7-9-25 - 9am - Entitlements and Ukraine

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, what if Congress and the rest just tell
that judge in Boston to stuff it and go ahead
and do what they legally passed to do. Anyway concerning
the government handouts to plan Parenthood and others like.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
Them, Well, that's what I would do if I were
pre First of all, this is this is now out
of the hands of Congress in this sense. The bill's
been passed. Now who administers the laws, the executive branch.
So when it comes time for the Treasury to spend

(00:37):
money this year, they just won't. You know, just just imagine,
you know, a small closet with a single light bulb,
and a guy with the green eye shades, and he's
a bureaucrat that's been there for you know, twenty years.
He's as white as a sheet of eight and a
half by eleven copy paper, and he's sitting in his
little room and he's punching in the numbers. There's a code,

(01:03):
I forget what it's called, to send out checks and
money to people. And he just goes through and Planned
Parenthood never shows up. Force Planned Parenthood, now here's force
Planned Parenthood to take them to court. Where's our money?
Show me the money? Now, probably before that happens, this

(01:26):
current lawsuit will get to a hearing. Remember it's sept
for July fourteenth and July twenty first or something, so
it will get set for a hearing. And I'm certain,
I mean, is there really any doubt in your mind
that this judge will enjoin or prevent the government from
not sending money to a planned parenthood. Well, at that point,

(01:50):
even if the judge orders it, just don't do it.
What's the judge going to do? Is he going to
she because it's a female? Can you say that that
was pretty presumptuous if you can what a female is, right,
I guess I will just call her her honor, the honor, Okay,

(02:13):
So the honor will just hold a hearing and join
the government. And then the Honor will hear another hearing
because planned parent will come back and say, we never
got a check, never got a deposit. Then she'll hold
a contempt hearing. Who will the honor hold in contempt?
The little bureaucrat I just described sitting in a treasury

(02:34):
department in this in the little tiny closet with a
single light bulb, typing out codes. No, he's just doing
what he's told to do. Hold the Treasury Secretary of
Scott dissent and contempt. Hold the President and content. Hold
the Director of you know, Russ both the Director of
Office Management budgeting contempt. Hold them all in contempt and

(02:56):
do what. This sets up a it's not constitutional crisis.
It sets up a judicial issue. Take you to the
Supreme Court. Let the Supreme Court decide. Just refuse to
do it. There. I don't get this whole idea that
you know, we call them entitlements, and I do believe,

(03:18):
for example, that Social Security is an entitlement because you
forcibly took money out of my check and then you
say that you're going to pay me that back. God,
I hate social Security. Just give me my money. But
yearly appropriations, there's no entitlement there. There's no guarantee that

(03:44):
you're going to get funded. It's up to every single Congress,
is it? But they don't. It should be up to
every single Congress to pass a budget every single year,
and they decide who's going to get money not get money.
Instead of the stupid continuing resolutions. You know what a
continuing resolution is, right, Just spend what you spent last
year and we'll tackle on an additional ten percent stop it.

(04:11):
I this case will develop because their argument is it's
a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional. You can't legislative
target to punish somebody. But I think they're grasping its
straws on the bill of attainer.

Speaker 3 (04:26):
Oh.

Speaker 2 (04:27):
I think they can make some arguments, but I think
ultimately it's not a bill of attainer because, as I said,
the bill of attainer has to you don't have to
name them. For example, a bill of attainer could be
against me without naming me. But how would you do that. Well,
if you just said all conservative talk show hosts that

(04:50):
do morning drive, well that's a lot. There's a lot
of conservative boarding drive talk shows. Or you could say
only morning drive conservative talk shows that also have a
Saturday nationally syndicated conservative talk show. Well, now you're getting

(05:12):
close because that does include me. But I'm you know,
is that am I the only one? I mean, I
don't know that. I'm maybe I may, maybe I'm not.
So when you say that it's any organization that provides
all of these services that are reimbursed by Medicaid, we're

(05:33):
cutting your funding off. So in that corral, as I
described it. There are five pigs feeding out the troth
of taxpayers. The biggest, fattest hog in that corral is
Planned Parenthood. What I say to number was, I've I've
closed out that document. It was two point some billion

(05:53):
that they get, and I think some eight hundred million
dollars is what they get. No, it couldn't be that much. Yeah,
it could be that much. Maybe it was eight hundred
million dollars from taxpayers. Well that makes them of the
biggest hog in the corral, but not the biggest hog
in the pig pen. But they're not the only one.
There are others. So I think for that very reason,

(06:16):
the bill of attainder fails. Just because you're the biggest hog,
Well that just sucks to be you, to be the
biggest hog. This is another example of where I think
that what has Democrats so flumixed and incapable of coming
up with a message is what would their argument be here?

