Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, I don't wear my seat belt in my car.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You know I don't worry about it because I'll just
put it on right before I crash. Michael, what do
you call a gun with an empty chamber a hammer?
Because that's all it's good for when the stuff hits pin.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Let me read you a text message. Uh. That's what
you two are doing is really what really irritates and
shows arrogance among gun owners. Four three four four writes this, Mike,
(00:37):
when split seconds matter, having a round chamber could well
be the difference between life and death. But if you
legitimately are not competent or confident enough to carry one chamber,
I have to give you kudos for recognizing that. So
you can blast me all you want, but I'm uncomfortable
(01:00):
doing it. So now you may disagree with this. Call
somebody that cares. I've learned to be and I know
that there will always be an exception, just like you.
Carrying a chambered round could be an exception too. But
I try to be much more focused on situational awareness
(01:23):
because I'm not looking for a fight. I'm not looking
to fire my gun. I'm not looking to shoot somebody.
I'm looking to avoid that. My gun is a defensive
weapon so that I can defend myself. So if I
find myself, this is why I don't put myself in
places of situations where I'm going to need to do that.
(01:44):
So I'm willing to take that chance. You're not well.
Good for you. Why don't you respect my decision to
focus on situational awareness because I don't. I don't get
to go shoot that much. I go shoot as often
(02:04):
as I can. I get training as often as I can,
but I don't do it once a week. I don't
do it. I'm lucky if I get to do it
once or twice a month to go do that. So
for all of you that do it every weekend or
you have military training, then congratulations, show some respect, good grief.
(02:32):
And I might add I bet my training based on
my experience with the Secret Service and my detail. I
bet my situational awareness is a lot tighter and a
lot broader than yours.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Is feisty, Michael is also sensitive. Michael, Yeah, yeah, don't
hurt your feelings?
Speaker 1 (02:56):
What don't hurt your feelings? Oh my feelings are crushed.
I don't know. Can you just can you just carry on?
For me. Oh, the Economist has a story, an article
on foreign aid. They they don't have bylines, but a
(03:20):
guy named Henry Kerr posted it on x uh and
it credits someone by the name of Syrian Jones. And
I've heard this and it's popped up again on the
cable channels. But I hear a lot that Oh my gosh,
all this U S E I D money that was misspent.
(03:41):
But what about the poor starving children in Africa? Do
your parents ever say that cleaned your plate off their
starving children in China? That never, That never flew with me. Well,
we're hearing the same thing again over over on the
cable channels.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Doctor David, can you give us some sense of what
the cuts that the US is certainly making to funding abroad,
including USAID and some of the healthcare funding cuts, how
that impacts the spread of a communical bowl disease like measles.
Speaker 5 (04:20):
Yeah, so global funding cuts are impacting key partners around
the world, the World Health Organization, UNICEF and GABBY. These
are just some examples of the organizations that are leading
global efforts to prevent vaccine preventable diseases like neasles. And
this isn't just about international humanitarian aid. It's also about
public health here at home. So when the US cuts
(04:41):
funding for global measles prevention, we're not just turning our
backs on children abroad. We're dismantling our own first line
of defense. Viruses like measles, they don't stop at borders.
Investing in global measles immunization efforts is both a moral
responsibility and smart strategic public health for America. Protecting children
around the world protects all of us.
Speaker 4 (05:02):
Doctor David Higgins, thank you so much for being so
stark and so clear about all what is causing is
that people are not getting Doctor.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Higgins happens to be a pediatrician. I shut up, Doctor
Higgins happens to be a pediatrician out at University Colorado
end shoots campus. I hear the same thing. And this
article in The Economist is about the centerpiece of AID,
so called development aid, which obviously is designed to boost
economic growth. It's not about the politicized nonprofits the USAID
(05:34):
was supporting and all their bloated staffs. The funding of
AID money to political advocacy and unemployment, promoting South American
self loathing around the world, and blah blah blah blah blah.
Development spending from usaid accounts for almost three quarters, almost
seventy five percent of all of our aid, foreign aid,
(05:57):
whatever you want to call it, and that enterprise is
a colossal failure. The capital of Malawi, one of the
world's poorest countries, runs on our aid. A city built
in the nineteen seventies by the World Bank, Lawongbi. Their
streets are filled with charities, development agencies, government offices, informal villages,
(06:21):
house cooks and cleaners for foreign officials. The interest to
each is marked with the flag of its national sponsor.
That's how dependent we have made some countries on aid,
not just from US, but from other countries as well.
All code article in the Economists. But the money is
small compared to advanced country GDPs, but huge compared to
(06:48):
poor country government resources. Rich countries, according to the Economists,
spend about two hundred and fifty six billion, that's about
zero point four percent of GDP on foreign aid last year,
enough to provide sub Saharan African governments with a sum
as large as their total tax revenues. The average Milabuan
(07:08):
has had more money spent on them by international agencies
than by their own government every year since the country
gained independence from Britain in nineteen sixty four. But let's
savor at least one good sentence in this article. The
Long Way's current state shows development aids ambitions. The country's
(07:33):
poverty reflects the failure of that development aid. The failures
things did not going. According to the economists, things did
not get going. From twenty fourteen to twenty twenty four,
the world's seventy eight poorest economies grew more slowly than
(07:55):
in the decade to nineteen seventy when aid was first emerging. Prize, No,
no surprise, right, don't we see the same thing here?
Think about the war on poverty. Just extrapolate the war
on poverty to foreign aid. So we Johnson starts the
war on poverty, and we spend trillions of dollars to
(08:18):
eliminate poverty in this country. And what did it do?
