April 9, 2026 • 32 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
It's that time. Time time, time, luck and load. The
Michael Varry Show is on the air officially turned around. Guys,
we are back, baby, we are back.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
We are back.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
We are bad.
Speaker 4 (00:24):
Where we just take a look at at at all
the federal agencies and say do we really need whatever?
It is four hundred and twenty eight federal agencies, So
there's so many that people have never heard of. Well,
then that have overlapping errors of responsibility. We should I
don't know, we should get I mean there are more
federal agencies than there are years since the established in
(00:46):
the United States, which means that we've created more than
one federal agency per year on average.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
That seems a lot. That's a lot. That's a lot,
So we.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Should have that seems crazy. I think we're failed to
get away.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
With ninety nine agencies. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
That seems to a lot, like a lot of agencies
a lot.
Speaker 5 (01:06):
I got a message to themands of illegal amans that
Joe Biden's releasing our country in violation of federal law.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
You better start pack and now you're damn right because
you're going home.
Speaker 5 (01:22):
I got another message, another message to the criminal cartels
in Mexico, you're smuggling a faery across this country to
kill one hundred and forty eight thousand young Americans. You
have killed more Americans and every terrorist organization in the
world combined. And that's when President Trump gets back in office,
he's going to designate you a terrorist organization. He's going
(01:43):
to wipe you off the face of.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Your You're done.
Speaker 6 (01:46):
You're done.
Speaker 7 (01:47):
There's a chance to course corrected, but it would take
the new Trump administration going after it really hard. How
would they correct it? Well, first of all, you gotta fire,
you know, you gotta fire the Chairman of Joint Chiefs.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
You gotta fire.
Speaker 7 (01:59):
This obviously gonna bring in any Secretary Defense, but any
general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever, that was involved
in any of the DEI WOP, it's gotta go. Either
you're in for war fighting that and that's it.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
And that's the only litmus tests we care about.
Speaker 7 (02:14):
You've got to get DEI and CRT out of military
academy so you're not training young officers and to be
baptized in this type of thinking.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
Uh. And then you know, whatever the.
Speaker 7 (02:22):
Standards, whatever the combat standards were saying.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
I don't know nineteen ninety five. Let's just make those
the standards.
Speaker 7 (02:27):
And as far as recruiting to hire the guy that
you know did top gun Maverick and create some real
ads that motivate people that want to serve.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
So the Washington Post lead headline in the digital version
today was interesting. It said, Supreme Court remade by Trump
ushers in historic defeats for civil rights. That's unpacked that
(02:58):
for a moment. Supreme Court remade by Trump. Well, it
is true that three of the nine fully one third,
were nominated by President Trump and ratified by the United
States Senate as per the Constitution. And those individuals were
(03:19):
Amy Barrett, Neil Gorsich and Brett Kavanaugh. And to be clear,
especially when Kavanaugh was going on the court, we were
told he was the worst monster ever.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
But if you actually look at the rulings and if
you paid.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Attention to our show for any period of time, we've
broken this down. Those three members of the Court have
turned out to be a disaster.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
A disaster.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Nobody who wanted them on the court because you wanted
conservative jurisprudence, because you are an originalist, because you believe
in the Constitution, because you believe in the limitations of
government to intrude in the lives of individuals.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Nobody sees the three of.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Them as having been positive contributors to the America we
seek nobody not if you pay attention to the actual rulings.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
They've been terrible.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
They have worked to undermine the Trump agenda, and they've
worked to undermine, in my opinion, much of the progress
of the mind of a Clarence Thomas in an antony's clea.
They are much more like John Roberts, who was of
course nominated by George W.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Bush.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
They are people who like to refer to themselves as conservatives,
but they don't actually like to rule and write in
a conservative manner because that would upset people. They are
the types of judges, jurists, as Supreme Court justices. They
are the types of if they were a criminal court
judge and a fellaw is brought before them and found
(05:12):
guilty by a jury of his peers, and let's say
he kicked in a door, raped a woman he didn't know,
brutally tortured her till her death, set her on fire,
fled the scene, and wrote notes to her family for
ten years saying that she deserved it because she was
(05:35):
a woman, but a criminal justice, I mean a criminal
defense attorney were to make the case. Yeah, but he
had a tough upbringing. He didn't have a father, his
mother was a prostitute. Sometimes he was left alone, and
he's black. Those three are the types of judges, along
with John Roberts, who at that moment, even when found guilty,
(05:58):
if the punishment faced came before them, that say, ugh,
I think he's been punished enough.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
He's already been run through the ringer.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
He's had a tough life, and they would find some
way to give him the lightest sentence possible. And I
would remind you of the great economist, writer, thinker, philosopher
Adam Smith who said that mercy to the guilty is
(06:28):
cruelty to the victim. Well, we're not talking about criminal
cases in most of these positions. But what we're talking
about is three Supreme Court justices who've been a disappointment
because they rule more in line with the Washington Post
than my reasoning or Antonins Galias. So why does the
Washington Post take them to task and criticize them in
(06:50):
this way on civil rights? Because if the Washington Post
were to applaud them, they'd go back to being what
they were supposed to be when they were first nominated.
But by keeping the heat on them, because they so
desperately want the approval of the liberal president, they'll continue
to make bad leagues.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
And that's how the game is played. Michael veries you
the evil, evil stunt cycle rum ideal Puerto Rican girls.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
So the Washington Post takes to task the Trump Court. Well,
first of all, it's not unconstitutional for the president to
nominate Supreme Court justices, and should the Senate, upon their
advice and consent, determined to ratify as happened, then those
(07:43):
are members of the Supreme Court sitting in judgment as
our constitution intended. Okay, so what's the problem again, Well,
it's a historic setback for civil rights based on cases
involving women and minorities. Okay, First of all, this country
(08:11):
is handcuffing itself with the constant obsession with race and
gender as part of a larger construct of victimhood. Our
presidential candidates run for office in a race to the
(08:37):
bottom for who grew up poorest, most neglected, most without
as if that's somehow something to brag about. There's a
great bit from money Python called the Four Englishmen of Yorkshire.
