Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, as the grand poobah of the gubernation, you are
allowed to pronounce names and words anyway you see fit,
irregardless of what some other google might I think, Oh man, you.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Know, the passive aggressiveness of this audience is simply amazing.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
You had to know what was coming when you're gonna drop,
and there it is.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
We Honestly, I was being Naiven thinking okay, well, thank you,
and then boom, irregardless, just kind of stabs me right
in the heart, irregardless. For those of you just tuning
in the last hour, I was talking about the new
national security strategy that the Trump administration has put out,
and as I said, I'm quite excited about it. It's
(00:47):
finally somebody saying what we believe. And now we just
need to focus on adhering to that strategy, which I
think Trump has generally speaking, not everybody, but generally speaking,
I think he's got the right people in place to
do that.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
In addition to that, we need.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
To make certain that the members of the House and
the Senate have a copy and that they well, assuming
they know how to read, that they actually read it.
And then anytime they think about drafting legislation, or they're
voting on legislation. They need to answer the question does
this advance that strategy? And the third thing they need
(01:27):
to be doing is what can we do as the
Article one branch under the Constitution to propose and pass
legislation that would advance that strategy. But now I'm drifting
off into Michael Jackson's Never Never Land. But we can
hope if I debated during the break, because I got
(01:52):
five or six more pages of notes on it. But
I don't want to be accused, as I often am,
of beating dead horses to death. So I would encourage
you to go on to Michael says, go here dot com.
Michael says, go here dot com and read the strategy.
You don't read a word for word, but go through it,
and I think you'll understand why I'm excited about it,
(02:14):
because it truly is for at least in my lifetime.
It's throwing out this path we've been pursuing that has
decimated the country. It's interesting to read before I get
to the next topic, which, by the way, it has
to do with the January sixth bomber, or technically the
(02:36):
January five pipe bomber, but eighty eight seventy seven, writes Michael,
I'm about your age. I remember back in my twenties
and thirties listening to somebody here on KOA. That person,
I'll just tell you it's Mike Rosen. I don't know
why I'm trying to dance around that. Mike Rosen supported
free trade policies and the competition that it brings. At first,
(02:58):
I was like, Okay, well, he's smart than I am,
so I'll believe him. After a while, when I started
to notice corporations moving out of the country and business
is shutting down, I started to think that that was
not the best idea to have free trade. We need
to some way to protect our businesses and keep them here,
but still have competition. You know what our competition is.
(03:19):
Our competition is our ingenuity. Our competition is our efficiency.
Our competition is being able to make crap better than
anybody else in the world. That's what our competition is.
And that's what was totally missing, and you know, stupid
NAFTA free trade discussions.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Oh my god, I it was just as as.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Ross Boro said, wait to hear that giant sucking sound.
And we've been living through that giant sucking sound ever
since I didn't know the text continues. I didn't know
what that was at the time, but now it's easy
to look back on it to see to damage that
a cause you can see it in the rest belt
of our country. The cities, they've been decimated, all the
(04:04):
empty factories and buildings and everything else that goes along
with that. If we went to war today, we don't
even have the ability to produce enough steel to.
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Support the war machine.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
I hope Trump can turn this around, but he needs
the Republicans and Democrats to get on board. Well, I
don't know if the Democrats. You know, I just kept
my Michael Brown minute for the nationally syndicated program that
I do on Saturdays, by the way, from ten to
one on Freedom ninety three seven, the Weekend of Michael Brown,
in which I talk about the upcoming civil war among
(04:37):
Colorado Democrats because of this far lefty nut job running
against John Hickenlooper. And I say, bring on the popcorn,
because that's going to be a battle Royale. And this
nut job is truly as bad as are worse than
(04:58):
Alexandria cost A Cortes. So have at it, Democrats. So
I write off the Democrats because they're fighting their own
battle the Republicans.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
You need to get your act together.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Because you know, these these realignments don't come along very often,
and when they do, you've got to take advantage of them.
Let me ask you, what is Congress done lately. On
the way into work this morning, I stop and get
my diet coke, of course, and I'm listening to whatever
the news. I know Dana Prino and Bill Hemmert, so
(05:30):
whatever program they have on Fox News, and they were
in they were talking about how Congress is now battling
about what to do about Obamacare, and I'm thinking, what's
the battle. The battle is, you need to kill it off,
and you need to get the insurance company out of
(05:52):
those out of those public policies, and by that, I
mean those public insurance policies, those public health care policies
that mandate you cover everything, because that destroys an insurance
company's ability to build a risk pool.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
And if you can't build a risk pool so.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
That people can choose what pool they want to be in,
then you're covering everything and we're all paying for it,
and the government's subsidizing it.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
So of course it's going to cost more.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
It's insanity and how Republicans are so dumb, dumbass stupid
that they can't realize that kill it, kill it while
you have the chance. God, they're just gutless. Anyway, your
text message reminded me of that. Let's talk about the
January fifth momber because there are a lot of questions
(06:41):
about it. Well, I know we're getting more details on
the life of Brian. A little reference there if anybody
gets it. The guy's name is Brian Cley. He's the
guy from Woodbridge, Virginia that was arrested last week for
allegedly planning the pipe bombs in DC on the evening.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Of January five. Back in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
In what appears to me at least to be a
leak related to the FBI's interrogation of this dirt bag
last week, he apparently told the agents that he believed
the twenty twenty election was stolen.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
Hmm.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Something the media latched onto because they're desperate to brand
Cole a thirty year old goober. I should claim the goober.