It expanded poverty. Go back again to the failure. Things
did not get going, the economist wrote. From twenty fourteen
to twenty twenty fourth full decade, the world's seventy eight
poorest economies grew more slowly than in the decade up
(08:42):
to nineteen seventy, when all this aid first started pouring
into the countries. This is perhaps unsurprising given all the
earlier studies. You can go back. Pet Barnum is a
good place to go. P. T. Barnum back in the
nineteen eighties was making exactly these points. So this is
(09:05):
not news. The economist writes this, what lies behind this failure?
They the aid organizations have no idea how to encourage
economic growth. Each generation of development spending has failed in
its own way. Remember our little sound bite from Ainrand
(09:29):
yesterday about how it's all about sacrifice. Well, what are
we doing to poor, undeveloped countries by throwing aid in?
Where you make a biblical if you want to. We're
feeding people. We're not. We're feeding them fish, We're not
teaching them to fish. So go back to what the
(09:51):
economists said, what lies behind this failure? They the aid
organizations have no idea how to encourage economic growth. This
is the economist admitting that all of this aid money
has They have no metric, They have no idea how
to use the aid to spur economic growth. I would add,
as a parenthetical, I don't know that just throwing money
(10:15):
at a country can encourage economic growth. Each general, this
is the verbatim from the article, each generation of development
spending has failed in its own way. The economist is
not exactly what I would call a conservative rag. It's
(10:35):
a highly liberal rag. And admitting that, oh, how we're
going to feed the children. Oh, we're cutting all this
age just like this knocked around an end. Shoot, Oh
my gosh, children and measles everywhere, all the world is
coming to an end because we've cut off us AID.
Even the economists emits that, huh, we've got slower GDP
growth post aid than we did prior pre aid. And
(11:00):
then what lies behind the failure is that every generation
of development spending has failed in its own way. The
first way is naturally the impulse to bring the industrial
policy instinct to poor countries, where naturally it works even
worse than it does in rich countries, if it works
at all in a rich country. How do you take
a poor country where they barely have water wells and
(11:21):
you expect to industrialize the country. Do you somehow expect
to grow their GDP improve the lives of their citizens
by throwing money at the country. First, I would just
posit this, how much of that ad actually ever, even
gets to the so called poor people in that country,
Labi or any other country, probably luck got a lot
(11:46):
fifty at best. That's how the dictators in these third
world crabhole countries end up as billionaires. They siphon off
this a It's not just us, it's it's all the
of Western civilization that keep throwing money at these countries.
The economist says. This development spending most often subsidizes favorite industries,
(12:11):
frequently funds infrastructure construction, and sometimes pays the salaries of teachers.
Early efforts built a lot of bridges, many to nowhere.
Is this real jo I've done? Shocked the economists is
giving us real journalism, they continue, after saying we built
bridges to nowhere. It is hard to hand out enormous
(12:33):
sums without turning poor countries into miniature command economies, centrally
planned economies Marxism. Development project mostly attempt to build entire industries,
such as dairy farming or fisheries from scratch. Many problems
are similar to those that plague industrial policy and rich countries.
(12:54):
In twenty fifteen, Lindsay Whitfield, Copenhagen Business School and her
co authors look at fourteen African industries that received aid.
They found out that after handouts, just two had increased
their output. Fourteen African industries get foreign aid trying to increase,
(13:15):
you know, trying to industrialize, industrial policy, trying to you know,
help them grow and increase their GDP. Only two, only
two out of fourteen had actually increased in the output.
And again that's from the economists. So when you hear
this crap about how, oh my gosh, we're gonna you know,
kids are gonna starve in some sub Saharan country somewhere,
(13:37):
bull crap. The results of this spending are no better
in Malawi than it is in the United States, even
if it's so called air quotes here free to the recipient.
Then you add the preference of aid advocates for sustainable
(13:58):
or green technology, including these days hostility, hostility to GMO
foods and social environmental wrappers, primate justice, all the other crap,
all so on and so on. Indeed, even the hostility
to capitalism, hostility to consumerism, hostility to growth itself. It's
(14:18):
not surprising that all this aid is just a big
giant rattle. Again, it's cheaper from our perspective. The problem
is that it's wholly ineffective. If money could really jump
start growth, that'd be great. But I think one of
the central conundrums of all this aid is that it
can actually destroy local industry. Sending food, for example, everybody
(14:43):
thinks that's a no brainer, and in a war, crop failure,
or other catastrophe, it is a no brainer. But what
do you do when you send food on a regular
basis to a country? You ever thought about what the
effects of that is bankrupt what local farming there is?
You drive? You know, we've got starving children in country X.
(15:07):
Well there's a little bit of farming in country X.
Maybe there's a little small cattle industry, maybe there's a
little tiny poultry industry. But if all we do is
see is send food, we send grain and beef and
chicken and everything else, you're going to bankrupt with local farmers.
You're going to destroy the very industry that you're trying
to help. Central Central idea Number one, imagine just how
(15:35):
happy the United States might be if China decided and
it's mercy to tax Chinese citizens, buy crops and over
valued prices, which instantly pleases Chinese farmers, and then send
bags of rice to us for free, marked as a
gift of the Chinese Communist Party. What would it do
(15:57):
well that would bankrupt us rice farmers? Or what a
trying to decide to send us really cheap electric vehicles
it'll help us speeds towards that golden net zero? What
would that do well that would further undermine the already
declining state supported, taxpayer supported ev business. So you know
exactly how our government feels about this sort of thing.
(16:20):
And this is exactly what AID does in those foreign countries.