I would if you like money Python, I would encourage.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
You to go to YouTube.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Is the four It might be called the Four Yorkshiremen,
but I think it's the four Englishmen of Yorkshire. And
it basically starts with one saying, when we were when
I was young, we were really poor.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
We were so poor.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
We didn't live in a nice neighborhood. And the next
one says, we were so poor we didn't live in
a house, the next one we lived. And eventually it
becomes so absurd that one of them is so poor
they lived under cardboard boxes on the street, and the
other one, oh, we would have loved to have had that.
We lived in the sewer. And it just goes on
and on, and each one becoming more and more absurd
(09:36):
as they try to out pour each other. You might
not remember, but this happens in every Republican presidential primary.
There is the desperate need for each to out pour
the other. Every single one needs to be the most
rags to riches story. And that's silly, It is absolutely silly,
(09:58):
and yet we do it. And part of that is
the embrace of the victimhood, the embrace of the victim.
And so what we've done is we've created I call
them pets. Minorities in this country and women, but particularly
minorities are pets for the Democrats, you know, like a
dog or a cat or a horse. And so what
(10:21):
the white liberal Democrats do is they keep these pets
and they bring them out in public, you know, like
the single guy who goes to the dog park with
his adorable dog. So the chicks will come up and say, oh,
it's the most adorable dog. Before you know it, he's
slaying three nights a week. Thank you, fore fee you
the best. Well, that's what these people do, not to
(10:45):
get sex, but that's what these people do as part
of their political presentation is these pets.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
They're so useful.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
It's useful to have, but it's important that the pets
stay on the leash. The problem for the white liberal
Democrat is when the pets start the inmates take over
the asylum. That's not good. The pets are supposed to
(11:16):
stay pets. And if you want to see an example
of where it upsets them, just watch one of a
thousand or ten thous hundred thous million YouTube videos or
Rumble or wherever you go, they're.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Probably on TikTok to. I just don't know how to
do that.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
You watch one of these videos of any protest. If
there is a white liberal protests, Okay, no kings, we're
gonna have no kings. We're not gonna have kings anymore. Okay,
well good they won we have no kings, and it
turns out there's no black people there. So a black
reporter goes up and says, hey, no kings. Huh yeah,
(11:54):
how come no, okay, we don't want a king.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
A king, we're not king.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Okay, we had one, but so how come there's no
black people here? With a Democrat going and you got
the old you got the white liberal women the Death
of America, you got the ugly white liberal women saying, well,
the blacks are fearful if they come out in public,
(12:18):
they're fearful, so we have to march on their behalf.
What you you're marching on behalf? That's an insult to
black people. You are an entitled karen white liberal woman,
the worst of the worst. But you're out here on
(12:39):
behalf of black people. Do they know has anybody told them?
Because this is laughable?
Speaker 3 (12:48):
All right?
Speaker 2 (12:50):
The black reporter pushes, keeps pushing, keeps pushing, to which
she finally starts insulting him. Because there's nothing that makes
a white liberal more angry than a black person who
does not buy into the narrative the white liberal is presenting.
This is why when a black person says as often
(13:11):
happens as much as the white liberal tries to stifle it.
When a black person says, I'm not discriminated against. I
have opportunity, and I've taken that opportunity, and I have accomplishment,
(13:31):
stop telling people to be sorry for me. Stop telling
people to feel guilty for me. I'm not a slave.
I'm a hard worker and I'm accomplished. I'm successful. Oh no,
you're displaying past life regression issues because you're struggling with
the slavery you're living in. You're not free. I could
(13:55):
spend twenty minutes right now playing eclips of Joe Biden
telling black people how bad they have it, and then
you have a Terrence Wilson Williams who's funny, so it
gets more play. But a lot of black people who
don't have who don't have a platform, responding to that,
going we're not living in the slave days, we have opportunity,
(14:21):
and then you have these situations where blacks who fail
are whites who succeed. And the explanation is supposed to be, well,
that's white privilege, and that has extended all the way
to two parent home. That's white privilege. A parent helping
their child with homework, that's white privilege.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
But what about Asians?
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Because Indians do that, Chinese Americans do that, Japanese Americans?
Is that white privilege too? So again the Washington posts
stoking the racial fires and trying to divide us on
the basis of race. It's just tedious. Trump presidency Iran ceasefire.
(15:10):
The purpose of NATO was supposed to be to protect
the freedom and security of member nations, to avoid another
Germany mowing through sedate Land and Czech Republic, then Poland
and France and damn near destroying all of Europe. Well,
(15:31):
NATO has not worked. And what has happened is the
United States has borne the burden of world peace too far,
too great a degree. And by the way, they haven't
helped President Trump in Iran, and they benefit from it.
(15:52):
We don't, not to the extent they do. And President
Trump making clear that this will not be forgotten.
Speaker 6 (16:00):
I have to tell you, I'm very disappointed in NATO.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Very I think that NATO.
Speaker 6 (16:05):
I think it's a mark on NATA that will never disappear,
never disappear in my mind. You know, they're coming to
see me on Wednesday. They're going to say, oh, we'll
do this, we'll do that.
Speaker 8 (16:13):
Now.
Speaker 6 (16:14):
They all of a sudden want to send things, you know,
but they said it loud and clear at the beginning.
When I spoke to UK of all, I would have said,
they would have been the first, because they've been the oldest.
And I say, yeah, I'd love to have a little help.
