Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Mister Brown, those of us who listen to your weekend
show on the podcast would greatly appreciate if the team
in LA could learn how to do the commercials during
your natural breaks instead of in the middle of stories
that you're talking about. It is not pleasant, and I
(00:20):
know this has been brought up several times before. Just
do the breaks at the natural breaks, please with the commercials.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
I'm not sure what she means.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
You can time, because iHeart is going to add in
those commercials into the podcast no matter what we did, right,
but you can place them at specific times so it
will fall on a natural commercial break versus just oh like.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Per the claw, not like when I'm taking a breath
through correct of a sentence?
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Correct? Oh So I wonder when they're doing them in LA.
Are they just randomly inserting them?
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Who's the one that loads the we can with Michael Brin, Uh,
what do you mean loads into spreaker?
Speaker 2 (01:05):
I do that, Oh that would be you. Then I
don't do anything.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
I just uploaded right when I upload the weekday show,
I will physically go in and place those ads at
the correct natural commercial break times.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Well, if I don't do anything, then how are any
ads getting placed.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
In it at all, because they will get placed randomly whenever.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
They think they need to be placed.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
I don't see I don't see. Sorry, sorry, why we
figure this out? I don't see anything. When I upload
spreaker that says, hey, here are the things you need
to answer.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
You have to go in and go to an ad
options section. So on the left hand side of the
screen there is a little button that says ad options.
I would I would just owe them all at the end,
but you can't do that because it will they will
be somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
So I just I would just load them all in
the middle.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Well, I load them at the correct time. That's the
problem that Alexa is having here is that, you know,
say that we would be talking right now, then there'd
be an ad playing, and that pisses people off because
we're in the middle of a subject here and they're
hearing a commercial.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
So okay, so I get I get a yeah, I
get a thirty eight minute MP three correct, And.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
So I would typically place them around the eighteen minute mark.
In the thirty minute mark, which is where this clock
allows our natural commercial breaks to be. So that's where
I will place the ads in the podcast.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
So I need to talk to the program director in
LA and find out why they Hell, am I the
one that's uploading everything speaker, Why aren't they doing that
in LA?
Speaker 3 (02:50):
Because they're not an iHeart company.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
But they are an iHeart subsidior.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
True, but they are not iHeart.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
But still yet they want me or not me, they
want that program on the iHeart podcast, So you upload them.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
So one further step would be for them to tell
you where those natural commercial breaks are, write them down.
Then when you upload it to spreaker, you can insert
an AD at those specific times so they are not
in the middle of a sentence.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
But if it's an excuse us because I'm fast, I'm
fascinated by this technology, what prohibits me from doing it
at the end of that MP three.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Because they will separate themselves out. So you can try
and put one at the five minute mark, and you
can try and put one at the twenty nine minute mark,
but it doesn't. It's like, wait a minute, it's been
far too long since we have had an AD, so
it will put one in the middle.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
I'm just.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
I'm curious now if there isn't, because I can look,
I should I should not say this on Arab But
now I'm curious if there's some way that I can't
prohibit that from automatically occurring once I upload the MP
three file to saker.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
If somebody sponsors the podcast, then there will be no
more commercials. So it will just be a quick read
at the beginning end or the end of you saying, hey,
said sponsor is sponsoring this podcast. Go see said sponsor. Yeah,
but nobody has stepped forward to do that right now,
and I can know.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
I'm just saying that technologically, if there's a way on
spreaker to block that from happening.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
No, No, they will place ads the end Spreaker does
because iHeart has said that we are placing ads in
the podcast, right, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
So, so iHeart has told Spreaker to insert ads on
any MP three uploaded on their accounts. Yeah, all right,
So now I'm going to figure out a way two
block Spreaker from doing that when I upload.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
When I upload an MP three, not gonna happen doesn't
mean I'm not gonna try. Not gonna happen, It doesn't.
Speaker 4 (05:11):
Mean I'm not gonna look, doesn't mean I'm not going
to hire some twelve year old kids to say, hey,
look at this program and see if there's a way
to hack this and stop that from happening.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
I can look back, and I'm looking at the weekend
hour number one, and they automatically placed a AD at
the ten minute mark and then place another AD roughly
at the twenty minute mark.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
Okay, well then at some point, well I'll see if
I can look myself and see how it works, or
you're gonna have to show me how it works so
I can figure out.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
But if but I also need to get LA. Why
why should I be doing that? Right?
Speaker 3 (05:43):
If LA were to tell you as to when the
natural commercial breaks are, you write those down. Then when
you go into the uploading of the m P three
file two spreaker, you can give the AD ad option
section in time that time then you're good to go.
Right at all of that, I get it, you just
don't want there to be ads.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
But no, no, no, let's say there has to be asked.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
I'm now saying why am I doing that when that's
your job as the producer, So the producer in LA
should be doing that. Why are they just assuming that
I'm going to be the one to do it.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Because you're the one uploading it.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Which how did I become the one that was uploading it?
Speaker 3 (06:28):
You must have agreed to it at some point in time.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
No, you know what I think happened looking back, it's
been several years now, but I think they just said, hey,
if you want to include this in your podcast, because
I don't have a separate weekend podcast. They're all on
the situation with Michael Brown because I want to I
want to get that.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Well, you know why, I'm doing the audience in the
same place.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
Yeah, I want all the audience in one place. M Well,
now I've got a little project this afternoon.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
So they are being helpful and giving you the MP three.
Isn't that very kind of them to give you the
MP three so that you can load to your page.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
That's that's nice of them.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Now take the extra step and write down the damn
time that the commercial breaks are and insert the insert
the spots. It's fine.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
We have a love hate relationship with We have a
love relationship with our sponsors. If that, let me be
very specific with our sponsors, the people that you hear me.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Talking about.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
I just talked about advanced hair that is a sponsor
that they've they have sponsored this program, and I have
endorsed their product or service. Therefore I voice it either
live or recorded. I have a hate relationship with as
I look through the log and I see, uh, for example,
(08:00):
there's coming up something about Chevron. I don't support Chevron,
endorse it, and they don't support me or sponsor me,
but they take up a thirty point zero four second
spot on our log, which is thirty point zero four
seconds that I don't get any additional compensation for and
(08:24):
which takes thirty point zero four seconds away from content.