If you're a really good free marketing economist welcoming subsidized imports,
trying to push to leave agriculture and move to export
oriented manufacturing or other high value industry. But Malawe doesn't
have other higher value industry, and exporting anything to the
(16:42):
advanced economies is getting more difficult. Esteeming the old proverb,
as I said, send a man of fish a day forever,
he indeed forgets how to fish. I try, I tell
the good doctor Van shoots shut up in senate.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
I'm kind of surprised this conversation about chambering your weapon
is gone as far as it has. I think it's
kind of uncomfortable being around you, Michael, and then you
talk about arrogance. Oh my god, he just sounded pretty
darn ar again right there, because you have better situational
(17:21):
awareness because la la la la la, I was in
a big position.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
Careful. Michael's also feisty and sensitive, so you could hurt
his feelings with that.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
That's right, somebody went on find Michael. I don't keep
around the chamber either, mostly because I only have a
trigger safety. If I end up drawing, my dumbass will
probably shoot myself instead. I'll bring you a quote tomorrow.
I get a quote that I want to share with
you tomorrow. Uh, Dragon, tell me if you hear what
(17:58):
I hear. This is AOC and I think this was
in Denver, but there's many difference where it was. See
if you hear what I hear.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
We need a democratic party that parts pity harder for us.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
We need a democratic party that parts pity.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
Harder for us.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Play it again, Yeah, we need a democratic party that
parts harder for us.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Farts or fights harder? Fights are farts harder? We need
a democratic party that parts fighting.
Speaker 7 (18:38):
Harder for us.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Now that I've ever misspoken, and let a certain f
word start to slip before I realize, Well, it's in
the brain, shouldn't becoming out of the mouth. He's appointed judges. Yeah,
I shouldn't even say a pointed judge because I don't
know there's a better system than appointing judges. But they
(19:08):
have usurped so much power that they can overrule the
president now and put male convicts in women's prisons. What
are plans to bring illegal gang bangers back to this
country and even take demand of the military for the
sake of advancing their transgender agenda. Who do you suppose
(19:29):
determines whether Texas A and M the agis will host
uh drag shows on campus? The Board of regents or
a district judge. Yeah, you guess correctly. A federal judge
yesterday temporarily blocked Texas A and M University from enforcing
(19:50):
a ban on drag shows being held at the university's
special event venues. This means drag Eland and as they
call it, will go on as planned on Thursday at
the flagship University's Rudder Theater in College Station. The child
judge here, Judge Lee Rosenthal, came to the defense of
(20:12):
the queer empowerment council organizers of the draggy Land assault
or program. Anyone who finds the performance or performers offensive
has a simple remedy, don't go. I would think that
a more benign judge might have written, anyone who finds
the performance or performance performers offensive has a simple remedy,
(20:35):
don't provide a platform for it. But now the schools
is any choice but to provide a platform for it,
because Rosenthal is going to force them to do it,
and she piously cites the First Amendment. So now forced
speech is the diametric opposite of free speech. It's not
(20:56):
just the nationwide tros. But doesn't the university have the
right to decide who's going I mean open it to
all right? Oh wait a minute, it's their property. Do
they not get to decide? Let's go to Germany. Anti
(21:23):
Americanism is not resonating with American voters lately, but the
Democrats ought to be happy because they've found a place
where their anti Americanism is flourishing, and it's in German supermarkets.
This comes from a website called All His Willing Executioners.
(21:45):
Products from the United States are placed upside down on
the shelves. This method is used to clearly label them
and distinguish them from domestic goods. Now, why why are
they doing it? I think it's to discovery shoppers from
choosing them, you know, kind of like the don't buy
from jew signs that were once placed on the windows
(22:06):
of Jewish shops during in Nazi Germany. Germany's got a
storied history. They really need to be kind of careful
of this stuff. Now, the retailers themselves have a different explanation.
In the United States, they write nutritional information, ingredient lists,
and packaging standards are often less strict or formatted differently
than in the EU. Inverted products would therefore immediately signal
(22:30):
to employees and customers this is an imported product that
requires special attention. I would say that's a brilliant answer,
because that's exactly what they want. They want special attention
paid to American products. So they put them on the
store shelves upside down. So that can of pork and
(22:53):
beans you wanted to buy, don't buy that because that's American,
because it's upside down. But what a brilliant answer. This
signals through our employees and customers that it's an imported
product that requires quote special attention. Now more visible imported
products might have some benefit when taking stock, but labeling,
(23:15):
different labeling regulations and stock taking issues didn't seem to
be a problem prior to Trump's return of the White House.
And you bicked with this demonization of his policies that
did they just did this? Why were they not doing it?
If it was about that imported products require special attention,
(23:37):
why didn't they do it during the Biden administration. The
country that voted for these policies might also be in
for some demonization where the dumb assy in that country
seems to be prevailing. Speaking of dumb assy, you know,
I think we've kind of gone beyond the idea that
(24:00):
there are like thirty five, thirty eight whatever his genders
and that there really are just two genders. Well, that
was working out, I thought pretty well. But then on
x yesterday there was a TikTok posted. I know, two platforms,
they get intermixed all the time. Apparently the two gender
thing is getting out of control and it's resulting in
(24:23):
the oppression of non binary feet. Take a listen, this
two gender thing is it's getting totally out of control.
This speaking.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
I was getting shoes. I was at them all get shoes,
and I got these shoes.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
Okay, I bring them up to I want to pull
this non binary individual who looks like a male to me,
But what do I know is complaining about shoes yet
he was able to buy shoes. So listen to the
rest of his little video. Two. Gender thing is just
(25:01):
it's getting totally out of control. This weekend, I was
getting shoes.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
I was at the mall getting shoes, and I.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Got the shoes. Okay, I bring them up to the worker.
I was like, hey, could I get it eight and
a half in this and they were like, sorry, do
you mean eight and half in men's or women's men's?
Are winners?
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Really like my feet?
Speaker 1 (25:21):
My freaking feet can't even be in a binary.
Speaker 4 (25:23):
My feet don't even have genitals, Okay, so I it's
just crazy.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
This is what you all voted for. So I hope
you're happy. I'm quite happy. Can I checked my feet
this morning? Dragon? Do your feet have genitals? Do you
have male or female feet? You know?
