Dave Smith and Robbie Bernstein expose corruption within the Libertarian Party's New Hampshire affiliate, where former chair Joe Bishop Henchman purged members and stole Mises Caucus assets. They analyze Tucker Carlson's questioning of withheld January 6th surveillance tapes and potential FBI entrapment tactics, while Jon Stewart satirizes the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis. The hosts argue that protecting dissident voices like Sam Parker is vital, asserting that when a minority speaks profound truth against a flat-earth majority, that individual becomes society's most important person, challenging centralized power over reality. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Spike And Justin Speak Out00:11:16
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gash Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am your host, Dave Smith, the Libertarian Tupac, the most consistent motherfucker you know.
He is Robbie the Fire Bernstein, the king of the caulks.
What's up, my brother?
How you living?
I'm good.
How are you, bud?
Very good.
I like it when you're home.
Well, going into the office three days a week was really wearing me down.
So there you go.
People don't understand the lifestyle.
Full-time three days a week.
It's too much.
I don't know how anyone does that.
Yeah, way, way, way too much.
Anyway, Rob is up in Connecticut, where me and Robbie will be this Saturday, Norwalk, Connecticut.
Very excited to go do the show there.
From what I understand, there are a few seats still available.
Probably going to sell out by the end of the day.
If you want to come, go check out right now.
You might be able to still get a couple tickets, but these things are moving.
The Dave Smith, Robbie the Fire, Bernstein tickets move like hotcakes.
So you gotta, you gotta get them while they're available.
Okay, so a few things that I wanted to talk about today that caught my attention.
But just quickly at the beginning, I just wanted to add a few things about our last podcast, not our last podcast with Michael Heiss that you were out for and the state of the attempted coup in the New Hampshire state affiliate party, which of course is dominated by the great Meecox.
So a couple things happened since the last episode when we discussed what was going on.
It's really something in a strange turn of events, maybe not that strange, in what anyone should have seen as such a short-sighted decision on the part of the, I was going to say the Libertarian National Party, but that's very unfair.
The chair, Joe Bishop Henchman of the Libertarian Party and the former chair of the New Hampshire state affiliate, the woman whose name is escaping my mind right now.
It was just incredibly stupid and short-sighted, and it's really completely backfired on them.
The Mises caucus has now had an influx of new members and new donors because people just got to see transparently what was just, I mean, not only just unethical, but in violation of every basic libertarian principle, like property rights, you know, like they just stole actual, you know, property as well as member information.
They defrauded a whole bunch of members of the New Hampshire State Party and purged a whole bunch of them out of the party.
It was just, it was really something to see.
Like I said on the last episode, I was not shocked by the corruption.
I was very surprised by the stupidity of it.
So they just handed the Mises Caucus a big talking point and a big victory.
Joe Bishop Henchman, the chair of the party, came out after our last podcast and put out a public email.
So basically a letter in which he bashed the, you know, he's been saying this whole time and said subsequently.
It was them.
Yeah.
Well, he subsequently said that he has to stay neutral, which is why he can't condemn this rogue state party that stole all of the material, but then comes out and puts out a statement and says that, you know, it's these awful people in New Hampshire, the Mises caucus.
They're not libertarians.
They're awful people.
They're ruining the party, all of this, which, you know, I don't really care.
The state is for the greater good argument.
Right.
It's not, it shouldn't be in the hands of the people.
It's got to be mine to make this decision because of the threat over there.
Yeah.
Like, and my thing is kind of like, yeah, I don't really give a shit about your opinion.
Like, that's the, I don't know.
He knows better.
He knows better than what people want.
He's a real state.
He's just in the wrong party.
He gets politics.
Great politician.
Yeah.
Well, no, this is my point, though, that you're missing.
He's not even a great politician.
A great politician would have looked at this and been like, that's going to backfire.
Look, if the, and I said this on the episode with Michael Heist, right?
But if we had the chair of the party, was like a meek, a Mises caucus, you know, member, let's say Angela McArdle becomes chair of the party, and we had the chair of a state party, but every other position was filled by like Prague caucus people who are very hostile to Mises.
And they had, they had a convention and they won everything.
Like the vast majority of the members were supporting these people who hated the Mises caucus.
And if Angela and Michael Heist came to me and they said, well, we've got a plan.
We're just going to steal the state party, steal all of their assets, steal all of the member information, purge every member, make them sign a new pledge, write bylaws unilaterally, all the stuff that just happened.
If they propose that to me, first of all, I would just be appalled on ethical grounds.
I would say, like, are you guys out of your mind?
Like, that's like, it's criminal and it's more importantly wrong.
I mean, I would leave the caucus if they were trying to do something like that.
I'd be like, I'm not going to be a part of this at all.
But even caulk somewhere else.
Yeah, I'll go caulk on my own.
I was a one-man caulk for years.
Okay.
I'll go right back to caulking with Robbie.
We could just caulk together.
I'll bring my kingship elsewhere.
Yeah, that's right.
Your kingship is transferable to basically wherever we declare you to be king.
That's how you got here.
It was purely by fiat.
But on top of that, if you could almost just leave the ethical concerns aside, I would tell them, I go, this is so short-sighted and stupid because this is going to backfire on you.
This isn't like a good, savvy political move.
This is an intelligent Machiavellian wielding of power.
Everyone's going to see you for who you are now.
And this is going to stay with you.
So anyway, this is all backfiring.
Evidently, there's a vote coming up later this week to disaffiliate from the state party.
It looks like this vote's going to fail.
They're going to have to return everything back to the state, the rightful, original, duly elected.
And then do we make them walk the plank?
Well, we don't know yet.
Maybe just into like a swimming pool, just ceremonial walking of a plank.
Well, what should happen is Joe Bishop Henjaman should be removed as the chair of the National Party.
I don't think that's going to happen.
There is a petition as well over a thousand signatures already.
I believe in one day it achieved that for him to resign.
I don't think he'll be removed.
I don't think he'll resign.
I suppose it's possible.
But I'm happy with that.
At least people now know what this is and what happened here.
Now, I just want to say, I wanted to make sure that I made this point at the beginning of the show.
I would like to offer A very sincere thank you to Spike Cohen and Justin Amash, who both spoke out against this, said that this was wrong, what happened, and that the party should be returned to the rightful, duly elected party.
Um, they, these guys did not do this out of loyalty to the Mises caucus.
