12-8-25 - 9am - Biden Ignored Immigration Warnings

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, I don't think Christopher Ray went after the Piet bomber.
I have to think that this was an inside job.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
They planted it.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
They had some.

Speaker 1 (00:10):
Blah blah blah to make people be afraid.

Speaker 3 (00:13):
That they thought it was a.

Speaker 1 (00:14):
Republican psycho right winger. I think it was just a
scare tactic. They knew who it was from the beginning.
And you know this is Christopher Ray was in on it.

Speaker 3 (00:26):
Well, do you hear it?

Speaker 4 (00:26):
Takes me about that talk back? Republican right wing weirdo.
You don't need all three of those, just either Republican
right wing or a weirdo. I mean, we all know
that we're Republican right wing weirdos, so we don't need
it's it's redundant. You could you could have had uh,

(00:49):
three or four more seconds to say something else, but no,
you had you had to throw all that in there.

Speaker 3 (00:53):
Oh.

Speaker 4 (00:54):
Sometimes you just you you you know, it's kind of
like children. You hope they, you know, do better than you,
that they grow up well, and then no, you train
the goobers and they just do something the idiotic thing
like that.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
And just for a quick frame of reference, that talkback
was left during the weekend show to which I am
not a part of. So there are no talk packs
that I'm interesting.

Speaker 4 (01:13):
Because I was good, so there, so they're none for today.
You had to find one from me.

Speaker 2 (01:18):
There are there are several for today, but I just
wanted to throw. I wanted to try and promote your
weekend show, which I'm not going to do now since
she has no No, that's.

Speaker 4 (01:27):
Fine because actually actually I was going to promote the
weekend program because of something that you you know, every
Monday through Friday, I wake up. Now, Saturday, I don't
wake up to this. But Monday through Friday I wake up,
and you know, my routine is, you know, I get
dressed and I walk the dogs, and I come back
and I sit down and open the laptop and I
start reading my email.

Speaker 3 (01:47):
And there's always this email this morning.

Speaker 4 (01:50):
It come it comes from Dragon red Beard, and the
subject matters the same every time. Headlines you won't read
and by the way, won't as an apostrophe in it.
If not w O n T, it's w apostrophe T.

Speaker 2 (02:04):
So you might want to correct that not gonna happen.
And now that you told me about it, it's never
gonna It's never gonna happen, but I don't get it
on Saturday. But seriously, won't has an apostrophe in it. Yeah, oh,
that's good to know. You really are a loudy speller.
I know that's the Have you heard of the word contraction? Yeah,

(02:28):
you know what a contraction is? Don't, won't, couldn't, would
and shouldn't. It's a contraction. Yeah, those are called contractions.

Speaker 4 (02:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:34):
Interesting. You can learn something new every day.

Speaker 4 (02:36):
See, but I don't get this email on a Saturday,
so Saturday I'm completely lost. And actually I have to
do real show prep on Saturday. It's it's so painful.
But he doesn't think I read them. But I read
them every single day. I may not use them, but
I read them.

Speaker 2 (02:50):
Then what was the very first link in today's You
won't read this?

Speaker 4 (02:56):
Well, let me go to the story itself because it's
National Brownie Day. So you don't think I read them.
I actually do read them. Again, I look, I don't
always click on every hyperlink, but there are several in
todays that are actually pretty good stories, like methane gas
out of the Denver dump or something.

Speaker 3 (03:16):
I mean, that's a pretty good story.

Speaker 2 (03:17):
And yeah, I thought you because when we passed by
each other in the halls, did a really really quick
show prep about this? And did you not reading the
headlines I will send you. I thought you were referring
to the RTD story. No, no, oh, well that's a
good one too. Yeah, yeah, that's a good one too.
But of course I focus on National Brownie Day only
because of the way. Here's the dramatic reading of the story. Uh,

(03:45):
this comes to us by the nationaltoday dot com National
Brownie Day, December eighty five.

Speaker 4 (03:53):
And there's baking. There's a link to baking, dessert and food.
And here's a history of timeline the facts importance, of course,
it's important. It's about me celebrate related stats. And then
here's the story itself. National Brownie Day is on December eighth.

(04:14):
Every year, brownie lovers come from far and wide to
celebrate National Brownie Day. I'm just checking out the window
to see if they're coming from far and wide, don't
I don't. I don't see anybody anywhere. Then it continues
this warm. Of course, that's me right, warm, very very warm.