Said no, sir, we'd rather wait till you win. I said,
I don't need help after we win. They have two old,
(16:34):
broken aircraft carriers barely work.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
I said, I guess we can use some who the
hell knows.
Speaker 6 (16:38):
I called it generally. He didn't even He said, we
don't really need them. We got the SS Abraham Lincoln, Sarah,
we don't need them. You know, we have in terms
of technology. We had one day, one hundred and one
missiles going at two thousand, seven hundred miles an hour
aimed at the Abraham Lincoln. One hundred and one missiles
(17:00):
out of one hundred and one missiles, one hundred and
one missiles were shot down.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
After meeting with President Trump, the Secretary General of NATO
was on CNN talking about trying to keep NATO together,
trying to keep these member nations, trying to keep well,
let's listen to this first, under.
Speaker 9 (17:22):
Risk that this would lead into the North Korea moment
where you talk so long that at a certain moment
it's beyond the point where you can still get this done,
because then they would get their hands on the nuclear capacity.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
And that is basically.
Speaker 9 (17:39):
A big risk for Europe, is existential for Israel, it
is existential for the Middle East. So the whole world
is safer by this president. Degrading those capabilities is by
many Europe acknowledged, and they understand that continuing talking to
get this done would have brought us potentially past that
(17:59):
more which way we can still.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Deal with it.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
So I get the impression old NATO leader took a
good asstude from Trump, So maybe a little brown nosing
will help let me see if I can't cozy back
up to him. Yeah, we failed the United States, and
Trump is furious in US.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
But in US. But hey, hey, we're good buddies, United States.
Speaker 9 (18:26):
What's saying full play over the last six weeks. And yes,
it is true not all European nations lift up to
those commitments. And I totally understand that he is disappointed
about it.
Speaker 10 (18:37):
On scale of one to ten, one being not worried
at all, ten being terrified. Were you where do you
leave Washington thinking President Trump? Your opinion of President Trump
wanting to leave NATO?
Speaker 3 (18:48):
Are you one?
Speaker 10 (18:48):
I'm not worried at all. Ten I'm really worried Trump
is going to pull out of NATO.
Speaker 9 (18:53):
Well, I'm not going to get into get to answering
that question.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
I'm just trying to.
Speaker 9 (18:58):
But but what I felt today this this was a
meeting between friends because we like each other. I really
admire his leadership and he knows what he did in
the Hague last year as a nature summit has been
crucial and natural allies are with him. But it comes
to the aims of taking out, as I said, degrading
the nuclear and the ballistic mistical capacity of the Uranians.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
So one of the things it's hard to quantify is
the extent to which Trump is seen by so many
people in America, myself included to be a guy who
(19:44):
who says the unsaid. Let me give you an example.
I love my kids, They're wonderful. I'm not talking about
my kids when I say this. I want to be
clear on that because it's not fair to them. But
I do see this with people, some people I know,
and they will spoil their kids rotten, and then they
(20:08):
need their kid to do something. The kid won't do it.
Hey can you come home this weekend from college? And
the kid won't do it? And their question is do
I bite my tongue or do I say, you, little brat,
I pay for your phone, your dorm, or your living expenses,
your car, your this or this or this, and you
can't do what I ask you to do. I am
(20:30):
responsible for your entire being. And it upsets them, and
they will often ask my opinion on that, to which
I say, I am of the belief. I am a
believer in over communication. If you don't tell your kid, hey,
it's Papa's hundredth birthday or Memo's one hundredth birthday and
(20:52):
we really want everyone there and you can come in
this weekend. Don't tell me you're studying. Because when you're
supposedly studying. I see on the credit card you're going
to whatever fast food restaurant or party or whatever else.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
It's important that you be here.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
You didn't choose to be part of this family, and
I didn't choose you.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
You're what came out of your mother. But here we are.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
You're the person who plays the role of her grandson
or great grandson, and it would mean a lot to
her and everybody else to have you here. If the
family is incomplete, it's a little sad for everyone. So no,
you don't have to love it. You don't have to
want to be here. We don't expect it's where you'd
(21:39):
most want to spend your time. It's with a hundred
year old great grandmother or grandmother, or whatever the case
may be. We get that, but I'm telling you it's important.
And I pay all your bills. Now do you want
me to not pay all your bills? And so I
will say, hey, won't you try that approach? I don't
(22:01):
want to have to say that. Nobody does. Nobody does.
That's the point of a tough conversation, and in diplomacy
there is often a failure to have a tough conversation
and whatever the rest of the world may think. And frankly,
(22:22):
I don't care whatever the rest of the world may think.
Many Americans, most Americans rightfully or at least reasonably, believe
that we're being taken advantage of. We fight the wars,
we pay the bills, we send the aid. Every time
(22:47):
there's a problem in the world, we take care of
it while simultaneously being insulted, which happens in many households.
You know dad who works his butt off to pay
for all his kids to.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Go to school.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Maybe he's helping them with their bills, he's paying for
their college, he's whatever he's doing. And when everyone gets around,
the joke's on him. He's the laughing stock because he
can't dance, or he's uncool, or he's this, or he's that.
And I think there comes a point where he says enough.
(23:25):
Trump represents what no other American president will do. He
stands up for the average American. He stands up for
our nation, which is a collection of our average Americans.
And that is what that is why it is hard
to understand the deep connection people have to him, because
for the first time they fail to use the leftist
(23:46):
term of the kids term they feel heard, they feel seen, Michael.
