12-2-25 - 10am - Seditious Six and Posting with A Gun

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I just turned Michael Brown on on my iHeart. I
have heard almost nothing but commercials for the last five minutes.
Is this how it's going to be now that he's
on KOA, that I hear thirty seconds of talk from
Michael Brown and five minutes of commercials from KOA.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Sorry, I'm going to switch back.

Speaker 3 (00:20):
I'll watch your podcast.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
Michael. I love you, sweetheart, I love you. But methink
thou might exaggerate just a little bit, just a touch,
just a touch a bit. Michael Brown.

Speaker 4 (00:34):
Clock has not changed from the other station to this station.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
Exact thing has changed. Well, the only thing is change.
We flipped it in the last hour, correct, we flipped
in the last hour. But the clock is exactly the same.
I think again, this is this is a wonderful example
of perception because you tune in, probably and you do
hear the last thirty seconds and something I'm saying properly,
and then we go into a commercial break and the
commercial breaks. But the commercial breaks are the same as

(01:00):
they were over there. But here's the thing that I
will caution you about. If you want to listen to really,
can I pat myself on the back here right? Hurt
yourself I'm going to stretch back here. If you want
to listen to really quality radio, well you wouldn't be
listening to me. But if you really want to listen

(01:20):
to quality radio, you're going to find that the clock
is virtually the clock in terms of minutes of commercials
versus minutes of talk is virtually the same across the
entire country. Do you know where it's different? Are on

(01:41):
tiny little stations in little towns in rural America that
don't have any sponsors and they don't have any overhead costs,
and so rather than getting the thirty eight minutes to
talk and thirty two minutes of commercials, you might get
forty four minutes to talk and what would that be,
say sixteen minutes or commercials or something. But then you're

(02:02):
not going to get the quality radio that you get here.
It's the cost of doing business, babe. It's the cost
of doing business. But in terms of your perception, our
clock is exactly the same. Yeah. Now, the only thing
was that last hour I was taken up by at
least six minutes of Dragon Redbeard trying to.

Speaker 4 (02:22):
Fix and arguably, though she's not wrong, when you listen
to the podcast, you get far less commercials in it, because.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
But I would caution you it's zero commercial. I mean,
it's not zero commercial. It's not zero, right, It's not zero,
It's not zero. So let's talk about the ongoing deep state,
deep state operations of the so called Seditious Six. And
again I keep emphasizing it. I don't think of a sedition.
I just like the alliteration of the seditious six. Yes, now,

(02:56):
this is another story that I've really talked about a
lot before Thanksgiving and post Thanksgiving. But one element that
I've had a difficult time trying to figure out precisely
is where this clearly coordinated deep state effort started and
who are the money people that are funding it? After all,

(03:18):
those six Democrats would never put themselves at such great
legal risk without the likelihood of enriching themselves and assurances
that they're massive legal bills that they could face would
somehow get reimbursed. And they damn sure didn't just concoct
this plan of their own volition without having coffee in

(03:41):
say the Capitol lunch room one day and then or
getting on a team's call or zoom call and talking
with their funders and the production people and the audio
people and the video people, and the people that wrote
the script, and the people are doing the fight, and
the people that the lawyers. There's all because you always

(04:03):
have to have a lawyer involved. Don't need no damn engineer,
as we prove right here this morning, you don't need
no damn engineer. You just need a you know, extraordinary
producer like Dragon Redbeard to come in and fix I say,
I'm scared to even touch it now. I'm afraid it'll
just you know, won't work. What I find funny about
the fact this didn't work is how much do we
bitch about the technology across the hallway? And then I've

(04:27):
been on air over here for what maybe has it
even been a month now, No, it's a month. I've
even been a month yet, and already we had something.
But it still says iHeart up front, doesn't it. Oh yeah,
I forgot about that. Yeah, I forget about that. I
just see this common Spirit studio thing here, and I think,
oh wow, it's a lovely countertop. It's a lovely countertop.