But I have no control over that. Remember the other
thing I have anyone, and truthfully, I don't have any
control over my life reads. Those are people that have
agreed to sponsor the program, which, by the way, if
you would like to sponsor the program and get rid
of let me just look through here something called something
(08:48):
something financial or here's a medical center or whatever. Yeah,
if you'd rather do that yourself than somebody else, me
a texture an email and I'll get some contact with you.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Cards for kids, please call in we need more, but
for the weekend show. If you say, possibly had a
Denver producer that would mark down those times, like you know,
for the weekday show?
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Do you want me to physically start banging my head
against the wall, and here too.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Just saying that it would be a whole life Do
you really want me to start banging my head about
that issue?
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Because you have a Denver producer through the weekday show
that already does all that work, and it wouldn't be
so much more to come in on a Saturday right
and do so as well. It's just you know that
wouldn't get paid.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
Don't you just vamp for a while? Wye, go over
and just smash my head against that wall for a little.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Bit would improve the quality of the show.
Speaker 4 (09:41):
I'm sure so many people it probably would. It might
improve my day a little bit.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
I do that. So.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
So Biden's gone, and the question of who was really
running the country during his four year horror show is
a legitimate question, but it doesn't really have anything to
do with the auto pen. So the Heritage Foundation, their
oversight project, is the one that did this research. The
(10:13):
same exact autopen signature appears on doesn't say all documents
numerous important documents, and many people say, well, that confirms
our suspicion that the president's middle condition and raising the
question of whether Biden actually ordered the signature of relevant
(10:33):
legal documents. Well, pretty much everything the president signs, except
for letters and notes and proclamations, everything really is a
legal document. It's an executive order, it's a piece of legislation.
It's a memorandum to the staff, to the agencies, to
the department heads, it's policy and whatever. But somebody wrote, well, no,
(11:01):
it was heritage, whoever controlled the autopin controlled the presidency. Yes,
that's true, but you can't make the next leap and
say therefore, because he was in a state of mental
decline or didn't have the cognition to understand what he
was doing, that that invalidates everything. It it might, and
(11:29):
let's take it to a real world application. A real
world application might be the execution of a last will
and testament. If if I signed a last will and testament,
there will be and I forget whether it's two or
three witnesses, but because I haven't practiced this in ages,
but there will be witnesses who will attest to my
(11:52):
sound mind. In fact, I will it, says Michael Brown,
being of sound mind and in charge of my faculties,
and knowing exactly what I'm doing, blah blah blah blah,
I hereby execute this as my current and final, last
will and testament. And then people attest to that if
they were there with me, saw me, observe me. Well,
(12:16):
that speaks for itself and says that yes, I knew
what I was doing in the real world. So if
my will gets contested, which I don't nobody why can
test my will because I don't have anything, then it
calls into question whether I really knew what I was
doing when I signed that, and that could invalidate the
(12:42):
legality of.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
That last will and testament.
Speaker 4 (12:46):
But going through that process, and back when I was
a baby lawyer, I went through a few of those
processes where people were contesting a will. Sometimes I was
part of team that would contest the will. Sometimes I
was a member of the team that was defending the will.
But it turned on whether the person then really knew
(13:13):
what they were doing, and if they if it was
proven that they did not know what they were doing,
then a previous will might take effect, or a handwritten
note might take effect, or the state rules of inheritancy
might take effect. But that's in this world. In the
(13:37):
White House world. It's a different world. I'm not well,
I am going to say, people will lie. Do you
think that Joe Biden will ever testify or Hunter Biden
would ever testify in a court of law truthfully or
untruthfully about Joe Biden's middle condition. They have no credibility
(13:58):
with me whatsoever. So they could just say, well, yeah,
he knew what he was doing, and he authorized that,
and I was there when he authorized it. How are
you going to contest that? Who are you going to
get to be a counter witness, a rebuttal witness. They
would say, well, doctor Joe Biden says that, But that's
not really true, because here's what the President told me.
(14:20):
Or I saw the president. He had no clue where
he was. We found him wondering around in the hallway
in the Oval office all the time in his pj's,
looking for watermelon, looking for ice cream, looking for I
don't know, his dead wife, looking for his dead son.
I don't know what he was doing. The point is
this Edith Wilson. After Woodrow Wilson had his stroke, there
(14:47):
was an agreement between Edith Wilson and the staff that
they would bring her all the appropriate documents and she
would make She didn't tell him this, but she would
make the decision.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
But we didn't know that.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Have we gone back and nullified anything that Edith Wilson
signed on behalf of Woodrow Wilson. No, we have not,
and we have not done that because there's really no
practical way to do it. So I just want this
idea that you know he didn't know what he was doing.
That it means that all the pardons are ineffective. And
(15:22):
then people throw up this they thought all bit.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Michael, listen, listen.
Speaker 5 (15:28):
To what, sir, why did you pause LNG exports to Europe?
Like I don't understand. You know, liquified natural gas is
in great demand by our allies. Why would you do
that because you understand we just talked about Ukraine. You
understand you're fueling Vladimir Putin's war machine because they got
to get their gas frooms of him, you know. And
he looks at me, stunned with this, and he said,
I didn't I didn't do that. And I said, miss President,
(15:50):
you yes, you did. It was an executive order like
you know, three weeks ago, and he goes, no, I
didn't do that. He's arguing with me as ad miss
president respectfully, can I could I go out here and
ask your secturate of printed I will read it together.
You definitely did that, and he goes, oh, you talk
about natural gas. Yes, sir, he said, oh, no, do
you misunderstand? He said, what I did is I signed
this thing to we're gonna We're gonna conduct a study
(16:11):
on the effects of energy. I said, no, you're not, sir.
