Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 29, 2017 - No Agenda

03:04:34

899: Loyalty Test

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	No, it's not an O-O. It's an O. Adam Curry, John C. Devorak.
	It's Sunday, January 29th, 2017.
	This is your award-winning Get My Nation Media assassination episode 899.
	This is no agenda.
	Sliding between parallel universes with ease and broadcasting live from the darkest corners of the internet right here in downtown Austin, Tejas.
	In the morning, everybody, I'm Adam Curry.
	And from northern Silicon Valley, where I've got my duck call, I'm John C. Devorak.
	Yeah.
	Okie dokie.
	That was exciting.
	That was, yes, riveting, really.
	Ah, buongiorno.
	Hey, I'm speaking Italian.
	Buongiorno.
	Yeah, you're speaking Italian.
	Yeah, my Italian nephew is in town visiting me, Matteo.
	You guys going out and beating some thugs?
	Let's see what we've done.
	We did the typical go to a music store and buy a guitar.
	Play Stairway to Heaven a lot.
	And then buy a guitar.
	That's an Austin staple.
	He can play Stairway to Heaven?
	He's a very good guitarist, actually.
	Oh, why don't you record it?
	My favorite song.
	That's your favorite song?
	I don't think so.
	Well, it's a song, if everyone ever goes floating around with me, we go to a bar, there's a piano bar, there's a guy playing guitar, I always give them five bucks if they play Stairway to Heaven.
	It always brings the house down.
	It's true, though.
	And you often sing along with Stairway to Heaven.
	Hello, it's me.
	Stairway to heaven.
	And here I sit under the stool.
	And yesterday we went to the shooting range.
	So he's getting a full-on taste of Texas.
	So you pinched off a few rounds.
	Pinched off quite a few.
	We tossed some brass is what we did.
	But, you know, this kid is smart.
	He's 19, and you said maybe I would get lucky and I would get a rundown, a millennial rundown on what's happening in Italy.
	Oh, I did!
	I'm all ears.
	Yeah.
	Well, it's not good.
	His generation pretty much sees everybody older than them as people who only care about one thing and one thing only for all of Italy.
	Pillory.
	No, football.
	Soccer for us.
	Soccer?
	They do not give a crap about anything.
	As long as there's soccer on TV, everything's good.
	Are the kids or the adults?
	The adults are the adults.
	Are the kids?
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	That's what they've been trying.
	That's what the whole New World Order's been trying to promote soccer in the United States for.
	Right.
	Get us to be the same way.
	Right.
	Well, that's a good point.
	I hadn't even thought about the soccer angle to it.
	Goal!
	So I said, well, how about the economy?
	What's going on?
	What do you guys think?
	He said, well, we're screwed.
	So what do you mean?
	Well, the kids know very well that the only money that comes into Italy is from the European Central Bank, and the main reason they get a lot of money is because of their main business model in Italy, which is migrants.
	Everybody wants migrants because that's the only way we get money from the EU, and that money flows right into the economy.
	And we've discussed this, where if you want to, if you've got a house, or if you want to set up living quarters, etc., for migrants, you get 45 euros per day per migrant to do that.
	And from that, you give a couple shekels to the migrants, and the rest is a business model.
	That is not the thing that I found most interesting.
	It doesn't sound like a very good economy.
	It does or doesn't?
	It doesn't.
	Why would it sound like a good economy?
	That's dumb.
	Of course not.
	So I said, well, what's going on with the economy?
	He said, well, we obviously have olive oil.
	We have wine, although he says...
	Olive oil.
	Yeah, wait, wait, wait.
	He said, no, this is a 19-year-old kid who really knows what's happening in his country.
	I was very impressed.
	He said, but wine, we're going down the tubes because California now has the exact right conditions that rival Chianti.
	You would know better than I, John, but he says that seems to be problematic that they can't compete anymore with California wines.
	Are you disagreeing?
	I'm totally disagreeing.
	I'm just saying what he says, but here's the number one problem.
	He says...
	The Chinese.
	Oh yeah.
	This is the same in Spain.
	Yep.
	It says the Chinese are buying up the following.
	Football clubs.
	Milan.
	Inter.
	They're buying up the olive oil companies.
	And they're buying up almost every single fashion brand.
	Dolce& Gabbana.
	All of them being bought up by the Chinese.
	I mean, does that mean the Chinese kind of view Italy similar to Africa?
	Apparently, yeah.
	We'll build some roads, too.
	Yeah.
	And all the kids see it, and they're like, yeah, well, okay.
	So they all want to leave.
	They all want to get out.
	Where are they going to go?
	They're Italians.
	They're in Italy.
	Well, he's lucky.
	He has a dual citizenship.
	Now, Willow did a really good job, but she spent, I think, a better portion of a year getting all the forms and everything, because, you know, she's American, but they were both born in Italy, and she went through all the trouble, and she got them dual citizenship.
	They even had to, you know, do the little ceremony and wave their flag, and yes, I'm now a citizen.
	So they have lots of, you know, they have rights to come in here, if they want to!
	Which brings us to the topic at hand.
	Okay.
	And I was going to say something.
	Actually, before we start, we've been talking a lot about parallel universes, and again, there's just tons and tons of examples of people using these words in their speech.
	In fact, let me just start with Christiana Anumpur, who just rolls it out as usual.
	Look, seriously, Steve Bannon is playing the role that he set out for himself.
	There is obviously some kind of strategy here, although it's hard for me to comprehend it because, you know, I operate in the truth and the fact-based universe.
	You see, she operates in the truth and fact-based universe.
	It's getting interesting.
	How this is in the lexicon now.
	But there is a parallel universe, and I have proof, and it's frightening to me, and it should be frightening to you as well, John.
	You know how in a lot of these parallel universe, parallel worlds, multiverse theories...
	There is another Adam Curry doing a show.
	Maybe it's a completely different type of show, a different angle, but there could be multiple.
	And we have captured a different version of either you or me in a different universe.
	Is this the daily code source?
	No.
	Which would be the alternate version of your show?
	No.
	No.
	This is agenda no?
	This is from the Twit Network.
	Padre SJ. Another hour listening to the best podcast in the universe.
	That's according to 9 out of 10 virtual machines.
	You've used up another hour listening to the best podcast in the universe.
	That's according to 9 out of 10 GIS filters.
	Listening to the best podcast in the universe.
	Apparently, this alternative universe has been going on for a while.
	And he is us.
	Well, he needs to lose some weight.
	Okay.
	I thought it was a little frightening.
	Yeah, I saw that little Twitter thing going back and forth between you two.
	No, I wasn't tweeting him.
	Someone else was tweeting him.
	I had nothing to do with it.
	I thought you tweeted him or sent him something saying, yeah, it's okay, you can use our moniker.
	No, no, I did no such thing.
	And no, he's not okay.
	It was your alter ego.
	Yeah, it's not okay for him to do that.
	What happened to the thou shalt not steal?
	So he's been using best podcasts in the universe?
	Yes.
	Since when?
	Well, not before us, and he also claims that we stole it from him.
	That's not even possible.
	It is in the multiverse, John.
	Anything is possible.
	So I got into a little Twitter thing with going back and forth with...
	I found a number of good examples of this.
	With Jay Rosen.
	You were back and forth with Jay Rosen?
	Jay Rosen.
	So I call him out on something.
	He's over-tweeting something.
	Wait a minute.
	Are you the Twitter police?
	Hey!
	Hey, Rosen!
	You're over-tweeting!
	Funny is what he said.
	He says, you have the soul of a cop.
	Oh, that's fighting words.
	And I'm thinking, in the two universes, I guess on his universe, which he was on that other side, he's over on the globalist side, that's why I've divided it up.
	Yeah, so the No Nations, No Borders.
	That would be an insult.
	The No Nations, No Borders universe.
	No Nations, No Borders.
	That's a good name for it.
	No Borders, No Nations is the way it actually is.
	That is No Borders, No Nations?
	Okay, got it.
	Yeah, and so that would be an insult, but on the other side, it would be a compliment.
	Yes, of course.
	So you could say that you have the soul of a cop, and I could see it being interpreted as...
	In fact, I was going to tweet back, thanks for the insult slash compliment.
	We're straddling the two universes, which we try to do on this show.
	Now, with that in mind...
	I will read a note of one of the guys who quit the show.
	Oh, yes.
	We've had a number of these once again.
	Yeah.
	And it's always one thing or another.
	A lot of it is pent-up hostility toward the show because we refuse to budge on a number of points, global warming being one of them.
	Mainly, and I will just reiterate, global warming, the whole concept, everything is based on a computer model, And I'm on the ocean and there's no sea rising.
	I've got mudflats right here.
	I can visually see.
	It hasn't changed for 100 years.
	So where's the rising tides?
	I like the thing they had that excuse recently.
	Oh, it turns out there's no rising tides in the Pacific because Australia is acting like a giant sponge.
	Remember that story?
	There was also an article that came out, a Dutch scientific article, that says global warming can also actually produce lowering of sea level.
	Isn't this great?
	It's like, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
	Whatever it is, we're all gonna die.
	And that's another, you know, that's the new scientific, it's just what you do.
	Hey, it's not going my way.
	Let me see.
	And it's part of the globalist agenda because it's even got the word global in it.
	That's okay.
	We lose these people.
	I like that.
	You know, we are fighting against a machine.
	Yes.
	We're single-handed and single-handed, two of us.
	Two of us are fighting against a giant machine, and we have a lot of listeners.
	There's no doubt about that.
	But they also get mostly subjected to the machine, and the machine's better than we are because it's bigger.
	And the machine is nipping at our heels.
	I looked at the spreadsheet today, and of course, the common comment we get is, well, if you stop being the Trump Protection Podcast, maybe your donations would go up.
	I'm going to speak on my behalf.
	We have been doing the same thing with the same attitude.
	Of course, the show has changed.
	And if it's not sustainable, first of all, I'm not getting any checks from anybody except for you.
	And if that's going to dry up, we're going to have to go find something else to do.
	I'm not going to compromise.
	It's with great sadness and a feeling of real loss from Scott M. The great sadness and a feeling of real loss that I unsubscribe from your email list.
	This is after I sent out one of the best emails ever, according to most people.
	Yeah, which of course brought in very low donations.
	The good newsletters, no response.
	The ones that get big donations is subject line, hey!
	Hey, hey, there's more money.
	Okay.
	When we give actual content, actual content, nah, not so much.
	And so then he goes, because you see these guys, there's a subtle repressed anger or something, because it goes like this.
	It's not even subtle, John.
	Every line starts with, I'm quitting, I'm out, I can't believe.
	Let me read it.
	In truth, I've never opened that many of your emails, although I did enjoy the ones I read.
	I have also cancelled my subscription to the show.
	I will miss you, John.
	I have been a fan since I heard you on Twitter.
	I can still remember the show when you guys came up with the name.
	I think I was using Podcast Pickle at the time.
	I stopped listening to all those shows I subscribed to all about Android Twig because I didn't like how you were treated near the end, and I thought that not only were you treated with disrespect, but that Leo condoned it.
	I think Leo and some of the other younger people owe you a great deal for helping to pave the way for them.
	Enough of that!
	Why am I quitting the show?
	There are several reasons.
	Reason number one.
	Global warming.
	I don't really care whether you believe in global warming or not.
	The truth is that we're making an unbelievable mess of this little ball we live on.
	We may stop or most of us will die.
	Either way, the results will be the same.
	Two.
	Guns.
	I'm Canadian.
	I've used guns.
	I've used them to target, shoot, and kill things.
	Both of these things I did with long guns.
	I don't see the need for handguns other than for law enforcement, etc.
	The proliferation of small, concealable guns just leads to more dead people.
	If you want to protect yourself, your home, nothing works better than a 12-gauge shotgun.
	Pretty much what I've always said.
	Haven't we said this forever?
	A shotgun is the best.
	The shell goes in here.
	Joe Biden says that.
	Yeah, you point in the general direction.
	It's always going to be okay.
	I don't know what his complaint is here.
	Because he ends it.
	He's repressed.
	There's something going on with him.
	Something in his personal life.
	Three.
	This is the one.
	Trump.
	Enough Trump already.
	Tell that to the mainstream media.
	I stayed with you through the election.
	I wish you had the same time limit.
	We do.
	The non-US segments of the show are so few and far between that, frankly, I lost interest.
	I know you wanted more Canadian news.
	Yeah.
	I know it is important even for Canada, but enough already.
	My biggest concern is that I think you've become an echo chamber of two.
	Oh, yeah.
	Maybe, just maybe, not all the people that have left in the last six months because you were Hillary supporters, were Hillary, because they were Hillary supporters.
	Maybe the show just wasn't meeting their needs anymore.
	I know I've been an infrequent financial supporter in all the months.
	That boils it down.
	In all the months that the focus has been your election, I felt it wasn't necessary.
	I took the time to write this because I hope it's helpful.
	I wish you, Adam, and your families all the best.
	May you enjoy health and happiness.
	If you ever had a Victoria, B.C. meetup, I'd be very grateful for the chance to meet you.
	No, you're banned.
	You're banned!
	No, he took himself off the mailing list.
	How am I supposed to get a hold of him?
	Right.
	Thanks for all the years of listening.
	I will check in in the future.
	Scott M. in Sydney, B.C. So, you know, I was disappointing.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you know, if you don't want to listen, I don't know if you have to send these notes.
	They're actually kind of subversive.
	No, those notes are, and I don't want to talk about it, actually.
	I'm kind of done.
	But those notes are meant to engage you.
	I believe they're actually trying to get you to say, yeah, you're right.
	We should talk about long guns in Canada and no Trump.
	And I think I replied to him, hey, man, you should do a podcast.
	It's easy.
	Yeah, that's always a good...
	Anyway, moving back into...
	There's something else going on with this parallel universe.
	We are in a fractal of repetition.
	Of course, fractals are repetitive.
	We can almost predict...
	Everything that is going to happen, because it started with, oh yes, we're living in the times of 1984.
	Now, you'll recall that we were discussing this book maybe eight years ago.
	Of course, it's not like a new book.
	And we were comparing it to what was happening at the time.
	And now we have people...
	And I think that, obviously, we have quite a list of books that were parallels to the time we felt...
	Certainly in the past 10 years, I don't know if that's changed, but when you hear what is going on in the corporate media, well, listen to this.
	few days.
	This is in 1984 being the number one book on Amazon, which I think is also demonstrably not true, but it doesn't matter.
	Right now to number one.
	It's been number one for a few days now, and it's actually sold out on Amazon.
	So the publisher, Penguin, tells me they're rushing to print more copies of the book.
	The reason why people are associating alternative facts with 1984 is because in that book, all about Big Brother and surveillance, there's this idea of...
	...newspeak, that war is actually peace, that famine is actually feast.
	The idea that words and language are manipulated by this all-powerful ruler.
	So, obviously, lots of differences between then, that fake book, and now, that fictional book is resonating with lots of people.
	It's not the only one.
	Today on Amazon, Sinclair Lewis says, it can't happen here.
	Now, okay, so let's just predict.
	Garden of the Beast will be the next one that'll be selling like hotcakes.
	I mean, these are all the books on the No Agenda Book Club.
	And Poppy Harlow, who is listening to this, she is, I don't have to say it, an idiot.
	About a fascist takeover of the United States is actually number four.
	Maybe it'll creep up to number three and join 1984 on the list.
	A few other books with similar themes are all on the Amazon bestsellers list.
	This is clearly, at least in part, a reaction to Trump's presidency.
	I would assume mostly liberal readers buying these books, wanting to read these fictional stories about what can happen in a place like the United States.
	What's that?
	Do we know of any Ayn Rand books?
	What an idiot!
	That is good.
	She clearly has never read Atlas Shrugged, or you'd never say that.
	I'm looking at the Amazon site right now.
	There are plenty of copies of 1984 available.
	It's not sold out.
	Of course.
	But do you see what's happening?
	It's like all these things that we've discussed when there was a different administration are coming back almost in sequential order.
	Yeah, it's pretty much the same order.
	It's true.
	It's baffling.
	That's why I say Garden of the Beast.
	What other books did we have?
	By the way, The Can't Happen Here is about a socialist government taking over, not a fascist government.
	I know, that's what's so...
	So why do you want to switch that?
	They're talking about alternative facts.
	Fact check false.
	Oh yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, it's getting kind of kooky.
	And then this has to be just my favorite thing that was done.
	I mean, everybody is, you know, of course we have all this worry about Donald Trump.
	And we might as well throw some scientists in there.
	They got the big March for Science coming up, I believe.
	And everyone's going to participate with Neil deGrasse and Bill Nye up front.
	They'll be the leaders of this movement, I'm sure.
	And, of course, we had this happen.
	The board concludes in no uncertain terms that words matter in ensuring the safety and security of our planet.
	Can you guess what this is?
	This is some bullcrap about global warming 97% of all scientists in the world.
	This is the doomsday clock.
	They are not the same as actions, but they matter a lot, especially when the risks of accident and miscalculation are so high.
	The first has been the cavalier and reckless language used across the globe, especially in the United States during the presidential election and after, around nuclear weapons and nuclear threats.
	And the second is a growing disregard of scientific expertise, expertise that is needed when it comes to responding to pressing global challenges, including climate change.
	The board takes the unprecedented step, the first time in its history, of moving the clock hand 30 seconds closer to midnight.
	Oh, no.
	Does it ever move the other way?
	It is now two and a half minutes to midnight.
	Two and a half minutes to midnight.
	This is the same bullcrap clock that was going to kill us all, if you remember, in the 70s during the population bomb.
	Well, no, no, I don't.
	Was it the same clock?
	No, it was 8 o'clock, a very similar clock, and it was a couple minutes, and it was going to hit midnight at the year 2000.
	Well, that didn't happen.
	But it didn't because of Y2K, and it jumped back to 1970.
	Should have!
