Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good Barty, Mike or Michael.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
I apologize.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
I don't have a clue as to what you're talking
about this morning. I don't listen live anymore. But that's
your own fault, because the other day you spent like
four hours ranting at some poor guber about him not
understanding why the tax is a circumcadri. Now to Evan's jet,
I think you already had it within the first few sentences. Anyway,
I still wanted to participate and ask what's Kareem of
(00:26):
Bill Jabbar doing these days?
Speaker 3 (00:31):
First of all, I know you're still listening. Second of all,
while you may have gotten it in the and I
think maybe four hours might be an exaggeration. Now, if
I spent thirty minutes or an hour, that might be reasonable,
and I've been known to do that. But you know
why that's necessary, let's say even the four hours, because
(00:56):
you know that many of the people that you deal
with on a day to day basis are economic numskulls
that don't get it. In fact, I don't even think
they get it. So that's why. But it's good to
hear your voice. It's always nice to hear from him,
isn't it? Dragon always nice, always, it's not you don't care.
(01:22):
Dragon's just totally engrossed in something else and he's not
paying any attention, which is quite normal. So nothing new here.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
You're talking to me.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
I'm trying to do my job and produce the show.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I'm listening to other talkbacks finding out crap to put
on a Michael says, go here, that's dot com.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
That's worthwhile for people to even look at.
Speaker 5 (01:39):
What do you want from me?
Speaker 3 (01:41):
You found something to put on the website that is
worthwhile for people to go look at.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Yeah, I got the nude cruise that we were talking
about earlier. Oh well, okay, his new wife.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
That's he and a put up on the website. That's great.
Oh wonderful. Yeah, that's great because.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
We get bonuses when we get numbers.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
People look at the website, right, yes, like what I
looked at last year's bonus and it's just like, well,
it's enabled me to go to two diet cokes per day.
Let's go back to what was the date, March four,
(02:24):
twenty twenty, and there were speeches being given that day.
In fact, they were on the steps of the United
States Supreme Court, and those speeches set into motion a
chain of events that it's taken a long time, because
(02:48):
March four, twenty twenty is now almost five years ago
and we're now just getting some Accountability's go on the
wayback machine and let's take a listen.
Speaker 5 (03:04):
Thank you, thank you, and thank you for being here
and speaking out. Now. Let me thank the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights. Let me think thank plant parenthood, let
me thank the National Woman's Law Center and so many others.
And let's give it up to our healthcare providers who
(03:26):
protect the health and rights of women everywhere in America.
They're under attack, but they don't stop, and we won't stop.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Do you recognize the voice. It's the guy that, for
either Memorial Day or Fourth of July, I forget which one,
takes a photograph of himself grilling some hot dogs and
hamburgers and he puts cheese on the raw probably still
frozen patties on the grill, holds his spatula and grills
(04:03):
and grins for the camera as if look at me.
I'm just an ordinary American. I'm just like you. I'm
a dumb ass, and I put my cheese on the
raw hamburger. The senior Senator from the great state of
New York, Charles Schumer.
Speaker 5 (04:22):
And I want to give excuse me, I forgot my
cheel suit. Sorry, I want to give it. I want
to give a shout out to my New Yorkers. New Yorkers,
we are proudly a pro choice state.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
And I could have skipped to the main attraction here,
but no, because I'm too passing, progressing, and I just
want you to hear the whole damn thing. And you'll
understand why in just a minute.
Speaker 5 (04:55):
Now, why are we here Because inside the walls of
this core, the super who's talking, you can't have two
rallies at once. Okay, okay, Oh that's the bad guys.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Okay, we will see. I want you to have the
whole context. He can't. Oh my gosh, there we have
competing rallies. Well we can't have now. But don't they
know who I am. I'm speaking right now. Shut down
their microphones.
Speaker 5 (05:29):
We'll ignore them.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Now.
Speaker 5 (05:31):
We stand here today because behind me, inside the walls
of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as
you know, for the first major abortion right cases since
Justice is Kavanaugh and Justices care such came to the bench.
(05:56):
We know what's at stake. Over the last three years,
there's women's reproductive rights have come under attack in a
way we haven't seen in modern history. From Louisiana to
Missouri to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women,
all women, and they're taking away fundamental rights.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
I was curious about that there's a war on women,
unborn women, unborn girls.
Speaker 5 (06:31):
I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell
you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will
pay the price. You won't know what hit you if
you go forward with these awful decisions. The bottom line
(06:52):
is very simple. We will stand with the American people.
We will stand with American women. Will tell President Trump
and Senate Republicans who have stacked the court with right
wing idea logues that you're gonna be gone in November
and you will never be able to do what you're
trying to do now ever ever again to hear that
(07:16):
over there on the far right, you're gone in November.
We are here to send these folks a message not
on our watch. So let me ask you, my friends,
are we gonna let Republicans undo a woman's right to choose?
(07:38):
Are we gonna stay quiet as they try to turn
back the clock. Are we gonna give up or waiver
when things get tough. No, We're gonna stand together in
one voice and take a stand on behalf of women
and families throughout the country. We're gonna stand against all
these attempts a restrict a woman's right to choose, and
(08:03):
we will win. Thank you God, bless you on to
victory everybody.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
There are times when I say things on this radio
program that are maybe a little out there, or maybe
I misspeak and don't even realize at the time that
I misspeak, but you know there it didn't happen often.