You paused it. I know I have the terminal, the
export terminals in my state. I talked to those people
this morning. This is doing massive damage to our economy,
national security. It occurred to me very he was not
lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he
had signed. And I walked out of that meeting with
fear and loathing because I thought, we're in serious trouble.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
Who is wright But Mike, Mike, listen to Speaker Johnson.
He the President told him he didn't know what he
was signed signing. Okaeln I'll bring in four staffers. Let's say. Yes,
he knew at the time. We explained to him what
it was, and he nodded his head and said that yes,
he understood what he was doing.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
And at that time when he actually authorized this to
used the auto pen, he.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Knew what he was doing. You see, you he can't
overcome it. So just except he was a doddling old
fool with dementia who had no clue what.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
He was doing.
Speaker 6 (17:07):
Dragon, I don't know why you're trying to explain to
Michael all of this technical stuff.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
This requires brains. This is why he has you. He
is the talent.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
With which means he just sits there and gabs away
for a while.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
So help him out. He really needs it. Uh yeah,
I need I do. I need a lot of help.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
So Trump Trump's done something that I think I disagree with.
Oh shock noll. You trump'sters are going to be pissed
off at me. He's invited white farmers and their families
to leave South African come to this country. And when
he did that, he accused the communist far left government
(17:56):
of mistreating those white farmers, which is likely that's what
they've been doing. Quote, South Africa is being terrible plus
to longtime farmers in the country. They are confiscating their
land and farms and much worse than that. He wrote,
and Trump goes on to describe South Africa as a
quote bad place to be right now, and then announce
(18:18):
that we're gonna stop all federal funding to South Africa.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
I'm fine with that.
Speaker 4 (18:24):
They are. It is a horrific place. Violence, crime is
out of control. Reverse apartheid, reverse discrimination is now taking place.
They are confiscating the land of white farmers. Black and
white crime is awful. I mean, it really is a
(18:44):
turning into a craphole country. He then says this, to
go a step further, any farmer with family.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
So I guess that's a requirement.
Speaker 4 (18:56):
To go a step further, any farmer with family from
South Africa seeking to flee that country for reasons of safety,
We'll be invited into the United States of America with
a rapid pathway to citizenship. This process will begin immediately.
Wait a minute, seeking to flee the country for reasons
(19:20):
of safety. Didn't you just give a rationale for inviting,
mister president, didn't you just give a rationale for anybody
living in any crap whole country?
Speaker 2 (19:33):
What do you think?
Speaker 6 (19:34):
What do you think.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
Biden was doing with the Haitians, the Cubans, and the Venezuelans.
He was granting them temporary protected status in essence asylum
and giving them work authorizations because they were they were
seeking safety, they were trying to escape those crime ridden
crap whole countries. And now you've just made the same
(19:56):
rationale for farmers in South Africa. Now I understand that
farmers in South Africa white. Let me be specific, I
understand that white farmers in South Africa really face horrific
conditions land confiscation, murder, sabotage, vandalism, anything you can possibly
(20:17):
imagine is happening to white farmers. But your rationale is
if you want to see if you want to flee
your country because the safety reasons will provide you an
expedited process and an expedited pathway to citizenship, well then
if you're going to be consistent, you have to offer
(20:38):
that to anybody that wants to flee a crab whole country.
I don't think that's what you meant. I don't think
you thought this went through.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
I really The South African.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
Government recently pass so called expropriation without compensation laws. What
does that do well? That allows the African government, the
state government to seize land from white farmers in order
to promote inclusivity in the ag sector. And one of
the former white owners get in return, zero, not at Zeltz.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Nothing.
Speaker 4 (21:17):
Now, Trump signed an executive order condemning the expropriation law
and promising a robust response. Well, okay, so you cut
off funding, you cut off four and eight. But why
would you go the next step and say to those farmers, hey,
come to this country. We have farmers in this country
(21:39):
already struggling to stay on the family farm. We have
farmers in this country already struggling to you know, produce cattle, hogs, whatever, chickens,
chicken chickens. You've not got any chickens anywhere. I truly
don't get this. I think he sees a wrong the
(22:03):
expropriation laws. I think he sees the confiscation without any
sort of compensation. I think he sees the reverse discrimination.
I think he sees all of these wrongs, which I agree,
it's a horrific situation. But if you want to point
out horrific situations in the world, I can come in tomorrow.
(22:23):
I can spend all four hours going through all the
crap whole countries in this world and talking about crime rates,
talking about discrimination, talking about you know, well, first of all,
we'll just start with all the communist countries. We'll just
start with with China. How about you offer the wagers,
(22:44):
which they probably don't want to leave their homeland. But
what if you offered the wigers in China asylum here
and a pathway to citizenship. If you start with the wagers,
the farmers, the wagers, the Haitians, I can find countries
all over the world that.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Are like this.
Speaker 4 (23:07):
Now, the other factor that I think plays into this
is that white owned farmland was expropriated in neighboring Zimbabwe
starting back in the two thousands. And during that time,
hundreds of not thousands, of white farmers and their families
were injured even killed during those seizures. And then what
happened That soon was followed by a collapse in food
(23:29):
production and economic depression, and next thing you know, you've
got you've got a famine going on. Well, I'm not
quite sure that that's going to happen in South Africa
because they are a little more advanced than Zimbabwe.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
But why go to this next step.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
Of offering them, Hey, come here and we'll get you.
We'll get you a visa, and we'll get you an
exboited pathway to citizenship. So when the same thing happened
in Zimbabwe, would you have done it in Zimbabwe? I
know you weren't president. Then I'm just trying to find
some consistency here in your rationale. I think this is
(24:05):
you know, Trump is very transactional. This, this is this,
This is what we see going on between Ukraine and Russia.
He sees a war that he wants to stop, and
I fully support trying to stop the war, and then
he engages in transactions with both sides, trying to get
both sides through transactions to the negotiating table to get
(24:28):
a ceasefire going. I fully get that. But that's all
over there. It doesn't involve coming here. I think he
sees a wrong in South Africa, and transactionally, his process
in his mind of solving it is hey, bring them here.