	Y2K took us back to 1900.
	So the Doomsday Clock, that is a, if I understand correctly, is a project of the atomic scientists, I think?
	Because they keep the atomic time.
	Concerned scientists, I think.
	I think it's concerned.
	Look it up.
	Concerned scientists.
	We should look at that.
	Maybe a concerned atomic scientist.
	It'd be concerned atomic scientists.
	Let me see.
	Doomsday clock.
	I thought it was the atomic guys.
	Well, it could be a concerned, some concerned group.
	Is there a concern, these people?
	No, there's lots of concern.
	Let's see, here we go.
	Has been maintained by the members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board.
	Oh, I thought it was concerned atomic scientists.
	No, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board, who in turn are advised by the Governing Board and the Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel laureates, These are serious guys, man.
	You can't question that.
	I have a question.
	Okay.
	I just said you can't question that.
	If there's two and a half minutes left, what is the overall...
	What measurements are we dealing with?
	Two and a half minutes already happened.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	It's clearly...
	You understand.
	What's the two and a half minutes?
	In what...
	Universe is this tune.
	Is it 100 years?
	Is there not a saying, it's two minutes to midnight?
	Is that a song?
	I think it's...
	Maybe it has something to do with Cinderella.
	No, it has something to do with...
	I know there's an Iron Maiden song, of course, but two minutes to midnight, I thought that that was...
	Oh, here it is.
	Let's see.
	No, that's also just a song.
	Wilson Pickett.
	No, Iron Maiden.
	It's an Iron Maiden song.
	Anyway.
	But it's just more of the same.
	Be afraid.
	Be very, very afraid.
	Be afraid.
	Be very afraid.
	Everything that's happening.
	Wrap yourself if you can.
	Although I do have clips, I also spent, and I'm very happy, I spent a little bit of time going through the executive orders, the presidential memoranda, everything that has been released so far.
	And I've discovered some interesting things.
	New things have come to light, man.
	New shit has come to light, man.
	I'm telling you, for reals.
	But maybe we should start off with the most recent news, which kind of just came out of nowhere.
	And it was very evident to me within maybe 16 minutes where these airport demonstrations came from.
	And we also have a producer, Dewey from D.C., who was boots on the ground and went to Dulles Airport.
	And recorded some of the protesters that were there.
	Yes, and it was quite telling, actually.
	This is a point for you.
	I think you will like it.
	Would you like to run through a couple of these?
	Actually, I'll start with the one that is...
	Well, before we do that, let's get the backgrounders from the big news networks.
	Yes, good idea.
	So we have a little bit of this, you know, kind of, you know, we kind of get a feeling for the whole thing.
	I got two clubs.
	We can start with Trump's ban on CBS... Okay, Trump's...
	Wow, your upper and lower case was fun today.
	Against terrorism, he said.
	President Trump's ban was announced on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
	Critics online were quick to remember Anne Frank, the young writer who was killed in a concentration camp after the U.S. denied her family a visa to escape Nazi Germany.
	Yeah, it's a side note, but there's a lot of anger about this Holocaust Remembrance Proclamation because the Jews were not specifically mentioned, and that, of course, is an outrage.
	Well, there's a couple of things that I got a kick out of.
	The next clip, by the way, is the fiasco at Kennedy, and we'll be done with that.
	But I do have to mention something about the San Frank thing, which they've all thrown in as a meme.
	There's two interesting things I saw.
	By the way, all the networks are still using the gold doors every time they show Putin come in the room.
	Putin!
	So they talk about Anne Frank, and they said she would have been, they refused her entry, she would have lived and become a great writer.
	Right now, today, she'd be 79.
	Who was doing this?
	Who was saying this?
	This is Democracy Now!
	They're going on, and she would have been a great writer, and she would have been 79 if she was allowed in the United States.
	Now, again, we have the duopoly here, the two ways of looking at this.
	One, this is terrible.
	This woman could have been a great writer, and we're obviously, by keeping these refugees out, we are losing a lot of good writers.
	We're hitting them for the sitcoms.
	We've got to bring them in.
	The other one, the way I looked at it, I said, oh, that was the Roosevelt, a Democrat administration, if I'm not mistaken, that kept Anne Frank and killed her.
	So you could take it from both sides.
	Tell me about the Roosevelt administration.
	What did they do to Anne Frank?
	They refused her entry in the United States when they applied for a visa.
	I did not know this.
	They tried to sneak...
	Yes, that's what Ann Franklin was all about.
	Ann Franklin's document that she tried to get in the United States and the United States government, Franklin Roosevelt's Democratic Party, said, no, we don't want any extra Jews over here.
	But they don't really make that a big point.
	No Jews for you?
	Really?
	Yeah.
	What a dick.
	Yeah, totally.
	Oh, man.
	So Anne Frank became kind of a meme, but only the one side of the meme shows up in the mainstream media, and that side is the side that, oh, you know, it was terrible that they did that, and now Trump's doing the same thing.
	Rather than looking at it fully objectively and saying it was Roosevelt and the Democrats are just as guilty.
	If not more so, it's Anne Frank after all.
	Well, the accusation is you didn't mention the Jews specifically, therefore you're an anti-Semite.
	And then the response from what I understand from the Trump administration was, well, they didn't just kill Jews, they killed gypsies and gays, and so we wanted to be inclusive.
	We want to be inclusive in our death notice.
	Thank God.
	I mean, come on.
	You can expect this.
	All right, here we go.
	This is the fiasco at Kennedy's.
	CBS again.
	All right, fiasco at Le Kennedy's.
	These were detained.
	New York Congressman Jerry Nadler says all had valid visas and were aboard flights when the executive order was signed.
	More now from Kenneth Craig at Kennedy Airport.
	And as you can see, opponents quickly organized here at JFK Airport in New York.
	Protests erupted as federal authorities scrambled to figure out how to enforce the ban.
	Supporters at JFK cheered as one of the two men detained overnight was released.
	Iraqi Hamid Khalid Darwish has a special immigrant visa thanks to his work for the U.S. government.
	I support the U.S. government from the other side of the world.
	But when I came here, they said, no.
	And they treat me as if I break the rules or do something wrong.
	On Friday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that puts a four-month hold on all refugees settling in the U.S., a 90-day ban for visitors from seven Muslim-majority nations, and a block on all Syrian refugees indefinitely.
	We're going to have a very, very strict ban, and we're going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years.
	Hmm.
	Now, this Darwish guy, by the way, is a big Trump.
	I think he works for the White House.
	He's like a Trump guy.
	They left a part out where he says, you know, I like Donald Trump.
	He's a great guy.
	But he's the only guy that got out in time for the deadline.
	Well, there's a number of things going on here that are troubling.
	One, this executive order, according to the Federal Register, is dated tomorrow, January 30th, 2017.
	So none of this should have happened?
	I don't believe so, no.
	And I'm still not convinced that something actually happened at the airports.
	All we have is the instigators of these protests, the ACLU, which you'll hear in a moment, who had a very coordinated campaign before this...
	Executive order was published.
	CNN had a copy.
	That's the only copy I have.
	All orders about immigration are all dated January 30th for tomorrow, and they're also dated that way in the document itself.
	So I'm not quite sure exactly what happened, but...
	The point was being made.
	Really, it's messed up, dude.
	People with green cards are being stopped at the border.
	And I would like to mention something about that briefly.
	A green card is not some kind of full-on license.
	You're not a citizen.
	You're not allowed to vote.
	It is permission to stay and work in the United States.
	And you are on probation.
	For the duration of your green card.
	I know because I've had brought two people into the country legally and you're on probation.
	If you are arrested for certain crimes, deportation is imminent.
	So, yeah, you're not allowed to, you know, you can't mess up.
	So it's not like you're a citizen.
	You can't vote.
	You are welcome.
	You are welcome to work, to stay, and to pay taxes.
	That just has to be said up front.
	Now, when you come in with a green card, you can get questioned.
	In fact, you probably do get questioned.
	Just check and see how you're doing.
	I've seen this many, many times.
	I think that's what happened with Darwish.
	And conversely, I do want to remind everyone that I was barred from traveling to the European Union, the Schengen Zone, with valid documentation, which they decided, oh, it's not valid right now.
	So that's new rules, not valid.
	So this is not like some crazy thing that never happens.
	But let's listen to some of the protesters.
	Now, here's a note from our producer Dewey from D.C.
	It says there's about 200, 250 people at the Dulles Airport protest.
	Mostly disorganized, but there was at least one small group there with a laptop, Facebook chatting.
	They looked organized, and they were the ones starting a bunch of chants.
	Um, and he has a couple of these clips.
	Uh, there were maybe one or two news crews, look kind of like local news.
	There were a handful of lawyers there in casual suits and name tags that said, attorney, offering free immigration counsel.
	Uh...
	And here's some of the chants that were being organized there by the people with the laptop.
	There you go.
	You build a wall, we tear it down.
	And then we have this one.
	That is let them in now.
	Right.
	But here's the one that kind of gives it away.
	There is the ACLU chant.
	They're just blatant.
	Who is organizing this?
	The ACLU, obviously.
	We have the two lawyers.
	I have them as well.
	This is the same people who organized Occupy Wall Street.
	And they're using the same stupid crap.
	We are Muslims!
	Mic check!
	Doing the mic check, John.
	Hello!
	Hello!
	Five years ago.
	Mic check, mic check.
	Now why would they do that?
	Other than...
	They're all the same people.
	Thank you.
	A couple more of these protest chants.
	Welcome to the USA. I'm not quite sure what the purpose of that one is.
	This one, of course, an oldie but goodie.
	That's love, Trump's hate, make America great.
	And again, back to the ACLU. This has got to be the most un-American thing you can ever say.
	Let them see their lawyers.
	No, no.
	Who comes up with that?
	Let them see their lawyers.
	That's a gem.
	Isn't that beautiful?
	Let them see their lawyers.
	He has the attorney name badge.
	Another one.
	The people who have the green card or our permanent residents who have already landed cannot be deported cannot be deported I like the chant, if you have a green card or permanent resident status, you cannot be deported.
	That's not law.
	Sorry.
	You can be deported.
	You can be deported.
	Easily.
	Easily you can be deported.
	And if you're in violation, rightfully so.
	But of course, Muslims are welcome here.
	Now, before moving on to any other chants, this This is the most troubling part that came out of this as I was scanning through all the channels immediately is even though and I think we talked about it
	one or two shows ago where I was already hearing people saying, well, you know, it's a it's a seven country band organization.
	I don't think they even knew it was seven countries at the time.
	It's a country ban.
	But, you know, that's just a watered down version of a Muslim ban.
	No, it's not.
	But here is the representative care, the Council on Islamic American Relations, They're subversive and they're very closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
	Well, they were convicted, I think, or implicated as a front group for terrorism, for terrorism financing.
	Yes, absolutely.
	They are now in the lexicon.
	Here we go.
	Joining me now, Zahra Abilo, Executive Director for the Council on American Islamic Relations, the San Francisco chapter, joins us live from there.
	Zahra, good to have you with us.
	First, how do you see the message that Donald Trump is sending with the signing of this executive order?
	What do you think that message is?
	Thanks so much for having me, Eamon.
	Honestly, the message feels like national security theater.
	They're targeting a number of countries where we haven't seen terrorist attacks happening in the United States connected to those countries.
	And still, he pushes forward this rhetoric of this makes America safer.
	In reality, what it is, is a Muslim ban.
	No, it is not a Muslim ban, and I'll tell you why.
	The country with the most Muslims in the world is Indonesia.
	There is no ban on Indonesia.
	Sadly, there's also no ban on Saudi Arabia, which I find to be, you know, kind of dumb.
	That would have really been a line in the sand.
	Say, you know what?
	Screw you guys too.
	And now, even though we're not really supposed to talk about it, now the actual terrorists who came and brought down the towers are still allowed to come.
	It's...
	It's...
	A brain freeze you get from it.
	Of course, this is nothing new in 2011.
	The Constitutional, and that could be where this order gets stayed.
	Well, look, this is also not unprecedented, by the way.
	I mean, Barack Obama put a pause for six months on refugees coming from Iraq back in 2011.
	I don't remember protesters, and I don't remember lawsuits.
	So I think the bigger question, if this is a temporary pause, which is designed for us to improve and look at our vetting processes and indeed temporary, I don't necessarily think that's an outrageous idea, but the bigger question should be implementation.
	Did you get it right from the start?
	Okay, so it's nothing new, but of course, we're going to get a new noise about it, because it is not President Obama doing this.
	And I do want to point out that having read the executive order, it is a completely legal order, so I'm not sure why...
	Why ACLU is claiming it is not, as this order builds on U.S. Code 1187, the Visa Waiver Program, specifically Section 12A, which by name mentions Iraq and Iran, that they can be banned at any time, or of course any other countries, That the Secretary of the State or the President deem as necessary.
	So it's entirely legal, as far as I can tell.
	Oh, man.
	Are we protecting Trump too much, John?
	You've got to stop me if I do that.
	Bastard.
	Okay.
	But...
	Wait, wait, wait.
	What?
	I wanted to wrap it up.
	Here, let me stop you there.
	When you go, am I protecting Trump too much?
	This to me...
	Is a pause in your clippage.
	And it allows me to interrupt and drop my own clip.
	Good.
	Go for it.
	The way I saw it, it was a cue.
	This happened in the last two or three shows.
	You miscue me, and you've been doing it consistently.
	And I'll tell you why.
	You guys are bickering.
	You're bickering.
	No, we're not bickering.
	Somebody's miscueing the other guy, and that is you.
	I'll tell you why.
	Because you have stepped up asking me questions.
	You say, what?
	Can it not be like this?
	Can it not be like that?
	But when I do it to you, you take it as a cue to do something else.
	So, you know, it doesn't matter.
	No, but that's not what you did.
	You didn't ask me a question.
	Well, you did.
	I did ask you a question, specifically.
	The last time, wait a minute, just to get into bickering mode.
	The last time, you yelled at me for asking you a question that you needed to answer, but it wasn't a question.
	I made a statement, and I made it clear it was a statement.
	Let's hear your clips.
	And that would be...
	No, I don't have...
	No, because you have some...
	Obviously, you're in a continuation mode, which you didn't let me know.
	And you finish your continuation mode, because mine's a sidetrack.
	Let's hear your clips.
	I have one clip.
	Okay.
	This is the H-1B Visa clip.
	Now...
	This came into the conversation with all this crap.
	And it's Silicon Valley whining and whining.
	And this has been...
	Silicon Valley has relied on H-1B visas.
	For a long time.
	To get cheap labor from India to replace American workers.
	So Trump is going to do something about that.
	There's a guy at UC Davis, we've talked about him before, I can't think of his name offhand, very famous guy, debunked all the H-1B arguments.
	It's always about the same thing.
	You bring in some cheap guys from India, and you put them into places of Americans, and they work cheaper, and they're just as good.
	So let's play the H-1B visa story on CBS. Twisted, it's twisted.
	Rena.
	Jonathan Vigliotti, thank you.
	Well, the president's ban on refugees is sending shockwaves to the U.S. tech industry.
	Carter Evans has more on this.
	Are they hiring refugees?
	I'm sorry?
	Are they hiring refugees and so it's sending shockwaves?
	Yeah, of course.
	Waves to the U.S. tech industry.
	Carter Evans has more on this.
	The president's aggressive immigration agenda has Silicon Valley preparing to take on Mr.
	Trump at issue H-1B visas.
	Companies rely on them to recruit top talent from around the world.
	Jessica Levinson is a law professor at Loyola University.
	The immigration policy, and particularly this visa program, I think is very much on the table.
	My guess is that it will be changed, and it is very much up in the air.
	Currently, the U.S. grants visas to 85,000 foreign workers a year through a lottery.
	But a draft of a proposed executive order published in the New York Times this week suggests change is coming.
	The administration wants to consider ways to make the process for allocating H-1B visas more efficient.
	How do you think New York Times got a hold of a draft?
	Is that something that was leaked to them specifically on purpose?
	What do you think that was about?
	There's two possibilities.
	One, they have somebody in the Trump administration passing these things around.
	I have an idea who it is, yeah.
	Okay, or it could have been leaked on purpose to see what pushback they get in advance.
	The administration wants to consider ways to make the process for allocating H-1B visas more efficient and ensure that beneficiaries of the program are the best and the brightest.
	They will be enforced and enforced strongly.
	Just how the administration would do that is what concerns Mike Grandinetti, chief marketing officer at Reduxio, a digital storage startup.
	We're looking to recruit at least 10 engineers.
	10?
	We can't afford to slow down.
	We can continue to stay ahead of the big guys.
	More than half of the country's startup companies.
	This is the best they could do.
	Ten guys.
	They had some guy on a screen, a Skype screen, and he runs some company no one's ever heard of, and he's hiring ten people.
	Is Jason Calacanis an angel in that company?
	Sorry.
	One word.
	Yes.
	At least ten.
	I wish Drenner invested, but I didn't have.
	Digital storage startup.
	We're looking to recruit at least ten engineers, and we can't afford to slow down, to continue to stay ahead of the big guys.
	More than half of the country's startup companies, worth more than a billion dollars, were founded by immigrants.
	Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is from South Africa.
	And two of the world's largest tech companies, Microsoft and Google, also have immigrant CEOs.
	In a statement, Google says it's concerned, a feeling now prominent in Silicon Valley.
	They call the CEO of Microsoft an immigrant.
	What is his name?
	The Indian guy.
	But they make it sound as though the guy just came over on a rowboat, and he's now running Microsoft because he's a genius.
	On the face bags, it's all a picture of Steve Jobs.
	It's like, Steve Jobs is an immigrant from Syria.
	It's not true, but...
	No, he's not.
	But he was like, okay, Steve Jobs was abandoned by his Syrian father, just kicked out of the get out of here.
	So that's the kind of people we're dealing with?
