twenty twenty one
baseline map. So that's a swing large enough on its
own to match or exceed the margin that often decides
(17:21):
House control. And that's why this maps, and this case
is so important, and politically this is important too. The
ruling locks in this environment through at least twenty twenty
six and probably the remainder of this decade. Why is
that because once a map carries an election, inertia and
(17:44):
judicial deference make any sort of remedial changes down the
road that much harder. And the Texas Republicans, led by
Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton, of course, of course
they're celebrating this decision because it's a validation their map
drawing strategy and now it serves as a blueprint for
(18:05):
further aggressive partisan line drawing that skirts but in the
challengers of view crosses racial lines. It's a really it's
a fine line. But if you can show that there
is a political reason for it, and if your challengers
in this case primary Latinos are unable to overcome the
(18:27):
presumption of the politics involved, then you're going to win.
This is going to give a lot more free rain. Now,
the bad part is this gives free rain in blue
states to strengthen their blue districts. Also, that brings me
(18:47):
back to this point. Everybody focuses on Congress, and everybody
thinks that Congress is the most you know, other than president,
that that's the most important vote you can take. No, actually,
I don't think it is at all. I think the
most important This goes back to what's the name of
this country? Have you thought about this? What's the name
of the country. The name of the country is we
(19:10):
are the United States of America. We're not the United
Federal whatever you might call it. We're the United States
of America. So these are fifty seven states that have
come together, and these fifty seven states have said, Okay,
we're going to provide some authority to a centralized government
(19:30):
because we need something centralized like immigration and everything else
belongs to us, and so just leave us alone while
we do our thing. The Supreme Court just acknowledge that right.
I'd love to go on that Greek trip with you,
but it's a little bit above my price range.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
I wondered if maybe you'd be the first contributed to
my goalfundme.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Hey, you just need to pull a little bit from
your penicillin fund. You'd be fine.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
I you know, I actually might. I would starting to
go fundme to have him on that trip, because have
you ever heard these stories of you know, like there's
romantic fights and somebody falls overboard, or somebody goes missing,
or you know, somebody gets you know, Legionnaire's disease and
dies or whatever. I mean, not that I'm implying that
(20:20):
we want to, you know, kill off a goober or anything,
but you know, sometimes stuff happens, what see, And I'm
sure if people understood that the purpose of the go
fundme was for that, they might, you know, we might
get your Trump paid for.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Text message came in at the three three one zero
three from goober number ninety seven oh seven. How did
you mis naming your travel site to Michael says travel
with me dot com?
Speaker 3 (20:47):
Well, I responded, I saw that earlier, responded to it,
primarily because the sponsors that they make that decision.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
It's a bit wordy too.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
I mean it's fun for Michael says go here dot
com for for our own little aoa site here. Yeah,
but for you know, something actually business related that people
are throwing money at. Michael says travel with me is
a bit long, so it's just Michael trip dot com.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Two pm Sunday watched The Broncos Raiders with Benjamin Albright
and Nick Ferguson at Burned down Denver's off Broadway, entered
the Way and Broncos tickets. It's all presented by Arta Tequila,
the official tequila of the Denver Broncos. You would think
that if Teber's gonna ask me to do these promos
like that, that they would have like the bottle of
(21:32):
tequila of Arta Tequila over here.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Did you even ask? No?
Speaker 3 (21:36):
But you would think that a decent manager, that a
decent program director would think, you know, the talent, I mean,
after all, we are the talent careful.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
Now, he's probably one of the best program directors we've
ever gotten in twenty years at Radio so so, and
I'm trying.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
I'm simply trying to make him even better.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Yeah, yeah, Yeah, that's exactly what's going on here. Okay, Yeah,
just even.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Batter, you know, just a nice bottle of Arte tequitl
just sitting right there. Even a mini. I'd even take
a mini right now. Just give me a mini and
I'd be happy about that. So I want to talk
about something that Dragon and I were talking about.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Douring the break.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
The Pentagon has announced another strike by the military on
these boats carrying the illegal drugs. This one's resulted in
the deaths of for Narco terras. Now notably, guess what
dragon is what we were talking about earlier? This operation
occurred in the Eastern Pacific. Most of the strikes since
(22:37):
September had been targeting the cartel drug boats in the
Caribbean or some people say the Caribbean the Caribbean. Yesterday,
Admiral Frank Bradley, the head of the United States Special
Ops Command and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Dan Raging Kane, appeared before a closed door joint
meeting of the House Armed Services Committee and the Sentence
(22:58):
Like Committee on Intelligence to brief lawmakers on the strikes.
