Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Marco Rubio, the absolute best secretary of State these United
States of America have had Dance Rubio twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Here we go. Somebody asked me on the weekend program
where I would rank Rubio. They remember secretary's of state
all the way back to Dean Rusk, So where would
I rank Rubio? My response was, and I mean this sincerely,
I'm not yet ready to rank him because there will
(00:37):
surely be some stumbles. He's not perfect, He's a human being.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
It's only been what six months.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
It's been six months. But as girl Dad had emailed
me or seid a text message, I'd be okay if
you just spent the rest of the program just hitting
play on Marco Rubio soundbites. But instead I want to
hit play on some ABC News sound bites because I
(01:06):
sometimes I'm really fascinated by how this program works out.
I wanted to talk about this report that was released
maybe maybe Friday year over the weekend, about what they
want to do in terms of food dies and you know,
the just trying to clean up our health and our
food supply system. A little bit. And I walk in
(01:28):
from the break and I hear the top of the
hour News just saying something about Maha and it's a
blow to Bobby Kennedy Junior. And I'm like, well a dragon,
what what was it? So I pull up our ABC
News call and here's what I think I heard the
top of the hour. This was five drones that hit. Well,
(01:52):
now it refreshed Jeff as I hit Okay, you know,
screw you.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Would you like me to play the ABC stuff that
was actually played here?
Speaker 4 (02:03):
An upcoming Make America Healthy Again report does not signal
any intention to eliminate pesticides, instead calling for more targeted
and precise pesticide applications and programs that would help to
decrease pesticide volumes. It also calls for a government wide
definition of ultra processed food. The Health Department is declining
(02:23):
to verify the draft's authenticity, with the White House saying
unless officially released, it is speculative literature.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Well, now, interestingly, on ABC News Radio News Call, our
site we go to for ABC News, you know how
that is how that slug is titled maw Hall forward
slash blow to RFK. That's interesting because earlier I wanted
(02:55):
to go to a story written over at the Center
for Science and the public interest. Now, anytime somebody tells
you that they are an organization that is in the
public interest, run because you know it's a left wing
Marxist organization, most generally a non government organization that is
getting taxpayer dollars to push an agenda. Here's the headline
(03:20):
on this report. This is dated Friday. I think leaked
MAHA reports recommendations undermined by the administration's actions. This comes
from the Center for Science and the Public Interest Science
director Aviva Mucus. No, it's Musekis or something. I don't know,
(03:45):
but it looks like Mucus so I thought that was
kind of appropriate. Whoever Aviva is right. It is quite
rich for an administration that is plunging the nation into
a nutrition security in food safe fifty nightmare to now
promise to make America healthy again. The administration so called
(04:07):
Big Beautiful Bill is pushing healthy food out of reach
for millions of Americans and is ripping healthcare coverage for
millions more. The administration, with the help of DOGE, has
totally up ended biomedical research in America, delaying progress on
fighting cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. It is striking
(04:36):
that that Elite Make America Healthy Again strategy report, like
its AI assistant predecessor, embodies much of the idiosyncratic beliefs
about food and drugs of one person, Robert F. Kennedy Junior.
He might be right about food dies, but the reports
(04:56):
recommendations to all to our vaccine framework, restructure government agencies,
and promote meat and whole milt are going to promote
disease not health. What so saying that we're not going
(05:17):
to use in effective mrn A so called vaccines shots
mRNA vaccines for respiratory diseases because that's proven to be
totally in effective against stars CoV two. You know, even
when your own like for me personally, even when both
(05:37):
my anti aging doctor and my primary care physician both
say no, don't take any of those boosters. No, and
I apologize for recommending you're taking the original shot, that
tells me something that's somehow going to promote disease not health.
Or restructuring a government agency is going to promote disease
(05:57):
not health. Or promoting meat whole milk are going to
promote disease not health. Then I have to ask myself
is it really? Because I actually think it's worse than that.
Do you know how the PBS? Did you know that
(06:22):
they're still actively engaged in producing news stories? I thought
they were going out of business. Anyway, Listen to this
story from PBS about the leaked draft of the Mahaw Report,
and it's really not about affecting our health except.
Speaker 5 (06:46):
Doctor Hendrus, So, what would be the effect of provoking
this finding on the health of Americans, especially children?
Speaker 6 (06:53):
Well, if they revoked this finding, it knocks out a
major pillar in our fight against the growing wildfires rising.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Wait, come again, I wondered if you catch that, why
don't you pay attention this time? I'll try, doctor Hendrix.
Speaker 5 (07:09):
So, what would be the effect of revoking this finding
on the health of Americans?
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Especially children?
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Well?
Speaker 6 (07:16):
This, if they revoked this finding, it knocks out a
major pillar in our fight against the growing you know, wildfires.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Right, yep, still as confused as the first time.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Well, let me see if I can clarify it by
letting you listen to the next half of that sound bite.
Speaker 6 (07:37):
Rising heat waves and worsening floods and hurricanes we've been
seeing for the past two decades, and it makes it
more likely that all of these problems will continue to
get worse in the future.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Those problems are going to get worse because we're trying
to prove improve America's health. Do you get the cause
A link?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
I'm lost.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Okay, Well you should probably listen to them more. Oh, listen,
it gets even better for your book.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
I know that you spoke to a lot of young
people about growing up in areas with heavy pollution.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
What did they tell you?
Speaker 5 (08:21):
What are the sorts of things they told you?
Speaker 6 (08:23):
You know, in our town it causes a lot of
distress and mental health problems because we've been encased in smoke,
sometimes for eight to ten weeks at a time. In
twenty twenty one, there were two huge wildfires nearby, and
as the weeks wore on. You know, it's very hard
on everyone's mental health. But a lot of kids, I
think adolescents I'm talking about primarily, feel kind of betrayed
(08:45):
that nothing has been done about this problem to help
ensure a better future for them.