(08:36):
But there are times when I may be doing and
you know, for example, I'm recording an interview with Newsmax
this afternoon, and we went through the pre interview yesterday
and asking the producer asking a lot of questions of
the ambassador Brinker wants to ask me about things, and
we're just having a conversation and we get up and
(08:59):
we finished, and I realized I didn't want that producer
from Adam. But like I always do with you, I
just tell you easily what I think. And now I
wonder based on that conversation, what kind of questions I'm
going to get asked this afternoon, or if there'll be
any blowback from it. Now, that's not to say that
I care, because, as as my lawyer once told me,
(09:21):
you know, once they kill you me, who cares? You
can you can say and do whatever you please, because well,
you just don't care anymore. And that's pretty much where
I'm at. And that's kind of why I that's the way,
that's why I do this program, the way I do
this program, which has proved to be, you know, pretty
damn successful. So I wonder at the time that Chuck
(09:41):
Schumer made those comments that he understood that he had
set into motion a chain of events that would eventually
demand accountability for those comments. The acting Attorney General for
the District of Columbia, and I'm sorry, the Acting US
(10:01):
Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, who you
may I think I referenced him yesterday about something he
had done, sent a letter to Chuck Schumer alerting him
to the fact that the Department of Justice has opened
an investigation into that very address that actually incited violence
(10:24):
and has laid bare a reckless disregard for the sanctity
of the third branch of government, the judicial system, and
I think the issue is legitimate. A senator's words, delivered
with that venom that you just heard, the venom of
a demagogue, not only incited an enraged mob, but led
(10:46):
to a sustained assault on the core institutions that uphold
our republic. Dated January twenty first, twenty twenty five, the
Honorable Chuck Schumer, three two to two Art Senate Office Building, Washington,
d C. Two five one zero, Dear Senator Schumer. As
(11:07):
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, I receive
requests for information and clarification. I take these requests seriously
and act on them with letters like this one you
are now receiving at this time, I respectfully request that
you clarify your comments from March four, twenty twenty. Your
(11:31):
comments were at a private rally off the campus of
the US Capitol. Now, why does the acting US Attorneys
say that? Because he is not protected by the Speech
and Debate Clause of the United States Constitution, which protects
senators and congressmen from anything they say which may even
(11:53):
be defamatory, which may even be outright falsehoods which might
even incite vile They're immune from whatever they say on
the Capitol, in the Capitol, in the chambers, so he says,
(12:13):
at this time, I respectfully request that you clarify your
comments from March four to twenty twenty. Your comments were
at a private rally off the campus of the US Capital.
You made them clearly and in a way that many
found threatening. Your exact words were quote, I want to
tell you gor such. I want to tell you Kavanaugh,
(12:34):
you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.
You won't know what hit you if you go forward
with these awful decisions. Link here, and then there's a
URL to a CNN video. Last paragraph. We take threats
(12:55):
against public officials very seriously. I look forward to your
cooperation with my letter of inquiry after request. Should you
have further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate
to call my office or schedule a time to meet
in person. Thank you all the best, sign Edward R. Martin, Junior,
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. It's wonderful
(13:24):
Chief Justice Roberts. At the time these statements were made
back in twenty twenty, quickly and very swiftly condemn Schumer's remarks,
because Justice Roberts understood very well the inherent peril in
a public official wielding threats as a weapon against the judiciary.
(13:47):
And you think about what Chuck Schumer said. It was
as cold as it was defiant. His refusal, absolute refusal
to apologize, sent a sign though, that is an indifference
to the potential consequences of that incitement. Now, if you're
(14:07):
a part of the radicalized left, those words were clarion
call a mandate, if you will, that we should figure
out a way to go subvert the rule of law.
Now it went beyond that, It went beyond just subverting
the rule of law. That rhetoric, which can only be
(14:30):
considered incendiary, morphed into a tangible assault on the judicial integrity.
When just not two years later, a far left Supreme Court,
probably inspired by Schumer's call to arms, breached the confidentiality
of the Supreme Court by leaking the draft opinion that
(14:52):
they were considering that day in Dobbs v. Jackson versus
Women's Health Organization leaked it to the press. That's treachery,
cloaked in the language and whistleblowing. Of course, but it
was in fact a deliberate strategy, a strategy of intimidation,
(15:12):
a strategy of coercion, designed to do what trying to
terrorize conservative justices and undermine the very fabric of judicial independence,
of a separate and equal branch of government. Now there
was fallout, it was immediate. It was terrifying. All these mobs,
(15:34):
a mixture of ideological fervor lawless zeal. What did they
do well? They ended up showing at the homes of
justices flavorantly violating federal law. There is a prohibition in
protesting on the private property of or even for that matter,
(15:57):
on the public easements of judges. It's in the Criminal Code,
titled eighteen section fifteen oh seven of the US Code,
which criminalizes the picketing or parading outside of judge's residence
with the intent to influence a judge's decision. So what
(16:18):
did the Biden administration do well? They refused to enforce
the statue. They advocated their duty, and that made conservative
judges targets and it sent a chilling message, which is
exactly what Chuck Schumer was intending to do. That if
you dare to uphold the Constitution, or you dared to
make a decision that went against what they believed to
(16:41):
be their orthodoxy, then you were fair game for harassment
of not outright violence. And then the words just smoldered.
And then on June eighth, twenty twenty two, there was
a distinct nexus between those words and deeds when Nicholas
wrote the left wing extremist was apprehended outside Justice Kevanaugh's home.
(17:05):
He had lethal intent, a cash of weapons, and his
actions were a direct man manifestation of the charge that
Schumer had summoned reaped the world with and he even
confessed to that. So the threat was palpably real, and
the Biden administration and congressional difference Democrats just didn't care.
(17:29):
And that was just somebody in the Office for the
Presidency that does care. Let's say you Sims or Schumer.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Good morning, Michael and Dragon and Michael. I agree with
Dragon's thought that the amount of money doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
That it's going to USA.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
I d he said that it would add up. But
I agree for a different reason, and that is that
any amount of money is too much, and it really
doesn't pattern that it's millions or billions at any amount
hundred bucks shouldn't go to those knees, those things that
we're supporting. We need to stop it now.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Well, then actually you agree with me, not with Dragon,
because because Dragon's question was why are we worried about
these amounts? And my point was these amounts all add
up and to your point, none of it should be done.
