May 14, 2025 • 36 mins
Ep. 283 - Best of USAID and other stories
Take a step back in time (early 2025) diving into the dismantling of USAID, where Elon Musk's DOGE team discovered billions in taxpayer dollars funding everything from gender transitions for lab rats to terrorist organizations. The hosts explore how this government "aid" agency operated like a slush fund for woke agenda items abroad while bureaucrats ran interference against congressional oversight. Plus, Trump's compelling plan to transform the Gaza Strip into the "Riviera of the Middle East" under American ownership, complete with resort development and Palestinian relocation. Now that’s thinking outside the box! Don't miss this no-holds-barred dissection of bureaucratic waste and presidential
Take a step back in time (early 2025) diving into the dismantling of USAID, where Elon Musk's DOGE team discovered billions in taxpayer dollars funding everything from gender transitions for lab rats to terrorist organizations. The hosts explore how this government "aid" agency operated like a slush fund for woke agenda items abroad while bureaucrats ran interference against congressional oversight. Plus, Trump's compelling plan to transform the Gaza Strip into the "Riviera of the Middle East" under American ownership, complete with resort development and Palestinian relocation. Now that’s thinking outside the box! Don't miss this no-holds-barred dissection of bureaucratic waste and presidential
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
In these bleak days, humanity is at a breaking point.
Economies are tanking, the woke mob is canceling everything, and
the little guy who's just trying to run a small
business is getting screwed from both ends. But not all
is lost. Amidst the chaos, two men offer up their
(00:26):
voices in the darkness, dropping two thousand pounds laser guided
truth bombs on today's Lunacy, introducing the Sirens of Sanity,
David Pridham and l Bradley Sheaf.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
There you have it, folks. Journey an outstanding band of
the eighties. No one would dispute that, and the Great
hits the high note like no one else. He never
stopped believing. We're not going to stop believing, and you
out there should not stop believing. Even though this is
a best of, we'll be back in a week.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
We are so excited to be back in the week,
but we right now are working on our show on
upcoming podcasts, so this week it has to be a
best of episode while we work.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
All this out, and we will.
Speaker 5 (01:23):
But while we're working on that, the rest of you
should listen to this best of and we will see
you again in one more week.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
On ip frument.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
We won't see them because we're not going to be
in the same room with them, thank god, because we
need like a restraining order more euphemism.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
Is that what that is?
Speaker 2 (01:40):
I don't know anyway, See in a couple of weeks, folks.
Speaker 6 (01:43):
So Brett lot's going on in the world, then we'll
just transition to that. Donald Trump still going. I mean,
I think they've rounded up about seven thousand illegal immigrants
and ship them to ported them out of the country,
at least seven the last time I looked, he is
for I think twenty percent of federal workers who were
sent that letter offering a buyout have taken it. So
(02:05):
twenty percent of the federal workforce that was offered a
buyout have now exited.
Speaker 5 (02:09):
I saw something that said they offered everybody at the
CIA buyout.
Speaker 6 (02:13):
I saw that too.
Speaker 5 (02:15):
So how did they decide who to send the buyout letters?
Did they just send them to literally every federal employee
or was there some.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
You know, criteria for that.
Speaker 5 (02:27):
I have the foggiest idea.
Speaker 6 (02:29):
I don't know, but they they they sent them out,
and last I heard, twenty percent of the of the
people have taken it, which is just it's a lot
of people.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
That is a lot of people.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
I mean again, it's not knowing how many people they
sent it to. We don't really know how many people.
Is twenty percent.
Speaker 6 (02:46):
I think it's tens of thousands they've sent it to.
They've sent it to a lot of people. They shut down,
shut down, USAID, told the workers not to come to
the office. They're currently working on evaluating what's going on there.
Trump has met with with Prime Minister Netanyahu from the
Israel and he is he is now working. At the
(03:09):
press conference they had, Trump's plan is for the US
to acquire the Gaza Strip and to develop it on
the Mediterranean as a destination resort. He used the word
takeover or to take over, so he basically and this
is at a press conference, joint press conference with net Yahu,
(03:29):
where he said, look, the Gaza Strip is destroyed, rubble,
no one can live there. What we need to do
is we need to relocate the Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan,
cutting a deal with each of those countries to give
land to the Palestinians. Then someone needs to go in
and develop the Gaza Strip, and it can't be Israel
because Israel is to polarizing, and so his plan is
(03:49):
to have the US go in there and and develop
the Gaza Strip as an entrepreneurial mecca in the Middle East.
Speaker 5 (03:58):
And then so is the is the relocation of the
folks currently in Gaza to Egypt and Jordan?
Speaker 6 (04:08):
Like temporary?
Speaker 5 (04:08):
Like hey, like we're remodeling your home, so you're going
to have to you know, rent an airbnb for a
couple of weeks and you know while we get through
the kitchen and then we're going to bring you back
kind of a thing. Or is the idea that this
is a permanent relocation to Egypt and Jordan? And then
the Gaza Strip is you know, remodeled, refurbished, new fridge here,
new range top there.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
And then what happens.
Speaker 6 (04:33):
Well, what do you mean then what happens and you
have the mecca?
Speaker 5 (04:35):
You have a well, do the Palestinians then come back?
Or like who owns that land?
Speaker 4 (04:40):
Right?
Speaker 5 (04:40):
Like who I mean, it's just going to be the
fifty second state after Canada or like who.
Speaker 6 (04:48):
Well, the US would be taking it over. He was
asked that question at the press conference, and he said, hopefully,
if all goes well, the Palestinians won't want to leave
Jordan in Egypt where they've fired a new land. Okay,
there's a lot. Listen, there's a lot too.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
I'm not sure what it is. I don't know.
Speaker 6 (05:05):
And then there's this whole usai D thing right where
Elon Musk is now ensconced in the old Executive office
building with a bunch of whiz kids, right, a bunch
of like nineteen twenty year old, uh, you know, geniuses,
computer programmers, engineers who are working on auditing the federal
government to figure out where there's waste, and they're identifying
(05:28):
just reams.
Speaker 5 (05:28):
You don't need to be a whizkid for that, buddy,
you know, it's you and I could walk in there
and just go, well, there's waste over here, there's waste
over there.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (05:35):
But anyway, and listen, I knew about this this, I'd
heard about USAID, but I had no idea how big
it was, and I had no idea what, you know,
what all they were They had their fingers, and I
mean I just assumed it was a you know, it
was a couple of little examples, and then everything else
(05:57):
was just foreign ad. But it it is, it is
like it is a viper's desk. I mean, it is crazy,
how insane. It's got a forty billion dollar a year budget.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
With a B. That's just that's insane.
Speaker 6 (06:12):
And I had that woman, the woman, he had that
woman running it from Obama's you know, the woman who
was Obama's un you know, the woman who looks like
she died and became a vampire. I got no offense
to vampires, but she was running. And then I started
digging into it a little more and you just see
all this stuff pop up, and I mean, these are
(06:34):
the they're funding some groups in Syria, they're turning around
and rerouting the money into terrorist organizations. They're funding DEI
programs across the world, condom programs across I mean, just
these crazy you know, building schools and Jordan and tons
of money to the Taliban, and then they funded the
Wuhan stuff, right, and just all of it is remarkable.
(06:57):
And then she's up on the hill, that's woman powers
the vampire who you know, forty billion dollars year budget,
she's running this thing and she's being questioned by Rand Paul,
and Rand Paul's like, listen, we have we have asked
for documents from you about your funding of this entity
(07:21):
in Wuhan, and you haven't given us a piece of paper.