He's not a goober, a thirty year old idiot, a
supporter of Donald Trump. Now interestingly, his grandmother. Who are
you going to believe the media or this guy's grandmother,
(07:39):
because the grandmother denies the allegation and insists her grandson
is non political and is borderline autistic. H I thought
you were either autistic or not autistic, but maybe somewhere
on the spectrum your borderline.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
I don't know anyway.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
The New York Post just disclosed that Cole had a
really weird obsession with My Little Pony. Dragon does too.
Dragon's got My Little Ponies everywhere?
Speaker 3 (08:08):
No, no, no, no, that's Brian Shuestring from the station across
the hall in the afternoon show. That's why there are
My Little Ponies in that studio. They were there before
I got there, Brian Shoestring across the hall.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
The Post says this quote.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
A man who is part of the My Little Pony
a subculture is known as a Brony. The community was
in twenty seventeen large enough to hold annual conventions, and
experts considered followers sincere in their fandom. So while the
charges against Cole appear to finally identify the individual scene
(08:46):
on that security footage that we all saw who was
wearing a hoodie and carrying a backpack, and generally the
same vicinity where the devices were later discovered the following day.
This now solved mystery does little to answer a lot
of questions about both the initial failure of the FBI's
investigation and the circumstances surrounding the discoveries that occurred the
(09:12):
next day when the Capitol riots were going on. On
January sixth of twenty twenty one. Giving an example, Congressman
Barry Laudermilk, a Republican from down in Georgia. He's the
chairman of the Select sub Committee on January sixth, is
asking the woman who quote found the device outside the
headquarters of the Republican National Committee to set for a
(09:36):
transcribed interview. Carlin Younger is the woman. She had two
contacts with the FBI shortly after January six but there's
no indication anywhere that she spoke with the agents after
January eleven, twenty twenty one, or that she spoke with
(09:56):
anybody in Congress related to all the numerous investigations that
the Democrats were pursuing into the Capital protest. Huh so
you talk to them shortly after January sixth, and then
you disappear. Now Laudermilk, the Congressman from Georgia, wants this
(10:18):
woman to speak with this committee later this month, calling
her quote uniquely situated to provide information about her discovery
and obviously her interactions with the FBI. Did you know
that she worked for the federal government at the time,
so she's probably got some splaymen to do. Her involvement, however,
is just one troubling aspect of the entire pipe bombs saga.
(10:45):
I think we deserve answers, and pretty quickly on a
list of a bunch of other questions. Now, no doubt
some information. I know there's an investigation going on. It's
going to some of this information is going to be
kept under seal until the trial. But as the clock
winds down on this session of Congress, time is of
the essence. So let's walk through some of the questions.
(11:06):
I listed Number one, her personal profile, I'm sorry, not
her coal. Brian Cole his personal profile. He's a social
outcast interest in a cartoon cult, A family is in
trouble with the law. First, that is, someone targeted by
the government to work as an asset. Was Cole a
(11:30):
confidential human source informant for the FBI or any other
law enforcement or intel agency at the time that he
planned the device. How about this second question, why did
mister Cole purchase bomb making components over the course of
more than a year. Was he planning or was he
(11:53):
being handled? Was there a government handler that was timing
everything out because they know how the investigations occur, and
so let's spread out your purchases over a year, which
is something an FBI agent would know how to do,
right or any other government handler, so that you know,
(12:15):
you don't just go out on January fourth and buy
everything raise red flags. How about this question, who was
he communicating with on the evening of January five? Because
we have some information that there was cell phone ping.
Now just the ping, There may just be a ping,
(12:36):
but he clearly had a mobile phone mobile phone with him,
So was he in communication with anybody on that evening?
I'd like to know why did Why did the FBI's
investigation just suddenly just abruptly go cold in the spring
of twenty twenty one, despite at least according to kash Patel,
(13:00):
there is a massive trove of evidence and there were
just hundreds, if not thousands, of leads on a suspect,
and yet it just gets put up in money shelves.
Who were the law enforcement officers stationed outside the Democrat
National Headquarters throughout the morning and into the afternoon of
January six, Yeah, there were leos sitting outside both the
(13:22):
RNC and the DNC. Who were they? Have they been interviewed?
Do we have any three O twos or whatever that
form is that the FBI fills out about interviews they've done.
Are there any transcripts? Where's the information? But A yet,
I just like to know who they were. Were they
DC cops, were they private security guards? Were they with
(13:45):
the FBI? Who were they with? And how is it
that multiple DC or I should just say, let's first
say police officers. How did multiple police officers miss a
device sitting almost in playing sight next to the driveway
of the Democrat National Committee. You had the Capitol Police,
(14:07):
you had the DC Metropolitan Police, and that you had
the US Secret Service because Kamala Harris had been in
the building. So how did they all miss that? If
it was so obvious, why did you miss it? Somebody
ought to be held accountable. How did to forgive about
(14:27):
the cops? How did two bomb sniffing canine units miss
the device. If they were actually functional, functioning devices, they
were actually workable devices, then how did bomb sniffing canine
units miss those devices? Now, let's think about Kamala Harris
(14:48):
for a moment. Why did she travel to the Democrat
National Committee in the late morning on January sixth, so
that would be a near death experience at the hands
of an alleged magabomber. Why was she going there, what
she do? Who'd she meet with? How long was she there?
What did they talk about? What they do? You know,
(15:10):
do we have any video we got video of the bomb?
Did she go in through the garage? The DNC, if
I recall correctly, does have a garage. Did they go
in through the garage? Did they go into the front door?
What was she doing there?