Speaker 5 (08:50):
APA director Lee Zelden, when he announced this proposal, said
that the finding twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped
science to achieve their preferred What do you.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Say to that.
Speaker 6 (09:01):
I think that's exactly the opposite of the truth. I mean,
I think that the statement they released by the five
scientists are kind of known for being contrarians on this topic,
that they that if they reverse it, it is disregarding
the science, jeopardizing public health, and is a direct contradiction
to their mandate to protect public health under the Clean
(09:23):
Clean Air Act.
Speaker 5 (09:24):
Doctor, you practice in Renow, Nevada, which is by some
accounts the fastest warming.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Setting in the and I that's it. Stop that now.
Remember this is a PREBOS story about the leaked Make
America Healthy Again report that encourages you know, to eat
more meat, and you know, drink whole milk, and you know,
get rid of food dies and do all of those things.
But somehow they've swayed or swerved into.
Speaker 6 (09:54):
Climate change and failing to stop this process, to me,
is you know, a crime against children my view, because
not only are they going to inherit the hotter and
more dangerous and more chaotic world that we're creating, but
they're already more vulnerable to the growing health hazards of
that world. And we're already seeing that things like worsening
air pollution, rising heat waves, and the trauma of natural disasters,
(10:17):
and so we're losing many of the gains we've had
over the past century in infant mortality and children's health
and welfare.
Speaker 5 (10:25):
Explain that you said their children are more vulnerable.
Speaker 6 (10:28):
Explain that, yeah, So there's a long list of reasons
why children are more vulnerable, but particularly children under five,
and there's three major reasons that we talk about most.
One is that their physiology is different. That's the way
their bodies work. So we often say in pediatrics that
children are not just small adults, and that's because you
can't just take the same calculations and assumptions you would
for an adult and apply them to a small child.
(10:51):
The second big reason is that they're smaller in size,
and the third reason is that their organs and body
systems are still developing and can be easily derailed by
pollutants and environmental harm. So, for example, if a city
is engulfed in smoke, like my city Reno often is,
and a baby or taller in that city is breathing
(11:11):
breathing that smoke, they breathe faster than their parents, and
they are taking in more air pollution per pound of weight,
and their lungs and brain are still developing and can
be adversely affected by that pollution.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Huh. So the story is about the MAHA Make America
Healthy Again report, but it's going to lead to climate change,
and the climate change is going to lead to more
wildfires and tornadoes and hurricanes, and that's going to affect
the physiology of children under five because their bodies aren't
(11:49):
fully formed yet and they function slightly differently. And so
we probably shouldn't be doing anything to oh, I don't know,
clean up our food supply system. This is insanity. And
if you're actually trying to logically follow along, if you
figured out how to do that, then please explain it
(12:12):
to me.
Speaker 5 (12:14):
What do you see in your practice and the patients
you see?
Speaker 6 (12:17):
Yeah, so when we get engulfed in smoke, it's called
a smoke wave that will come over because we're ten
miles from the California border. So when the big fires
hit California, we get we're down wind, immediately down wind,
and we really get hit by it, and the clinic
in the hospital will fill with kids wheezing and coughing.
You know, we've had kids. The pediatric world will fill
up with kids on oxygen during heat waves, which often
(12:40):
go with. You know, we usually have a heat wave
before the smoke kits because the heat will trigger the
fire to start. We often see kids fainting and athletic practices.
You know, there's been studies showing that pediatric ar visits
go up seventeen percent in hot weather, and smoke waves
also increase asthma visits by up to seven percent, according
(13:01):
to one study of the campfire in twenty eighteen. So
these events have a huge impact on children's immediate help,
and because they affect development, like I mentioned, they can
have a lifelong impact as well.
Speaker 5 (13:13):
Doctor Deborah Hendrickson of the Interas Nevada Medical School, thank you.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Very much, you so much, doctor, thank you for explaining
that to me, because now I understand that we need
to quit worrying about health benefits of food and all
of that and focus that on hurricanes and forest fires
from portly Mana's force in California that you know, allow
stuff to get out of there. I don't know. In
(13:36):
May of this year, there's no segue here, but it's
all related.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Best segway, that's right.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Polar Science sent Bill twenty five one sixty nine into law.
That bill directed the colle Department of Human Services to
submit an application to the Department of Agriculture to seek
approval for a restaurant Meals program. The Restaurant Meals program
would allow Food Stamp SNAP recipients to purchase meals at
(14:10):
participating restaurants. Now, the supposed aim is to address the
needs of SNAP participants who can't cook or can't prepare
a meal, so you know, to make it easier for
them to access nutritious prepared foods. Now, the Restaurant Meals program,
(14:31):
according to everything I can find about this way w
they're asking for, they're saying that it's designed to benefit
vulnerable populations and to give them more healthy benefits. It's
a way quote to improve access to nutritionally balanced meals
and support food security. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless
(14:58):
part of the homelessness industry, the SNAP Advocacy for the
Homeless Project team, they all support this waiver. Now, there
are two other waivers. One would allow the food Stamp
beneficiaries to purchase hot prepared foods and one example is
(15:20):
like a rotisserie chicken at a grocery store or to
maybe buy things at a farmer's market. And that's fine.
You know, I actually don't have much of a problem
with that if at the same time you're eliminating their
ability to use their food stamps their EBT card to
purchase junk food. But if your initiative is to prioritize
(15:44):
how theer food options, then how is going to Oh,
I don't know, let's say McDonald's or Taco Bell or
even Chick fil A.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
You can already go to Papa Murphy's because that's not
a cooked food food. So they taking base and even
thought of that. Yes, so you can already do that.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
So you can go to Papa Murphys and just get
a double cheese, double pepperoni pizza, huh, and take that
home and bake it yep, and you and I pay
for it yep. The argument goes that not all SNAP
recipients have the means to prepare food at home, like
(16:25):
homeless individuals they don't have kitchens or storage for groceries,
or a low income family in a rural or undeserved
area could benefit from access to prepared meals when the
grocery options are limited.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Grannared it was twenty something years ago when I was
on this food stamp in the SNAP program, is that
they specifically ask you if you've got a way to
prepare food. Now, if you would answer no, I didn't
because I had waste to prepare food. I would like
to think there are other programs or other facilities that
would be able to get you said equipment like an
oven stovetop, a.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Micro microwave, would care fry.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
I mean, you know, not right, So I don't know
why we need to make that jump to allowing the
cooked foods.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Because you know what's going to happen. Remember the mother
we talked about that had was it twenty seven kids?