I fall in on the position on the side of
abolish USAID, get rid of it, resend the funding, freeze
(18:28):
the funding, don't send any more money out. I don't
care how good the cause is. If Congress wants to appropriate,
say to the Department of State, where they can make
certain that the money that is spent is aligned with
our foreign interests, then do it through the Department of State.
(18:48):
You don't need USAID. So just abolish it all together.
And I think that's where Trump's going to have some
challenges and challenge, and that is that Congress is going
to be the one to a ball. Trump can he
can fire people, he can put them on administrative leave
and send them all out of the office, and he
can put his own people in and he can do
(19:10):
all of that. But to to completely eliminate it will
take congressional action.
Speaker 4 (19:16):
You know.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
The other get just This is not where I wanted
to go, but I think this is worth everyone thinking about.
There will be a tipping point in everything that Trump's
doing where Congress or the courts will step in and
(19:36):
there will be a battle, which should not be surprising
or unexpected, over Trump's authority as president to either rescind
funding or do recision, which means you're going to cut
that funding out of that budget, or to reallocate that funding.
(19:58):
For example, some of the money that's being spent on
the border wall today is money that was appropriated for
immigration purposes, but he's reallocating it from you know, doing
the stupid asylum processing or whatever, to instead building the wall,
which I think the executive branch has the authority to do.
(20:20):
In fact, it was done many times to me. We're
gonna take some of your budget and here within DHS now,
so we're gonna use it for something else inside DHS.
And sometimes I won those battles and sometimes I didn't.
I mentioned the president of El Salvador, NAE. Mukayley earlier
in the program, because he is an anti crime president.
(20:45):
But what you don't hear a lot about is that,
you know, my Michael Brown minute this morning was about
Jason Crowe is you know, he's back in the district.
So the first thing does he runs out to Buckley
Air Force Base or Buckley Space Base or whatever they
call it now. He runs out the b Luly because
by Dolly, I gotta find out because I don't want
DoD resources doing anything having anything to do with mass
(21:08):
deportation of migrants that you know we really care about. Well,
he's just desperate for attention. He's just desperate for some
publicity because if he were really concerned about DoD facilities
being used to house illegal aliens, he would be concerned
about when Bill Clinton did it, or when Barack Obama
(21:31):
did it, or when Joe Biden did it. But he wasn't.
He's only concerned now because it's a Republican named Donald Trump,
who's the same as Handler, of course, and we've got
to go out and we've got to find out what
he's what they're doing. So then he goes out and
he checks out there and he finds out, Oh yeah,
it's just uh, they're using some space, some unoccupied space
(21:54):
kind of like at GIPMO. It's no BFD whatsoever. But
Jason Crow wants you to think that it is well,
the president of L Salvador has offered to host criminals
convicted in this country in his Center for the Confinement
of Terrorism superprison. Now Elon Musk says that this is
(22:19):
a great idea. He another reason to follow me on
x at Michael Brown USA. He wrote an ex this
not Musk, but Kayley. We have offered the United States
of America the opportunity to outsource part of its prison system.
We are willing to take in only convicted criminals, including
(22:39):
convicted US citizens, into our Megaprison Seacott, in exchange for
a fee. Now he knows that this fee would be
quote would be relatively low for the United States, but
would be significant for US, making our entire prison system sustainable.
He then later reposted another ex post claiming that quote L.
(23:07):
Salvador and the United States have agreed on a plan
to hold some of America's worst criminals in L Salvador Seacott.
Now that's unconfirmed as when I saw that last night
on whether it's true or not. But notice suddenly the
change a more Trump effect. Now what's L Salvador noted for? Well,
(23:32):
they birth the violent MS thirteen crime gang and as
recently as twenty fifteen was noted for a ferocious homicide
rate of over one hundred per one hundred thousand. Now
following his election, now some six years ago, eighteen nineteen,
(23:53):
I forget when he was first elected. Kayles has enacted
all sorts of anti gang strategies ructured around mass incarceration.
Seacott to super prison is capable of holding forty thousand prisoners,
and then the other new facilities are making even more
(24:13):
prisoners possible. Ultimately, he has reduced the homicide rate. What
do you think the number is? He has reduced the
homicide rate in Al Salvador by ninety eight percent. Now,
Bozo mac Getz visited SEACOT in July last year, and
(24:34):
he said this at the time, the people of the
United States of America are very grateful that SEACOT exists
so that these criminals are not harming the people of
Al Salvador or harming the people of the United States.
The Trump effect being seen everywhere you turn. And it
(24:56):
seems to me that we don't pay enough attention to
Central and to Latin America in general, Central and South America.
And I think the appointment of Marcolo Rubio is obviously
already having an effect. You saw what happened with the tariffs.
Suddenly the president of Mexico is sending ten thousand troops
(25:19):
to the border. As I said yesterday, we'll wait and
see what they actually do. They may just camp out
and you know, have some you know, pentos and tortillas
or some you know guac or tequila and have a
jolly old time because the cartels probably won't let them
do anything. Because it seems to me that what we
really have going on in Mexico is a Mexican state alliance.
(25:47):
The White House announced just last month, buried in this
statement about tariffs on Mexico's goods, the Mexican drug trafficking
organizations have an intolerable alliance with the government of Mexico.