Speaker 4 (15:23):
How about this one?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Why was a security camera apparently intentionally diverted away from
the location where the device was eventually discovered, so that
when people started, you know, when people report the device
and they oh, well let's look at the security cameras. Oh,
they're turned away from the device. Who did that? Why
was it done? And then why did a representative of
(15:50):
First Net that's the company that employed the woman that
discovered the bombs on January sixth. Why did a representative
of that company tell the FBI in an email sent
on January twentieth, twenty twenty one, that cell phone data
for January five was corrupted and cannot be restored. When
(16:11):
Verizon AT and T and T Mobile, everybody else, Oh,
we had it all along, nobody asks, it's not corrupt.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
It's right here. Now.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
That's just a list of ten questions that both the
Trump administration and Congress I think ultra address like pronto.
And despite the corporate media, despite the cabal's a complete
lack of interest in this story. You know what coverage
disappeared after Harris's presence at the DNC that day was revealed.
Speaker 4 (16:37):
Yes, just code silence.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Trump supporters, especially those that got ensnared by the abusive
Manhattan for the Jay sixers, I think they deserve and
I think they would want a full accounting of every
aspect of the pipe bomb story. And I think they
deserve absolutely nothing less. Now everybody's thrilled because the Democrats
appear kind of shaken by the FBI's arrest of the herb.
(17:03):
Virginia Senator Mark Warner feigned relief, but then he kind
of shifted the blame real quickly, shifted the blame very quickly.
Speaker 5 (17:13):
I think it is Gridew's if this perpetrator.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Got arrested.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
I gotta tell you, it kind of makes me looking
at this crowd doing a victory laugh when all the
senior FBI officials across all key divisions have been fired
for political purposes. When in some field offices, up to
forty five percent of the FBI officers who were doing
things like counter tespionage and cyber have been assigned to
(17:41):
do immigration cases. It's it's a little rich that they're saying.
American America, say how much earlier could we have caught
this guy if resources hadn't been diverted.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
It's not rich, it's reasonable. And oh, by the way,
Jack Jake Tapper, remember over at CNN, he said, yeah,
they captivated, they got the white guy, as they showed
the picture of the black guy. Maybe Jake's still looking
for the white guy.
Speaker 6 (18:08):
Congratulations to Dave Logan for winning his thirteenth state title.
Speaker 4 (18:13):
As a head football coach.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
He is an inspiration.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Congratulations Dave. There is a group called Reporters Without Borders,
and they published a treatise or an analysis I guess
would be a better word about freedom of the press
worldwide in twenty twenty five dragging. If you go over
to their website, if you look at Reporters Without Borders,
(18:44):
there is a map that ranks the different countries in
the world based on their freedom of the press. They're
rated as a good situation, that's the best, then statisfactory situation,
a problematic situation, a difficult situation, and a very serious situation.
(19:05):
And it goes from green to red. Green's good, Red's bad.
So as I look at the map, let me blow
it up a little bit. I see, oh, Greenland's green good,
and the Nordic countries are good, and then that's it.
(19:28):
Now the next level is satisfactory. There are let's see Australia,
which is kind of funny because I've got a story
about speech in Australia. But they're not very good. I mean,
they're ranked as satisfactory. So is South Africa. Let's see,
so is Canada. And the European countries are ranked as
(19:51):
pretty good, as is.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
I can't tell.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
There's some little country in South America. I can't tell
which one it is. It's not a very good, not
a very clear math that I'm looking at. Then you
get to the problematic, and there are a lot of
countries that are marked problematic. Let's skip those for just
a moment and go to those that are in various
serious situations. That's pretty much most of Asia, Russia, China, India,
(20:27):
all the Stands, the Middle East, Venezuela. Then you get
to this. They're bad in the difficult situations are a
lot of African countries, Mexico. But the ones that are
in the middle problematic situations, we are ranked in that group.
(20:51):
We are ranked fifty seventh in the world in terms
of freedom of the press. I find that really stupid.
So Reporters without Border says that this country, the country
with the world's strongest constitutional protection for freedom of speech
and freedom of the press, is a problematic. They call
(21:15):
us a democracy. We know we're not, and we're actually
behind the long list of European countries that criminalize opinions,
subsidize favored news outlets. Maybe that's why they get ranked better,
because they get government money, and they also increasingly blur
the line between journalism and government messaging. They blur the
(21:40):
line between a free press and a state run media.
And to understand how that result is even possible, you
got to grasp a simple but an un settling point.
Europe has been quietly redefining freedom of the press and
freedom of expression, so that if you impose restraint on speech,
(22:02):
that counts as a protection of freedom. So if you're
limited expressing what you believe that may limit your freedom,
that that expands the freedom of people. It might be
offended by what you say, it's I know, it's Orwellian,
It's totally Orwellian. So this World Press Freedom Index, again
(22:25):
Reporters Without Borders, is the most polished expression of that
inversion because it is built on European speech norms. They
don't use America's First Amendment norms. They use the norms
out of Europe, and the result is an index that
systematically penalizes countries like the United States because we allow
(22:47):
too much speech, and it rewards governments that silence entire
categories of debate, all in the name of safety, cohesion
and so called reputative things. You know, the old saw
give up a little bit of freedom for a little
bit of security. Well, Reporters without Borders believe that when
(23:09):
you do that, why by you giving up some of
your freedom in exchange for some security they have in
new speak language, they have said, oh that expands freedom.