And then she goes into this long answer that doesn't
answer a question. Then she's like, but we've given it
to this other, to the Intelligence Committee, and he's like, well,
actually no you haven't, because I'm on the board of
the I'm on the I sit on the Intelligence Committee.
We haven't seen any over there either. And then she
just starts stamming and and it's just just despicable. And
I think something Rubio said is really spot on here.
(07:44):
This money is being treated as if it's like donor money,
Like you know how Kamala Harris raised billions or chers
a billion, or she raised a couple of billion. I
spent a lot donor money, right, like if you can
give money to some charity, donor money. But they're treated
like that, and the reality is it's taxpayer money. And
it's insane, I mean. And then and then they have
(08:05):
this this fool on the air because the Democrats are
all over this saying this is outrageous. You know, this
is this is going to create all sorts of gaps
in immunisation in Africa, and this could create the next
pandemic and and and I'm like, well, we funded the
last pandemic through US A, I D potentially And don't
(08:27):
you want to know why is no one curious about this?
I mean, it is outrageous and I'm thrilled that that's
what they're that's what they're doing.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Well, I think there's a lot of people that are thrilled.
Speaker 5 (08:36):
But unfortunately, I mean, what you have put your finger
on the key problem, right, which is and and again,
this is something that history is demonstrated, much like history
is demonstrated that the Middle East is a very difficult
nut to crack, History has demonstrated that when countries are
not stressed, then their populace becomes complacent.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
Right, and so you know, sort of the classic historical
example there as well, on the Romans defeated.
Speaker 5 (09:01):
Carthage, which was their you know, main enemy, sort of
like the US and the Soviet Union used to be.
Once the Romans defeated Carthage, they just kind of went
in the tank. There was nothing stressing them, right, there
was nothing that made them have to focus and sort
of set aside ridiculousness to focus on existential threats to
their well being. And at this point, the United States
(09:22):
doesn't really have any existential threats its well being. Certainly
argue that China could be and perhaps might be in
the very near future, but at this point, most Americans
are are content, right, and that and that in and
of itself is not a bad thing. I mean, that
is the purpose of government is to sort of make
the people comfortable so that we can, you know, for
(09:45):
the pursuit of happiness, right, I mean, that's that's where rap.
But the problem is, you know, we haven't had an
existential threat to this country in a while, and so
we've become laxadaisical, and the average citizen is not paying
attention to what the government is doing, is not asking
qu questions.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
What was remarkable to me? And I'm in this boat
as well, It's not like I was digging.
Speaker 5 (10:04):
Into this is Once this information started to come out
about USAID and these millions of dollars that were going to.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Just ridiculous, I mean, at best.
Speaker 5 (10:15):
Ridiculous, right, we just laugh and go, I can't believe
we just poured money, effectively set money on fire by
sending it to those folks, but truly dangerous expenditures and money,
money to the Taliban, money to terrorists money to these.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Wuon lab All of that was in public reports. Right.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
It's not like someone kicked open the door of USAID
and realized, oh my goodness, you know all of this
money USAID openly, notoriously just published it in their documents
like they're supposed to. Right. I mean, there are government
agencies they go when they said, well, here's where the
taxpayer dollars went.
Speaker 6 (10:50):
And to our.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
Collective shame as American citizens, we did not immediately go,
what you took our money and did what?
Speaker 4 (11:01):
They just published it.
Speaker 5 (11:02):
No one read it, no one cared, no one wanted
to dive in, because again, we're all sort of happy
with where we're at, and this is where we wound
up to the point where it takes someone like Trump
again like hatum doesn't matter, to start something like doge
and just go we're not doing this anymore. We're not
going to take this laxa daisical las faire approach to
(11:25):
billions of dollars in taxpayer money just sort of wandering
off in these crazy directions. We're not doing it, not
on my watch. We're going to dive in. We're going
to audit the US government. We're going to see where
all the money went, and when it goes to ridiculous things,
we're going to stop that.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
And I don't know, I.
Speaker 5 (11:48):
Don't know what position you have to take in order
to say that's bad that we shouldn't audit the US government,
we shouldn't investigate where taxpayer dollars are going. We should
just let the ridiculousness continue. If you're taking that position,
then you are just per se wrong. If you are
taking the position that you don't like what the Trump
(12:10):
administration has so far done with the results of the
auditing that they have so far done, well you're entitled
to take that position and you are entitled to vote.
Speaker 6 (12:19):
You know what they found out? They found out I
guess the folks over us AID, which is you know,
we call it USAID, but it's really us AI D
because you know anything about this USAI us AID. The
folks they've been like, apparently they did like a fifty
seven million dollar pilot program with Pucksatani Phil to adjust
(12:42):
his DEI stance. So there's that.
Speaker 5 (12:47):
I didn't realize Pocksatani Phil had taken.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
The DEI stance.
Speaker 6 (12:51):
They were doing some gender transitioning of like rats and stuff.
Millions and millions. If you go through and you read
some of the stuff they were doing, it's insane, It's
what is insane.
Speaker 5 (13:01):
No, it's just insane. And then I read you know
that basically, I just but I don't. I don't understand
the way our government works or at this point effectively
fails to work, right, just fails to function. But Ted
Cruz tweeted or at or whatever, and you can love
him or hate them, it doesn't matter for purposes of
(13:23):
this discussion about all of this money that you have
said had just been, as you point out, pissing away
on just the craziest, most radical. I don't even know
if you would call it left wing. I don't know
what you would call it. Just just crazy stuff supporting
terrorist groups. I mean, just setting aside the DEI stuff.
(13:47):
I mean, they were literally sending money to terrorist groups
named terrorist groups, and the US government said, hey, this
is a terrorist group. We are out to eradicate this group.
And the USA idea is like, okay, you got you
fellows enjoy that we're going to be funding them, right,
And Cruz sends out this tweet documenting that, and my
(14:10):
initial response was, you know, to be irate that we
had a branch of our government doing that.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
And then my backup response.
Speaker 5 (14:16):
Was, hey, wait a minute, where the hell were you,
Ted Cruz? Aren't you a senator? Isn't it the job
of Congress? You know, with our checks and balances system?
I realized USA idea is under the executive branch, which,
by the way, is why the president can get rid
of it if he wants to. Okay, so, I mean,
just for those of you that are jumping them down
(14:36):
and saying can't do that, you absolutely can. It's executive branch.
Read Article one in the Constitution'll help you out there.
But with the checks and balances thing, shouldn't. If Ted
Cruz was aware of this, and at least the way
I read the tweet, he was like, yeah, this has
been going on forever, blah blah blah.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
Well where were you, buddy?
Speaker 5 (14:56):
Like? How come that was being allowed to go on?
Why weren't you standing on someone's desk, you and everybody
else who's reasonable and rational and realizing that the US
government is simultaneously declaring this group to be terrorists while
funding them.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
How was that allowed to happen?
Speaker 6 (15:15):
Do you think he knew?
Speaker 5 (15:17):
Well, if he didn't know. Then that's a problem, isn't it.
I mean, isn't it a problem if the body which
is Congress, that holds the purse strings, which it does,
doesn't have any effing idea. It wasn't like they sent
hamas a couple of bucks, right like the wackado head
(15:41):
of USAID, and she is and was just a wacku
do and just openly flaunting the fact that USAID was
going to do whatever they wanted to do. Right again,
I don't understand any of this. But it's not like
she reached in her pocket and said, well, you know what,
I'm a fan of terror. I'm going to send them
a couple of bucks. We were sending them millions of dollars. So,
(16:04):
I mean, I don't know, man. I mean, maybe it's
just that Congress has gotten lost. You know, when you're
talking about sums in the trillions, all of a sudden,
millions doesn't seem.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Like that much money.