Just saying that out loud sent shock waves through Mexico
(26:08):
because it all say if true. Now I think it
is true. But if true, if the government of our
southern neighbor acts in concert with the fans, condone, or
even profits from the trafficking cartels that have killed hundreds
of thousands of US citizens, and is working to destroy
American sovereignty, then it is another Trump effect. And it
(26:32):
is a seismic pronouncement that other presidents had been unwilling
to state out loud because it heralds a new era
of confrontation between the two nations. Now, confrontation is not
always bad. Maybe I should be, but I've never been
subject to a family intervention. We were talking to some
friends over the weekend whose kids wanted to suddenly have
(26:54):
dinner with mom and dad, and we thought, in fact,
they joked about is this going to be an intervention
or what? Because they're making some big changes in their lives,
and we all laught about an intervention. Well, that's kind
of what Trump's doing. Trump's having an intervention, and he's
speaking the truth, which is often not acceptable inside the
Beltway because well, you know, it's going to cause probably
(27:16):
it might upset our neighbors. It's been what twenty years
since I've been inside the government and as under secretary.
As I've told you before, we spent an inordan amount
of time preparing for two failed states just the south
(27:37):
of US. And how would we handle all of the
collapse of the Cuban government, of the communist government in Cuba.
How are we going to handle that collapse? And how
are we going to handle the collapse of Mexico. Because
I believe that Mexico is an narco state. There is
an intolerable alliance, as the White House said, with the
(28:00):
government of Mexico and the drug trafficking organizations. They effectively
control the country. That doesn't mean they effectively control the
entire country, but great swaws of the Mexican economy, great
swaths of the geography of Mexico, or under the direct
control of the cartels. A Mexican state that is allied
(28:25):
with enemies of this country on those enemies' behalf would
be as intolerable to us as Manuel Noriegi's Panama or
Ben Lauden's Al Qaeda was to us. I actually think
it's worse because none of those antagonists, either Noriega or
(28:49):
Ben Lauden, shared two thousand miles of border with US.
The question is is it true? The answer at least
obvious to me, having worked in those levels where those
conversations were had within four US Mexico policy across many years. Yeah,
(29:14):
it's completely true. It is so true, and I think
it's so obvious that the shock for people who understand
what's really going on in Mexico is not that Donald
Trump declared the Mexico the country of Mexico in narco regime.
But we haven't said that for decades. We've gone through
(29:35):
years of complacency under a braindead Biden regime, and US
policy is now awakening to the reality of what's going
on in Mexico. Do you want to think about some
of the examples, hang tight, I'll give you some examples
of why it's close to being a failed state, and
(29:57):
it certainly currently is a Narco state.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
Hey, I heard earlier you were looking for a stripper
to do some community service there at iHeart Well, I
don't know if this would apply, but now I'm calling
for a friend. She needs to do a community service
and she's a dominatrix. Would that work for you? Guys
again calling for a friend?
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Well, speaking on behalf of Dragon, who's too embarrassed answer,
I think that probably would work out for him, and
I think you'd be quite happy with that, say Fords Watermelon.
So yeah, just just having contact Dragon at iHeartMedia dot
com and he make it all the arrangements. That's dragging
at iHeartMedia dot com. Did I mention that's dragging at
(30:45):
iHeartMedia dot com. Well do you have to you have
to repeat something like three times before you'll kind of
begin to sink.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
In dragon at iHeartMedia dot com.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Yeah, I think that was it. Yeah, let me type
that in dragon at iHeartMedia dot com. Yeah, that's it,
dragging at iarmedia dot com. That's it.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
Let's you know, you go to go through all the
particulars about why I believe that Mexico is culpose to
being a failed state and it's actually an ARCO state.
You can go to a twenty twenty five report from
the Texas Public Policy Foundation on this collusion between the
cartels and Mexico. That's that would be a good place
(31:26):
to stop. But the top lines I think make the case.
It's it's a single party left populous regime. It's aligned
ideologically and operationally with comparable regimes in Cuban and Venezuela.
And just like Cuban Venezuela, it regards its nation's trafficking
(31:47):
cartels as a vehicle for profit, as a vehicle for control,
and also as agents of national policy overseas or north
of the border, not just in our country but elsewhere.
The central figure in this regime case is the guy
(32:08):
that served as president of Mexico between twenty eighteen and
twenty twenty four and still controls the ruling Marina coalition
through his proxies and his family members throughout the entire
party apparatus. Andre Manuel Lopez Obrador. In addition to being
an inveterate anti American in his demagogue politics, he's understood
(32:31):
to have been in the pay of the Senadola cartel
for the past twenty years the president of Mexico, and
this was common knowledge in Mexico. They didn't try to
hide the evidence. Remember, you know, he was known as
Andre Manuel Lopez Obrador. He was known as Amlo Amlo.
(32:55):
He spent probably his entire presidency defending the cinelo A
cartel against the United States and even sometimes against his
own security state, his only his own security apparatus. He
paid more visits to the headquarters of the Senatolan cartel,
(33:15):
someplace called by the Garrotto, over his six year period
that he ever took to Washington, d C. He took
a special trip to pay respects to the mother of
al Chapo. He ordered his own security forces to release
one of al Chopol's captured sons he intervened, intervened to
(33:36):
spring the Mexican flag officer Salvador Sinfuegos from American detention,
and then he banned US law enforcement from ever working
in Mexico and even vowed to use Mexican armed forces
to defend the cartels against American action. That's a pretty
good list right there. He was never concerned about the
(33:58):
Mexican public seeing all of this. He didn't care whether
they knew that or not, because what were they going
to do? What were they going to do? You know,
I haven't been to Mexico in decades, but family and
friends have and and your your mileage may vary, but
from everything I understand, it's like, you go to any
(34:18):
of the resorts, be very careful about going off property,
because off property, the cartels are in control. If that
ever became really like widespread public knowledge or something really
actually ever happened to tourists, what do you think would
happen to the Mexican touristics? Yep, not a zeroed out
Good Barty, Mike or Michael.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
I apologize.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
I don't have a clue as to what you're talking
about this morning. I don't listen live anymore. But that's
your own fault, because the other day you spent like
four hours ranting at some poor guber about him not
understanding why the tax is a circumcadri. Now to Evan's jet,
I think you already had it within the first few sentences. Anyway,
I still wanted to participate and ask what's Kareem of
(00:26):
Bill Jabbar doing these days?