Something happening very closely is President Trump's managing of the
(24:07):
inevitable sweepstakes of who will be his successor. It will
be important for President Trump to choose the person who
is the Republican nominee in twenty twenty eight, when, of
course he is unable to run. It will be important
(24:30):
that it be a person that he wants there. But
Trump is an interesting study in power, and some of
it is things he does to extend and increase his
own power and influence. And some of it is shortcomings
(24:52):
or flaws or just quirks about Trump, and they all
bleed into it together. You know, Trump is the right tackle,
that is your greatest offensive lineman in American history, in
football history. But ever so often there will be in
off sides and you don't get to go, man, I
(25:14):
really love that guy. I just wish he wouldn't ever
be off sides. You have to understand he fires off
faster than anyone else, and that nine out of ten times,
that's the very trait that makes him so good. You
can't take that out of him. They're not separable, They're inextricable.
So I'm enjoying, really watching how he manages, because he
(25:41):
does not want to be perceived nor be, in fact
a lamed up a president without the ability to run
for reelection and exact revenge, and therefore is not able
to be effective, and that happens. He's going to want
(26:01):
to be effective till the very end. He has discouraged
talk of who his replacement would be, his successor, if
you will.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
He doesn't like.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
That because the minute you start talking about that, you
are diminishing his real time right now, power and influence.
So that's why, And I don't like the constant jockeying
for who's going to be the nominee. In twenty eight
you might not have met him yet, he might be
the governor of a state you didn't know he existed.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
You don't know that JD. Vans will even run.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
And for anyone who thinks, well, that's not true, it
has to be Jdvan's from Marco Rubio, because that's who's
there now. You haven't been around politics for very long.
People come from nowhere to win nominations, and people are
the front runner and then they simply fade away. Ted
(26:59):
Kennedy nineteen Great example, but I could name for you
plenty more. And so we get to the issue of Jdvans.
It is clear that Trump is not afraid of the
talk of JD. Vance as the heir apparent, because if
(27:21):
he was, he would diminish him.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
And he's doing the opposite.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
He is showing him a great deal of respect and support.
So you probably know, but the Vice President Jdvans is
in Hungary right now, spoke to the media on the
current ceasefire with Iran, and he said on behalf of
the Trump presidency the White House in the United States
that the president holds all the cards. This is important
(27:49):
for a number of different reasons, not the least of
which is because Trump is watching how he handles questions
when he's outside the presence of Trump where there is
an opportunity to in some way slight to Trump. Is
he a bombastic supporter of Trump and his policies or not,
(28:09):
because that is very important to Trump.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
He's what he said, is it.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Fair to keep ninety million Aranians under that threat for
the actions of their leaders?
Speaker 11 (28:19):
Well, look, the leadership is really to blame for the
condition of the country in Iran. The president of the
United States has made very clear that the United States
has a lot of leverage here. We have economic leverage,
we've got military leverage. What he's trying to do is
make sure the American people are safe and strike a
deal that's good for the American people. I just look,
I encourage the Iranians to come to the table. Seriously,
(28:40):
we've seen some signs that they're going to do that.
We've seen some signs of bravado. Fundamentally weren't a good spot.
They're reopening the straits, we have a ceasefire, and frankly,
if they break their into the bargain, then they're going
to see some serious consequences, wiping them off the map.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
It's different than an economic leverage or a military leverage.
Why is that kind of language useful and this kind
of scenario.
Speaker 11 (29:02):
Well, again, the President the United States is saying that
unless the Iranians do the right thing, he is going
to have some serious consequences for the regime. We obviously
don't want the people of Iran to suffer, but we
have a lot of leverage the President of.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
United States could use.
Speaker 11 (29:16):
And it's why I think it's so important for the
Iranians to be negotiators and good faith.
Speaker 8 (29:23):
JD.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Vance, if you think about it.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Is a more prominent and important vice president to this presidency,
to this administration than we've seen in some time. Kamala
Harris was not an asset to Biden. She was a
distraction and an embarrassment even within their circles, and she
was not liked by the President's loyalists. Mike Pince was
(29:50):
not loyal to the president, not effective, and never really
had that I can recall off top of my head
a major initiative that he speared headed and brought to completion.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
And then you have.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
Dick Cheney. And Cheney was in some ways more of
the president than George W.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Bush was.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
To use a corporate governance model, Cheney was the president
to Bush's CEO, or maybe Cheney was the CEO to
Bush's chairman of the board. Cheney was making the day
to day decisions, he was making the operational decisions, and
Bush was more of a figurehead and a face, while
(30:40):
Cheney was really involved in making decisions related to the
minutia in a big way.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Retired general joining.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
A Fox Joining Fox News. This is Jack Keene talking
about the fact that Trump will not make a bad
deal if battled continues, because he has an ace in
the hole with carg Island. You don't have to believe that.
I'm just sharing you. This is the perspective that's being pushed.
Speaker 8 (31:09):
I know this President Trump is not going to make
a bad deal. He knows these guys, He's negotiated with
him more than any previous president has, and he knows
they're full of bs.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
At times.
Speaker 8 (31:22):
They're going to obfuscate, they're going to promote lies, and
our team obviously has to be aware of all of
that going in here. And I'm assuming that they understand
that the backstop we have here is the president himself.
He's not going to take a bad deal if we
return to combat operations. So our audience understands we do
(31:44):
have an ace in the hole here, so to speak.
We do have a strategic asset that we can put
the employ here, and that is carg Island. Carg Island,
we can wait at the very end of our operations
and take control of it or destroy it.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
I think that's probably true.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
But I think I'm a big believer in learning from
experiences and not just glossing them over and brushing them
under the carpet, sweeping them under the carpet. I do
not believe that the president was well advised and apprized as.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
To the resistance.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Iran was going to mount I don't think he realized that.
I don't think he went in, understated, this wasn't Venezuela
where we went in, took their president and his wife,
scoot it out and.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Said, well, that was pretty cool. That has not happened.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
We have had loss of life, we have had near
misses with the airman going down, we have lost aircraft.
And I don't think the president was aware that Iran
had this level of capability.