They don't, you know, I mean, uh, I don't know if Justin Amash is a member of a caucus.
I think Spike is a member of all caucuses, which basically comes back to like not being a member of a caucus.
Like, he's caught cheating.
Well, neither exclusively.
No, look, you're not, uh, you're not a cauc at all.
Well, I, you know, look, I mean, Spike was the vice presidential candidate for the party in that capacity.
I'm a lame losing table.
Well, all right.
Listen, I, he, it really, I really appreciated that he did that.
He, you know, he did, he did this because it's the right thing to do.
And same, same with Justin Amash.
They, they both did this because they're just like, they're not corrupt guys.
And that, you know, coming at this point in the party, I think like, you know, myself and Justin and Spike are probably three of the biggest voices.
But for me to speak out against it didn't hold as much weight because I'm obviously, you know, I'm an interested party in this.
I'm, you know, I'm a member of the Mises caucus and no other caucus.
That's not the case with Justin Amash and with Spike Cohen.
So for them to speak out against this blatant corruption, it really meant a lot.
I really appreciated it.
And I think that this was without them speaking up against it, this would have been a type of thing that would have like divided the party.
Like, oh, now it's a caucus war, the Mises caucus versus these other, versus the Prague caucus or whatever.
Whereas now, because they both spoke up against it, that's not the situation at all.
It's these few corrupt people versus the rest of the party.
And so I'm just really grateful to them.
You know, whatever issues you may have with Justin Amash or Spike Cohen, truthfully, I don't, you know, on policy, policy-wise, I don't know that me and Spike have damn near any differences.
Probably a couple things here and there, but really we're probably almost probably 99% agree on policy.
On messaging stuff, we have slightly different styles and there's some differences there.
With Justin Amash, we probably have a few policy disagreements with him and maybe some messaging disagreements with him.
But they really showed that like they're they have integrity.
Both of those guys really do have integrity.
They're not, you know what I mean?
Like they're not, they're not corrupt.
They're good libertarians who really believe in the values of individual liberty.
And they were against this because it was anti-libertarian, you know, period.
And so I just, you know, I just wanted to say I really, really appreciate both of those guys.
I think it should, that should be noted by all of the people in like our camp in the liberty movement and in the libertarian party.
All the people in our camp should note that in this moment they chose to be men and stand up and say something.
So I really admire both of them.
And also just to any everyone else, a whole lot of people have been standing up calling this stuff out.
I just wanted to particularly note those two, but to everybody else too, who's done the right thing.
Why Blue Light Glasses Matter00:03:45
That's all.
It's not, you know, like this really isn't just a tribalistic thing.
I would, I would be against this if the Mises caucus was doing this to other people.
That's not, it's just not right.
It's like for whatever people want to say, like, oh, we used the takeover language or all of this other stuff.
When we said we're coming to take over the party, or we said everybody knew what we meant.
What we meant was we were going to do it the right way.
We were going to outrecruit everybody and win the elections.
Nobody ever honestly thought that we were suggesting we were going to do some shady backroom deals to rob people of their property.
That's not what we're about.
So I just think that they did the right thing and I really appreciate that.
So we'll see.
We'll see what happens going forward.
I'll keep you guys up to date on my thoughts on all of this stuff, but I wanted to start out talking about that.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, wonderful sponsor, Blue Blox Blue Light Glasses.
Maybe you've noticed after a long day of spending too much time in front of your computer or in front of your phone, your tablet, that you just feel terrible.
Sometimes you can't get sleep.
You just feel overworked and you don't know exactly what's causing it.
Oftentimes, it's the blue light coming off of the screens.
This is why you're not supposed to get too much screen time.
If you've been spending all day looking at your phone, computer, or TV, and let's be honest, who amongst us hasn't gotten too much screen time over the last year?
Well, if you're getting headaches, not feeling like yourself, feeling like your energy is low, having trouble sleeping, BlueBlocks is here to help.
BlueBlocks created these incredible blue light glasses that block the blue light coming off of your screens.
That's what's causing your eye strain.
The founders of Blue Blocks were not happy with the quality and lack of science behind the leading blue light blocking glasses.
So they decided to create their own.
Blue Blox glasses are phenomenal.
They have 40 frames to choose from.
They're all made of high quality lenses, designed to get more work done during the day and sleep better at night.
But more importantly, they just look really cool.
Like they're awesome, cool-looking glasses.
And they'll stop you from feeling terrible after looking at your computer or phone all day.
Blue Blox Blue Light Glasses are available in prescription, non-prescription, and readers.
So they have frames for every need.
And for every pair you buy, Blue Blox will donate a pair of reading glasses to someone in need.
So get your energy back, sleep better, and block out the unhealthy effects of blue light from your computer, phone, and TV with BlueBlocks Blue Light Glasses.
Check them out at blueblocks.com.
That's B-L-U-B-L-O-X.com.
And right now they actually have a huge sale going on where you can get 20% off any order under $160 with the code SAVE20 or 25% off any order over $160 with the promo code SAVE25.
So one more time, go to blueblocks.com, use the promo code SAVE20.
That'll get you 20% off any order under $160 and use the promo code SAVE25 to get you 25% off any order over $160.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right.
So Tucker Carlson is trending.
Tucker Carlson is trending on Twitter today.
And whenever he's trending, you know, there's going to be calls for him to get fired shortly after that.
But he had a long segment the other night.
We're probably not going to be able to play the whole thing.
And in fact, we're going to start at the beginning and we're not going to play the really good part that's at the end, but I'll briefly tell you about it.
And then we'll get into it.
And And there is one of these things, right?
Tucker Carlson Trends Again00:04:05
Like, I think libertarians can be very guilty of this sometimes.
And I've talked about it.
It's a weird dynamic where I am unquestionably a libertarian purist.
And I think in many ways you are too, Rob.
Like you're a purist.
You're like, look, you want like, you are going to talk about what you think is the right thing, whether it's in the, you know, with the economy or foreign policy or.
politics or whatever.
And when you are a purist, sometimes you can fall into this trap of making the perfect the enemy of the good, where somebody, you know, and I see this all the time with libertarians, particularly with DeSantis, where like, you know, they'll just be like, oh, he's an authoritarian, just like every other one.
And it's like, look, yes, technically that is true.
And I wouldn't support DeSantis for president because there's too many issues that he's not good on.
