Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire critique government overreach on surveillance and prisons while debunking claims that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s tweet contained Nazi codes. They challenge CDC mandates for children's vaccines, advocate consulting censored experts, and highlight Devin Archer's testimony implicating Joe Biden in business dealings with Hunter Biden's partners. The hosts argue eyewitness evidence of a payment scam proves Biden lied to win office, suggesting political powers might soon replace him if support wavers. Finally, they condemn Neil deGrasse Tyson's views on transgenderism as anti-science insanity, comparing the activism to religious intolerance that forces societal acceptance of personal feelings as objective reality. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Government Overreach and Protection00:14:57
Fill her up.
You're 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.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gas Digital Network.
Steer your host.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
Dave Smith here.
Robbie the Fire there.
What's up, brother?
How you feeling?
I'm all right.
We're home for like 10 minutes here.
It's getting a little bit weird.
I know.
Well, this is a little bit of a weird thing because we just got back from Cleveland Hilarities, which was incredible, by the way.
I'll say I think one of the best comedy clubs in the country, Cleveland Hilarities.
If you're in the Cleveland area, go check out a show there, man.
Great food, great staff, beautiful showroom.
Had a lot of fun there.
So we're home for a few days.
Then we're all over Florida.
Dania will be there this Thursday.
Daytona Beach, Friday, and then Tampa on Saturday.
Then I come back home.
I'm home for a couple of days.
And then I'm off on the theater tour with the Legion of Skanks.
Whole lot of stuff.
Whole lot of stuff coming up in the near future.
ComicDaveSmith.com, RobbyTheFire.com.
Go check him out.
I got a porch tour all summer long.
I will say I love being out.
I just don't really like coming home now because my place is filthy.
I've got no laundry.
I got nothing.
And then I have like 24 hours to try and put stuff together while catching up on work and then leaving.
And it just becomes a scramble of wearing dirty underwear.
Well, this is the stinky life you chose, Rob.
So you're going to have to deal with it.
And then, well, you know, keeping up with the news while it's all going on.
So we got something to talk about.
We do, of course, have several things to talk about today.
A few controversies that have come up over the last few days.
I wanted to start with the latest RFK thing, which I can't even believe is real.
Dog tweet whistling.
That's right.
That's selling super secret codes.
So by the way, if anyone missed this, it's actually like you feel like you're like, is everyone just trolling me?
There's no way you actually see.
If you didn't, by the way, I saw the tweet.
I retweeted it because I thought it was interesting and I did not even catch it.
You're whistling with dogs too.
That's what I'm hearing.
Yeah, I guess I'm just not one of these dogs.
So really, the funny thing about this whole tour, which you can get into a little bit, but the whole idea of dog whistling being an accusation, but it is kind of funny.
It's like, and this is genuinely true.
I did not get this.
Me, king Jewish Nazi.
I did not even pick up on this controversy.
But isn't that almost the best?
If the accusation really is that someone's dog whistling, isn't that the best defense?
Could anything make you more pure than to just be like, well, I didn't even see it.
I didn't even know it was a thing.
I guess I'm not, I guess it's not whistling toward me, whatever this means.
But okay, so Robert F. Kennedy Jr., he tweeted a couple days ago.
He said, this is the tweet.
I'll read it in its entirety.
He said, since the assassination of my father in 1968, candidates for president are provided secret service protection, but not me.
Typical turnaround time for pro forma protection requests from presidential candidates is 14 days.
After 88 days of no response and after several follow-ups by our campaign, the Biden administration just denied our request.
Secretary Mayorkas, quote, I have determined that secret service protection for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not warranted at this time.
Our campaign's request included a 67-page report from the world's leading protection firm detailing unique and well-established security and safety risks aside from commonplace death threats.
Now, I guess I'm just a naive person here because I did not even realize that this tweet was not RFK publicly announcing that he's requested secret service protection and hasn't gotten it.
I think there's an interesting story there.
I think anybody could understand why a Kennedy running for president would have some unique concerns in this department of security protection.
I thought that's what the tweet was about.
If you're listening to this and you had not heard of this tweet or the controversy, I want you to ask yourself right now, did you see it?
Did you see what happened there?
Okay, so evidently this was a dog whistle to Nazis.
Why?
Because the numbers 14 and 88 both appeared in the tweet.
Now, if you don't, if you're not, that is, well, if you're not aware, there's the 1488 is like a Nazi code.
I guess it's because 88 H is the eighth letter in the alphabet.
So like Heil Hitler, I think that's what it's referencing.
And then the 14 words is like a Nazi slogan.
But people are actually running with this because the two numbers were included in the tweet, that this means that RFK, who's been on a pretty embarrassing I Love Israel tour, is actually signaling to the Nazis.
Don't worry, I'm one of you.
I guess it's because, I mean, by the way, he also has the number 67 in there.
I don't know what that, was there like a Nazi who was six foot seven or something like that that he could be referencing?
I don't know.
Anyway, I just couldn't, I couldn't believe that people are actually, it's, it's, it, this might rank up there with the dumbest criticism of RFK that I've heard from anyone yet.
