Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Mike, you make a good point about the Inspector
Pong's story, which brings me to the USAID. While I
do tend to believe a lot of what I am hearing,
I remain a bit skeptical because I have not seen
any documents or anything like that that back up what
is being said. This is just something I am being
(00:23):
told by people I trust a little more than the
mainstream media.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Let's let's do this as long as we're I was
actually going to move on, but I think there's a
great example of a story that I wanted to do today,
but I'm not. But I'm gonna sodad. I'm gonna go
ahead and do it anyway. But I want to do
the story. So I explained to you why I was
(00:51):
not going to.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Do the story quoting around is a.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Story about there are fourteen thousand, approximately fourteen thousand people
employed directly by USAID, the United States Agency for International Development.
And that's what that's been the big headlines, the big
headline all week long about you know, they are all
(01:18):
the things that they're spending money on and not spending
money on. For example, the Press Secretary Carolyn Lovitt came
out Caroline love it. I suppose it's correct pronunciation.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
And she said this through USAID.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Over the past several years, these are some of the
insane priorities that that organization has been spending money on.
One point five million dollars to advance DEI in Serbia's workplaces,
seventy thousand for a production of a Dei musical in Ireland,
forty seven thousand for a transgender opera in Colombia, thirty
(01:53):
two thousand for a transgender comic book in Peru. I
don't know about you, but as an American taxpayer, I
don't want my going towards this crap, and I know
the American people don't either. And that's exactly what Elon
Musk has been tasked by President Trump to do to
get the fraud, waste, and abuse out of our federal government.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
You all love about her, it's that smile. She comes out.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
She's got this fold depeate, just eight and a half
by eleven sheet of paper, copy paper. It's got all
the lists on it, and she's kind of looking at
it and then looking at the reporters and just listing
off those things. She calls it a bunch of crap.
That taxpayers don't like. And then she just she's got
this big ass smile and just walks off like, yeah,
I don't think taxpayers like this, and that's exactly what
Elon Musk and this team are looking for and just
(02:35):
walks away. It's really it's really kind of great, quite
great the way she does it. But let's talk about
the other story that's floating around about USAID that broke yesterday,
and I was like, I want to talk about this.
The story goes essentially like this, that there's been a
(02:58):
review of the staff at USAID and that review has
shown that out of the fourteen thousand and I say
direct employees because for example, in this business conversation yesterday,
somebody asked me, you know what, hey, well, when you
were the undersecretary, how many employees did you have? I said, well,
(03:22):
there are different ways to look at it. I had
three thousand that were in my so called direct report.
I mean, obviously there were layers between some of those
people and me, but three thousand at headquarters, but then
within DHS as one of the four undersecretaries. Initially look
(03:43):
at the numbers now, but initially we had about one
hundred and sixty thousand employees, and then when a disaster
would occur, those three thousand could balloon up to thirty thousand,
just depends on what's going on around the country. So
anywhere I could claim that I supervise anywhere from three
thousand up to one hundred and sixty five thousand employees
(04:04):
at any one time. So I look at these numbers
and it says fourteen thousand employees, and I think, well,
is that the number that's at headquarters, because that seems
reasonable to me considering the size of government. Fourteen thousand headquarters.
But most people don't realize that whatever number of federal
(04:28):
true FTEs full time employees of the federal government that
we have, we also have three times that, four times that,
ten times that contractors, people that literally come from the
NGOs or the consulting companies or the defense contractors, any
(04:54):
number of organizations that we would contract for them to
assis people to us, and those were contractors. Now, some
contractors got paid by tax well, they all got paid
by taxpayer the directory indirectly, but some of them might
be there. They might get paid by let's just say
(05:17):
Booz Allen giant consulting firm or McKenzie, So they might
actually get their paycheck from McKenzie or booz Allen, but
their workplace with whole land security that there might be
some that we would tap under a contract and we
would pay that employee that came from booz Allen or McKenzie,
(05:41):
but they remained an employee of the consulting firm, but
we paid the salary and m or booz Allen paid
for all of the benefits. So there's all this misshmash
of different kinds of categories of employees.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
So if there are fourteen thousand FTEs.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Directly working for USAID, I would not be surprised there
might be another fourteen thousand right across the world that
are actually administering the grants that USAID passes out. Working
in Bolivia or working in Yemen, or I don't care.
(06:21):
Just pick a country, and they may be a full
time employee of USAID, or they might be an employee
of an NGO that's being funded by USAID, or they
might be on the staff of the government of Bolivia
and we're reimbursing Bolivia for the cost of that employee.
(06:42):
So the point is we don't really know. We don't
really know what the staffing level is at USAID because
there's too many.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
I mean, this is true about don't get me wrong.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
This is true about every department and agency in the
federal government. So when they tell you we have a
million federal employees, scoff at that number because it's a
meaningless number, just like this fourteen thousand. But the story
is that they did a review and that review has
(07:17):
identified only two hundred and ninety four of the agency's
fourteen thousand employees as being essential to administering the civil
foreign aid and development assistance that USAID passes out. The
internal review, which they say comes from within USAID, appears
(07:39):
to have been initiated by the President's Secretary of State,
Marco Rubio, who's currently serving as the acting director of
the agency. Again, you start digging around, it's kind of
hard to come up with that story. The essential status determination,
(08:02):
if that really does exist, comes as Rubio is transferring
a few core programs within USAID that are directly determined
by him to serve our direct national interests, moving that
into the State Department. Now, think about that for a moment,
(08:22):
because I hear the same thing about the Department of Education.