(04:49):
Granite depot. Maybe, So let's let's go back to the
seditious six. Here's here's what i' come up with. In
the in in this landscape of contemporary American politics, that's
what we live in. Few spectacles are as disheartening as

(05:12):
the spectacle of you know, conservatives rallying around symbols of
natural identity, flags, anthems, and oaths. Conservatives No, no, of
course not, while simultaneously undermining the very institution that those
symbols represent, performative patriotism, the American flag. All of that

(05:36):
is all part of what is going on in this country.
Ron Conway is a billionaire. He's a Silicon Valley legend,
done in some circles as the godfather of Silicon Valley,
the founder of the investment fund sv angel. He's made
himself very, very rich. He's been very precient early investments

(05:59):
in tech titans like Google, Airbnb, Facebook, coin based open Ai, Door, dash, Pinterest.
The list just goes on and on. In fact, if
you want to read about him, you can go to
his website. It's svangel dot com. Of course, you go
to the about page and look at the team. He
is a super rich, super rich tech mogul that you've

(06:22):
never heard of. I never heard of him, and like
so many of his Silicon Valley peers who swing libertarian.
Conway is actually a rabid lefty and he uses his
riches as leverage for leftist causes. And if you want
to learn about that, go to this website. Follow the

(06:45):
crypto the crypto, follow the crypto, follow the crypto dot org,
and then go to individuals and search for Ron Conway.
Follow the crypto dot org under individuals Ron Conway. So
that brings us back to the so called Seditious Six.

(07:05):
In addition to Conway's contributions just at large to the
Democrat Party at both the state and the federal level,
and then his particular contributions to leftist political action committees,
and his generalized, i would say, just a generalized, massive
influence behind the scenes, he is a political contributor to

(07:27):
the two senatorial and most vocal members of the so
called Seditious Six, Mark Kelly and Elisa Slutkin. If you
go to OpenSecrets dot org, OpenSecrets dot org, I've for
maybe enough for this new people to the program. But
that's that's a website.

Speaker 5 (07:49):
I know.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
I know Helen Ellen Miller who started Open Secrets. She's
a friend of mine. She's a lefty. Oh, I've got
lefty friends yes, I have friends all over the political landscape.
I really like what she's done. Well, I think she's
since sold it off. But OpenSecrets dot org is better
than going to the Federal Elections Commission website because at

(08:14):
OpenSecrets dot org you can look up past campaigns, current campaigns,
you can look up by industry, you can find everything
about political contributions at that website, OpenSecrets dot org. I'm
a fan of it. If you if you don't get it,
And when you go to OpenSecrets dot org and you

(08:35):
look up Rom Conway, there are numerous contributions to Mark
Kelly now summer large, twenty six hundred dollars here, twenty
nine hundred dollars here, then eleven hundred and seventy nine dollars,
let's see, I've got a couple of screenshots, and then
to at least slap in thirty three hundred dollars. Not

(08:57):
huge amounts, but the reason they're not huge is because
of McCain, Feingel federal limitations on campaign contributions. But here's
what a lot of ordinary folks don't understand about what
people like Ron Conway do. Guys like him form very

(09:21):
tight circles of influence that attract similar contributions from their
peers over and over and over again. So when he's
out at the French Laundry having lunch with Devin Newsom,
he will tell all of the people at the table, Hey,
I'm giving some money to Mark Kelly and Alisa Slotkin

(09:43):
because we get a little project going on. I could
use your help. So then you'll find a bunch of
other people that you don't think are related to Ron Conway,
but indeed they're exactly. They all met at the French Laundry,
they all had lunch together. But let's focus for a
minute of Mark Kelly. You can find, if you dig

(10:04):
deep enough, the connection between Conway and Kelly. Because US
senators are required to file annual financial disclosure statements, something
I had to do every single year. It didn't bother
me because you know what, I had nothing to hide,
and I knew that as a so called public servant,
as the under Secretary of Homeland Security, I'm required by

(10:26):
law to file financial disclosure statements. Well so are US senators.
But if you poke around on Mark Kelly's disclosures and
you start looking through his air quote here candidate disclosure.
Guess what, Oh, he has ownership of shares in a

(10:46):
private equity firm called sv Angel, mister Conway's investment firm.
I'm shocked. Well, I want to go in. I never
thought there were any coincidences whatsoever. In fact, he he