Speaker 3 (25:44):
Uh, male feet?
Speaker 1 (25:45):
Yeah? Mine male feet feet too, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
Because they're they're haired like a hobbits?
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Are they really just the knuckles? It's fine. So uh,
this guy's name is Clay Play's non binary, but he's
more than that. He describes himself as a dominant FtM
female to male. I'm a dominant female to male versatile
bottom trans mask non binary. Got that there, You to
(26:18):
repeat it to me? A dominant FtM verse bottom trans
mask non binary. So I guess the elleged trauma buying
running shoes has really gotten to it. He, she, or
whatever has an OnlyFans account obviously as one does, and
an account on X which is similarly pornographic and not
for the paint of heart, So you need to be
(26:39):
careful when you go look for it outside the alternate
reality populated by these crazies. Men and women have separate,
separate shoe sizes because the differences in the anatomy of
the foots, as with other species male and female Hueman's
(27:00):
differ significantly in many respects, obviously right down to our chromosomes.
But consider this. If if Clay dies or there's a
you know, a Pompey explosion somewhere and archaeologists a thousand
years from now are digging up Clay's skeletal remains, they'll
(27:21):
be able to identify clay as female. Yes, by the
bone structure of the feet, just saying. But if that's
not enough, you can always go to Brown no relation.
Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. They recently hosted an
(27:42):
oral sex master class. It wasn't it wasn't an entry
level class and it was it wasn't like a thousand
level two thousand three. It wasn't even a four thousand
level course. This was a master class. Now to go
to Brown tuition will set you back undergrad tuition out
close one hundred thousand dollars a year. The event was
(28:03):
hosted by the university's Sexual Health Awareness Group. Do you
get the acronym sexual s Health h Awareness A Group
g SAHAG? Yeah, you know a British word for you
know the deed. They hosted it last Thursday as part
of Sex Week. The full title was Sex Week WISH
(28:27):
Number fifteen Oral Sex master Class in both kind of
lingas and filey show. Now it was far from generic.
Besides the oral sex master Class, SHAG also hosted an
event titled Sex and Chocolate in the Dark. We need
to get who is it that Mandy has on? We
(28:48):
had her on here long time ago the chocolate.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
There's a wine chocolate lady. Yeah, yeah, Why we need
to get her on here to talk us about Valentine's Day?
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Yeah yeah, navigating section in life to discuss the politics
of sex, sealing a p word, fairy dance workshop, pulling
on readers to activate your sexual whatever, and Arihanna birthday
cake pole dance routine. I missed out on so much
(29:18):
during college. I just don't think I got my money's work.
But then I didn't attend an Ivy League school either.
I neither me nor my parents paid one hundred thousand
dollars a year intuition. I thought the main point of
attending an Ivanty League school, Well, it's not to learn,
but to acquire your accreditation as a member of the
(29:41):
Marxist elite. And moral degeneracy is a prerequisite to doing so.
And then that will break time, okay, and then we
took a break. I'm with you. I don't chamber a
pullet either. It takes a half a second to put
one in.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
What's scary a someone pointing a hammer at you or
a gun that you don't know it's loading or not. Brannie,
you sound pretty upset this morning. Maybe I'm a mosey
on down the sixteenth Street ball and go scream in
one of those bubble machines.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
You know what's funny is I'm actually in a great
mood today. That sure sounds like I'm in a really
good mood. So what did you say about the shoe boy?
The things? It's he she?
Speaker 3 (30:31):
It implied the fact that this whole male only and
female only shoes is a new thing, Like they have
always been gender neutral until you voted for Trump.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Now now it's just male and female and are we
happy with what we got? Hmm? I think they've always
always been men's shoes women's shoes. Do you ever walk
into a store and you wonder, maybe you're looking at
(31:05):
something and suddenly you realize you're in the wrong section.
Have you ever done that?
Speaker 3 (31:10):
I can't say as if I have.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
Well, I think I think that I have a couple
of times, like I've wandered into a store and I'm
looking for maybe a big TV.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
This is a woman's big screen, No, like like like.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
A wind breaker. I'm looking for a wind breaker or something,
and I realized I'm in. I'm in. I'm in north
face because I want to, you know, I want to
support the climate, the climate activists at north Face, and
so I'm looking for a wind breaker. In fact, I
think this did happen and and somebody comes over and says, sir,
these are women's wind breakers, And I really did think
to myself at that point, is there a differences? So
(31:45):
so it's I really don't want this mauv one or
this shar Truch one. I would like just have a
red or a black one. If I could have a
better black one. Oh, those are over here, those are
those are for the men. I thought that climate change
was one of the most dangerous threats facing us, Tolsey Gabbert.
(32:07):
That surprised me.
Speaker 7 (32:08):
I've been on this committee now for this is my
thirteenth year. Every single one of these reports that we
have had has mentioned global climate change is a significant
national security threat except this one. Has something happened? Has
global climate change been solved? Why is that not in
this report? And who made the decision that it should
(32:30):
not be in the report when it's been in every
one of the eleven prior reports.
Speaker 6 (32:36):
I can't speak to the decisions made previously, but this
Annual Threat Assessment has been focused very directly on the
threats that we deem most critical to the United States
and our national security. Obviously we're aware of occurrences within
the environment and how they may impact operations, but we're
focused on the direct threats, how they safety, well being, andecurity.
Speaker 7 (33:00):
How about how they will impact mass migration, famine, dislocation,
political violence, which is the finding by the way of
the twenty nineteen Annual Threat Assessment. Under the first Trump administration,
you don't consider that a significant national security threat.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
The weather. You got to get ready for the weather
because it might impact you know, operational security. Good, great,
Hey, Michael, I don't wear my seat belt in my car.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You know I don't worry about it because I'll just
put it on right before I crash. Michael, what do
you call a gun with an empty chamber a hammer?