You see why I worry about Europe. Start with just
(23:29):
a basic architecture, architecture of this whole map.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
Their index.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Does not simply tally whether government sensors and prisons, reporters,
shut downs, shutdowns a newspaper. What it does It mixes
several indicators, including like a for example, a legal framework,
an indicator that counts speech regulations as protective if they
are framed as hate speech or disinformation. So Reporters without
(24:04):
Borders has finally taken what I've always feared would eventually happen,
And they've now taken hate speech and disinformation, which I
believe that you are entitled to express hate speech. I
may not like it. You may not like it. In fact,
I may think that you're a bigot. May I may
think that you're an ass for saying what you said,
(24:27):
But nonetheless I respect that you have a right to
say that.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
But they have inverted it.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
They've taken the hate speech, and they've taken the disinformation
and saying. But by doing that, by regulating hate speech
and disinformation. You're making a society freer. You don't get
much more orwellion than that. That is a social cultural
indicator that treats polarization and public distrust as signs of
(24:54):
declining freedom, and a safety indicator that blurs the distinction
between targeted physical attacks and the broad climate of criticism
and online hostility. So from a European perspective, that makes sense, right.
European elites have spent decades now building a model in
which speech is divided into legitimate expression which deserves protection,
(25:15):
and harmful expression, which governments have to regulate and criminalize
in order to keep their so called democracies strong and healthy.
Now think about that from an American's perspective. Well, I
would say that is precisely the problem. If the state
gets to define which ideas are legitimate, and if institutions
(25:39):
reward states for policing those ideas, then the whole concept
of freedom of the press becomes meaningless. Now, I think
the clearest example of that redefinition is your treatment is
so called hate speech laws. Because in Europe those laws
are presented as legal shields protecting minority and journalists from
(26:01):
the European Union Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia that
is a mandate to their member states, mandate to criminalize
incitement to hatred against protected groups. And so the governments
under the EU umbrella have actually gone further. They criminalize
speech that is merely insulting or the meaning or likely
(26:23):
to offend, if it's speech that's based on race, religion,
sexual orientation, immigration status. And with the Freedom from the
Press Foundation methodology, they now score countries on the legal
environment and the safety of journalists, and they treat these
criminal bands as evidence that the state is protecting a
(26:45):
vulnerable group like reporters. Really you're vulnerable, and then they
reduce the risk of violence by protecting them. So the
more you think about what are the consequences of that,
the consequences mean that the more aggressively a government police
is hateful or offensive speech, the more it can actually
(27:05):
claim to safeguard the journalists and their audiences and therefore
claim that we're actually freer. It's such an inversion and
such a bastardization of the concept of free speech that
to many Europeans it just seems normal, which is why
I just pound on this topic, because how soon, how
(27:30):
quickly do reporters in this country want to adopt that
kind of interpretation and that kind of standard. And yet
much of what EUROP calls hate speech is precisely the
sort of political expression that our First Amendment protects. So
criticizing ille immigration, even when you're really harsh about it,
(27:53):
that's protected, mocking satirizing religious figures, including the prophet Muhammad,
rejecting your ridiculing transgender ideology, including the practice of insisting
on biological pronouns, arguing that you know, or maybe even
just saying guaranteed human, Well, maybe I'm not guaranteed human today.
Speaker 4 (28:18):
Maybe I'm not.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
Arguing that certain protective minorities receive unjustified, unjustified privileges, or
that immigration has damaged national culture. Can't do that because
in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, other countries, citizens have
been investigated, They've been fine, they've even been jailed for
exactly these kinds of statements. In fact, many of the
(28:44):
things that I say on this program are probably criminal
and at least get a knock knock on the door
from a constable for me saying it.
Speaker 6 (28:53):
Michael, does Trump just try to irritate everybody byt changing
the holidays that you can get into national parks to
Flag Day come his birthday.
Speaker 4 (29:06):
That have you heard that?
Speaker 5 (29:08):
Dragon?
Speaker 3 (29:09):
I thought I had seen something about that as I
was swiping through the social media's but I didn't pay
it any mind because I didn't know the source at
that time, so I just scrolled right on past.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Oh, he's got to stop that kind of crab. I
you know, if it's true, I don't know what it is.
That's the first I've heard of it. I can't believe
I haven't seen anything about it, because that would be
that that is something you would irritate me.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
But if I do recall correctly, flag Day is his birthday,
so it's changing a holiday to flag Day.
Speaker 4 (29:37):
It just happens to be his birthday.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Yeah, yeah, okay, Well you know, so go celebrate Flag
Day and you know, just fly a Trump flag, you know,
an American flag, and by the way, the American flag
goes on top, just as a reminder of flag. What
would call real quickly? Let me just finish this out
about Europe. So Emmanuel French President Macron is a great
(30:01):
example of what I'm talking about. He's speaking to a
bunch of a bunch of yahoos, and he actually endorsed
the system in which professional bodies ie government bodies, would
certify particular outlets, but only if they followed to prove
ethical standards and responsible fact checking. And he frames that
(30:24):
as a response to disinformation and online harassment, especially conspiracy
theories that well, you know, they were targeting his wife
because some believe his wife's not really a female, and
stress that the state would not itself label the outlets.