The President is ordered, you know, Linda McMahon to work herself,
who's going to be the next Secretary of Education, to
essentially work herself out.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Of a job. Every time I hear that, I also
hear a phrase.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
And we'll accomplish that by transferring some programs out of
Department of Ed into other departments and agencies. Well, wait
a minute, if you, if you, if I heart wanted
to downsize this building, but they didn't really want to
(09:05):
downsize it, they could take my studio, or in essence,
have me, why don't you go broadcast from Pueblo or
Colorado Springs, or why don't you just broadcast from home,
your home studio, and then they can say to corporate, look,
be downsized, we eliminate an entire studio.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Well, but you really didn't. And that's the kind of
shell game that's going on at the federal government. Now.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Trump is expected sometime today, may or may not happen.
He's expected today to place most of the USAID staff
on lead. Now, if the two hundred ninety four essential
workers is true, that will be the staff that will
be directed to remain at their posts in USAID headquarters
(09:56):
and continuing to administer these programs. So in one story
that I found that talks about this review.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
It, it comes.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
From a producer at CBS News and the news is quote,
only two hundred and ninety four USAID personnel have been
deemed essential for all American staff worldwide from fourteen thousand two.
Sources have also confirmed the authenticity of this list to
CBS News. I'm told the Bureau of Resilience, Environmental and
(10:33):
Food Security was told they will be eliminated. And the
checklist that she cites comes from some I shouldn't call
him a goober because it's clearly.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Not one of us.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
A tool go One day, a surgeon writer and formally
led the Global health at USAID, and he posts a
chart and it comes from Bokert t something at us
I D dot gov wrote this email high teammates. Thanks
(11:12):
for the call. Paul will shortly provide the slide deck
that provides more details. Bottom line below are the final
numbers how you determined and then the photo is cut off,
but it lists it lists programs overseas, draw down, Washington
(11:32):
drawdown in total, and then it has a bunch of
acronyms B H A, G, H, L A C, E
and E Asia, Africa, Middle East Management, and it has numbers,
and if you add up all these numbers, it comes
up to that number of what did I say, it
was two hundred and ninety four or two hundred and fourteen,
(11:54):
whatever the number was two hundred can you remember to
two hundred ninety four.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
Well, just that document doesn't tell me.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
That that's been identified as the solely essential people and
that everybody else is unessential. So again I don't know
whether the story's true or not. I wanted to talk
about it today because if it was true.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
To I emphasize, if it was true.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Then that would be a humongous decrease from fourteen thousand
that would administering all these programs to only two hundred
and ninety four. Wow, that's a pretty good accomplishment. But
as I said, I didn't want to bring the story
because when I start digging out, it.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Doesn't confirm what the claim is.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Now, I do know this that the agency spending data
from what I was able to dig out, reveals that
nearly ninety percent of you Krainian media relies on the
USAID to continue operating. So you think about all of
the stories that are reported out of Ukraine from Ukrainian media.
(13:13):
And I'm not talking about the well, although the BBC
gets money from USAID. But if you if you hear
a story out of Ukraine about how the war's going
or anything else that's going on, and it comes from
a Ukrainian media source, the chances are that ninety percent,
depending on you know, you have given ninety percent chance
(13:34):
that that is a Ukrainian media outlet that is being on,
that is being kept alive by American tax dollars. Now,
I just wonder if you're if your tax dollars are
funding Ukrainian media, don't you think it's going to be
(13:55):
slightly geared toward h support of the Ukrainians in the
Ukraine Russia war, And it's gonna somehow, you know, pull
her in your heartstrings and you need all of this,
and you need all of that. Well maybe so it's
also been uncovered that the George Sorels funded East West
(14:15):
Management Institute has gotten two hundred and sixty million dollars
in taxpayer money that's been disbursed by USAID. And then
of course we have the story of a group of
radio stations that Sorels has bought a majority interest in
uh that they're now being investigated by the FCC for
things that they've been saying about the Trump administration that
(14:41):
may or may not be true in fact, in fact,
probably our faults. It's just another example, kind of building
on the last hour about the USDA. I think what
we have to be careful about is and this kind
of leads into the story I really didn't want to
(15:02):
talk about at the beginning of the segment is Trump's
doing all of this stuff, and all of this stuff
is literally.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
An out of control fire hose.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
And whether it's CBS News or whether it's Fox News,
they're desperate to try to get to a factual basis,
if indeed CBS News even cares about the facts. By
the way, did you sidebar real quickly? Did you watch
the video the sixty minutes interview where Trump is suing
(15:37):
CBS News for what like sixty billion dollars or something
because they edited the answers that Kamala Harris gave in
the sixty minutes interview.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
That's out. I've got it.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
I've got a couple of soundbites I may play for
you later on in the program. But the point is
simply this, there is so much going on right now,
and Trump is not wasting a minute of issuing the
executive orders, throwing out thing. This is kind of my
lead into what I want to talk about next hour,
(16:13):
just throwing everything out there, and I think that's part
of a grand strategy to one keep a grand strategy
to keep Democrats from effectively responding. If I ask you
to name what has been the Democrats response to virtually
(16:34):
everything that Trump has done so far, I can only
think of one temporarily concrete thing. And the other thing
they've done is proof that they just adopted the agenda
of the radical left. Remember the SoundBite I played for
you yesterday, I think it was yesterday about Jon Stewart,
(16:58):
and he was like, get Chuck Schumer out of the picture.
Get the old man with the glasses down at the
tip of his nose, trying to lead a chance. They're
trying to take the fight to the streets. Well, that's radicalism,
that's Howard Pivot, that's saul A Lensky. That's the best
(17:20):
they've got. And the other thing they've got is they're
pushing cash Betel's nomination out of committee until next week.