That when he used these numbers, he was, what would even the benefit of this being?
What would the benefit of this dog whistle be?
To rally the Nazi vote?
What did he just get?
He just got another 42 votes nationwide.
What are you even talking about?
This anyway, I just, it's, it's, uh, I thought what was interesting about it is not just um, it reveals, in a sense how um, how deranged some of the, the critics of RFK, are and how, and and i've experienced this a lot, obviously on a much smaller level, but i've experienced this a lot with um critics uh, of of myself, where it's almost as if they um they,
they start with the conclusion that you are bad.
And no amount of evidence can dissuade them from this view.
And in fact, you realize at a certain point that you're not, they're not even arguing with you.
They're arguing with like a caricature of you that they've built in their head.
And they kind of convince themselves that because they're on the noble good side and you're on the evil bad side, any tactic involved is justified.
You know what I mean?
Which is kind of, I suppose maybe would be true if you were fighting real Nazis, right?
Like if you were in Nazi Germany trying to bring down Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, would you lie in order to do that?
Would you misrepresent things in order to do that?
I mean, like, sure, I guess you'd probably be justified in the ultimate goal, right?
And so I think that's almost the mentality, but it is bizarre.
I went back and forth with a few people who are actually arguing about this on Twitter.
And they're re it's like you're arguing with a member of a cult.
Like, I don't know what to say.
They're like, you know, they'll start there.
They'll be like, what other explanation is there?
Why would those two numbers be in the tweet?
And you're like, well, I mean, maybe those were the number of days.
And he was just saying what the number of days.
And they'll say things to you.
They'll be like, but why didn't he say two weeks?
Why say 14 days?
You're like, because that's another way of describing two weeks, a completely legitimate one.
Like, what are you saying here?
Why, why is it that you're assuming rather than the obvious answer, which is that he's just telling you that this is how long it took before his, you know, his request was ignored for 88 days when usually you get an answer in two weeks.
He's just telling you that information.
You would assume that the liberal Democrat from an establishment family who's married to the wife from Curb Your Enthusiasm, who's going on a weeks long I love Israel campaign, that he decided he'll shoot up a secret encoded message to neo-Nazis to what?
Just let them know.
I know your slogan.
I know your slogan.
Don't you worry.
I'm with you.
Don't worry about, don't worry about all this I love Israel stuff.
You know, that's just what I'm saying.
But I wouldn't put those numbers in a tweet if I didn't really have your back.
This is, this is madness.
This is absolute madness.
And people actually buy into it.
It's just, it's like you look at things like this.
You're like, what planet are we living on?
Seems like nonsense to me.
Isn't it like there's something about the concept of a dog whistle that look, I'm not going to say that there is no such thing, like that nobody has ever kind of said something with a wink and a nod, trying to like convey a meaning without directly saying it.
However, the attack of your dog whistling, which we've seen now used, really, I remember hearing it like very randomly in my, in my life that people would claim certain things were dog whistles and in a very unfair way.
But really since Donald Trump ran for president, I feel like it's just constantly a term that's used.
But we, you know, you realize this is another one of these terms that kind of undermines free speech, undermines debate, undermines kind of grappling with opposing ideas rather than just caricaturing them.
Because the fucked up thing about the accusation of a dog whistle is it's kind of like, it's like a get out of argument free card for progressives.
Cause now you don't have to deal with what your opponent is saying.
You don't have to respond to what they're actually saying.
Instead, you get to decide what they're really saying, i.e. what they didn't say, but you've decided they mean.
And now you can just take on that.
So if you say, you know, and you see this is done all the time.
If you say like you want stricter immigration controls, okay, well, that's just a dog whistle to white nationalism or something like that.
If you, you know what I mean?
If you say like any comment you make that challenges progressive orthodoxies, they can now say, well, what you're really doing is you're, you're trying to dog whistle to other bigots.
So you won't come out and say it, but I know deep down that's what you really mean.
It's a very underhanded tactic that is, I got to say, shockingly effective.
You know, like if you think, Rob, about it, because if you think about how deep this problem is, right?
What if you were to go onto like a college campus, let's say you were invited to like a typical like kind of progressive college campus and speak to young people and you were to tell them like why you're a libertarian.
It's not that they would hear your arguments and then be like, well, we disagree with this because of XYZ.
It's not even like they're programmed with arguments that counter your arguments.
And so they'll just regurgitate those arguments.
It's much worse than that.
They've been trained to, as soon as they hear you say this, start to decide what you really mean by that.
You know what I mean?
It's like they've been trained to go, oh, what you really mean is that you're a bigot, rape apologist, or like whatever the buzzword term of the day is.
Like that's, that's like how devastating propaganda really works or like how propagandizing people really works is that you train them like this dog whistle mentality is a big part of it.
You train them to not even hear what the person is saying, but to hear certain key triggers and then decide you know what they're really saying.
You can see this all the time.
Like if you go watch any of those things where like speakers are protested on college campus, just look at it.
Like that's what you're seeing.