Well nine plus three in the oven? Right? Correct? Yeah? Yeah,
so she had nine kids plus three in the oven.
She was twenty seven years old or something nine years old. Now,
what do you think those rug rats when she says, oh,
(17:30):
now we can go out to eat. Do you think
they're going to say, let's go to Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
I just personally don't like it because it doesn't stretch
your dollar as far as going to the.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Grocery store and buying the exactly.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
And when I was, you know, I stretched everything out.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
They want the happy eat. They want the orange juice
of the fruit juice or the sugar juice. Pen essence
and the fries and a cheeseburger. Joy. Wow, some kind
of stupid in color Road, Mike.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
I enjoy hearing Margaret Brennan get.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Steamrolled by Marco Rubio. Yeah, it's not the first time
and it won't be the last. Go little Marco, go,
Little Marco. A life lesson from just hearing the name.
Little Marco is the guy that makes fun of you
(18:36):
and calls you little Marco one day. May the next
day make you the secretary of State and you rise
to the top of the cabinet like nobody's business yesterday.
I remember Sean King, the white guy pretending to be
a black guy. That was I think he was a
(18:58):
contributor on CNN or MSN for a while, and he's
one of these kind of racist and tagonizers. Well, he's
blocked me on X so I don't see his I
don't see his posts on X. But somebody had reposted
(19:18):
something that follows me, had reposted something which led me
to his website, And on his website, which I am
able to read, he has this headline, the Israeli flag
just became the only national flag illegal to burn in
(19:38):
the United States. Yeah, I'm dead serious when criticizing Israel
becomes a hate crime. How one ruling betrayed the First Amendment.
He got my attention, Sean, and so I read through
your story. Let me share some of it with you,
he writes, under a subhead of the flag America protects.
(20:05):
This week in Washington, d c. Meaning last week, a
federal judge made a ruling so shocking, so unprecedented, that
it flips the First Amendment on its head. Judge Trevor
McFadden declared that the Israeli flag, with the Star of
David at its center, is not a political symbol at all,
(20:25):
but a racial one. He ruled that, now, listen closely,
because if you skim over this sentence, you might miss
a couple of words that when you actually hear what
the judge ruled, you go back, Oh, so you were
lying to us. You just tried to bury the truth
(20:47):
around a bunch of other words, hoping we would miss it.
The next paragraph, he writes, he ruled that tearing it grabby,
grabbing it might imply that it's not yours, might imply
(21:08):
that maybe someone's got it wrapped around their neck. But
I digress, I digress. The judge rule that tearing it,
grabbing it, desecrating it, even in the heat of protest,
is not free expression but racial discrimination. Now think about that,
he writes, In the United States, you can burn the
American flag. The Supreme Court has said so for decades.
(21:31):
But now, according to this ruling, burning or tearing the
Israeli flag could make you guilty of racial hatred. The
one national flag protected in American law today is not
our own, it's Israel's. You can burn the flag of
all fifty states. You can torture the American flag all
you want. You can burn the flags of the UK,
(21:52):
or France, or Brazil or China, but not Israel. And
then he goes through a series of the most famous,
well the most famous cases Texas versus Johnson in nineteen
eighty nine, a case in which Justice Brennan wrote, if
there's a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is
(22:13):
that the government may not prohibit the expression of an
idea simply because society finds the idea of fensive or disagreeable.
My how far we've fallen from that idea right. And
then next year, in nineteen ninety, the Court struck down
another attempt at flag burning, reminding us that quote punishing
(22:34):
desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes
this emblem so revered and worth revering. And then Shaun
King goes back after citing a couple of Supreme Court
cases about you know, even the stars and stripes, the
nation's most sacred symbol, cannot be placed above criticism or protests,
and he writes that is what freedom means. And yet
(22:55):
in twenty twenty five, the federal judge has just carved
out an exception for a foreign flag. Well, of course
he's got my attention. So let's examine what the facts are.
Should I say the real facts? Or is that redundant?
I think it's redundant. But let's examine the facts that
(23:16):
perhaps I don't know. Sean King decided he didn't want
to share with his audience on x or his website.
It is a high profile case. He issued a ruling
that has been widely interpreted as declaring that the Israeli
flag is not merely a political symbol, but is a
(23:38):
racial symbol. Now in the context which I'm not going
to tell you yet, in the context of the facts
of this case, Judge McFadden equated a tax on the
flag two acts of racial discrimination under US civil rights law,
specifically the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six, which
(24:00):
recognizes Jews as a race for purposes of civil rights.
Now Here are a couple of key findings from the opinion.
The judge rejected the argument that the Israeli flag simply
represents the state of Israel. He wrote that physically attacking
the flag is a I decided to leave something out
(24:23):
right here. He wrote that physically attacking the flag is
direct evidence of racial discrimination, and he wrote the Star
of David, emblazoned upon the Israeli flag symbolizes the Jewish race.