	Is that the point you're trying to make?
	Again, you have the two dimensions.
	Oh, totally.
	Totally.
	But I can tell you, though, in one dimension, you think H-1B visa is a problem?
	No, no, no.
	The real problem is coming up one of these Sundays.
	Oh.
	The effects of the ban have even hit Hollywood.
	Reports say Iranian director Asghar Farhadi, a nominee for Best Foreign Language Film, may not be able to attend the Oscars.
	Oh, the humanity!
	That Oscar show is going to be just one big bitch fest.
	It's going to be horrible.
	Well, tonight we have...
	We have Miss Universe tonight, which will have a lot of message in it.
	Oh, yeah.
	Are you going to be on the beat?
	Well, only if it's a request, because I thought I retired from this.
	Yeah, I think this is an important time for you to be brought back in.
	I do.
	One more protest chant for us here.
	Can't build a wall!
	Hands too small!
	Can't build a wall!
	Hands too small!
	Can't build a wall!
	Hands too small!
	I like that.
	It's funny, but this is, again, this is shaming.
	This is the kind of thing that these people are supposed to not do.
	It's insulting, shaming, it's appearances, it's giving somebody crap about their appearance.
	It's like the Cheeto face, the one that Judd talked about.
	It's an embarrassment to the left and the causes that they say that they're so important.
	I would like to, for just a moment, talk about the executive order that discusses the wall.
	Of course, there's outrage abound about this wall.
	It's crazy.
	It's insane.
	So I read the executive order, and the executive order states very specifically that this order is based on previous existing law, and that would be the, I would say...
	The mislabeled Secure Fence Act of 2006.
	And based upon that law and the initial funding, which I think was underfunded, it was about $1.2 billion that the Congress, and this was signed by George W. Bush, Went through Congress, was passed in the House of Representatives in the Senate, and the President signed off on it.
	And of course, it was largely ignored by the administration after that.
	But the executive order does nothing other than say, oh, you know, this order, this Secure Fence Act...
	It has not been completed as it has to be, so we're going to do this, and oh yeah, we'll need more money.
	I do want to mention, specifically, the Secure Fence Act was probably written with that title to make it sound...
	You know, softer, because the act itself does not speak of a fence or, you know, with a fence, I get like Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn visions of whitewashing the fence, you know, painting the fence.
	No, a physical barrier is the terminology.
	The Secure Fence Act of 2006's goal is to help secure America's borders to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats by building 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border.
	Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial devices to reinforce infrastructure along the border.
	That is what actually happened with the money.
	All of those douchebags with, you know, the L3 and all those, you know, DHS, the Chertoff group, they took that money and they said, oh yeah, we have drones and infrared cameras, which I am against as a border protection.
	You can have some of it in addition.
	But it's too easy to create windows.
	You know, that's how the drugs come in.
	Yeah, the cameras will be pointed north by northeast at 1130.
	You know, you have about 15 minutes before they swing around.
	Whereas you get some physical people in, things change.
	But again, from the Trump Protection Department, he's using existing law.
	I see no issue.
	Philosophically, you can have an issue, but I see no issue.
	Certainly not from a legal standpoint.
	At all?
	Yes.
	But don't take it from me, because I don't know what I'm talking about.
	Let's listen to people who apparently know much more than I do, and that would be the two ACLU lawyers who came out amongst the crowd as heroes to proclaim they had done something.
	We asked the judge to hold everything in place.
	We believe this executive order is clearly unlawful, but what we said to the judge is we understand she may need time to figure that out, to block the removal of everyone nationwide who's been caught up in this unlawful executive order.
	She agreed.
	The government may not send anybody back Until she finally rules, everyone now who came is safe.
	And that is absolutely critical.
	As Anthony said, the courts work the way they're supposed to work in our country.
	The president could not override the courts.
	They have to be let go.
	Everybody has to be let go tonight.
	They don't have to be released from detention.
	We have asked for the names.
	She ordered the government to give us the names.
	See, they don't have to be sent back.
	They are also not being...
	Whoever it is, apparently...
	They're not being released from detention, he said.
	Yes, that's correct.
	Well, that's no good.
	I thought they were supposed to free these people.
	No, this is a small victory, obviously.
	This is a small victory.
	But again, as he says, they don't even know the names of these people.
	We don't know if anyone is actually sitting there.
	We really don't know.
	It's just all of a sudden, a day before this is signed officially into law, the way I understand how the Federal Register works, based upon a draft, ACLU is out there with crowds chanting, chanting their ACLU safe space, Occupy Wall Street garbage, airbag.
	Yeah.
	There are probably a few people that do have jobs and they have to work on Monday.
	Some.
	Well, let's continue.
	The weekend.
	I know most of them don't.
	Let's continue with this.
	That's bigoted to say that.
	But the weekend's easier.
	The weekend is much easier, but, you know, to do that.
	So, yeah, better than Monday.
	You're right.
	They don't have to be released from detention.
	We have asked for the names.
	She ordered the government to give us the names, which is critical because the government has not allowed them to see attorneys.
	We cannot find everyone.
	They're all over the country.
	Once we have the names, we will painstakingly go through each one on the list and go to the government and try and get them out of detention while the court process proceeds.
	But the critical point tonight is no one can be sent back.
	To one of these countries.
	People who've never had a passport cheering.
	What's critical is that the judge understood the irreparable harm that would happen to individuals who would return back to their countries.
	These are individuals who've been granted visas.
	Some of them are green card holders.
	They are lawfully here in this country.
	And just because this order was executed yesterday, they've been caught in this limbo.
	And so the judge wants to make sure that these individuals are not harmed.
	See, he says the order was executed yesterday, but maybe I'm just wrong about how the federal register works.
	If it's signed and supposed to go into effect at a certain date, maybe when they signed it, that's executed, but it doesn't mean it goes into effect.
	They're lawfully here in this country, and just because this order was executed yesterday, they've been caught in this limbo.
	And by the way, for many years we've known, and everybody who is in...
	It's concerned about your personal security and your personal effects and your rights.
	We've been through this several times.
	When you arrive at the United States border, even if you are a United States citizen, before you are let into the country, you have no rights.
	You have no rights.
	You have no rights to do anything.
	I don't like it, by the way.
	I've been blocked at the border so many times, and they can search your stuff, they can do anything they want.
	You have no rights.
	I think that once you step foot on the United States soil, you're in the country, as far as I'm concerned.
	Until you go through the gate, officially, you're not on U.S. soil.
	That's the same with an embassy.
	I know, I don't like it either.
	I think it's un-American.
	But that is just what's been happening, and you've got to take that up with the Obama administration, Department of Homeland Security, who started doing that.
	They've been granted visas.
	Some of them are green card holders.
	They're lawfully here in this country.
	Just because this order was...
	You're lawfully here, but you're on probation.
	...
	yesterday.
	They've been caught in this limbo.
	And so the judge wants to make sure that these individuals are not harmed, that they stay on American soil, that the government is forced to walk through an argument of whether or not they get to stay.
	And it's a remarkable moment, because clearly, this is an enormous setback for President Trump's executive order.
	Oh, that's the number one thing that's important.
	What I expect him to say is, this is clearly a victory for people who are being persecuted unfairly.
	Instead, he says, this is clearly a victory against that orange douche.
	An enormous setback is the word.
	Yeah, yeah, well, yeah, setback.
	So they're preoccupied.
	That's what their target is.
	They don't care about these people.
	They only care about Trump.
	That's correct.
	That's exactly it.
	That's why it's top of mind.
	And it's a remarkable moment because, clearly, this is an enormous setback for President Trump's executive order.
	We already have a federal judge issuing a stay, a hold, on that executive order for individuals who already are on American soil.
	It's the first day that we get to fight back and make sure we can use the courts to ensure immigrants' rights in this country.
	Okay.
	Immigrants' rights, I don't think, are being violated yet.
	I'm not a lawyer.
	Here is Democratic Representative Adam Smith.
	And he has.
	He also is trying to propagate this as being a Muslim ban only.
	Muslim ban, which, I'm sorry, it is not.
	But you understand, Congressman, why a lot of Americans believe extreme vetting of refugees coming into the United States will protect them.
	I think in large part it's because people aren't aware of the vetting process that already exists.
	And again, they're not aware, apparently, of the fact that we have not had terrorist attacks from refugees.
	I think that may be a stretch.
	He says specifically refugees.
	We don't have that many refugees in the country yet.
	They've had them in Germany, they had terrorist attacks from refugees.
	In France, they've had terrorist attacks from refugees, more or less.
	But Germany, for sure.
	My understanding is there have been, I've seen two numbers, 18 or 25,000 people who have, under existing rules, have been stopped who were deemed to be terrorists coming in to be up to no good.
	But for him to say no refugees, hmm.
	But certainly the wife of Omar Mateen, though not a refugee, she was certainly here as a guest on a waiver.
	And by the way, just as an aside, Poland.
	Poland cannot get visas to the United States.
	Poland.
	Are they not one of our strongest allies?
	Do we not have 5,000 troops now in Poland?
	Do we not have tanks in Poland?
	Poland, not a part of the visa waiver program.
	Poland, not allowed to just come into the United States.
	Well, there's a bunch of conspiracy theories about why that is.
	Well, back to Adam Smith.
	...of the vetting process that already exists.
	And again, they're not aware, apparently, of the fact that we have not had terrorist attacks from refugees.
	Gosh, you think of all the shootings that have gone on in the U.S., most of them have been committed by U.S. citizens.
	So we have a strong vetting process in place already.
	So the outright ban, again, sends that anti-Muslim message that I don't think is going to be helpful to U.S. interests.
	It's not an anti-Muslim bill.
	Nowhere does it mention Muslim in the memorandum.
	Nor does it mention that anywhere in the bill that the memorandum is based on.
	Well, now there's a number of pieces of fallout.
	I don't know if you have anything else, because I'm going to go to Sanctuary Cities for a moment.
	I only have one clip if you have anything for that.
	Uh, I do have...
	While you're looking, it's...
	The Sanctuary Cities is all a part of the same executive order.
	Oh, I didn't...
	Oh, that's interesting.
	Why don't you go on with that, and then I'll...
	Yeah, we gotta...
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay, so the Sanctuary Cities, the way they work, I'm gonna try and paraphrase as much as possible, and Austin...
	We've had a lot of clips about this.
	I think we know...
	Well, you know, people are very forgetful.
	Um...
	The sanctuary cities are cities that have decided they will not tell the federal immigration officials, ICE, about any illegal, as the law says, illegal alien, that's what the law states still, about any infraction they have occurred, I believe unless it is, you know, murder.
	I think murder is at the point where they might, even though in San Francisco...
	Not so sure.
	Well, New York is also interesting.
	Mayor Bill de Blasio was defending New York as a sanctuary city.
	And as the counter to this, the administration has said, look, if you're not going to follow federal law, and I think this falls under nullification, if you're not going to follow that, if you're just going to pick and choose, you're not going to choose these, that's fine.
	Clearly the federal government cannot force the state what to do in this regard, but they can turn off funding.
	This is the old gambit that the conservatives have always complained about with the education system.
	which is that once you get in bed with the feds, once you get in bed with the fed, you end up being at their mercy.
	And this is the trap that has to do with the state's rights versus the fed.
	Yes.
	And all these cities are all in bed.
	They get all this money for roads.
	And this is a bunch of tax money stolen from the public and then given back is what it amounts to.
	So what do you think would be the cutoff, the type of crime that would be a cutoff, For a...
	Well, for Bill de Blasio, specifically, to tell the feds about an illegal alien or not.
	What crime...
	What is the lowest crime...
	I can think of a bunch.
	Rape, I think, should be reported.
	I think armed robbery, burglary, along those levels.
	Most of these kind of middle-sized felonies, for sure.
	Not a parking ticket.
	Well, let's see what the mayor of New York says.
	Your new sanctuary city law that you approved in October 2014, the city of New York shields from the feds undocumented immigrants who commit what are deemed to be lesser offenses, but they include drunk driving and grand larceny.
	Why shouldn't the city of New York comply with federal law in this area?
	If you're a drunk driver and you're an undocumented immigrant, why should there be a place for you in this country?
	Jake, there are 170 offenses in that law that are listed as serious and violent crimes that lead to automatic cooperation between the city of New York and our federal partners.
	So any serious and violent crime, we're going to work with them.
	Someone commits a minor offense.
	For example, right now, if you didn't have clear definitions like we have, let's say someone had a small amount of marijuana, let's say someone went through a stop sign, they could be deported for that And their family could be torn apart.
	And you could have children left behind where the breadwinner in the family is sent back to a home country.
	That is not good for anyone.
	So we differentiate.
	Anyone who's violent, anyone who's a serious threat to society, we agree.
	We'll work with the federal partners and they get deported.
	But we are not going to see, with half a million undocumented people here, this would be true for 11 to 12 million undocumented folks in this country, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding, We're not going to see families torn apart over a very minor offense.
	Is grand larceny or drunk driving a very minor offense?
	Drunk driving that does not lead to any other negative outcome I could define as that.
	Wow.
	I don't think I'm okay with that.
	Drunk driving?
	As long as you don't kill anybody, it's okay?
	This is new?
	Yeah, that's a tough one.
	He should probably drop, that argument should probably be pushed down a little bit more.
	Yeah, but it just shows you the thinking.
	As long as he didn't kill anybody, he's just driving drunk.
	I mean, hey, you know, they finally got some alcohol in them.
	They're enjoying America.
	Yeah, you know, I have mixed feelings about all of this because they will take that same argument in some other venue and then use it differently.
	Well, of course, of course.
	This liberal wishy-washiness is kind of annoying.
	Well, the real worry, of course, is the dairy industry, who apparently use a lot of illegal workers, and the articles I'm reading say, well, you better get ready to pay more for that ice cream.
	Get ready to pay more for that frozen yogurt you like so much.
	Yeah, this is the kind of bulk.
	You know, it reminds me, when I was taking my tour of Holland with Jan Aylman, who took me up to the whole country, I got to see everything, including that obscure Van Gogh museum out in the middle of nowhere where most of the paintings are.
	A giant chicken truck went by.
	A big giant truck with chicken.
	Some sort of Dutch chicken.
	And I said, I see a lot of these trucks, they make a lot of chicken here.
	He says, yes.
	He says, the Dutch have the most advanced automated chicken facilities in the world because we've got no Mexicans.
	That's what he said.
	So we had to automate.
	He says we had to automate because we couldn't get anyone to work in these chicken factories, and now we have this outrageously modern chicken facility that is just all robots, I guess.
	That's great.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's all indoor.
	You don't see anything.
	Same with the cows.
	You know, the...
	Hay goes in the front, and chicken and cows come out the back.
	You don't know what's going on in there.
	Very secretive.
	Very, very secretive.
	Then I have one more piece of research I want to share, and then we should go and thank some of our executive and associate producers, associate executive producers, regarding repeal and replace.
	A big, you know, a lot of comments.
	Certainly from people who are accusatory of the program.
	I say, well, you know, there is no replacement for the repeal.
	There is no Obamacare replacement for the repeal.
	And I think that we already discussed that Rand Paul, who is a doctor, who is a part of the committee making the replace legislation, released at least his plan, which is Senate Act 222.
	And I found something incredibly interesting in this proposed legislation.
	But first, let me run through some of the highlights.
	What I'm seeing a lot of is making it easy for health-saving accounts, which I don't know if you remember, but I had one of those through Mevio.
	I think it was like $2,000, and the way it worked then is you get a credit card, which goes through your company, because you can only do it through a company.
	You couldn't do it privately.
	That's going to change.
	No.
	I'm telling you, in the legislation, it's being proposed, okay?
	No, I'm just saying you could always do it privately until Obamacare came along.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Yes.
	Excellent point.
	And that's where the gotcha is that I found.
	Thank you.
	So all of that's being turned back.
	Now it'll be up to...
	So my problems were...
	Every single payment you made for anything, you had to prove, you had to send in receipts, you had to scan them, you had to email them.
	Like the poor doctors have to do now for everything when you show up.
	Yeah, I think the doctors do even more.
	And they would reject things.
	And really, the only thing you're getting from it, which is not to be discounted, is that money is tax-free.
	So it's $2,000.
	It's right off the top.
	There's no taxes being paid on.
	It's like an IRA. It's like an IRA. The proposal is a tax credit of up to $5,000 per HSA, but also removes the maximal allowable annual contribution So individuals may make unlimited contributions to their health savings account.
	Removes the HSA plan type requirement to allow individuals with types of insurance to establish and use the HSA. So it will no longer be restricted the way it was.
	Also will allow for prescription and OTC drugs, which was not always allowed.
	You will also be allowed to use that tax free money to pay for your insurance premium.
	This is huge.
	No.
	That has never been there.
	There will also be bankruptcy protection to the full extent of the law, which is not 100%, as previously under Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, which I read.
	By the way, this is why I'm doing this.
	I read that whole thing.
	We knew what to expect, more or less.
	Under the Affordable Care Act, where is it here?
	I was talking and then I... Oh yeah.
	If you go bankrupt, then your HSA account could be seized under the replacement as proposed.
	While some states have passed laws that exempt HSA funds from being seized in bankruptcy, there's no federal protection for HSA funds in bankruptcy, but the government's going to try to protect you as much as possible.
	The federal government will try to protect you from that.
	It'll also allow periodic fees paid to medical practitioners for access to medical care, can be used for prepaid physician fees, direct practice, concierge medicine, really anything.
	Really, the restrictions have just been lifted.
	Now, a couple of the things in Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, were touted as the big marketing message.
	And this is the one that I didn't realize, and it kind of blew me away when I learned.
	And that is, well, I think the...
	The three main selling points of the Affordable Care Act were 20 million people who don't have healthcare will now get healthcare, which is not healthcare, but at least they have healthcare insurance.
	This...
	This is now going to change to be an expansion of Medicaid under the proposed plan, which makes sense.