(11:08):
categorizes his the value as none or less than one
thousand dollars in two separate investment funds. Now, that's because
the financial disclosure requirements are categorized in these very broad
categories none to less than one thousand one dollars. But

(11:33):
when you look at the income, he has income between
fifteen thousand and fifty thousand dollars in each of the
two funds. That's a pretty good return. Yes. So I
followed up my digging into that by looking at Kelly's
disclosures in following years after you'd take an office. And curiously,

(11:56):
if you look at Kelly's same disclosures for his first
year in off, he no longer lists the sv Angel holdings. Now,
I would just guess, totally guessing on my part, that
he did that to try to eliminate the appearance of
impropriety under the rules of the Senate Ethics Rules. But
the original physical connection between Conway and Kelly is quite clear.

(12:22):
On October sixteenth, twenty twenty five, just a couple of
months ago, now, well not quite two months ago, Conway
resigned to great fanfare from Salesforce. He was a shareholder
and a director at Salesforce. He resigned with again with
a lot of florishm fanfare, a lot of financial media

(12:45):
coverage of it from the philanthrompic arm of Salesforce. Mark Benoff,
who is a longtime friend of Conway, all for President
Trump to send the National Guard troops to San Francisco
to battle crime and to battle that city's incredible destructive

(13:08):
FENANL epidemic. Well, apparently, Conway, the sv Angel equity fund owner,
told his friend over at sales First Force this, it
saddens me immensely to say that, with your recent comments
and failure to understand their impact, I nearly I now

(13:29):
barely recognize the person I have so long admired. You
find that quote in the New York Times that got
me to thinking if Mark Kelly opposed National Guard deployments
in support of urban crime fighting and feel the need
to encourage National Guard members to disobey lawful orders before

(13:49):
October sixteen, twenty twenty five. So if you do a
limited data search or i'm sorry, date search on Google
before that date, you don't really find it anything. But
in fact, what I found was quite different from the
rhetoric we've seen from the so called seditious six. For example,

(14:10):
in August of twenty twenty five, at a town hall
in North Carolina, military and veterans' issues were the focus
of the discussion, and despite the fact that Trump had
already ordered the National Guard troops to LA and DC,
Mark Kelly addressed none of the issues that today seemed
to be his favorite topic. And then, in an interview

(14:36):
with a local Arizona news station around the same time
as the North Carolina event, Kelly seemed to tacitly acknowledge
Trump's legal authority to federalize the National Guard troops and
to send him to support the fight against crime in
other cities. So what changed, Why did he go from
one extreme to the other? I don't know, But the

(14:58):
timing of Conway, that's the finn in seers his meltdown
regarding the National Guard deployments is very suspiciously close to
the timing of when Mark Kelly decided to put together
the video. Now in early November, Kelly and slump can
introduce the quote no Troops in Our Streets Act, which

(15:20):
attempted to try avoid President Trump's constitutional and statutory authority
as commander in chief, and he posted all about it
on his website. You can go to Kelly dot Senate
dot gov and you can read all this press releases
about that. Then, of course, on November eighteen, the Sedition six,
led by Kelly and Slotkin, That's when they launched the video. Hmm,

(15:49):
follow the money. I think there is clearly a financial
connection between Kelly and Conway that predates Kelly's election to
the Senate. Conway is a true behind the scenes left
as power broker, and before Conway went public with his
visceral opposition to the National Guard deployments, Kelly was generally
just non commitalist to the importance and legality of those deployments.