The judge compared this action to the use of a
(24:46):
racial slur against black people and concluded that in this
particular case, the way the flag was desecrated is a
racially charged context, and that it's not protected as free
political expression, but actually constitute racial discrimination and a potential
(25:06):
federal hate crime. He went on to indicate, the judge
did that this person that is the subject of the
case had no reason to believe that the Ah okay,
let me just forget all of this and just tell
you some facts. You're at a protest, you support Israel,
(25:33):
you take the Israeli flag, the Star of David. It's
a big, huge flag. You wrap yourself in it, as
you would say a blanket on a cold morning, you know,
a quilt or you know, ay serapios some I'm swear
(25:55):
you wrap yourself up in the Israeli flag. You have
skull cap on, you maybe have a I think this
was in the facts. You may be wearing a Star
of David necklace around your neck, and you're marching in
a protest and someone comes up and physically attacks you,
(26:21):
and during the physical attack rips that flag such that
you are physically injured, and you follow the ground, and
someone takes that flag, and it's not clear. In fact,
it's so unclear. I don't believe the flag was actually burned.
(26:43):
I think the flag was just tossed over into the
street where the protest was taking place, and oh, I
don't know, maybe a truck drove over it, or people
walked on it or whatever. But I don't know for
a fact that it was actually burned. So the ruling
actually relied on the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty
(27:06):
six and upheld a restraining order against the defendant and
restrained him from, in essence, ripping a piece of clothing
off of a jew That's what occurred. Now. Did the
person who was attacked have a shirt and some pants on, Yes,
(27:29):
but the person had wrapped themselves in the flag, and
a protester, in what is a should otherwise be considered
a physical assault, walked up and started ripping the flag
off this individual such that it caused them to fall
to the ground injure themselves, and then took the flag
(27:50):
and wadded it up and threw it off somewhere, knowingly
that that was a Jewish person. And just in terms
of an injuncture, the judge said, you can't do that.
He did not say you could burn the flag. But
he did not say you could not burn the flag.
He simply said that attacking someone based on their judaism,
(28:12):
on their religious beliefs, and ripping a Jewish flag the
Star of David from their body is an act of discrimination.
Direct quote from the opinion. Purposely yanking on an Israeli
flag tied around a Jewish person's neck is direct evidence
of racial discrimination. The Star of David, emblazed upon the
(28:34):
Israeli flag symbolizes the Jewish race. Now, yes, this is
the first time that a US court has equated a
national flag with racial identity protections, making it Yes, it
would be the only flag that in American law currently
is protected from at least desecration or you know, ripping
off an individual under a federal right civil rights statue.
(28:58):
But it didn't say you could then go burn Because
that flag happens to be the personal property of somebody else,
you don't have the right.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
To burn it.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
But Sean King is determined to make you believe that
somehow a federal judge is determined that you can just
freely go burn the Jewish flag, the Israeli flag. My
guess is, if I wanted to go buy a flag
Israeli flag and take it home and put it on
my driveway, put lighter fluid on it, I could do that. Now,
(29:31):
I might be violating some you know, up and fire ordinance,
but I'm probably constitutionally protected from burning the flag. So
Sean King, stop your lying, Just stop it. Hi, Michael Miguel.
Speaker 7 (29:45):
This probably isn't for broadcast, but if you're a national
listener listening to your show all morning, we've been getting
pounded with ads about podcasts from iHeart, the largest platform
in the country. Everyone one of the podcast is from
a lefty, left wing, lefty liberal. Maybe iHeart should learn
(30:06):
who their customer is.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
Lefties listened to the radio too slightly convey.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
Yeah, they do, and they occasionally, you know, advertise for
the Ted Cruise podcast Red Pilled America. They broadcast for
those two. But you gotta remember, I'm just the little
guy on the bottom of the totem pole. I'm just
the guy getting squeezed out by all the big people.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
So, Michael, I was trying to find the specific tweet
for King King posted, Michael says, go here dot com.
But when I found your reaction to that tweet and
I tried to follow the chain to find the original one,
it pops up with this page doesn't exist. Try searching
for something else.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
What did you try for anything else? Did you just
decide to, like look for porn or anything? But did it?
Seems it seems that perhaps he decided to did he
when to lead it? Which is interesting. I haven't gone
back to the website. It's actually it's actually a substack site.
Dragon asked me, did you because you went to it
(31:21):
right right?
Speaker 3 (31:21):
So I did post the link to that article of
Michael says. The article is still up, but to pay
for things, Yes.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
Because the Dragon asked if I used some cheating device
to get it. Know what happened When I followed the
link on X yesterday, it popped up the the article
popped up in a new tab, and I saw it
with substack, which almost always you have to pay for.
So I quickly hit control pe and printed it before
the pop ad came up that said to read further,
(31:49):
you know, please contribute you know, five dollars a month
or whatever it is. So that's how I was able
to get the entire article. And of course then I
went on let's next to see if I can find
the judge's opinion, And actually the opinion has not been
published at least as of yesterday when I was doing
show prep. But I found enough news stories to cobble
together that, you know, some places would quote the judge's
(32:10):
opinion because a lot of those opinions sometimes are not
actually published. You actually need to go to the courthouse
and get it if you want to read it, and
clearly I'm not going to do that. You know, if
you're on my ex feed, have you seen some of
the photographs of truckers, this whole issue of foreign born
(32:33):
truckers on H one B visus causing rex. So there
was one outside Las Vegas where the trucker was and
I don't remember, I don't know the name of the highway,
but he was clearly drunk asleep, not paying attention or
didn't understand what a yellow double yellow align meant. But
he kept crossing over into the left lane. You can
(32:54):
see it at go to my ex timeline at Michael Brown, USA.
Follow me while you're over there, and he keeps weaving
in and out and in and out. Then they start
going around a curve and he flips over into the
oncoming traffic and a group of motorcyclists come around the corner,
at least three of them. Don't make it, clearly don't
(33:17):
make it. It's really bad. Then you have Harjender Singh,
who crossed the Southern border illegally back in twenty eighteen,
was attempting an illegal U turn in an eighteen wheeler
through a turnaround meant for emergency vehicles and ended up
killing a family. Who's letting these people drive be semi trucked, Well,
(33:43):
they're nineteen states in the Union that give driver's licenses
to illegally. Colorado, you're one of them.