But if you're, if you believe in human liberty and you're talking about DeSantis, you have to at least concede that he gave the people of his state more liberty in 2020 than any other governor.
And he could easily have robbed them of all of that.
Like no one would have batted an eye if DeSantis said, we're going to lock down too.
I mean, I think they did lock down for like a couple of weeks, but then he lifted it.
So it's like, yes, perfect is a private property-based anarchy, okay?
But that doesn't mean that like everything is the same.
It's like sometimes there are these anarchists that are so they're so binary.
You know, like when they'll be arguing with minarchists and they'll be like, well, minarchy is just as bad as anything.
It's still slavery, you know, like as if there's no difference between a 1% tax and a 90% tax.
Like, really?
There's no difference there.
Yeah, I was watching this.
I won't name names, but I was watching one of those types of anarchists in a debate a couple months ago.
And he was saying, you know, like his whole thing was like, well, you don't, you know, you don't like, if you're an abolitionist, you don't want to reduce slavery.
You don't want the slaves to be treated better.
You want no slavery.
It's a good start.
It's like, but it's like, yeah, that's actually a false choice.
Like, yeah, I can be an abolitionist, want no slavery, but also be happy if 10 are freed.
I can be an abolitionist, want no slavery, and also think it's better to not whip your slaves, you know, like those aren't in conflict.
In fact, they're all moving toward the same thing.
It's like, you know, it's like, if you're going to say any state is slavery and so it doesn't matter, it's like, okay, well, I'm going to, you're getting on a plane and you're going to go live as an average person in one of two countries.
Okay.
It's either going to be Sweden or North Korea.
Doesn't matter to you at all, right?
Because they're both governments, right?
You don't care if you live like the average person in Sweden or North Korea, right?
So it's all the same shit to you, right?
It's like, oh, no, you'd be really, really hoping you land on Sweden there.
So anyway, my point is that of course these things matter.
The ultimate point I'm getting to is that when libertarians give Tucker Carlson shit, it reminds me a lot of when libertarians give Tulsi Gabbard shit.
And that's fine to do.
It's fine to criticize them.
They're bad on certain issues.
But you got to keep in mind that you're dealing with like the best right winger and the best left winger, you know?
That's all I'm saying is like, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
It's the fact that it, and I see a lot of this with libertarians like in their 20s.
And I think part of the advantage I have is that I am now in my late 30s and I remember the George W. Bush years.
Like I remember what the 8 p.m. hour at Fox News was under Bill O'Reilly, which was just purely whatever the Pentagon put out was correct.
That's it.
You know, whatever the State Department said, whatever the military industrial complex, the deep state said, that was Bill O'Reilly's line.
And you have to be a liberal goofy liberal or goon?
I forget his term that he used to have.
That was it.
The only people who disagreed with this were like goofy liberals.
The loony, the loony left, something like that.
January 6th Documents Exposed00:15:21
Anyway, I can't remember.
But so anyway, that was just my preface to this.
But isn't this interesting, right?
That this is the 8 p.m. hour at Fox News.
And here's how it starts.
And we'll go through this a little bit.
And speaking of January 6th, why are there still so many things, basic factual matters that we don't understand about that day?
Why is the Biden administration preventing us from knowing?
Why is the administration still hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the U.S. Capitol on January 6th?
What could possibly be the reason for that?
Even as they call for more openness, we need to get to the bottom of it.
They could release those tapes today, but they're not.
Why?
We ought to be asking those questions urgently, because as the Attorney General reminded us today, a lot depends on the answers.
And at least one news organization is asking that, Revolver News.
It's a news site.
It turned out to be one of the last honest outlets on the internet.
A new piece on Revolver.news suggests an answer to some of these questions.
We know that the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement officers who are present at the Capitol on January 6th, not just the one who killed Ashley Babbitt.
According to the government's own court filings, those law enforcement officers participated in the riot, sometimes in violent ways.
We know that because without fail, the government has thrown the book at most people who are present in the Capitol on January 6th.
There was a nationwide dragnet to find them, and many of them are still in solitary confinement tonight.
But strangely, some of the key people who participated on January 6th have not been charged.
Look at the documents.
The government calls those people unindicted co-conspirators.
What does that mean?
Well, it means that in potentially every single case, they were FBI operatives.
Really, in the Capitol on January 6th.
For example, one of those unindicted co-conspirators is someone government documents identify only as person two.
According to those documents, person two stayed in the same hotel room as a man called Thomas Caldwell, an insurrectionist, a man alleged to be a member of the group, the Oath Keepers.
Person two also, quote, stormed the barricades at the Capitol on January 6th alongside Thomas Caldwell.
The government's indictments further indicate that Caldwell, who, by the way, is a 65-year-old man, this dangerous insurrectionist, was led to believe there would be a, quote, quick reaction force also participating on January 6th.
That quick reaction force, Caldwell was told, would be led by someone called Person 3, who had a hotel room and an accomplice with him.
But wait, here's the interesting thing.
Person two and person three were organizers of the riot.
The government knows who they are, but the government has not charged them.
Why is that?
You know why.
They were almost certainly working for the FBI.
So FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, according to government documents.
And those two are not alone.
In all, Revolver News reported that there are, quote, upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the Oathkeeper indictments, all playing various roles in the conspiracy, who have not been charged for virtually the exact same activities, and in some cases, much, much more severe activities as those named alongside them in the indictments.
Huh?
So it turns out that this white supremacist insurrection was, again, by the government's own admission in these documents, organized at least in part by government agents.
Are you shocked?
We're shocked.
We shouldn't be shocked.
Because in March, the FBI director admitted that the Bureau was infiltrating as many dissident groups that oppose the regime as it possibly can.
I think we should stop it here.
Yeah, let's stop it there and talk.
Yeah, absolutely.
What was on your mind?
I mean, there's a lot.
First is you got to preface this.
I don't know.
I didn't read the revolver story.
I don't know who's doing the research for a revolver.
I can't tell you.
I can tell you that I remember commenting on this right from the origin and going, I would not be surprised if the people that were leading the charge were actually members of the government or Deep State or whatever to get this thing riled up.
And we've already seen a lot of this.
The Michigan case with the FBI.
So Tucker goes on to specifically talk about the Michigan case.
No, it's funny that that's where you were going with it too, because that's literally exactly where he goes.
Let me just say this, and we'll play a little bit more from the video, but let me say this.