Speaker 3 (00:31):
First of all, I know you're still listening. Second of all,
while you may have gotten it in the and I
think maybe four hours might be an exaggeration. Now, if
I spent thirty minutes or an hour, that might be reasonable,
and I've been known to do that. But you know
why that's necessary, let's say even the four hours, because
(00:56):
you know that many of the people that you deal
with on a day to day basis are economic numskulls
that don't get it. In fact, I don't even think
they get it. So that's why. But it's good to
hear your voice. It's always nice to hear from him,
isn't it? Dragon always nice, always, it's not you don't care.
(01:22):
Dragon's just totally engrossed in something else and he's not
paying any attention, which is quite normal. So nothing new here.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
You're talking to me.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
I'm trying to do my job and produce the show.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I'm listening to other talkbacks finding out crap to put
on a Michael says, go here, that's dot com.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
That's worthwhile for people to even look at.
Speaker 5 (01:39):
What do you want from me?
Speaker 3 (01:41):
You found something to put on the website that is
worthwhile for people to go look at.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Yeah, I got the nude cruise that we were talking
about earlier. Oh well, okay, his new wife.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
That's he and a put up on the website. That's great.
Oh wonderful. Yeah, that's great because.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
We get bonuses when we get numbers.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
People look at the website, right, yes, like what I
looked at last year's bonus and it's just like, well,
it's enabled me to go to two diet cokes per day.
Let's go back to what was the date, March four,
(02:24):
twenty twenty, and there were speeches being given that day.
In fact, they were on the steps of the United
States Supreme Court, and those speeches set into motion a
chain of events that it's taken a long time, because
(02:48):
March four, twenty twenty is now almost five years ago
and we're now just getting some Accountability's go on the
wayback machine and let's take a listen.
Speaker 5 (03:04):
Thank you, thank you, and thank you for being here
and speaking out. Now. Let me thank the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights. Let me think thank plant parenthood, let
me thank the National Woman's Law Center and so many others.
And let's give it up to our healthcare providers who
(03:26):
protect the health and rights of women everywhere in America.
They're under attack, but they don't stop, and we won't stop.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Do you recognize the voice. It's the guy that, for
either Memorial Day or Fourth of July, I forget which one,
takes a photograph of himself grilling some hot dogs and
hamburgers and he puts cheese on the raw probably still
frozen patties on the grill, holds his spatula and grills
(04:03):
and grins for the camera as if look at me.
I'm just an ordinary American. I'm just like you. I'm
a dumb ass, and I put my cheese on the
raw hamburger. The senior Senator from the great state of
New York, Charles Schumer.
Speaker 5 (04:22):
And I want to give excuse me, I forgot my
cheel suit. Sorry, I want to give it. I want
to give a shout out to my New Yorkers. New Yorkers,
we are proudly a pro choice state.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
And I could have skipped to the main attraction here,
but no, because I'm too passing, progressing, and I just
want you to hear the whole damn thing. And you'll
understand why in just a minute.
Speaker 5 (04:55):
Now, why are we here Because inside the walls of
this core, the super who's talking, you can't have two
rallies at once. Okay, okay, Oh that's the bad guys.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Okay, we will see. I want you to have the
whole context. He can't. Oh my gosh, there we have
competing rallies. Well we can't have now. But don't they
know who I am. I'm speaking right now. Shut down
their microphones.
Speaker 5 (05:29):
We'll ignore them.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Now.
Speaker 5 (05:31):
We stand here today because behind me, inside the walls
of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as
you know, for the first major abortion right cases since
Justice is Kavanaugh and Justices care such came to the bench.
(05:56):
We know what's at stake. Over the last three years,
there's women's reproductive rights have come under attack in a
way we haven't seen in modern history. From Louisiana to
Missouri to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women,
all women, and they're taking away fundamental rights.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
I was curious about that there's a war on women,
unborn women, unborn girls.
Speaker 5 (06:31):
I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell
you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will
pay the price. You won't know what hit you if
you go forward with these awful decisions. The bottom line
(06:52):
is very simple. We will stand with the American people.
We will stand with American women. Will tell President Trump
and Senate Republicans who have stacked the court with right
wing idea logues that you're gonna be gone in November
and you will never be able to do what you're
trying to do now ever ever again to hear that
(07:16):
over there on the far right, you're gone in November.
We are here to send these folks a message not
on our watch. So let me ask you, my friends,
are we gonna let Republicans undo a woman's right to choose?
(07:38):
Are we gonna stay quiet as they try to turn
back the clock. Are we gonna give up or waiver
when things get tough. No, We're gonna stand together in
one voice and take a stand on behalf of women
and families throughout the country. We're gonna stand against all
these attempts a restrict a woman's right to choose, and
(08:03):
we will win. Thank you God, bless you on to
victory everybody.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
There are times when I say things on this radio
program that are maybe a little out there, or maybe
I misspeak and don't even realize at the time that
I misspeak, but you know there it didn't happen often.