Uh oh, you just stepped into it. With all of
(24:52):
those who support the HVN. Whatever it was called Haitians, Venezuelan,
was it nic Rogwins or Cubans. I thought it was
Cubans of giving them temporary protective status of coming here
because they were seeking they were coming from crime ridden countries.
So every Democrat that supported that policy, which I oppose.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
I don't think.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
I think the only way you should come to this
country is you can in your country appeal for or
apply for asylum if your individual life is threatened, not
if you just not just because you have horrible crime
in your country, but because you're being singled out. For example,
if there's somebody, if there's a Russian that Putin has Unvolgani,
(25:42):
whatever his name was, the dissident who ended up dying
in a prison somewhere in Siberia, if he had applied
for asylum, I would have been okay with that, because
here's an individual, an individual that is being targeted by
his government for assassination. So I would bring I would say, yeah,
(26:03):
we'll give you asylum here. Salmon Rushdie when when the
fat Wall was put on him, I would have agreed
to grant him asylum to come to this country or
Great Britain if he wanted to go to Great Britain
wherever he ended up, I would have agreed to that.
Those are an individual by individual decision, and they're based
(26:24):
on that individual being targeted, not an entire group of people,
like just poor people. I don't know, I don't I
don't know what Trump's thinking here, it's yeah, it's a
bad place to be, but so are many other places
in the world. If somebody can explain to me why
(26:47):
he thinks that singling out white farmers in South Africa
for an expedited path to citizenship isn't somehow going to
be used against him when it comes to any sort
of Let's say that Congress does decide to start debating
a pathway to citizenship for all the people who came
(27:07):
to this country illegally. How's he going to argue against
that other than well, they came here illegally and we
invited them here. Well you invited them here because they
were suffering from crime and expropriation laws. Well, so were
these people over here. It came illegally, they just didn't
wait for a president to invite them. It just it
(27:29):
just doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
That he would do this.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
He originally tweeted it out on truth Social and of
course he gets put over on X. South Africa's being terrible.
Plus to the longtime farmers in the country, they're confiscating
their land and farms are much worse than that. A
bad place to be right now, and we are stopping
all federal funding to go a step further. Any farmer
that wants, you know, as I said that, once this
stuff you can come here. No no, no, no, no
(27:57):
no no no no. Let's see what I'm going to
do next. Oh yeah, we'll just take a break.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
I'll Hey, Michael, I was just wondering on that weekend podcast,
is there any way to have it just be ads?
Speaker 2 (28:12):
You know?
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Then that way I don't really have to listen to
the crap you have to say.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Anyway, Thanks appreciate it. Michael, isn't Elon Musk from South Africa?
Could this be a favor for him? You're correct, Elon
Musk is.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
I haven't thought about that as a that's a good catch.
But with regard to the very first talk.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Back, bite me, just bite me. Why do they always
take your side? Dragon?
Speaker 3 (28:46):
Come on, give the people what they want?
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Michael?
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Well, apparently I am so here. Let me just I
got a whole note book here full of commercials. Let
me just read through the commercials. Respect respect. I don't
think Europe respects US. I know for sure Europe doesn't
respect us.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
You ever been to Europe?
Speaker 4 (29:09):
Oh, the ugly American goes to Europe. I think respect
is important, which I'd love to get from Dragon sometime,
and I'll never get it, because respect confirms that people
see you as human.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Like they are.
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Respect is a source of self worth and identity, and
it establishes fair treatment, equal status. And you disrespect someone, well,
that's ultimately going to lead to conflict, and I do
think in Italy either direct or indirect conflict, but it
leads to conflict, and respect is not everything that matters.
(29:52):
For example, with respect to Europe, even though I don't
think Europe respects US, we're bound by a treaty, the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to to protect European nations from
foreign aggressors. We should respect that treaty, and we all
to respect it for legitimate, hard headed security reasons, but
also because we're morally obligated to do so. And we
(30:15):
certainly are responsible, if not more so, for the aggressive
expansion of NATO in ways that contributed to Russia's decision
to invade Ukraine. But nobody wants to talk about that.
Nobody wants to talk about US continuing and in.
Speaker 6 (30:34):
Fact, back in my day spending a lot of time
in Brussels, that was one of the things that I
was arguing for was the expansion of NATO, but it
happened to be to get Russia into NATO.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
But if a relationship doesn't have mutual respect, then the
relationship probably was not going to last. And treaties are
only as good as the paper they're printed on, because
if they're not backed up by the support from the
people in the nations whose representatives signed them, and that
treaty is probably not worth a lot. But go back,
(31:09):
because I think America's commitment to NATO started to weaken
long before Zelenski and Trump had that argument in the
Oval Office. Our commitment to NATO weeken long before that.
Our invasion and our occupation of Afghanistan in Iraq both
(31:30):
turned out to be disasters, created wounded warriors, not just
in this country but in our NATO allies and others.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
That joined us in those wars. And then.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
I think historically we will at some point come to
see that the withdrawal from Afghanistan, yes it was shameful,
and yes it allowed the Taliban to return to power,
and yes it allowed the turning over of billions of
dollars worth of American armaments.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
To the enemy. Why has all of this been.
Speaker 4 (32:05):
So hard for the progressive elites in the West to
understand that maybe we might be a little bit at
fault too. And I think a big part of the
answer is that progressives insisted upon the expansion of NATO
despite the warnings after it was initially rebuffed. After NATO
(32:27):
rebuffed Russia initially back in the two thousands, we were
warned by Russia, don't poke us, don't expand it, but
we did anyway. Another part I think of the answer
is that progressive dismissed things like honor and virtue as
being irrational, and backward progressives don't believe in things like
(32:52):
honor and value, in my opinion, and this failure among
elites to see themselves as being irrational because they are
the irrational ones, led them to persecute Trump so badly
during his first term in office that I think that
(33:13):
that is what increased his popularity with the public and
voters in this country came to see Trump as the
necessary protection against abuses of power by the elites, and
I think that's kind of where we got to with Nader,
which had started long before Trump
Mister Brown, those of us who listen to your weekend
show on the podcast would greatly appreciate if the team
in LA could learn how to do the commercials during
your natural breaks instead of in the middle of stories
that you're talking about. It is not pleasant, and I
(00:20):
know this has been brought up several times before. Just
do the breaks at the natural breaks, please with the commercials.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
I'm not sure what she means.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
You can time, because iHeart is going to add in
those commercials into the podcast no matter what we did, right,
but you can place them at specific times so it
will fall on a natural commercial break versus just oh like.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Per the claw, not like when I'm taking a breath
through correct of a sentence?