(16:12):
But after Conway's blistering attacks on his friend over at Salesforce,
Kelly Mark Kelly all of a sudden became so opposed
to the National Guard deployments that he began calling for
a sort of limited military coup. Huh was that at
Conway's behest let me could be could not be. Everything

(16:32):
I just said is clearly circumstantial, doesn't prove anything conclusive.
But because of my simple understanding of how Washington, DC
works and how these people and when I say these people,
I'm talking about senators and congressmen, how they just virtually
I mean they're like wind mills. And I don't mean

(16:54):
like wind turbines. I'm talking about wind mills on the
old farm down home, those wind mills that just you know,
they creak and they make noise, and they pump up
the water for the cattle, and they just swirl around.
And if you ever grew up and they have Oklahoma
panhandle like I did, they make a lot of noise
if you don't maintain them very well, and they just
swing around and they're just they're just whirling and pumping
and moving all the time. Best politicians. That's exactly how

(17:19):
I observe those people in their natural habitat. And I'm
telling you this points to me that there was something
suspicious going on. And I think Ron Conway is just
is the guy that we've been looking for. He's the
guy that my belief is he's funding all of that production.

Speaker 3 (17:42):
Michael, I drive a dodge, I et McDonald's and I
listen to your show. I'm not worried about quality.

Speaker 2 (17:54):
And that's why I love the audience. Goobers are the best,
absolute best, and that's why we don't give a flying
rip about quality ourselves. We just come in and fly
by the seat of our pants. A British citizen, John
reshlu Booth, got himself arrested in the United Kingdom after

(18:17):
he posted a photograph of himself legally holding a gun
while on a vacation trip in Florida. Got it now.
This has sparked pretty widespread debate about free speech, police powers,
and of course the obvious difference is between the United
States and the United Kingdom gun laws. So again for

(18:40):
the people in the back of the classroom that are
the slow learners, this is a British citizen on holiday,
as the Brits would say, on holiday in Florida. He
goes to a gun range. He's holding a long gun,
and he gets a selfie taken of him holding the
long gun and it looks like an outdoor range, posts

(19:03):
it to his social media accounts while he's in Florida,
and then goes home back to the United Kingdom. Got it?
Can I move forward now? Thank you? So this guy
is an IT consultant from West Yorkshire. He took the
photo of himself holding a shotgun at at this place

(19:24):
in Florida in August. The firearm was legally owned in
the United States. The guy, John RISCHLOEU Booth, not John
Wilkes Booth. John rischloeu Booth was under supervision at the time,
reportedly receiving instruction from a former Special Forces operative. Booth

(19:47):
posted the image on LinkedIn I hate LinkedIn as part
of a routine update about his day and his professional activities. Then,
upon returning to the United king m he gets a visit.
He gets a knock on the door by the West
Yorkshire Police after somebody, someone, well Michael who I don't know,

(20:10):
someone raised concerns about the photo. That's the best way
I can describe it. So the cops show up at
his door, they warn him about the impact of social
media posts, and then eleven days later, no wait, but
they show up one day. Let's just say they showed

(20:30):
up today, not mister Booth. Somebody. We can't tell you who,
but you know you can't confront your witnesses can't confront
your accusers. But you know, somebody complained that they saw
your post on LinkedIn and it made them uncomfortable. Wow.
If I got in trouble for every time I made
somebody uncomfortable, I'd be in trouble all the time, which

(20:51):
I pretty much am anyway. And then after that encounter
they come back eleven days later hmm and arrested him
late at night. The allegations include possession of a firearm
with intent to are you ready for this? With intent

(21:15):
to cause fear of violence? And stalking Now part of
that is based on another unrelated photo on his profile.
He was held overnight before being interviewed, released on bail,
but endured a series of follow up visits by the
POPO over a thirteen week period. Ultimately, the Crown Prosecution

(21:38):
Service dropped the most serious charges owing to insufficient evidence,
but Booth still faced a public order offense based on
a different post. That's according to Breitbart Now. The case
obviously attracts criticism from public figures and sparked of pretty
wide debate about police priorities and freedom of expression. Uh

(22:04):
not here there, But there's a big difference between here
and there, although the difference is getting narrow and narrower
and narrower. Critics, including Elon Musk, side of the situation
is an example of process as punishment, something that is

(22:26):
very real. Process as punishment. I often hear people say, well,
you know what, I'd be willing to fight that in court. Really,
would you? Really? I had clients I used to have,
you know, went back when I was actually practicing law.
I no longer practice, So don't ask me how much
legal questions. Don't if I'm at it, if i'm at it,
if I'm at a cocktail party, don't come up and

(22:46):
have me a contract and say, hey, would you review
this for me? No, I'm not going to do it,
and I can't charge you for it because I no
longer practice. But I would have clients come to me
and say, hey, you know what, I want to sue
so and so because they did something wrong. And I
look at and say, yeah, well they did do something wrong.