Speaker 2 (04:39):
The first thing you did this morning was coming and
complain about something or other. Warm and fuzzy.

Speaker 4 (04:45):
You are warm chewie. I just leave that to your
old imagination and rich, well they got. At least you
know that everybody makes a mistake once in a while.
A nice chalk lit or blondie brownie is the perfect
dessert to end your night with. That's what everybody says. Oh,

(05:07):
Brownie's perfect to end your night with. Yes, indulge in
goody goodness and let the real world melt away with
you for a delectable moment. Dragon, I didn't know you cared.
I didn't know you really thought about me like that.

Speaker 2 (05:24):
I don't.

Speaker 4 (05:25):
Well, you're the one sent the story, and you're the
one that claims I never read the headline.

Speaker 2 (05:30):
Like the headline, like the subject of the email. You headlines,
you won't read, so I'd expected you not to read
any and that's crappy.

Speaker 4 (05:38):
But the thing is you never actually read the stories either.
All you do is you just find the headline and
you just cut and paste that that you r l
into the email, and you find four or five of them,
You find them all and you never look at them either. True,
because I think if you had read that story, you
would have never said it because you thought, oh my god,
he'll think it's all about him, which of course it is,

(06:02):
but I want to get the story that I really
wanted to start off with this morning. Yesterday was both
my deceased father's birthday, and it was Pearl Harbor Day,
and it was also today for the New York Times,
of all places to go back in history, yes, no, no, no,
to not to Pearl Harbor Day, but to the Biden administration.

(06:26):
They go back to the Biden administration. And on December seventh,
What time was this published? That didn't really matter, but
it was on December seventh, and the headline and it's
one of the stories where online it's a what you
would call it spread. It's a big spread. It's got,
you know, photos, and it's you know, it's got the

(06:48):
headline and the subhead over on one side and photos
on the other side. Because they want to make sure
that in the print edition or the online edition, whichever
one you're reading, which I know you're not reading either
one of them, that you get that this is a
really important story and you've got to pay attention to it.
So I did. The headline, is this how Biden? Now

(07:11):
Biden's been out of office for what almost a year now,
and he was in office for well, not in office,
but he was president for four years. He was in
office for one hundred and forty years, but he was
in president for only four years. How Biden ignored warnings
and lost Americans faith in immigration. The sub hit the

(07:34):
Democratic president and his top advisors rejected recommendations that could
have eased the border crisis that helped return Donald Trump
to the White House. Now, before I read one word
of the story, I thought, why on December seventh, almost
a year after he's left office. But The New York Times,
in this case, it's Christopher Flavelle, who in the intro says,

(07:59):
or in the in the bio of him says that
Christoph Flavell interviewed more than thirty former Biden administration officials
who worked on immigration and border policy, as well as
members of Congress, state and local officials, lawyers and migrants.
So he interviewed a lot of people for this story.
Why didn't you do this story back?

Speaker 3 (08:22):
I don't. I don't know.

Speaker 4 (08:23):
You didn't have to do it in twenty twenty one,
you could have done in twenty twenty two, you could
have done it then, you know, GI give him a
few months in office. Wait until the border started, you know,
when we started getting Wait until Bill Mallusion of Fox
News started going down to the border and actually reporting
on everything going on down there. And this would have

(08:44):
been a great time for The New York Times to
write this story first paragraph. In the weeks after Joe
Biden was elected president, advisers delivered a warning.

Speaker 3 (08:55):
So in the weeks after, so, you know.

Speaker 4 (08:58):
From somewhere between January twenty one and let's just give
them until February twenty one of twenty twenty one, they
actually warned the president this his approach to immigration could
prove disastrous. You know, I can't use the S word
on air, but this is where I really want to say.

(09:19):
No Feasi Sherlock.

Speaker 2 (09:20):
Really, huh.

Speaker 3 (09:22):
I'm a man.

Speaker 4 (09:23):
I'm shocked that The New York Times finally woke up
on December seventh of twenty twenty five and said, Hey,
your thing about immigration is going to destroy the country.
But mister Piden was now president elect, and his positions
threatened to drastically increased border crossings. Experts advising his transition team.

(09:44):
Even before he went to office, experts advising his transition
team warned in a zoom briefing in the final weeks
to twenty twenty. According to people with direct knowledge of
that briefing, that jump, they said, could provoke a political
crist chaos.