Tucker is overstating, overstating his case here.
He is.
When he says, and he shouldn't be so sloppy, but he's a cable news host.
None of them are perfect.
He shouldn't say that government documents say that the FBI did this because they don't.
And I did read the revolver case and I've looked into this a bit.
That is overstating it.
However, there are some very interesting questions.
It's fishy that people haven't been charged.
That's the more accurate way to state it.
It's fishy that there are these unidentified co-conspirators who oftentimes played major roles in the organizing of the events.
Okay.
And that, and the government has acknowledged that there were law enforcement officials that were at the event and participated in the event.
And they have not been charged.
And yet these other, everybody else involved in it, it was like the manhunt of all manhunts to track their data, their facial recognition, everything they could do to bring them to justice.
And they are being held, as me and you both talked about at the beginning, the day of, we did a live stream and we were like, man, this is going to ruin lives.
Like this was the thing that was so like tragic about that day aside from like the girl who got killed and other people who got hurt.
But, you know, you had like these people being kind of goofy, like, oh, selfie, I'm in Nancy Pelosi's desk.
And I remember saying, I'm like, do you not realize what you're going to be looking at?
You're going to be looking at decades in prison and they will find you.
Like they will.
Like, you know, is that the point that I was making with like the Seattle chaz people and a lot of the Antifa types?
And you're like, yeah, you guys are getting away with this because the state sees you as useful right now.
The second they don't, they will waco you without a second thought.
So just keep that in mind.
Keep that in mind that while you're doing this, if you ever become not useful to the narrative, you're in for it.
And these guys were, you know, not useful directly, but useful as a threat, but on the wrong side of that conflict, you know?
All right, guys, let's thank our sponsor for today's show, which is sheath underwear, the most comfortable boxer briefs I've ever worn.
My favorite underwear that I've ever owned in my life.
If you're sick of boxers that are too loose or briefs that are too tight, sheath is for you.
The stretchy fabric is made out of a moisture wicking technology.
They feel super soft, keep everything cool, comfortable, right in place.
It's particularly useful for staying cool during these hot summer months, or if you're just working out or doing anything where you're working up a sweat, you want to have a pair of sheath underwear on.
Also, what's made them famous is they have these dual pouches that keep your man parts separated, prevent things from sticking together.
I was a little skeptical about the dual pouches at first, but it's a game changer.
I love it.
I could never wear any other underwear at this point.
And if you don't like the idea of the dual pouches, you don't have to use them.
You can just wear them like a regular pair of underwear, and they'll be the most comfortable boxer briefs you've ever put on your body.
Listen, it's not just that they're a sponsor of the show.
Sheath Underwear could stop sponsoring us.
They're the only boxer briefs I wear.
That's going to continue.
They're just so comfortable, high quality.
Plus, they have brand new materials like bamboo and mesh for even more cooling comfort.
Go to sheathunderwear.com, get the most comfortable underwear you will ever own.
And if you use the promo code problem20, you're going to get 20% off your order.
That's sheathunderwear.com, promo code problem20 for 20% off your order.
All right, let's get back on the show.
The point that Tucker Carlson is starting to make here is that these are some very serious questions that should be answered.
Like, why are these people anonymous?
Why are they not being charged the way everybody else is?
Do they have any connections to the FBI or to law enforcement?
I mean, these are very, very fair questions.
All you can do is really speculate at this point.
However, as Tucker, as exactly where your mind went to is where Tucker also goes to, is that he's like, look, there is a pattern here of this happening.
And so let's continue.
By the way, but there's some other ones that are worth noting.
There was articles that the leader of the Proud Boy might have been an FBI informant.
That news story kind of disappeared, but there was some evidence to suggest that that could have been true.
But also just to be clear on this, someone being an FBI informant doesn't necessarily mean that they are an agent provocateur.
Like those can be very different things.
So when you're the FBI informant, but you're also in the leadership position, it would seem to be both entrapment and provocateuring, which is definitely not the way to say that.
But that doesn't sound like you're just there informing.
It seems like you're actually being the one guy to kind of push things along.
You can be both.
You certainly can be both, but you also could just be one and not the other.
I'm just saying, like, just because we are speculating a bit here, and I just want to be clear that we are.
That being said, the FBI does have a pattern of this type of behavior.
And let's just play a couple more minutes of the Tucker Carlson thing, and then we'll break this down.
Be moments where you think, if we would have known, if we could have infiltrated this group or found out what they were doing.
And that, do you, do you have those moments?
So anytime there's an attack, especially one that's this horrific that strikes right at the heart of our system of government, right at the time the transfer of power is being discussed, you can be darn tootin that we are focused very, very hard on how can we get better sources, better information, better analysis so that we can make sure that something like what happened on January 6th never happens again.
But wait a second.
There's a huge difference between using an informant to find out what a group you find threatening might do and paying people to help organize a violent action, which is what happened apparently according to government documents on January 6th.
That's a line and the FBI has crossed it.
And it's not the first time they crossed that line in Michigan.
Remember that plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer?
We heard a lot about that.
And Whitmer was able to cover some of her own incompetence, though not all, by pointing to the fact that she's now a victim.
Now, in the FBI's telling of that plot, a whole team of insurrectionists was going to drive a van up to Gretchen Whitmer's vacation house and throw her in the back and drive away.
The mastermind of this plot, according to the FBI, was a man called Adam Fox.
Who is Adam Fox?
Adam Fox turned out to be a homeless guy who was living in the basement of a vacuum repair shop.
Quite a gorilla.
The whole story was a farce.
It was insulting, really, once you got to the details, which outlets like the AP didn't bother with in the first read.
But if you read the government's charging documents carefully, and you should, you will see that it gets even more ridiculous.
It turns out that one of the five people in the planned Gretchen Whitmer kidnap van was an FBI agent in the van.
Another was an FBI informant.
And the feds admitted in these documents that an informant or undercover agent was, quote, usually present in the group's meetings.
In other words, using simple math, which we can do even on cable news, nearly half the gang of kidnappers were working for the FBI.
Remember the guy who suggested using a bomb to blow up a bridge as part of that plot?
That got a lot of coverage.
That guy was an undercover FBI agent.
Oh, okay.
So if you're wondering why they're always comparing January 6th to 9-11, there's your answer.
They're using the same tactics.
And a lot of us missed this the first time around.
And you are due an apology, and we're proffering it on television right now.