(06:41):
We support abortion and we support taxpayers funding abortion. Now,
remember federal funds are already prohibited from being used fund abortion,
So how does eight hundred million dollars from federal tax
payers support abortion? Because remember the money's fungible, It goes

(07:05):
into their bank account. So in their bank account they
pay overhead and salaries, property taxes, UH supplies, equipment, utilities,
everything that goes into running, you know, any organization. So
it if you have that money to pay your rent,
your leases, your real estate costs, your utilities, that frees

(07:32):
up other money that you get from other sources to
pay for the abortions. So it's all fungible. And I
think that Congress has the right to just say how
much we just don't want to We don't want to
fund you anymore, just like I mean, it's a grant,
so what's slightly different, But they're I was talking to

(07:56):
somebody the other day about fire equipment and how much
fire equipment costs, and I mentioned that, you know, we
used to give out grants for fire trucks, but people
would get mad because they would get a grant one
year and these were competitive grants, but they wouldn't get
the grant the next year. May be pissed off, Well,

(08:18):
you didn't when we did the competition. You didn't score
high enough, so you didn't get it for whatever reason.
One is human nature. I think once you start getting
something and then somebody tries to take it away, then
all hell breaks loose, and that's what's going to happen

(08:40):
over this case. In some news that just broke overnight
technically Wednesday, but overnight because it was in Ukraine. The
SBU Security Service, which is their KGB if you will,
there's CIA, they announced that they had apprehended a Chinese
dad and son they were trying to smuggle classified missile

(09:02):
documentation out of Ukraine. They were apparently captured in Kiev
while reportedly trying to send information about the Ukrainian RK
three sixty mc neptune missile that system information back to China.
According to the SBU, the son was a twenty four
year old former technical university student in Kiev. The dad

(09:24):
actually resides in China, but had traveled to Ukraine to
oversee the espionage operation personally. Now in the story that
I found about this, they face up to how long
this is espionage? Fifteen years in prison? I would have

(09:45):
thought fifty years life. Fifteen years in prison? Now, I
don't know how the Ukrainian prison system works. Does fifteen
years mean that after you serve two years and you're
a good model prisoner, you get out. I don't know,
but The reason this is interesting is because this particular
missile system is the one that was used to destroy

(10:07):
the Russia Black Sea Fleet's flagship ship, the Moskva. That
happened early in the war, and so now you've got
China trying to steal information about that missile, which I'm
sure they would then turn over to the Ruskies. China
and Russia declared a no limits partnership just prior to

(10:29):
Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine back in twenty twenty two,
and since then they've been increasing all their cooperation across political, military, economics,
every sector. You can imagine, further escalating concerns among the
Western nations about Beijing's role in the global conflict. And
so while we're talking about Ukraine, do you think Trump's

(10:50):
got the message? Do you think Trump's finally got the
message that Putin doesn't care? You know, I kind of
chuckle when Trump comes out and says, I'm really mad
at Vladimir. Vadimir is just like you. You won't listen
to me. He just wants to kill, kill, kill. Well, yes,
he's a thug, that's what he wants to do. And

(11:14):
then those stories broke that immediately after the last phone
call is when the barrage of missiles just started bombing
and just really compounding, compounding and compounding the damage. Jim
Kievan some of the Eastern brain fart oblosts the state

(11:37):
what they call these states that suddenly they just bomb them.
So now Trump's going to start resending arms to Ukraine.
Where's this going to end? Because if now I don't
think we'll send troops, I really don't. But if it

(12:00):
looks like Kiv, the capitol Kiev, Kiv might fall, will
the Brets, will the Brits step in, will they put
boots on the ground, Will the Poles step in? I
don't know. They very well may. But if they hit
drawn in with boots on the ground, does that draw
us in? Or does Trump just say, look, we're not

(12:21):
going to do anything. We'll give you equipment, we'll give
you supplies, but that's all we're going to do. Does
that lead to a wider war in Europe? Because at
that point, Vlad's going to be like I all I
wanted was Ukraine. But if Pole wants to fight, maybe
I want Poland too. I just think this is on

(12:46):
the precipice of blowing up into something a lot larger
than what we expected it to be, and it bothers me. Now,
while that's going on, how did we get into this position? Well,
you knew that if Trump was here, he would be
saying what, Well, if I'd been you know, I really
was elected, but if I had been president, this never
would have happened. I think that is probably true. I'm