	So the states can then deal with that as they want.
	But the two other selling points were your kids can stay on your plan until they're 26, which I always thought was just additional money.
	I never thought, oh, thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thanks, Obama.
	Because, you know, you got kids who are out of the house at 21.
	They probably won't really have health insurance for the first five or six years because the jobs they're getting, the places they work, it may not offer it.
	So I think it behooves the insurance companies to at least have some money because, you know, being on your parents' plan doesn't mean it's free.
	You're just on your parents' plan, and it could be $500 a month extra.
	So to me, that was always like, yeah, okay, great.
	So the insurance companies want to get that group that's kind of hanging out there before we suck them into our system.
	The third was pre-existing conditions.
	Now, this is still touted, certainly on the face bag, as the most important piece of the Affordable Care Act legislation.
	This is not a cue I'm asking you.
	Do you think that's true?
	Was that a big piece of it, like a revolutionary act?
	Yeah, it was the main thing.
	That's, I think, what all the protests are always about.
	Because those are the sob stories.
	That's how you sell the thing.
	Well...
	Oh, you know, I had breast cancer.
	No, I got, let's say, some condition.
	MS. Yeah, I have MS, and I need all this help, and I need medication, and then I got bounced from my insurance company, and so I didn't find another one, and the new one wouldn't pay for any of this because it's a pre-existing condition.
	Right.
	And these stories were always used to...
	They were good stories.
	They were accurate, and I think it's true.
	And so we're going to have a big, giant fund...
	Because everyone's supposed to be all gooey and wants to all be in on this deal.
	There's more than enough leftover money.
	Just look at the profits of the insurance companies to pay for these poor people that have these situations.
	We should help them.
	Very socialistic, by the way.
	Well, very similar to what you pointed out, that the Affordable Care Act removed a lot of these great benefits of The health savings account, which was clearly done to behoove the insurance companies.
	Let's not make that easy for them.
	We don't want people paying their own way.
	We want them on the scam.
	Well, as a part of the replace, I did not know this.
	When the Affordable Care Act came into existence, the pre-existing conditions protection replaced A 17-year law under HIPAA, known as the HIPAA Pre-existing Condition Protection, which guaranteed those within a group market could contain continuous health coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions.
	So, I didn't know this.
	But you had pre-existing conditions protection.
	What's the definition of a health market?
	Ah, a group market means anything but private.
	So if you are part of a group health insurance plan through a company or AARP or you could even be the ham radio club, any group market coverage is It was always
	there.
	It may be implementation issues here.
	In what manner?
	It's like, well, yeah, but this group came in after the HIPAA thing was passed.
	I mean, these guys are always looking for the out.
	Especially the insurance company.
	Well, no doubt.
	No doubt they were looking for an out.
	Yeah, made another rhyme.
	But I'm a little pissed off about that.
	Rhyming today.
	Yeah.
	That's pretty outrageous.
	They made it look like, we've done something beyond, never heard of before.
	You have cancer, you get health insurance.
	It was always like that.
	Well, apparently it wasn't for everyone.
	I don't know that.
	Well, I don't know it either, but they didn't give it to people.
	Let's put it that way.
	I don't know that either, John.
	I'm sorry.
	All I heard is a bunch of people...
	I don't know it, but when you hear a million people come out moaning and groaning about how they...
	And they're on the news crying about how the insurance comes...
	It's the same people, the same privileged people, who are...
	This is about privileged people thinking that everyone else is getting screwed and believing that.
	I'm not completely on board with this.
	We will find out a lot about HIPAA because we have a lot of people in the field who understand this.
	And what I would like to know is what are the big differences between the HIPAA pre-existing conditions protection and the Affordable Care Act pre-existing conditions protection.
	That's what I'd like to know.
	So to wrap it up, though, to skip that part, is this a good...
	Did you look this over?
	You thought it was a good idea?
	You think Rand Paul's on to something?
	Maybe this would be the good replacement?
	It'd be better than Obamacare?
	Because the fear, according to everything I've heard, all these people talking and yakking about it, is that...
	It will end up still costing more.
	Somehow the insurance companies will still scam the public, and so they're reluctant to jump on board with anything because they have to study it to death.
	Okay, here's my conclusion.
	I have it marked up, actually, in the show notes, 899.noagendanotes.com.
	A couple of things that are done here.
	As I said, increasing state flexibility, For Medicaid, that is the idea for poor people, which Medicaid is.
	Medicaid is intended for poor people.
	They will also be instituting flexibility to conduct Medicaid waivers.
	That is, you know, regarding poor people, that's all I see.
	So is that really better?
	I don't know.
	It depends on how much you make available and what the states do with that money.
	I do like the self-insurance protections.
	You will now be allowed to have a stop-loss insurance.
	As an employer, which is interesting.
	You couldn't have that previously.
	What does it even mean?
	Okay.
	So what you do is you have a small company.
	You have 10 people.
	I'm going to provide you with some health insurance.
	It'll be, you know, it's really on the business owner himself.
	So you can do that.
	You can say, all right, here's what we're going to do for you for our health insurance plan.
	You don't necessarily have to be insurance company, but you only do that along with a stop loss insurance, which means if you got hit by something like, you know, some multiple cancer person in your company, and it's a huge bill, then you can have certain like almost like disaster insurance, I guess. then you can have certain like almost like disaster insurance, That wasn't allowed under the Affordable Care Act.
	So it's pushing back responsibility, accountability back onto the people, and the way they want to make it cheaper, of course, is by removing all of the interstate commerce for insurance companies between states, obviously trying to break up this monopoly.
	Which I think is what needs to be done.
	Now, will this result immediately in lower costs and will it shake out?
	No, I think that takes a while before a market understands based on supply and demand.
	How is any of this going to save any money if the thing is a collusive arrangement between the insurance companies and the drug companies so they can rack up the price of the drugs and the insurance companies then pay them more money so they become a bigger company because they have to charge bigger premiums to pay for this Drug companies and they still only, well, we only make 2% profit.
	I mean, the scam to me has always been that collusion.
	It's got nothing to do with anything else.
	That, I don't think, is addressed.
	That doesn't address anything as far as I'm concerned.
	How would you propose addressing that?
	Medicare for everyone.
	Medicare or Medicaid?
	Medicaid is not...
	It has nothing to do with Medicare.
	Right, so what is Medicaid?
	Medicaid is for poor people.
	And it's something of a scam if you really look into it, Medicaid.
	They take your property and they try to make you pay anyway.
	It's the American way, man.
	What's your problem?
	Medicare is socialized medicine for people over 65.
	Ah, okay, right.
	And everybody likes it.
	And people will vote their representatives out of office if they take it away.
	And the Democrats like to ridicule the right, the right-wingers, because all the old retirees who are Republicans always say, you can do anything you want, but you don't touch my Social Security or my Medicare.
	And those are two socialized systems.
	And the Democrats like to point and laugh at saying, oh, those Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites.
	They don't want this.
	They don't want that.
	But here, when they have it, they like it.
	Well, we'll see what happens.
	I personally was surprised about the HIPAA pre-existing condition protection.
	Yeah, that's what we need, verification.
	Because that was really, you know, that was such a huge selling point, you know, just like the HSA accounts, they were just swapping things in and out.
	So, we'll see what else comes.
	Of course, there will be amendments and all kinds of things will be happening.
	I'm happy, though.
	The one thing I like about this administration, they're publishing.
	They're publishing, they're getting stuff out, and I can read it.
	It's also, maybe it's just my, could be my imagination, it feels like the language used is not quite as lawyery as it typically is, or that it was for the past eight years.
	There's much more simple language, there's not I mean, wow, man.
	Some of these Obama executive orders would be references to 15 different pieces of legislation.
	You have to find each individual paragraph.
	That seems to be a lot easier here.
	And there's also preamble, which seems a little more conversational.
	Good for me, because guess what?
	I'm not a lawyer.
	I'm just a guy who reads and Googles a lot.
	According to...
	Well, let's play this last clip before we skip to the end.
	Yep.
	This is Brooks.
	Brooks and Shields are on the PBS. It's my number one annoyance because they're supposed to have these two guys that are arguing about stuff that are supposed to be from different perspectives.
	But both are from the exact same kind of Democrat, globalist, New World Order agenda.
	Brooks is supposed to be the Republican and Shields is supposed to be the Democrat.
	But Brooks is a Trump hater.
	It makes no sense.
	They should get rid of him.
	He makes plenty of money at the New York Times.
	He doesn't need to be doing this gig.
	And he's beside himself doing this gig.
	And now, unlike these other guys who say that Trump is lazy, Brooks says he's doing too much work and he's a maniac and he should be shot.
	I'm sorry.
	No, I'm sorry.
	I was good.
	Yeah, I thought you cued me, but clearly...
	I did.
	The smallness of his preoccupation about the size of the crowd, which he keeps returning to in a rather bizarre fashion.
	How do you see this first week, David?
	We were here a week ago together, and it feels like a century.
	And I wonder, over the course of his presidency, can he keep up this pace of news and busyness and conflict without just exhausting everybody?
	And I will say, among business people I've spoken to, among political class, and among Republicans on the Hill, just a great sense of being unnerved.
	Unnerved at the instability.
	Partly he's done what he said, as Mark said.
	He's undermined the post-war international order pretty quickly.
	Tearing down TPP was a bill that I think economists say would have produced hundreds of billions of dollars of earnings every year for Americans.
	Play the bullshit, Cliff!
	Picking a fight with their second biggest export market.
	Very unnerving.
	I don't see the...
	But then I think the two other things I'd say is...
	The general sense of chaos and incompetence in how you do it.
	Okay, you want to pick a fight with Mexico.
	Do you have to do it by tweet?
	Do you have to put forward a proposal that would have Americans paying for the wall and then sort of withdraw it and then sort of not withdraw it?
	Do it in a way maximally designed to polarize Mexican opinion against the United States?
	And then the final thing is I'm left wondering how much of this is real.
	Okay, he signs a series of papers that Steve Bannon and others wrote for him.
	But who's going to implement it?
	Does it make any sense?
	We saw that with the Syrian ban in the discussion early in the program.
	How much is the government just going to let him sign papers?
	And then it just goes along their merry way.
	Bullshit!
	Now, this guy is just horrible.
	And let me mention one thing that we have to put back on the...
	Because people seem to be ignoring this.
	Trump, nobody wanted the TPP, the Democrats or the Republicans.
	It was so bad on the Democrat side that Hillary had to change her mind.
	She had to say, I don't like it, yeah.
	And she was all for it.
	She thought it was one of the best things ever, which he harped on.
	So the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, how come all of a sudden guys like Brooks say, well, I would have brought billions and billions of dollars to Americans somehow.
	This is a secret agreement.
	We have to remember this.
	No one has seen this agreement.
	It hasn't been published.
	There's been bits and pieces of it.
	You read some of it.
	But the stuff about all the way the sovereignty of the country being violated by corporations and the rest of it, where corporations have a bigger role in the world than countries do, and all the rest of it.
	There's no economist who's actually seen the entire document to say that it's going to bring money or nothing.
	It could bring zip into the country for all we know.
	Right.
	It's crazy to put that on his, to throw that at Trump as a bad thing when everybody on both parties, both parties, thought it was something he had to discard.
	And he discarded it.
	And now it's bad.
	Yeah.
	According to Brooks.
	Yeah, of course.
	How does that work?
	How does that work when Hillary thought it was bad too?
	Because those guys are the true Trump derangement syndrome people.
	Yeah, well.
	You heard this one, huh?
	It's annoying.
	It's very annoying.
	Meanwhile, and then we'll get into our break since you brought up Mexico.
	Former President of Mexico, Vincente Fox, he did have something to say about Trump.
	This is a former guy.
	He hates Trump.
	He hates white people.
	No, no, no.
	Please, please, don't say that.
	Because that's Trump style.
	We're not paying for that wall.
	Not now, not ever.
	But let me say, yes, we are being harmed.
	We don't like that.
	By white, a U.S. CEO sitting on the presidential chair.
	A white U.S. CEO sitting on the presidential chair.
	There you go.
	It doesn't get called out for that obvious racism.
	Because the people who are talking to him are all on board with white guilt, white privilege, white old dudes.
	They're all on board with it.
	White men are more hated than Donald Trump.
	Well, according to some people, white women are getting in that same position.
	Last clip that I have.
	Alright.
	This is Joy Reid at the DNC. You're on my way!
	They have this meeting of all these people.
	You can have other clips.
	I'm sure this is not the one you have.
	They have all these people.
	They all want to be the head of the DNC. And it's called Dem in Color meeting.
	They do not want Whitey.
	The Democrat Party is actually going to Kind of become a minority, just only Latinos and blacks and Chinese.
	White Democrats are going to be in our camp pretty soon.
	Yes.
	With old white guys.
	Yeah.
	Okay, well let's play this and you'll hear a good example.
	This is actually beautiful.
	So there is a blowback of epic proportions from the very same people who brought you white privilege.
	These people are now being ousted because of their white privilege.
	That's fantastic.
	America.
	Six in my reliance on statistics.
	I'm going to come back to even more statistics because I do love a number.
	And the reality is that that sounds really good, and you all sound very ecumenical, and I think that's important.
	Ecumenical?
	Hmm.
	What does this word mean?
	Ecumenical.
	They're all, they're all, it's a kind of, it's a term that refers to a bunch of people with different opinions, slightly different opinions, but they're all kind of in a larger agreement.
	Oh.
	Hmm.
	Sounds really good, and you all sound very ecumenical, and I think that's important, but we also know that racially polarized voting is the reality in the United States, and that's just a fact, right?
	And that Democrats have invested heavily in trying to win over, and the Clinton campaign invested heavily in trying to win over, particularly white college-educated women.
	They invested their resources there, and my question, which all of you very skillfully evaded, was whether they made a mistake.
	In not devoting more resources, who are very direct and Jamie, who are very direct.
	So I'll come to those who didn't answer that directly.
	I think Jamu and Jamie said, yeah, they made a mistake, right?
	But I'm going to come back, Sally, to you again, because the question is whether or not the DNC... The DCCC, the DSCC, and the Clinton campaign were in error in devoting so many television commercials to our kids are watching, not enough television commercials to African American radio, as Keith Ellison said.
	So many resources to trying to win over white voters in Arizona and poach additional Republican voters based on Donald Trump's poor standing among Americans, and not enough in GOTV in Cleveland.
	Whether or not that was an error.
	I definitely think that the way that those resources were targeted didn't work.
	We didn't win the election at the end of the day.
	Oh, thank goodness we have an end of the day.
	Now she's the one who says they've got to tell Whitey to shut up.
	That woman that's at the end.
	Never in all these conversations...
	and I'm done.
	Do they ever say, you know, maybe we had a flawed candidate?
	No, of course not.
	Why would we say that?
	It's everyone's fault except the candidate.
	Our party, us, we couldn't have done it wrong.
	It's because of hate.
	Now it's the white college educated women who voted mostly for Trump that are like, why we'll just ditch them because they're no good.
	We should have gotten more black votes out.
	sigh That's unbelievable.
	No, it's completely believable, sadly.
	Well, we welcome all the white women, then.
	You two are now shunned.
	Hey, Whitey.
	Welcome to Whiteyville.
	Shut up.
	I think whites should not be allowed to vote.
	Let's do that.
	Let's even it out.
	Give us 40 years of no votes.
	We'll even it out.
	It'll be fair.
	And with that, I'd like to thank you for your courage and say in the morning to you, John C, where the C stands for Chicken Truck Dvorak.
	In the morning to you, Mr. Adam Curry.
	In the morning, all ships at sea, boots on the ground, feet in the air, subs in the water, and all the dames at night.
	And in the morning, too, all of our artists who are happy to contribute to the program as part of their value for value.
	It's the noagendaartgenerator.com.
	For episode 8, 9, or 8, Chain of Lies, we had a nice piece of art that came to us from Comicster Blogger, who brought us the, that was the crazy tangerine.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it was nice.
	It was a joke with a punchline.
	It had meaning.
	It had related to the show.
	It was good.
	It was good.
	And thank you to everyone who does that for us.
	Noagendaartgenerator.com.
	In the morning to the chat room.
	Chat room, I do want you to know that you're all comedians.
	You're all very funny.
	When new listeners come in and they listen to the stream and they see you in the chat room, that's part of the reason why we get the Trump Protection Squad thing going here.
	Because a lot of you are rabid.
	Stop it.
	Now let's thank some people, John.
	They're rabid what?
	They're like crazy over-the-top Trump supporters.
	They are?
	Yeah, there's many of them in the chat room.
	Sure.
	As you know, I don't go to the chat room.
	No, but as you know, I'm there because sometimes they're helpful as a producer and they give me corrections, information, and stuff that we need to know.
	I know that's your theory.
	Okay.
	Ow!
	Here we go.
	Hi, John and Adam.
	This is from Brad Walker in Spring, Texas.
	He's the one and only executive producer for the show.
	We don't have a lot of contributions for some reason.
	I think, hopefully, I'm hoping that everyone's just waiting for show 900, which is next show, and they're going to donate because they didn't donate.
	Even though I put a note on the newsletter saying, hey, we didn't get no donations here today.
	And we weren't.
	And we didn't.
	That didn't help either.
	Oh, email to follow with accounting.
	OK, but this will complete my long journey to nighthood, plus some to account for PayPal's cut, some to get extra money in doing my preliminary tax review.
	I discovered we had moved into 33 percent tax bracket, which means you're doing well.
	And though this must surely be a sign to donate and complete my night with, yes, 33.
	I've been donating with the 1212 monthly for a few years, now with a couple of 50s mixed in, love the show, and all the insight, the two of you weekly bum...
	The two of you add to the weekly bombardment of propaganda from the MSN, MSM, due to my love of collecting and drinking, mostly drinking, red wine.