We didn't see the obvious.
If you empower the government to violate civil liberties in pursuit of a foreign terror organization, and there are foreign terror organizations, it's just a matter of time before ambitious politicians use those same mechanisms to suppress political dissent.
And that's what we're seeing now.
You should have seen it earlier.
Let's stop it there.
So Tucker goes on after this, and I really encourage people to go watch it.
I just, we're playing too much of this now, but I encourage people to go watch it.
He goes on to talk about how under the war on terror that the FBI was doing these entrapment operations all over the place, which is absolutely true.
And then they would brag about how they've thwarted all these terror attacks.
But really, they would go into these chat rooms.
They would find angry young Muslim men, and then they would approach them and convince them to do a terrorist attack.
Not like someone's going to blow up a building and you're there to stop them.
Like you convince them to blow up the building and then sold them fake explosives.
And then when they go to pull the detonator, you go, ha, you're under arrest.
The FBI got their man.
And this is what they've done.
And for Tucker, with that synagogue bombing thing.
Yeah.
And the other super important element about that is that they are creating their own news to create their own policies.
So they're creating their own news that there's a threat of domestic terrorism.
So then they could say, hey, we need the following budget and we need the following policies in order to prevent domestic terrorism, which also is a major part of the left's agenda to, in other words, try and paint even potentially people like us as being a risk of domestic terrorism.
Well, not potentially.
Listen, John Brennan, the former head of the CIA, put libertarians on the list of terrorists.
You know, those terrorists who believe in non-aggression, the scariest kind of terrorists.
Right.
But without without a track record of violence, it's hard to sell that story.
So what they need to do is actually create it so that it exists in the media and people are afraid of it.
Well, that's right.
I mean, look, think about even a show like ours, and we've taken some criticism from left libertarians and people on the left and woke types and stuff like that for being so critical of the riots with Black Lives Matter a year ago, right?
Now, is there one day of like really bad rioting that we just talk about over and over and over, like that day, that day, even when people are killed or a lot of property damage is destroyed?
It's like, no, I mean, it was a bad day and you condemn it, but you kind of move on and there's other news.
And you think about things like January 6th, like Charlottesville, that get brought up over and over and are obsessively overcovered in the corporate press.
Well, the reason why is because they suit the narrative perfectly, right?
Like this is who the Trump supporter is.
This is who we're up against.
So you don't really care if we do some really crazy authoritarian shit to those people, right?
I mean, after all, there's a Nazi uprising in the country where there's a violent insurrectionist movement trying to install Trump as a king or whatever, you know, the narrative is.
Trump Investigations Flipped Around00:07:08
The scarier your enemy is, the more easily you can accrue power.
And this is always true.
This is like, there's never been like a terrible authoritarian government that didn't have some outward enemy or inward enemy that they're trying to warn you about what a threat they are.
Almost always a greatly overstated threat.
And, you know, this is true with the Nazis or the commies or like any awful government you can think of.
And, but, you know, my point was, though, just to at the beginning was to libertarians who criticized Tucker Carlson for not being good on X or Y.
And they're, you know, that's fair.
I mean, if you remember, we had a whole, we had a recurring Contra Carlson theme on the show where we would take apart bad arguments that Tucker was making, often on economics.
But just understand how powerful that was to have the 8 p.m. Fox News hour, the biggest guy in Fox News, or at least tied for the biggest, sitting there saying what he just said.
Like he said, such a libertarian thing.
He goes, you cannot give the government authority to go deal with these foreign threats, even though the foreign threats exist, and not think that they're going to use that for political purposes.
That right there to me is like the most libertarian shit you could say.
And it's such an important moment for him to tell that to the 4 million or so people who are listening to his show.
That it's like, yeah, you can, that's the whole game right there, right?
You can create this power source, even if you have a good reason to create it.
The idea of thinking that then that power source won't be used for its own benefit is naivete of the of the highest order.
You know, there's, there's no way that that's going to play out in real life with real human beings in control.
And he goes on to detail more of the entrapment, you know, thwarted plots that the FBI had under the war on terrorism.
Anyway, I just thought it was incredible.
And then this gets like trending and all these people are going to hear it.
Now, look, what he's saying about January 6th, I don't know.
I don't know if it's if it's true or not.
You know, all you really can do is speculate at this point.
It certainly would be consistent with the pattern of behavior of the FBI if it was something like this.
And you see, as you were just mentioning a second ago, Rob, you see what the obvious benefit would be for them to create this, particularly at that time where Donald Trump was still contesting the results of the election and all of this to have something like this.
And then it's like, just get everyone like, oh, yeah, this scary, awful group of people.
So, you know, it's interesting.
And I think there's another interesting element of this story, which is that Parler has said that they've given very specific information that there was a threat brewing over to, I don't know who they gave it over to.
Maybe it was the FBI, but they definitely made it known to people in government.
Hey, it seems like there's going to be something going on on that day.
And then there's also an odd lack of security and lack of reinforcement day of.
Maybe that's all just a simple correlation, but I believe that the Senate review or whatever review they did itself said that like, yeah, there was some screwy stuff here as to why we weren't able to better deal with this situation, why it took so much time for reinforcements to reach the Capitol.
So if you start looking at that in conjunction with the fact that, firstly, I mean, from the outset, you could kind of looked at the situation and go, it would make sense that operatives led the charge.
And it almost seems sloppy to me that people that were involved in that day wouldn't be getting charged.
Like I would almost think that they would cover their asses better.
Like I would just think the CIA or whoever's doing this shit would be smoother that you wouldn't leave that little piece of evidence trail.
But yes, their biggest thing is trying to paint.
That's what they did with Charlottesville.
They're trying to say, hey, there's this a racist country.
And because of Donald Trump, like the racists are feeling more in power.
They're going to go out there and they're going to be more racist.
And so that kind of switched over to latter years of look at look at how white America wants to take over.
They're going to be involved in domestic terrorism.
And this is the result of Donald Trump.
These are kind of the headlines they needed to try and squash him.
And also, I mean, since it's happened, I don't know what happened in the days, like, you know, before he was leaving, but there were threats made towards Trump to keep his mouth shut.
You know, he's had to disappear for a little while.
So, listen, I don't have the evidence.
I didn't read through these claims.
Like you said, I think it sounds like a little bit much to say there's like the what was his language, the government, whatever.