Because that's all it's good for when the stuff hits pin.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Let me read you a text message. Uh. That's what
you two are doing is really what really irritates and
shows arrogance among gun owners. Four three four four writes this, Mike,
(00:37):
when split seconds matter, having a round chamber could well
be the difference between life and death. But if you
legitimately are not competent or confident enough to carry one chamber,
I have to give you kudos for recognizing that. So
you can blast me all you want, but I'm uncomfortable
(01:00):
doing it. So now you may disagree with this. Call
somebody that cares. I've learned to be and I know
that there will always be an exception, just like you.
Carrying a chambered round could be an exception too. But
I try to be much more focused on situational awareness
(01:23):
because I'm not looking for a fight. I'm not looking
to fire my gun. I'm not looking to shoot somebody.
I'm looking to avoid that. My gun is a defensive
weapon so that I can defend myself. So if I
find myself, this is why I don't put myself in
places of situations where I'm going to need to do that.
(01:44):
So I'm willing to take that chance. You're not well.
Good for you. Why don't you respect my decision to
focus on situational awareness because I don't. I don't get
to go shoot that much. I go shoot as often
(02:04):
as I can. I get training as often as I can,
but I don't do it once a week. I don't
do it. I'm lucky if I get to do it
once or twice a month to go do that. So
for all of you that do it every weekend or
you have military training, then congratulations, show some respect, good grief.
(02:32):
And I might add I bet my training based on
my experience with the Secret Service and my detail. I
bet my situational awareness is a lot tighter and a
lot broader than yours.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Is feisty, Michael is also sensitive. Michael, Yeah, yeah, don't
hurt your feelings?
Speaker 1 (02:56):
What don't hurt your feelings? Oh my feelings are crushed.
I don't know. Can you just can you just carry on?
For me. Oh, the Economist has a story, an article
on foreign aid. They they don't have bylines, but a
(03:20):
guy named Henry Kerr posted it on x uh and
it credits someone by the name of Syrian Jones. And
I've heard this and it's popped up again on the
cable channels. But I hear a lot that Oh my gosh,
all this U S E I D money that was misspent.
(03:41):
But what about the poor starving children in Africa? Do
your parents ever say that cleaned your plate off their
starving children in China? That never, That never flew with me. Well,
we're hearing the same thing again over over on the
cable channels.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Doctor David, can you give us some sense of what
the cuts that the US is certainly making to funding abroad,
including USAID and some of the healthcare funding cuts, how
that impacts the spread of a communical bowl disease like measles.
Speaker 5 (04:20):
Yeah, so global funding cuts are impacting key partners around
the world, the World Health Organization, UNICEF and GABBY. These
are just some examples of the organizations that are leading
global efforts to prevent vaccine preventable diseases like neasles. And
this isn't just about international humanitarian aid. It's also about
public health here at home. So when the US cuts
(04:41):
funding for global measles prevention, we're not just turning our
backs on children abroad. We're dismantling our own first line
of defense. Viruses like measles, they don't stop at borders.
Investing in global measles immunization efforts is both a moral
responsibility and smart strategic public health for America. Protecting children
around the world protects all of us.
Speaker 4 (05:02):
Doctor David Higgins, thank you so much for being so
stark and so clear about all what is causing is
that people are not getting Doctor.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Higgins happens to be a pediatrician. I shut up, Doctor
Higgins happens to be a pediatrician out at University Colorado
end shoots campus. I hear the same thing. And this
article in The Economist is about the centerpiece of AID,
so called development aid, which obviously is designed to boost
economic growth. It's not about the politicized nonprofits the USAID
(05:34):
was supporting and all their bloated staffs. The funding of
AID money to political advocacy and unemployment, promoting South American
self loathing around the world, and blah blah blah blah blah.
Development spending from usaid accounts for almost three quarters, almost
seventy five percent of all of our aid, foreign aid,
(05:57):
whatever you want to call it, and that enterprise is
a colossal failure. The capital of Malawi, one of the
world's poorest countries, runs on our aid. A city built
in the nineteen seventies by the World Bank, Lawongbi. Their
streets are filled with charities, development agencies, government offices, informal villages,
(06:21):
house cooks and cleaners for foreign officials. The interest to
each is marked with the flag of its national sponsor.
That's how dependent we have made some countries on aid,
not just from US, but from other countries as well.
All code article in the Economists. But the money is
small compared to advanced country GDPs, but huge compared to
(06:48):
poor country government resources. Rich countries, according to the Economists,
spend about two hundred and fifty six billion, that's about
zero point four percent of GDP on foreign aid last year,
enough to provide sub Saharan African governments with a sum
as large as their total tax revenues. The average Milabuan
(07:08):
has had more money spent on them by international agencies
than by their own government every year since the country
gained independence from Britain in nineteen sixty four. But let's
savor at least one good sentence in this article. The
Long Way's current state shows development aids ambitions. The country's
(07:33):
poverty reflects the failure of that development aid. The failures
things did not going. According to the economists, things did
not get going. From twenty fourteen to twenty twenty four,
the world's seventy eight poorest economies grew more slowly than
(07:55):
in the decade to nineteen seventy when aid was first emerging. Prize, No,
no surprise, right, don't we see the same thing here?
Think about the war on poverty. Just extrapolate the war
on poverty to foreign aid. So we Johnson starts the
war on poverty, and we spend trillions of dollars to
(08:18):
eliminate poverty in this country. And what did it do?