Speaker 3 (10:02):
Chaos was the.

Speaker 4 (10:03):
Word the advisors had used in a memo during the campaign.
So this guy's going back even before he took office
and reporting on things that took place even before he
took office. Now the question then becomes, hmmm, why would
you Why would you wait until December seventh, almost a
year after Biden has left office and probably can't even

(10:26):
read The New York Times anymore? Write this story now
before I give you my analysis of this story. Why
do I think this is important? Why do I give
her rats? Ask what the New York Times says? Because
number one, the Old Gray Lady is indeed the paper
of record. Now, I know you don't read the New

(10:46):
York Times, which is why I do it for you.
And I know you think that whatever the New York
Times says doesn't matter. Oh but it does, because when
I say it's the newspaper of record, I from personal experience,
I can guarantee you this, And then it's a few
other things I can't guarantee you but well, actually I
can probably guarantee you some of the things too. But

(11:08):
first and foremost, I can guarantee you this every member
of Congress, House and Senate, every member of the White
House staff, with maybe the exception of some interns, but
anybody that's anybody on a White House staff, everybody in

(11:29):
an administration, from the secretary, deputy secretaries, undersecretary like I was,
we all get what are called the clips, and the
clips have in it all of the headlines that deal
with the administration, so you whether it has anything to
do with you or not. So my clips would come

(11:51):
in both a printed form, usually in a three ring binder,
and an electronic form. I think now they don't. They
only get them electronically. But there are pages and pages
and pages of they'll have on the stories that are designed,
and there's a company in DC that does this. For
the stories that are designed, say from my particular department,

(12:12):
Homeland Security, those stories will be in a separate section
just about Homeland Security. There will also be a section
that is for the White House, but that's included in
my clips. Also because I'm reading the same thing that
the people in the White House are reading, and the
same people. The things that I'm reading in my office

(12:33):
as undersecretary, that's being read in the President's office, the
Vice President's office, the Chief of Staff's office, the Political Office,
the Common's Office, every the Legislative Affairs office, every office
in the West Wing office, and management budget is being
ready by every secret Cabinet secretary and is being read
by five hundred and thirty five members of Congress.

Speaker 3 (12:53):
And their staffs.

Speaker 4 (12:56):
So that's first and foremost why it's important, because that
is how places like the New York Times or the
Washington Post of the Wall Street Journal set the agenda.
They set the narrative, they set the talking points. I
know you don't like it, but I'm miss telling the truth.
That's the way it is. Then, if you take Wall
Street for example, they all read the New York Times.

(13:19):
If you're a Democrat in New York, or you're a
Democrat in California, a Democrat anywhere, you read the New
York Times, and then it even filters into what you get.
Eventually that gets into your local news because the New
York Times will be picked up stories like this will
get picked up by the Associated Press, it will go
out on the AP wire services and then that story

(13:41):
will reach everywhere, and then a place like the Denver
Compost may indeed reprint the entire story. So that's how narratives,
talking points, and agendas get set. And I can guarantee
this is why. And I'm not asking you to go
read the New York Times. Don't get me wrong. I'm

(14:01):
not asking you to subscribe to it, read it or
anything else. I'm telling you, though, that when I talk
about what's in the New York Times, I'm not doing
it because I just it's interesting to me, yes, But
I'm doing it because this is how agendas get sept.
So the New York Times, now after he's left office,

(14:21):
frames Joe Biden's presidency as a story of coming in
during because they also mentioned they quote a few people
like Ron Klaim, his former chief of staff, who cited that,
you know, we were so busy because you know, there
was an economic collapse going on and there were three
thousand Americans dying every day from COVID. That's a natural
quote something too. Let's see, let me find the quote.

(14:42):
Quote coming in during an economic collapse and three thousand
Americans dying each day from COVID. So the New York
Times frames his presidency as that story of crisis, highlighting
his claim success in turning both around quickly, while belatedly
scrutinizing his failures on immigration in the border. Now that timing,

(15:05):
here's what's important. That timing exemplifies a larger pattern. The
paper suppresses, it downplays stories that Mike Dammy's a sitting
Democrat president when it matters most, only to discover years
later when they are politically safe to acknowledge, Oh, there

(15:25):
was a problem, but we never admit the problem when
there is something going on and the problem is sitting
in the Oval office, or he's upstairs and the residents
having putting for his breakfast that morning or for his
afternoon snack before he takes a nap. The key quote
we came in during an economic collapse in three thousand