	Please dub me Sir Red Beard Knight of the Uncorked Bottle.
	Oh, okay.
	Like a LGY to the head and can you see the juice?
	And just so you know, there's never a corking fee here at the No Agenda Show.
	Yay!
	Oh my gosh!
	Can you see that juice?
	You've got karma.
	Oh, Corkage.
	Corkage.
	Okay, Corkage.
	Corkage fee.
	Roderick Lenhart.
	Oh, we have, sorry, two executive producers.
	That's right, two executive producers and one associate.
	Roderick Lenhart, 33333.
	And it's Lenhardt Roderick.
	That's what it looks like.
	ITM Gents from Glorious Charlotte, North Carolina.
	Epicenter of the worldwide debate on who can pee where.
	I want to thank you for your continued hard work deconstructing the media.
	And more and more, as more and more outlets are silenced, either directly or indirectly, programs like this are even more essential.
	They were silenced because somebody will cut off their advertisements because they're going with advertising and they...
	They maybe have something that offends an advertiser.
	I'm not going to...
	I don't think...
	And there was somebody out in the audience who would yak at an advertiser saying not to support.
	This is the problem.
	Don't you think?
	Yes, of course it is.
	Programs like this are even more essential to maintain an even stream of quality information.
	I was afraid you might be a little light on donations for $8.99.
	Hey!
	Day!
	Nailed it.
	Given the triple producer credit on $900.
	So here's some loot.
	Thank you.
	I want to call out two boners.
	Ready?
	Is it boners or douchebags?
	I don't have a boner.
	Yeah, he needs douchebags.
	Okay.
	We don't have a boner thing.
	Okay.
	Ken and Rick.
	Douchebag!
	Ricky, I guess, who love the show but have yet to donate.
	Please give me a Yoko Mon.
	Thank you.
	Get out of my vagina.
	Look at all the juice and too delicious to believe.
	Thanks again.
	Soon to be night, Roderick.
	All right.
	I think we can handle that for you.
	By request.
	Hit me now!
	Get out of my vagina!
	Oh my gosh!
	Can you see that juice?
	It's almost too delicious to believe, my friend.
	Karma.
	It's a new favorite.
	Well, it's my favorite.
	Sir Fish, $209.
	Sir Fish here, fantastic shows lately.
	No other source is reporting what you guys do.
	Why?
	Who knows?
	However, I do like the globalist versus the nationalist hypothesis.
	Thank you for correcting our donors' grammar.
	Sorry.
	It's really nice of you.
	Why not?
	Now, is this in the same note?
	Because I can't tell from my spreadsheet.
	What I have is book report, must read, Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society, 2009.
	It explains it all.
	So we should put that in the book club.
	I've not read that.
	Have you?
	No, I haven't, but I've always been a fan of Sowell, even though he's a jerk.
	He...
	When I was writing an op-ed for the San Francisco Examiner, he was also coming in through the syndicate.
	But he'd never take a call or he wouldn't talk to anybody.
	He's just kind of a very standoffish guy.
	What a douche.
	But his stuff, his material is fantastic.
	He's black and everyone won't bring him up as any sort of a character to talk to.
	I think part of the reason is he may be irascible.
	And not interested in doing, so you never see him on a talk show.
	Okay, well, you never see us on a talk show either.
	Yeah, you're on the guy's talk show all the time.
	What talk show?
	Infowars.
	Infowars, The View?
	No.
	Okay, you know what I mean.
	I found the...
	You had agents that might help.
	Someone sent me a version of the Michael Jackson MSNBC clip.
	Finally got that.
	I put it in the show notes.
	Is this the one you somehow, this valuable clip that you somehow lost in your archives?
	Yeah, it's worse because this is, it's the clip, but it's the clip where we're also talking over it, but it's cut down.
	You want to hear it?
	It's 50 seconds if you want to hear it.
	I always liked that clip.
	This is when Michael Jackson passed away.
	MSNBC called me.
	It's a long clip where they talk about MTV and all this bull crap.
	I mean, there seems to be an insatiable appetite for this.
	Yes, absolutely.
	And I'm amazed as you're showing the footage, and everyone seems to be showing the footage of these rehearsals just two days before his death.
	Here's a guy who clearly was in great physical shape.
	He had 30, 40 concerts coming up in the O2 Arena in London.
	That's a huge production.
	You have to be preparing yourself a A year in advance, at least physically.
	You can't put on a show like that without an enormous insurance coverage, which includes a tremendous amount of physical testing.
	So I'm amazed at what happened, and I know that there's breaking news about some form of medicinal drugs that were found in his home.
	Quite frankly, I'm amazed that no one is looking at a murder angle on this.
	Well, we shall see.
	There's much more time on this.
	Like a long pause.
	Fregnant pause.
	Boom.
	And I was out.
	Yeah.
	They start the clip music.
	All right, we shall see.
	And I never heard from him again, ever.
	No, you're not invited back.
	I don't think I'll be much of a pundit, ever.
	I do want to thank Fred and Lynn for playing the game.
	Of course I'm not playing the game.
	I might have to, though.
	You never know.
	That was our last donation for the Associates.
	It's Lynn and Fred.
	They sent me...
	I don't know if you got anything from them.
	They sent me a beautiful...
	I have to take a picture of this.
	A Dutch Delft blue...
	It's kind of like a little plate.
	And it's made in Delft.
	It's made in the Netherlands.
	Hand-painted with a little Delft blue design in the middle of a windmill.
	And it says, coins of the Netherlands.
	And it has all the old Dutch Gilder, the Gilder denomination.
	The two and a half Gilder, the 50 cent, the 5 cent, 10 cent, 25 cent, the Gilder.
	It's a nice little piece.
	I guess you didn't get anything.
	Based on your response, you didn't get anything.
	I don't have the name of the producer who sent this because it's downstairs, but he sent me a bunch of podcasting buttons.
	Did you get the podcasting buttons?
	No, I didn't get a podcasting button.
	There's a big giant button.
	Ask me about my podcast.
	I'll tweet it out.
	You've probably got something coming.
	It says, unless you send them all to me, expecting me to send half to you.
	It says, hello, I'm a podcaster.
	Ask me about my podcast.
	I need them.
	That's fantastic.
	All right, everybody.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you to our executive producers, our associate executive producers.
	Short list today.
	Also, it'll be a short list for 50 and above, which we'll be doing later on.
	But this is part of the system, the way it's supposed to work, value for value.
	If you find value, then you return the value any way you can.
	And we, again, thank our executive and associate executive producers.
	Remember, another show coming up on Thursday.
	Dvorak.
	Maybe you could take some of the information you learned on today's show and go out and propagate the formula with it.
	Our formula is this.
	We go out, we hit people in the mouth.
	Order! Order!
	Shut up, slave!
	Shut up, slave!
	Just take your man's run.
	Just take your man's slave.
	That's right!
	Remember to take your meds.
	I was watching a C-SPAN and they had one of those little meetings that I love when they have them.
	There's one of these kind of think tank organizations and they have these experts up there.
	And they have just usually a bunch of professionals in there asking them questions back and forth.
	I just thought this was interesting because it just confirmed everything we said on the show and something that the mainstream media refused to even discuss.
	Which is the IC report, the intelligence community report on the Russian hacking, with the one disclaimer in there, the NSA, saying they had moderate confidence.
	This is a guy who's an old CIA guy.
	He used to be the head of Russia.
	Okay, it's Robert David Steele.
	It is George Beebe.
	Great.
	I have another old CIA guy.
	Perfect.
	Okay, well, let's listen to George Beebe, who is a very erudite guy, and he knows the ropes and how things should be done, and he uses the word I guess we didn't use when we did the exact same analysis, which is red flag, and this is George on the IC report.
	Mr.
	Hovlandt.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Dimitri, and thank you for those two excellent presentations.
	My question is for George Beebe, and it pushes a little further on the area that Karen would be young.
	I'm sorry, John.
	What is the setting of this?
	This is a speech?
	No, no, no.
	This is one of those closed meetings.
	Oh, so this is something that wasn't supposed to get out?
	No, no, it was supposed to get out, but it's one of those things, who sees it?
	I got you.
	Karen DeYoung brought up, but also takes us back to Graham Ellison's excellent question, which is still on the floor, and questions about the dossier and all of that.
	But I wanted to ask you to give us your judgment as an intelligence professional.
	How this statement by the intelligence community is with all of the caveats you put in, but also all of the warnings you put in, all of the criticism you put in.
	How could this have happened?
	Well, I really don't know the answer to that.
	I think the simplest explanation is that they have some very conclusive classified evidence which has driven their judgments.
	That's the easiest thing to do.
	I'm a little skeptical that that's the case.
	Why is that?
	A couple of things.
	One in the intelligence community report itself.
	There's an interesting caveat that NSA had only moderate confidence in one of the report's significant judgments.
	That's a red flag.
	And then the thing...
	The National Security Agency.
	Yes, the National Security Agency.
	That suggests to me that the kind of evidence that they've got in the classified world is not all that conclusive.
	So that's number one.
	The second thing is, given the political atmosphere that we're experiencing now in Washington, which I think Paul has very accurately described, and the degree to which we're able to keep these sorts of things secret genuinely in that atmosphere...
	I'm suspicious that if we really had that kind of evidence in the classified world, that we would know that, either directly or indirectly in the public domain.
	So I suspect that we really don't have that kind of conclusive evidence in the classified world.
	So, now, how did we end up with a report that we wound up with?
	A lot of potential explanations.
	As mentioned earlier, the cognitive bias tendencies that we all share...
	That might explain a lot of all of this.
	The pressures that can occur bureaucratically and organizationally, the time deadlines that are underway, the separation of sets of expertise within the community, all of that may have had a role to play in all of this, but I'm speculating.
	Wait, wait.
	There's political stuff going on in the intelligence community?
	Huh.
	You don't say.
	I would have never guessed it.
	That's impossible.
	Now, if you want to go to yours or you want to play, he also has some thoughts on the dossier.
	No, let's hear the dossier.
	You mean the dossier of the bedwetting dossier?
	The bedwetting guy, yeah.
	Yes, the dossier.
	I thought I got a reprieve there from Senator Roberts, but apparently not.
	On the dossier, I think there are a couple of questions here.
	One is, how do you actually vet something like this?
	Hard thing to do.
	CIA would typically approach this by looking at the sourcing and subsourcing very critically.
	It's impossible to do, really, in this case.
	The next case would be looking for facts that are reported in this that you can verify.
	You know, was so-and-so in a particular place at a certain time?
	That's verifiable.
	It only gets you so far, though, in really investigating the veracity of the claims in this alleged report, which I have not There is a couple of things that make me skeptical about the information that's in it, though.
	One, the target, the source of some of these claims is supposedly the Russian presidential administration.
	That is a very hard intelligence target.
	Intelligence organizations around the world devote themselves to trying to penetrate that target.
	Very, very hard to do.
	So we're led to believe that a private individual running a security firm hired to dig up dirt is able to penetrate that hard target using his own sources?
	Maybe so.
	I'm skeptical.
	Second thing to note here, Moscow, for anybody that's been there, is good at nothing beyond generating lots and lots of rumors.
	And a lot of these rumors are generated precisely because the people in these closed circles of decision-making are not very transparent about what's going on.
	And in the absence of hard information, people tend to gossip a lot about what's going on.
	Really easy to tap into that gossip network.
	Now the question is, gee, am I getting rumor or am I getting solid information here?
	We have no basis for judging, but I suspect the most likely explanation here is somebody that tapped into the very active Moscow rumor mill and circulated what's out there on there.
	Hmm.
	Hmm.
	There you have it.
	Well, Theresa May weighed in the other day about the dossier, and specifically about Chris Steele.
	Was it MI5 or MI6? MI6 guy?
	MI6. MI6 guy.
	Do you know, it's a long-standing position that we don't comment on such matters, but I think from everything that you will have seen, it is absolutely clear that the individual who produced this dossier has not worked for the UK government for years.
	Oh, okay.
	So, back off, back off.
	We got nothing to do with that.
	I found another former CIA agent.
	This would be former case officer Robert David Steele.
	He was an RT. I have to say that because, of course, it's RT. And, you know, you play clips from RT, you know what you are.
	Is he?
	Yes.
	The other guy's name is Steele.
	Are they related?
	Ooh, I don't believe so.
	Interesting.
	But I've seen this guy around before.
	I think he does show up on RT a number of times, but he had a different take on Trump's election, different take on the so-called hacking, what really happened, and he sums it up neatly here.
	So Trump has a chance to reset everything.
	He talked about how the system is rigged.
	It's not just campaign finance reform.
	It's paper ballots.
	One of the reasons Trump won by accident was because Hillary Clinton started talking about the Russians too soon.
	And it led to the closure of the electronic vote tampering that she used against Bernie Sanders.
	Hillary Clinton, it's on record.
	Stanford University has studied this and documented it.
	Hillary Clinton stole 13 primaries from Bernie Sanders using electronic ballot tampering.
	The Russians did not hack the election.
	Hillary Clinton hacked the election and lost because that door was closed at the very end.
	That sounds very reasonable to me.
	Wow!
	That is clip of the day.
	Thank you.
	Clip of the day.
	Now this brings us back.
	I actually kind of buy into that a little bit.
	A little bit.
	Because of the New York ballots, especially the one area where they were.
	All of a sudden, it was Brooklyn, I think.
	The whole number of precincts got no votes coming in at all.
	And they were all going to go to Bernie.
	And no, no, nothing.
	Zip.
	Bernie made a little fuss.
	But he didn't make a big fuss.
	And some news guys picked it up and talked about it a little bit, made a little fuss, but it didn't make a big fuss and it just went on.
	I think that's a very funny and ironic conclusion.
	The highest of all sorts of humor.
	And even if it wasn't meant to be funny...
	It fits perfectly.
	Yeah, she blew it.
	She started yapping about the Russians too early, and then they couldn't do their own voter fraud, which, of course, has got to be rampant.
	It's got to be.
	We're America.
	It's what we do.
	Especially with those electronic machines.
	Yeah, well, we've complained about that a lot.
	All right, here he is...
	Oh, yes.
	Another interesting point he made.
	Check it out.
	Trump is a wild card.
	Trump is a businessman.
	Trump already understands that, for example, we're paying too much for Boeing and Lockheed and Northrop Grumman.
	He's coming at this with a fresh perspective.
	He did not expect to win.
	He has replaced the political elites with business and military elites.
	We've had a counter coup in the United States.
	We have successfully defeated the coup that was being led by Wall Street and Hillary Clinton and John Brennan.
	So it's up to Trump.
	My personal feeling is that if Trump does not pass an Electoral Reform Act in the next 90 days, he will not finish his term.
	He will leave.
	And why is that?
	What does the Electoral Reform Act do and why is it so important to his presidency?
	The Elector Reform Act does a number of things, but one of the most important is that it frees the members from the bribery and the blackmail that is pervasive in U.S. politics.
	Wayne Manson is one of my favorite investigative journalists, and he published recently a piece.
	On how John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been blackmailed by CIA. And that is why they've been so anti-Russia.
	Now, because of Wayne's piece and because of some other things that I and a few others have done, Trump has gone back to McCain.
	McCain is now being, if you will, counter-blackmailed.
	And so he's softening and he's saying, well, now I'm leaning toward Rex Tillerson, which is exactly what he better do if he wants to finish his term out.
	I think Trump has the capacity to free the members from their dependency on foreign money, particularly Saudi Arabian and Israeli and Wall Street money.
	Beyond that, he has to show the Sandrinistas, the libertarians, and the independents that they have a president who really means it.
	I like the term Sandernistas.
	I hadn't heard that one.
	Yeah, it is.
	So, I looked at the Voter Reform Act of 2016, could not parse from it what he is saying about, well, I don't know if it's in this next clip, but the general idea is that it was really only 47% of the eligible voting public who voted at all, and of that, you know, I guess 24% went to Hillary Clinton.
	You know, it was all very small margins.
	And somehow, with this act, and again, I read it, and I just couldn't parse it to his words, how that would then free everyone, you know, basically break up the two-party system, quote-unquote two-party system.
	I'm not sure how that would work if someone out there far smarter than us can maybe help us.
	I don't see how I can do anything.
	I didn't see it, but I did like what he said, because that is a callback to John Kerry, that if he doesn't get that done, he'll be gone before his term is up.
	So I don't know, but there's something brewing in that area.
	Well, let's also play the same topic.
	Gayenne on the threats to Trump, which are getting a little disturbing.
	Hold on one second.
	Gayenne's coming.
	We got it.
	Roll our hand.
	That guy.
	Right, everybody.
	We love her here on the show.
	Let's hear what she has to say.
	I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
	But I know...
	That this won't change anything.
	Rioters smashed windows and set things on fire.
	But with some, the anger took a more morbid turn.
	Death wishes for Trump started pouring in.
	Social media director of a news site publicly expressed his hope for the president to die soon.
	A school teacher was filmed in her classroom, mockingly shooting President Donald Trump as a live feed was projected of his inauguration ceremony.
	The Secret Service is probing a woman in Kentucky who tweeted a call for someone to assassinate the president.
	Some may consider a death wish to the president a form of protest.
	Others don't.
	It's being owned by people, boldface names in the news and celebrities who normally would not ever say something like this.
	It's, I think, clearly a reflection on the highly polarized state of the United States at this point.
	Regardless of one's position on Trump's policies, there's something very wrong about people publicizing their desire for the president to die, especially considering the U.S. has a history of leaders' assassinations.
	In Washington, I'm Ganesh Chakyan, RT. My memory is not the best in the world, but I do recall after President Obama was inaugurated, police were saying that they would rough you up if you said anything negative about the president.
	When Reagan got elected, he was shot within probably the first six months of his skin.
	You know those Dutch douchebags on the face bag?