But you know, and I know, with the practical effect
of that, media organizations that align themselves with the official
(30:47):
narrative and professional guild norms, those would be the ones
that receive the badge of trustworthiness. And those that challenge
a narrative or that draw audiences by questioning an official
line aer in a position on I don't care immigration, Islam,
gender ideology, whatever it might be, those are going to
be marked as untrusted and unethical. And yet this is
(31:09):
what the people that support freedom of the press are
arguing for in Europe. And that's why I say, yeah, Europe,
you're essentially dead
Michael, as the grand poobah of the gubernation, you are
allowed to pronounce names and words anyway you see fit,
irregardless of what some other google might I think, Oh man, you.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Know, the passive aggressiveness of this audience is simply amazing.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
You had to know what was coming when you're gonna drop,
and there it is.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
We Honestly, I was being Naiven thinking okay, well, thank you,
and then boom, irregardless, just kind of stabs me right
in the heart, irregardless. For those of you just tuning
in the last hour, I was talking about the new
national security strategy that the Trump administration has put out,
and as I said, I'm quite excited about it. It's
(00:47):
finally somebody saying what we believe. And now we just
need to focus on adhering to that strategy, which I
think Trump has generally speaking, not everybody, but generally speaking,
I think he's got the right people in place to
do that.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
In addition to that, we need.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
To make certain that the members of the House and
the Senate have a copy and that they well, assuming
they know how to read, that they actually read it.
And then anytime they think about drafting legislation, or they're
voting on legislation. They need to answer the question does
this advance that strategy? And the third thing they need
(01:27):
to be doing is what can we do as the
Article one branch under the Constitution to propose and pass
legislation that would advance that strategy. But now I'm drifting
off into Michael Jackson's Never Never Land. But we can
hope if I debated during the break, because I got
(01:52):
five or six more pages of notes on it. But
I don't want to be accused, as I often am,
of beating dead horses to death. So I would encourage
you to go on to Michael says, go here dot com.
Michael says, go here dot com and read the strategy.
You don't read a word for word, but go through it,
and I think you'll understand why I'm excited about it,
(02:14):
because it truly is for at least in my lifetime.
It's throwing out this path we've been pursuing that has
decimated the country. It's interesting to read before I get
to the next topic, which, by the way, it has
to do with the January sixth bomber, or technically the
(02:36):
January five pipe bomber, but eighty eight seventy seven, writes Michael,
I'm about your age. I remember back in my twenties
and thirties listening to somebody here on KOA. That person,
I'll just tell you it's Mike Rosen. I don't know
why I'm trying to dance around that. Mike Rosen supported
free trade policies and the competition that it brings. At first,
(02:58):
I was like, Okay, well, he's smart than I am,
so I'll believe him. After a while, when I started
to notice corporations moving out of the country and business
is shutting down, I started to think that that was
not the best idea to have free trade. We need
to some way to protect our businesses and keep them here,
but still have competition. You know what our competition is.
(03:19):
Our competition is our ingenuity. Our competition is our efficiency.
Our competition is being able to make crap better than
anybody else in the world. That's what our competition is.
And that's what was totally missing, and you know, stupid
NAFTA free trade discussions.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Oh my god, I it was just as as.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Ross Boro said, wait to hear that giant sucking sound.
And we've been living through that giant sucking sound ever
since I didn't know the text continues. I didn't know
what that was at the time, but now it's easy
to look back on it to see to damage that
a cause you can see it in the rest belt
of our country. The cities, they've been decimated, all the
(04:04):
empty factories and buildings and everything else that goes along
with that. If we went to war today, we don't
even have the ability to produce enough steel to.
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Support the war machine.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
I hope Trump can turn this around, but he needs
the Republicans and Democrats to get on board. Well, I
don't know if the Democrats. You know, I just kept
my Michael Brown minute for the nationally syndicated program that
I do on Saturdays, by the way, from ten to
one on Freedom ninety three seven, the Weekend of Michael Brown,
in which I talk about the upcoming civil war among
(04:37):
Colorado Democrats because of this far lefty nut job running
against John Hickenlooper. And I say, bring on the popcorn,
because that's going to be a battle Royale. And this
nut job is truly as bad as are worse than
(04:58):
Alexandria cost A Cortes. So have at it, Democrats. So
I write off the Democrats because they're fighting their own
battle the Republicans.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
You need to get your act together.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Because you know, these these realignments don't come along very often,
and when they do, you've got to take advantage of them.
Let me ask you, what is Congress done lately. On
the way into work this morning, I stop and get
my diet coke, of course, and I'm listening to whatever
the news. I know Dana Prino and Bill Hemmert, so
(05:30):
whatever program they have on Fox News, and they were
in they were talking about how Congress is now battling
about what to do about Obamacare, and I'm thinking, what's
the battle. The battle is, you need to kill it off,
and you need to get the insurance company out of
(05:52):
those out of those public policies, and by that, I
mean those public insurance policies, those public health care policies
that mandate you cover everything, because that destroys an insurance
company's ability to build a risk pool.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
And if you can't build a risk pool so.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
That people can choose what pool they want to be in,
then you're covering everything and we're all paying for it,
and the government's subsidizing it.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
So of course it's going to cost more.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
It's insanity and how Republicans are so dumb, dumbass stupid
that they can't realize that kill it, kill it while
you have the chance. God, they're just gutless. Anyway, your
text message reminded me of that. Let's talk about the
January fifth momber because there are a lot of questions
(06:41):
about it. Well, I know we're getting more details on
the life of Brian. A little reference there if anybody
gets it. The guy's name is Brian Cley. He's the
guy from Woodbridge, Virginia that was arrested last week for
allegedly planning the pipe bombs in DC on the evening.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Of January five. Back in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
In what appears to me at least to be a
leak related to the FBI's interrogation of this dirt bag
last week, he apparently told the agents that he believed
the twenty twenty election was stolen.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
Hmm.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Something the media latched onto because they're desperate to brand
Cole a thirty year old goober. I should claim the goober.