(15:47):
Americans dying each day from COVID is presented by The
Times as Biden's own retrospective justification for his priorities early
into the administration. Yet the Times publishes that framing at
the end of his term, long after you and I
have voters, and in particularly even Democrat voters, have judged
whether those values matched reality, and after years in which

(16:12):
it aggressively emphasized the Trump eraic COVID failures, while at
the same time they would soft pedal Biden's so by
treating this quote as uncontested narrative rather than subjecting it
to contemporaneous fact checking or some sort of rigorous comparison
with the actual trajectory of deaths and the pre existing

(16:33):
vaccine rollout, the Time helps launder a political talking point
into historical memory, and then the same outlet that ran
daily dashboards, remember this, daily dashboards and front page graphics
during the Trump years, now folds the worst months of
the pandemic into a convenient backstory that just portrays Biden

(16:54):
as well. He was the sober statesman who inherited an
unmitigated disaster and then swiftly restored order. Why Joe Biden
was the savior of civilization. This is using timing as
a political tool. What is revealing is not that the
Time reports on border chaos and immigration policy failures, is

(17:17):
that the most detailed narrative rich autopsy arrives after Biden
has left office and after his party no longer faces
immediate presidential accountability. So the article walks through all the
ignored warnings, the surging encounters, the overwhelmed cities, just like
Denver or New York or LA. It ignores all the

(17:38):
staggering costs to local systems, all of which were unfolding
in real time for years. And yet the New York
Times had their blinders on and they couldn't see that
happening in real time. But they did. But they were
using timing as a political tool. So while the New
York Times, you think that this dumbass reporter didn't know

(17:58):
what was going on when it was going on, of
course he did. But he's not about to present this
story to his editor. He's going to wait and present
the story to the editor.

Speaker 3 (18:07):
After the fact.

Speaker 4 (18:10):
And sometimes the reporter knew whendn't take a break. This
reporter didn't. But again, the timing was used as the
political tool. And I'll explain further.

Speaker 3 (18:19):
Why what is this I hear about National Brownie Day?

Speaker 4 (18:23):
Brownie I'm coming from far and I'm coming wide.

Speaker 2 (18:31):
I heard.

Speaker 4 (18:32):
I don't know what it was, dragon, but I heard
something over the weekend. I don't whether it's a commercial
or it was a TV show. I don't know what
it was, but that laugh, something similar to that laugh
and I thought I was going to have to go,
you know, see my doctor because or called capitalists, you know,
because I had, you know, a whiplash of some sort

(18:53):
caused by that laugh.

Speaker 2 (18:55):
Well, how scary is that that that particular goober is
haunting you.

Speaker 4 (19:00):
Haunting me, haunting me, you know? And every time I
see an eighteen whether I think is that him? And
so I, you know, I go way around, I go
because if he recognizes me, I know, he's just gonna
run over me.

Speaker 2 (19:12):
He's just gonna run run me down. He just runs
over every beam.

Speaker 4 (19:15):
That's true, that's right, because you know the story the
difference between a porcupine and a and a BMW driver
or a BMW right, yeah, do you know what do
you know what is on the inside of the BMW?
Now on the outside, those things on porcupines are called pricks. Quills, quills,

(19:38):
pricks quills, Yeah, yeah, that's what they're called.

Speaker 3 (19:41):
Yep, you got it.

Speaker 4 (19:43):
Not to the New York Times, because there there are
a bunch of quills too. During during those years of
the Biden administration that there the paper's coverage often emphasized
all of the immigration issue, framed in terms of humanitarian problems.

(20:04):
Republicans were cruel and the Trump error roots of the problem,
that was the real problem, and they kept minimizing the
scale of the breakdown despite what we were seeing before
our very eyes.

Speaker 3 (20:18):
And of course they.

Speaker 4 (20:19):
Would also emphasize the administration's conscious political calculations. Only now,
in what a year four or year five retrospective does the.

Speaker 3 (20:31):
Times now give readers some sort of.