This story says a particular focus of the briefing was
the initial September two strike, with Democrats and the Washington
Post falsely claiming the Secretary of War Pete Hegsath authorized
a soul called double tap strike. I don't think they
will understand what double tap means on a group of
(23:21):
survivors with the order to kill everybody. Now, you may
recall this go all the way back to Monday. I
said that if those are the facts, then that probably
constitutes a war crime. Since then, we have found out
shocker of shocker that the cabal lied to us and
(23:42):
those aren't the facts. Admiral Bradley told the Joint Committee
hearing that he was the authorizing official for both the
initial strike and the secondary strike, and that Hegsath never
gave an order to quote kill Everybody's something even more important,
(24:03):
Special Ops Command chief provided a video showing the two
cartel operatives who had survived the initial strike climbing onto
the wreckage and they started gathering the vessel's cargo. So
the Admiral says, it appeared to him the two survivors
were attempting to contact the other nearby cartel boats because
(24:25):
they were trying to salvage the drug shipment. So at
that juncture, under the rules of engagement, those survivors are
deemed to be quote still in the fight close quote
and therefore they're still valid targets. I don't want to
wonder off too far in the weeds on this, but
(24:46):
I do just say that my brain, and I think
dragons bring to some extent, keeps bouncing back and forth
on this. I think that what we're doing is jim
These are but whether you call them narco terrorists or whatever,
(25:06):
these are, and I don't want to use the word
criminal because they haven't yet committed a crime, right because
you can have you're in international waters, and you can
have all of the drugs you want on your boat
in international water. Who has jurisdiction? Is it the United Nations?
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Who?
Speaker 3 (25:31):
So if they've got contraband of some sort, but you
have information that they're bringing that contraband, that those deadly
drugs into the United States, and you want to preserve
the national security of the country, blow the crap out
of them and blow them out of the water. For
those who say, oh, but Michael, just designating them narco
(25:53):
terrorists is not I'm not sure you had to designate
them narco terrorists to go to our favorite group of people,
the Somalis, who are ripping us off to the tune
of a billion dollars up in Michigan. And I'm sorry
in Minnesota, excuse me, in Michigan you're not much better.
But in Minnesota, how many Somali pirates did we blow
(26:19):
out of the water in the Persian Goal For some
of the other you know, the stranger from Moves or
wherever they may have been as they were trying to
overtake commercial shipping lanes, and nobody said a word about that.
Nobody complained about it whatsoever, because clearly again operating in
international waters, and whether those flags, those ships were flying
(26:42):
under the flag of the United States, which they probably
were not. They were probably flying under the flag of
Iberia or whatever they used for shipping. We nonetheless took
them out because we knew they were about to engage
in piracy on the high seas, so we blew them
out of the water. Nobody complained, but no, they'll be
(27:06):
going back to the boats, the speed boats. Secondary strikes,
as I explained little Monday, are not against the rules
of engagement as long as the combatants in this case,
the narco terrorists are still actively engaged in the fight.
And if you've survived, what which you know? I still
(27:27):
kind of wonder, I'm not sure what are we shooting
hell fire missiles at these people? What are we doing?
I'm not sure how this boat survived, but enough did
that they were still on, trying to climb in, trying
to get you know, save whatever, you know, drugs they
had there, so that they get some other speed boats
to come by and pick up the stuff and still
continue to deliver it. So they're clearly still in the fight,
(27:49):
but congressional Democrats won't let it go. One congressional Democrat
continue to insist that the follow up attack will unwarranted.
Quote what this is Jim Hines, a Democrat from Connecticut.
What I saw in that room was one of the
most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service. Yes,
(28:11):
they were carrying drugs, but they were not in the
position to continue their mission in any way. That's just
blatantly ignored. First, let me just say this. I think
this is a guy that's never seen or even watched, say,
Saving Private Ryan. I mean, we got enough video, h
and we got enough war footage that you ought to
(28:33):
know that war is ugly.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
That's horrible.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Ye. And have you never been to a car wreck?
You've never been to a car wrecking seeing people's guts
hanging out.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
But Michael, those are just theatrics when you go to
Saving Private Ryan and seeing onos. Well, that's why I
use the car example, the car wreck example. That's like
real world stuff. And everybody's seen a Michael Bay movie.
As soon as two cars, you know, bumpers hit each other.
Just of course.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
The spontaneous combustion. They yeah, okay, yeah, We'll take a
break here. Then I'll finish my point about this. I asked, congressman,
is that redundant?
Speaker 1 (29:09):
Next?