(13:10):
kind of sick of hearing about it, but I do
believe that it's true. Well. In related news, doctor Kevin O'Connor,
who's Biden's former physician, is set to testify before the
House Oversight Committee regarding Uncle Joe's physical and cognitive health
during his presidency. Interestingly, Trump waived executive privilege for O'Connor. Now, O'Connor,

(13:38):
I he may still be in the military. I'm not sure,
but Trump by waving executive privilege opened the door so
that Congress can pretty much ask him about any conversations
between him and the president. Because people will argue, oh,
but hip applies hip hoppli. I'm not sure it does
here because he's already publicly spoken about the president's health.

(14:05):
He's given reports, he's published letters, documents about the president's health.
So I think he's waived HIPPA, and now with Trump
waving executive privilege, it seems to me that the House
Oversight Committee can ask anything they want. They've actually subpoena O'Connor.
They've subpoenaed him back in June as part of their

(14:26):
inquiry into this alleged cover up of the cognitive decline
of poor old Uncle Joe. Now, over the weekend, the
doctor and his lawyers requested in the House Oversight Committee
delay his testimony to a later date in July. They
had earlier requested a delay and ignored and said, yeah, yeah,

(14:49):
we'll show up for a deposition or hearing, and then
they decided not to, which is why they got the subpoena.
And now they got the subpoena, now they're asking for
a delay, so Comer wrote on X If Biden's inner
circle fails to comply with our subpoenas, we'll initiate contempt
of Congress. When I read that, I thought, and what

(15:15):
are you really going to throw the doctor in jail?
Now I would because other members of the Trump administration,
Steve Bannon got thrown in jail. What was the trade
rep he got thrown in jail, So why not Biden's people. Now,

(15:36):
as of right now, it's unclear whether he intends to
bide by the subpoena and testify his schedule. If he does, well,
obviously we'll talk about it because I think there will
clearly be some news other news out of DC. A

(15:56):
twenty twenty five CIA review that the Steele dossier's inclusion
in the twenty seventeen Intelligence Community Assessment just happened to
be politically driven and ignored all of the intelligence standards
when putting together the assessment. And it found that John Brennan,

(16:18):
former Deputy Director, pushed to include the discredited dossier despite
warnings from senior CIA officials. Now, remember, in twenty twenty three,
Brennan testified to the House Judiciary Committee that he did
not believe the dossier should be included in the assessment.

(16:38):
Yet now we find out, based on internal documents, that
he actually is the one that put it in the assessment. Well,
now we got another possible contempt proceeding. Did he perjure
himself in front of Congress? Obviously? So will Congress do anything? Hello?

(17:00):
This on? Is this on? Yeah? We'll wait and see, Michael,
You and I both know.

Speaker 1 (17:08):
The Republican House committee that interviews that guy is going
to be soft as butter. Nothing will happen.

Speaker 2 (17:15):
In fact, even if he doesn't comply, they won't.

Speaker 1 (17:18):
Put him in jail like they did are Navarrow in? Uh?

Speaker 2 (17:23):
Yes, out, Oh, I don't think they'll be solid. I
think they'll be pretty tough on him. They just won't
do anything. They won't do anything in terms of if
he ignores the subpoena. Uh. And then you know, I
love congressional hearings. That's sarcasm in case you didn't know.

(17:47):
They're so scripted. And can you other than like, oh,
let's say the nine to eleven Commission, the War and Commission.
Regardless of what you think of the reports, at least
the issue to report, you know, and it got published.
But you hold a congressional hearing. What happens after the hearing?

(18:12):
Have you ever really thought about that? Like what happens
behind the scenes. There were many times that there would
be some particular issue that had to do with Homeland
Security or FEMA. So I would get a request to testify,
and that request would be we would hope that it

(18:36):
would be you know, three or four weeks down the road,
because whatever the issue was, I would I'd have a
staff meeting and I'd tell the staff that, look, the
House Oversight Committee or the Senate Homeland Security Committee, whatever
whichever one that might be, wants me to testify about xyz.

(18:56):
So I need to get everything possible about XYZ. So
the Legislative Affairs Office would then go out and they
would reach out to the staff on this, let's just
say the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and my staff would
reach out to the Senate staff and say, what do
you want to know? What are you going to ask?