You're seeing them respond to what they've been programmed to believe the person is saying rather than anything that the person is actually saying.
And that's whether you agree with that person or not is kind of immaterial.
Just notice the dynamic.
I mean, I see this with like Ben Shapiro when he used to go to college campuses.
I don't agree with Ben Shapiro on a lot of things, but you could clearly tell these kids, they're not even hearing him.
They're not even hearing what he has to say.
They've immediately already decided like he's the, and that's why you have them sitting there calling him a Nazi, even though he's like got a yarmulke on.
You know what I mean?
And like you're like, dude, does that, that didn't fuck with you at all?
And they're like, nope, we already know he's dog whistling.
It's a very, very dishonest tactic and incredibly effective.
I think the people out there, I could see Ben Shapiro pulling off a little Hitler stash.
I could see that working for him.
Man, you know, now that you mention it, it does seem like if he, if he came out tomorrow with that, I'd be like, was he, did he always have that?
Was that always on his face?
Was it always?
I think it would fit his whole, his whole thing.
It's really something, though, especially for a guy like RFK, who, you know, it's like he comes out however you feel about him and his campaign, it's like you do see this unbelievable like inability for people, largely speaking, I'm not saying this is true for every critic of his, but largely speaking, this inability to like grapple with what he's actually saying.
And I think part that's why this is so appealing to them.
Cause it's like, oh yeah, okay, this is now we don't have to deal with any of the stuff he's been saying.
Capata Tax Credit Scandal00:03:55
We can just deal with fours and eights.
Yeah, fours and eights, Nazi.
It's so bananas.
It's so ridiculous.
I was trying to like, it's like, I was messing with someone who said it the other day where he goes, he goes, there's a reason why, you know, he put 14 and 88 in his tweet and it's because he's dog whistling all of these Nazis.
And then I just quote tweeted him and said, there's a reason why this guy put 14 and 88 in his tweet.
He's dog whistling all these Nazis.
That's great.
Like you have 14 and 88 in your tweet too, dude.
So like, what?
Like, I mean, like, what type of insanity is this?
You say, if those numbers happen to go, what if something like historic happened on October 14th, 1988?
Can we talk about it now?
Or do we have to pretend that day didn't exist?
Because if I tweet about it, I have to include those words.
Brian, what happened on 1488?
Oh, yeah.
I'm curious.
I'm kind of curious to know what historical famous things on a 148.
They all got to go.
Whatever they are, they all didn't happen.
Famous people with birthdays that have 14 and 88 in them.
We're going to end up having to delete Martin Luther King or something.
That's the wrong period, but you get what I'm saying.
I got to be careful playing craps now.
I like the hard fours and the hard eights.
You can get footage of me in any casino going R4, R4.
Let's go.
Heart 8.
Yeah.
You know why you like them?
I guess apparently it's my connection to the Nazis.
I didn't realize.
Because you've always been a Nazi, and this is what it is.
It's there's something about that, though, the like the mentality.
And I've been, I've been told this before, that I am dog whistling.
When I'll say something, that's just clearly like, this is not this like, you're like, no, I'm just, I mean the words that I'm saying.
The words coming out of my mouth are what you say.
And people will argue with you, even though I'm me.
I'm the one who knows what my intentions were when I said it.
And they'll go, no, you know what you're doing.
You're really saying it to like, get at all these people.
Just so bizarre.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Capata.
Was your business affected by the COVID-19 scandemic?
This is your chance as a business owner to take back what is yours from a tyrannical government who spends frivolously.
I want to take a second to tell you about Capata.
Capata is a professional CPA firm that helps its clients with end-of-year tax filing and planning, fractional CFO services for businesses trying to grow without the expense of a full-time CFO, business advisory services, and much more.
Recently, Capata has started helping its clients with filing for ERC tax credits.
What is an ERC tax credit, you ask?
An ERC allows eligible employees to claim a refundable tax credit for a percentage of qualified wages paid to employees up to $26,000 a year.
The credit is designed to incentivize businesses to retain their employees during times of economic uncertainty and disruption.
Now, to be eligible for the employee retention tax credit, employers must meet certain criteria.
Not to worry because Capata will only take a few minutes to find out whether your business qualifies.
And if you do, all you have to do is go to their website, capada CPA.com slash P-O-T-P and fill out their step-by-step eligibility form.
And one of their experienced team members will reach out immediately.
Don't wait on this opportunity as there will probably never be a chance to file for a tax credit like this again.
We should also note Capata is by no means an ERC mill.
They are a legitimate CPA firm and help manage the books for multi-million dollar companies.
So whether you're looking to get some money back from our tyrannical government or simply looking for a new CPA for your business, Capata has your back.
Visit their website today to learn more or give them a call at 866-598-1743.
You know, I had this, by the way, I was, I had an interaction with Dan Natterman earlier today on Twitter, which I feel balanced.
I like Dan Natterman.
I mean, I think he's good comic.
He's very funny comic and he's a good guy.
He's a smart guy.
But I didn't mean to put such a ratio on him this morning, but God damn, he doesn't have a lot of Twitter followers.