He's not a goober, a thirty year old idiot, a
supporter of Donald Trump. Now interestingly, his grandmother. Who are
you going to believe the media or this guy's grandmother,
(07:39):
because the grandmother denies the allegation and insists her grandson
is non political and is borderline autistic. H I thought
you were either autistic or not autistic, but maybe somewhere
on the spectrum your borderline.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
I don't know anyway.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
The New York Post just disclosed that Cole had a
really weird obsession with My Little Pony. Dragon does too.
Dragon's got My Little Ponies everywhere?
Speaker 3 (08:08):
No, no, no, no, that's Brian Shuestring from the station across
the hall in the afternoon show. That's why there are
My Little Ponies in that studio. They were there before
I got there, Brian Shoestring across the hall.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
The Post says this quote.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
A man who is part of the My Little Pony
a subculture is known as a Brony. The community was
in twenty seventeen large enough to hold annual conventions, and
experts considered followers sincere in their fandom. So while the
charges against Cole appear to finally identify the individual scene
(08:46):
on that security footage that we all saw who was
wearing a hoodie and carrying a backpack, and generally the
same vicinity where the devices were later discovered the following day.
This now solved mystery does little to answer a lot
of questions about both the initial failure of the FBI's
investigation and the circumstances surrounding the discoveries that occurred the
(09:12):
next day when the Capitol riots were going on. On
January sixth of twenty twenty one. Giving an example, Congressman
Barry Laudermilk, a Republican from down in Georgia. He's the
chairman of the Select sub Committee on January sixth, is
asking the woman who quote found the device outside the
headquarters of the Republican National Committee to set for a
(09:36):
transcribed interview. Carlin Younger is the woman. She had two
contacts with the FBI shortly after January six but there's
no indication anywhere that she spoke with the agents after
January eleven, twenty twenty one, or that she spoke with
(09:56):
anybody in Congress related to all the numerous investigations that
the Democrats were pursuing into the Capital protest. Huh so
you talk to them shortly after January sixth, and then
you disappear. Now Laudermilk, the Congressman from Georgia, wants this
(10:18):
woman to speak with this committee later this month, calling
her quote uniquely situated to provide information about her discovery
and obviously her interactions with the FBI. Did you know
that she worked for the federal government at the time,
so she's probably got some splaymen to do. Her involvement, however,
is just one troubling aspect of the entire pipe bombs saga.
(10:45):
I think we deserve answers, and pretty quickly on a
list of a bunch of other questions. Now, no doubt
some information. I know there's an investigation going on. It's
going to some of this information is going to be
kept under seal until the trial. But as the clock
winds down on this session of Congress, time is of
the essence. So let's walk through some of the questions.
(11:06):
I listed Number one, her personal profile, I'm sorry, not
her coal. Brian Cole his personal profile. He's a social
outcast interest in a cartoon cult, A family is in
trouble with the law. First, that is, someone targeted by
the government to work as an asset. Was Cole a
(11:30):
confidential human source informant for the FBI or any other
law enforcement or intel agency at the time that he
planned the device. How about this second question, why did
mister Cole purchase bomb making components over the course of
more than a year. Was he planning or was he
(11:53):
being handled? Was there a government handler that was timing
everything out because they know how the investigations occur, and
so let's spread out your purchases over a year, which
is something an FBI agent would know how to do,
right or any other government handler, so that you know,
(12:15):
you don't just go out on January fourth and buy
everything raise red flags. How about this question, who was
he communicating with on the evening of January five? Because
we have some information that there was cell phone ping.
Now just the ping, There may just be a ping,
(12:36):
but he clearly had a mobile phone mobile phone with him,
So was he in communication with anybody on that evening?
I'd like to know why did Why did the FBI's
investigation just suddenly just abruptly go cold in the spring
of twenty twenty one, despite at least according to kash Patel,
(13:00):
there is a massive trove of evidence and there were
just hundreds, if not thousands, of leads on a suspect,
and yet it just gets put up in money shelves.
Who were the law enforcement officers stationed outside the Democrat
National Headquarters throughout the morning and into the afternoon of
January six, Yeah, there were leos sitting outside both the
(13:22):
RNC and the DNC. Who were they? Have they been interviewed?
Do we have any three O twos or whatever that
form is that the FBI fills out about interviews they've done.
Are there any transcripts? Where's the information? But A yet,
I just like to know who they were. Were they
DC cops, were they private security guards? Were they with
(13:45):
the FBI? Who were they with? And how is it
that multiple DC or I should just say, let's first
say police officers. How did multiple police officers miss a
device sitting almost in playing sight next to the driveway
of the Democrat National Committee. You had the Capitol Police,
(14:07):
you had the DC Metropolitan Police, and that you had
the US Secret Service because Kamala Harris had been in
the building. So how did they all miss that? If
it was so obvious, why did you miss it? Somebody
ought to be held accountable. How did to forgive about
(14:27):
the cops? How did two bomb sniffing canine units miss
the device. If they were actually functional, functioning devices, they
were actually workable devices, then how did bomb sniffing canine
units miss those devices? Now, let's think about Kamala Harris
(14:48):
for a moment. Why did she travel to the Democrat
National Committee in the late morning on January sixth, so
that would be a near death experience at the hands
of an alleged magabomber. Why was she going there, what
she do? Who'd she meet with? How long was she there?
What did they talk about? What they do? You know,
(15:10):
do we have any video we got video of the bomb?
Did she go in through the garage? The DNC, if
I recall correctly, does have a garage. Did they go
in through the garage? Did they go into the front door?
What was she doing there?