(08:36):
But there are times when I may be doing and
you know, for example, I'm recording an interview with Newsmax
this afternoon, and we went through the pre interview yesterday
and asking the producer asking a lot of questions of
the ambassador Brinker wants to ask me about things, and
we're just having a conversation and we get up and
(08:59):
we finished, and I realized I didn't want that producer
from Adam. But like I always do with you, I
just tell you easily what I think. And now I
wonder based on that conversation, what kind of questions I'm
going to get asked this afternoon, or if there'll be
any blowback from it. Now, that's not to say that
I care, because, as as my lawyer once told me,
(09:21):
you know, once they kill you me, who cares? You
can you can say and do whatever you please, because well,
you just don't care anymore. And that's pretty much where
I'm at. And that's kind of why I that's the way,
that's why I do this program, the way I do
this program, which has proved to be, you know, pretty
damn successful. So I wonder at the time that Chuck
(09:41):
Schumer made those comments that he understood that he had
set into motion a chain of events that would eventually
demand accountability for those comments. The acting Attorney General for
the District of Columbia, and I'm sorry, the Acting US
(10:01):
Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, who you
may I think I referenced him yesterday about something he
had done, sent a letter to Chuck Schumer alerting him
to the fact that the Department of Justice has opened
an investigation into that very address that actually incited violence
(10:24):
and has laid bare a reckless disregard for the sanctity
of the third branch of government, the judicial system, and
I think the issue is legitimate. A senator's words, delivered
with that venom that you just heard, the venom of
a demagogue, not only incited an enraged mob, but led
(10:46):
to a sustained assault on the core institutions that uphold
our republic. Dated January twenty first, twenty twenty five, the
Honorable Chuck Schumer, three two to two Art Senate Office Building, Washington,
d C. Two five one zero, Dear Senator Schumer. As
(11:07):
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, I receive
requests for information and clarification. I take these requests seriously
and act on them with letters like this one you
are now receiving at this time, I respectfully request that
you clarify your comments from March four, twenty twenty. Your
(11:31):
comments were at a private rally off the campus of
the US Capitol. Now, why does the acting US Attorneys
say that? Because he is not protected by the Speech
and Debate Clause of the United States Constitution, which protects
senators and congressmen from anything they say which may even
(11:53):
be defamatory, which may even be outright falsehoods which might
even incite vile They're immune from whatever they say on
the Capitol, in the Capitol, in the chambers, so he says,
(12:13):
at this time, I respectfully request that you clarify your
comments from March four to twenty twenty. Your comments were
at a private rally off the campus of the US Capital.
You made them clearly and in a way that many
found threatening. Your exact words were quote, I want to
tell you gor such. I want to tell you Kavanaugh,
(12:34):
you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.
You won't know what hit you if you go forward
with these awful decisions. Link here, and then there's a
URL to a CNN video. Last paragraph. We take threats
(12:55):
against public officials very seriously. I look forward to your
cooperation with my letter of inquiry after request. Should you
have further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate
to call my office or schedule a time to meet
in person. Thank you all the best, sign Edward R. Martin, Junior,
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. It's wonderful
(13:24):
Chief Justice Roberts. At the time these statements were made
back in twenty twenty, quickly and very swiftly condemn Schumer's remarks,
because Justice Roberts understood very well the inherent peril in
a public official wielding threats as a weapon against the judiciary.
(13:47):
And you think about what Chuck Schumer said. It was
as cold as it was defiant. His refusal, absolute refusal
to apologize, sent a sign though, that is an indifference
to the potential consequences of that incitement. Now, if you're
(14:07):
a part of the radicalized left, those words were clarion
call a mandate, if you will, that we should figure
out a way to go subvert the rule of law.
Now it went beyond that, It went beyond just subverting
the rule of law. That rhetoric, which can only be
(14:30):
considered incendiary, morphed into a tangible assault on the judicial integrity.
When just not two years later, a far left Supreme Court,
probably inspired by Schumer's call to arms, breached the confidentiality
of the Supreme Court by leaking the draft opinion that
(14:52):
they were considering that day in Dobbs v. Jackson versus
Women's Health Organization leaked it to the press. That's treachery,
cloaked in the language and whistleblowing. Of course, but it
was in fact a deliberate strategy, a strategy of intimidation,
(15:12):
a strategy of coercion, designed to do what trying to
terrorize conservative justices and undermine the very fabric of judicial independence,
of a separate and equal branch of government. Now there
was fallout, it was immediate. It was terrifying. All these mobs,
(15:34):
a mixture of ideological fervor lawless zeal. What did they
do well? They ended up showing at the homes of
justices flavorantly violating federal law. There is a prohibition in
protesting on the private property of or even for that matter,
(15:57):
on the public easements of judges. It's in the Criminal Code,
titled eighteen section fifteen oh seven of the US Code,
which criminalizes the picketing or parading outside of judge's residence
with the intent to influence a judge's decision. So what
(16:18):
did the Biden administration do well? They refused to enforce
the statue. They advocated their duty, and that made conservative
judges targets and it sent a chilling message, which is
exactly what Chuck Schumer was intending to do. That if
you dare to uphold the Constitution, or you dared to
make a decision that went against what they believed to
(16:41):
be their orthodoxy, then you were fair game for harassment
of not outright violence. And then the words just smoldered.
And then on June eighth, twenty twenty two, there was
a distinct nexus between those words and deeds when Nicholas
wrote the left wing extremist was apprehended outside Justice Kevanaugh's home.
(17:05):
He had lethal intent, a cash of weapons, and his
actions were a direct man manifestation of the charge that
Schumer had summoned reaped the world with and he even
confessed to that. So the threat was palpably real, and
the Biden administration and congressional difference Democrats just didn't care.
(17:29):
And that was just somebody in the Office for the
Presidency that does care. Let's say you Sims or Schumer.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Good morning, Michael and Dragon and Michael. I agree with
Dragon's thought that the amount of money doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
That it's going to USA.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
I d he said that it would add up. But
I agree for a different reason, and that is that
any amount of money is too much, and it really
doesn't pattern that it's millions or billions at any amount
hundred bucks shouldn't go to those knees, those things that
we're supporting. We need to stop it now.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Well, then actually you agree with me, not with Dragon,
because because Dragon's question was why are we worried about
these amounts? And my point was these amounts all add
up and to your point, none of it should be done.