Marco Rubio, the absolute best secretary of State these United
States of America have had Dance Rubio twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Here we go. Somebody asked me on the weekend program
where I would rank Rubio. They remember secretary's of state
all the way back to Dean Rusk, So where would
I rank Rubio? My response was, and I mean this sincerely,
I'm not yet ready to rank him because there will
(00:37):
surely be some stumbles. He's not perfect, He's a human being.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
It's only been what six months.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
It's been six months. But as girl Dad had emailed
me or seid a text message, I'd be okay if
you just spent the rest of the program just hitting
play on Marco Rubio soundbites. But instead I want to
hit play on some ABC News sound bites because I
(01:06):
sometimes I'm really fascinated by how this program works out.
I wanted to talk about this report that was released
maybe maybe Friday year over the weekend, about what they
want to do in terms of food dies and you know,
the just trying to clean up our health and our
food supply system. A little bit. And I walk in
(01:28):
from the break and I hear the top of the
hour News just saying something about Maha and it's a
blow to Bobby Kennedy Junior. And I'm like, well a dragon,
what what was it? So I pull up our ABC
News call and here's what I think I heard the
top of the hour. This was five drones that hit. Well,
(01:52):
now it refreshed Jeff as I hit Okay, you know,
screw you.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Would you like me to play the ABC stuff that
was actually played here?
Speaker 4 (02:03):
An upcoming Make America Healthy Again report does not signal
any intention to eliminate pesticides, instead calling for more targeted
and precise pesticide applications and programs that would help to
decrease pesticide volumes. It also calls for a government wide
definition of ultra processed food. The Health Department is declining
(02:23):
to verify the draft's authenticity, with the White House saying
unless officially released, it is speculative literature.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Well, now, interestingly, on ABC News Radio News Call, our
site we go to for ABC News, you know how
that is how that slug is titled maw Hall forward
slash blow to RFK. That's interesting because earlier I wanted
(02:55):
to go to a story written over at the Center
for Science and the public interest. Now, anytime somebody tells
you that they are an organization that is in the
public interest, run because you know it's a left wing
Marxist organization, most generally a non government organization that is
getting taxpayer dollars to push an agenda. Here's the headline
(03:20):
on this report. This is dated Friday. I think leaked
MAHA reports recommendations undermined by the administration's actions. This comes
from the Center for Science and the Public Interest Science
director Aviva Mucus. No, it's Musekis or something. I don't know,
(03:45):
but it looks like Mucus so I thought that was
kind of appropriate. Whoever Aviva is right. It is quite
rich for an administration that is plunging the nation into
a nutrition security in food safe fifty nightmare to now
promise to make America healthy again. The administration so called
(04:07):
Big Beautiful Bill is pushing healthy food out of reach
for millions of Americans and is ripping healthcare coverage for
millions more. The administration, with the help of DOGE, has
totally up ended biomedical research in America, delaying progress on
fighting cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. It is striking
(04:36):
that that Elite Make America Healthy Again strategy report, like
its AI assistant predecessor, embodies much of the idiosyncratic beliefs
about food and drugs of one person, Robert F. Kennedy Junior.
He might be right about food dies, but the reports
(04:56):
recommendations to all to our vaccine framework, restructure government agencies,
and promote meat and whole milt are going to promote
disease not health. What so saying that we're not going
(05:17):
to use in effective mrn A so called vaccines shots
mRNA vaccines for respiratory diseases because that's proven to be
totally in effective against stars CoV two. You know, even
when your own like for me personally, even when both
(05:37):
my anti aging doctor and my primary care physician both
say no, don't take any of those boosters. No, and
I apologize for recommending you're taking the original shot, that
tells me something that's somehow going to promote disease not health.
Or restructuring a government agency is going to promote disease
(05:57):
not health. Or promoting meat whole milk are going to
promote disease not health. Then I have to ask myself
is it really? Because I actually think it's worse than that.
Do you know how the PBS? Did you know that
(06:22):
they're still actively engaged in producing news stories? I thought
they were going out of business. Anyway, Listen to this
story from PBS about the leaked draft of the Mahaw Report,
and it's really not about affecting our health except.
Speaker 5 (06:46):
Doctor Hendrus, So, what would be the effect of provoking
this finding on the health of Americans, especially children?
Speaker 6 (06:53):
Well, if they revoked this finding, it knocks out a
major pillar in our fight against the growing wildfires rising.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Wait, come again, I wondered if you catch that, why
don't you pay attention this time? I'll try, doctor Hendrix.
Speaker 5 (07:09):
So, what would be the effect of revoking this finding
on the health of Americans?
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Especially children?
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Well?
Speaker 6 (07:16):
This, if they revoked this finding, it knocks out a
major pillar in our fight against the growing you know, wildfires.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Right, yep, still as confused as the first time.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Well, let me see if I can clarify it by
letting you listen to the next half of that sound bite.
Speaker 6 (07:37):
Rising heat waves and worsening floods and hurricanes we've been
seeing for the past two decades, and it makes it
more likely that all of these problems will continue to
get worse in the future.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Those problems are going to get worse because we're trying
to prove improve America's health. Do you get the cause
A link?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
I'm lost.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Okay, Well you should probably listen to them more. Oh, listen,
it gets even better for your book.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
I know that you spoke to a lot of young
people about growing up in areas with heavy pollution.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
What did they tell you?
Speaker 5 (08:21):
What are the sorts of things they told you?
Speaker 6 (08:23):
You know, in our town it causes a lot of
distress and mental health problems because we've been encased in smoke,
sometimes for eight to ten weeks at a time. In
twenty twenty one, there were two huge wildfires nearby, and
as the weeks wore on. You know, it's very hard
on everyone's mental health. But a lot of kids, I
think adolescents I'm talking about primarily, feel kind of betrayed
(08:45):
that nothing has been done about this problem to help
ensure a better future for them.