And he started replying to me.
And he was just saying dumb shit.
But it kind of reminded me of this because what people will say almost in response to this is they'll go, oh, so they'll say, so you're saying that nobody has ever dog whistled before?
Like nobody's ever made a comment that was like kind of intended to maybe let racists know I'm on your side.
And it's like, no, that's not the point.
But the point is that you can't just accuse people of doing that without having any reason to suspect that they are actually doing that.
You know what I'm saying?
Like if there's no evidence that this is a dog whistle, it's so obviously much more likely that he just happened to have the numbers 14 and 88 in a tweet and didn't mean anything to that.
So anyway, the interaction that I had with Natterman kind of reminded me of it.
But so I had tweeted, there was something, some article that came out that I saw about like the CDC still recommending that children get the COVID vaccine.
Something like that.
Annually, we have to make sure as many mRNAs as possible.
Maybe it was something where they said it's COVID should going forward be a yearly.
You can still increase your antibodies, Dave.
Are you trying to say it's not important for people to have increased antibodies?
Right.
So anyway, so I think it was someone from the CDC said that going forward for kids, it should be like a yearly flu shot and a yearly COVID shot.
I believe that.
And so I just tweeted just a very, you know, blanket.
I just said, over my dead body, will either of my two children ever get the COVID jab?
Just a blank statement.
And Dan Natterman responded to me and he said, here, let me get it so I can do it justice, not misrepresent anything that happened.
So he said that his response was, if the CDC recommends the vax for kids, I would do it.
Because A, I don't believe the government is purposely trying to harm children for some nefarious purpose.
And B, scientists are a lot smarter than me, as evidenced by the fact that my GPS works.
Which, you know, so, all right.
So anyway, I, I, uh, I responded.
I was like, Jesus, Dan, you could have just written appeal to authority or something like that.
Now, um, the, now, of course, appealing, appeal, appealing to authority is a logical fallacy.
Um, just because an authority says something is right doesn't make it right.
Um, now, that doesn't mean that there aren't times where experts get things right, but that just because you said, well, the CDC says it doesn't mean it's correct.
And as far as him saying, I don't believe the government is purposely trying to harm children for some nefarious purpose, um, that's nice that you don't believe that.
I don't know that the government is purposely trying to harm children.
My belief would be more something along the lines of they don't care if they do, which is, which is a distinction.
Okay.
It's not that I don't necessarily think like the people who were lying us into the war in Iraq were selling it because they just wanted to kill children, but they were willing to kill children in order to further their goal.
Now, that's there's, I could give you a million examples where the government is actually quite willing to kill children.
Anyway, Dan said, he responded, like I said, my GPS works, as does my iPhone.
And when I get on an airplane, I get to my destination safely every time.
And if the pilot says we're diverting because of weather, I don't, quote, do my own research.
Well, you know what didn't work?
The vaccine you took.
You know who really doesn't work for?
The kids they're putting it into.
And you want to hear, you want to hear the science on that?
Because it's pretty well documented at this point.
Yeah.
Well, here.
So anyway, I responded back to him and I said, I said, the experts said Saddam had WMDs.
I'm not going to do my own research.
Experts know things.
I mean, my washing machine works.
So just kind of mocking this idea that just because he responded with something like where he said like, well, Dave, if you know what the speed of light is, you only know that because an expert figured it out.
And again, it's kind of like the same thing with the dog whistle thing.
Saying, like pointing out an appeal to authority fallacy, saying something is right because the experts say it's right is a fallacious line of reasoning.
Now, that does not mean that experts have never figured out anything in the history of anything.
That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate experts who have expertise in areas that we do not have.
Of course.
Also, he's describing market experts.
Yes, that's all really big fans of the free market.
And yeah, I guess what?
If everyone can opt to go buy a plane ticket and people can get so good at flying planes that there's the expert at the front of the plane because we all get to freely go buy those tickets, then yeah, that expert's probably an expert.
But when the government comes along and they force someone upon yourself, upon us and they go, this is an expert and you have to listen to the person and they don't have to actually prove themselves in the market and prove their value and prove that their items are good or that their ideas work.
Then yeah, then you might as well, any government policy of anything that they ever come out with.
I mean, I don't even know why there's Democrats and Republicans arguing amongst each other.
Hey, there was an expert.
He told me to stay in my house and shut down my business and that it would be better for me to not see my family before they died.
Yeah.
Like, why are you even trying to make an argument to convince me of something?
Like, let the experts in logic figure this out, right?
We have people with PhDs and logic.
What are you doing here having a conversation with someone, right?
So again, this turns into a thing where it's almost like he's going, oh, so you're saying experts never figured anything out or you don't ever like lean on expert opinions.
It's like, no, I lean on expert opinions all the time.
I'm a Jew from New York City who owns a huge house.
This place would crumble if I didn't just constantly lean on experts.
I had this studio built by and like I had electrical work done by an electrician who knows stuff that I don't know.
Like, yes, obviously our whole lives, we defer to people who have specialized in different areas.