It's that time. Time time, time, luck and load. The
Michael Varry Show is on the air officially turned around. Guys,
we are back, baby, we are back.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
We are back.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
We are bad.
Speaker 4 (00:24):
Where we just take a look at at at all
the federal agencies and say do we really need whatever?
It is four hundred and twenty eight federal agencies, So
there's so many that people have never heard of. Well,
then that have overlapping errors of responsibility. We should I
don't know, we should get I mean there are more
federal agencies than there are years since the established in
(00:46):
the United States, which means that we've created more than
one federal agency per year on average.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
That seems a lot. That's a lot. That's a lot,
So we.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Should have that seems crazy. I think we're failed to
get away.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
With ninety nine agencies. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
That seems to a lot, like a lot of agencies
a lot.
Speaker 5 (01:06):
I got a message to themands of illegal amans that
Joe Biden's releasing our country in violation of federal law.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
You better start pack and now you're damn right because
you're going home.
Speaker 5 (01:22):
I got another message, another message to the criminal cartels
in Mexico, you're smuggling a faery across this country to
kill one hundred and forty eight thousand young Americans. You
have killed more Americans and every terrorist organization in the
world combined. And that's when President Trump gets back in office,
he's going to designate you a terrorist organization. He's going
(01:43):
to wipe you off the face of.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Your You're done.
Speaker 6 (01:46):
You're done.
Speaker 7 (01:47):
There's a chance to course corrected, but it would take
the new Trump administration going after it really hard. How
would they correct it? Well, first of all, you gotta fire,
you know, you gotta fire the Chairman of Joint Chiefs.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
You gotta fire.
Speaker 7 (01:59):
This obviously gonna bring in any Secretary Defense, but any
general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever, that was involved
in any of the DEI WOP, it's gotta go. Either
you're in for war fighting that and that's it.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
And that's the only litmus tests we care about.
Speaker 7 (02:14):
You've got to get DEI and CRT out of military
academy so you're not training young officers and to be
baptized in this type of thinking.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
Uh. And then you know, whatever the.
Speaker 7 (02:22):
Standards, whatever the combat standards were saying.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
I don't know nineteen ninety five. Let's just make those
the standards.
Speaker 7 (02:27):
And as far as recruiting to hire the guy that
you know did top gun Maverick and create some real
ads that motivate people that want to serve.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
So the Washington Post lead headline in the digital version
today was interesting. It said, Supreme Court remade by Trump
ushers in historic defeats for civil rights. That's unpacked that
(02:58):
for a moment. Supreme Court remade by Trump. Well, it
is true that three of the nine fully one third,
were nominated by President Trump and ratified by the United
States Senate as per the Constitution. And those individuals were
(03:19):
Amy Barrett, Neil Gorsich and Brett Kavanaugh. And to be clear,
especially when Kavanaugh was going on the court, we were
told he was the worst monster ever.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
But if you actually look at the rulings and if
you paid.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Attention to our show for any period of time, we've
broken this down. Those three members of the Court have
turned out to be a disaster.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
A disaster.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Nobody who wanted them on the court because you wanted
conservative jurisprudence, because you are an originalist, because you believe
in the Constitution, because you believe in the limitations of
government to intrude in the lives of individuals.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Nobody sees the three of.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Them as having been positive contributors to the America we
seek nobody not if you pay attention to the actual rulings.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
They've been terrible.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
They have worked to undermine the Trump agenda, and they've
worked to undermine, in my opinion, much of the progress
of the mind of a Clarence Thomas in an antony's clea.
They are much more like John Roberts, who was of
course nominated by George W.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Bush.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
They are people who like to refer to themselves as conservatives,
but they don't actually like to rule and write in
a conservative manner because that would upset people. They are
the types of judges, jurists, as Supreme Court justices. They
are the types of if they were a criminal court
judge and a fellaw is brought before them and found
(05:12):
guilty by a jury of his peers, and let's say
he kicked in a door, raped a woman he didn't know,
brutally tortured her till her death, set her on fire,
fled the scene, and wrote notes to her family for
ten years saying that she deserved it because she was
(05:35):
a woman, but a criminal justice, I mean a criminal
defense attorney were to make the case. Yeah, but he
had a tough upbringing. He didn't have a father, his
mother was a prostitute. Sometimes he was left alone, and
he's black. Those three are the types of judges, along
with John Roberts, who at that moment, even when found guilty,
(05:58):
if the punishment faced came before them, that say, ugh,
I think he's been punished enough.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
He's already been run through the ringer.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
He's had a tough life, and they would find some
way to give him the lightest sentence possible. And I
would remind you of the great economist, writer, thinker, philosopher
Adam Smith who said that mercy to the guilty is
(06:28):
cruelty to the victim. Well, we're not talking about criminal
cases in most of these positions. But what we're talking
about is three Supreme Court justices who've been a disappointment
because they rule more in line with the Washington Post
than my reasoning or Antonins Galias. So why does the
Washington Post take them to task and criticize them in
(06:50):
this way on civil rights? Because if the Washington Post
were to applaud them, they'd go back to being what
they were supposed to be when they were first nominated.
But by keeping the heat on them, because they so
desperately want the approval of the liberal president, they'll continue
to make bad leagues.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
And that's how the game is played. Michael veries you
the evil, evil stunt cycle rum ideal Puerto Rican girls.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
So the Washington Post takes to task the Trump Court. Well,
first of all, it's not unconstitutional for the president to
nominate Supreme Court justices, and should the Senate, upon their
advice and consent, determined to ratify as happened, then those
(07:43):
are members of the Supreme Court sitting in judgment as
our constitution intended. Okay, so what's the problem again, Well,
it's a historic setback for civil rights based on cases
involving women and minorities. Okay, First of all, this country
(08:11):
is handcuffing itself with the constant obsession with race and
gender as part of a larger construct of victimhood. Our
presidential candidates run for office in a race to the
(08:37):
bottom for who grew up poorest, most neglected, most without
as if that's somehow something to brag about. There's a
great bit from money Python called the Four Englishmen of Yorkshire.