	The ones who are here on 01 visas and tourist visas and, you know, they have their little club and, of course, by osmosis I get sucked into their face bag feed and I don't say anything about it because I want to read it.
	During the inauguration, do you know what they were posting?
	Hey, where's that sniper?
	Good God.
	Yeah, and they're here as visitors, you know, on visa.
	Dicks.
	You're going to be bumped now.
	You're done.
	I'm done.
	Do they listen to the show?
	Please.
	Final clip from this former CIA case officer, Robert David Steele.
	He's going to deconstruct the three hacks...
	That are really in play here in this entire scenario.
	The DNC was never properly investigated.
	They wouldn't allow the FBI to get to their computers.
	And in fact, the FBI was simply given secondhand information from CrowdStrike and others who are anti-Russian technocrats that are in the pockets of Hillary Clinton and the neoconservatives.
	So it was never proven.
	And in fact, Donald Trump, to his credit, called Julian Assange and said, tell me to my face.
	Tell me directly.
	And Julian Assange repeated to Donald Trump, the Russians did not give us this stuff.
	Now, Podesta, the FBI and the CIA are asking us to believe that a Romanian taxi driver using antiquated equipment who has had some modest success against celebrities, perhaps he's after you next, is being run by Russian national intelligence.
	That's absolutely absurd.
	In fact, the man was in jail here in Virginia, and he was found to be completely what he said he was, and he was returned to Romania to serve his prison sentence there.
	He is not a Russian state agent.
	This is Kuciferian.
	Yes, Guccifer.
	And by the way, people get confused.
	Guccifer 2.0 and Guccifer are the same person.
	Now, I didn't think that was true.
	I always thought it was true, but you always said it wasn't.
	I thought it wasn't, but he's saying...
	He actually said there's some confusion about it, so he says it is the same person.
	Guccifer.
	And by the way, people get confused.
	Guccifer 2.0 and Guccifer are the same person.
	Okay?
	If you look that up, it's not completely clear.
	Okay.
	So, the third big leak was the Anthony Weiner laptop.
	That had allegedly 650,000 emails from Huma Abedin.
	She was introduced to Hillary Clinton as a very, very young girl.
	Hillary Clinton fell in love with her and has been with Hillary Clinton ever since.
	Those emails, although the FBI sequestered that computer very quickly, they were enough to make the New York Police Department very angry.
	Because they had explicit proof of Hillary Clinton sending classified information back to IP addresses in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
	They had explicit proof of Hillary Clinton with pay to play.
	I mean, Hillary Clinton sold Syria and Yemen to Saudi Arabia.
	And John Brennan has been her executive agent for essentially doing regime change in Syria and further destabilizing Yemen.
	I mean, really, Brennan should be in an international court under indictment for being a war criminal.
	Yeah, we kind of forget about the Wiener stuff.
	That kind of drifted off the radar, didn't it?
	Yeah, it's because it was sequestered, as he says.
	You know, they like to keep this stuff in abeyance.
	Well, you know, if we need it, we'll use it when we need it.
	You know how people always talk a little bit differently when they're on a podcast?
	Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone.
	We played a couple clips.
	What was that?
	It was Canadian television, I think.
	Canadian, CBC. Yeah, when you're overseas, you can also say what you want.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, but it wasn't quite as...
	It's just a different...
	It's almost a different tune, what he's saying now.
	He was kind of cagey.
	Like, well, you know, we don't exactly have all the information, but...
	And actually, this wasn't a podcast.
	Worse than a podcast.
	He shows up on Sirius XM. Worse than a podcast.
	Of course it's worse than a podcast.
	Sirius XM. Worse than a podcast.
	That's your bumper sticker right there.
	I've been very skeptical about this publicly.
	Uh...
	No, not that skeptical, Mr.
	Taibbi.
	You said from the beginning that I don't believe, that I don't think we should just openly believe the assessments of people in the intelligence community.
	And I'm willing to believe the idea that they were behind the hack of...
	The DNC. There's some evidence for that.
	I've talked to people who are cyber experts, but even they really are only making a circumstantial case about the probable origin of where that's coming from.
	Trump himself has said that he believed that that was Russia, but the rest of it?
	You know, this idea that there was a Manchurian candidate story and that they had a collusive agreement, like, you know, I think that stuff is all, for me, totally out to lunch.
	And, you know, that dossier that came out, I mean, having lived in Russia, like, since when is the Kremlin like a high school cafeteria where you can overhear what everybody's saying?
	I mean, they were on a much tighter ship than that.
	If they actually had something like that, they would keep it a lot closer to their vest.
	I wish he would write like that.
	That would be so honest of him.
	He's a liberal.
	Right, but he was a little...
	You can't do anything that even remotely says anything positive that could be interpreted by the other side of the divide of the polarized globalist versus nationalist agendas.
	He can't do it.
	He'd lose his audience.
	Well, he's trying.
	They talk to the actual people who investigated the hacks.
	I don't know, but they add up these signatures.
	Of course.
	They do seem to be not unlike actual physical evidence in that they have a DNA, they have an imprint, and they know that these people, where their internet protocols are, and then they see the signatures that are similar, and certainly...
	Sure, but it's a little bit like...
	The standard of proof for that.
	Internet protocol is not the same as an internet protocol address.
	That's why I wanted you to hear this clip.
	I thought that was so funny.
	I love to hear it.
	Sure, but it's a little bit like...
	Wait, it was back further.
	I love that.
	This is great.
	And then they see the signatures that are similar, and certainly...
	Sure, but it's a little bit like the standard of proof for that.
	Did I miss it?
	I must have missed it.
	Yeah, it's back further.
	They add up these signatures.
	They do seem to be not unlike actual physical evidence in that they have a DNA.
	They have an imprint, and they know that these people, where their Internet protocols are, and then they see the signature.
	Where their Internet protocols are.
	Have you hugged your Internet protocol today?
	And he doesn't know what he's talking about with a signature.
	No, I love that.
	Signatures that are similar, and certainly, sure.
	But it's a little bit like the standard of proof for that is that you have a series of indications that lead to a conclusion.
	And you still have to make a qualitative assessment at the end of all those things.
	And it's just not as strong as a whistleblower saying, I was in on it.
	I did this.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Like there are different levels of proof.
	Oh, okay.
	I guess just like there's different levels of facts.
	yeah Yeah.
	Yeah, that's exactly it.
	I know you saw this.
	The loyalty test meme is spreading as predicted.
	Didn't you talk about this on the last show?
	Yes, and you said that you didn't see that happening.
	No, I still haven't seen it happening.
	Okay, here's the BBC. I think it's actually more sinister than just a lie to the public.
	And I think what's happening is that it's interesting that Trump sent Sean out to say that.
	I think sometimes children do this.
	He's testing their loyalty because the crowd was obviously much smaller than it was.
	That's the meme.
	He is, and you hold the power then.
	If you make somebody lie, then you hold power over them.
	What?
	That's the meme.
	Like children, she did add that.
	That's a new bit.
	I like it.
	I like it.
	So if you force people to go out and lie for you, you have control over them.
	Yeah, that's all it takes.
	Has anybody ever heard the Sean guy?
	The guy's a maniac.
	He's pretty high energy.
	I like it though.
	I got the biggest kick out of the Nikki Haley situation.
	Yeah, so she is going to be the ambassador to the United Nations.
	Yes, and I don't think she was a Trump supporter at first, but she sure sounds like the right mentality for it.
	But none of the mainstream media, because everybody likes her and she's also a woman, so you can't say anything too bad.
	No!
	I mean, you can, but you can't overdo it because she's a woman.
	Yes.
	And so she comes out with this crazy comment.
	I thought it was hilarious.
	The president's ambassador to the UN put every nation on notice today.
	Nikki Haley said the U.S. wants value for its UN commitments, and she chose these words as her first greeting in her new post.
	And the way that we'll show value is to show our strength, show our voice, have the backs of our allies, and make sure that our allies have our back as well.
	For those that don't have our back, we're taking names.
	We will make points to respond to that accordingly.
	Ambassador Nikki Haley.
	Whoa.
	She's taking names and kicking ass is what's going down.
	Yeah, I thought that was fantastic.
	So apparently, the idea, what I understand, is the U.S. will cut back its funding of the United Nations by, I've heard, 40%.
	Well, here's the defunding clip.
	Ooh, hold on a second.
	Defunding.
	Yes, I've been wanting to hear this.
	The U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon pretty much said that Saudi Arabia had pressured him to remove them from a human rights report.
	I'm sorry, it says defunding...
	The UN. Oh, I'm sorry, yes.
	There's two.
	You're right.
	My mistake.
	Donald Trump's administration is reportedly drawing up an executive order to significantly reduce America's funding for the United Nations and also other international organizations.
	The White House is said to be seeking an overall 40% cut in funding.
	Trump's previously been extremely critical of the UN. The UN has such tremendous potential, not living up to its potential.
	There is such tremendous potential, but it is not living up.
	When do you see the United Nations solving problems?
	They don't.
	They cause problems.
	So, if it lives up to the potential, it's a great thing, and if it doesn't, it's a waste of time and money.
	Now, Trump, this is an example of Trump, and it's tripling.
	Say something, United Nations has tremendous potential.
	The United Nations has tremendous potential.
	The third time, and it's like he does this, he's trying to make a point or brainwash us.
	Whenever you say something three times, that's when people remember it, such as Optima Tax Relief.
	That's an example all the time.
	1-800-CARS-4-KIDS. K-A-R-S-CARS-4-KIDS. The commercial goes like this.
	Did you know that you can pay off your credit card?
	Don't pay the full amount.
	Optima Tax Relief.
	That's right.
	Optima Tax Relief.
	You can get that at Optima Tax Relief.
	Boom.
	Optima Tax Relief.
	And they do a jingle, which is genius right after that.
	That's why it works.
	Well, he does.
	He learned it in some sales.
	He should do a jingle after that.
	He should do a jingle.
	He has a little jingle machine.
	He has a little pocket deal he can play.
	But I think this is...
	And I think he makes a good point.
	They cause more trouble than they...
	Like the douchebag thing that happened in Haiti that they wouldn't take credit for.
	There's also some thinking now that this is a concerted effort to bankrupt Germany, who currently are at about 1% of their GDP, and to move it up to 2% GDP, which is the requirement for NATO, United Nations.
	That could be a serious financial issue.
	But that's just another way of looking at it.
	It's interesting.
	I want to say something about the First Amendment Defense Act, which is now in play again.
	And I bring this...
	Well, of course, I've been looking at all the legislation stuff that's floating around that have people freaking out.
	And the LGBTQIAP community is freaking out about the First Amendment Defense Act and headlines such as, Sweeping Bill will institutionalize discrimination against LGBTs.
	And I wanted to discuss briefly, and I think I'm going to need your help, what discrimination laws there are currently in the United States and how it fits in with this or not.
	And the first, really a question I have for you, the Civil Rights Act, I think I remember you telling me that that was never signed or ratified?
	No, the Equal Rights Amendment.
	Oh, the Equal Rights Amendment, okay.
	Okay.
	What is different from the Equal Rights Amendment versus the Civil Rights Act?
	Well, the Civil Rights Act was about blacks and the Equal Rights Amendment was about women.
	Okay.
	What is...
	Okay.
	Let's go to the Civil Rights Act, which was signed.
	That's good.
	What exactly did that outlaw or forbid?
	Because what I found is different than I thought it was.
	I'll just tell you.
	I think segregation was one of the issues that it was targeted.
	I think segregation was targeted specifically, and I think it was about the schools mostly.
	Actually, there was no legislation for schools, as I've read the bill.
	There was a recommendation and requirement request, but there was no legal basis to desegregate schools, although, of course, that did happen, luckily.
	But it was mainly about businesses involved in interstate commerce.
	And I'm not quite sure how that's a part of it, but that means hotels, restaurants, public places where people go.
	And I liken this a lot to the schools would be included.
	Public schools could be included, yes, not private or public.
	It's very analogous to the American with Disabilities Act, where now you know that a hospital or a restaurant has to adhere to the ADA because they serve everybody.
	And you may not discriminate anyone from staying in a hotel or eating at a restaurant or, I think, movie theaters, you know, places where the public goes.
	This does not adhere towards private businesses that are not part of interstate commerce.
	So let's just take an example.
	An ice cream parlor.
	Let's take a better example.
	A wedding cake shop absolutely has the right...
	It's not nice...
	It's not a violation of the Civil Rights Act to say, no, I don't want to serve you.
	You can also say, no shoes, no shirt, no service.
	We reserve the right to not serve anybody.
	This is almost in every establishment they have this sign.
	And the First Amendment Defense Act somehow has been misconstrued into this, now you can discriminate against gays.
	Whereas you are absolutely allowed to refuse service to anybody if you do not fall under the guise of interstate commerce public place where public people come to do things.
	The First Amendment Defense Act does want...
	Public people also known as the public.
	The public, yes.
	I'll just read this briefly.
	The First Amendment Defense Act prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that, one, marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or two, sexual relations are properly
	And it defines discriminatory action as any federal government action to discriminate against a person with such beliefs or convictions, such as altering the federal tax treatment, disallowing a deduction of any charitable contribution, withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, otherwise deny any federal grant, withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, otherwise deny any benefit under a federal benefit program.
	So what is being said here is If you, and if it doesn't fit under, this has to be, if it does not fit under the Civil Rights Act, you have the right to do that, and the government may not penalize you for it.
	Now, people may not like this, that they can be discriminated against, but anybody can, black people, brown people, yellow people, old white people, and it's coming, will be asked to leave establishments because we're not going to serve you.
	And that is okay, and you have that right to do that.
	There is no such thing in the United States where you cannot discriminate in a private business.
	And people are freaking out about it and being told something untrue.
	That now, oh, you can just discriminate against gays.
	Well, you know what?
	No, you cannot be kicked out of a restaurant.
	You cannot be kicked out of a hotel.
	Anything that is where the public goes, you can already under existing law, but now the only thing that's been stipulated here, which is really a jerk-off thing as far as I'm concerned, oh, okay, you know, so then the IRS can't penalize you.
	Well, I think this came about from the IRS debacle.
	Of course it did.
	Of course.
	And that's all it really is.
	Yes.
	But it's being, you'll see, it's being shouted around as gays are going to die in America.
	Well, that's kind of, to me, it's an eye roller.
	I'm in the trenches, John.
	I'm seeing it.
	Alright, let's go to the Women's March that took place, the Women's Life March.
	And this was the Pro-Life?
	This is the Pro-Life one that took place.
	This is the, play the intro clip, this is Women's Life March, because there's a little piece of information here that I didn't realize.
	I'm sorry, you did the right thing.
	I never knew this.
	This was the 44th March for Life, but it held special significance for tens of thousands of anti-abortion activists, with the coming of a Republican president in Congress.
	I'm here for the unborn.
	This year it's even more different.
	We're making history.
	Many arrived in groups, from churches and schools, after long bus rides.
	President Trump began their day with a tweet saying, to all of you marching, you have my full support.
	And at a rally before the march, a sitting vice president addressed the annual gathering for the first time.
	Because of all of you...
	That guy's got the voice of a politician.
	Now, they had a bunch of women bitching about the fact that they weren't even allowed to show up at the women's march because they were pro-life.
	And I guess pro-life women aren't women.
	And so that was an interesting complaint.
	But the only reason it's got any coverage at all is because of the Trump meeting with David Muir, which was this interview that was done on ABC.
	And here's what's interesting about that.
	And then Trump bitched about this.
	And that's why I was caught off guard when I said this is the 44th of these marches.
	I'm 44.
	I never heard of it.
	But now they put it up because Trump actually made a fuss with David Muir.
	He says they never cover it.
	So all the networks covered it because I think because Trump complained, which I think is interesting in itself.
	But the thing about that David Muir interview, which was on ABC, and there's nothing to clip from it as far as you may have something I didn't find interesting, was that these things are usually all exclusive.
	Oh, we got a copyrighted story on the front of the New York Times.
	When you see a news, here's a little tip.
	You don't see it as much as you used to, but when you used to see a front page story about some breaking news thing and it says copyrighted on the head, it would say copyrighted in the story or somewhere.
	It would say copyrighted by who the writer is.
	They put it in different ways, but it says copyrighted.
	That's the message to the other newspapers that you can't steal this.
	The David Muir interview, which ran on ABC... Hmm.
	Hmm.
	Hmm.
	As if it was, hey, we got the interview, now let's pass it around, which is to me very, you know, it's almost, I would say, illegal.
	It's like, you know, they're colluding.
	They don't even care that they have the exclusives.
	The idea is to do some trap questions, and there we go, and you send out copies to everybody, and they all run it.
	Mm-hmm.
	I just thought that was...
	I personally found it very offensive.
	Do you think that was some kind of deal?
	Like under a pool deal or something?
	I think it was an unwritten agreement that we're going to do this interview because Trump kind of finds that ABC, which it says in the Lena report too, that's kind of soft.
	The softness of the networks for him.
	And And so he will do ABC. And David Muir is kind of a soft interviewer.
	He's not a hard ass and he seems pleasant.
	So he does that, but they set him up.
	And the next thing you know, it's on all the networks.
	I find that to be very disconcerting.
	It means that the networks are in collusion.
	Yeah, colluding.
	Sure.
	No.
	I'm sorry.
	Now just to go on, there was a thing, there was a woman that came up on PBS about, and she came out of this pro-life march, which I never heard of in my life, even though that's happened 44 times.
	And they try to trap her too, but she goes right into, I guess she understood that this could happen, and she had it figured out, because it was like, It was trying to be a trap question, and then she kind of disarmed it in such a way that it became very awkward for the interviewer.
	It's very interesting.
	This is Marjorie Dannensfelder, who was one of the leaders of this march.
	It's interesting.
	It's all for overturning it in a day.
	I think it's more likely that we'll see modest proposals that are enacted into the law, and that slowly the will of the people will be enacted into the law as well.