Speaker 5 (17:29):
As a podcast listener, I hope that you live listeners
get your talkbacks in so we don't have to listen
to the cackle. And another thing about the podcast, because
we can't leave live talkbacks. I don't think it's fair
that the cackle ends up in the podcast. So Dragon,
(17:49):
please cut that out.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
No, are you putting the cackle in the podcast?
Speaker 6 (17:54):
If there are no talkbacks? Yes, the cackle will be
in the podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Raises, Look, I'm going to represent him. We have another
distinct group of listeners who, beyond their control, cannot leave
a talkback.
Speaker 6 (18:13):
No, no, no, no, no, well, yes they can leave a
talk They can leave a talkback any time. I go
through all of the talkbacks that were left between the
end of the show yesterday and the beginning of the
show today, all of them. You have plenty of time
to leave a talkback, just because it doesn't show the
(18:34):
situation with Michael Brown featuring Dragon Redbeard on the little
talkback section when you both to find the little red
microphone button, I will still see it.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
So how do you know it's for us?
Speaker 6 (18:46):
Because I will listen to it. I will listen to
any talkback that is given to six point thirty K.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
How okay, all right?
Speaker 2 (18:54):
So they can leave a talkback at anytime twenty four
to seven. Yeah, and you still see them, yes, And
of course we know we get the majority of them, correct, right?
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Are we still getting the majority of them?
Speaker 6 (19:06):
Almost? Definitely?
Speaker 3 (19:07):
And what does that mean? Almost? Most definitely?
Speaker 6 (19:09):
There's another station that is doing giveaways right now, you know,
tickets with the talkbacks and yes, okay, and we're still
clobbering them on Bailey Talkbacks.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Okay, all right, and I still find it fascinating.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
That's a separate segment on the podcast talkbacks.
Speaker 6 (19:28):
Yes, so you still have a responsibility day or night
whenever you happen to be listening to the podcast, you
can just switch over to the screen to the live show,
hit the little red microphone button and leave a talkback
and I will still get it, and I may still
play it if it's good enough to be played during
(19:50):
the show, or if it's an emergency and I need
but boom.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
If if there aren't any that meet you whatever the
hell of your standard is, which I don't even want
to think about what that is. But if they if
none of them meet your standard, which, considering what I
know about you, the standard's got to be so low
that anybody can leave anything, and that would qualify as
a talkback. There should never be a cackle. As long
(20:18):
as there is a talkback, you decide to play it
or not.
Speaker 6 (20:21):
That is very correct. You do not have to meet
my high standards.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Your high standard, which is about where this CRuMs, that
Martino or capitalist or somebody leaves over here on the carpet.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
Uh, that's about the highest standard you have right there.
Speaker 6 (20:37):
Correct, No matter how good or bad the talkback is,
I will play that talkback to avoid the captain.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
Okay, all right, all right, okay, Well then you know
what I was wrong?
Speaker 6 (20:48):
You should be Yeah, I should be wrong. Well you are.
I mean, it's plain and simple.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
It's easy. You know, Yeah, you were wrong. I was,
and I got the first time. The last I half
heartedly apologize.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
Even though it says, you know you're listening to Dan
Kaplis show hit the microphone, leave a talk back. I'll
still listen to it.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
Christmas.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
And this is a fascinating that what I told you
about the ratings the other day, that.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
I was told is true. Yah, they listen. I don't.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
I don't get it. It just proves that you know,
I've always wondered I've always believed that that us that
you know, our right of center. H we're still we're
always the majority in the country, but I never really
had any proof of it.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
I think those ratings are proof that. And we're all
crazy too, very much. So, Yeah, if you go back to.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Put it this way, if you go back to the
early days of Trump's second term, you know, like last week.
Speaker 6 (21:58):
It's like, wait a minute, the early day, yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
The early day days ago. Yeah, like you know, like
a week ago.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Trump has obviously made it his mission to aggressively seek
out and deploy what he can control or used to
his negotiating advantage on the global geopolitical stage, and in
so doing he has there are I don't think at
(22:30):
least how many days are we into it now, so
thirty one, so eleven eighteen days now into this administration.
I don't think there are any sacred cows from any
previous administration, including his first administration.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
I don't think he's.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Going to box himself into any ideological corner. And I
think we kind of saw that a little bit Tuesday
when he unleashed this series of rhetorical thermal nuclear bombs
involving the potential redevelopment of Gaza and more so, which
(23:11):
gets lost in that statement. What I believe was his
kind of indirect statement to the Arab world that you
need to start taking responsibility with regard to these Palestinian refugees.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
You need to do this.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
I the more I study what he said and then
think about the history of the Gazan Strip, the Gaza Strip,
and I'll call them Gosins as opposed to Palestinians, that.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
The Arab world, because they're Arabs, the Arab world.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Needs to do something about that. It's not Israel's responsibility
to take care of them, nor is it the United
States of America. I mean, do we all have some
partial responsibility, maybe so, but the Arab world, you know,
for the Saudis, Uae, for the Iranians, for the Iraqis,
(24:17):
the Yemenis, for all of you, the Egyptians, you all
have some responsibility too. So you can glean from that
that what we're kind of seeing is that it is
a pragmatic policy approach that shows we are committed to
our traditional allies, but simultaneously we're gonna have tough negotiations
(24:41):
with both friends and enemies. It's gonna be tough either way,
and I think that is and I've always disliked the
America first connotation or the America first phrase, because of
the connotation that Charles Lindbergh kind of you use that back,
(25:01):
you know, as isolationists. And my point of view is
we simply cannot be isolationists. We no longer live in
that world that Charles Lindberg lived in. The world that
we live in now is completely and I think, irretrievably interconnected.