I would if you like money Python, I would encourage.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
You to go to YouTube.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Is the four It might be called the Four Yorkshiremen,
but I think it's the four Englishmen of Yorkshire. And
it basically starts with one saying, when we were when
I was young, we were really poor.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
We were so poor.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
We didn't live in a nice neighborhood. And the next
one says, we were so poor we didn't live in
a house, the next one we lived. And eventually it
becomes so absurd that one of them is so poor
they lived under cardboard boxes on the street, and the
other one, oh, we would have loved to have had that.
We lived in the sewer. And it just goes on
and on, and each one becoming more and more absurd
(09:36):
as they try to out pour each other. You might
not remember, but this happens in every Republican presidential primary.
There is the desperate need for each to out pour
the other. Every single one needs to be the most
rags to riches story. And that's silly, It is absolutely silly,
(09:58):
and yet we do it. And part of that is
the embrace of the victimhood, the embrace of the victim.
And so what we've done is we've created I call
them pets. Minorities in this country and women, but particularly
minorities are pets for the Democrats, you know, like a
dog or a cat or a horse. And so what
(10:21):
the white liberal Democrats do is they keep these pets
and they bring them out in public, you know, like
the single guy who goes to the dog park with
his adorable dog. So the chicks will come up and say, oh,
it's the most adorable dog. Before you know it, he's
slaying three nights a week. Thank you, fore fee you
the best. Well, that's what these people do, not to
(10:45):
get sex, but that's what these people do as part
of their political presentation is these pets.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
They're so useful.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
It's useful to have, but it's important that the pets
stay on the leash. The problem for the white liberal
Democrat is when the pets start the inmates take over
the asylum. That's not good. The pets are supposed to
(11:16):
stay pets. And if you want to see an example
of where it upsets them, just watch one of a
thousand or ten thous hundred thous million YouTube videos or
Rumble or wherever you go, they're.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Probably on TikTok to. I just don't know how to
do that.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
You watch one of these videos of any protest. If
there is a white liberal protests, Okay, no kings, we're
gonna have no kings. We're not gonna have kings anymore. Okay,
well good they won we have no kings, and it
turns out there's no black people there. So a black
reporter goes up and says, hey, no kings. Huh yeah,
(11:54):
how come no, okay, we don't want a king.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
A king, we're not king.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Okay, we had one, but so how come there's no
black people here? With a Democrat going and you got
the old you got the white liberal women the Death
of America, you got the ugly white liberal women saying, well,
the blacks are fearful if they come out in public,
(12:18):
they're fearful, so we have to march on their behalf.
What you you're marching on behalf? That's an insult to
black people. You are an entitled karen white liberal woman,
the worst of the worst. But you're out here on
(12:39):
behalf of black people. Do they know has anybody told them?
Because this is laughable?
Speaker 3 (12:48):
All right?
Speaker 2 (12:50):
The black reporter pushes, keeps pushing, keeps pushing, to which
she finally starts insulting him. Because there's nothing that makes
a white liberal more angry than a black person who
does not buy into the narrative the white liberal is presenting.
This is why when a black person says as often
(13:11):
happens as much as the white liberal tries to stifle it.
When a black person says, I'm not discriminated against. I
have opportunity, and I've taken that opportunity, and I have accomplishment,
(13:31):
stop telling people to be sorry for me. Stop telling
people to feel guilty for me. I'm not a slave.
I'm a hard worker and I'm accomplished. I'm successful. Oh no,
you're displaying past life regression issues because you're struggling with
the slavery you're living in. You're not free. I could
(13:55):
spend twenty minutes right now playing eclips of Joe Biden
telling black people how bad they have it, and then
you have a Terrence Wilson Williams who's funny, so it
gets more play. But a lot of black people who
don't have who don't have a platform, responding to that,
going we're not living in the slave days, we have opportunity,
(14:21):
and then you have these situations where blacks who fail
are whites who succeed. And the explanation is supposed to be, well,
that's white privilege, and that has extended all the way
to two parent home. That's white privilege. A parent helping
their child with homework, that's white privilege.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
But what about Asians?
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Because Indians do that, Chinese Americans do that, Japanese Americans?
Is that white privilege too? So again the Washington posts
stoking the racial fires and trying to divide us on
the basis of race. It's just tedious. Trump presidency Iran ceasefire.
(15:10):
The purpose of NATO was supposed to be to protect
the freedom and security of member nations, to avoid another
Germany mowing through sedate Land and Czech Republic, then Poland
and France and damn near destroying all of Europe. Well,
(15:31):
NATO has not worked. And what has happened is the
United States has borne the burden of world peace too far,
too great a degree. And by the way, they haven't
helped President Trump in Iran, and they benefit from it.
(15:52):
We don't, not to the extent they do. And President
Trump making clear that this will not be forgotten.
Speaker 6 (16:00):
I have to tell you, I'm very disappointed in NATO.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Very I think that NATO.
Speaker 6 (16:05):
I think it's a mark on NATA that will never disappear,
never disappear in my mind. You know, they're coming to
see me on Wednesday. They're going to say, oh, we'll
do this, we'll do that.
Speaker 8 (16:13):
Now.
Speaker 6 (16:14):
They all of a sudden want to send things, you know,
but they said it loud and clear at the beginning.
When I spoke to UK of all, I would have said,
they would have been the first, because they've been the oldest.
And I say, yeah, I'd love to have a little help.