It expanded poverty. Go back again to the failure. Things
did not get going, the economist wrote. From twenty fourteen
to twenty twenty fourth full decade, the world's seventy eight
poorest economies grew more slowly than in the decade up
(08:42):
to nineteen seventy, when all this aid first started pouring
into the countries. This is perhaps unsurprising given all the
earlier studies. You can go back. Pet Barnum is a
good place to go. P. T. Barnum back in the
nineteen eighties was making exactly these points. So this is
(09:05):
not news. The economist writes this, what lies behind this failure?
They the aid organizations have no idea how to encourage
economic growth. Each generation of development spending has failed in
its own way. Remember our little sound bite from Ainrand
(09:29):
yesterday about how it's all about sacrifice. Well, what are
we doing to poor, undeveloped countries by throwing aid in?
Where you make a biblical if you want to. We're
feeding people. We're not. We're feeding them fish, We're not
teaching them to fish. So go back to what the
(09:51):
economists said, what lies behind this failure? They the aid
organizations have no idea how to encourage economic growth. This
is the economist admitting that all of this aid money
has They have no metric, They have no idea how
to use the aid to spur economic growth. I would add,
as a parenthetical, I don't know that just throwing money
(10:15):
at a country can encourage economic growth. Each general, this
is the verbatim from the article, each generation of development
spending has failed in its own way. The economist is
not exactly what I would call a conservative rag. It's
(10:35):
a highly liberal rag. And admitting that, oh, how we're
going to feed the children. Oh, we're cutting all this
age just like this knocked around an end. Shoot, Oh
my gosh, children and measles everywhere, all the world is
coming to an end because we've cut off us AID.
Even the economists emits that, huh, we've got slower GDP
growth post aid than we did prior pre aid. And
(11:00):
then what lies behind the failure is that every generation
of development spending has failed in its own way. The
first way is naturally the impulse to bring the industrial
policy instinct to poor countries, where naturally it works even
worse than it does in rich countries, if it works
at all in a rich country. How do you take
a poor country where they barely have water wells and
(11:21):
you expect to industrialize the country. Do you somehow expect
to grow their GDP improve the lives of their citizens
by throwing money at the country. First, I would just
posit this, how much of that ad actually ever, even
gets to the so called poor people in that country,
Labi or any other country, probably luck got a lot
(11:46):
fifty at best. That's how the dictators in these third
world crabhole countries end up as billionaires. They siphon off
this a It's not just us, it's it's all the
of Western civilization that keep throwing money at these countries.
The economist says. This development spending most often subsidizes favorite industries,
(12:11):
frequently funds infrastructure construction, and sometimes pays the salaries of teachers.
Early efforts built a lot of bridges, many to nowhere.
Is this real jo I've done? Shocked the economists is
giving us real journalism, they continue, after saying we built
bridges to nowhere. It is hard to hand out enormous
(12:33):
sums without turning poor countries into miniature command economies, centrally
planned economies Marxism. Development project mostly attempt to build entire industries,
such as dairy farming or fisheries from scratch. Many problems
are similar to those that plague industrial policy and rich countries.
(12:54):
In twenty fifteen, Lindsay Whitfield, Copenhagen Business School and her
co authors look at fourteen African industries that received aid.
They found out that after handouts, just two had increased
their output. Fourteen African industries get foreign aid trying to increase,
(13:15):
you know, trying to industrialize, industrial policy, trying to you know,
help them grow and increase their GDP. Only two, only
two out of fourteen had actually increased in the output.
And again that's from the economists. So when you hear
this crap about how, oh my gosh, we're gonna you know,
kids are gonna starve in some sub Saharan country somewhere,
(13:37):
bull crap. The results of this spending are no better
in Malawi than it is in the United States, even
if it's so called air quotes here free to the recipient.
Then you add the preference of aid advocates for sustainable
(13:58):
or green technology, including these days hostility, hostility to GMO
foods and social environmental wrappers, primate justice, all the other crap,
all so on and so on. Indeed, even the hostility
to capitalism, hostility to consumerism, hostility to growth itself. It's
(14:18):
not surprising that all this aid is just a big
giant rattle. Again, it's cheaper from our perspective. The problem
is that it's wholly ineffective. If money could really jump
start growth, that'd be great. But I think one of
the central conundrums of all this aid is that it
can actually destroy local industry. Sending food, for example, everybody
(14:43):
thinks that's a no brainer, and in a war, crop failure,
or other catastrophe, it is a no brainer. But what
do you do when you send food on a regular
basis to a country? You ever thought about what the
effects of that is bankrupt what local farming there is?
You drive? You know, we've got starving children in country X.
(15:07):
Well there's a little bit of farming in country X.
Maybe there's a little small cattle industry, maybe there's a
little tiny poultry industry. But if all we do is
see is send food, we send grain and beef and
chicken and everything else, you're going to bankrupt with local farmers.
You're going to destroy the very industry that you're trying
to help. Central Central idea Number one, imagine just how
(15:35):
happy the United States might be if China decided and
it's mercy to tax Chinese citizens, buy crops and over
valued prices, which instantly pleases Chinese farmers, and then send
bags of rice to us for free, marked as a
gift of the Chinese Communist Party. What would it do
(15:57):
well that would bankrupt us rice farmers? Or what a
trying to decide to send us really cheap electric vehicles
it'll help us speeds towards that golden net zero? What
would that do well that would further undermine the already
declining state supported, taxpayer supported ev business. So you know
exactly how our government feels about this sort of thing.
(16:20):
And this is exactly what AID does in those foreign countries.