(25:21):
Do I want more do I want more of our
pharmaceuticals manufactured in this country, yes? Do I want more
iPhones manufactured somewhere other than China, Yes, But everything that
we now consume or use is comprised of minerals or
products or subproducts or whatever it is, from all over
(25:44):
the world. So we're just all intertwined, and that that's
not going to reverse. So I get Trump's phrase America
First is more about policy and his his view of
the world, that his loyalty and his duty belongs to
(26:05):
America first. And I don't think, well, it is not
the America First of Charles Lindbergh or Woodrow Wilson or
any of those. But that's also like my dislike of
Homeland security, just Homeland is just too close to Germany
(26:27):
pre World War Two and all of that crap. But
it is what it is. But I just want you
to understand that because I tend to avoid America first,
because I just don't like the phrase. I like what
he means that it stands for. But the phrase is,
if you understand history, you understand Charles Lindberg. You understand
(26:48):
all of our stuff about World War One, but that
might even part of World War Two. You'll understand that.
It's just not it's got a bad historical connotation. But
let's move forward. Think about the trade and the tariff
talks they're going on with Canada and Mexico and for
that matter, China too. But right now let's talk about
(27:09):
Canada and Mexico. What he's doing is he is refusing
to accommodate or to accept any of the past criteria.
Do you think any of the past presidents, well, the
phrase it different way. Past presidents would not dare to
(27:31):
use any leverage against our allies. But Trump's more than
happy to do so because he knows he's in a negotiation.
When I did my contract negotiations and by the way
as soon as we get it back from corporate You
guys are stuck with me for quite a while longer.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
Damn it.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
There were some harsh words exchanged over certain visions, but
that's to be expected. Doesn't mean they're my enemies, doesn't
mean I'm their enemy. It's negotiations. Trump's more than happy
to be tough. So he has leveraged the weakness of
foreign economies, obviously compared to our economy, and he has
(28:20):
dialed up a sense of urgency of his counterparts while
signaling that he had all the time in the world
to make a deal. It's it's it's it completely throws
them off balls. We gotta do this real quickly. I'm
going to impose these tariffs right now. Okay, I'll give
you thirty more days. I mean, it's it's totally keeping
them off their gain, never understanding what's going what's going
(28:43):
to happen next.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
So, in short order, what happened.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
Mexico and Canada agreed to send ten tens of thousands
of members of their respective militaries to reinforce the border
with US and to start combating illegal immigration.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Now, what they'll really do, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
But at least he's got them moving, and then he's
going to leverage the power of our economy, even though
our economy, I know, for us in the midst of
this economy it's not all that great, but compared to
the rest of the world, let's breadamn fantastic. So what
(29:22):
he's doing is, as I've used the phrase incessantly this
week because I think it's the only way to describe.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
It, is he's.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
Breaking all kinds of all kinds of these ideological paradigms.
He is doing paradigm shifts on just about every single political, economic,
social cultural topic that you can possibly imagine. It's him
using raw political power and then taking his business approach
(29:53):
to negotiations and publicity and using it as a weapon,
absolutely using it as a weapon.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Michael, But Dragon, you're playing your talkback.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
When somebody leaves it while they're listening to the podcast
leads the cackle on the podcast, it doesn't change the podcast, correct, Ish,
I can't change the past if I wasn't given a
pod talkback. But somebody who would be listening to the
podcast of today's show over the weekend can pause the podcast,
(30:28):
go to the live setting, leave a talkback, So then
there will be no cackle for Monday's podcasts. So when
they're listening Monday afternoon or evening, there will be no
cackle because they had left one previous over the weekend.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
Or all twelve of our listeners could organize a meeting
and get together and assign each of them each twelve
so over twelve day period, they just rotate every day,
someone at some time and at the appointed hour of
I don't care two am or you know, two pm,
just leave a talk bag and then you're safe for
(31:02):
the day. You're safe for a twenty four.
Speaker 6 (31:03):
Hour three you're wrong with leaving a pre empty talkback,
pre empty talkback.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
At Trump's core, he's a real estate developer, right, He's
a deal maker. He and his whole mindset is making
deals as opposed to just winning an argument. You know,
you take the Trudeau government, the little Castro government out
of Canada. It's unclear if the Trudeau government interpreted what
(31:38):
Trump did as just an initial salvo in trade talks,
but nonetheless it's set off a firestorm in the Canadian
government and it probably led negotiating partners to concede more
than they otherwise would have, and he continued to do
this what is clearly part of and I've never read
the Art of the Deal, but just understanding basically what
(31:59):
the concept of the Art of the Deal is. He's
using that same framework, whether it's Greenland, Panama, Ukraine and
now even Gaza in order to maximize his position for
what he believes is the best possible outcome for US
as a nation. He's sowing the corporate media and his
political opponents in a constant state of madness. Now I
(32:21):
do say, parenthetically, I do wonder how long can he
keep this going. There's part of me that says he
can keep doing it for the next you know what,
three years and forty eight weeks probably, so.
Speaker 3 (32:38):
They seem completely unable or unwilling.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
To explain or understand his style of negotiations or what's
the real strategy behind this. I think the real strategy
behind this is it is attached to ideology, especially when
it comes to trade or they in foreign policy. But
(33:03):
acting pragmatically and with this sense of great purpose that
he's exhibited so far. Trump's second term is really unique
because it gives him much more flexibility to keep trading
partners and geopolitical antagonists scramming for the answers, and even
those of us who support him are left at times
(33:26):
really trying to understand, Okay, what's really going on here?
Do you ever have that conversation like I remember one
time with one of my bosses. They were telling me
they were going to do something and I and in fact,
we joked about it during these contract negotiations.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
And I leaned over and I said, I want to.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
Know what's really going on, And watching the body language
as that person shifted back in their chair, it told
me there is something else going on. And it turned
out there really was something else going on. That's what
Trump's doing right now.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
It's fascinating.