Said no, sir, we'd rather wait till you win. I said,
I don't need help after we win. They have two old,
(16:34):
broken aircraft carriers barely work.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
I said, I guess we can use some who the
hell knows.
Speaker 6 (16:38):
I called it generally. He didn't even He said, we
don't really need them. We got the SS Abraham Lincoln, Sarah,
we don't need them. You know, we have in terms
of technology. We had one day, one hundred and one
missiles going at two thousand, seven hundred miles an hour
aimed at the Abraham Lincoln. One hundred and one missiles
(17:00):
out of one hundred and one missiles, one hundred and
one missiles were shot down.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
After meeting with President Trump, the Secretary General of NATO
was on CNN talking about trying to keep NATO together,
trying to keep these member nations, trying to keep well,
let's listen to this first, under.
Speaker 9 (17:22):
Risk that this would lead into the North Korea moment
where you talk so long that at a certain moment
it's beyond the point where you can still get this done,
because then they would get their hands on the nuclear capacity.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
And that is basically.
Speaker 9 (17:39):
A big risk for Europe, is existential for Israel, it
is existential for the Middle East. So the whole world
is safer by this president. Degrading those capabilities is by
many Europe acknowledged, and they understand that continuing talking to
get this done would have brought us potentially past that
(17:59):
more which way we can still.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Deal with it.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
So I get the impression old NATO leader took a
good asstude from Trump, So maybe a little brown nosing
will help let me see if I can't cozy back
up to him. Yeah, we failed the United States, and
Trump is furious in US.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
But in US. But hey, hey, we're good buddies, United States.
Speaker 9 (18:26):
What's saying full play over the last six weeks. And yes,
it is true not all European nations lift up to
those commitments. And I totally understand that he is disappointed
about it.
Speaker 10 (18:37):
On scale of one to ten, one being not worried
at all, ten being terrified. Were you where do you
leave Washington thinking President Trump? Your opinion of President Trump
wanting to leave NATO?
Speaker 3 (18:48):
Are you one?
Speaker 10 (18:48):
I'm not worried at all. Ten I'm really worried Trump
is going to pull out of NATO.
Speaker 9 (18:53):
Well, I'm not going to get into get to answering
that question.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
I'm just trying to.
Speaker 9 (18:58):
But but what I felt today this this was a
meeting between friends because we like each other. I really
admire his leadership and he knows what he did in
the Hague last year as a nature summit has been
crucial and natural allies are with him. But it comes
to the aims of taking out, as I said, degrading
the nuclear and the ballistic mistical capacity of the Uranians.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
So one of the things it's hard to quantify is
the extent to which Trump is seen by so many
people in America, myself included to be a guy who
(19:44):
who says the unsaid. Let me give you an example.
I love my kids, They're wonderful. I'm not talking about
my kids when I say this. I want to be
clear on that because it's not fair to them. But
I do see this with people, some people I know,
and they will spoil their kids rotten, and then they
(20:08):
need their kid to do something. The kid won't do it.
Hey can you come home this weekend from college? And
the kid won't do it? And their question is do
I bite my tongue or do I say, you, little brat,
I pay for your phone, your dorm, or your living expenses,
your car, your this or this or this, and you
can't do what I ask you to do. I am
(20:30):
responsible for your entire being. And it upsets them, and
they will often ask my opinion on that, to which
I say, I am of the belief. I am a
believer in over communication. If you don't tell your kid, hey,
it's Papa's hundredth birthday or Memo's one hundredth birthday and
(20:52):
we really want everyone there and you can come in
this weekend. Don't tell me you're studying. Because when you're
supposedly studying. I see on the credit card you're going
to whatever fast food restaurant or party or whatever else.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
It's important that you be here.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
You didn't choose to be part of this family, and
I didn't choose you.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
You're what came out of your mother. But here we are.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
You're the person who plays the role of her grandson
or great grandson, and it would mean a lot to
her and everybody else to have you here. If the
family is incomplete, it's a little sad for everyone. So no,
you don't have to love it. You don't have to
want to be here. We don't expect it's where you'd
(21:39):
most want to spend your time. It's with a hundred
year old great grandmother or grandmother, or whatever the case
may be. We get that, but I'm telling you it's important.
And I pay all your bills. Now do you want
me to not pay all your bills? And so I
will say, hey, won't you try that approach? I don't
(22:01):
want to have to say that. Nobody does. Nobody does.
That's the point of a tough conversation, and in diplomacy
there is often a failure to have a tough conversation
and whatever the rest of the world may think. And frankly,
(22:22):
I don't care whatever the rest of the world may think.
Many Americans, most Americans rightfully or at least reasonably, believe
that we're being taken advantage of. We fight the wars,
we pay the bills, we send the aid. Every time
(22:47):
there's a problem in the world, we take care of
it while simultaneously being insulted, which happens in many households.
You know dad who works his butt off to pay
for all his kids to.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Go to school.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Maybe he's helping them with their bills, he's paying for
their college, he's whatever he's doing. And when everyone gets around,
the joke's on him. He's the laughing stock because he
can't dance, or he's uncool, or he's this, or he's that.
And I think there comes a point where he says enough.
(23:25):
Trump represents what no other American president will do. He
stands up for the average American. He stands up for
our nation, which is a collection of our average Americans.
And that is what that is why it is hard
to understand the deep connection people have to him, because
for the first time they fail to use the leftist
(23:46):
term of the kids term they feel heard, they feel seen, Michael.