Speaker 4 (15:23):
How about this one?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Why was a security camera apparently intentionally diverted away from
the location where the device was eventually discovered, so that
when people started, you know, when people report the device
and they oh, well let's look at the security cameras. Oh,
they're turned away from the device. Who did that? Why
was it done? And then why did a representative of
(15:50):
First Net that's the company that employed the woman that
discovered the bombs on January sixth. Why did a representative
of that company tell the FBI in an email sent
on January twentieth, twenty twenty one, that cell phone data
for January five was corrupted and cannot be restored. When
(16:11):
Verizon AT and T and T Mobile, everybody else, Oh,
we had it all along, nobody asks, it's not corrupt.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
It's right here. Now.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
That's just a list of ten questions that both the
Trump administration and Congress I think ultra address like pronto.
And despite the corporate media, despite the cabal's a complete
lack of interest in this story. You know what coverage
disappeared after Harris's presence at the DNC that day was revealed.
Speaker 4 (16:37):
Yes, just code silence.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Trump supporters, especially those that got ensnared by the abusive
Manhattan for the Jay sixers, I think they deserve and
I think they would want a full accounting of every
aspect of the pipe bomb story. And I think they
deserve absolutely nothing less. Now everybody's thrilled because the Democrats
appear kind of shaken by the FBI's arrest of the herb.
(17:03):
Virginia Senator Mark Warner feigned relief, but then he kind
of shifted the blame real quickly, shifted the blame very quickly.
Speaker 5 (17:13):
I think it is Gridew's if this perpetrator.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Got arrested.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
I gotta tell you, it kind of makes me looking
at this crowd doing a victory laugh when all the
senior FBI officials across all key divisions have been fired
for political purposes. When in some field offices, up to
forty five percent of the FBI officers who were doing
things like counter tespionage and cyber have been assigned to
(17:41):
do immigration cases. It's it's a little rich that they're saying.
American America, say how much earlier could we have caught
this guy if resources hadn't been diverted.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
It's not rich, it's reasonable. And oh, by the way,
Jack Jake Tapper, remember over at CNN, he said, yeah,
they captivated, they got the white guy, as they showed
the picture of the black guy. Maybe Jake's still looking
for the white guy.
Speaker 6 (18:08):
Congratulations to Dave Logan for winning his thirteenth state title.
Speaker 4 (18:13):
As a head football coach.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
He is an inspiration.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Congratulations Dave. There is a group called Reporters Without Borders,
and they published a treatise or an analysis I guess
would be a better word about freedom of the press
worldwide in twenty twenty five dragging. If you go over
to their website, if you look at Reporters Without Borders,
(18:44):
there is a map that ranks the different countries in
the world based on their freedom of the press. They're
rated as a good situation, that's the best, then statisfactory situation,
a problematic situation, a difficult situation, and a very serious situation.
(19:05):
And it goes from green to red. Green's good, Red's bad.
So as I look at the map, let me blow
it up a little bit. I see, oh, Greenland's green good,
and the Nordic countries are good, and then that's it.
(19:28):
Now the next level is satisfactory. There are let's see Australia,
which is kind of funny because I've got a story
about speech in Australia. But they're not very good. I mean,
they're ranked as satisfactory. So is South Africa. Let's see,
so is Canada. And the European countries are ranked as
(19:51):
pretty good, as is.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
I can't tell.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
There's some little country in South America. I can't tell
which one it is. It's not a very good, not
a very clear math that I'm looking at. Then you
get to the problematic, and there are a lot of
countries that are marked problematic. Let's skip those for just
a moment and go to those that are in various
serious situations. That's pretty much most of Asia, Russia, China, India,
(20:27):
all the Stands, the Middle East, Venezuela. Then you get
to this. They're bad in the difficult situations are a
lot of African countries, Mexico. But the ones that are
in the middle problematic situations, we are ranked in that group.
(20:51):
We are ranked fifty seventh in the world in terms
of freedom of the press. I find that really stupid.
So Reporters without Border says that this country, the country
with the world's strongest constitutional protection for freedom of speech
and freedom of the press, is a problematic. They call
(21:15):
us a democracy. We know we're not, and we're actually
behind the long list of European countries that criminalize opinions,
subsidize favored news outlets. Maybe that's why they get ranked better,
because they get government money, and they also increasingly blur
the line between journalism and government messaging. They blur the
(21:40):
line between a free press and a state run media.
And to understand how that result is even possible, you
got to grasp a simple but an un settling point.
Europe has been quietly redefining freedom of the press and
freedom of expression, so that if you impose restraint on speech,
(22:02):
that counts as a protection of freedom. So if you're
limited expressing what you believe that may limit your freedom,
that that expands the freedom of people. It might be
offended by what you say, it's I know, it's Orwellian,
It's totally Orwellian. So this World Press Freedom Index, again
(22:25):
Reporters Without Borders, is the most polished expression of that
inversion because it is built on European speech norms. They
don't use America's First Amendment norms. They use the norms
out of Europe, and the result is an index that
systematically penalizes countries like the United States because we allow
(22:47):
too much speech, and it rewards governments that silence entire
categories of debate, all in the name of safety, cohesion
and so called reputative things. You know, the old saw
give up a little bit of freedom for a little
bit of security. Well, Reporters without Borders believe that when
(23:09):
you do that, why by you giving up some of
your freedom in exchange for some security they have in
new speak language, they have said, oh that expands freedom.