Hey, Mike, you make a good point about the Inspector
Pong's story, which brings me to the USAID. While I
do tend to believe a lot of what I am hearing,
I remain a bit skeptical because I have not seen
any documents or anything like that that back up what
is being said. This is just something I am being
(00:23):
told by people I trust a little more than the
mainstream media.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Let's let's do this as long as we're I was
actually going to move on, but I think there's a
great example of a story that I wanted to do today,
but I'm not. But I'm gonna sodad. I'm gonna go
ahead and do it anyway. But I want to do
the story. So I explained to you why I was
(00:51):
not going to.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Do the story quoting around is a.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Story about there are fourteen thousand, approximately fourteen thousand people
employed directly by USAID, the United States Agency for International Development.
And that's what that's been the big headlines, the big
headline all week long about you know, they are all
(01:18):
the things that they're spending money on and not spending
money on. For example, the Press Secretary Carolyn Lovitt came
out Caroline love it. I suppose it's correct pronunciation.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
And she said this through USAID.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Over the past several years, these are some of the
insane priorities that that organization has been spending money on.
One point five million dollars to advance DEI in Serbia's workplaces,
seventy thousand for a production of a Dei musical in Ireland,
forty seven thousand for a transgender opera in Colombia, thirty
(01:53):
two thousand for a transgender comic book in Peru. I
don't know about you, but as an American taxpayer, I
don't want my going towards this crap, and I know
the American people don't either. And that's exactly what Elon
Musk has been tasked by President Trump to do to
get the fraud, waste, and abuse out of our federal government.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
You all love about her, it's that smile. She comes out.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
She's got this fold depeate, just eight and a half
by eleven sheet of paper, copy paper. It's got all
the lists on it, and she's kind of looking at
it and then looking at the reporters and just listing
off those things. She calls it a bunch of crap.
That taxpayers don't like. And then she just she's got
this big ass smile and just walks off like, yeah,
I don't think taxpayers like this, and that's exactly what
Elon Musk and this team are looking for and just
(02:35):
walks away. It's really it's really kind of great, quite
great the way she does it. But let's talk about
the other story that's floating around about USAID that broke yesterday,
and I was like, I want to talk about this.
The story goes essentially like this, that there's been a
(02:58):
review of the staff at USAID and that review has
shown that out of the fourteen thousand and I say
direct employees because for example, in this business conversation yesterday,
somebody asked me, you know what, hey, well, when you
were the undersecretary, how many employees did you have? I said, well,
(03:22):
there are different ways to look at it. I had
three thousand that were in my so called direct report.
I mean, obviously there were layers between some of those
people and me, but three thousand at headquarters, but then
within DHS as one of the four undersecretaries. Initially look
(03:43):
at the numbers now, but initially we had about one
hundred and sixty thousand employees, and then when a disaster
would occur, those three thousand could balloon up to thirty thousand,
just depends on what's going on around the country. So
anywhere I could claim that I supervise anywhere from three
thousand up to one hundred and sixty five thousand employees
(04:04):
at any one time. So I look at these numbers
and it says fourteen thousand employees, and I think, well,
is that the number that's at headquarters, because that seems
reasonable to me considering the size of government. Fourteen thousand headquarters.
But most people don't realize that whatever number of federal
(04:28):
true FTEs full time employees of the federal government that
we have, we also have three times that, four times that,
ten times that contractors, people that literally come from the
NGOs or the consulting companies or the defense contractors, any
(04:54):
number of organizations that we would contract for them to
assis people to us, and those were contractors. Now, some
contractors got paid by tax well, they all got paid
by taxpayer the directory indirectly, but some of them might
be there. They might get paid by let's just say
(05:17):
Booz Allen giant consulting firm or McKenzie, So they might
actually get their paycheck from McKenzie or booz Allen, but
their workplace with whole land security that there might be
some that we would tap under a contract and we
would pay that employee that came from booz Allen or McKenzie,
(05:41):
but they remained an employee of the consulting firm, but
we paid the salary and m or booz Allen paid
for all of the benefits. So there's all this misshmash
of different kinds of categories of employees.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
So if there are fourteen thousand FTEs.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Directly working for USAID, I would not be surprised there
might be another fourteen thousand right across the world that
are actually administering the grants that USAID passes out. Working
in Bolivia or working in Yemen, or I don't care.
(06:21):
Just pick a country, and they may be a full
time employee of USAID, or they might be an employee
of an NGO that's being funded by USAID, or they
might be on the staff of the government of Bolivia
and we're reimbursing Bolivia for the cost of that employee.
(06:42):
So the point is we don't really know. We don't
really know what the staffing level is at USAID because
there's too many.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
I mean, this is true about don't get me wrong.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
This is true about every department and agency in the
federal government. So when they tell you we have a
million federal employees, scoff at that number because it's a
meaningless number, just like this fourteen thousand. But the story
is that they did a review and that review has
(07:17):
identified only two hundred and ninety four of the agency's
fourteen thousand employees as being essential to administering the civil
foreign aid and development assistance that USAID passes out. The
internal review, which they say comes from within USAID, appears
(07:39):
to have been initiated by the President's Secretary of State,
Marco Rubio, who's currently serving as the acting director of
the agency. Again, you start digging around, it's kind of
hard to come up with that story. The essential status determination,
(08:02):
if that really does exist, comes as Rubio is transferring
a few core programs within USAID that are directly determined
by him to serve our direct national interests, moving that
into the State Department. Now, think about that for a moment,
(08:22):
because I hear the same thing about the Department of Education.