Speaker 3 (29:09):
And of course they've never served in the military, because
if you served in the military, you wouldn't question in
the chain of command. I mean, this is just bs
And that's the point I want to get to. You know,
I made an offhand remark which I tend to make
a lot about earlier, about you know, I wish Congress
(29:31):
would or is Congress redundant? I forget to do something,
or they're redundant and are just running off to their
cocktail parties and blah blah blah. If somebody sent me
a text message and they said, you know, I'm really
in fact, let me just pull it up and tell
you what they said, because it's actually it's actually kind
of funny.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
What they said.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Uh, where did it go? I hear this reference to
Congress attending all these cocktail parties. The guys that used
to command your time slot. Mike Rosen called them liquor
and social lubricant. I do not think it is for
our elected officials to be making decisions that affect the
American public, while they're attending cocktail parties and aren't inebriated,
we should demand sober lawmakers. Well, let me I'm not
(30:11):
going to deny that I've never been to a cocktail
party where a US Senator or a US Congressman might
have been a little inebriated, But I would say that
that is the exception, not the rule, And I'm not
trying to defend them. I'm just pointing out that my
offhanded comments about running off the cocktail parties doesn't mean
(30:32):
that they're always inebriated and drunk at these parties. In fact,
the majority of the time they're not. But the reason
they're not is not going to make you any happier.
The reason they're not is because one, those cocktail parties
are almost ninety nine point nine percent of the time
fundraising events, and you don't want to be drunk when
(30:53):
you're trying to get somebody to make a contribution of
a thousand of five hundred thousand dollars to your political campaign.
And the other thing that's going on is the lobbyists
are there and they're trying to bend your ear. Now,
you may want to get drunk because you're tired of
listening to there, you know, everybody's you know, you know,
you got the devil on one shoulder and the angel
on the other shoulder telling you about what you ought
(31:15):
to do, and maybe you'd just rather have some of
that hmmm art the tequila instead of having listened to
all that bull crap. I get that because to some degree,
the undersecretary is the undersecretary. I got the same thing.
Why don't do it this way? Why don't you do
it that way? The point, though, is they.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Live in a different world. So, for example, I was
I was at.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
My doctor's office yesterday because I'm getting ready for, you know,
my annual physical and this same nurse that took care
of me yesterday was present when I had a lipoma
removed from my arm. And she's fascinated by the fact
that I sat and watched as the doctor, you know,
he draped my arm and then he took the album
(32:00):
made the incision. Of course, he deadened everything, and I'm
watching him remove this lip home off my arm. I
watched him cut through everything, and she was fascinated by that,
and she said, didn't it bother you? They're cutting into
your arm. I'm like, no, you know, as a hunter,
you're kind of accustomed to you're gonna draw a quarter
an animal, you know, or you can clean a fish.
(32:20):
My point meaning that most of these people have no
connection to reality. Watching him slice open my arm was nothing,
nothing at all? Was it kind of interesting?
Speaker 1 (32:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Oh that's what it looks like under the skin. Oh yeah, Oh,
you gotta cut here, you gotta cut there, you gotta
cut around that little muscle. You gotta do. I found
it fascinating. They'd probably puke because, well, they're too busy
at the cocktail party. So for a congressman to bitch
and moan about what I saw in that video was
the worst thing I've ever seen in my life tells
(32:55):
me you don't live in the real world. And when
he said that they were not in a position to
continue their mission in any way, also tells me you
just see what you want to see. Are they getting
back in the boat because they want to save their
own lives, of course, but they're also getting back in
the boat because they know that if they don't do
every effort they can to preserve those drugs, that product
(33:20):
and let the other speed boats come and pick it up. Well,
the cartails are going to kill them anyway, so they
are still in the fight no matter what you say,
your dumbass congressman,
I went to Michael's trip dot com and I haven't
seen him falling down.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Very disappointed. And I saw what I went to Michael's
trip dot com and I didn't see him fall down.
It's very disappointing.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Well, just watch me stumble out of the studio when
I get done. And you should put.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Cameras here and take a video of that, especially on Friday,
after all the shots that you take in in the
last hour.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Yeah, I'm I'm I'm ahead of schedule today.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
That's happening. Start to worry, that's about right.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Yeah, I can't stop whether they keep getting the large
or switched to the.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
What do they call it the extra large?
Speaker 3 (00:44):
No, they have a name for it. What is that
name that Sonic drive in they have?
Speaker 1 (00:53):
They have.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Small, medium, large, and hang on, just hang on, nobody cares.