You see why I worry about Europe. Start with just
(23:29):
a basic architecture, architecture of this whole map.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
Their index.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Does not simply tally whether government sensors and prisons, reporters,
shut downs, shutdowns a newspaper. What it does It mixes
several indicators, including like a for example, a legal framework,
an indicator that counts speech regulations as protective if they
are framed as hate speech or disinformation. So Reporters without
(24:04):
Borders has finally taken what I've always feared would eventually happen,
And they've now taken hate speech and disinformation, which I
believe that you are entitled to express hate speech. I
may not like it. You may not like it. In fact,
I may think that you're a bigot. May I may
think that you're an ass for saying what you said,
(24:27):
But nonetheless I respect that you have a right to
say that.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
But they have inverted it.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
They've taken the hate speech, and they've taken the disinformation
and saying. But by doing that, by regulating hate speech
and disinformation. You're making a society freer. You don't get
much more orwellion than that. That is a social cultural
indicator that treats polarization and public distrust as signs of
(24:54):
declining freedom, and a safety indicator that blurs the distinction
between targeted physical attacks and the broad climate of criticism
and online hostility. So from a European perspective, that makes sense, right.
European elites have spent decades now building a model in
which speech is divided into legitimate expression which deserves protection,
(25:15):
and harmful expression, which governments have to regulate and criminalize
in order to keep their so called democracies strong and healthy.
Now think about that from an American's perspective. Well, I
would say that is precisely the problem. If the state
gets to define which ideas are legitimate, and if institutions
(25:39):
reward states for policing those ideas, then the whole concept
of freedom of the press becomes meaningless. Now, I think
the clearest example of that redefinition is your treatment is
so called hate speech laws. Because in Europe those laws
are presented as legal shields protecting minority and journalists from
(26:01):
the European Union Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia that
is a mandate to their member states, mandate to criminalize
incitement to hatred against protected groups. And so the governments
under the EU umbrella have actually gone further. They criminalize
speech that is merely insulting or the meaning or likely
(26:23):
to offend, if it's speech that's based on race, religion,
sexual orientation, immigration status. And with the Freedom from the
Press Foundation methodology, they now score countries on the legal
environment and the safety of journalists, and they treat these
criminal bands as evidence that the state is protecting a
(26:45):
vulnerable group like reporters. Really you're vulnerable, and then they
reduce the risk of violence by protecting them. So the
more you think about what are the consequences of that,
the consequences mean that the more aggressively a government police
is hateful or offensive speech, the more it can actually
(27:05):
claim to safeguard the journalists and their audiences and therefore
claim that we're actually freer. It's such an inversion and
such a bastardization of the concept of free speech that
to many Europeans it just seems normal, which is why
I just pound on this topic, because how soon, how
(27:30):
quickly do reporters in this country want to adopt that
kind of interpretation and that kind of standard. And yet
much of what EUROP calls hate speech is precisely the
sort of political expression that our First Amendment protects. So
criticizing ille immigration, even when you're really harsh about it,
(27:53):
that's protected, mocking satirizing religious figures, including the prophet Muhammad,
rejecting your ridiculing transgender ideology, including the practice of insisting
on biological pronouns, arguing that you know, or maybe even
just saying guaranteed human, Well, maybe I'm not guaranteed human today.
Speaker 4 (28:18):
Maybe I'm not.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
Arguing that certain protective minorities receive unjustified, unjustified privileges, or
that immigration has damaged national culture. Can't do that because
in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, other countries, citizens have
been investigated, They've been fine, they've even been jailed for
exactly these kinds of statements. In fact, many of the
(28:44):
things that I say on this program are probably criminal
and at least get a knock knock on the door
from a constable for me saying it.
Speaker 6 (28:53):
Michael, does Trump just try to irritate everybody byt changing
the holidays that you can get into national parks to
Flag Day come his birthday.
Speaker 4 (29:06):
That have you heard that?
Speaker 5 (29:08):
Dragon?
Speaker 3 (29:09):
I thought I had seen something about that as I
was swiping through the social media's but I didn't pay
it any mind because I didn't know the source at
that time, so I just scrolled right on past.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Oh, he's got to stop that kind of crab. I
you know, if it's true, I don't know what it is.
That's the first I've heard of it. I can't believe
I haven't seen anything about it, because that would be
that that is something you would irritate me.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
But if I do recall correctly, flag Day is his birthday,
so it's changing a holiday to flag Day.
Speaker 4 (29:37):
It just happens to be his birthday.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Yeah, yeah, okay, Well you know, so go celebrate Flag
Day and you know, just fly a Trump flag, you know,
an American flag, and by the way, the American flag
goes on top, just as a reminder of flag. What
would call real quickly? Let me just finish this out
about Europe. So Emmanuel French President Macron is a great
(30:01):
example of what I'm talking about. He's speaking to a
bunch of a bunch of yahoos, and he actually endorsed
the system in which professional bodies ie government bodies, would
certify particular outlets, but only if they followed to prove
ethical standards and responsible fact checking. And he frames that
(30:24):
as a response to disinformation and online harassment, especially conspiracy
theories that well, you know, they were targeting his wife
because some believe his wife's not really a female, and
stress that the state would not itself label the outlets.
But you know, and I know, with the practical effect
of that, media organizations that align themselves with the official
(30:47):
narrative and professional guild norms, those would be the ones
that receive the badge of trustworthiness. And those that challenge
a narrative or that draw audiences by questioning an official
line aer in a position on I don't care immigration, Islam,
gender ideology, whatever it might be, those are going to
be marked as untrusted and unethical. And yet this is
(31:09):
what the people that support freedom of the press are
arguing for in Europe. And that's why I say, yeah, Europe,
you're essentially dead
Popular Podcasts
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
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