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Correct? Oh So I wonder when they're doing them in LA.
Are they just randomly inserting them?
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Who's the one that loads the we can with Michael Brin, Uh,
what do you mean loads into spreaker?
Speaker 2 (01:05):
I do that, Oh that would be you. Then I
don't do anything.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
I just uploaded right when I upload the weekday show,
I will physically go in and place those ads at
the correct natural commercial break times.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Well, if I don't do anything, then how are any
ads getting placed.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
In it at all, because they will get placed randomly whenever.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
They think they need to be placed.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
I don't see I don't see. Sorry, sorry, why we
figure this out? I don't see anything. When I upload
spreaker that says, hey, here are the things you need
to answer.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
You have to go in and go to an ad
options section. So on the left hand side of the
screen there is a little button that says ad options.
I would I would just owe them all at the end,
but you can't do that because it will they will
be somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
So I just I would just load them all in
the middle.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Well, I load them at the correct time. That's the
problem that Alexa is having here is that, you know,
say that we would be talking right now, then there'd
be an ad playing, and that pisses people off because
we're in the middle of a subject here and they're
hearing a commercial.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
So okay, so I get I get a yeah, I
get a thirty eight minute MP three correct, And.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
So I would typically place them around the eighteen minute mark.
In the thirty minute mark, which is where this clock
allows our natural commercial breaks to be. So that's where
I will place the ads in the podcast.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
So I need to talk to the program director in
LA and find out why they Hell, am I the
one that's uploading everything speaker, Why aren't they doing that
in LA?
Speaker 3 (02:50):
Because they're not an iHeart company.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
But they are an iHeart subsidior.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
True, but they are not iHeart.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
But still yet they want me or not me, they
want that program on the iHeart podcast, So you upload them.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
So one further step would be for them to tell
you where those natural commercial breaks are, write them down.
Then when you upload it to spreaker, you can insert
an AD at those specific times so they are not
in the middle of a sentence.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
But if it's an excuse us because I'm fast, I'm
fascinated by this technology, what prohibits me from doing it
at the end of that MP three.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Because they will separate themselves out. So you can try
and put one at the five minute mark, and you
can try and put one at the twenty nine minute mark,
but it doesn't. It's like, wait a minute, it's been
far too long since we have had an AD, so
it will put one in the middle.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
I'm just.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
I'm curious now if there isn't, because I can look,
I should I should not say this on Arab But
now I'm curious if there's some way that I can't
prohibit that from automatically occurring once I upload the MP
three file to saker.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
If somebody sponsors the podcast, then there will be no
more commercials. So it will just be a quick read
at the beginning end or the end of you saying, hey,
said sponsor is sponsoring this podcast. Go see said sponsor. Yeah,
but nobody has stepped forward to do that right now,
and I can know.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
I'm just saying that technologically, if there's a way on
spreaker to block that from happening.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
No, No, they will place ads the end Spreaker does
because iHeart has said that we are placing ads in
the podcast, right, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
So, so iHeart has told Spreaker to insert ads on
any MP three uploaded on their accounts. Yeah, all right,
So now I'm going to figure out a way two
block Spreaker from doing that when I upload.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
When I upload an MP three, not gonna happen doesn't
mean I'm not gonna try. Not gonna happen, It doesn't.
Speaker 4 (05:11):
Mean I'm not gonna look, doesn't mean I'm not going
to hire some twelve year old kids to say, hey,
look at this program and see if there's a way
to hack this and stop that from happening.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
I can look back, and I'm looking at the weekend
hour number one, and they automatically placed a AD at
the ten minute mark and then place another AD roughly
at the twenty minute mark.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
Okay, well then at some point, well I'll see if
I can look myself and see how it works, or
you're gonna have to show me how it works so
I can figure out.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
But if but I also need to get LA. Why
why should I be doing that? Right?
Speaker 3 (05:43):
If LA were to tell you as to when the
natural commercial breaks are, you write those down. Then when
you go into the uploading of the m P three
file two spreaker, you can give the AD ad option
section in time that time then you're good to go.
Right at all of that, I get it, you just
don't want there to be ads.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
But no, no, no, let's say there has to be asked.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
I'm now saying why am I doing that when that's
your job as the producer, So the producer in LA
should be doing that. Why are they just assuming that
I'm going to be the one to do it.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Because you're the one uploading it.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Which how did I become the one that was uploading it?
Speaker 3 (06:28):
You must have agreed to it at some point in time.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
No, you know what I think happened looking back, it's
been several years now, but I think they just said, hey,
if you want to include this in your podcast, because
I don't have a separate weekend podcast. They're all on
the situation with Michael Brown because I want to I
want to get that.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Well, you know why, I'm doing the audience in the
same place.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
Yeah, I want all the audience in one place. M Well,
now I've got a little project this afternoon.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
So they are being helpful and giving you the MP three.
Isn't that very kind of them to give you the
MP three so that you can load to your page.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
That's that's nice of them.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Now take the extra step and write down the damn
time that the commercial breaks are and insert the insert
the spots. It's fine.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
We have a love hate relationship with We have a
love relationship with our sponsors. If that, let me be
very specific with our sponsors, the people that you hear me.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Talking about.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
I just talked about advanced hair that is a sponsor
that they've they have sponsored this program, and I have
endorsed their product or service. Therefore I voice it either
live or recorded. I have a hate relationship with as
I look through the log and I see, uh, for example,
(08:00):
there's coming up something about Chevron. I don't support Chevron,
endorse it, and they don't support me or sponsor me,
but they take up a thirty point zero four second
spot on our log, which is thirty point zero four
seconds that I don't get any additional compensation for and
(08:24):
which takes thirty point zero four seconds away from content.