Speaker 5 (16:14):
But I mean a million bucks is a thousand thousand dollars, okay.
I mean, for the vast majority of humanity, a million
bucks is an incredible sum of money. And we were
sending the United States government was sending millions to terrorist
groups through USAID, which at some point in time a space.
(16:38):
You understand this better than I do, But a spending
bill must have been passed.
Speaker 4 (16:42):
That included this, right, I mean, where is the oversight?
How does this happen?
Speaker 6 (16:47):
So there's no oversight. It's crazy, that's it. There's no
But so these spending bills, as far as I can tell,
and I've read a little bit on this, and I've
I've uh there there's this guy, Mike Ben's as in Mercedes,
but I don't think he's a Nazi, and he is
going around talking about this stuff. He's been talking about
(17:09):
for years. He's he's written a bunch of books and
I think I read one of his books and it
was it was it's all about how the US uses
these these these funding vehicles to destabilize foreign governments in
favor of more I don't want to say pro US,
(17:31):
because I don't think that's right, in favor of more
of governments that are more inclined to support policies that
are favorable to the sort of the sort of this
neocon slash woke elite right, and so, and there's just
(17:53):
been billions of dollars spent on this to stabilize the
governments everywhere for for decades, for decades, And this guy's
theory is that they've become so good at it that
they started using US A i D money here in
the States to do things like uh uh incite people
(18:14):
during the Lloyd George deal, right, the the that whole
summer of race riots deal and the COVID banning of
any speech against the COVID vaccine or any actions that
were against the policies whatever they be, whatever they were
in a given day of the government with respect to
how to avoid the spread of COVID. And you know,
(18:37):
his theory is some of that money was used here
and also for the Russia thing. Right, there are ties
back to US A i D programs in some of
the cases against people like Manifort and playing and uh
and Giuliani with with respect to Russia and Ukraine. And
(19:00):
you know, it's it's it's on the one hand, it's crazy, right,
because fifty million for condoms wherever they are, whether they're
Gaza or Serbia or whatever. And you know, thirty two
thousand for transgender comic in Peru. You know, millions and
millions for gender development I mean, I mean that's all.
(19:22):
That's all crazy and scandalous, and it reflects that there's
no oversight. But then there's this dark, twisted, really effed
up part of this where the these funds are being
used taxpayer money is being used to you know, for example,
with Trump to come up with the the predicate to
(19:46):
impeach him the first time, right, that conversation with the
about the about the about the Ukrainian you know, coming up.
It's just it's it's insane, and this guy seems to
think think that this is all as part of this
is all going to come out. And I mean, you
talk about a scandal. If this USAID money is being
(20:09):
used to destabilize the US government, I mean, think about that.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
Oh, I don't want to think about that, but I
mean it just opens the door to so many questions. Right, So,
if USAID was being used to destabilize foreign governments for
legitimate US policy purposes, right, I mean, that would be something, right,
(20:42):
that's sort of the.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
Job of the CIA, Right.
Speaker 5 (20:46):
And so I don't know, I'm not a conspiracy guy,
and so you know, I'm certainly not implying that USAID
was some sort of obstitute of the CFO, who knows.
Speaker 4 (20:58):
But I don't have a problem with that, right.
Speaker 5 (21:01):
I mean, as a nation state, one of your objectives
is to create a world in which it is possible
for your nation state to exist as well as it can, right,
and you know far better that you would use trade
and economics and fiscal policy to maneuver and manipulate then
(21:26):
you know kinetic force, right, then you just have your
military march in and take over a country.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
Right.
Speaker 5 (21:31):
And so you know, if we are sort of buying
our way into influence around the world, well then no surprise.
I mean every country is trying to do that. Every
country with the means is trying.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
To do that.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
It's like the Chinese what they call it Road and
Belt or something program that they've openly initiated where they're
funding projects around the world in an.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Effort to increase their own influence. Right.
Speaker 5 (21:57):
And so if USAID was a part of a legitimate
US government program to you know, buy influence effectively or
affect governments in such a way that is better for
the United States, well then that's just sort of one
of the things that we do that the countries do.
(22:18):
And if it was done with oversight and if it
was done with forethought, and if we were saying, yes,
you know, we want to fund this sort of thing
in this country because we think it will improve the
lifestyle in that country as well as allow us to
have additional influence as the United States that country, then
I get it.
Speaker 4 (22:36):
That's what governments do, and you.
Speaker 6 (22:38):
Can, but I don't think that's what they're doing.
Speaker 5 (22:40):
Well that's right now, But what you're saying is that
they they're just rogue and doing that and have turned
that around and are now saying, well, we were so
successful in doing that with foreign countries, let's do it
with our own country. And so my immediate question to that,
I mean my question about well, who's my ending the
(23:00):
store romains?
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Right?
Speaker 5 (23:02):
Like, I don't want to hear one more congressman or
senator complain about us what us I D was doing.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
That was your freaking job.
Speaker 6 (23:11):
I don't know if you saw the thing with Musk
and Musk's kid. It was in the old office the
other day and they gave a.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
Forty minutes kid.
Speaker 6 (23:18):
He's got an X. The kid's name is X. It
is not it's X. It's you gotta see the video.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
He has a child and they named the several kids.
Speaker 6 (23:30):
Does he really listen? You have a friend Jim Vickers,
who was named all six of his kids after the
famous Oakland Raiders Jack Tatum.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
Makes more sense than naming a kid X.
Speaker 6 (23:41):
Yeah, that's that's a good point. But anyway, he's giving
this press conference.
Speaker 5 (23:44):
Trump is you didn't see this, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 6 (23:47):
Trump is sitting at the resolute desk and on the
other side you've got standing next to him is his
Musk with X's running around like a lunatic, you know,
give or take twenty six I think now he's like
four or five.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
Okay, all right, so fair enough. So four or five
year olds run around. That's what they do, all right,
So anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 6 (24:11):
And look he he basically say, he's talking about all
this stuff. He's talking about all the the DOGE activities
that are going on, and he he brings up this
thing about the millions for the condoms in Gaza. Okay, right,
(24:34):
and then someone one of the people fact checked him
on the spot. They said, actually those condoms were for
Albanian and his pickin I don't know what country it was.
And Musks was like, it's still a lot of money
for condoms and and but there's like such a gap
between the people who are in this elite who think that, yeah,
(24:59):
what they say makes sense, and the real world people
who say, fifty sixty million for condoms to anywhere doesn't
make any sense unless you're doing some sort of reproductive
program that you can tie back to a very very
tangible result. And it's still even with that, it's really
difficult to say that's good use of money when you
(25:19):
have veterans in the US who are homeless who can't
get basic you know, healthcare and and counseling. So and
put aside the poverty problem we have and the employment
problem we have and so. But there's just such a chasm,
a canyon between the one side and the other side.
(25:42):
And I think the side that thinks that you're making
a point by saying it's going to Albania as opposed
to Gaza doesn't quite get it.
Speaker 5 (25:51):
Well, that's unfortunately, that's the that we don't.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
Care, right.
Speaker 5 (25:56):
I mean, the issue is, at the end of the day,
the issue that we've been talking about for half an
hour here is where is your money, my money, your
neighbor's money, your mom's money. If you have kids, old
enough to earn a living, which I do. Their money,
where is their money going? And instead we're in this
pissy little ooh, let me fact check you on that
(26:20):
it was fifty million to this country instead of that
country for condoms.
Speaker 4 (26:24):
I don't know what a condom costs.
Speaker 5 (26:25):
That's never been the way that she family has done
birth control, so I've I've never purchased any, so I
don't know what they cost.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
But even if they're.