	You know, You know, many people are still parsing the recent election and the outcome.
	And I have to ask you, even personally, I saw a letter from January 2016, in which a number of anti-abortion leaders wrote a letter saying, anybody but Donald Trump.
	And there was a quote in there that said, as women, we are disgusted by Mr.
	Trump's treatment of individuals, women in particular.
	Yeah.
	I was the author of that letter.
	I was the author of that letter.
	I know, that's why I'm asking you.
	I know, that's why I'm saying good question.
	Yes, I was the author of that letter.
	He was our last choice because of the reasons that were stated in that letter.
	He was our last choice, and then until he was our first choice.
	And why was he our first choice?
	He was because we were comparing two people with fatal character flaws, in our opinion, at that point.
	We thought that we weren't sure before that who we could trust.
	But there was no question that when we compared Hillary Clinton, her treatment of the women that went through her husband's life, and Trump, and how...
	And the concerns that we had about the outrageous things that he said, we were voting on policy in the end.
	And policy must rule the day when you have a choice like that.
	And for us, he was far greater committed pro-life and is turning out to be the far better choice because he is following through on the commitments.
	And he's become the person that we hoped that he would be.
	Excuse me, I just want to ask you one more question briefly, if you could.
	Just thinking again about the causes and the factors behind the election, how much do you think abortion was a factor in the end in Donald Trump's victory?
	It was the biggest factor in any election, in any election.
	That abortion was a major factor.
	He believes that.
	We know that.
	We saw the numbers of voters that we brought to the polls in battleground states.
	It was the number one Googled item the day before the election.
	It was on their minds, and we brought those votes to the battleground states for a win.
	And he knows that, and so does Mike Pence.
	Marjorie Dannenfelser.
	Everybody wants to take credit.
	It's his tempest in a teapot, this whole thing.
	It's bullcrap, but that was nonsense.
	But the thing that was interesting to me was that he tried to do a setup.
	Yeah.
	And he says, I saw, I'll make this point, I saw a letter.
	Yeah, he knew damn well she wrote it.
	He should have said, you wrote a letter and then go into it.
	That means she's not trying to trap her.
	When he says, I saw a letter, and then starts quoting from it, he's trying to get her to say, well, that's a terrible letter.
	You wrote it!
	Right.
	Sort of a thing.
	I found it disreputable.
	Presuming this woman is dumb.
	The way he did that.
	Yeah, well, it's, what is it, PBS? Yeah, it's PBS. Yeah, go figure.
	I'm finally, finally I got some information about And I love when we get it from our producers firsthand out of D.C. Got some information about the inauguration crowd.
	Oh, God.
	Yeah, no, you'll like it.
	It's good.
	Hey, Adam, first things first.
	This is a firsthand report.
	I'm leaving out a few details, and I cannot share what agency I work for.
	Please do not mention my name if he uses it on the show.
	And I verified this person, so I know what agency he works for.
	On to the story.
	There was a meeting two days ago that involved White House staff, including Kellyanne Conway, senior Secret Service officials, senior security personnel from the Smithsonian Institute, senior security personnel from National Park Service, plus a few others.
	The purpose of this meeting was to determine why the inauguration crowd was so small and to explain it to the White House.
	I think you would say Trump.
	The answer is very simple.
	In previous years, the security checkpoints and magnetometers were not on the mall.
	They were only on the parade route.
	Large portions of the mall remained basically open, which allowed the crowds to move about more freely.
	The inaugural planning committee this year insisted on making this change, and it is the general consensus that this change, combined with the total lack of confidence in D.C. Metro Rail to keep up with demand, they have had a terrible rash of safety and maintenance issues over the last 18 months, Plus, the forecast for rain was enough to keep people away.
	Apparently, that was not enough for the White House, though, because now all agencies with cameras on the mall are being asked to provide a variety of data over a 12-hour period.
	I would estimate that a combined 3,000 man-hours will be dedicated to this fiasco when it's all over with, with an average hourly rate of $45, that's $135, and taxpayer dollars pissed away on essentially nothing.
	And I then went back and asked him specifically, Do you think, I said, are the numbers there?
	Was it a huge, bigly crowd?
	And he says, no.
	The interpretation of the photos based on crowd density has been accepted by everyone except the president, it appears.
	I believe that is why all agencies were asked to review video from areas that may have not been shown from the monument long shots.
	The whole thing is stupid.
	Hopefully he lets it die after this because I do not see the numbers changing.
	So I'm taking this, I'll take this as fact.
	From our producer.
	First, it's really the first report that I think is credible.
	Because he's looking at the information.
	Yeah.
	I'm sure it sounds right.
	I think the whole thing is something of a tempest in a teapot.
	I don't know why it trumps what the point is.
	Maybe just a test.
	I have no idea.
	Well, that's the question.
	Why?
	So I'm starting to go to the camp of, man, you fucking moron, stop it.
	Do you just want to prove the media wrong?
	You need to choose a different topic.
	You're not going to win this one.
	But I understand how you looked out and you saw that it looked really full.
	I get it.
	No, I'm just happy we have people who can do these things.
	Yeah, well.
	The underwhelmed nature of your response is always heartening.
	Well, it's just okay.
	I mean, this is the way I thought before the report was given.
	Yeah, but I was not so sure, and now I'm sure.
	So I am coming over to your side now.
	I think the bigger story is if he had some insight into why Trump is so preoccupied with this specific one thing.
	And why he has to say it.
	I mean, he has...
	It can be only one thing.
	It has to be ego.
	You know what?
	It doesn't necessarily have to be ego.
	It could be he's fooling himself.
	Yeah, well, that's, yeah, of course.
	That could be a Mandela effect.
	This has Mandela effect written all over it.
	Oh, God.
	All right, finally, a quick short...
	The whole show that we do has Mandela effect written over it.
	A quick, a few shorties here before we get into our donation segment.
	Longtime producer, I work as a production manager for an event space in Midtown Manhattan that specializes in high-end corporate fundraisers, galas, and investor meetings.
	While we were freeing up some space on one of our audio recorders, I found the recording for an event for the NRDC, that is the National Resources Defense Council.
	This event featured Hollywood comedians right the day after the election.
	Nevertheless, there was not a lot of comedy during the event, but I was able to go through the two-hour event and find the best ISOs.
	If you do use them, please, I'd like to remain anonymous.
	I got a couple of ISOs here from that private event.
	I'm all ears.
	George Lopez.
	Everybody knows Donald Trump doesn't like immigrants, but then stop marrying him.
	Actually, that joke's old.
	He's done that joke before.
	Who is Hasan Minhaj?
	Do we know Hasan Minhaj?
	No, I don't know him.
	Is he a comedian?
	He's apparently a comedian.
	Here's what blows my mind.
	We're here in New York, right?
	We're in the little liberal bubble.
	Like, we don't understand who's actually voting for Trump.
	We don't know what's going on in Montana, and we shouldn't, but...
	Seth Meyers.
	That's good.
	Seth Meyers, two jokes from him.
	And I shook his crib until he woke up, and I said, we gotta get out of here!
	I don't know if he was talking about Trump or his own kid.
	Another one from Seth Meyers.
	So I tried to find a positive, and I said, when you wake up tomorrow, this nation will, for the first time, have a president who was a steak salesman.
	Nah, not cutting.
	No, I'm telling you, the other two guys are funnier.
	John Oliver!
	Meyers has his stuff mostly written for him, so I don't know if he's writing those stuff there.
	Well, John Oliver has the final one.
	So you can do it!
	You can fight facts!
	That's actually more an end-of-show ISO, I think.
	Yeah.
	I think we should keep that.
	Well, that's how sad they were.
	They could not come up with a single funny line, apparently.
	I think the stop marrying immigrants is a good one.
	Lopez, yeah.
	Everybody knows Donald Trump doesn't like immigrants, but then stop marrying them.
	I'm going to show my support by donating to no agenda.
	Imagine all the people who could do that.
	Oh yeah, that'd be fab.
	Yeah, on no agenda.
	In the morning.
	And we do have a few people to thank for show 899.
	A few.
	899, 899.
	Starting with Donald Borowski in Spokane Valley, Washington.
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
	He has a, he was the unfortunate, I think he's got, I could be wrong, but I think he got kicked out of the Federation.
	Oh no, he's not writing on his stationery?
	No.
	Well, we need to get the skinny on that.
	I don't know.
	Whatever the case is, he's now writing, apparently he's quit the Federation of Planets and now he's working for HP. Oh, it's a different federation altogether.
	Note that HP started as an electronic test and measurement company and split off this business in 1998, which became Agilent Technologies.
	Okay.
	John and Adam, thanks for the continuing excellent analysis of the reaction to the Donald Trump presidency.
	It's interesting to note how alert the mainstream media has now become after eight years of slumber during Obama's stay in the White House.
	Yeah, no kidding.
	Contrast is to no agenda, which has been and continues to be on the ball with regards to the news of the day.
	Cheers.
	That's right.
	Thank you.
	We are on the ball.
	Thomas...
	Chanone, I guess it is.
	Chanone?
	I would say Chanone.
	It's spelled with an S. It's got it wrong on here.
	It's S-C-A. Chanone.
	Thanks for the great analysis and unique media deconstruction.
	It's refreshing to get a regular reminder that I am not, in fact, insane.
	Something I've noticed that hasn't gotten any airtime at the right-wing press.
	Why hasn't anyone gone after the person at NBC who leaked the grab-them-by-the-pussy audio?
	No one is saying that NBC meddled in the election by releasing it.
	Well, that's a good point.
	Good point.
	And no one is calling for the FBI to investigate.
	But is what the person at NBC and what the Russians did substantially different?
	Both leaked inflammatory but authentic information about our presidential candidates.
	Both meddled and hacked the election.
	I'm giving him a point for that.
	Thank you.
	I am too.
	Could there be any other motives for doing this other than the left covering for itself?
	Or am I wrong?
	These two instances are actually different.
	I'm interested to hear your takes on it.
	No, I think it's exactly the same.
	You nailed it.
	Yeah.
	Dynamite.
	We should have actually nailed it ourselves.
	Yeah, I'm pissed at myself for dropping the ball.
	Yeah, we dropped the ball.
	Thank you for alerting us.
	Okay, onward to, and by the way, he came in at $120.17 from Chicago.
	Anonymous won $13.33.
	Kevin Kelly, $101.01.
	And Michael Hintz, $97.41.
	Ralph Massaro in Kirkland, Washington.
	The brand of Costco.
	Sir ZP, and he came up with 90.
	Sir Z, these are the $90 donors celebrating our 900 shows.
	Three of them.
	Sir Zip of Lusitania, ZP. Sir Don, parts unknown.
	Melissa Hodges.
	Boobs.
	Boobs.
	Oops.
	Melissa Hodges came in with 8008.
	Patrick Coble.
	Sir Patrick, yes.
	8008.
	Brian Rosa in Milton, New York.
	8008.
	And that's it.
	And we have...
	Oh, this is interesting.
	Kyle.
	I take it back.
	I think he's got this wrong, too, because I believe Kyle Blank came in with 8008.
	But he sent it through pop money.
	We have four...
	I've had to make a decision.
	Uh-oh.
	No, it's not an O-O. It's an O. So the pop money comes in and it shows up on the bank statement.
	So I'm going to do the pop money things once a month at the last show of the month.
	Oh, okay.
	Okay.
	And so I'll go back in that way.
	Or maybe during the middle of it.
	I'm going to do it once a month, whatever.
	I'm not going to do it when it comes in necessarily because I have to be looking all the time.
	Which is a pain in the ass.
	What was your idea?
	You set everybody up.
	Yeah, I did.
	It's fine.
	I don't care about it.
	As long as people don't need immediate satisfaction.
	Oh, okay.
	I'm just warning them.
	Got it.
	So, Kyle Blank, 808 in San Diego.
	Sir Kevin Dills, Baron of Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, North Carolina, 6432.
	James Kashin II, 5647, he's got a birthday.
	Got it.
	Bob Rathmel, double nickels on the dime.
	Christopher Tropp in Sturgis, Michigan, 54.
	And that's 900 nickels and 900 pennies.
	Yes, that's 45 plus 50.
	I like that.
	It's actually an interesting idea.
	And 5 plus 4 equals 9.
	I'll put that in the next newsletter as an option.
	I like it.
	It's a good one.
	Eric Mahoney in Hamilton, Ontario, 5387.
	Eric Hochul in Berlin, Deutschland, 5287.
	David, the rest of these are $50 donors, name and location.
	David Middlebrook, parts unknown.
	Benjamin Garlock, Garlock in Savoy, Illinois, 50.
	Sir Peter Totes in parts unknown.
	Ross Turpin in Troy, Kansas.
	Ben Durall in Malta, New York.
	Baron Sir Mark Tanner in Whittier, California.
	And last but not least, Eric Van Martyr, pop money.
	And that's it.
	That's all we got.
	Yeah.
	That's all we got today.
	Yeah, well, hopefully everyone is holding out for the big 900 show, which will be on Thursday.
	That's our wish.
	That is our wish.
	Yes, indeed.
	And you can remember us for that at Dvorak.org.
	Thank you all so much, everyone who came in above $50, typically for reasons of anonymity.
	Anonymity.
	Anonymity.
	People are also on the subscriptions.
	Have a check at Dvorak.org slash NA. Dvorak.org slash NA. And we did get a lot of requests, but just in case, here's some job karma.
	Jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs.
	Let's vote for jobs!
	You've got karma.
	Quickie list.
	James Cushing II turns 34 today.
	We say happy birthday to him and Anna Borlas.
	And the little say happy birthday to her husband and their dad, Ignacio.
	Happy birthday to everybody here at the best podcast in the universe.
	One nighting today, John.
	Ah, it's too bad.
	I have a great title change jingle, which just came in.
	We don't have a title change.
	You want to hear it so we can...
	No, no, no.
	I think you should save it and surprise me when there's actually a title change.
	Oh, but then people might be...
	Oh, you want to play it.
	Okay, play it.
	Well, I'm asking you a question.
	People might be motivated because then they could have this jingle played for them.
	I think they might be more motivated by the mystery.
	Okay, mystery it is.
	Instead of that, give me your blade.
	Here it comes.
	Beautiful.
	Brad Walker, come on up!
	Well, Brad, thanks to you.
	We're barely keeping our heads above water, but you, sir, have contributed to the only best podcast in the universe, in this universe.
	In the amount of $1,000 or more, that entitles you to a seat at the No Agenda Roundtable of our Knights and Dames.
	And therefore, I'm very happy to pronounce the KV, Sir Redbeard, Knight of the Uncorked Model.
	For you, my friend, we have...
	Cookers and blow, red boys and chardonnay, meat and water, garlic and broccoli, cheap white and chili dogs.
	We've got drams and DMT, malted barley and hops, hookers and molly, root beer and Legos, ice cream with bare fillings.
	We've got wenches and beer, ginger ale and gerbils, and of course, mutton and mead.
	Head on over to knowagendanation.com slash rings and tell Eric the Shill about your dimensions and your address, and he'll get that off to you post-haste, as we say.
	Hmm.
	CBS has decided to do a kind of...
	I think this is going to last not very long, but it could go on for a while.
	A fact-check section.
	Oh, fact-check.
	It's actually called the fact-check section?
	No, but that's what it is.
	They're rolling out a Trump statement, and they're saying what it really is.
	They only had two on this particular one, but let me give you an example.
	It's a soft launch of the segment, then.
	Let me give you an example of...
	Of something like that.
	You know, dozens and dozens of protesters have crowded my hallway.
	And then you say, no, it was 19 people.
	And call me a liar.
	Because it's not dozens.
	Yeah, or dozens and dozens.
	Yeah.
	Which would imply lots.
	It's more than a dozen than dozens.
	40, 50, I don't know.
	Yeah, could be.
	So I'm a liar now.
	You're a huge liar.
	And you've proven it.
	You've proven it.
	Bam.
	Nailed it.
	So you have to not be very specific when you say anything.
	So when Trump says millions and millions, they can prove it's not true.
	So this is a big deal.
	Okay.
	Now here's CBS cherry-picking Facts.
	Okay.
	In the news conference that we wondered about, Mr.
	Trump said that the United States is losing, quote, millions and millions of jobs to Mexico.
	Well, our research department found this most recent survey, ending in 2010, estimated that at most 682,000 jobs have been lost since the North American Free Trade Agreement began in 1994.
	Mr.
	Trump also said the U.S. loses in trade to every single country.
	But for the record, the U.S. has a trade surplus with most countries, 132.
	A deficit with 102.
	Fact check, false.
	Okay.
	Lie!
	There was one little, the trade deficit thing, I mean, we'd have to look at the, you can see it's not, we don't have one with the big traders.
	We don't have one with Mexico.
	We don't have one with China.
	Or, you know, we don't.
	We have a deficit.
	But that's beside the point.
	There's 130 little bitty countries.
	There's Samoa, I'm sure we have a, I think we can make 10 bucks a year.
	But that's beside the point.
	There was a little gotcha in there.
	I don't know if you caught it or not.
	But it was like them kind of fudging, to say the least.
	And by the way, 682,000, if Trump had said thousands and thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, he'd have been okay in this segment.
	But he said millions instead, which is wrong.
	But there is still a gotcha in here that indicates that CBS could be full of crap.
	He should have said millions and millions of jobs saved or created.
	And then it would have been okay.
	Lost or destroyed.
	Lost or never created.
	That's it.
	Lost or never created.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Now, did you notice the little thing in there?
	No, I probably didn't.
	No, you didn't.
	He says...
	The numbers about since the creation of NAFTA to 2010.
	Those numbers are six years old.
	Yeah, that's bull crap.
	And he slipped it in smoothly.
	Oh, damn it, I missed it.
	This is like, what?
	That's 2010.
	Those aren't real numbers.
	The numbers are not that number anymore.