Speaker 4 (20:34):
Sweeping narrative about how Biden hit a wall and how
the humanitarian crisis and all the municipal budgets were pushed
to the breaking point when those facts were previously fueling
demands for policy changes and we knew there would be
electoral consequences. Trump was smart enough to know that's the
number one issue, and Biden was too stupid or his

(20:58):
advisors were too I don't I think they buy I
think Biden was too stupid, and I honestly believe that
the advisors were deliberate, absolute deliberate. They wanted the chaos.
They it's it's Cloward Piven's strategy. They wanted the chaos.
They wanted they wanted all of those people to overwhelm

(21:20):
the system. They wanted to give them drivers licenses. They
wanted to go wrect to wreak having they wanted them
to become Democrat voters. It was all fine, and that's
why the New York Times remained silent until now. And
now we get this retrospective that says, oh, they knew
it was a political problem. I can't help but keep

(21:42):
thinking about of all people, Alandra Mayorcus, remember how how
many times he would tell us the border was secure.
I mean it was it was like you wanted to
bash your head against the brick wall because we would
see what say Fox News or Bill mallusion reporting. I
mean with the drum just showing, you know, people just
by the thousands coming across. We knew about the airline flights,

(22:05):
we knew about the bus trips, We knew about everything.
We knew what was happening in Denver, we knew what
was happening all across the country.

Speaker 3 (22:11):
Yet they just kept lying to us and nothing happened.

Speaker 4 (22:17):
But think about the selective intensity of the scrutiny. This
pattern is the pattern is really sharp when we compare
with how the same outlets of New York Times treated
republic administrations during Trump's term. The Times devoted relentless real
time attention to internal memos, worst case projections, and of

(22:39):
course the bureaucratic infighting over COVID and often turning preliminary
forecasts such as three thousand daily deaths into front page
evidence of some sort of failure or absolute mouth ethans
on the part of the Trump administration. But ter Biden,
similar internal warnings on immigration policy are now recounted as
just colorful backstory, not as the basis for sustained daily

(23:05):
reporting of the president's judgment or the president's lack of judgment.
The Times also ran highly emotional treatment, you know, treatments
of COVID casualties when the death code could be used
to indict Trump, including front pages dominated by victims' names
and graphics dramatic, you know, just dramatizing unemployment, shocking, incalculable loss.

(23:29):
And then when Biden presided over another wave of death
and a confused messaging campaign about vaccines mandates and this
son't called pandemic is over, then the intensity in the
moralizing tone started to dramatically recede, even though the underlying
metric Americans dying every day, remained central to the earlier coverage.

(23:51):
And I would, I would, I would add this parenthetically
that even if they were to report truthfully on the numbers,
that would have forced them to talk about is really COVID.

Speaker 3 (24:01):
I know that they were killed in a.

Speaker 4 (24:04):
Twenty car pile up, but they had COVID, so it
must have been the COVID that killed them. None of this,
none of this requires a literal state run press for
the effect to resemble state run media.

Speaker 3 (24:21):
It's one and the same.

Speaker 4 (24:23):
And that's why you've got to be such a discerning
consumer of the news, because this is how this is
how they maintain power, This is how they maintain control
of the narrative. Editors and reporters live in a world
of shared partisan and cultural assumptions in which Democrat administrations
are are viewed as fundamentally legitimate guardians of institutions, while

(24:46):
Republican administrations are treated as looming threats to those institutions.
And when you've got that environment, stories that might seriously
damage the Democrat president's public standing. For example, a sustained
narraity that Biden ignored all the explicit warnings on the
border and created a rolling crisis that crushed blue cities.
That's risky to elevate when they could alter policy fights

(25:09):
or the mid term election dynamics or re election processes.

Speaker 3 (25:15):
Once those fights are over.

Speaker 4 (25:17):
And Biden is in the you know, kind of in
the rearview mirror, then the incentive flips and the New
York Times can finally tell a more candid story. They
can showcase, oh, look how tough we are, and then
they can reassure all of those people I told you
about to read the New York Times, oh we're independent.

(25:38):
And they do all of that without jeopardizing the presidency
that it tacitly was protecting all those years. And of
course it's not just Bidens any Democrat president. The late
arriving candor functions as a reputational insurance policy for the Times,
not as accountability for the officeholder who made the decisions

(25:59):
in question. In other words, we're going to protect, We're
going to protect the people, and the way we report,
or the way we don't report, is our reputational insurance
policy for the people that we support. That's not journalism,
that's partisanship, and that is indeed that is a media

(26:23):
or state run media. And so the result is that
if you're a reader, if you're just any consumer of news,
you get two different kinds of journalism depending on who
holds power and when. During Republican presidency, the New York
Times offers contemporaneous day of prosecutorial coverage that aims to

(26:46):
define events as they happen and to mobilize all the
elite opinion against the sitting president. And during a Democrat presidency,
the most damaging stories then get postponed, diffused, or framed
us systemic tragedies rather than personal or party level failures.
Only then would they fully explore once they no longer

(27:09):
threaten the incumbent, So by publishing as they did on
Pearl Harbor Day, a very richly it is. It's a
richly detailed, quasi historical critique of Biden's immigration record, alongside
a flattering story about inheriting some economic collapse in three
thousand deaths the day.