The President is ordered, you know, Linda McMahon to work herself,
who's going to be the next Secretary of Education, to
essentially work herself out.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Of a job. Every time I hear that, I also
hear a phrase.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
And we'll accomplish that by transferring some programs out of
Department of Ed into other departments and agencies. Well, wait
a minute, if you, if you, if I heart wanted
to downsize this building, but they didn't really want to
(09:05):
downsize it, they could take my studio, or in essence,
have me, why don't you go broadcast from Pueblo or
Colorado Springs, or why don't you just broadcast from home,
your home studio, and then they can say to corporate, look,
be downsized, we eliminate an entire studio.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Well, but you really didn't. And that's the kind of
shell game that's going on at the federal government. Now.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Trump is expected sometime today, may or may not happen.
He's expected today to place most of the USAID staff
on lead. Now, if the two hundred ninety four essential
workers is true, that will be the staff that will
be directed to remain at their posts in USAID headquarters
(09:56):
and continuing to administer these programs. So in one story
that I found that talks about this review.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
It, it comes.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
From a producer at CBS News and the news is quote,
only two hundred and ninety four USAID personnel have been
deemed essential for all American staff worldwide from fourteen thousand two.
Sources have also confirmed the authenticity of this list to
CBS News. I'm told the Bureau of Resilience, Environmental and
(10:33):
Food Security was told they will be eliminated. And the
checklist that she cites comes from some I shouldn't call
him a goober because it's clearly.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Not one of us.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
A tool go One day, a surgeon writer and formally
led the Global health at USAID, and he posts a
chart and it comes from Bokert t something at us
I D dot gov wrote this email high teammates. Thanks
(11:12):
for the call. Paul will shortly provide the slide deck
that provides more details. Bottom line below are the final
numbers how you determined and then the photo is cut off,
but it lists it lists programs overseas, draw down, Washington
(11:32):
drawdown in total, and then it has a bunch of
acronyms B H A, G, H, L A C, E
and E Asia, Africa, Middle East Management, and it has numbers,
and if you add up all these numbers, it comes
up to that number of what did I say, it
was two hundred and ninety four or two hundred and fourteen,
(11:54):
whatever the number was two hundred can you remember to
two hundred ninety four.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
Well, just that document doesn't tell me.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
That that's been identified as the solely essential people and
that everybody else is unessential. So again I don't know
whether the story's true or not. I wanted to talk
about it today because if it was true.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
To I emphasize, if it was true.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Then that would be a humongous decrease from fourteen thousand
that would administering all these programs to only two hundred
and ninety four. Wow, that's a pretty good accomplishment. But
as I said, I didn't want to bring the story
because when I start digging out, it.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Doesn't confirm what the claim is.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Now, I do know this that the agency spending data
from what I was able to dig out, reveals that
nearly ninety percent of you Krainian media relies on the
USAID to continue operating. So you think about all of
the stories that are reported out of Ukraine from Ukrainian media.
(13:13):
And I'm not talking about the well, although the BBC
gets money from USAID. But if you if you hear
a story out of Ukraine about how the war's going
or anything else that's going on, and it comes from
a Ukrainian media source, the chances are that ninety percent,
depending on you know, you have given ninety percent chance
(13:34):
that that is a Ukrainian media outlet that is being on,
that is being kept alive by American tax dollars. Now,
I just wonder if you're if your tax dollars are
funding Ukrainian media, don't you think it's going to be
(13:55):
slightly geared toward h support of the Ukrainians in the
Ukraine Russia war, And it's gonna somehow, you know, pull
her in your heartstrings and you need all of this,
and you need all of that. Well maybe so it's
also been uncovered that the George Sorels funded East West
(14:15):
Management Institute has gotten two hundred and sixty million dollars
in taxpayer money that's been disbursed by USAID. And then
of course we have the story of a group of
radio stations that Sorels has bought a majority interest in
uh that they're now being investigated by the FCC for
things that they've been saying about the Trump administration that
(14:41):
may or may not be true in fact, in fact,
probably our faults. It's just another example, kind of building
on the last hour about the USDA. I think what
we have to be careful about is and this kind
of leads into the story I really didn't want to
(15:02):
talk about at the beginning of the segment is Trump's
doing all of this stuff, and all of this stuff
is literally.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
An out of control fire hose.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
And whether it's CBS News or whether it's Fox News,
they're desperate to try to get to a factual basis,
if indeed CBS News even cares about the facts. By
the way, did you sidebar real quickly? Did you watch
the video the sixty minutes interview where Trump is suing
(15:37):
CBS News for what like sixty billion dollars or something
because they edited the answers that Kamala Harris gave in
the sixty minutes interview.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
That's out. I've got it.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
I've got a couple of soundbites I may play for
you later on in the program. But the point is
simply this, there is so much going on right now,
and Trump is not wasting a minute of issuing the
executive orders, throwing out thing. This is kind of my
lead into what I want to talk about next hour,
(16:13):
just throwing everything out there, and I think that's part
of a grand strategy to one keep a grand strategy
to keep Democrats from effectively responding. If I ask you
to name what has been the Democrats response to virtually
(16:34):
everything that Trump has done so far, I can only
think of one temporarily concrete thing. And the other thing
they've done is proof that they just adopted the agenda
of the radical left. Remember the SoundBite I played for
you yesterday, I think it was yesterday about Jon Stewart,
(16:58):
and he was like, get Chuck Schumer out of the picture.
Get the old man with the glasses down at the
tip of his nose, trying to lead a chance. They're
trying to take the fight to the streets. Well, that's radicalism,
that's Howard Pivot, that's saul A Lensky. That's the best
(17:20):
they've got. And the other thing they've got is they're
pushing cash Betel's nomination out of committee until next week.