(23:08):
This person you want to sue probably doesn't have any assets,
so if you win, you're probably not gonna be able
to collect anything. Maybe you can collect their old whatever,
an old buick that Gouber drove, what does he say,
in to talk aback, you might be able to collect
the old bully dodge, a dodge and old dodge. You
may be able to collect the old dodge or something,
but it's not gonna be worth anything. And here's what
you're gonna have to go through to get to that
point to win the lawsuit. And oh, by the way,

(23:30):
if he hires a lawyer, they're going to countersue you.
And even if they don't countersuit, you're gonna have your
butt drag through depositions and interrogatories. They're going to ask
all sorts of questions that may be totally irrelevant. But
in a deposition or in interrogatories, they can ask you
whatever they want to ask you. It's only when we
get to court that we can object. So you'll have

(23:52):
to answer the question. Even though I say in a
deposition I object, the other lawyer will say that's fine,
you still have to answer the question. That's process as punishment.
So merely sharing a legal activity from abroad, I don't
think merit's police action at home. Now. Booth describe the

(24:17):
ordeal as orwell, with some commentators liking it to real
life echoes of a dystopian government overreach, which I think
that it is. And now the incident has prompted discussion
on the role of police in regulating social media content
and the tension between British public order laws and individual freedom. Well,
I can just tell you sumarily without going into much detail, Eh,

(24:41):
the public order laws allow them to come and at
least question you, if not arrest you, if you post
something on social media that somebody that maybe doesn't even
follow you, but I just show it to them and
it makes them uncomfortable. Oh oh, I made somebody uncomfortable

(25:03):
by I didn't know it because I just put it
up by social media and somebody else looked at it. Now,
since then, mister Booth has expressed a deep mistrust of
the United Kingdom police and stated his desire to relocate
to Florida permanently because of the psychological toll and the
loss of confidence in the British authorities. Now that's fueled

(25:25):
calls for legal reform, but government officials suggesting the need
maybe we will, maybe we won't clarify the boundaries of
criminality online, and maybe we will or will not ensure
that policing focuses on serious crime rather than social media
monitoring and the prosecution legal activities that are conducted abroad.

(25:49):
This story amazingly exemplifies the ongoing struggles over free speech
digital policing in the intersection of national law with global
travel and online expression, and highlights the fundamental differences between
us and them when it comes to personal liberty and justice.
You think they're going to do anything. Of course, they're

(26:11):
not going to do anything. But the lesson for us
to learn is when you hear for calls for government regulation,
which there are. For example, right now, Mike Lee, the
senator from you, the senior Senator from Utah, and somebody else.
I forget who. It doesn't matter, but Senator Mike Lee,
who I believe is a very good constitutional expert, has

(26:34):
introduced a law federalizing the requirement for all apps in
app stores. Whether it's Android or Mac, doesn't make any
difference that if it is pornographic or an adult dating
site or anything else that might you know, you might
not want someone under the age of eighteen or sixteen

(26:56):
looking at that. There would be a federal law that
would require the apps to verify the age of anybody
that's downloading it. I don't have a problem with that
now poor Hub and others are objecting to it because
they say that, oh, we can't police this. Well, but
you put it out there for anybody, and you say

(27:17):
it's age restricted, but there's no enforceability until there's some
sort of federal regulation. And I look, I'm anti regulation,
but I don't want, you know, fifteen year olds. And
now call me naive if you want to, because I
know they do, but I don't want fifteen year olds.
I certainly don't want ten to twelve, eight, you know,
six year olds looking at poorn. So some regulation of

(27:39):
online activity is probably warranted, and I think it's certainly constitutional.
Now I'll get to that in a minute. And quite frankly,
I'll just take a break right down anyway.

Speaker 5 (27:49):
I cannot take women's basketball and women's sports being shut
down my throat constantly every morning by iHeartRadio. Every time
it comes on, I turn off the station for an hour.
I can't take it anymore.