Speaker 6 (26:36):
Well, you just broke some news there, my friend.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
Well, yeah, I don't know what they cost, But so
do you do you happen to know?
Speaker 5 (26:43):
Like?
Speaker 4 (26:43):
Is are they fifty cents apiece? Are they a dollar apiece?
Are they ten cents apiece? I honestly don't know.
Speaker 5 (26:50):
I show suppose sitting in a computer, I suppose I
look it up. But even if they're a dollar apiece,
and I find it extremely hard to believe.
Speaker 4 (26:58):
That they are.
Speaker 5 (26:59):
You sent fifty million of those things someplace, and if
they're ten cents apiece, then you spent you sent five
hundred million of those.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
Things a lot somewhere.
Speaker 5 (27:14):
Okay, So first of all, I don't believe that. I
mean I would even if you say, well, it's fifty
million for condoms. I don't believe I got spent that condoms,
because that's enough condoms every man, woman and child in
Albania to have sixty of them.
Speaker 6 (27:25):
What do you think about this asteroid that's going to
hit earth in twenty thirty two? If you followed that.
Speaker 5 (27:30):
Well, our very talented producer sent me the article, and
I believe you know.
Speaker 4 (27:36):
I just love the media.
Speaker 5 (27:38):
And if you haven't figured this out yet, pay attention this.
This will help you. The headline is not the story, okay.
The headline does serves two purposes in this media day
and age. One, it's designed to get you to click
on the article, because that is now how the media
(28:00):
it's paid. It used to be that you had to
buy a newspaper or a magazine or whatever in order
for the media to get paid, and so they wanted
to produce a product that was worth you subscribing to
and giving them your money in advance with the understanding
that they would provide you with valuable journalistic insight. That
is not the case anymore, right, They only get paid
(28:21):
if you click on the story. So the headline is
first and foremost designed to get you to click to
the media has known forever. In fact, it's you know,
eight o'clock day one lesson one in journalism school that
you put the bottom line up front, right, you write
the story such that the main point is upfront, because
(28:44):
no one reads through an entire newspaper article. Once they
feel like they've heard the important part, they stop.
Speaker 4 (28:51):
So the journalists have always.
Speaker 5 (28:52):
Known that, and that used to be a guide for
them and how to craft their story. But what it's
a guide for now is how to get you to
believe their if they want you to believe. So the
second thing the headline does is sets the stage for
the narrative. Then they put their version of that narrative
and paragraph one, and then, in order to be able
to still take the position that they have some journalistic integrity,
(29:16):
at the very bottom of the article, they'll put anything
that runs contrary to their point, just so that they
can say they did right, because they know you're just
gonna read the headline that's going to set the stage
for the narrative. You're gonna read paragraph one that's going
to cement the narrative in your mind, and you're not
going to go any further and find out the real story.
And the countervailing facts. You're you're you're you're not gonna
(29:38):
do that. You're a human being, and they know that.
And so this article is perfect right because the article says,
you know that this asteroid is is, you know, hurtling
towards Earth, going to kill us all with all of
us and that and well in the and the odds
of it hitting the Earth have doubled.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
In the last month.
Speaker 5 (29:59):
Well, when you read the article, you realize they've doubled
from mike point seven percent to one and a half percent.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
Okay, so but it has it had gone up to
three point two percent.
Speaker 5 (30:08):
Yeah, and so here's the here's the truth. There's next
to no chance of this asteroid hitting the Earth. I mean,
if someone told you, hey, you have a three point
two percent chance of of you know, having a flat
tire this morning, are you not going to get in
your car? There's probably always a three point two percent
(30:29):
chance if you're getting a flat tire if not higher,
or of an asteroid striking the Earth if not higher.
Speaker 6 (30:35):
Listen, this is three point one percent. Was those were
the odds on Tuesday. Now two days later it's down
to one point five. But this is a three hundred
foot wide. Potentially, they don't know how big it is.
Asteroid that's called it like a city killer, because it's
going to set off an explosion five hundred times more
(30:56):
impactful than the one that hit Rocha, and and so
it could put it could put a lot of people
out of it just just out right knock a lot
of people out on December twenty second, right, twenty thirty two,
that's what it's going to hit. They know that, they
don't know that it's gonna hit, but they know that's
the data. It'll be, it'll be the impact will take place,
(31:19):
if there's an impact at all.
Speaker 5 (31:21):
Yeah, buddy, you know, I again I find it super Now,
maybe there are people, there are still people who wear
masks in their cars when they're by themselves, and so
maybe for those folks.
Speaker 4 (31:33):
This matters.
Speaker 5 (31:33):
I find it hard getting myself worked up over a
three point one percent chance of anything, and I just
I find it again.
Speaker 4 (31:44):
Everyone should go.
Speaker 5 (31:45):
To school on this on the way journalism quote unquote
now it works right air quotes. So NASA has no
idea how big.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
This asteroid actually is.
Speaker 5 (31:56):
It's so far away at this point, they can't even
tell how big it is. And yet it is a somehow,
it's a news story that there's a one and a
half percent chance that an asteroid of indeterminate size might
strike the Earth. And so you should be asking yourself,
(32:19):
You honestly should be asking yourself, why is this in
the news? I mean, it's even if it happens, it's
not gonna happen for seven years, and during that intervening
seven years will get much more information on this, and
you know, be able to prepare for it as need be,
or just completely ignore it as there is a ninety
eight point five percent chance, will be the right thing
(32:40):
to do. Why is this in my newspaper today? You
should be asking yourself that. And the answer is not
because it's important, not even because it's interesting, not even
because it's uncommon. What would be interesting is to hear
from NASA how many asteroids are there out there that
have one point five percent chance of heying the Earth.
(33:01):
I guarantee it's more than one. And and so you
should be single. Why is this in Your answer is
because a.
Speaker 4 (33:07):
Headline like that will make you click.
Speaker 6 (33:11):
And I clicked, clicked, and then I shared it with you.
Speaker 4 (33:15):
I clicked, And so.
Speaker 5 (33:16):
The institution which owns that U r L gets paid.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
You just paid them.
Speaker 6 (33:27):
Remember we talked about the five hundred pound rapper Dank DeMoss.
Speaker 4 (33:32):
Oh, that was the gal that couldn't fit in the
lift or whatever.
Speaker 6 (33:34):
Couldn't fit in the lift and the lift went away.
So there there has been a study done where this
is just an update. This is by way of an
update for the people.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
That Okay, I like it about this.
Speaker 6 (33:45):
But she she proved once and for all that she
could fit into a small suv. That's part of her
This is this is evidence, right, exculpatory, this is evidence.
But this week she uh, I guess she had a
mixed bag of a week because she went on some
podcast and she broke the couch so they had to
(34:07):
bring in a bigger couch for her to sit on.
But then she fit into it an suv. So she's
thinking that that is going to be dispositive evidence in
the case against Lyft and and probably in her view,
result in a directed verdict.
Speaker 5 (34:28):
Again, this is one of those things. But right at
the end of the day, you know, it's a money grab,
it's a you know, stunt. Everybody gets it. At the
end of the day, she's still going to be dank DeMoss. Yeah,
no matter what happens, that's who she's going to be,
and she has to live with that. And I don't
think she's very happy with that, but uh, you know,
(34:52):
I guess that's neither neither here nor there. I'm glad
she was able to squeeze herself in there, and I
hope she's happy. But but I mean, I think that's probably
as far as we could go, want to go, need
to go with this episode of this very fine program, right,
it has not been terribly uplifting. Folks have reached the
(35:16):
point where they're willing to sell everything they own to
confine themselves to a boat and then get kicked off
that boat.