Speaker 3 (27:29):
The Times is not finally holding him to account.

Speaker 4 (27:34):
It is truly curating how history may remember him in
a way that minimizes the political cost to the Democrats.
That's not journalism, It's certainly not neutral journalism. It is
narrative management. And it's narrative management put on a time delay,

(27:56):
and that proves the very point that you instinct we understand,
which is that the most powerful outlets often sit on
politically inconvenient truths until those truths are safe to print,
and then they print those truths because then they have
to ensure their reputation. So you can never claim that,

(28:19):
well we didn't report on it.

Speaker 3 (28:21):
We did.

Speaker 4 (28:22):
Look, Look, we just we ripped the entire Biden administration
the part yes on December seventh, twenty twenty five, almost
a year after he was out of office.

Speaker 2 (28:33):
Hey there, Michael, I heard Dragon talking about the Weekend Show.

Speaker 3 (28:39):
And all that. When are you going to bring Dragon
over to the Weekend Show? Just asking for a friend?

Speaker 2 (28:50):
Yeah, Michael, when are they going to bring me over
the Weekend Show?

Speaker 4 (28:53):
The The operative word in that question is, uh, when
are they going to?

Speaker 3 (29:03):
Yeah? I had no.

Speaker 4 (29:04):
Control over it, and it's all up to Premiere Radio
Networks out of Sherman Oaks, California, Los Angeles, And we've tried.
We've tried very diligently and considering.

Speaker 2 (29:21):
How Yeah, I'm not doing it for free, so they'd
have to pay me, right right.

Speaker 4 (29:29):
There's a there's a cost involved. Well, what are we
ginning for our Christmas bonus this year?

Speaker 2 (29:38):
Yeah, you're funny.

Speaker 3 (29:42):
Remember those Remember those days.

Speaker 2 (29:44):
The fifty dollars gift card we got the King supers.

Speaker 4 (29:47):
It was it was a it was a gesture. It
was a great gesture. I love this text message just
comes from goober number thirty four to sixty six. Michael,
who do you think you're foolly? You participate in narrative
management every single day. Call a spat of spating. Give
your listeners more credit. I don't participate in narrative management

(30:11):
because what I just described the New York Times doing
is the very essence of narrative management. So you know,
factually at the time that all of the record breaking
immigrant illegal immigration is going on. You know that it's happening,
and you know that the habit that that it's waking

(30:34):
on the state and local governments, and you know how
dangerous it is. And you know that we're getting people
we got all the godaways whom we have no fingerprint,
ID record or anything. We know that they're infiltrating the
voter database, we know they're being hired to work illegally.
We know all of that, and yet the New York

(30:54):
Times manage They're the ones that manage the narrative by
not pointing it out, because I did point it out
throughout the Biden presidency. So I wasn't engaged in narrative management.
I was engaged in truth telling. And The New York
Times is engaged in journalism by omission, and that is

(31:21):
narrative management. If if you don't, for example, if you
think that what I'm doing today is narrative management, then
you clearly have been infected by The New York Times
and you look at it and say, oh, that's just
really good journalism without recognizing it all that you're being

(31:43):
played for a fool, Absolutely played for a fool. Now,
if you tune in here and you think I'm going
to just spew say GOP talking points within your wrong
but if you think I'm going to spew a conservative
point of view on issues of the day, then damn
right I am, because I'm going to tell you exactly

(32:06):
what I think. And I am a conservative, if not
libertarian conservative slash slash libertarian. I don't really if you've
and I know that maybe you particularly thirty four sixty six,
I don't know how long, if ever, you've listened to
me before. But if you listened to me before I
moved over to Koway from khow you know that I

(32:28):
regularly berated the Republicans for their stupidity because I find
Republicans oftentimes to be just absolutely stupid. So don't accuse
me of narrative management. You can accuse me of truth telling.