Oh, you know what?
I'm an expert.
That does not mean that because they say it, they're right.
And especially that some governing authority is there for correct.
Sorry, go ahead, Rob.
No, I have an expertise.
You know what I'm an expert in, Dave?
What's that?
Knowing when the government's lying to you.
So Dan, you can just refer to my expertise on this.
And when the government says that giving your kid an mRNA booster at this point in time is a good idea, they're lying to you.
Well, it's weird how he gets off on this thing of like, well, someone else figured out the speed of light and someone else figured out how an iPhone works and how to fly a plane and all of this other things.
And it's like, yeah, but what we started with was saying that you're telling me if the CDC tells me to, which they're telling me to and have been for a long time, tell me to vaccinate my kids, I should vaccinate my kids with the COVID mRNA vaccine.
And the issue here is that while Dan and so many other people kind of, which is, I don't know if you've heard Jimmy Doer has this great bit on when people go do your own research.
I said in quotes where he's like, I don't do my own research.
And Jimmy Dore goes, you know what we used to call that?
Reading.
It's a long bit.
I won't do the whole thing, but it's really, really funny.
But it is just like, yeah, by the way, the do your own research thing, which is like what grown men used to call reading, also involves relying on experts.
Like, I don't think there's any of us out here who like did our own research through COVID.
And by the way, me and you did our own research throughout all of COVID.
And you know what?
Got put our track record up against anyone in the corporate press or the government approved expert class.
And we trounce them.
This is not debatable.
Like we trounce them with our record on what our stance on COVID and the vaccine was compared to theirs.
But when we were doing our own research, it's not like I was just like, my research was like, well, I'm going to go grab a couple beers and talk to my neighbor about what he thinks.
It was like reading from all of the experts who were censored out of the conversation.
Like it still involves looking to experts.
It's just like hearing second experts, you know, like hearing a second opinion.
It's like if a doctor diagnosed something and you went to get a second opinion and they were like, what are you doing?
Don't do your own research.
Trust the experts.
You're like, well, why can't I go hear what this other expert has to say?
And oh, isn't it interesting that all of these experts are involved in this completely crony money making scheme?
And this expert's outside of that and has a completely different opinion.
So again, it's just like, it's this thing where if you like the point I was trying to make that I think is true for the dog whistling and for this, you know, do your own research, trust the experts bullshit is that it's like, as soon as you point out that like this is an unreasonable standard to have as your standard for determining something, they go, oh, so you're saying it's never once happened?
Oh, so you're saying no one's ever dog whistled or no, that no expert has ever been right.
And you're like, yeah, of course, of course that has happened.
But that doesn't mean that your standard can be, therefore, when the experts say something, we must automatically defer to them.
Like, no, that's ridiculous.
And this is true all across life, right?
Like if you like my, I had to get my hot water heater replaced recently.
And what do I do?
I call in the company.
They take a look at it.
They go, look, this thing's busted.
You're going to need a new one.
It's going to be a few thousand dollars.
Like, okay, this is what we have to do.
And you go, okay, look, I don't know.
I don't know whether there was a quick fix for that or not, but what am I going to do?
I don't know about water heaters and that's what these guys do.
So I defer to their expert opinion.
However, if they were to say, okay, this is busted and we're going to need you to write me a check for $100,000 right now.
And it'll take six months before we can get you another water heater.
Right away, I'm going to go.
That doesn't seem reasonable to me.
I'm going to have to do my own research.
I'm going to have to look into what I'm going to call another water heater company.
I'm going to see what they tell me they would charge over this because I've never heard of anyone having to pay $100,000 for a new water heater and it takes six months for it to get there, right?
So it's not one or the other.
It's like, yes, generally speaking, you look to people who have expertise, but when they start saying something that seems a little bit unreasonable, that's when it's, it's, if you're not an idiot and you're a grown man, that's when you go, no, actually, I'm going to have to look into this a little bit more.
I want to hear what some other experts have to say.
And when you tell me that I should be injecting my babies with an experimental mRNA vaccine, even though the experts who are at the forefront of developing mRNA, many of them are telling you not to take it, right?
Like, I guess Dr. Malone's not an expert now, according to Dan, I guess.
No, then you realize, oh, wait, you're telling me you want them to take this experimental vaccine for something that statistically they have zero risk of negative outcomes from.
That doesn't seem reasonable to me.
And now I'm going to do my own research, motherfucker, because that's the reasonable thing to do at this point.
This show is sponsored by BetterHelp, and let's tell you a little bit about it.
I'm a big believer in therapy, something I've benefited from personally.
I know a lot of friends of mine who have benefited tremendously from it.
Sometimes in life, we're faced with tough choices and the path forward isn't always clear.
Whether you're dealing with decisions around your career, relationships, or anything else, therapy helps you stay connected to what you really want while you navigate your life so you can move forward with confidence and excitement.
Trusting yourself to make decisions that align with your values is like anything.
The more you practice, the easier it gets.
So right now, if you're thinking about starting therapy, give BetterHelp a try.