Speaker 4 (35:23):
None of that's good.
Speaker 5 (35:24):
But I mean, if we're being honest, and that's what
we try to do on this program. We try to
be truthful, We try to be honest. None of that's good,
but we're not deterred. Right, We will come back next week.
We will try this again. Hopefully there will be something
that's good. If I were a betting man, I would.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
Bet on it.
Speaker 5 (35:42):
But hope, you know, Hope remains alive and springs eternal,
and we'll see where that little springing action Lands next week,
right here on IP frequently.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
This has been IP frequently, once again clearing a forest
of lies with the machete of truth.
Speaker 6 (36:06):
You're welcome.
In these bleak days, humanity is at a breaking point.
Economies are tanking, the woke mob is canceling everything, and
the little guy who's just trying to run a small
business is getting screwed from both ends. But not all
is lost. Amidst the chaos, two men offer up their
(00:26):
voices in the darkness, dropping two thousand pounds laser guided
truth bombs on today's Lunacy, introducing the Sirens of Sanity,
David Pridham and l Bradley Sheaf.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
There you have it, folks. Journey an outstanding band of
the eighties. No one would dispute that, and the Great
hits the high note like no one else. He never
stopped believing. We're not going to stop believing, and you
out there should not stop believing. Even though this is
a best of, we'll be back in a week.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
We are so excited to be back in the week,
but we right now are working on our show on
upcoming podcasts, so this week it has to be a
best of episode while we work.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
All this out, and we will.
Speaker 5 (01:23):
But while we're working on that, the rest of you
should listen to this best of and we will see
you again in one more week.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
On ip frument.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
We won't see them because we're not going to be
in the same room with them, thank god, because we
need like a restraining order more euphemism.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
Is that what that is?
Speaker 2 (01:40):
I don't know anyway, See in a couple of weeks, folks.
Speaker 6 (01:43):
So Brett lot's going on in the world, then we'll
just transition to that. Donald Trump still going. I mean,
I think they've rounded up about seven thousand illegal immigrants
and ship them to ported them out of the country,
at least seven the last time I looked, he is
for I think twenty percent of federal workers who were
sent that letter offering a buyout have taken it. So
(02:05):
twenty percent of the federal workforce that was offered a
buyout have now exited.
Speaker 5 (02:09):
I saw something that said they offered everybody at the
CIA buyout.
Speaker 6 (02:13):
I saw that too.
Speaker 5 (02:15):
So how did they decide who to send the buyout letters?
Did they just send them to literally every federal employee
or was there some.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
You know, criteria for that.
Speaker 5 (02:27):
I have the foggiest idea.
Speaker 6 (02:29):
I don't know, but they they they sent them out,
and last I heard, twenty percent of the of the
people have taken it, which is just it's a lot
of people.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
That is a lot of people.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
I mean again, it's not knowing how many people they
sent it to. We don't really know how many people.
Is twenty percent.
Speaker 6 (02:46):
I think it's tens of thousands they've sent it to.
They've sent it to a lot of people. They shut down,
shut down, USAID, told the workers not to come to
the office. They're currently working on evaluating what's going on there.
Trump has met with with Prime Minister Netanyahu from the
Israel and he is he is now working. At the
(03:09):
press conference they had, Trump's plan is for the US
to acquire the Gaza Strip and to develop it on
the Mediterranean as a destination resort. He used the word
takeover or to take over, so he basically and this
is at a press conference, joint press conference with net Yahu,
(03:29):
where he said, look, the Gaza Strip is destroyed, rubble,
no one can live there. What we need to do
is we need to relocate the Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan,
cutting a deal with each of those countries to give
land to the Palestinians. Then someone needs to go in
and develop the Gaza Strip, and it can't be Israel
because Israel is to polarizing, and so his plan is
(03:49):
to have the US go in there and and develop
the Gaza Strip as an entrepreneurial mecca in the Middle East.
Speaker 5 (03:58):
And then so is the is the relocation of the
folks currently in Gaza to Egypt and Jordan?
Speaker 6 (04:08):
Like temporary?
Speaker 5 (04:08):
Like hey, like we're remodeling your home, so you're going
to have to you know, rent an airbnb for a
couple of weeks and you know while we get through
the kitchen and then we're going to bring you back
kind of a thing. Or is the idea that this
is a permanent relocation to Egypt and Jordan? And then
the Gaza Strip is you know, remodeled, refurbished, new fridge here,
new range top there.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
And then what happens.
Speaker 6 (04:33):
Well, what do you mean then what happens and you
have the mecca?
Speaker 5 (04:35):
You have a well, do the Palestinians then come back?
Or like who owns that land?
Speaker 4 (04:40):
Right?
Speaker 5 (04:40):
Like who I mean, it's just going to be the
fifty second state after Canada or like who.
Speaker 6 (04:48):
Well, the US would be taking it over. He was
asked that question at the press conference, and he said, hopefully,
if all goes well, the Palestinians won't want to leave
Jordan in Egypt where they've fired a new land. Okay,
there's a lot. Listen, there's a lot too.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
I'm not sure what it is. I don't know.
Speaker 6 (05:05):
And then there's this whole usai D thing right where
Elon Musk is now ensconced in the old Executive office
building with a bunch of whiz kids, right, a bunch
of like nineteen twenty year old, uh, you know, geniuses,
computer programmers, engineers who are working on auditing the federal
government to figure out where there's waste, and they're identifying
(05:28):
just reams.
Speaker 5 (05:28):
You don't need to be a whizkid for that, buddy,
you know, it's you and I could walk in there
and just go, well, there's waste over here, there's waste
over there.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (05:35):
But anyway, and listen, I knew about this this, I'd
heard about USAID, but I had no idea how big
it was, and I had no idea what, you know,
what all they were They had their fingers, and I
mean I just assumed it was a you know, it
was a couple of little examples, and then everything else
(05:57):
was just foreign ad. But it it is, it is
like it is a viper's desk. I mean, it is crazy,
how insane. It's got a forty billion dollar a year budget.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
With a B. That's just that's insane.
Speaker 6 (06:12):
And I had that woman, the woman, he had that
woman running it from Obama's you know, the woman who
was Obama's un you know, the woman who looks like
she died and became a vampire. I got no offense
to vampires, but she was running. And then I started
digging into it a little more and you just see
all this stuff pop up, and I mean, these are
(06:34):
the they're funding some groups in Syria, they're turning around
and rerouting the money into terrorist organizations. They're funding DEI
programs across the world, condom programs across I mean, just
these crazy you know, building schools and Jordan and tons
of money to the Taliban, and then they funded the
Wuhan stuff, right, and just all of it is remarkable.
(06:57):
And then she's up on the hill, that's woman powers
the vampire who you know, forty billion dollars year budget,
she's running this thing and she's being questioned by Rand Paul,
and Rand Paul's like, listen, we have we have asked
for documents from you about your funding of this entity
(07:21):
in Wuhan, and you haven't given us a piece of paper.
And then she goes into this long answer that doesn't
answer a question. Then she's like, but we've given it
to this other, to the Intelligence Committee, and he's like, well,
actually no you haven't, because I'm on the board of
the I'm on the I sit on the Intelligence Committee.
We haven't seen any over there either. And then she
just starts stamming and and it's just just despicable. And
I think something Rubio said is really spot on here.
(07:44):
This money is being treated as if it's like donor money,
Like you know how Kamala Harris raised billions or chers
a billion, or she raised a couple of billion. I
spent a lot donor money, right, like if you can
give money to some charity, donor money. But they're treated
like that, and the reality is it's taxpayer money. And
it's insane, I mean. And then and then they have
(08:05):
this this fool on the air because the Democrats are
all over this saying this is outrageous. You know, this
is this is going to create all sorts of gaps
in immunisation in Africa, and this could create the next
pandemic and and and I'm like, well, we funded the
last pandemic through US A, I D potentially And don't
(08:27):
you want to know why is no one curious about this?