Speaker 2 (28:10):
I'm mana tell and I can't take it anymore. Have
we been? Have I been talking about women's basketball to you?

Speaker 4 (28:17):
But yes, there are some women's sports updates played a
couple of times a day in some of our commercial blocks.

Speaker 2 (28:26):
And those last what those updates are two and a
half three hours long.

Speaker 4 (28:30):
Must be sometimes thirty seconds can feel that long.

Speaker 2 (28:34):
I think anything less than that. I think it's fifteen.
I know exactly what's going on. It's that time period
between Thanksgiving and New Year's and people are really stressed out,
and we're kind of like just you and me, and
this program is kind of like walking into grandma's house
and you just want to smell the apple pie and

(28:57):
the turkey and the dressing and see you know, the
gifts and everything. You just what that warm, cozy feeling.
And we're trying to provide that because you and I
are such warm, fuzzy people, of course, of course, and
instead they're getting something about women's basketball and it's pissing
them off and they're calling and leaving a voicemail about it,
because it's like we have we have you know what,

(29:21):
you know what Dragon I have control over in terms
of what we do here, kind of what we talked about.
That's it, and that's it. We don't even have control
over the equipment, that's right. And during that break, I
finally get a response from the text line people. Yeah,

(29:43):
and they're all concerned that you don't have a log again,
and I've tried to explain to them you have a
log in. That's not the issue. The issue is that
we're getting kicked out and the keyword issue. Yeah so,
but I have some real people now, as opposed to
just you know, support app blank not calm whatever. Oh yeah, no, No,
I actually have real people. I got Ryan, I got

(30:05):
let's see, I got Ryan and Katie and raw Ball
working on it.

Speaker 4 (30:08):
I was gonna give it about a day or two
longer and be like, no, I can't deal with it.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
It locks me out after an hour.

Speaker 4 (30:13):
No, no, and then they got to send me anotheration.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
Come on, Well, here's the response so far. The implementation
of multi factor authentication and subsequent reduction in session time
is a response to a security incident, and this behavior
is somewhat expected. What the behavior on the part of
us objecting to it, or the behavior of someone trying
to who hacks a text line.

Speaker 4 (30:39):
I mean I can kind of see it, maybe possibly
because there are contests that we do over the text lines,
and not just us, but other stations here in the
building to do.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
You know, hey, you've won kind of thing.

Speaker 4 (30:49):
But it and you don't want to give off that kind.

Speaker 2 (30:52):
Of wrong thing.

Speaker 4 (30:52):
If somebody hacks in and says to just a random
texture and said, hey, you won concert tickets, come down
and whatever.

Speaker 2 (30:59):
So I kind of understand that, but oh, a text
originating apparently from like it's from iHeart right, Yeah, yeah, yeah,
you've won, come on down because we got a check
for a million dollars for you. Exactly. I can get
who would fall for that? If you know anything about
I come on let's bed now. Let's hope that you
know that you know, managements not listening. But who in

(31:22):
their right mind would believe a text from iHeartMedia that says,
come on down to forty six ninety five South Moleco.
You've won a million dollars?

Speaker 4 (31:33):
Oh wohld't we do those keyword for cash things? They're
mike hole that or what one thousand dollars? And you're
gonna believe the one that said, you know?

Speaker 2 (31:42):
You would? You're just that you're the kind of person
that would show it. You would drive from it, you
would get you get all the way home.

Speaker 4 (31:47):
If I entered into that contest and I get a
quote hacked text message response saying come on down, pick
it up.

Speaker 2 (31:55):
No, that's no, that's not what I said. The text says,
come on down, you have won a million dollars. Who's
going to believe that my mother would. That's I'm afraid
that's who would. I don't think you would, or anybody
that's listened to us for any length of time and
understands how cheap I heart is when it comes to

(32:16):
honoraal salaries and bonuses and equipment and you know everything else.
Blah blah blah blah. Oh man, now we're in trouble again.
But you know, yep, it's break time. Oh oh my gosh,
it is break time. I'll be right back