Here's Route forty four, Route forty four.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Oh okay, Yeah, that was important enough to install a show.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
My brain got stuck on it and I wasn't going
to just drop it and then sit here and worry about.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Yeah, just like the laptop story. Yeah, totally worth it.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
It's Friday, and I don't care. Here's anybody else. Everybody's
just supposed to get through the day and go home
and have a nice.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Weekend and watch the Broncos beat the Raiders the Raiders.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
On Sunday and listen to the Weekend with Michael Brown
on Saturday over on Freedom.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
I was a little worried that the Broncos Raiders game
might be one of those trap games because the Raiders
are out of playoff contention. There's no way, and they've
got what two wins or something something terrible. It's like, oh,
the Bronco has been playing down to their competition or
up to their competition. It's just like, I don't want
it to be bad. But after talking to several of
the big, big brained Broncos guys around here, they're like, nah,
(02:03):
the Raiders are just that bad.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
It's gonna be like forty four to ten.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
So they're not They're not going to come in extraordinarily
motivated just to rain them the Broncos parade.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
No, okay, the Broncos, excuse me, the Raiders and organization is.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Just in shambles right now.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Yeah, so it should be a great game, forty four
to ten.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Is that State em in Vegas actually finished or are
they playing somewhere else and things.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
No, it's brand new. It's it's been two years or so. Okay, right,
the super bowls there. It's been to Vegas lately.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Not since they finished the super Bowl, since this thing either.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
But everybody tells me that it's that. You know, it
used to be a reasonable place to go for you know,
like I've been a lot of concerts there and shows
and stuff, and you could eat fairly well. And now
I understand that it's just extraordinarily expensive. Getting the cheap
hotel rooms is impossible. And then Nickel and die me
to death on every little thing. Yeah, resort fees, yes's right. Oh,
oh you need to go you need to go to
(02:57):
the bathroom. No, you know, they got like a one
armed bandit to use to go to the bathroom in
your hotel room.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Yesterday or yes yesterday. The United States Supreme Court, in
this case involving the Texas legislature redistricting their congressional seats
and of course along with that, their state representing state
Senate seats, issued an emergency shadow docket decision that let's tax.
(03:29):
Let's Texas go ahead and use their heavily pro Republican
congressional map for twenty twenty six, even though a three
judge panel had already found the map likely unconstitutional as
racial as a racial gerrymander. The conservative majority, however, framed
the case as about deference to state legislatures, the presumption
(03:53):
of good faith, and also trying to avoid last minute
disruption of elections. The liberal justice on the court instead
warned that the court is effectively green lighting sophisticated racial
gerrymandering so long as they are packaged as just politics.
Now I'll explain that more in depth in just a second.
(04:15):
But you cannot draw congressional district and it's that matter
of state. And I may have state repend state Senate,
but you cannot draw congressional districts based on race. You can, however,
draw them purely on political grounds. What's interesting here is
(04:37):
this Latino group that sued that claimed that it was based
on racial gerry mandering, didn't show that.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
And didn't offer their own map to show that.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Hey, listen, this is how they did it based on race,
and this is how you would do it based otherwise.
And then the other point I want you to fully
understand is you can draw CongressI districts, state legislators, state legislatures,
and or these districting commissions that some states like California
(05:10):
put together. Can do it based on politics because it
is a political issue, it is not a legal or
a judicial issue. So back in well, not back this year,
Texas enacted these new congressional maps, and they were designed
specifically to increase the number of Republican held US House
(05:30):
seats from twenty five to I would say, anywhere from
thirty to thirty eight by reconfiguring districts in these fast
growing metro areas like San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Harris
County to Houston, and of course along the I thirty
five in the Gulf Coast corridors. A three judge Federal
(05:54):
District court two judges and the majority of one descending
conducted a nine day evidentiary hearing concluded that there was
substantial evidence that race, not just politics, drove the key
line to drawing decisions, and then it preliminarily enjoined US
in the twenty twenty five map and ordered Texas to
go back to their twenty twenty one plan to use
(06:15):
in twenty twenty six. So then Texas immediately sought emergency relief.
They argued that the new map was the status quo,
that challengers had not offered a viable alternative map that
preserved Texas's avowed so called partisan goals, and that changing
the rules near candidate filing deadlines would, indeed, and I agree,
(06:36):
would create confusion, confusion, and irreparable harm to both the
state and to the voters. So yesterday the Supreme Court's
conservative majority granted Texas request. It stayed the lower court injunction.
Chimney Christmas. At some point, doesn't Chief Justice Roberts want
to say to all of these lower court judges, stop
(06:59):
it with the in jumptions.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Just stop it.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
You're obviously you the judges are obviously playing politics. Now,
I'm not gonna make that specific argument in the Texas case,
but once again, here we are facing an injunction that
gets overturned. Anyway. Back to the lower court, they granted
Texas a request, they stayed, which means they overruled the
(07:26):
lower court's injunction, and they order that the twenty twenty
five map be used while the litigation still proceeds. That effectively,
I mean, for practical purposes, anyway, settles what map will
govern the twenty twenty six mid terms. Now, why do
I say that, because the litigation can proceed.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
But this is.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
We're getting almost to mid December, and the filing period
for the twenty twenty six midterms will come up pretty soon,
in the next say, three or four months. Just I'm
not sure what Texas deadlines are, but I know in Colorado,
for example, we've got we have, like you know, March
and April deadlines. Litigation will obviously go way beyond that.