If you're a really good free marketing economist welcoming subsidized imports,
trying to push to leave agriculture and move to export
oriented manufacturing or other high value industry. But Malawe doesn't
have other higher value industry, and exporting anything to the
(16:42):
advanced economies is getting more difficult. Esteeming the old proverb,
as I said, send a man of fish a day forever,
he indeed forgets how to fish. I try, I tell
the good doctor Van shoots shut up in senate.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
I'm kind of surprised this conversation about chambering your weapon
is gone as far as it has. I think it's
kind of uncomfortable being around you, Michael, and then you
talk about arrogance. Oh my god, he just sounded pretty
darn ar again right there, because you have better situational
(17:21):
awareness because la la la la la, I was in
a big position.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
Careful. Michael's also feisty and sensitive, so you could hurt
his feelings with that.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
That's right, somebody went on find Michael. I don't keep
around the chamber either, mostly because I only have a
trigger safety. If I end up drawing, my dumbass will
probably shoot myself instead. I'll bring you a quote tomorrow.
I get a quote that I want to share with
you tomorrow. Uh, Dragon, tell me if you hear what
(17:58):
I hear. This is AOC and I think this was
in Denver, but there's many difference where it was. See
if you hear what I hear.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
We need a democratic party that parts pity harder for us.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
We need a democratic party that parts pity.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
Harder for us.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Play it again, Yeah, we need a democratic party that
parts harder for us.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Farts or fights harder? Fights are farts harder? We need
a democratic party that parts fighting.
Speaker 7 (18:38):
Harder for us.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Now that I've ever misspoken, and let a certain f
word start to slip before I realize, Well, it's in
the brain, shouldn't becoming out of the mouth. He's appointed judges. Yeah,
I shouldn't even say a pointed judge because I don't
know there's a better system than appointing judges. But they
(19:08):
have usurped so much power that they can overrule the
president now and put male convicts in women's prisons. What
are plans to bring illegal gang bangers back to this
country and even take demand of the military for the
sake of advancing their transgender agenda. Who do you suppose
(19:29):
determines whether Texas A and M the agis will host
uh drag shows on campus? The Board of regents or
a district judge. Yeah, you guess correctly. A federal judge
yesterday temporarily blocked Texas A and M University from enforcing
(19:50):
a ban on drag shows being held at the university's
special event venues. This means drag Eland and as they
call it, will go on as planned on Thursday at
the flagship University's Rudder Theater in College Station. The child
judge here, Judge Lee Rosenthal, came to the defense of
(20:12):
the queer empowerment council organizers of the draggy Land assault
or program. Anyone who finds the performance or performers offensive
has a simple remedy, don't go. I would think that
a more benign judge might have written, anyone who finds
the performance or performance performers offensive has a simple remedy,
(20:35):
don't provide a platform for it. But now the schools
is any choice but to provide a platform for it,
because Rosenthal is going to force them to do it,
and she piously cites the First Amendment. So now forced
speech is the diametric opposite of free speech. It's not
(20:56):
just the nationwide tros. But doesn't the university have the
right to decide who's going I mean open it to
all right? Oh wait a minute, it's their property. Do
they not get to decide? Let's go to Germany. Anti
(21:23):
Americanism is not resonating with American voters lately, but the
Democrats ought to be happy because they've found a place
where their anti Americanism is flourishing, and it's in German supermarkets.
This comes from a website called All His Willing Executioners.
(21:45):
Products from the United States are placed upside down on
the shelves. This method is used to clearly label them
and distinguish them from domestic goods. Now, why why are
they doing it? I think it's to discovery shoppers from
choosing them, you know, kind of like the don't buy
from jew signs that were once placed on the windows
(22:06):
of Jewish shops during in Nazi Germany. Germany's got a
storied history. They really need to be kind of careful
of this stuff. Now, the retailers themselves have a different explanation.
In the United States, they write nutritional information, ingredient lists,
and packaging standards are often less strict or formatted differently
than in the EU. Inverted products would therefore immediately signal
(22:30):
to employees and customers this is an imported product that
requires special attention. I would say that's a brilliant answer,
because that's exactly what they want. They want special attention
paid to American products. So they put them on the
store shelves upside down. So that can of pork and
(22:53):
beans you wanted to buy, don't buy that because that's American,
because it's upside down. But what a brilliant answer. This
signals through our employees and customers that it's an imported
product that requires quote special attention. Now more visible imported
products might have some benefit when taking stock, but labeling,
(23:15):
different labeling regulations and stock taking issues didn't seem to
be a problem prior to Trump's return of the White House.
And you bicked with this demonization of his policies that
did they just did this? Why were they not doing it?
If it was about that imported products require special attention,
(23:37):
why didn't they do it during the Biden administration. The
country that voted for these policies might also be in
for some demonization where the dumb assy in that country
seems to be prevailing. Speaking of dumb assy, you know,
I think we've kind of gone beyond the idea that
(24:00):
there are like thirty five, thirty eight whatever his genders
and that there really are just two genders. Well, that
was working out, I thought pretty well. But then on
x yesterday there was a TikTok posted. I know, two platforms,
they get intermixed all the time. Apparently the two gender
thing is getting out of control and it's resulting in
(24:23):
the oppression of non binary feet. Take a listen, this
two gender thing is it's getting totally out of control.
This speaking.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
I was getting shoes. I was at them all get shoes,
and I got these shoes.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
Okay, I bring them up to I want to pull
this non binary individual who looks like a male to me,
But what do I know is complaining about shoes yet
he was able to buy shoes. So listen to the
rest of his little video. Two. Gender thing is just
(25:01):
it's getting totally out of control. This weekend, I was
getting shoes.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
I was at the mall getting shoes, and I.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Got the shoes. Okay, I bring them up to the worker.
I was like, hey, could I get it eight and
a half in this and they were like, sorry, do
you mean eight and half in men's or women's men's?
Are winners?
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Really like my feet?
Speaker 1 (25:21):
My freaking feet can't even be in a binary.
Speaker 4 (25:23):
My feet don't even have genitals, Okay, so I it's
just crazy.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
This is what you all voted for. So I hope
you're happy. I'm quite happy. Can I checked my feet
this morning? Dragon? Do your feet have genitals? Do you
have male or female feet? You know?