I mean, it is outrageous and I'm thrilled that that's
what they're that's what they're doing.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Well, I think there's a lot of people that are thrilled.
Speaker 5 (08:36):
But unfortunately, I mean, what you have put your finger
on the key problem, right, which is and and again,
this is something that history is demonstrated, much like history
is demonstrated that the Middle East is a very difficult
nut to crack, History has demonstrated that when countries are
not stressed, then their populace becomes complacent.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
Right, and so you know, sort of the classic historical
example there as well, on the Romans defeated.
Speaker 5 (09:01):
Carthage, which was their you know, main enemy, sort of
like the US and the Soviet Union used to be.
Once the Romans defeated Carthage, they just kind of went
in the tank. There was nothing stressing them, right, there
was nothing that made them have to focus and sort
of set aside ridiculousness to focus on existential threats to
their well being. And at this point, the United States
(09:22):
doesn't really have any existential threats its well being. Certainly
argue that China could be and perhaps might be in
the very near future, but at this point, most Americans
are are content, right, and that and that in and
of itself is not a bad thing. I mean, that
is the purpose of government is to sort of make
the people comfortable so that we can, you know, for
(09:45):
the pursuit of happiness, right, I mean, that's that's where rap.
But the problem is, you know, we haven't had an
existential threat to this country in a while, and so
we've become laxadaisical, and the average citizen is not paying
attention to what the government is doing, is not asking
qu questions.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
What was remarkable to me? And I'm in this boat
as well, It's not like I was digging.
Speaker 5 (10:04):
Into this is Once this information started to come out
about USAID and these millions of dollars that were going to.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Just ridiculous, I mean, at best.
Speaker 5 (10:15):
Ridiculous, right, we just laugh and go, I can't believe
we just poured money, effectively set money on fire by
sending it to those folks, but truly dangerous expenditures and money,
money to the Taliban, money to terrorists money to these.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Wuon lab All of that was in public reports. Right.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
It's not like someone kicked open the door of USAID
and realized, oh my goodness, you know all of this
money USAID openly, notoriously just published it in their documents
like they're supposed to. Right. I mean, there are government
agencies they go when they said, well, here's where the
taxpayer dollars went.
Speaker 6 (10:50):
And to our.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
Collective shame as American citizens, we did not immediately go,
what you took our money and did what?
Speaker 4 (11:01):
They just published it.
Speaker 5 (11:02):
No one read it, no one cared, no one wanted
to dive in, because again, we're all sort of happy
with where we're at, and this is where we wound
up to the point where it takes someone like Trump
again like hatum doesn't matter, to start something like doge
and just go we're not doing this anymore. We're not
going to take this laxa daisical las faire approach to
(11:25):
billions of dollars in taxpayer money just sort of wandering
off in these crazy directions. We're not doing it, not
on my watch. We're going to dive in. We're going
to audit the US government. We're going to see where
all the money went, and when it goes to ridiculous things,
we're going to stop that.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
And I don't know, I.
Speaker 5 (11:48):
Don't know what position you have to take in order
to say that's bad that we shouldn't audit the US government,
we shouldn't investigate where taxpayer dollars are going. We should
just let the ridiculousness continue. If you're taking that position,
then you are just per se wrong. If you are
taking the position that you don't like what the Trump
(12:10):
administration has so far done with the results of the
auditing that they have so far done, well you're entitled
to take that position and you are entitled to vote.
Speaker 6 (12:19):
You know what they found out? They found out I
guess the folks over us AID, which is you know,
we call it USAID, but it's really us AI D
because you know anything about this USAI us AID. The
folks they've been like, apparently they did like a fifty
seven million dollar pilot program with Pucksatani Phil to adjust
(12:42):
his DEI stance. So there's that.
Speaker 5 (12:47):
I didn't realize Pocksatani Phil had taken.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
The DEI stance.
Speaker 6 (12:51):
They were doing some gender transitioning of like rats and stuff.
Millions and millions. If you go through and you read
some of the stuff they were doing, it's insane, It's
what is insane.
Speaker 5 (13:01):
No, it's just insane. And then I read you know
that basically, I just but I don't. I don't understand
the way our government works or at this point effectively
fails to work, right, just fails to function. But Ted
Cruz tweeted or at or whatever, and you can love
him or hate them, it doesn't matter for purposes of
(13:23):
this discussion about all of this money that you have
said had just been, as you point out, pissing away
on just the craziest, most radical. I don't even know
if you would call it left wing. I don't know
what you would call it. Just just crazy stuff supporting
terrorist groups. I mean, just setting aside the DEI stuff.
(13:47):
I mean, they were literally sending money to terrorist groups
named terrorist groups, and the US government said, hey, this
is a terrorist group. We are out to eradicate this group.
And the USA idea is like, okay, you got you
fellows enjoy that we're going to be funding them, right,
And Cruz sends out this tweet documenting that, and my
(14:10):
initial response was, you know, to be irate that we
had a branch of our government doing that.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
And then my backup response.
Speaker 5 (14:16):
Was, hey, wait a minute, where the hell were you,
Ted Cruz? Aren't you a senator? Isn't it the job
of Congress? You know, with our checks and balances system?
I realized USA idea is under the executive branch, which,
by the way, is why the president can get rid
of it if he wants to. Okay, so, I mean,
just for those of you that are jumping them down
(14:36):
and saying can't do that, you absolutely can. It's executive branch.
Read Article one in the Constitution'll help you out there.
But with the checks and balances thing, shouldn't. If Ted
Cruz was aware of this, and at least the way
I read the tweet, he was like, yeah, this has
been going on forever, blah blah blah.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
Well where were you, buddy?
Speaker 5 (14:56):
Like? How come that was being allowed to go on?
Why weren't you standing on someone's desk, you and everybody
else who's reasonable and rational and realizing that the US
government is simultaneously declaring this group to be terrorists while
funding them.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
How was that allowed to happen?
Speaker 6 (15:15):
Do you think he knew?
Speaker 5 (15:17):
Well, if he didn't know. Then that's a problem, isn't it.
I mean, isn't it a problem if the body which
is Congress, that holds the purse strings, which it does,
doesn't have any effing idea. It wasn't like they sent
hamas a couple of bucks, right like the wackado head
(15:41):
of USAID, and she is and was just a wacku
do and just openly flaunting the fact that USAID was
going to do whatever they wanted to do. Right again,
I don't understand any of this. But it's not like
she reached in her pocket and said, well, you know what,
I'm a fan of terror. I'm going to send them
a couple of bucks. We were sending them millions of dollars. So,
(16:04):
I mean, I don't know, man. I mean, maybe it's
just that Congress has gotten lost. You know, when you're
talking about sums in the trillions, all of a sudden,
millions doesn't seem.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Like that much money.
Speaker 5 (16:14):
But I mean a million bucks is a thousand thousand dollars, okay.
I mean, for the vast majority of humanity, a million
bucks is an incredible sum of money. And we were
sending the United States government was sending millions to terrorist
groups through USAID, which at some point in time a space.
(16:38):
You understand this better than I do, But a spending
bill must have been passed.
Speaker 4 (16:42):
That included this, right, I mean, where is the oversight?
How does this happen?