	So why don't you give us the real numbers and actually do some work?
	I find that this segment's going to be a fiasco.
	Well, this falls under the fake news segment on our show.
	Now they're going to make news.
	Fake news.
	And one of our producers sent me a recording of that bastion of new media, Ira Glass.
	Ira Glass is...
	He does This American Life?
	He was a big shot at NPR for years.
	Doing all sorts of things.
	And I think he went off and started to make money as a podcaster because they weren't going to pay him enough or something like that.
	Well, it's funny you bring that up.
	This is a speech he did at the NPR Future of...
	NPR Future Evening or something.
	People at NPR certainly, but...
	People like the artist here in Austin.
	Ira Glass is the male equivalency of Rachel Maddow.
	In fact, it may be the same person.
	I'm not quite sure.
	We've never seen him in a photo together.
	And he was there to, and this is mainly NPR people, to talk about fake news, fact-based reporting, etc., etc.
	I thought it was fun, and I have a couple clips.
	One way to measure the limited power of fact-based reporting came this September when Donald Trump held a press conference declaring that, number one, he had personally concluded that Barack Obama was born in this country, and number two, the rumor that he was not born in this country was started by Hillary Clinton.
	Now, let's just stop there for a moment.
	If I recall correctly, it was not that Hillary Clinton had started the rumor, but that it had started within the Hillary Clinton campaign.
	Correct.
	And that is correct.
	And we have to assume she approved of it.
	That's the assumption, but you can even leave that out.
	Right off the bat, the question that is about to be asked is not, did it start in the Hillary Clinton campaign, but did Hillary Clinton start it?
	So it's kind of a false narrative to start with, but he's going to use this to explain the fake news, etc.
	That he was not born in this country was started by Hillary Clinton.
	That second claim, everybody will remember, was refuted almost in real time on live television forcefully and thoroughly by the excellent and exemplary Jake Tapper.
	Hold on a second.
	Just so you know.
	Trying to just blow the guy.
	It was done almost in real time by the excellent and exemplary, my colleague, my friend, my confidant, the man I look up to so much, Jake Tapper of CNN. Please.
	I like that he admits it's a machine, at least.
	That's kind of cool.
	Mm-hmm.
	It's a machine that kicked in, yes.
	Of the American mainstream media kicked into gear immediately and for a few days, refuting the lie about Hillary Clinton starting the birther controversy.
	And then a couple days after that, I went looking for polling numbers on this issue.
	So the only poll that I could find that hit this specific topic in the right time frame was a Monmouth poll of likely voters in Florida.
	It showed that after Trump's press conference, a couple days after, one third now believe that Hillary Clinton started the birther controversy.
	Which is really depressing.
	Sometimes this year, I don't know how you all are feeling, but sometimes it feels like as a working journalist, I'm on a team that is losing yardage week by week.
	I want to reach those people.
	I want to reach that third.
	I want to reach them, those people who are not interested in factual information, or in fact, they actively doubt the factual information presented by those of us who are in the mainstream media.
	And it's a puzzle.
	It's interesting how he's calling himself mainstream media.
	Although maybe he's not.
	He's trying to walk a very fine line here, I think, because he's maybe not on NPR or, you know, he's independent.
	I don't know what it is.
	I think he's referring to himself.
	Yeah, I think so.
	As a mainstream media person.
	Now, factual information presented by those of us who are in the mainstream media.
	And it's a puzzle, honestly, I've been thinking about for months.
	Like, how do we present fact-based reporting to people who do not trust any of us in this room?
	Like, what do we need to invent to do that?
	I will say because I am a fact-based person.
	John, are you a fact-based person?
	I think so.
	Are you sure?
	Because it sounds like you have to be a fact-based person.
	I got myself to the day and a bunch of facts came out.
	To do that.
	I will say, because I am a fact-based person, the answer to that is possibly that there's nothing we can do.
	So there's this big pause.
	There's nothing we can do.
	It's unbelievable.
	How about this?
	It was a lie to begin with, you phony.
	It's unbelievable for him.
	First of all, he doesn't even know the story, or he's either lying on purpose, or the question should not be, what did Hillary Clinton start or did it start in her campaign?
	So that's, you know, that is a fact check falls right off the top.
	But then it's like, I don't, you know, 30% of people who were polled, we can trust those, believed it.
	I want to reach them.
	I want to convert them.
	This is your conversion therapy right here, ladies and gentlemen.
	And he's like, he's depressed now.
	But I'll also say, that just seems like quitter talk.
	And among the American values that I believe that journalists carry every day in their jobs in exemplary ways is that we are not quitters.
	We make the extra phone call.
	We do the extra interview.
	We do not shut up, ever.
	I don't know.
	I feel like we need to run at this problem.
	He's losing the thread in his speech here when you go like, I don't know.
	I don't know.
	But it's clear, journalists are not lazy, John.
	They're happy to do the extra interview.
	They're happy to do the extra mile.
	Anything you need.
	Mmm, okay?
	Now, one of our favorite topics.
	The press has been countering the non-factual statements coming out of the White House.
	Has been totally wonderful to watch.
	God.
	Woo!
	You rock!
	I rock!
	So many moments in the Spicer press conferences just made me feel so proud to be a journalist, proud to be on the team, just proud of my colleagues who are asking questions like, could we just hear, how many people are unemployed right now in this country?
	What's the baseline?
	Mara Lyson asked that recently at a press conference.
	If you're saying you're going to add to them jobs, what is the unemployment rate right now?
	Now this is interesting, because clearly...
	They're very concerned about this.
	Yeah, well the Trump administration is messing it up.
	They're morons.
	They need to immediately explain how the numbers are calculated, when the calculation changed, why the U6 numbers have been eliminated from the calculation.
	Why aren't they doing this?
	This is baffling to me.
	You know, the guy who would have been the best president was Ross Perot.
	Ross Perot would go on his little TV things, his little outings, and he'd have a little chart in his hand, a little pointer.
	A hand-drawn chart.
	He'd say, here's what's going on.
	And he'd show these numbers, and he'd point this, and he'd say, there's the sucking sound of NAFTA. He hated that.
	And he had these little charts, and he'd show people, and it always made a lot of sense, just to watch him explain the chart.
	Glenn Beck used to do that on Fox all the time.
	He'd have a chart, but he overdid it.
	Yeah, his charts always ended with Soros.
	It got a little annoying.
	Yeah, and he stopped doing that for some reason.
	But his thing was a little too much.
	But Perot was great at this, and I've always wondered why these candidates don't do that more often.
	They try to do it in the House and the Senate because they have a guy there that makes signs and puts a sign up, and sometimes they show a graph.
	But it seems to me that that's the way to go because you just can't talk to people.
	They can't hear you.
	But they always remember what a graph told them.
	Right.
	Well, so apparently they're going to do this.
	At least that's what I understand from what Ira Glass is saying here.
	But they should, I mean, you're right.
	Someone needs to come out there with a pointer, explain how it works, explain how the numbers are calculated, and you need to show exactly when that changed, which, from what I understand from what you said, is kind of when Obama came into office and then the numbers just went screwy.
	Yeah, they made it look rosy.
	But the thing that's so troubling to me is now, in this one speech, the bastion of news, of NPR, Ira Glass, not only does he have his facts wrong on the birther meme started in the Hillary Clinton campaign during that fierce battle, but he also doesn't understand or has not bothered to investigate how the numbers work.
	And what the actual unemployment is calculated on.
	And what it's not calculated on is people...
	Was it three months now?
	Is it after three months you don't have a job?
	You are presumed to be a bum and you've given up?
	I think, Annie, well, first of all, you can take yourself off of the...
	You don't look for work.
	You gave up.
	Boom!
	Now it doesn't count.
	So you're not unemployed.
	You're just...
	I don't know what you are, but you're a zombie.
	What is the...
	What do you think the number is?
	The actual unemployment number?
	The number, according to John Williams, a statistician out of San Francisco who just recently interviewed by Andrew Horowitz, the number's around 23 to 24 percent unemployment.
	It's been stable for the last five or six years at that number.
	Did Horowitz ask him about the...
	This shadow stats guy is always accused of massaging the numbers or doing some kind of trickery?
	Yeah, he talked about that.
	What was his answer?
	His answer was...
	I think he kind of massages the numbers, but he does it in a way he claims that reflects the reality of the situation.
	He says, because you can't get some of these numbers anymore, so you have to kind of figure them out.
	But he claims he does it through reverse engineering.
	He says his numbers reflect the actual situation.
	When you go look at the homeless, when you look at people begging for money, when you look at these These encampments, when you look at people that can't get jobs and bitch and moan about it, he says his numbers are on the money.
	This is the numbers, 23.
	23%.
	Final clip from Ira Glass.
	Hold on to your keyboard, John.
	I know you're sitting down, but hold on to it.
	He is going to tell us about the future of journalism.
	He sees a very rosy future for journalism.
	Extremely rosy.
	In fact, he says it's a boon time for journalists.
	Did you realize it's a boon time?
	Boon time, I tell you.
	Yeah, if you want to write for nothing.
	Well, you're close.
	You're close to his conclusion.
	But yes, there is a future of journalism, and you will be surprised.
	I'm in the unusual position to be a part of journalism that's going through a crazy boom time where audience and revenues are climbing very, very quickly, and that's podcasting.
	People around the world are consuming long-form, serious journalism in podcast form.
	John, the future of journalism is podcasting!
	You know, this guy wants to be...
	You see this with guys who are taking a look around and say, you know, I'm going to starve to death if I stay in this business where I am now.
	Because the money has dried up.
	And so they all think they can go into podcasting.
	And by saying what he just said...
	By saying that, he hopes to God it's true.
	Oh, and he didn't stop there.
	13 million people downloaded every episode of Serial Season 1.
	It is impossible to calculate downloads without having control over the player.
	This is...
	Just a guesstimate at best.
	4 million people, I think more, have downloaded every episode of NPR's Invisibilia.
	2.5 million downloaded every episode of This American Life.
	Did he say NPR's Inbecilia?
	What was that?
	What was that show?
	I don't know.
	What's that show?
	Inbecilia.
	I like that show.
	NPR's Inbecilia.
	More downloaded every episode of NPR's Invisibilia.
	Oh, Invisibilia.
	2.5 million downloaded every episode of This American Life.
	And one of our producers, Zoe Chase, I feel like these podcasts go places that are really interesting.
	Now listen to this.
	Listen to what he said.
	Just listen to the words.
	These podcasts go places you never expect.
	They travel.
	They get on planes, trains, automobiles.
	They go places you don't expect.
	Really interesting.
	One of our producers, Zoe Chase, was at the inaugural ball, one of the inaugural balls last week, the one for people who create memes and troll on behalf of Donald Trump on social media.
	It was the deplorable.
	And she was very interested to learn how many, many fans we had there.
	See?
	Fans.
	Nah, you just showed your colors there.
	Fans.
	What's important is fans.
	That they have fans because they want to be popular.
	Yeah.
	That's it, John.
	Future of journalism and we are leading the charge.
	We are.
	We are the future.
	Unfortunately, nobody's following our lead.
	Less than 10 minutes to go.
	All right, everybody.
	That's your 10-minute warning.
	I'm pushing my global warming stuff to Thursday.
	It's that good.
	All right, I got a couple things I can push, but I'm going to want to get this out of the way.
	This is the report on what's going on in California with Monsanto.
	And there's a little kind of another one of these gotchas in there.
	I'm going to talk to you about it after the report's over.
	The weed killer roundup can be labeled with a cancer warning, at least in California.
	A judge made that ruling today against the agriculture giant Monsanto.
	Here's Omar Villafranca.
	Roundup is one of the most popular weed killers on the market, used by everyday gardeners and farmers because of its effectiveness.
	David Annis is with the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension.
	It's cost effective and it is very effective as far as controlling weeds.
	Roundup is a commercially sold weed killer manufactured by Monsanto.
	The herbicide's main ingredient is glyphosate, a chemical that is efficient at destroying various types of weeds.
	They can spray the weeds and then plant right into where they've sprayed.
	But the country's largest agricultural state is considering a new warning label on Roundup.
	California officials want to list glyphosate as a chemical known to possibly cause cancer, based on a 2015 decision by the World Health Organization saying it is probably carcinogenic to humans, citing limited evidence.
	Monsanto is suing California, rejecting that their product poses a health risk, calling the proposal flawed and baseless, and that it violates the Constitution.
	Killing weeds is big business.
	Last year, Monsanto reported $3.5 billion in global sales of crop control products, which include Roundup.
	And there's more at stake for Monsanto than just the weed killer.
	Many of the company's genetically modified crops are designed with an immunity to glyphosate.
	It's becoming one of the more widely used materials on the planet.
	Now, I'm not saying CBS, especially the network, is unprofessional.
	Yeah, you are.
	But they have, you know, there's these things.
	NBC has a book that you can buy at the occasion it shows up on the market.
	It's called the NBC Pronunceteer or Gizeteer or something.
	And it has all the pronunciations of all the words in the world.
	And it just tells you how to pronounce them.
	So you have a, so your news organization at the high level, not any local, who cares, but at the highest level, they pronounce all the words the same.
	So you don't have one guy saying Monsanto and the other guy saying Monsanto.
	Monsanto, no.
	Monsanto.
	I mean, come on.
	Is this guy, like, work for the company?
	Does he know about this?
	You're supposed to pronounce the Monsanto one way?
	Wait.
	That drives me nuts every time he said Monsanto.
	Is our jingle...
	Our jingle's wrong!
	It's wrong!
	Monsanto!
	It's wrong!
	We gotta get a new jingle.
	Monsanto!
	I just found it quite annoying.
	I can imagine.
	It was also a pro-Monsanto thing because they were talking about, here's a report, and it was just dubious.
	Why don't they just say that?
	Let's get out of here.
	I want to play one funny clip from our new president.
	I don't think he meant it, but I thought it was funny.
	We're going to have good jobs.
	Look at what I've done recently.
	Ford's moving back, and General Motors is going to be spending massive amounts of money, and Fiat Chrysler, the head, who's a highly respected man, Sergio, flew all the way from Italy to go to the meeting two days ago.
	They're going to spend a lot of money in the United States.
	Foxconn, Foxconn, Alibaba, who's a great guy, by the way.
	All of these companies, they're all excited.
	Ali Baba's a great guy.
	That Ali Baba guy, he's great.
	Ali Baba, he's a great guy.
	Wait, before you start the jingle, I got one last one.
	Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
	Zuckerberg douchebag.
	You didn't hear this one.
	No, I'm sure I didn't.
	Hundreds of people in Hawaii say they'll protest against Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg this weekend over his filing of lawsuits to force hundreds of residents, including Native families, off their land in order to make his Hawaiian beachfront property as private as possible.
	Native Hawaiian professor Kapos Brode of the University of Hawaii said, quote, this is the face of neocolonialism, unquote.
	Zuckerberg now says he's reconsidering the lawsuits.
	Hold on a second.
	Douchebag!
	Exactly.
	That's what we needed.
	All right.
	Is there a game I need to watch?
	Is something happening today?
	Well, today is the Pro Bowl, which is an exhibition game that takes place the week before the Super Bowl nowadays.
	And it's weird because they have different rules and nobody wants to hurt each other.
	Oh, boy.
	And then there's the Miss Universe thing, which I'll take care of.
	Looking forward to that.
	Always nice.
	Always nice.
	Alright everybody, please remember us at Dvorak.org slash NA, particularly for our big episode 900.
	900 of them.
	Of the best podcast in this universe.
	Hey, is the Miss Universe this universe or a different universe?
	It's the best universe.
	I think Miss Universe will be in the alternate universe, don't you think?
	Well, oh yeah, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely.
	Coming to you from the Crackpot Condo here in the skyscraper downtown Austin, Tejas.
	We're in FEMA Region 6, in case you're looking forward on a governmental map.
	Until Thursday in the morning, everybody, my name's Adam Curry.
	And from northern Silicon Valley, where there's no maps, I'm John C. Dvorak.
	We'll return on Thursday, right here, on No Agenda.
	Until then, adios, mofos!
	I'm angry.
	I am outraged.
	I'm angry.
	I am outraged.
	Yes, I'm angry.
	Yes, I am outraged.
	Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
	But I know that this won't change anything.
	We cannot fall into despair.
	We must love one another or die.
	Die.
	We must love one another or die.
	I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
	Good morning.
	I think Bob, who's a great guy by the way.
	Hands too small.
	Can't build a wall.
	Hands too small.
	Can't build a wall.
	Hands too small.
	So you can do it.
	You can fight facts.
	I'm angry.
	We cannot continue to hide it.
	Happiness and joy at seeing an American walking through their streets.
	But they expressed a question.
	They said, why is it that the United States, its allies in other countries, are providing support, are providing arms to terrorists?
	I don't get it.
	I am pleased and honored to scream, listen to me, you don't get it.
	...torturing and killing the Syrian people, children, men, women, people of all ages.
	I am so excited that we're here.
	Fight woman, I don't get it.
	I am pleased and honored to be here today to have a conversation.
	I am...
	...states on 9-11, not Syria.
	I don't have an answer for them.
	Obviously, the United States government denies providing any sort.
	Because that's my job.
	My job.
	And I am listening.
	Because that's my job.
	Because that's my job.
	My job.
	My job.
	You didn't pay the $20, did you?
	No, you know what?
	She's got dreams.
	She has so many dreams, and I can see them in her eyes.
	I can see her dreams, and I want them all to come true.
	I mean, as a French supporter, like, that's all I care about are other people's dreams.
	And we're in it as baby school.
	I care about the children of America so much.
	And, like, I want to know.
	Oh, my God, you know, every time I take a seat with my prom, people like you.
	People like you.
	No, people like you.
	Like you.
	We're all your agenda.
	Hear, hear.
	Adios, mofo.
	The best podcast in the Fact check false.

▲