Speaker 3 (25:44):
Uh, male feet?
Speaker 1 (25:45):
Yeah? Mine male feet feet too, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
Because they're they're haired like a hobbits?
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Are they really just the knuckles? It's fine. So uh,
this guy's name is Clay Play's non binary, but he's
more than that. He describes himself as a dominant FtM
female to male. I'm a dominant female to male versatile
bottom trans mask non binary. Got that there, You to
(26:18):
repeat it to me? A dominant FtM verse bottom trans
mask non binary. So I guess the elleged trauma buying
running shoes has really gotten to it. He, she, or
whatever has an OnlyFans account obviously as one does, and
an account on X which is similarly pornographic and not
for the paint of heart, So you need to be
(26:39):
careful when you go look for it outside the alternate
reality populated by these crazies. Men and women have separate,
separate shoe sizes because the differences in the anatomy of
the foots, as with other species male and female Hueman's
(27:00):
differ significantly in many respects, obviously right down to our chromosomes.
But consider this. If if Clay dies or there's a
you know, a Pompey explosion somewhere and archaeologists a thousand
years from now are digging up Clay's skeletal remains, they'll
(27:21):
be able to identify clay as female. Yes, by the
bone structure of the feet, just saying. But if that's
not enough, you can always go to Brown no relation.
Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. They recently hosted an
(27:42):
oral sex master class. It wasn't it wasn't an entry
level class and it was it wasn't like a thousand
level two thousand three. It wasn't even a four thousand
level course. This was a master class. Now to go
to Brown tuition will set you back undergrad tuition out
close one hundred thousand dollars a year. The event was
(28:03):
hosted by the university's Sexual Health Awareness Group. Do you
get the acronym sexual s Health h Awareness A Group
g SAHAG? Yeah, you know a British word for you
know the deed. They hosted it last Thursday as part
of Sex Week. The full title was Sex Week WISH
(28:27):
Number fifteen Oral Sex master Class in both kind of
lingas and filey show. Now it was far from generic.
Besides the oral sex master Class, SHAG also hosted an
event titled Sex and Chocolate in the Dark. We need
to get who is it that Mandy has on? We
(28:48):
had her on here long time ago the chocolate.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
There's a wine chocolate lady. Yeah, yeah, Why we need
to get her on here to talk us about Valentine's Day?
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Yeah yeah, navigating section in life to discuss the politics
of sex, sealing a p word, fairy dance workshop, pulling
on readers to activate your sexual whatever, and Arihanna birthday
cake pole dance routine. I missed out on so much
(29:18):
during college. I just don't think I got my money's work.
But then I didn't attend an Ivy League school either.
I neither me nor my parents paid one hundred thousand
dollars a year intuition. I thought the main point of
attending an Ivanty League school, Well, it's not to learn,
but to acquire your accreditation as a member of the
(29:41):
Marxist elite. And moral degeneracy is a prerequisite to doing so.
And then that will break time, okay, and then we
took a break. I'm with you. I don't chamber a
pullet either. It takes a half a second to put
one in.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
What's scary a someone pointing a hammer at you or
a gun that you don't know it's loading or not. Brannie,
you sound pretty upset this morning. Maybe I'm a mosey
on down the sixteenth Street ball and go scream in
one of those bubble machines.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
You know what's funny is I'm actually in a great
mood today. That sure sounds like I'm in a really
good mood. So what did you say about the shoe boy?
The things? It's he she?
Speaker 3 (30:31):
It implied the fact that this whole male only and
female only shoes is a new thing, Like they have
always been gender neutral until you voted for Trump.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Now now it's just male and female and are we
happy with what we got? Hmm? I think they've always
always been men's shoes women's shoes. Do you ever walk
into a store and you wonder, maybe you're looking at
(31:05):
something and suddenly you realize you're in the wrong section.
Have you ever done that?
Speaker 3 (31:10):
I can't say as if I have.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
Well, I think I think that I have a couple
of times, like I've wandered into a store and I'm
looking for maybe a big TV.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
This is a woman's big screen, No, like like like.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
A wind breaker. I'm looking for a wind breaker or something,
and I realized I'm in. I'm in. I'm in north
face because I want to, you know, I want to
support the climate, the climate activists at north Face, and
so I'm looking for a wind breaker. In fact, I
think this did happen and and somebody comes over and says, sir,
these are women's wind breakers, And I really did think
to myself at that point, is there a differences? So
(31:45):
so it's I really don't want this mauv one or
this shar Truch one. I would like just have a
red or a black one. If I could have a
better black one. Oh, those are over here, those are
those are for the men. I thought that climate change
was one of the most dangerous threats facing us, Tolsey Gabbert.
(32:07):
That surprised me.
Speaker 7 (32:08):
I've been on this committee now for this is my
thirteenth year. Every single one of these reports that we
have had has mentioned global climate change is a significant
national security threat except this one. Has something happened? Has
global climate change been solved? Why is that not in
this report? And who made the decision that it should
(32:30):
not be in the report when it's been in every
one of the eleven prior reports.
Speaker 6 (32:36):
I can't speak to the decisions made previously, but this
Annual Threat Assessment has been focused very directly on the
threats that we deem most critical to the United States
and our national security. Obviously we're aware of occurrences within
the environment and how they may impact operations, but we're
focused on the direct threats, how they safety, well being, andecurity.
Speaker 7 (33:00):
How about how they will impact mass migration, famine, dislocation,
political violence, which is the finding by the way of
the twenty nineteen Annual Threat Assessment. Under the first Trump administration,
you don't consider that a significant national security threat.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
The weather. You got to get ready for the weather
because it might impact you know, operational security. Good, great,
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.