(19:19):
They would literally provide questions, Here are the questions we're
going to ask, Secretary Brown. Then they would take those
questions back and they would have to draw up the answers,
and I would, you know, look through the answers and
I would edit and mark them up, and I might
ask to be brief on a particular issue that maybe
I didn't fully understand an answer. I wanted more background

(19:41):
on an issue. But here's a clincher. Once I got
my answers, those had to be sent to the White
House because the Office of Management and Budget has a
complete section that does nothing but overviews written testimony and

(20:01):
any written answers. Now obviously they can't review any oral
answers because you're going to give those when you appear
in front of the committee. But those would get approved
by the White House and then sent back to me
for my review, and if I disagreed, then it would
go back and forth several times. Then at some point

(20:22):
for the open ended for the oral questions, I would
get what are called SAPs, statements of Administration position. So
the Office of Management and Budget, again in conjunction with
my staff, would come up with our positions. So those
imagine those positions being a box, so my answers would

(20:45):
have to be within the box. Now I could, I
could wonder off anywhere I wanted to, as long as
I stayed within the box, because I had to stay
within the administration's position, whatever that issue was. Then after
all of that gets done, which you see now why
I went in three or four weeks before I would
actually testify, because once all of that got done, then

(21:08):
we would go back and generally speaking to the written questions,
they would already be the Senate Homeland Security Committee staff
would also get my written answers, and it would be
from my written testimony, which they would get in an
advance the answers to the written questions, which they would
get in advance, and then I would go. So then

(21:31):
I would, you know, I get sworn in. I'd sit
down at the you know, at the table, at the
witness table, I'd be sworn in. I would generally read,
or sometimes they would, you know, do you want to
waive the reading of your statements here? I don't care
because it didn't make any difference to me because they
all had it. So unless it was something that I
wanted to make sure the public card, I would waive

(21:53):
the reading of the opening statement, and they would have it.
If there was something in that opening statement that I
wanted to make sure that the media god, I would
want to read my opening statement, then the questions would begin. Now,
a good senator would ask questions based on the answers,
not necessarily the questions. And I love those because that

(22:15):
gave me an opportunity as long as I stayed within
the administration's position, that gave me the flexibility to answer
the question the way I wanted to answer it. Then
the hearing would conclude. We all go our separate ways. Yeah,
that's what happened. Generally nothing. Over the course of maybe

(22:37):
a year or two, there might be some legislation drafted
that might deal with the issue that the hearing was about,
or they might be satisfied that, oh, okay, well maybe
it's not as big an issue as we thought, and
nothing ever happens. So it's all scripted, it's all kind
of contained within a box. Nobody kind of knows what

(23:00):
everybody else is going to do. Occasionally senators might ask
questions based upon the preordained answers, which will be fine
with me, because I don't mind. I didn't bother me
in the least. I can speak extemporaneously, I can answer
questions off the cuff. Go ahead, fire at me, let's
do it. But in terms of actually resulting in legislation

(23:22):
or a policy or a regulation, very seldom did that occur. Now,
very seldom did that occur because most of that like,
if if there was an issue, well, any issue that
Congress wanted to have a hearing on, if through our
process in the executive branch, we determine that, you know,

(23:45):
this really is something we ought to address, well, we
might write a regulation, or we might come up with
a policy or a rule, and address that ourselves within
the executive branch, and congressmen never have anything to do
with it. Oh, they might follow up with the letter
did you you know what is this rule? Or why
did you do this rule? But we did this rule

(24:07):
because if you remember, six months or last year, we
had a hearing in which blah blah blah blah, and
we discovered that that really didn't need a rule change,
so we changed the rule. Now, if you don't like it,
you know what, you have oversight, you can call us
back up and fight us over the rule. And then
we would fight over the rule. But percent of the

(24:28):
time nothing happens. So everything that I always get a
kick out of when the television channels cover hearings because
the only reason they're covering hearings is because they know
someone like Senator to Kennedy from Louisiana, who's got that

(24:48):
southern drawl and he's always got you know, some Mark
Twain like quips about you know so and so, and
you know he's he's always good for a sound bite.
He's always good to go on some talking headshow. He'll
show up on Hannadeo, show up on Laura Ingram, He'll
show up with somebody like that, and he'll be standing
there in the hallways and they'll be interviewing him. And

(25:11):
so what made for entertainment politics is entertainment in this country,
and I really get tired of I'll give you an example.
This was the story I was going to do. The
worst of the worst anti American Democrats, in my opinion,
are those that come here from failed Third World craphole
countries and then do well by exploiting opportunities that did

(25:36):
not exist in their own crabhole country and then set
about to destroy this country in the name of the
crabhole country that they came from. That's really a disgraceful ideology.
And when you think about it, who's a great example
of that? Elon Omar and Oppressley, any of those well

(25:57):
in diametric opposition stands the Vice President of the United
States jd Events. Now, he took advantage of America's opportunities,
derives from hardship, but he did it as an American,
not as an enemy. Within after Independence Day, he laid
into one of my new favorite communists, Zoran Mandami, the

(26:22):
self avowed Marxist. That's the Democrat nominee to be mayor
of New York, and.