Something happening very closely is President Trump's managing of the
(24:07):
inevitable sweepstakes of who will be his successor. It will
be important for President Trump to choose the person who
is the Republican nominee in twenty twenty eight, when, of
course he is unable to run. It will be important
(24:30):
that it be a person that he wants there. But
Trump is an interesting study in power, and some of
it is things he does to extend and increase his
own power and influence. And some of it is shortcomings
(24:52):
or flaws or just quirks about Trump, and they all
bleed into it together. You know, Trump is the right tackle,
that is your greatest offensive lineman in American history, in
football history. But ever so often there will be in
off sides and you don't get to go, man, I
(25:14):
really love that guy. I just wish he wouldn't ever
be off sides. You have to understand he fires off
faster than anyone else, and that nine out of ten times,
that's the very trait that makes him so good. You
can't take that out of him. They're not separable, They're inextricable.
So I'm enjoying, really watching how he manages, because he
(25:41):
does not want to be perceived nor be, in fact
a lamed up a president without the ability to run
for reelection and exact revenge, and therefore is not able
to be effective, and that happens. He's going to want
(26:01):
to be effective till the very end. He has discouraged
talk of who his replacement would be, his successor, if
you will.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
He doesn't like.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
That because the minute you start talking about that, you
are diminishing his real time right now, power and influence.
So that's why, And I don't like the constant jockeying
for who's going to be the nominee. In twenty eight
you might not have met him yet, he might be
the governor of a state you didn't know he existed.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
You don't know that JD. Vans will even run.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
And for anyone who thinks, well, that's not true, it
has to be Jdvan's from Marco Rubio, because that's who's
there now. You haven't been around politics for very long.
People come from nowhere to win nominations, and people are
the front runner and then they simply fade away. Ted
(26:59):
Kennedy nineteen Great example, but I could name for you
plenty more. And so we get to the issue of Jdvans.
It is clear that Trump is not afraid of the
talk of JD. Vance as the heir apparent, because if
(27:21):
he was, he would diminish him.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
And he's doing the opposite.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
He is showing him a great deal of respect and support.
So you probably know, but the Vice President Jdvans is
in Hungary right now, spoke to the media on the
current ceasefire with Iran, and he said on behalf of
the Trump presidency the White House in the United States
that the president holds all the cards. This is important
(27:49):
for a number of different reasons, not the least of
which is because Trump is watching how he handles questions
when he's outside the presence of Trump where there is
an opportunity to in some way slight to Trump. Is
he a bombastic supporter of Trump and his policies or not,
(28:09):
because that is very important to Trump.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
He's what he said, is it.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Fair to keep ninety million Aranians under that threat for
the actions of their leaders?
Speaker 11 (28:19):
Well, look, the leadership is really to blame for the
condition of the country in Iran. The president of the
United States has made very clear that the United States
has a lot of leverage here. We have economic leverage,
we've got military leverage. What he's trying to do is
make sure the American people are safe and strike a
deal that's good for the American people. I just look,
I encourage the Iranians to come to the table. Seriously,
(28:40):
we've seen some signs that they're going to do that.
We've seen some signs of bravado. Fundamentally weren't a good spot.
They're reopening the straits, we have a ceasefire, and frankly,
if they break their into the bargain, then they're going
to see some serious consequences, wiping them off the map.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
It's different than an economic leverage or a military leverage.
Why is that kind of language useful and this kind
of scenario.
Speaker 11 (29:02):
Well, again, the President the United States is saying that
unless the Iranians do the right thing, he is going
to have some serious consequences for the regime. We obviously
don't want the people of Iran to suffer, but we
have a lot of leverage the President of.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
United States could use.
Speaker 11 (29:16):
And it's why I think it's so important for the
Iranians to be negotiators and good faith.
Speaker 8 (29:23):
JD.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Vance, if you think about it.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Is a more prominent and important vice president to this presidency,
to this administration than we've seen in some time. Kamala
Harris was not an asset to Biden. She was a
distraction and an embarrassment even within their circles, and she
was not liked by the President's loyalists. Mike Pince was
(29:50):
not loyal to the president, not effective, and never really
had that I can recall off top of my head
a major initiative that he speared headed and brought to completion.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
And then you have.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
Dick Cheney. And Cheney was in some ways more of
the president than George W.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Bush was.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
To use a corporate governance model, Cheney was the president
to Bush's CEO, or maybe Cheney was the CEO to
Bush's chairman of the board. Cheney was making the day
to day decisions, he was making the operational decisions, and
Bush was more of a figurehead and a face, while
(30:40):
Cheney was really involved in making decisions related to the
minutia in a big way.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Retired general joining.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
A Fox Joining Fox News. This is Jack Keene talking
about the fact that Trump will not make a bad
deal if battled continues, because he has an ace in
the hole with carg Island. You don't have to believe that.
I'm just sharing you. This is the perspective that's being pushed.
Speaker 8 (31:09):
I know this President Trump is not going to make
a bad deal. He knows these guys, He's negotiated with
him more than any previous president has, and he knows
they're full of bs.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
At times.
Speaker 8 (31:22):
They're going to obfuscate, they're going to promote lies, and
our team obviously has to be aware of all of
that going in here. And I'm assuming that they understand
that the backstop we have here is the president himself.
He's not going to take a bad deal if we
return to combat operations. So our audience understands we do
(31:44):
have an ace in the hole here, so to speak.
We do have a strategic asset that we can put
the employ here, and that is carg Island. Carg Island,
we can wait at the very end of our operations
and take control of it or destroy it.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
I think that's probably true.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
But I think I'm a big believer in learning from
experiences and not just glossing them over and brushing them
under the carpet, sweeping them under the carpet. I do
not believe that the president was well advised and apprized as.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
To the resistance.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Iran was going to mount I don't think he realized that.
I don't think he went in, understated, this wasn't Venezuela
where we went in, took their president and his wife,
scoot it out and.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Said, well, that was pretty cool. That has not happened.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
We have had loss of life, we have had near
misses with the airman going down, we have lost aircraft.
And I don't think the president was aware that Iran
had this level of capability.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com