But I would definitely buy into that this is that this is, I don't know, maybe likely.
I would say likely.
It seems to me like it just doesn't seem like a crazy story.
I will just say that it is, it would be consistent with the pattern of behavior from the FBI, and that there are some pretty interesting questions there to be answered or to be asked and answered.
It kind of flips me around on the idea of an investigation.
Not that the government would ever have a legit investigation, but you're like, oh, yeah, I guess some of this stuff really should be investigated.
And if this all was to spin a political narrative, wouldn't the perfect piece to that narrative be that the Democrats push for an investigation into January 6th and the Republicans oppose it?
And then it just covers everything up.
Like they're like, oh, you just want to investigate to make Trump people look so bad.
And we know everything we need to know.
So we're not going to let you.
And then the liberals on Twitter can be like, oh, the Republicans won't investigate it.
And then it's just the perfect thing that you never actually investigate what really is the interesting part of it, which is not, did Donald Trump incite this mob to do what they did?
I mean, we all know what Trump said and we all know what they did.
So, like, I don't know.
The connection there is already certainly nowhere near enough to meet the criminal threshold of incitement of violence.
But this is kind of an interesting question.
Oh, who are these anonymous co-conspirators?
Why haven't they been charged?
Who are the people who are in law enforcement who are involved in there?
What exactly?
What division of law enforcement?
Law enforcement's vague.
What do you mean?
You know, are they a cop from out of town?
Are they a cop from in town?
Are they a Fed?
Are they the FBI?
You know, this is these are really interesting questions.
But of course, government investigations are always inherently corrupt because the government is never investigated by a neutral third party.
They're always investigated by the government.
And, you know, if I were responsible for investigating the part of the problem, you know, conduct, we'd probably have a pretty good track record.
So, you know, anyway, so that's the issue.
But I just thought that was fascinating that that was on Tucker Carlson at 8 p.m. on Fox News at 8 p.m.
Protect Wealth With Crypto Gold00:02:28
You know, like, just if you remember the George W. Bush days and stuff like that, it's really wild to see somebody on there going, like, yeah, this is what happens when you support the war on terror.
This is what it's going to come back to do.
And now it's coming back to get you guys.
And he even said it in a way of like, we offer a sincere apology because I'm sure Tucker Carlson wasn't good on those FBI stings when they were happening in the early part of the 21st century.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is I Trust Capital.
Are you guys paying attention to what's been happening with Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies recently?
Investors who are investing in these assets within their retirement accounts are seeing amazing performances while not worrying about taxes at all.
You can see by the news each week, crypto is only getting more and more ingrained into everyday life.
And the smartest investors are investing with their IRAs and 401k retirement accounts.
The easiest way to do that is with iTrust Capital.
All iTrust accounts are IRAs, which means you can invest and trade your crypto and gold tax-free on their 24-7 platform.
If you have an existing IRA or other retirement accounts, like a 401k, you can roll those over with no penalties or taxes.
iTrust Capital makes investing in crypto safe and easy.
You can log into your account 24-7 and invest at the push of a button.
Now crypto can be traded as easily as stocks and bonds.
No keys, no complex process.
iTrust Capital also makes investing in physical gold and silver easy.
iTrust uses a blockchain ledger that gives you digital ownership of physical gold held at the Royal Canadian Mint.
It's not a security or a derivative or some other financial contract.
This is fully backed by physical gold that is deliverable upon request.
And the best part of all, iTrust Capital has low transparent pricing that is 90% cheaper than their competitors.
So if you're looking for an IRA to trade cryptocurrency or precious metals tax-free, go to itrustcapital.com.
If you use the promo code P-O-T-P, you're going to get your first month for absolutely free, plus a free crypto IRA and gold IRA investors guide.
One more time, itrustcapital.com, promo code P-O-T-P gives you your first month for free, plus, you will receive a free crypto IRA and gold IRA investors guide.
If you're interested in learning a little bit more about the company, I had a brief conversation with the CEO.
It's posted over at the Gas Digital sponsor page.
Jon Stewart Review Squashed00:15:30
He's a great guy.
It's a great company.
It's very important these days to protect your wealth and to deal with the inevitable coming inflation.
I highly recommend iTrust Capital.
Go check them out.
Let's get back into the show.
All right.
So, moving on, speaking of things that were kind of surprising to see on TV, even as recently as, you know, just a few months ago, you would have been surprised too.
This clip has been going super, super viral.
I know there's a lot of different layers to it.
Whatever.
Let's just play it and then we could discuss.
Here is comedian Jon Stewart returning to former comedian Stephen Colbert's now late night propaganda show.
Science now.
So I will say this.
And I honestly mean this.
I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to science.
Science has in many ways helped ease the suffering of this pandemic, which was more than likely caused by science.
So, and that's kind of hold on a day.
No, Listen, listen.
It's coffee.
I wouldn't do that to you.
I wouldn't do that to you.
What do you take?
What do you mean by that?
Do you mean like perhaps there's a chance that this was created in a lab?
There's an investigation.
A chance?
Well, my God, there's evidence.
I'd love to hear.
There's a novel respiratory coronavirus overtaking Wuhan China.
What do we do?
Oh, you know who we could ask?
The Wuhan novel respiratory coronavirus lab.
The disease is the same name as the lab.
That's just a little too weird.
Don't you think?
And then I asked the scientists, they're like, How did this?
So wait a minute.
You work at the Wuhan Respiratory Coronavirus Lab.
How did this happen?
And they're like, a pangolin kissed a turtle.
And you're like, no, the name of your lab.
If you look at the name, look at the name.
Can I let me see your business card?
Show me your business card.
Oh, I work at the coronavirus lab in Wuhan.
Oh, because there's a coronavirus loose in Wuhan.
How did that happen?
Maybe a bat flew into the cloaca of a turkey and then it sneezed into my chili and now we all have coronavirus.
Like, come on, okay, wait, okay.
Wait a second, wait a second.
What about this?
What about this?
Wait a second.
All right.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
There's been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania.
What do you think happened?
Like, oh, I don't know.
Maybe a steam shovel made it with a cocoa bean.
Or it's the chocolate factory.
Maybe that's it.
That could be.
I gave them all tuberculosis.
That could very well be.
And Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins and NAH have said, like, it should definitely be investigated.
Stop with the logic and people and things.
The name of the disease.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
But it could be possible.
You could be right.