Speaker 6 (16:47):
So there's no oversight. It's crazy, that's it. There's no
But so these spending bills, as far as I can tell,
and I've read a little bit on this, and I've
I've uh there there's this guy, Mike Ben's as in Mercedes,
but I don't think he's a Nazi, and he is
going around talking about this stuff. He's been talking about
(17:09):
for years. He's he's written a bunch of books and
I think I read one of his books and it
was it was it's all about how the US uses
these these these funding vehicles to destabilize foreign governments in
favor of more I don't want to say pro US,
(17:31):
because I don't think that's right, in favor of more
of governments that are more inclined to support policies that
are favorable to the sort of the sort of this
neocon slash woke elite right, and so, and there's just
(17:53):
been billions of dollars spent on this to stabilize the
governments everywhere for for decades, for decades, And this guy's
theory is that they've become so good at it that
they started using US A i D money here in
the States to do things like uh uh incite people
(18:14):
during the Lloyd George deal, right, the the that whole
summer of race riots deal and the COVID banning of
any speech against the COVID vaccine or any actions that
were against the policies whatever they be, whatever they were
in a given day of the government with respect to
how to avoid the spread of COVID. And you know,
(18:37):
his theory is some of that money was used here
and also for the Russia thing. Right, there are ties
back to US A i D programs in some of
the cases against people like Manifort and playing and uh
and Giuliani with with respect to Russia and Ukraine. And
(19:00):
you know, it's it's it's on the one hand, it's crazy, right,
because fifty million for condoms wherever they are, whether they're
Gaza or Serbia or whatever. And you know, thirty two
thousand for transgender comic in Peru. You know, millions and
millions for gender development I mean, I mean that's all.
(19:22):
That's all crazy and scandalous, and it reflects that there's
no oversight. But then there's this dark, twisted, really effed
up part of this where the these funds are being
used taxpayer money is being used to you know, for example,
with Trump to come up with the the predicate to
(19:46):
impeach him the first time, right, that conversation with the
about the about the about the Ukrainian you know, coming up.
It's just it's it's insane, and this guy seems to
think think that this is all as part of this
is all going to come out. And I mean, you
talk about a scandal. If this USAID money is being
(20:09):
used to destabilize the US government, I mean, think about that.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
Oh, I don't want to think about that, but I
mean it just opens the door to so many questions. Right, So,
if USAID was being used to destabilize foreign governments for
legitimate US policy purposes, right, I mean, that would be something, right,
(20:42):
that's sort of the.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
Job of the CIA, Right.
Speaker 5 (20:46):
And so I don't know, I'm not a conspiracy guy,
and so you know, I'm certainly not implying that USAID
was some sort of obstitute of the CFO, who knows.
Speaker 4 (20:58):
But I don't have a problem with that, right.
Speaker 5 (21:01):
I mean, as a nation state, one of your objectives
is to create a world in which it is possible
for your nation state to exist as well as it can, right,
and you know far better that you would use trade
and economics and fiscal policy to maneuver and manipulate then
(21:26):
you know kinetic force, right, then you just have your
military march in and take over a country.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
Right.
Speaker 5 (21:31):
And so you know, if we are sort of buying
our way into influence around the world, well then no surprise.
I mean every country is trying to do that. Every
country with the means is trying.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
To do that.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
It's like the Chinese what they call it Road and
Belt or something program that they've openly initiated where they're
funding projects around the world in an.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Effort to increase their own influence. Right.
Speaker 5 (21:57):
And so if USAID was a part of a legitimate
US government program to you know, buy influence effectively or
affect governments in such a way that is better for
the United States, well then that's just sort of one
of the things that we do that the countries do.
(22:18):
And if it was done with oversight and if it
was done with forethought, and if we were saying, yes,
you know, we want to fund this sort of thing
in this country because we think it will improve the
lifestyle in that country as well as allow us to
have additional influence as the United States that country, then
I get it.
Speaker 4 (22:36):
That's what governments do, and you.
Speaker 6 (22:38):
Can, but I don't think that's what they're doing.
Speaker 5 (22:40):
Well that's right now, But what you're saying is that
they they're just rogue and doing that and have turned
that around and are now saying, well, we were so
successful in doing that with foreign countries, let's do it
with our own country. And so my immediate question to that,
I mean my question about well, who's my ending the
(23:00):
store romains?
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Right?
Speaker 5 (23:02):
Like, I don't want to hear one more congressman or
senator complain about us what us I D was doing.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
That was your freaking job.
Speaker 6 (23:11):
I don't know if you saw the thing with Musk
and Musk's kid. It was in the old office the
other day and they gave a.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
Forty minutes kid.
Speaker 6 (23:18):
He's got an X. The kid's name is X. It
is not it's X. It's you gotta see the video.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
He has a child and they named the several kids.
Speaker 6 (23:30):
Does he really listen? You have a friend Jim Vickers,
who was named all six of his kids after the
famous Oakland Raiders Jack Tatum.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
Makes more sense than naming a kid X.
Speaker 6 (23:41):
Yeah, that's that's a good point. But anyway, he's giving
this press conference.
Speaker 5 (23:44):
Trump is you didn't see this, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 6 (23:47):
Trump is sitting at the resolute desk and on the
other side you've got standing next to him is his
Musk with X's running around like a lunatic, you know,
give or take twenty six I think now he's like
four or five.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
Okay, all right, so fair enough. So four or five
year olds run around. That's what they do, all right,
So anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 6 (24:11):
And look he he basically say, he's talking about all
this stuff. He's talking about all the the DOGE activities
that are going on, and he he brings up this
thing about the millions for the condoms in Gaza. Okay, right,
(24:34):
and then someone one of the people fact checked him
on the spot. They said, actually those condoms were for
Albanian and his pickin I don't know what country it was.
And Musks was like, it's still a lot of money
for condoms and and but there's like such a gap
between the people who are in this elite who think that, yeah,
(24:59):
what they say makes sense, and the real world people
who say, fifty sixty million for condoms to anywhere doesn't
make any sense unless you're doing some sort of reproductive
program that you can tie back to a very very
tangible result. And it's still even with that, it's really
difficult to say that's good use of money when you
(25:19):
have veterans in the US who are homeless who can't
get basic you know, healthcare and and counseling. So and
put aside the poverty problem we have and the employment
problem we have and so. But there's just such a chasm,
a canyon between the one side and the other side.
(25:42):
And I think the side that thinks that you're making
a point by saying it's going to Albania as opposed
to Gaza doesn't quite get it.
Speaker 5 (25:51):
Well, that's unfortunately, that's the that we don't.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
Care, right.
Speaker 5 (25:56):
I mean, the issue is, at the end of the day,
the issue that we've been talking about for half an
hour here is where is your money, my money, your
neighbor's money, your mom's money. If you have kids, old
enough to earn a living, which I do. Their money,
where is their money going? And instead we're in this
pissy little ooh, let me fact check you on that
(26:20):
it was fifty million to this country instead of that
country for condoms.
Speaker 4 (26:24):
I don't know what a condom costs.
Speaker 5 (26:25):
That's never been the way that she family has done
birth control, so I've I've never purchased any, so I
don't know what they cost.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
But even if they're.
Speaker 6 (26:36):
Well, you just broke some news there, my friend.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
Well, yeah, I don't know what they cost, But so
do you do you happen to know?
Speaker 5 (26:43):
Like?
Speaker 4 (26:43):
Is are they fifty cents apiece? Are they a dollar apiece?
Are they ten cents apiece? I honestly don't know.
Speaker 5 (26:50):
I show suppose sitting in a computer, I suppose I
look it up. But even if they're a dollar apiece,
and I find it extremely hard to believe.
Speaker 4 (26:58):
That they are.
Speaker 5 (26:59):
You sent fifty million of those things someplace, and if
they're ten cents apiece, then you spent you sent five
hundred million of those.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
Things a lot somewhere.