Speaker 5 (17:29):
As a podcast listener, I hope that you live listeners
get your talkbacks in so we don't have to listen
to the cackle. And another thing about the podcast, because
we can't leave live talkbacks. I don't think it's fair
that the cackle ends up in the podcast. So Dragon,
(17:49):
please cut that out.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
No, are you putting the cackle in the podcast?
Speaker 6 (17:54):
If there are no talkbacks? Yes, the cackle will be
in the podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Raises, Look, I'm going to represent him. We have another
distinct group of listeners who, beyond their control, cannot leave
a talkback.
Speaker 6 (18:13):
No, no, no, no, no, well, yes they can leave a
talk They can leave a talkback any time. I go
through all of the talkbacks that were left between the
end of the show yesterday and the beginning of the
show today, all of them. You have plenty of time
to leave a talkback, just because it doesn't show the
(18:34):
situation with Michael Brown featuring Dragon Redbeard on the little
talkback section when you both to find the little red
microphone button, I will still see it.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
So how do you know it's for us?
Speaker 6 (18:46):
Because I will listen to it. I will listen to
any talkback that is given to six point thirty K.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
How okay, all right?
Speaker 2 (18:54):
So they can leave a talkback at anytime twenty four
to seven. Yeah, and you still see them, yes, And
of course we know we get the majority of them, correct, right?
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Are we still getting the majority of them?
Speaker 6 (19:06):
Almost? Definitely?
Speaker 3 (19:07):
And what does that mean? Almost? Most definitely?
Speaker 6 (19:09):
There's another station that is doing giveaways right now, you know,
tickets with the talkbacks and yes, okay, and we're still
clobbering them on Bailey Talkbacks.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Okay, all right, and I still find it fascinating.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
That's a separate segment on the podcast talkbacks.
Speaker 6 (19:28):
Yes, so you still have a responsibility day or night
whenever you happen to be listening to the podcast, you
can just switch over to the screen to the live show,
hit the little red microphone button and leave a talkback
and I will still get it, and I may still
play it if it's good enough to be played during
(19:50):
the show, or if it's an emergency and I need
but boom.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
If if there aren't any that meet you whatever the
hell of your standard is, which I don't even want
to think about what that is. But if they if
none of them meet your standard, which, considering what I
know about you, the standard's got to be so low
that anybody can leave anything, and that would qualify as
a talkback. There should never be a cackle. As long
(20:18):
as there is a talkback, you decide to play it
or not.
Speaker 6 (20:21):
That is very correct. You do not have to meet
my high standards.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Your high standard, which is about where this CRuMs, that
Martino or capitalist or somebody leaves over here on the carpet.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
Uh, that's about the highest standard you have right there.
Speaker 6 (20:37):
Correct, No matter how good or bad the talkback is,
I will play that talkback to avoid the captain.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
Okay, all right, all right, okay, Well then you know
what I was wrong?
Speaker 6 (20:48):
You should be Yeah, I should be wrong. Well you are.
I mean, it's plain and simple.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
It's easy. You know, Yeah, you were wrong. I was,
and I got the first time. The last I half
heartedly apologize.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
Even though it says, you know you're listening to Dan
Kaplis show hit the microphone, leave a talk back. I'll
still listen to it.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
Christmas.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
And this is a fascinating that what I told you
about the ratings the other day, that.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
I was told is true. Yah, they listen. I don't.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
I don't get it. It just proves that you know,
I've always wondered I've always believed that that us that
you know, our right of center. H we're still we're
always the majority in the country, but I never really
had any proof of it.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
I think those ratings are proof that. And we're all
crazy too, very much. So, Yeah, if you go back to.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Put it this way, if you go back to the
early days of Trump's second term, you know, like last week.
Speaker 6 (21:58):
It's like, wait a minute, the early day, yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
The early day days ago. Yeah, like you know, like
a week ago.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Trump has obviously made it his mission to aggressively seek
out and deploy what he can control or used to
his negotiating advantage on the global geopolitical stage, and in
so doing he has there are I don't think at
(22:30):
least how many days are we into it now, so
thirty one, so eleven eighteen days now into this administration.
I don't think there are any sacred cows from any
previous administration, including his first administration.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
I don't think he's.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Going to box himself into any ideological corner. And I
think we kind of saw that a little bit Tuesday
when he unleashed this series of rhetorical thermal nuclear bombs
involving the potential redevelopment of Gaza and more so, which
(23:11):
gets lost in that statement. What I believe was his
kind of indirect statement to the Arab world that you
need to start taking responsibility with regard to these Palestinian refugees.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
You need to do this.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
I the more I study what he said and then
think about the history of the Gazan Strip, the Gaza Strip,
and I'll call them Gosins as opposed to Palestinians, that.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
The Arab world, because they're Arabs, the Arab world.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Needs to do something about that. It's not Israel's responsibility
to take care of them, nor is it the United
States of America. I mean, do we all have some
partial responsibility, maybe so, but the Arab world, you know,
for the Saudis, Uae, for the Iranians, for the Iraqis,
(24:17):
the Yemenis, for all of you, the Egyptians, you all
have some responsibility too. So you can glean from that
that what we're kind of seeing is that it is
a pragmatic policy approach that shows we are committed to
our traditional allies, but simultaneously we're gonna have tough negotiations
(24:41):
with both friends and enemies. It's gonna be tough either way,
and I think that is and I've always disliked the
America first connotation or the America first phrase, because of
the connotation that Charles Lindbergh kind of you use that back,
(25:01):
you know, as isolationists. And my point of view is
we simply cannot be isolationists. We no longer live in
that world that Charles Lindberg lived in. The world that
we live in now is completely and I think, irretrievably interconnected.