It's entirely online.
It's designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule.
You just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and you can switch therapists at any time for no additional charge.
Let therapy be your map with BetterHelp.
Visit betterhelp.com slash problem today to get 10% off your first month.
That's betterhelp.com slash problem.
B-E-T-T-E-R-H-E-L-P dot com slash problem for 10% off your first month.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right.
Let's move on.
Other big news, other big news, Brzezinski.
Okay, so another business partner of Hunter Biden has gone, get out of here, Bug.
He has gone public, Devin Archer, who testified behind closed doors.
Is that correct, Rob?
So this is, which also is a little bit strange.
Typically, these congressional testimonies are done publicly and they're on camera and we can we can watch them.
It was seemed to me pretty odd that this was done behind closed doors.
I did not see anyone give a reason for why this needed to be done behind closed doors, but he did testify to Congress.
There seems to be some different narratives that are coming out over what happened.
Democrats are basically saying there was nothing there.
Republicans are saying actually it was quite a bombshell.
What have you, before we go into the video that we have here to respond to, what was your thoughts on what you've heard about this guy testifying?
Well, off the bat, I hate the closed doors nonsense.
I hate that everything's open-ended.
We never get firm conclusions and it's always wishy-washy.
Yeah.
You know, it's repeating storylines.
I just, you know, that's where my OCD and, you know, weirdness strikes him.
It's not even OCD or weird.
It's appalling.
I mean, what do you mean we don't get to hear this stuff?
It's insane.
That stuff gets annoying.
All right.
It seems like they certifiably have proven false when Biden made statements in the news of, I don't know what my kid is doing.
But we always knew that that was false.
The Joe Biden Phone Scandal00:15:37
So it's like, you know, it's sometimes like they come in, they go, bombshell.
And it's something that we always knew.
And it's like, all right, that's not really proving anything.
Who cares?
So whether or not he knew what his kid was doing, that doesn't prove criminal behavior.
And like, well, if I could just interject there, it's also that there's an issue with the timing.
And this is kind of what how this this system perpetuates itself is that there's so much of a drip, that by the time you get it, you're like, yeah, we just knew this for so long.
Now, if the day after Joe Biden says, while he's running for president, he goes, I never talk to my son about business or anything.
Then this comes out.
It's like, boom, bombshell.
You got it.
The same way, like, look, if the day after JFK was assassinated, it came out that the CIA was involved in it, everyone would be like, oh my God, the biggest scandal in history.
But if it comes out today, it's just kind of like, yeah, I mean, it's like the lab stuff too.
It's always once they've accomplished what they've accomplished, the truth can come out.
So now that they've already made mRNAs normal, they had, you know, they made the money that they needed to make.
Couch was able to stay in office for his term and not be known to be a perjurous liar.
The information come out.
And I would say that's one of the things that keeps the machine alive is that they're very good at slowing down storylines so that the truth comes out once they've already enacted what even the Trump would be a good example of that with the collusion story.
So for two years, you know, they accomplished their goals of flipping Congress and making sure that he couldn't accomplish his agenda.
And then over time, it turned out, oh yeah, we were just lying and that that was a Clinton deep state, you know, mission to basically make sure that the president couldn't fulfill his agenda.
So just to prove your point that that's their whole game plan is how long it takes to actually prove this information.
And by the way, if they ever do prove this, it'll be when Biden finally comes forward and goes, I got to manage.
I don't know what you're talking about.
And then they'll just let him go.
Not too far off from what Mueller did when they brought him in front of Congress.
Anyways, back to this.
Nonsense on that one.
Great.
Fine.
You proved that it's pretty clear that Biden knew that his son was at least in business.
Now, the other part's left very open-ended because basically the guy gave testimony that Biden was on, I believe the number was 20 or more than 20 calls on speakerphone when they were talking to the corporations that Hunter was peddling influence to.
Now, we also know that these corporations have in their corporate writings that they were partnering with Hunter Biden specifically because of the father's influence and that they're even pressuring Hunter at times.
Hey, what is Joe going to do for us?
We're spending a lot of money with you.
We know both those pieces.
However, this guy's testimony being all slick, I guess he can't deny that the phone calls happened.
But you know what I guess is still left open-ended?
And I guess no one else can testify against him about is that Joe Biden just happened to be on those calls.
That Hunter Biden's very good at representing that Joe was actually panning influence.
So he would just walk up to Joe.
He'd be sitting there having a beer and he'd be talking to his dad and go, oh, I just have to hop on this speaker call.
And then the client would be on the line.
Oh, yeah, Joe's here.
We're hanging out.
Hey, hey, hey, son's friends.
Yeah, I'm sitting here and having a beer.
And then Hunter does.
By the way, I will just say, just knowing Joe Biden, it does seem like he could be tricked into doing that.
Right.
Like, it does seem like if it was all Hunter, let's just say hypothetically, it was all Hunter.
I don't buy that.
I think probably Joe was involved in all the dirty, shady shit, but you do almost look at Joe Biden and go, he could be fooled into doing that.