But I have no control over that. Remember the other
thing I have anyone, and truthfully, I don't have any
control over my life reads. Those are people that have
agreed to sponsor the program, which, by the way, if
you would like to sponsor the program and get rid
of let me just look through here something called something
(08:48):
something financial or here's a medical center or whatever. Yeah,
if you'd rather do that yourself than somebody else, me
a texture an email and I'll get some contact with you.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Cards for kids, please call in we need more, but
for the weekend show. If you say, possibly had a
Denver producer that would mark down those times, like you know,
for the weekday show?
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Do you want me to physically start banging my head
against the wall, and here too.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Just saying that it would be a whole life Do
you really want me to start banging my head about
that issue?
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Because you have a Denver producer through the weekday show
that already does all that work, and it wouldn't be
so much more to come in on a Saturday right
and do so as well. It's just you know that
wouldn't get paid.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
Don't you just vamp for a while? Wye, go over
and just smash my head against that wall for a little.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Bit would improve the quality of the show.
Speaker 4 (09:41):
I'm sure so many people it probably would. It might
improve my day a little bit.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
I do that. So.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
So Biden's gone, and the question of who was really
running the country during his four year horror show is
a legitimate question, but it doesn't really have anything to
do with the auto pen. So the Heritage Foundation, their
oversight project, is the one that did this research. The
(10:13):
same exact autopen signature appears on doesn't say all documents
numerous important documents, and many people say, well, that confirms
our suspicion that the president's middle condition and raising the
question of whether Biden actually ordered the signature of relevant
(10:33):
legal documents. Well, pretty much everything the president signs, except
for letters and notes and proclamations, everything really is a
legal document. It's an executive order, it's a piece of legislation.
It's a memorandum to the staff, to the agencies, to
the department heads, it's policy and whatever. But somebody wrote, well, no,
(11:01):
it was heritage, whoever controlled the autopin controlled the presidency. Yes,
that's true, but you can't make the next leap and
say therefore, because he was in a state of mental
decline or didn't have the cognition to understand what he
was doing, that that invalidates everything. It it might, and
(11:29):
let's take it to a real world application. A real
world application might be the execution of a last will
and testament. If if I signed a last will and testament,
there will be and I forget whether it's two or
three witnesses, but because I haven't practiced this in ages,
but there will be witnesses who will attest to my
(11:52):
sound mind. In fact, I will it, says Michael Brown,
being of sound mind and in charge of my faculties,
and knowing exactly what I'm doing, blah blah blah blah,
I hereby execute this as my current and final, last
will and testament. And then people attest to that if
they were there with me, saw me, observe me. Well,
(12:16):
that speaks for itself and says that yes, I knew
what I was doing in the real world. So if
my will gets contested, which I don't nobody why can
test my will because I don't have anything, then it
calls into question whether I really knew what I was
doing when I signed that, and that could invalidate the
(12:42):
legality of.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
That last will and testament.
Speaker 4 (12:46):
But going through that process, and back when I was
a baby lawyer, I went through a few of those
processes where people were contesting a will. Sometimes I was
part of team that would contest the will. Sometimes I
was a member of the team that was defending the will.
But it turned on whether the person then really knew
(13:13):
what they were doing, and if they if it was
proven that they did not know what they were doing,
then a previous will might take effect, or a handwritten
note might take effect, or the state rules of inheritancy
might take effect. But that's in this world. In the
(13:37):
White House world. It's a different world. I'm not well,
I am going to say, people will lie. Do you
think that Joe Biden will ever testify or Hunter Biden
would ever testify in a court of law truthfully or
untruthfully about Joe Biden's middle condition. They have no credibility
(13:58):
with me whatsoever. So they could just say, well, yeah,
he knew what he was doing, and he authorized that,
and I was there when he authorized it. How are
you going to contest that? Who are you going to
get to be a counter witness, a rebuttal witness. They
would say, well, doctor Joe Biden says that, But that's
not really true, because here's what the President told me.
(14:20):
Or I saw the president. He had no clue where
he was. We found him wondering around in the hallway
in the Oval office all the time in his pj's,
looking for watermelon, looking for ice cream, looking for I
don't know, his dead wife, looking for his dead son.
I don't know what he was doing. The point is
this Edith Wilson. After Woodrow Wilson had his stroke, there
(14:47):
was an agreement between Edith Wilson and the staff that
they would bring her all the appropriate documents and she
would make She didn't tell him this, but she would
make the decision.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
But we didn't know that.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Have we gone back and nullified anything that Edith Wilson
signed on behalf of Woodrow Wilson. No, we have not,
and we have not done that because there's really no
practical way to do it. So I just want this
idea that you know he didn't know what he was doing.
That it means that all the pardons are ineffective. And
(15:22):
then people throw up this they thought all bit.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Michael, listen, listen.
Speaker 5 (15:28):
To what, sir, why did you pause LNG exports to Europe?
Like I don't understand. You know, liquified natural gas is
in great demand by our allies. Why would you do
that because you understand we just talked about Ukraine. You
understand you're fueling Vladimir Putin's war machine because they got
to get their gas frooms of him, you know. And
he looks at me, stunned with this, and he said,
I didn't I didn't do that. And I said, miss President,
(15:50):
you yes, you did. It was an executive order like
you know, three weeks ago, and he goes, no, I
didn't do that. He's arguing with me as ad miss
president respectfully, can I could I go out here and
ask your secturate of printed I will read it together.
You definitely did that, and he goes, oh, you talk
about natural gas. Yes, sir, he said, oh, no, do
you misunderstand? He said, what I did is I signed
this thing to we're gonna We're gonna conduct a study
(16:11):
on the effects of energy. I said, no, you're not, sir.