(08:13):
So effectively, the twenty twenty six map with these new
anywhere between thirty and thirty eight Republican seats, will be
the one in which people will file to run, and
assuming that they are predominantly Republican seats, Texas will increase
the majority in the House, which in my opinion, my
(08:34):
partisan opinion, is a good deal. Now, the order was
the order from the US Supreme Court was unsigned, but
it was accompanied by a short explanation that the disrect
court quote and properly inserted itself into an active primary campaign,
causing much confusion and upsettling the delicate federal state balance
(08:56):
in elections. They continued that Texas was likely to succeed
and the reason for that is, the lower court did
not respect the presumption of legislative good faith, and then
they demanded the lower court did demanded too little of
the plaintiffs in defining an alternative map that would be
(09:16):
consistent with the state's political objectives. Of course, Justice Kagan,
writing for the three liberal justices, she of course descended,
and she accused the majority of reversing a one hundred
and sixty page trial based finding of likely racial jerry
mandering over a holiday weekend on a cold record, and
(09:37):
abandoning minority voters that the district court found were sorted
by race. No if it so what if they make
the decision on the weekend that you know, let me
make a comment that is absolutely non legal whatsoever. But
I think that a liberal judge complaining that, hey, it
(10:03):
was cold and snowy over the weekend in DC, and
it was of Saturday, and it was a Sunday, and
you made this decision over a cold weekend and we were,
you know, we were once set home by the fireplace
and you know, drink hot chocolate with marshmallows. That's so
stereotypical liberal.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
I don't want to work, Yeah, I don't want to
jump in pretty lazy reasoning in my opinion. Now, there
are several strands of existing doctrine and institutional preference that
really explains why the conservative majority moved quickly in Texas favor. First,
the Court has repeatedly held that political jerry mandering partisan
(10:47):
jerry mandering, unlike racial jerry mandering, is a political question,
and political questions are outside the reach.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Of the federal courts. Hallelujah. We need to focus on
that more.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
What is a true, you know, judicial decision versus a
political issue. We've gotten way off that that dividing line,
and we now have courts actively deciding what I think
are purely political decisions. And that's where the left and
that's why the left wants to pack the court, because
(11:23):
they've got activist judges deciding political decisions. So therefore, if
you were to pack the court, you could have you know,
those thirteen judges making political decisions for you, and then
Congress can just wipe their hands of actually performing their
legislative duties, sit back, collect their paychecks, go to the
cocktail parties, not do a damn thing. Oh wait a minute,
(11:44):
that's kind of what they're doing now in the Texas order.
The majority characterizes the current map is driven by pure
and simple partisan advantage and accepts that as a legitimate
state interest. Now, implicitly, they're treating the plaintiffs effort to
reframe the plaintiffs this is the Latino groups to reframe
(12:08):
the map, says racial jerrymandering. And that's an attempt to
re litigate what an earlier case rushou versus common Cause
closed off. And then the second point would be this
the court leans heavily on a presumption of legislative good
faith and a demand for very clear evidence that race
(12:29):
not merely correlated with partisanship, but actually predominated over partisanship,
and that race is what drove the lines. Now, the
practical point of that is that that raises the evidentiary
bar well beyond what the three judge panel thought it
had already met. The course said, no, you didn't meet that.
(12:53):
You didn't meet it whatsoever. And while that's a technical
thing that lawyers would understand, I want you to understand it.
Because the liberals are screaming that, oh, this is pure politics.
Our answer should be yeah, you're right, it is, and you,
as an Article three court have no business interfering in
(13:17):
political decisions made by a state legislature unless you can
overwhelmingly prove that what they did was based on race.
And in this case, the plaintiffs, this Latino group, came back.
They never showed with a map of their own, for example,
that which would be the easiest way to do it. Look,
(13:38):
if you drew a map, and we think the current
map is based on race, this is what a map
would look like without race. They never did that, nor
did they show or provide any evidence or any sufficient
evidence that what the Texas legislature was doing was based
on race. That's another example of moving away from implying
(14:05):
that everything that goes on in our political domain is
somehow racist or somehow based on race. And the court
is basically the Supreme Court is here saying we've got
enough of this. It's this is a political issue decided
by the Texas legislature. There's a presumption that they're doing
(14:25):
it on a partisan basis, which is fine. See right there,
the word partisan. Oh, Michael, they shouldn't be drawing on
a partisan basis. Well, how hell would you draw congressional districts?
They're politicians drawing districts that they think are going to
be advantageous to themselves, while still complying with previous rulings
(14:46):
about you've got to, you know, look at communities, you've
got to look at geography, you've got to look at
how certain areas are tied together in different you know,
cultures and things that all of that.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
But no, no, not going.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
To do that at all. Finally, the majority emphasizes that
they didn't supply that viable map that would preserve the
partisan objectives while fixing all of the allegations of racial gerrymandarin.