Speaker 5 (08:50):
APA director Lee Zelden, when he announced this proposal, said
that the finding twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped
science to achieve their preferred What do you.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Say to that.
Speaker 6 (09:01):
I think that's exactly the opposite of the truth. I mean,
I think that the statement they released by the five
scientists are kind of known for being contrarians on this topic,
that they that if they reverse it, it is disregarding
the science, jeopardizing public health, and is a direct contradiction
to their mandate to protect public health under the Clean
(09:23):
Clean Air Act.
Speaker 5 (09:24):
Doctor, you practice in Renow, Nevada, which is by some
accounts the fastest warming.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Setting in the and I that's it. Stop that now.
Remember this is a PREBOS story about the leaked Make
America Healthy Again report that encourages you know, to eat
more meat, and you know, drink whole milk, and you know,
get rid of food dies and do all of those things.
But somehow they've swayed or swerved into.
Speaker 6 (09:54):
Climate change and failing to stop this process, to me,
is you know, a crime against children my view, because
not only are they going to inherit the hotter and
more dangerous and more chaotic world that we're creating, but
they're already more vulnerable to the growing health hazards of
that world. And we're already seeing that things like worsening
air pollution, rising heat waves, and the trauma of natural disasters,
(10:17):
and so we're losing many of the gains we've had
over the past century in infant mortality and children's health
and welfare.
Speaker 5 (10:25):
Explain that you said their children are more vulnerable.
Speaker 6 (10:28):
Explain that, yeah, So there's a long list of reasons
why children are more vulnerable, but particularly children under five,
and there's three major reasons that we talk about most.
One is that their physiology is different. That's the way
their bodies work. So we often say in pediatrics that
children are not just small adults, and that's because you
can't just take the same calculations and assumptions you would
for an adult and apply them to a small child.
(10:51):
The second big reason is that they're smaller in size,
and the third reason is that their organs and body
systems are still developing and can be easily derailed by
pollutants and environmental harm. So, for example, if a city
is engulfed in smoke, like my city Reno often is,
and a baby or taller in that city is breathing
(11:11):
breathing that smoke, they breathe faster than their parents, and
they are taking in more air pollution per pound of weight,
and their lungs and brain are still developing and can
be adversely affected by that pollution.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Huh. So the story is about the MAHA Make America
Healthy Again report, but it's going to lead to climate change,
and the climate change is going to lead to more
wildfires and tornadoes and hurricanes, and that's going to affect
the physiology of children under five because their bodies aren't
(11:49):
fully formed yet and they function slightly differently. And so
we probably shouldn't be doing anything to oh, I don't know,
clean up our food supply system. This is insanity. And
if you're actually trying to logically follow along, if you
figured out how to do that, then please explain it
(12:12):
to me.
Speaker 5 (12:14):
What do you see in your practice and the patients
you see?
Speaker 6 (12:17):
Yeah, so when we get engulfed in smoke, it's called
a smoke wave that will come over because we're ten
miles from the California border. So when the big fires
hit California, we get we're down wind, immediately down wind,
and we really get hit by it, and the clinic
in the hospital will fill with kids wheezing and coughing.
You know, we've had kids. The pediatric world will fill
up with kids on oxygen during heat waves, which often
(12:40):
go with. You know, we usually have a heat wave
before the smoke kits because the heat will trigger the
fire to start. We often see kids fainting and athletic practices.
You know, there's been studies showing that pediatric ar visits
go up seventeen percent in hot weather, and smoke waves
also increase asthma visits by up to seven percent, according
(13:01):
to one study of the campfire in twenty eighteen. So
these events have a huge impact on children's immediate help,
and because they affect development, like I mentioned, they can
have a lifelong impact as well.
Speaker 5 (13:13):
Doctor Deborah Hendrickson of the Interas Nevada Medical School, thank you.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Very much, you so much, doctor, thank you for explaining
that to me, because now I understand that we need
to quit worrying about health benefits of food and all
of that and focus that on hurricanes and forest fires
from portly Mana's force in California that you know, allow
stuff to get out of there. I don't know. In
(13:36):
May of this year, there's no segue here, but it's
all related.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Best segway, that's right.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Polar Science sent Bill twenty five one sixty nine into law.
That bill directed the colle Department of Human Services to
submit an application to the Department of Agriculture to seek
approval for a restaurant Meals program. The Restaurant Meals program
would allow Food Stamp SNAP recipients to purchase meals at
(14:10):
participating restaurants. Now, the supposed aim is to address the
needs of SNAP participants who can't cook or can't prepare
a meal, so you know, to make it easier for
them to access nutritious prepared foods. Now, the Restaurant Meals program,
(14:31):
according to everything I can find about this way w
they're asking for, they're saying that it's designed to benefit
vulnerable populations and to give them more healthy benefits. It's
a way quote to improve access to nutritionally balanced meals
and support food security. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless
(14:58):
part of the homelessness industry, the SNAP Advocacy for the
Homeless Project team, they all support this waiver. Now, there
are two other waivers. One would allow the food Stamp
beneficiaries to purchase hot prepared foods and one example is
(15:20):
like a rotisserie chicken at a grocery store or to
maybe buy things at a farmer's market. And that's fine.
You know, I actually don't have much of a problem
with that if at the same time you're eliminating their
ability to use their food stamps their EBT card to
purchase junk food. But if your initiative is to prioritize
(15:44):
how theer food options, then how is going to Oh,
I don't know, let's say McDonald's or Taco Bell or
even Chick fil A.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
You can already go to Papa Murphy's because that's not
a cooked food food. So they taking base and even
thought of that. Yes, so you can already do that.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
So you can go to Papa Murphys and just get
a double cheese, double pepperoni pizza, huh, and take that
home and bake it yep, and you and I pay
for it yep. The argument goes that not all SNAP
recipients have the means to prepare food at home, like
(16:25):
homeless individuals they don't have kitchens or storage for groceries,
or a low income family in a rural or undeserved
area could benefit from access to prepared meals when the
grocery options are limited.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Grannared it was twenty something years ago when I was
on this food stamp in the SNAP program, is that
they specifically ask you if you've got a way to
prepare food. Now, if you would answer no, I didn't
because I had waste to prepare food. I would like
to think there are other programs or other facilities that
would be able to get you said equipment like an
oven stovetop, a.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Micro microwave, would care fry.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
I mean, you know, not right, So I don't know
why we need to make that jump to allowing the
cooked foods.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Because you know what's going to happen. Remember the mother
we talked about that had was it twenty seven kids?