Speaker 5 (27:14):
Okay, So first of all, I don't believe that. I
mean I would even if you say, well, it's fifty
million for condoms. I don't believe I got spent that condoms,
because that's enough condoms every man, woman and child in
Albania to have sixty of them.
Speaker 6 (27:25):
What do you think about this asteroid that's going to
hit earth in twenty thirty two? If you followed that.
Speaker 5 (27:30):
Well, our very talented producer sent me the article, and
I believe you know.
Speaker 4 (27:36):
I just love the media.
Speaker 5 (27:38):
And if you haven't figured this out yet, pay attention this.
This will help you. The headline is not the story, okay.
The headline does serves two purposes in this media day
and age. One, it's designed to get you to click
on the article, because that is now how the media
(28:00):
it's paid. It used to be that you had to
buy a newspaper or a magazine or whatever in order
for the media to get paid, and so they wanted
to produce a product that was worth you subscribing to
and giving them your money in advance with the understanding
that they would provide you with valuable journalistic insight. That
is not the case anymore, right, They only get paid
(28:21):
if you click on the story. So the headline is
first and foremost designed to get you to click to
the media has known forever. In fact, it's you know,
eight o'clock day one lesson one in journalism school that
you put the bottom line up front, right, you write
the story such that the main point is upfront, because
(28:44):
no one reads through an entire newspaper article. Once they
feel like they've heard the important part, they stop.
Speaker 4 (28:51):
So the journalists have always.
Speaker 5 (28:52):
Known that, and that used to be a guide for
them and how to craft their story. But what it's
a guide for now is how to get you to
believe their if they want you to believe. So the
second thing the headline does is sets the stage for
the narrative. Then they put their version of that narrative
and paragraph one, and then, in order to be able
to still take the position that they have some journalistic integrity,
(29:16):
at the very bottom of the article, they'll put anything
that runs contrary to their point, just so that they
can say they did right, because they know you're just
gonna read the headline that's going to set the stage
for the narrative. You're gonna read paragraph one that's going
to cement the narrative in your mind, and you're not
going to go any further and find out the real story.
And the countervailing facts. You're you're you're you're not gonna
(29:38):
do that. You're a human being, and they know that.
And so this article is perfect right because the article says,
you know that this asteroid is is, you know, hurtling
towards Earth, going to kill us all with all of
us and that and well in the and the odds
of it hitting the Earth have doubled.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
In the last month.
Speaker 5 (29:59):
Well, when you read the article, you realize they've doubled
from mike point seven percent to one and a half percent.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
Okay, so but it has it had gone up to
three point two percent.
Speaker 5 (30:08):
Yeah, and so here's the here's the truth. There's next
to no chance of this asteroid hitting the Earth. I mean,
if someone told you, hey, you have a three point
two percent chance of of you know, having a flat
tire this morning, are you not going to get in
your car? There's probably always a three point two percent
(30:29):
chance if you're getting a flat tire if not higher,
or of an asteroid striking the Earth if not higher.
Speaker 6 (30:35):
Listen, this is three point one percent. Was those were
the odds on Tuesday. Now two days later it's down
to one point five. But this is a three hundred
foot wide. Potentially, they don't know how big it is.
Asteroid that's called it like a city killer, because it's
going to set off an explosion five hundred times more
(30:56):
impactful than the one that hit Rocha, and and so
it could put it could put a lot of people
out of it just just out right knock a lot
of people out on December twenty second, right, twenty thirty two,
that's what it's going to hit. They know that, they
don't know that it's gonna hit, but they know that's
the data. It'll be, it'll be the impact will take place,
(31:19):
if there's an impact at all.
Speaker 5 (31:21):
Yeah, buddy, you know, I again I find it super Now,
maybe there are people, there are still people who wear
masks in their cars when they're by themselves, and so
maybe for those folks.
Speaker 4 (31:33):
This matters.
Speaker 5 (31:33):
I find it hard getting myself worked up over a
three point one percent chance of anything, and I just
I find it again.
Speaker 4 (31:44):
Everyone should go.
Speaker 5 (31:45):
To school on this on the way journalism quote unquote
now it works right air quotes. So NASA has no
idea how big.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
This asteroid actually is.
Speaker 5 (31:56):
It's so far away at this point, they can't even
tell how big it is. And yet it is a somehow,
it's a news story that there's a one and a
half percent chance that an asteroid of indeterminate size might
strike the Earth. And so you should be asking yourself,
(32:19):
You honestly should be asking yourself, why is this in
the news? I mean, it's even if it happens, it's
not gonna happen for seven years, and during that intervening
seven years will get much more information on this, and
you know, be able to prepare for it as need be,
or just completely ignore it as there is a ninety
eight point five percent chance, will be the right thing
(32:40):
to do. Why is this in my newspaper today? You
should be asking yourself that. And the answer is not
because it's important, not even because it's interesting, not even
because it's uncommon. What would be interesting is to hear
from NASA how many asteroids are there out there that
have one point five percent chance of heying the Earth.
(33:01):
I guarantee it's more than one. And and so you
should be single. Why is this in Your answer is
because a.
Speaker 4 (33:07):
Headline like that will make you click.
Speaker 6 (33:11):
And I clicked, clicked, and then I shared it with you.
Speaker 4 (33:15):
I clicked, And so.
Speaker 5 (33:16):
The institution which owns that U r L gets paid.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
You just paid them.
Speaker 6 (33:27):
Remember we talked about the five hundred pound rapper Dank DeMoss.
Speaker 4 (33:32):
Oh, that was the gal that couldn't fit in the
lift or whatever.
Speaker 6 (33:34):
Couldn't fit in the lift and the lift went away.
So there there has been a study done where this
is just an update. This is by way of an
update for the people.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
That Okay, I like it about this.
Speaker 6 (33:45):
But she she proved once and for all that she
could fit into a small suv. That's part of her
This is this is evidence, right, exculpatory, this is evidence.
But this week she uh, I guess she had a
mixed bag of a week because she went on some
podcast and she broke the couch so they had to
(34:07):
bring in a bigger couch for her to sit on.
But then she fit into it an suv. So she's
thinking that that is going to be dispositive evidence in
the case against Lyft and and probably in her view,
result in a directed verdict.
Speaker 5 (34:28):
Again, this is one of those things. But right at
the end of the day, you know, it's a money grab,
it's a you know, stunt. Everybody gets it. At the
end of the day, she's still going to be dank DeMoss. Yeah,
no matter what happens, that's who she's going to be,
and she has to live with that. And I don't
think she's very happy with that, but uh, you know,
(34:52):
I guess that's neither neither here nor there. I'm glad
she was able to squeeze herself in there, and I
hope she's happy. But but I mean, I think that's probably
as far as we could go, want to go, need
to go with this episode of this very fine program, right,
it has not been terribly uplifting. Folks have reached the
(35:16):
point where they're willing to sell everything they own to
confine themselves to a boat and then get kicked off
that boat.
Speaker 4 (35:23):
None of that's good.
Speaker 5 (35:24):
But I mean, if we're being honest, and that's what
we try to do on this program. We try to
be truthful, We try to be honest. None of that's good,
but we're not deterred. Right, We will come back next week.
We will try this again. Hopefully there will be something
that's good. If I were a betting man, I would.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
Bet on it.
Speaker 5 (35:42):
But hope, you know, Hope remains alive and springs eternal,
and we'll see where that little springing action Lands next week,
right here on IP frequently.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
This has been IP frequently, once again clearing a forest
of lies with the machete of truth.
Speaker 6 (36:06):
You're welcome.
Popular Podcasts
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.