We were just doing politics and harder for challengers to
(15:21):
offer a court acceptable alternative. All of that fits a
broader pattern, tightening standing and advidentary rules for voting rights,
plain us, expanding state direction, I'm sorry, state discretion, and
treating racial sorting as constitutionally tolerable if the legislature can
(15:42):
positively describe it as in service of their partisan goals.
That's exactly what took place in this redistricting. But we
are so hell bent on trying to force race into
everything that the Court looked at it and said we
don't find any evidence. And you were given ample opportunities
(16:05):
you could have drawn your own map. You could have
presented evidence of showing where it was racially gerrymandering, and
they didn't do it. Now substantively, the current map, the
twenty twenty five Texas map, is engineered to both lock
in and expand GOP representation, even as the population in
(16:27):
Texas has been driven overwhelmingly by black, Latino and Asian
American communities that are concentrated in urban and suburban counties.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
So what the plan does.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
It creates or shores up several Republican leaning districts around Dallas,
Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin. And then it reduces
the number of genuinely competitive seats and cracking or packing
minority communities that had plausible claims to additional opportunity districts
under the Building Rights Act. And of course you'd have
(17:00):
to include the fourteenth Amendment too. So a lot of
political analysts estimate that this map could give Republicans roughly
five additional House seats compared with the twenty twenty one
baseline map. So that's a swing large enough on its
own to match or exceed the margin that often decides
(17:21):
House control. And that's why this maps, and this case
is so important, and politically this is important too. The
ruling locks in this environment through at least twenty twenty
six and probably the remainder of this decade. Why is
that because once a map carries an election, inertia and
(17:44):
judicial deference make any sort of remedial changes down the
road that much harder. And the Texas Republicans, led by
Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton, of course, of course
they're celebrating this decision because it's a validation their map
drawing strategy and now it serves as a blueprint for
(18:05):
further aggressive partisan line drawing that skirts but in the
challengers of view crosses racial lines. It's a really it's
a fine line. But if you can show that there
is a political reason for it, and if your challengers
in this case primary Latinos are unable to overcome the
(18:27):
presumption of the politics involved, then you're going to win.
This is going to give a lot more free rain. Now,
the bad part is this gives free rain in blue
states to strengthen their blue districts. Also, that brings me
(18:47):
back to this point. Everybody focuses on Congress, and everybody
thinks that Congress is the most you know, other than president,
that that's the most important vote you can take. No, actually,
I don't think it is at all. I think the
most important This goes back to what's the name of
this country? Have you thought about this? What's the name
of the country. The name of the country is we
(19:10):
are the United States of America. We're not the United
Federal whatever you might call it. We're the United States
of America. So these are fifty seven states that have
come together, and these fifty seven states have said, Okay,
we're going to provide some authority to a centralized government
(19:30):
because we need something centralized like immigration and everything else
belongs to us, and so just leave us alone while
we do our thing. The Supreme Court just acknowledge that right.
I'd love to go on that Greek trip with you,
but it's a little bit above my price range.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
I wondered if maybe you'd be the first contributed to
my goalfundme.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Hey, you just need to pull a little bit from
your penicillin fund. You'd be fine.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
I you know, I actually might. I would starting to
go fundme to have him on that trip, because have
you ever heard these stories of you know, like there's
romantic fights and somebody falls overboard, or somebody goes missing,
or you know, somebody gets you know, Legionnaire's disease and
dies or whatever. I mean, not that I'm implying that
(20:20):
we want to, you know, kill off a goober or anything,
but you know, sometimes stuff happens, what see, And I'm
sure if people understood that the purpose of the go
fundme was for that, they might, you know, we might
get your Trump paid for.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Text message came in at the three three one zero
three from goober number ninety seven oh seven. How did
you mis naming your travel site to Michael says travel
with me dot com?
Speaker 3 (20:47):
Well, I responded, I saw that earlier, responded to it,
primarily because the sponsors that they make that decision.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
It's a bit wordy too.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
I mean it's fun for Michael says go here dot
com for for our own little aoa site here. Yeah,
but for you know, something actually business related that people
are throwing money at. Michael says travel with me is
a bit long, so it's just Michael trip dot com.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Two pm Sunday watched The Broncos Raiders with Benjamin Albright
and Nick Ferguson at Burned down Denver's off Broadway, entered
the Way and Broncos tickets. It's all presented by Arta Tequila,
the official tequila of the Denver Broncos. You would think
that if Teber's gonna ask me to do these promos
like that, that they would have like the bottle of
(21:32):
tequila of Arta Tequila over here.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Did you even ask? No?