It's like when you like fool someone into like the old prank where you fool someone into picking up your tab.
And then like, you're just like, you go to the waitress and just be like, oh, that guy said he's going to pick up my tab.
And then you just go to that guy and you're like, say hi to the waitress.
And she's like, he's like, hmm.
And then you're like, oh, okay.
Yeah.
He agreed, you know?
Right.
Seems like that could, that is plausible.
But anyway, go ahead.
But with all that, so here's the problem.
We're kind of in the exact same place where the Republicans still don't have bombshell evidence.
It's still kind of open-ended.
Yes, you have 10% for the big guy.
You've got other partners saying that he was involved.
And I guess this is another piece of evidence that, look, Joe Biden was at least on phone calls with these partners, but there's also seemingly, we didn't actually, we weren't there, the direct testimony that Joe just happened to be on the calls and was not talking business.
So you're both supposed to, if you're going to accept both of these guys' words as fact, you're basically left at an at even.
With all that being said, though, like I got a great relationship with my dad.
We hang out all the time.
We're cool.
My dad's not that available to me and he's not the senator or president.
Yeah.
I would not get a hold of my dad for 20 phone calls that I want to be taking with my personal clients.
Like my dad would just be like, what the fuck?
What are you doing?
Like, we're hanging out.
Why are you taking a business call right now?
And he'd be like, why am I on your business call?
Yeah.
Or if you're not.
I think there'd be some questions.
But your dad is much brighter than Joe Biden.
Yeah.
To be fair.
My dad's got some serious legal experience.
I can probably call him up once a year and go, hey, I just got this legal document.
Do you mind reading this for me?
If I tried that five times, I'm just telling you, my dad's the greatest guy.
He's not that available to me and he's not as busy or as important as Joe Biden.
So I would just venture to guess that they've concocted another perfect story to leave this open-ended.
Well, it does even a little piece of the pie to at least say he was there talking to these partners.
Even a dummy like Joe Biden is probably not going to get on the phone and say, yes, I will do this for you, Barisma, if you continue to give my son $120,000 a month.
You know what I mean?
Like even this is kind of like when we talked about with Trump, whether he was on the phone with Georgia Secretary of State there or Zelensky or any of them.
It's like, look, he's not going, you're not going to find a recording where the words actually come out of his mouth.
All of these guys operate like they're, it's all mob shit.
You know what I mean?
Right.
You're never going to find the mobster who says, either you buy from us or we will burn down your store.
They say things like, you know, I really think you should buy from me.
And it would be very unfortunate if an accident were to occur.
You know what I mean?
Like there's even the dumbest mobster knows not to literally say the words.
So that's kind of what we're dealing with.
Anyway, it's been interesting to watch the media attempt to spin what.
Look, at the very least, what you have here, right, is that this is clearly looks very bad for the Bidens.
There's really no other way to spin this story.
Clearly, Joe Biden was lying through his teeth when he said, I never discussed business with my son.
They obviously had discussed this business.
He had been on phone calls with them.
He had met people who he was doing business with.
So it's bad for the Bidens, but that won't stop MSNBC from doing what MSNBC does.
Let's check it out.
Times have been remarkably candid about saying, we don't have it yet.
And even Council McCarthy last week sort of pushed back against this impeachment inquiry momentum because he was like, look, we don't have evidence to go that far.
And as far as Hunter Biden goes, there's no doubt.
I mean, it's pretty clear.
Even those close to the Biden family suggested some of his behavior is pretty unseemly.
That doesn't make it illegal.
And it also means we don't know the role that then Vice President Biden may have played.
And it seems like, no, they haven't proven that he had any to do with it.
They haven't proven that he profited from this at all.
Yet maybe he is guilty of turning a blind eye to some of his son's behavior.
And we should put this in context.
This is a time when Bo Biden, the president's other son, was ill and then dying and then passed away.
So perhaps he was not as attentive to what he should have been here.
But again, there has simply been no evidence, Gene Robinson, no evidence at all that he was profiting from this.
Pause it there for a second.
It's un I mean, I don't know.
It's just, it's so blatant, right?
Just like the tricks that they use where it's like, okay, so this is, why is it relevant that his other son was sick at the time?
It's not at all.
But this is just, he's just going to insert that.
And this is like the hard news guy.
This isn't like someone coming in with some commentary.
He's like, let me break down the news.
Here's the news.
He had a sick kid.
Did he turn a blind eye?
I mean, yeah.
Is it unseemly?
Yeah.
But we don't know that he profited from this in any way.
By the way, Donald Trump, if you remember, was impeached over the Ukraine phone call.
How much was any of this not brought up?
No one at MSNBC would have said, but he didn't profit from this in any way.
I mean, he didn't get an investigation on the Bidens.
It didn't hurt his campaign opponent.
Like, why would he do that?
No one cared about what was going on in Donald Trump's life.
No one cared if it was illegal, technically.
You know what I mean?
No one cared if it was actually criminal.
They went, it was an abuse of power.
This is totally impeachable.
And they went forward with the impeachment proceedings.