Well nine plus three in the oven? Right? Correct? Yeah? Yeah,
so she had nine kids plus three in the oven.
She was twenty seven years old or something nine years old. Now,
what do you think those rug rats when she says, oh,
(17:30):
now we can go out to eat. Do you think
they're going to say, let's go to Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
I just personally don't like it because it doesn't stretch
your dollar as far as going to the.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Grocery store and buying the exactly.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
And when I was, you know, I stretched everything out.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
They want the happy eat. They want the orange juice
of the fruit juice or the sugar juice. Pen essence
and the fries and a cheeseburger. Joy. Wow, some kind
of stupid in color Road, Mike.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
I enjoy hearing Margaret Brennan get.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Steamrolled by Marco Rubio. Yeah, it's not the first time
and it won't be the last. Go little Marco, go,
Little Marco. A life lesson from just hearing the name.
Little Marco is the guy that makes fun of you
(18:36):
and calls you little Marco one day. May the next
day make you the secretary of State and you rise
to the top of the cabinet like nobody's business yesterday.
I remember Sean King, the white guy pretending to be
a black guy. That was I think he was a
(18:58):
contributor on CNN or MSN for a while, and he's
one of these kind of racist and tagonizers. Well, he's
blocked me on X so I don't see his I
don't see his posts on X. But somebody had reposted
(19:18):
something that follows me, had reposted something which led me
to his website, And on his website, which I am
able to read, he has this headline, the Israeli flag
just became the only national flag illegal to burn in
(19:38):
the United States. Yeah, I'm dead serious when criticizing Israel
becomes a hate crime. How one ruling betrayed the First Amendment.
He got my attention, Sean, and so I read through
your story. Let me share some of it with you,
he writes, under a subhead of the flag America protects.
(20:05):
This week in Washington, d c. Meaning last week, a
federal judge made a ruling so shocking, so unprecedented, that
it flips the First Amendment on its head. Judge Trevor
McFadden declared that the Israeli flag, with the Star of
David at its center, is not a political symbol at all,
(20:25):
but a racial one. He ruled that, now, listen closely,
because if you skim over this sentence, you might miss
a couple of words that when you actually hear what
the judge ruled, you go back, Oh, so you were
lying to us. You just tried to bury the truth
(20:47):
around a bunch of other words, hoping we would miss it.
The next paragraph, he writes, he ruled that tearing it grabby,
grabbing it might imply that it's not yours, might imply
(21:08):
that maybe someone's got it wrapped around their neck. But
I digress, I digress. The judge rule that tearing it,
grabbing it, desecrating it, even in the heat of protest,
is not free expression but racial discrimination. Now think about that,
he writes, In the United States, you can burn the
American flag. The Supreme Court has said so for decades.
(21:31):
But now, according to this ruling, burning or tearing the
Israeli flag could make you guilty of racial hatred. The
one national flag protected in American law today is not
our own, it's Israel's. You can burn the flag of
all fifty states. You can torture the American flag all
you want. You can burn the flags of the UK,
(21:52):
or France, or Brazil or China, but not Israel. And
then he goes through a series of the most famous,
well the most famous cases Texas versus Johnson in nineteen
eighty nine, a case in which Justice Brennan wrote, if
there's a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is
(22:13):
that the government may not prohibit the expression of an
idea simply because society finds the idea of fensive or disagreeable.
My how far we've fallen from that idea right. And
then next year, in nineteen ninety, the Court struck down
another attempt at flag burning, reminding us that quote punishing
(22:34):
desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes
this emblem so revered and worth revering. And then Shaun
King goes back after citing a couple of Supreme Court
cases about you know, even the stars and stripes, the
nation's most sacred symbol, cannot be placed above criticism or protests,
and he writes that is what freedom means. And yet
(22:55):
in twenty twenty five, the federal judge has just carved
out an exception for a foreign flag. Well, of course
he's got my attention. So let's examine what the facts are.
Should I say the real facts? Or is that redundant?
I think it's redundant. But let's examine the facts that
(23:16):
perhaps I don't know. Sean King decided he didn't want
to share with his audience on x or his website.
It is a high profile case. He issued a ruling
that has been widely interpreted as declaring that the Israeli
flag is not merely a political symbol, but is a
(23:38):
racial symbol. Now in the context which I'm not going
to tell you yet, in the context of the facts
of this case, Judge McFadden equated a tax on the
flag two acts of racial discrimination under US civil rights law,
specifically the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six, which
(24:00):
recognizes Jews as a race for purposes of civil rights.
Now Here are a couple of key findings from the opinion.
The judge rejected the argument that the Israeli flag simply
represents the state of Israel. He wrote that physically attacking
the flag is a I decided to leave something out
(24:23):
right here. He wrote that physically attacking the flag is
direct evidence of racial discrimination, and he wrote the Star
of David, emblazoned upon the Israeli flag symbolizes the Jewish race.