Speaker 3 (21:36):
But you would think that a decent manager, that a
decent program director would think, you know, the talent, I mean,
after all, we are the talent careful.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
Now, he's probably one of the best program directors we've
ever gotten in twenty years at Radio so so, and
I'm trying.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
I'm simply trying to make him even better.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Yeah, yeah, Yeah, that's exactly what's going on here. Okay, Yeah,
just even.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Batter, you know, just a nice bottle of Arte tequitl
just sitting right there. Even a mini. I'd even take
a mini right now. Just give me a mini and
I'd be happy about that. So I want to talk
about something that Dragon and I were talking about.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Douring the break.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
The Pentagon has announced another strike by the military on
these boats carrying the illegal drugs. This one's resulted in
the deaths of for Narco terras. Now notably, guess what
dragon is what we were talking about earlier? This operation
occurred in the Eastern Pacific. Most of the strikes since
(22:37):
September had been targeting the cartel drug boats in the
Caribbean or some people say the Caribbean the Caribbean. Yesterday,
Admiral Frank Bradley, the head of the United States Special
Ops Command and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Dan Raging Kane, appeared before a closed door joint
meeting of the House Armed Services Committee and the Sentence
(22:58):
Like Committee on Intelligence to brief lawmakers on the strikes.
This story says a particular focus of the briefing was
the initial September two strike, with Democrats and the Washington
Post falsely claiming the Secretary of War Pete Hegsath authorized
a soul called double tap strike. I don't think they
will understand what double tap means on a group of
(23:21):
survivors with the order to kill everybody. Now, you may
recall this go all the way back to Monday. I
said that if those are the facts, then that probably
constitutes a war crime. Since then, we have found out
shocker of shocker that the cabal lied to us and
(23:42):
those aren't the facts. Admiral Bradley told the Joint Committee
hearing that he was the authorizing official for both the
initial strike and the secondary strike, and that Hegsath never
gave an order to quote kill Everybody's something even more important,
(24:03):
Special Ops Command chief provided a video showing the two
cartel operatives who had survived the initial strike climbing onto
the wreckage and they started gathering the vessel's cargo. So
the Admiral says, it appeared to him the two survivors
were attempting to contact the other nearby cartel boats because
(24:25):
they were trying to salvage the drug shipment. So at
that juncture, under the rules of engagement, those survivors are
deemed to be quote still in the fight close quote
and therefore they're still valid targets. I don't want to
wonder off too far in the weeds on this, but
(24:46):
I do just say that my brain, and I think
dragons bring to some extent, keeps bouncing back and forth
on this. I think that what we're doing is jim
These are but whether you call them narco terrorists or whatever,
(25:06):
these are, and I don't want to use the word
criminal because they haven't yet committed a crime, right because
you can have you're in international waters, and you can
have all of the drugs you want on your boat
in international water. Who has jurisdiction? Is it the United Nations?
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Who?
Speaker 3 (25:31):
So if they've got contraband of some sort, but you
have information that they're bringing that contraband, that those deadly
drugs into the United States, and you want to preserve
the national security of the country, blow the crap out
of them and blow them out of the water. For
those who say, oh, but Michael, just designating them narco
(25:53):
terrorists is not I'm not sure you had to designate
them narco terrorists to go to our favorite group of people,
the Somalis, who are ripping us off to the tune
of a billion dollars up in Michigan. And I'm sorry
in Minnesota, excuse me, in Michigan you're not much better.
But in Minnesota, how many Somali pirates did we blow
(26:19):
out of the water in the Persian Goal For some
of the other you know, the stranger from Moves or
wherever they may have been as they were trying to
overtake commercial shipping lanes, and nobody said a word about that.
Nobody complained about it whatsoever, because clearly again operating in
international waters, and whether those flags, those ships were flying
(26:42):
under the flag of the United States, which they probably
were not. They were probably flying under the flag of
Iberia or whatever they used for shipping. We nonetheless took
them out because we knew they were about to engage
in piracy on the high seas, so we blew them
out of the water. Nobody complained, but no, they'll be
(27:06):
going back to the boats, the speed boats. Secondary strikes,
as I explained little Monday, are not against the rules
of engagement as long as the combatants in this case,
the narco terrorists are still actively engaged in the fight.
And if you've survived, what which you know? I still
(27:27):
kind of wonder, I'm not sure what are we shooting
hell fire missiles at these people? What are we doing?
I'm not sure how this boat survived, but enough did
that they were still on, trying to climb in, trying
to get you know, save whatever, you know, drugs they
had there, so that they get some other speed boats
to come by and pick up the stuff and still
continue to deliver it. So they're clearly still in the fight,
(27:49):
but congressional Democrats won't let it go. One congressional Democrat
continue to insist that the follow up attack will unwarranted.
Quote what this is Jim Hines, a Democrat from Connecticut.