You paused it. I know I have the terminal, the
export terminals in my state. I talked to those people
this morning. This is doing massive damage to our economy,
national security. It occurred to me very he was not
lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he
had signed. And I walked out of that meeting with
fear and loathing because I thought, we're in serious trouble.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
Who is wright But Mike, Mike, listen to Speaker Johnson.
He the President told him he didn't know what he
was signed signing. Okaeln I'll bring in four staffers. Let's say. Yes,
he knew at the time. We explained to him what
it was, and he nodded his head and said that yes,
he understood what he was doing.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
And at that time when he actually authorized this to
used the auto pen, he.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Knew what he was doing. You see, you he can't
overcome it. So just except he was a doddling old
fool with dementia who had no clue what.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
He was doing.
Speaker 6 (17:07):
Dragon, I don't know why you're trying to explain to
Michael all of this technical stuff.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
This requires brains. This is why he has you. He
is the talent.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
With which means he just sits there and gabs away
for a while.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
So help him out. He really needs it. Uh yeah,
I need I do. I need a lot of help.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
So Trump Trump's done something that I think I disagree with.
Oh shock noll. You trump'sters are going to be pissed
off at me. He's invited white farmers and their families
to leave South African come to this country. And when
he did that, he accused the communist far left government
(17:56):
of mistreating those white farmers, which is likely that's what
they've been doing. Quote, South Africa is being terrible plus
to longtime farmers in the country. They are confiscating their
land and farms and much worse than that. He wrote,
and Trump goes on to describe South Africa as a
quote bad place to be right now, and then announce
(18:18):
that we're gonna stop all federal funding to South Africa.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
I'm fine with that.
Speaker 4 (18:24):
They are. It is a horrific place. Violence, crime is
out of control. Reverse apartheid, reverse discrimination is now taking place.
They are confiscating the land of white farmers. Black and
white crime is awful. I mean, it really is a
(18:44):
turning into a craphole country. He then says this, to
go a step further, any farmer with family.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
So I guess that's a requirement.
Speaker 4 (18:56):
To go a step further, any farmer with family from
South Africa seeking to flee that country for reasons of safety,
We'll be invited into the United States of America with
a rapid pathway to citizenship. This process will begin immediately.
Wait a minute, seeking to flee the country for reasons
(19:20):
of safety. Didn't you just give a rationale for inviting,
mister president, didn't you just give a rationale for anybody
living in any crap whole country?
Speaker 2 (19:33):
What do you think?
Speaker 6 (19:34):
What do you think.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
Biden was doing with the Haitians, the Cubans, and the Venezuelans.
He was granting them temporary protected status in essence asylum
and giving them work authorizations because they were they were
seeking safety, they were trying to escape those crime ridden
crap whole countries. And now you've just made the same
(19:56):
rationale for farmers in South Africa. Now I understand that
farmers in South Africa white. Let me be specific, I
understand that white farmers in South Africa really face horrific
conditions land confiscation, murder, sabotage, vandalism, anything you can possibly
(20:17):
imagine is happening to white farmers. But your rationale is
if you want to see if you want to flee
your country because the safety reasons will provide you an
expedited process and an expedited pathway to citizenship, well then
if you're going to be consistent, you have to offer
(20:38):
that to anybody that wants to flee a crab whole country.
I don't think that's what you meant. I don't think
you thought this went through.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
I really The South African.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
Government recently pass so called expropriation without compensation laws. What
does that do well? That allows the African government, the
state government to seize land from white farmers in order
to promote inclusivity in the ag sector. And one of
the former white owners get in return, zero, not at Zeltz.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Nothing.
Speaker 4 (21:17):
Now, Trump signed an executive order condemning the expropriation law
and promising a robust response. Well, okay, so you cut
off funding, you cut off four and eight. But why
would you go the next step and say to those farmers, hey,
come to this country. We have farmers in this country
(21:39):
already struggling to stay on the family farm. We have
farmers in this country already struggling to you know, produce cattle, hogs, whatever, chickens,
chicken chickens. You've not got any chickens anywhere. I truly
don't get this. I think he sees a wrong the
(22:03):
expropriation laws. I think he sees the confiscation without any
sort of compensation. I think he sees the reverse discrimination.
I think he sees all of these wrongs, which I agree,
it's a horrific situation. But if you want to point
out horrific situations in the world, I can come in tomorrow.
(22:23):
I can spend all four hours going through all the
crap whole countries in this world and talking about crime rates,
talking about discrimination, talking about you know, well, first of all,
we'll just start with all the communist countries. We'll just
start with with China. How about you offer the wagers,
(22:44):
which they probably don't want to leave their homeland. But
what if you offered the wigers in China asylum here
and a pathway to citizenship. If you start with the wagers,
the farmers, the wagers, the Haitians, I can find countries
all over the world that.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Are like this.
Speaker 4 (23:07):
Now, the other factor that I think plays into this
is that white owned farmland was expropriated in neighboring Zimbabwe
starting back in the two thousands. And during that time,
hundreds of not thousands, of white farmers and their families
were injured even killed during those seizures. And then what
happened That soon was followed by a collapse in food
(23:29):
production and economic depression, and next thing you know, you've
got you've got a famine going on. Well, I'm not
quite sure that that's going to happen in South Africa
because they are a little more advanced than Zimbabwe.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
But why go to this next step.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
Of offering them, Hey, come here and we'll get you.
We'll get you a visa, and we'll get you an
exboited pathway to citizenship. So when the same thing happened
in Zimbabwe, would you have done it in Zimbabwe? I
know you weren't president. Then I'm just trying to find
some consistency here in your rationale. I think this is
(24:05):
you know, Trump is very transactional. This, this is this,
This is what we see going on between Ukraine and Russia.
He sees a war that he wants to stop, and
I fully support trying to stop the war, and then
he engages in transactions with both sides, trying to get
both sides through transactions to the negotiating table to get
(24:28):
a ceasefire going. I fully get that. But that's all
over there. It doesn't involve coming here. I think he
sees a wrong in South Africa, and transactionally, his process
in his mind of solving it is hey, bring them here.