It could be possible that they have the lab in Wuhan to study the novel coronavirus diseases because in Wuhan, there are a lot of novel coronavirus diseases because of the bat population there.
I understand.
It's like they're saying it's a local specialty and it's the only place to find bats.
You won't find bats.
And it's like saying, oh, wait, Austin, Texas has thousands of them that fly out of a cave every night.
Every night at dusk.
Is there a coronavirus in Austin coronavirus?
No, it doesn't seem to be an Austin coronavirus.
The only coronavirus we have is in Wuhan, where they have a lab called, what's the lab called again, Stephen?
The Wuhan novel coronavirus lab.
All right.
So listen, first of all, because there's a few different levels that are at play here and a few different things to comment on, but goddamn, that was hilarious.
I just, I love Jon Stewart.
I don't care if I disagree with his politics, you know, 80% of the time.
One of the things that was great about Jon Stewart and the Daily Show back in the day and why it was just such a better era of like political comedy is that this is one of the things you see a really interesting force in comedy and particularly in like political comedy.
Jon Stewart is led by finding the funny aspect of things.
And when you do that, you end up dropping a lot of your bullshit because the funniness of a certain subject is almost always somewhat related with the truth.
Not that it's precisely the truth, but that you can't like dogma is never funny.
Like being afraid to steer outside of the given, you know, like lane that you're the allowable opinion lane.
That's never funny.
Funny is always kind of talking about the thing you're not allowed to talk about, talking about the absurd aspect of reality.
And so he chases the funniness.
And this it just makes for better political comedic commentary.
And it was just better then.
A big part of the reason why there's nothing as funny anymore with all of these guys, like with Colbert or Trevor Noah or whoever else, it's not just that they're less talented than Jon Stewart because Colbert used to be so good on Colbert Report.
Like he is really talented.
It's just that he's decided he's going to repeat all the dogma and it's impossible to be funny.
Kimmel used to be so funny.
Like some of these guys are very talented.
But it's just once you're just repeating the dogma, there's no, you can't be funny and you can't be interesting either.
So it was cool to see Jon Stewart do this.
But then there's another side to it, which I'm sure you're feeling as well, Rob.
So I don't know.
What were your thoughts on the bet?
I was never, I was too stupid for the daily show.
I didn't watch it.
This joke was so good.
I was like, fuck, how did I not think of that angle?
The Hershey Park thing.
Absolutely hilarious.
But like you're about to say, it's lame to come out and say this now.
Like you're, you know, you're playing the fake dangerous card.
It's now mainstream narrative.
It's socially acceptable.
Shows how lame Stephen Colbert is that he has to sit there and pretend like, oh, you're not allowed to say this.
What are you doing?
And the facts and Fauci.
But at the end of the, like, great jokes.
I'll give 100% credit on great jokes, but don't pretend like this is dangerous or that interesting.
It's like it's the machine turned where we're allowed to say this.
And so it's just more of the same propaganda that now it's allowed.
I'm not going to knock Jon Stewart at all for any of that.
Cause I don't know.
Maybe if Jon Stewart had been on six months ago, he'd have made this joke six months ago.
Now that would have been dangerous.
That would have been what they're pretending this was had he done that because they the whole uh establishment just decided a few weeks ago that you're allowed to say this now.
But the thing that's hard to not, even though I do enjoy the moment, what's hard to not find kind of infuriating is that it's like people were ruined over this.
People like people's lives and livelihoods were destroyed over this.
They were called conspiracy theorists.
They were banned off of social media, not allowed to communicate anymore with the outside world.
You know, I mean, that is, you know, having your YouTube channel and your Twitter and all the stuff taken down, not literally in a human sense.
But people, you know, like friendships were broken up.
Family members didn't speak to each other over stuff like this.
And we probably left Fauci in power too long.
Fauci is single-handedly responsible for the worst pandemic in human history.
And he's still there and we're still listening to him while he signs checks and grants.
Fuck that guy.
And now all the sudden, the powers that be, you know, the New York Times and the politicians and like all these people, they decide, oh, all right, we're allowed to talk about this now.
And now Jon Stewart can come on and say this and Colbert can laugh and the whole audience can laugh and everyone's having fun.
Meanwhile, there's some guy who just got ruined for saying this before it was approved of, you know, and that is, it's, it's hard to not look at that and be like, man, that's like, that's pretty disgusting.
It's pretty disgusting that you guys can now with no, you know, like, I'd almost, I would be willing to get over it if it there was, if there was a point where they were like, ah, we really were assholes for not letting people say this all this time.
But to just move on to saying this without any, you know, like even attempt at a kind of, you know, some type of like, oh, look, all right, we really, we kind of learned our lesson from that.
We really shouldn't be trying to ruin people for saying something unpopular because sometimes it comes around that they might have been right.
And now, you know, so anyway, that was, that was excellent.
I wish, I wish we had, I wish we had someone in the kind of like the pop political comedy world like that regularly.
I wish he was still doing his show and was doing it ballsy and stuff.
And I will say at the time, he really was balls out in the daily show.
Like he'd go after everybody.
He would really, he, he would go against the grain of the establishment often.
But it's just, I don't know.
It's, it's weird to see.
It's like, you saw like a little mini clinic there of how good political comedy can be and how important it can be.
Because there's no, by the time Jon Stewart's done with that bit, it's not even like you, this is the value in political comedy.
It's not even like you're sitting there going like, well, I disagree with somebody saying it was the lab, or I don't think you should be allowed to say it was the lab.
It's like your soul knows it's absurd to say you're not allowed to talk about this.
Like somewhere deep in your soul, you know that like it, it is just so ridiculous to not consider this possibility.
You know, not that he's proven the point, but he's proven how absurd it is to not go, yeah, yeah, that's that's very likely the case.
So he put on a clinic on just great political satire.
But yeah, man, a lot of people were ruined.
A lot of people were ruined over saying the same thing.
We just got permission that we're allowed to talk about this now.
Of course, you know, we were talking about this back in March and April of 2020 on this here podcast.
But I think that the lesson, you know, if you wanted to take something away from this is that this is why you never want to have like out of bounds lines in what you're allowed to say.
And this is why you never want to have a society, a culture where people are silenced, whether that means public or private.
Obviously, one is, you know, there's a difference between the law and private companies, both ethically and for lots of different reasons.
But in general, you don't ever want to have a society that is silencing people, whether public or private, for being out of bounds.