(25:21):
Do I want more do I want more of our
pharmaceuticals manufactured in this country, yes? Do I want more
iPhones manufactured somewhere other than China, Yes, But everything that
we now consume or use is comprised of minerals or
products or subproducts or whatever it is, from all over
(25:44):
the world. So we're just all intertwined, and that that's
not going to reverse. So I get Trump's phrase America
First is more about policy and his his view of
the world, that his loyalty and his duty belongs to
(26:05):
America first. And I don't think, well, it is not
the America First of Charles Lindbergh or Woodrow Wilson or
any of those. But that's also like my dislike of
Homeland security, just Homeland is just too close to Germany
(26:27):
pre World War Two and all of that crap. But
it is what it is. But I just want you
to understand that because I tend to avoid America first,
because I just don't like the phrase. I like what
he means that it stands for. But the phrase is,
if you understand history, you understand Charles Lindberg. You understand
(26:48):
all of our stuff about World War One, but that
might even part of World War Two. You'll understand that.
It's just not it's got a bad historical connotation. But
let's move forward. Think about the trade and the tariff
talks they're going on with Canada and Mexico and for
that matter, China too. But right now let's talk about
(27:09):
Canada and Mexico. What he's doing is he is refusing
to accommodate or to accept any of the past criteria.
Do you think any of the past presidents, well, the
phrase it different way. Past presidents would not dare to
(27:31):
use any leverage against our allies. But Trump's more than
happy to do so because he knows he's in a negotiation.
When I did my contract negotiations and by the way
as soon as we get it back from corporate You
guys are stuck with me for quite a while longer.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
Damn it.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
There were some harsh words exchanged over certain visions, but
that's to be expected. Doesn't mean they're my enemies, doesn't
mean I'm their enemy. It's negotiations. Trump's more than happy
to be tough. So he has leveraged the weakness of
foreign economies, obviously compared to our economy, and he has
(28:20):
dialed up a sense of urgency of his counterparts while
signaling that he had all the time in the world
to make a deal. It's it's it's it completely throws
them off balls. We gotta do this real quickly. I'm
going to impose these tariffs right now. Okay, I'll give
you thirty more days. I mean, it's it's totally keeping
them off their gain, never understanding what's going what's going
(28:43):
to happen next.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
So, in short order, what happened.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
Mexico and Canada agreed to send ten tens of thousands
of members of their respective militaries to reinforce the border
with US and to start combating illegal immigration.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Now, what they'll really do, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
But at least he's got them moving, and then he's
going to leverage the power of our economy, even though
our economy, I know, for us in the midst of
this economy it's not all that great, but compared to
the rest of the world, let's breadamn fantastic. So what
(29:22):
he's doing is, as I've used the phrase incessantly this
week because I think it's the only way to describe.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
It, is he's.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
Breaking all kinds of all kinds of these ideological paradigms.
He is doing paradigm shifts on just about every single political, economic,
social cultural topic that you can possibly imagine. It's him
using raw political power and then taking his business approach
(29:53):
to negotiations and publicity and using it as a weapon,
absolutely using it as a weapon.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Michael, But Dragon, you're playing your talkback.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
When somebody leaves it while they're listening to the podcast
leads the cackle on the podcast, it doesn't change the podcast, correct, Ish,
I can't change the past if I wasn't given a
pod talkback. But somebody who would be listening to the
podcast of today's show over the weekend can pause the podcast,
(30:28):
go to the live setting, leave a talkback, So then
there will be no cackle for Monday's podcasts. So when
they're listening Monday afternoon or evening, there will be no
cackle because they had left one previous over the weekend.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
Or all twelve of our listeners could organize a meeting
and get together and assign each of them each twelve
so over twelve day period, they just rotate every day,
someone at some time and at the appointed hour of
I don't care two am or you know, two pm,
just leave a talk bag and then you're safe for
(31:02):
the day. You're safe for a twenty four.
Speaker 6 (31:03):
Hour three you're wrong with leaving a pre empty talkback,
pre empty talkback.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
At Trump's core, he's a real estate developer, right, He's
a deal maker. He and his whole mindset is making
deals as opposed to just winning an argument. You know,
you take the Trudeau government, the little Castro government out
of Canada. It's unclear if the Trudeau government interpreted what
(31:38):
Trump did as just an initial salvo in trade talks,
but nonetheless it's set off a firestorm in the Canadian
government and it probably led negotiating partners to concede more
than they otherwise would have, and he continued to do
this what is clearly part of and I've never read
the Art of the Deal, but just understanding basically what
(31:59):
the concept of the Art of the Deal is. He's
using that same framework, whether it's Greenland, Panama, Ukraine and
now even Gaza in order to maximize his position for
what he believes is the best possible outcome for US
as a nation. He's sowing the corporate media and his
political opponents in a constant state of madness. Now I
(32:21):
do say, parenthetically, I do wonder how long can he
keep this going. There's part of me that says he
can keep doing it for the next you know what,
three years and forty eight weeks probably, so.
Speaker 3 (32:38):
They seem completely unable or unwilling.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
To explain or understand his style of negotiations or what's
the real strategy behind this. I think the real strategy
behind this is it is attached to ideology, especially when
it comes to trade or they in foreign policy. But
(33:03):
acting pragmatically and with this sense of great purpose that
he's exhibited so far. Trump's second term is really unique
because it gives him much more flexibility to keep trading
partners and geopolitical antagonists scramming for the answers, and even
those of us who support him are left at times
(33:26):
really trying to understand, Okay, what's really going on here?
Do you ever have that conversation like I remember one
time with one of my bosses. They were telling me
they were going to do something and I and in fact,
we joked about it during these contract negotiations.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
And I leaned over and I said, I want to.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
Know what's really going on, And watching the body language
as that person shifted back in their chair, it told
me there is something else going on. And it turned
out there really was something else going on. That's what
Trump's doing right now.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
It's fascinating.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.