Speaker 3 (26:28):
That brings me back finally to the next likely mayor
of New York. Today is July fifth, twenty twenty five,
which means, as all of you know that yesterday we
celebrated the two hundred and forty ninth anniversary of the
birth of our nation. Now, the person who wishes to

(26:53):
lead our largest city had, according to multiple media reports,
never once publicly mentioned America's Independence Day in earnest, But
when he did so this year, this is what he said,
and this is an actual quote. Quote America is beautiful, contradictory, unfinished.

(27:14):
I am proud of our country, even as we constantly
strive to make.

Speaker 2 (27:18):
It better end quote.

Speaker 3 (27:21):
There is no gratitude in those words, no sense of
owing something to this land and the people who turned
its wilderness into the most powerful nation on earth. Zoran
Mamdani's father fled Uganda when the tyrant Idiomin decided to
ethnically cleanse his nation's Indian population. Mamdani's family fled violent

(27:43):
racial hatred, only for him to come to this country,
a country built by people he never knew overflowing with
generosity to his family, offering a haven from the kind
of violent ethnic conflict that has commonplace in world history,
but it is not common place here. And he dares,
on our two hundred and forty ninth anniversary, to congratulate

(28:05):
it by paying homage to its incompleteness and to its
as he calls it, contradiction. I wonder has he ever
read the letters from boy soldiers in the Union Army
to parents and sweethearts that they'd never see again. Has
he ever visited the gravesite of a loved one who
gave their life to build the kind of society where

(28:26):
his family can escape racial theft and racial violence? Has
he ever looked in the mirror and recognized that he
might not be alive were it not for the generosity
of a country he dares to insult.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
On its most sacred day.

Speaker 3 (28:41):
Who the hell does he think that he is?

Speaker 2 (28:43):
Well, I can tell you who he thinks he is.
He wants to remember, sees the means of production.

Speaker 4 (28:50):
It's very interesting when the books were announced that they
were coming out about Biden's cognitive decline, all of a
sudden we were told that Biden had cam Since that time,
which has been several months, I have not heard one
word about Biden's cancer from the original announcement, I'm sure

(29:11):
the media and Biden weren't trying to pull up the
heartstrings of people that he has cancer to overcome his
cognitive decline during presidents Did.

Speaker 2 (29:20):
Somebody announce youate cancer or is that just a speculation? No, No,
he's got cancer, Christate Castate cancer. Yeah, so that she's
referring to the prostate cancer correct, Yeah, okay, all right.
House Democrats have gone off the deep end, totally off
the deep end. They've told Axios that they see this
growing anger among their base that has morphed into truly

(29:44):
a total disregard for American institutions, are political traditions and
even the rule of law. So Axios stepped out and
they spoke to more than two dozen House Democrats for
this particular story. And obviously, they we shouldn't say obviously,
but cowardly, they requested anonymity so they would offer their

(30:07):
candid insights about their interactions with constituents and the activists. Now,
you know, we've watched these Democrat officeholders getting themselves arrested
in the New Jersey, California and other places for assaulting
ICE agents, for simply enforcing the law, but I find
it fascinating that they think that's not enough. They would

(30:31):
have taken a step further. Axehols reports the grassroots once more.
Quote some of them have suggested what we really need
to do is be willing to get shot when visiting
ICE facilities or federal agencies. A third House Democrat, a
member of the House of Representatives, said, we really do

(30:53):
need to be willing to get shot. Well, then why
don't you get off your house and go volunteer? Why
don't you volunteer to do that? But on to say,
our own base is telling us that what we're doing
is not good enough, that there needs to be blood
to grab the attention of the press and the public.
And then a fourth House Democrat said, constituents have told

(31:14):
them that quote civility isn't working, and to prepare for
violence to protect our democracy. They want to get shot. No,
I don't want the poor ICE agents. I don't want
them put in a position where they have to lethally
defend themselves against a bunch of yahoos. But be warned,

(31:40):
they want to get shot. Stupid has no limits.