What I saw in that room was one of the
most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service. Yes,
(28:11):
they were carrying drugs, but they were not in the
position to continue their mission in any way. That's just
blatantly ignored. First, let me just say this. I think
this is a guy that's never seen or even watched, say,
Saving Private Ryan. I mean, we got enough video, h
and we got enough war footage that you ought to
(28:33):
know that war is ugly.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
That's horrible.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Ye. And have you never been to a car wreck?
You've never been to a car wrecking seeing people's guts
hanging out.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
But Michael, those are just theatrics when you go to
Saving Private Ryan and seeing onos. Well, that's why I
use the car example, the car wreck example. That's like
real world stuff. And everybody's seen a Michael Bay movie.
As soon as two cars, you know, bumpers hit each other.
Just of course.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
The spontaneous combustion. They yeah, okay, yeah, We'll take a
break here. Then I'll finish my point about this. I asked, congressman,
is that redundant?
Speaker 1 (29:09):
Next?
Speaker 3 (29:09):
And of course they've never served in the military, because
if you served in the military, you wouldn't question in
the chain of command. I mean, this is just bs
And that's the point I want to get to. You know,
I made an offhand remark which I tend to make
a lot about earlier, about you know, I wish Congress
(29:31):
would or is Congress redundant? I forget to do something,
or they're redundant and are just running off to their
cocktail parties and blah blah blah. If somebody sent me
a text message and they said, you know, I'm really
in fact, let me just pull it up and tell
you what they said, because it's actually it's actually kind
of funny.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
What they said.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Uh, where did it go? I hear this reference to
Congress attending all these cocktail parties. The guys that used
to command your time slot. Mike Rosen called them liquor
and social lubricant. I do not think it is for
our elected officials to be making decisions that affect the
American public, while they're attending cocktail parties and aren't inebriated,
we should demand sober lawmakers. Well, let me I'm not
(30:11):
going to deny that I've never been to a cocktail
party where a US Senator or a US Congressman might
have been a little inebriated, But I would say that
that is the exception, not the rule, And I'm not
trying to defend them. I'm just pointing out that my
offhanded comments about running off the cocktail parties doesn't mean
(30:32):
that they're always inebriated and drunk at these parties. In fact,
the majority of the time they're not. But the reason
they're not is not going to make you any happier.
The reason they're not is because one, those cocktail parties
are almost ninety nine point nine percent of the time
fundraising events, and you don't want to be drunk when
(30:53):
you're trying to get somebody to make a contribution of
a thousand of five hundred thousand dollars to your political campaign.
And the other thing that's going on is the lobbyists
are there and they're trying to bend your ear. Now,
you may want to get drunk because you're tired of
listening to there, you know, everybody's you know, you know,
you got the devil on one shoulder and the angel
on the other shoulder telling you about what you ought
(31:15):
to do, and maybe you'd just rather have some of
that hmmm art the tequila instead of having listened to
all that bull crap. I get that because to some degree,
the undersecretary is the undersecretary. I got the same thing.
Why don't do it this way? Why don't you do
it that way? The point, though, is they.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Live in a different world. So, for example, I was
I was at.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
My doctor's office yesterday because I'm getting ready for, you know,
my annual physical and this same nurse that took care
of me yesterday was present when I had a lipoma
removed from my arm. And she's fascinated by the fact
that I sat and watched as the doctor, you know,
he draped my arm and then he took the album
(32:00):
made the incision. Of course, he deadened everything, and I'm
watching him remove this lip home off my arm. I
watched him cut through everything, and she was fascinated by that,
and she said, didn't it bother you? They're cutting into
your arm. I'm like, no, you know, as a hunter,
you're kind of accustomed to you're gonna draw a quarter
an animal, you know, or you can clean a fish.
(32:20):
My point meaning that most of these people have no
connection to reality. Watching him slice open my arm was nothing,
nothing at all? Was it kind of interesting?
Speaker 1 (32:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Oh that's what it looks like under the skin. Oh yeah, Oh,
you gotta cut here, you gotta cut there, you gotta
cut around that little muscle. You gotta do. I found
it fascinating. They'd probably puke because, well, they're too busy
at the cocktail party. So for a congressman to bitch
and moan about what I saw in that video was
the worst thing I've ever seen in my life tells
(32:55):
me you don't live in the real world. And when
he said that they were not in a position to
continue their mission in any way, also tells me you
just see what you want to see. Are they getting
back in the boat because they want to save their
own lives, of course, but they're also getting back in
the boat because they know that if they don't do
every effort they can to preserve those drugs, that product
(33:20):
and let the other speed boats come and pick it up. Well,
the cartails are going to kill them anyway, so they
are still in the fight no matter what you say,
your dumbass congressman,
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.