I fall in on the position on the side of
abolish USAID, get rid of it, resend the funding, freeze
(18:28):
the funding, don't send any more money out. I don't
care how good the cause is. If Congress wants to appropriate,
say to the Department of State, where they can make
certain that the money that is spent is aligned with
our foreign interests, then do it through the Department of State.
(18:48):
You don't need USAID. So just abolish it all together.
And I think that's where Trump's going to have some
challenges and challenge, and that is that Congress is going
to be the one to a ball. Trump can he
can fire people, he can put them on administrative leave
and send them all out of the office, and he
can put his own people in and he can do
(19:10):
all of that. But to to completely eliminate it will
take congressional action.
Speaker 4 (19:16):
You know.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
The other get just This is not where I wanted
to go, but I think this is worth everyone thinking about.
There will be a tipping point in everything that Trump's
doing where Congress or the courts will step in and
(19:36):
there will be a battle, which should not be surprising
or unexpected, over Trump's authority as president to either rescind
funding or do recision, which means you're going to cut
that funding out of that budget, or to reallocate that funding.
(19:58):
For example, some of the money that's being spent on
the border wall today is money that was appropriated for
immigration purposes, but he's reallocating it from you know, doing
the stupid asylum processing or whatever, to instead building the wall,
which I think the executive branch has the authority to do.
(20:20):
In fact, it was done many times to me. We're
gonna take some of your budget and here within DHS now,
so we're gonna use it for something else inside DHS.
And sometimes I won those battles and sometimes I didn't.
I mentioned the president of El Salvador, NAE. Mukayley earlier
in the program, because he is an anti crime president.
(20:45):
But what you don't hear a lot about is that,
you know, my Michael Brown minute this morning was about
Jason Crowe is you know, he's back in the district.
So the first thing does he runs out to Buckley
Air Force Base or Buckley Space Base or whatever they
call it now. He runs out the b Luly because
by Dolly, I gotta find out because I don't want
DoD resources doing anything having anything to do with mass
(21:08):
deportation of migrants that you know we really care about. Well,
he's just desperate for attention. He's just desperate for some
publicity because if he were really concerned about DoD facilities
being used to house illegal aliens, he would be concerned
about when Bill Clinton did it, or when Barack Obama
(21:31):
did it, or when Joe Biden did it. But he wasn't.
He's only concerned now because it's a Republican named Donald Trump,
who's the same as Handler, of course, and we've got
to go out and we've got to find out what
he's what they're doing. So then he goes out and
he checks out there and he finds out, Oh yeah,
it's just uh, they're using some space, some unoccupied space
(21:54):
kind of like at GIPMO. It's no BFD whatsoever. But
Jason Crow wants you to think that it is well,
the president of L Salvador has offered to host criminals
convicted in this country in his Center for the Confinement
of Terrorism superprison. Now Elon Musk says that this is
(22:19):
a great idea. He another reason to follow me on
x at Michael Brown USA. He wrote an ex this
not Musk, but Kayley. We have offered the United States
of America the opportunity to outsource part of its prison system.
We are willing to take in only convicted criminals, including
(22:39):
convicted US citizens, into our Megaprison Seacott, in exchange for
a fee. Now he knows that this fee would be
quote would be relatively low for the United States, but
would be significant for US, making our entire prison system sustainable.
He then later reposted another ex post claiming that quote L.
(23:07):
Salvador and the United States have agreed on a plan
to hold some of America's worst criminals in L Salvador Seacott.
Now that's unconfirmed as when I saw that last night
on whether it's true or not. But notice suddenly the
change a more Trump effect. Now what's L Salvador noted for? Well,
(23:32):
they birth the violent MS thirteen crime gang and as
recently as twenty fifteen was noted for a ferocious homicide
rate of over one hundred per one hundred thousand. Now
following his election, now some six years ago, eighteen nineteen,
(23:53):
I forget when he was first elected. Kayles has enacted
all sorts of anti gang strategies ructured around mass incarceration.
Seacott to super prison is capable of holding forty thousand prisoners,
and then the other new facilities are making even more
(24:13):
prisoners possible. Ultimately, he has reduced the homicide rate. What
do you think the number is? He has reduced the
homicide rate in Al Salvador by ninety eight percent. Now,
Bozo mac Getz visited SEACOT in July last year, and
(24:34):
he said this at the time, the people of the
United States of America are very grateful that SEACOT exists
so that these criminals are not harming the people of
Al Salvador or harming the people of the United States.
The Trump effect being seen everywhere you turn. And it
(24:56):
seems to me that we don't pay enough attention to
Central and to Latin America in general, Central and South America.
And I think the appointment of Marcolo Rubio is obviously
already having an effect. You saw what happened with the tariffs.
Suddenly the president of Mexico is sending ten thousand troops
(25:19):
to the border. As I said yesterday, we'll wait and
see what they actually do. They may just camp out
and you know, have some you know, pentos and tortillas
or some you know guac or tequila and have a
jolly old time because the cartels probably won't let them
do anything. Because it seems to me that what we
really have going on in Mexico is a Mexican state alliance.
(25:47):
The White House announced just last month, buried in this
statement about tariffs on Mexico's goods, the Mexican drug trafficking
organizations have an intolerable alliance with the government of Mexico.