Society needs those out of bounds people because sometimes those out of bounds people are right.
And I will grant you that the majority of times they're probably not.
But when they are, it's the most important thing.
Like if there is something that, you know, if the entire world, you know, like today, if 99.99% of people in the country believe the earth is round, and there's one guy out there saying the earth is flat at, you know, one guy out of a thousand says the earth is flat.
It's just not that important.
And it's not important enough to silence him over that.
But if 99.9% of people believe the world is flat and one guy out of a thousand is saying the world is round, not only is it not important to not silence him, that guy is saying the most important thing, you know?
So if they're getting it wrong, it doesn't really matter because most people don't agree with them.
But when they're getting it right, they're the most important human being in society.
The person who's saying the really hard thing.
I mean, if you're saying a really harsh truth that everyone already agrees with, then it doesn't really mean anything.
And if you're saying something wrong, then that doesn't really, you know, that most people don't agree with.
And that doesn't really threaten anything.
But if you're saying something profoundly right that most people don't agree with or are unaware of, that makes you the most important person.
So you want to make sure those voices are never silenced to have a healthy society.
To build off that, where we're saying it's important because people might have some really good information for us, we need it.
Someone needs to do some sort of a review on how this one got squashed.
I mean, the answer is the propaganda machine is that good.
But like, I had a guy, Sam Parker, on my show before coronavirus, before anything was shutting down.
We're talking about last year, probably like mid-March, and he had put up 10 sources on Twitter saying, hey, this corona thing is going to be a big deal and it's lab made.
And he got taken off of Twitter.
And I have no expertise in this topic.
So I spoke to him.
It was fascinating.
He basically said, listen, I work in like this space.
I can just look at this thing and tell you that it's been like, this doesn't happen in nature.
It has the hand of people working on it.
I don't know.
When he says that to me, fine, you tell me you're an expert.
This sounds fascinating.
Let's see how this plays out.
And then he turned out to be very right that it was going to be a big deal because at the time it wasn't.
And then a full year later, the narrative turns.
Okay.
So he was right.
I mean, it's a year later.
You can say certifiably he was right.
But like he was removed from Twitter for making that claim.
Like, how do we not, Twitter should be held to the fire?
Like, what expert did you have?
Because now it's obvious.
So a year ago, when he was saying it was obvious, it was obvious to him, and you guys removed it.
So who was your scientific person that?
Because now there's plenty of people saying, hey, this thing was clearly like, forget, you know, Steven's thing, which was funny.
There's also that people who understand this stuff are looking at it and saying, yeah, this can't, this can't have happened in nature because they don't evolve this way.
So like, if we now understand that as just being scientifically true, or like, that's what most scientists think.
So then who was censoring it a year ago?
Who was the person censoring it?
And why was this considered something like, how did something that a year, like, what changed in terms of just that argument?
What changed in a year where what was obvious last year was like, hey, you're not allowed to say this.
Like that, we shouldn't just let people off the hook on it.
And it, you know, it goes, there's something about, yeah, you're 100% right.
And there's something about that that's kind of related to Tucker Carlson's point about how you create this power that you'll give the government the authority to do this stuff.
Speaking Unpopular Truths00:03:56
And then go like, oh, well, obviously they're going to use it for their own political ends if they have this power, because why wouldn't you?
That power is sitting right there.
And there's these, you know, these power brokers who want the power.
And in the same sense, I think one of the things you see is like when you create these things like, oh, this will be, you know, Facebook's truths are or Twitter's truths are, and they're going to decide what's true and what's not.
Well, of course, that's going to be infiltrated and, you know, taken over by the powerful.
And who ends up getting in there?
It's like, oh, well, Dr. Fauci's boy.
And then we see from the emails that they're saying, well, we have to have a team of scientists determine that the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis is bullshit, but we better make sure that these people aren't on the board because they, you know, have too much of a conflict of interest.
So we'll get some other scientists to say it.
It's like, come on.
I mean, this is just the nature of power.
And by the way, this is the nature of power, both public and private, that this is why you don't want public.
This is why you don't want a monopoly on that power, because the more decentralized it is, the better shot you have.
But just think about it like this.
Like, is it ever possible for a dissident scientist voice to be correct?
That's as simple as a question as you can boil it all down to.
Is it possible that most doctors get something wrong and the minority of doctors get something right?
Is it possible that most scientists get something wrong?
And then there's a few lone voices out in the wilderness of science who get it right.
Well, if that's possible, then you can't have a situation where if the majority of scientists think X and you say Y, you get silenced.
Because most of the time, I'll grant you for the sake of argument, that won't matter.
But the most important time when that guy's right, you're going to end up shutting up the most important voice.
You're going to end up silencing the most important person in society, which is the person speaking an unpopular truth.
There's no one more important in society than that guy.
The guy speaking an unpopular truth.
That's what's important.
Not the person, as Tom Woods writes in his fantastic book, Real Dissent, not the person in the year 2021 who's saying, I'm against slavery.
That person doesn't mean anything, but the person in 1840 saying they're against slavery is the most important person in society.
Like you need to be able to protect those voices as best you can.
And that's who the powerful always want to squash, or those dissident voices.
Something to keep in mind.
All right, we're out of time for today.
Thank you guys for listening.
Thank you guys who came out in Brooklyn the last couple weeks.
We had real fantastic shows there.
We'll see you guys up in Norwalk, Connecticut on Saturday.
Then we will see you in Porkfest.
We're going to New Hampshire after all this shit in New Hampshire went down.
I can't wait to go up there and just roast the shit out of those people who tried to steal the party.
And it's going to be so much fun.
You're going to do that on the live part of the problem or just open up stand-up with it.
That's a tough call.
I don't know.
Probably on the podcast because we're doing a live stand-up show and a live podcast, probably on the podcast.
And then what we did last year, which we're going to do again, is do a big question and answer session on the live podcast because that was just so much fun last year.
So we'll have all that stuff going.
And yeah, really looking forward to it.
And then don't forget Freedom Fest.
There's still tickets available.
I'm emceeing the whole week in South Dakota in July.
Run your mouth.
Robbie the Fire Bernstein's excellent podcast at Robbie the Fire on Twitter.
Anything else you got to plug, brother?
Summer pork store, July 3rd in Philly, July 4th near Baltimore.
End of the summer in Nashville, July 17th in Boston.