The judge compared this action to the use of a
(24:46):
racial slur against black people and concluded that in this
particular case, the way the flag was desecrated is a
racially charged context, and that it's not protected as free
political expression, but actually constitute racial discrimination and a potential
(25:06):
federal hate crime. He went on to indicate, the judge
did that this person that is the subject of the
case had no reason to believe that the Ah okay,
let me just forget all of this and just tell
you some facts. You're at a protest, you support Israel,
(25:33):
you take the Israeli flag, the Star of David. It's
a big, huge flag. You wrap yourself in it, as
you would say a blanket on a cold morning, you know,
a quilt or you know, ay serapios some I'm swear
(25:55):
you wrap yourself up in the Israeli flag. You have
skull cap on, you maybe have a I think this
was in the facts. You may be wearing a Star
of David necklace around your neck, and you're marching in
a protest and someone comes up and physically attacks you,
(26:21):
and during the physical attack rips that flag such that
you are physically injured, and you follow the ground, and
someone takes that flag, and it's not clear. In fact,
it's so unclear. I don't believe the flag was actually burned.
(26:43):
I think the flag was just tossed over into the
street where the protest was taking place, and oh, I
don't know, maybe a truck drove over it, or people
walked on it or whatever. But I don't know for
a fact that it was actually burned. So the ruling
actually relied on the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty
(27:06):
six and upheld a restraining order against the defendant and
restrained him from, in essence, ripping a piece of clothing
off of a jew That's what occurred. Now. Did the
person who was attacked have a shirt and some pants on, Yes,
(27:29):
but the person had wrapped themselves in the flag, and
a protester, in what is a should otherwise be considered
a physical assault, walked up and started ripping the flag
off this individual such that it caused them to fall
to the ground injure themselves, and then took the flag
(27:50):
and wadded it up and threw it off somewhere, knowingly
that that was a Jewish person. And just in terms
of an injuncture, the judge said, you can't do that.
He did not say you could burn the flag. But
he did not say you could not burn the flag.
He simply said that attacking someone based on their judaism,
(28:12):
on their religious beliefs, and ripping a Jewish flag the
Star of David from their body is an act of discrimination.
Direct quote from the opinion. Purposely yanking on an Israeli
flag tied around a Jewish person's neck is direct evidence
of racial discrimination. The Star of David, emblazed upon the
(28:34):
Israeli flag symbolizes the Jewish race. Now, yes, this is
the first time that a US court has equated a
national flag with racial identity protections, making it Yes, it
would be the only flag that in American law currently
is protected from at least desecration or you know, ripping
off an individual under a federal right civil rights statue.
(28:58):
But it didn't say you could then go burn Because
that flag happens to be the personal property of somebody else,
you don't have the right.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
To burn it.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
But Sean King is determined to make you believe that
somehow a federal judge is determined that you can just
freely go burn the Jewish flag, the Israeli flag. My
guess is, if I wanted to go buy a flag
Israeli flag and take it home and put it on
my driveway, put lighter fluid on it, I could do that. Now,
(29:31):
I might be violating some you know, up and fire ordinance,
but I'm probably constitutionally protected from burning the flag. So
Sean King, stop your lying, Just stop it. Hi, Michael Miguel.
Speaker 7 (29:45):
This probably isn't for broadcast, but if you're a national
listener listening to your show all morning, we've been getting
pounded with ads about podcasts from iHeart, the largest platform
in the country. Everyone one of the podcast is from
a lefty, left wing, lefty liberal. Maybe iHeart should learn
(30:06):
who their customer is.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
Lefties listened to the radio too slightly convey.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
Yeah, they do, and they occasionally, you know, advertise for
the Ted Cruise podcast Red Pilled America. They broadcast for
those two. But you gotta remember, I'm just the little
guy on the bottom of the totem pole. I'm just
the guy getting squeezed out by all the big people.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
So, Michael, I was trying to find the specific tweet
for King King posted, Michael says, go here dot com.
But when I found your reaction to that tweet and
I tried to follow the chain to find the original one,
it pops up with this page doesn't exist. Try searching
for something else.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
What did you try for anything else? Did you just
decide to, like look for porn or anything? But did it?
Seems it seems that perhaps he decided to did he
when to lead it? Which is interesting. I haven't gone
back to the website. It's actually it's actually a substack site.
Dragon asked me, did you because you went to it
(31:21):
right right?
Speaker 3 (31:21):
So I did post the link to that article of
Michael says. The article is still up, but to pay
for things, Yes.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
Because the Dragon asked if I used some cheating device
to get it. Know what happened When I followed the
link on X yesterday, it popped up the the article
popped up in a new tab, and I saw it
with substack, which almost always you have to pay for.
So I quickly hit control pe and printed it before
the pop ad came up that said to read further,
(31:49):
you know, please contribute you know, five dollars a month
or whatever it is. So that's how I was able
to get the entire article. And of course then I
went on let's next to see if I can find
the judge's opinion, And actually the opinion has not been
published at least as of yesterday when I was doing
show prep. But I found enough news stories to cobble
together that, you know, some places would quote the judge's
(32:10):
opinion because a lot of those opinions sometimes are not
actually published. You actually need to go to the courthouse
and get it if you want to read it, and
clearly I'm not going to do that. You know, if
you're on my ex feed, have you seen some of
the photographs of truckers, this whole issue of foreign born
(32:33):
truckers on H one B visus causing rex. So there
was one outside Las Vegas where the trucker was and
I don't remember, I don't know the name of the highway,
but he was clearly drunk asleep, not paying attention or
didn't understand what a yellow double yellow align meant. But
he kept crossing over into the left lane. You can
(32:54):
see it at go to my ex timeline at Michael Brown, USA.
Follow me while you're over there, and he keeps weaving
in and out and in and out. Then they start
going around a curve and he flips over into the
oncoming traffic and a group of motorcyclists come around the corner,
at least three of them. Don't make it, clearly don't
(33:17):
make it. It's really bad. Then you have Harjender Singh,
who crossed the Southern border illegally back in twenty eighteen,
was attempting an illegal U turn in an eighteen wheeler
through a turnaround meant for emergency vehicles and ended up
killing a family. Who's letting these people drive be semi trucked, Well,
(33:43):
they're nineteen states in the Union that give driver's licenses
to illegally. Colorado, you're one of them.
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.
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.