Just saying that out loud sent shock waves through Mexico
(26:08):
because it all say if true. Now I think it
is true. But if true, if the government of our
southern neighbor acts in concert with the fans, condone, or
even profits from the trafficking cartels that have killed hundreds
of thousands of US citizens, and is working to destroy
American sovereignty, then it is another Trump effect. And it
(26:32):
is a seismic pronouncement that other presidents had been unwilling
to state out loud because it heralds a new era
of confrontation between the two nations. Now, confrontation is not
always bad. Maybe I should be, but I've never been
subject to a family intervention. We were talking to some
friends over the weekend whose kids wanted to suddenly have
(26:54):
dinner with mom and dad, and we thought, in fact,
they joked about is this going to be an intervention
or what? Because they're making some big changes in their lives,
and we all laught about an intervention. Well, that's kind
of what Trump's doing. Trump's having an intervention, and he's
speaking the truth, which is often not acceptable inside the
Beltway because well, you know, it's going to cause probably
(27:16):
it might upset our neighbors. It's been what twenty years
since I've been inside the government and as under secretary.
As I've told you before, we spent an inordan amount
of time preparing for two failed states just the south
(27:37):
of US. And how would we handle all of the
collapse of the Cuban government, of the communist government in Cuba.
How are we going to handle that collapse? And how
are we going to handle the collapse of Mexico. Because
I believe that Mexico is an narco state. There is
an intolerable alliance, as the White House said, with the
(28:00):
government of Mexico and the drug trafficking organizations. They effectively
control the country. That doesn't mean they effectively control the
entire country, but great swaws of the Mexican economy, great
swaths of the geography of Mexico, or under the direct
control of the cartels. A Mexican state that is allied
(28:25):
with enemies of this country on those enemies' behalf would
be as intolerable to us as Manuel Noriegi's Panama or
Ben Lauden's Al Qaeda was to us. I actually think
it's worse because none of those antagonists, either Noriega or
(28:49):
Ben Lauden, shared two thousand miles of border with US.
The question is is it true? The answer at least
obvious to me, having worked in those levels where those
conversations were had within four US Mexico policy across many years. Yeah,
(29:14):
it's completely true. It is so true, and I think
it's so obvious that the shock for people who understand
what's really going on in Mexico is not that Donald
Trump declared the Mexico the country of Mexico in narco regime.
But we haven't said that for decades. We've gone through
(29:35):
years of complacency under a braindead Biden regime, and US
policy is now awakening to the reality of what's going
on in Mexico. Do you want to think about some
of the examples, hang tight, I'll give you some examples
of why it's close to being a failed state, and
(29:57):
it certainly currently is a Narco state.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
Hey, I heard earlier you were looking for a stripper
to do some community service there at iHeart Well, I
don't know if this would apply, but now I'm calling
for a friend. She needs to do a community service
and she's a dominatrix. Would that work for you? Guys
again calling for a friend?
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Well, speaking on behalf of Dragon, who's too embarrassed answer,
I think that probably would work out for him, and
I think you'd be quite happy with that, say Fords Watermelon.
So yeah, just just having contact Dragon at iHeartMedia dot
com and he make it all the arrangements. That's dragging
at iHeartMedia dot com. Did I mention that's dragging at
(30:45):
iHeartMedia dot com. Well do you have to you have
to repeat something like three times before you'll kind of
begin to sink.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
In dragon at iHeartMedia dot com.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Yeah, I think that was it. Yeah, let me type
that in dragon at iHeartMedia dot com. Yeah, that's it,
dragging at iarmedia dot com. That's it.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
Let's you know, you go to go through all the
particulars about why I believe that Mexico is culpose to
being a failed state and it's actually an ARCO state.
You can go to a twenty twenty five report from
the Texas Public Policy Foundation on this collusion between the
cartels and Mexico. That's that would be a good place
(31:26):
to stop. But the top lines I think make the case.
It's it's a single party left populous regime. It's aligned
ideologically and operationally with comparable regimes in Cuban and Venezuela.
And just like Cuban Venezuela, it regards its nation's trafficking
(31:47):
cartels as a vehicle for profit, as a vehicle for control,
and also as agents of national policy overseas or north
of the border, not just in our country but elsewhere.
The central figure in this regime case is the guy
(32:08):
that served as president of Mexico between twenty eighteen and
twenty twenty four and still controls the ruling Marina coalition
through his proxies and his family members throughout the entire
party apparatus. Andre Manuel Lopez Obrador. In addition to being
an inveterate anti American in his demagogue politics, he's understood
(32:31):
to have been in the pay of the Senadola cartel
for the past twenty years the president of Mexico, and
this was common knowledge in Mexico. They didn't try to
hide the evidence. Remember, you know, he was known as
Andre Manuel Lopez Obrador. He was known as Amlo Amlo.
(32:55):
He spent probably his entire presidency defending the cinelo A
cartel against the United States and even sometimes against his
own security state, his only his own security apparatus. He
paid more visits to the headquarters of the Senatolan cartel,
(33:15):
someplace called by the Garrotto, over his six year period
that he ever took to Washington, d C. He took
a special trip to pay respects to the mother of
al Chapo. He ordered his own security forces to release
one of al Chopol's captured sons he intervened, intervened to
(33:36):
spring the Mexican flag officer Salvador Sinfuegos from American detention,
and then he banned US law enforcement from ever working
in Mexico and even vowed to use Mexican armed forces
to defend the cartels against American action. That's a pretty
good list right there. He was never concerned about the
(33:58):
Mexican public seeing all of this. He didn't care whether
they knew that or not, because what were they going
to do? What were they going to do? You know,
I haven't been to Mexico in decades, but family and
friends have and and your your mileage may vary, but
from everything I understand, it's like, you go to any
(34:18):
of the resorts, be very careful about going off property,
because off property, the cartels are in control. If that
ever became really like widespread public knowledge or something really
actually ever happened to tourists, what do you think would
happen to the Mexican touristics? Yep, not a zeroed out
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.