Uh oh, you just stepped into it. With all of
(24:52):
those who support the HVN. Whatever it was called Haitians, Venezuelan,
was it nic Rogwins or Cubans. I thought it was
Cubans of giving them temporary protective status of coming here
because they were seeking they were coming from crime ridden countries.
So every Democrat that supported that policy, which I oppose.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
I don't think.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
I think the only way you should come to this
country is you can in your country appeal for or
apply for asylum if your individual life is threatened, not
if you just not just because you have horrible crime
in your country, but because you're being singled out. For example,
if there's somebody, if there's a Russian that Putin has Unvolgani,
(25:42):
whatever his name was, the dissident who ended up dying
in a prison somewhere in Siberia, if he had applied
for asylum, I would have been okay with that, because
here's an individual, an individual that is being targeted by
his government for assassination. So I would bring I would say, yeah,
(26:03):
we'll give you asylum here. Salmon Rushdie when when the
fat Wall was put on him, I would have agreed
to grant him asylum to come to this country or
Great Britain if he wanted to go to Great Britain
wherever he ended up, I would have agreed to that.
Those are an individual by individual decision, and they're based
(26:24):
on that individual being targeted, not an entire group of people,
like just poor people. I don't know, I don't I
don't know what Trump's thinking here, it's yeah, it's a
bad place to be, but so are many other places
in the world. If somebody can explain to me why
(26:47):
he thinks that singling out white farmers in South Africa
for an expedited path to citizenship isn't somehow going to
be used against him when it comes to any sort
of Let's say that Congress does decide to start debating
a pathway to citizenship for all the people who came
(27:07):
to this country illegally. How's he going to argue against
that other than well, they came here illegally and we
invited them here. Well you invited them here because they
were suffering from crime and expropriation laws. Well, so were
these people over here. It came illegally, they just didn't
wait for a president to invite them. It just it
(27:29):
just doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
That he would do this.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
He originally tweeted it out on truth Social and of
course he gets put over on X. South Africa's being terrible.
Plus to the longtime farmers in the country, they're confiscating
their land and farms are much worse than that. A
bad place to be right now, and we are stopping
all federal funding to go a step further. Any farmer
that wants, you know, as I said that, once this
stuff you can come here. No no, no, no, no
(27:57):
no no no no. Let's see what I'm going to
do next. Oh yeah, we'll just take a break.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
I'll Hey, Michael, I was just wondering on that weekend podcast,
is there any way to have it just be ads?
Speaker 2 (28:12):
You know?
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Then that way I don't really have to listen to
the crap you have to say.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Anyway, Thanks appreciate it. Michael, isn't Elon Musk from South Africa?
Could this be a favor for him? You're correct, Elon
Musk is.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
I haven't thought about that as a that's a good catch.
But with regard to the very first talk.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Back, bite me, just bite me. Why do they always
take your side? Dragon?
Speaker 3 (28:46):
Come on, give the people what they want?
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Michael?
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Well, apparently I am so here. Let me just I
got a whole note book here full of commercials. Let
me just read through the commercials. Respect respect. I don't
think Europe respects US. I know for sure Europe doesn't
respect us.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
You ever been to Europe?
Speaker 4 (29:09):
Oh, the ugly American goes to Europe. I think respect
is important, which I'd love to get from Dragon sometime,
and I'll never get it, because respect confirms that people
see you as human.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Like they are.
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Respect is a source of self worth and identity, and
it establishes fair treatment, equal status. And you disrespect someone, well,
that's ultimately going to lead to conflict, and I do
think in Italy either direct or indirect conflict, but it
leads to conflict, and respect is not everything that matters.
(29:52):
For example, with respect to Europe, even though I don't
think Europe respects US, we're bound by a treaty, the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to to protect European nations from
foreign aggressors. We should respect that treaty, and we all
to respect it for legitimate, hard headed security reasons, but
also because we're morally obligated to do so. And we
(30:15):
certainly are responsible, if not more so, for the aggressive
expansion of NATO in ways that contributed to Russia's decision
to invade Ukraine. But nobody wants to talk about that.
Nobody wants to talk about US continuing and in.
Speaker 6 (30:34):
Fact, back in my day spending a lot of time
in Brussels, that was one of the things that I
was arguing for was the expansion of NATO, but it
happened to be to get Russia into NATO.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
But if a relationship doesn't have mutual respect, then the
relationship probably was not going to last. And treaties are
only as good as the paper they're printed on, because
if they're not backed up by the support from the
people in the nations whose representatives signed them, and that
treaty is probably not worth a lot. But go back,
(31:09):
because I think America's commitment to NATO started to weaken
long before Zelenski and Trump had that argument in the
Oval Office. Our commitment to NATO weeken long before that.
Our invasion and our occupation of Afghanistan in Iraq both
(31:30):
turned out to be disasters, created wounded warriors, not just
in this country but in our NATO allies and others.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
That joined us in those wars. And then.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
I think historically we will at some point come to
see that the withdrawal from Afghanistan, yes it was shameful,
and yes it allowed the Taliban to return to power,
and yes it allowed the turning over of billions of
dollars worth of American armaments.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
To the enemy. Why has all of this been.
Speaker 4 (32:05):
So hard for the progressive elites in the West to
understand that maybe we might be a little bit at
fault too. And I think a big part of the
answer is that progressives insisted upon the expansion of NATO
despite the warnings after it was initially rebuffed. After NATO
(32:27):
rebuffed Russia initially back in the two thousands, we were
warned by Russia, don't poke us, don't expand it, but
we did anyway. Another part I think of the answer
is that progressive dismissed things like honor and virtue as
being irrational, and backward progressives don't believe in things like
(32:52):
honor and value, in my opinion, and this failure among
elites to see themselves as being irrational because they are
the irrational ones, led them to persecute Trump so badly
during his first term in office that I think that
(33:13):
that is what increased his popularity with the public and
voters in this country came to see Trump as the
necessary protection against abuses of power by the elites, and
I think that's kind of where we got to with Nader,
which had started long before Trump
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.