It's just so laughable that this is what they have to go to.
Well, first of all, he had a headache that day.
And we've all had headaches.
I mean, you ever have like a really bad headache before they suck.
All right.
So he dropped the ball.
He's Joe.
It's just really ridiculous journalism.
All right, let's keep playing.
Or that either of them committed a crime when it came to this.
And we hear here from Comer and other Republicans, it's wishful thinking.
They're trying to create a scandal when there's no evidence that they have one.
Yeah, pause it right there.
This is again another thing they'll repeat.
Now, listen, I think we're being fair in the way we assess this.
And even you said that you're like, look, can we prove that he was actually doing business or involved on the take?
I don't know if we have that proof.
But this idea that there's no evidence that there's a scandal here, that is just not true.
That is just not true.
You know, I was on that.
I did that debate with Clint and those two brothers.
I'm blanking on their name at the moment.
One of them said at one point, I brought up Bobolinsky, Hunter's other business partner, who had told the FBI that Joe Biden was in on it and he was getting paid.
He went much further and said, no, Joe Biden was getting paid.
He was taking the 10%.
And I brought that up at one point and he goes, okay, that's just hearsay.
And I was like, no, it's not.
That's not what hearsay is.
That's eyewitness testimony.
That's a very different thing than hearsay.
This isn't hearsay.
This is a guy testifying that he was involved in this scam and they were paying Joe Biden 10%.
That is evidence.
I'm not saying that's enough for a conviction.
I'm not saying that's proof, but that is undeniably evidence.
Let's say if someone goes like, you're like, okay, well, this guy's accused of murder and we have an eyewitness who says he saw him murder him.
And you go, yeah, but that's just hearsay.
I mean, we have no evidence that he murdered.
No, that's serious evidence.
Admissible in a court of law.
Evidence.
Anyway, so this claim that there's no evidence is just a flat out lie.
That's not true.
There is evidence.
Is there enough evidence?
There's an argument to that, but there certainly is evidence.
And there's overwhelming evidence that Joe Biden lied through his teeth to the American people in order to get elected, which is a scandal that you would think people who pretended to be news would care about.
All right, let's keep playing.
They're trying to create a scandal or at least the appearance of a scandal, the sort of smokiness of a scandal and just create that atmosphere without actual evidence and without an actual scandal.
Because I think it's pretty clear, at least so far, there is nothing there.
There is nothing there.
You could certainly argue that at some point, if Hunter Biden put President Biden on the speakerphone like 20 times, you could certainly ask whether at some point President Biden might have said, hey, quit putting me on speakerphone.
Are you having a business meeting?
Like, what is that about?
But the context is that this was a sort of very fraught and sad time for the Biden family.
And we know how important family is to the president.
And so I'll stop it there.
Yeah, no, we know how important family is to the president.
That's why he just last week recognized his ninth granddaughter.
Family is so important to him.
He'll always get around to acknowledging who his grandchildren are.
I mean, just think about it.
It's laughable that we know what he was going through and we know how important family is to Joe Biden.
So important that he showers with his female kids.
It's because they're so important to him.
Yeah.
So important to him.
He'll hold a news conference from their hospital room.
You know, I don't know even what to say about this.
Okay, we can, that's enough out of that clip.
Let me say this.
When I've, I've hinted at before this possibility that perhaps the powers that be are getting ready to dump Joe Biden.
And this is how you're going to know when they are when these guys change their tune.
When as long as the people at MSNBC are doing this, they haven't decided yet that they're dumping Joe Biden.
As soon as they change their tune and start going, oh, there is a real problem here.
That's when you know.
Because these guys will change on a dime.
They'll do if they, if they get, it's, and I'm not even making this like super conspiratorial.
I'm not saying like they get their marching orders and they do that.
I'm saying when all the kind of powerful people around them start going, oh, this is a problem, they'll all just regurgitate the same thing that they're saying.
So keep an eye out for that.
If you want to know if Joe Biden's going to be the nominee, if you see in the next month or two, these guys start to change their tune on him, then he won't be.
But it's going to have to come, I think, within the next month or two because they're going to have to figure that out.
I'm not sure at this point if it's possible.
Yeah.
And hopefully it's a, he did nothing wrong, but out of respect for the democratic process, we're going to move forward.
Or in light of recent health episodes, the Democratic Party with the concerns for the next four years has decided the American people, they'll figure out their spin.
Yeah.
Joe Biden did what he needed to do, which was defeat Donald Trump, make him a one-term president.
And now he's graciously handing the country over to the next generation, yabbida, yabba.
But with that, I don't know how they possibly move forward with the primary or debates without confronting RFK.
That's the major issue.
I think it's not high enough for it.
Oh, I think this is why RFK is such a pain in their ass right now.
Yeah.
Because he's actually making it impossible for them to just abandon this guy and anoint whoever the next guy is, you know, Newsome or whoever it might be.
And because now you go, oh, you've got this real force in the in the Democratic primary process who you're going to have to deal with.
And you can't, you can't do the high road thing that Biden will be able to do.
You won't be able to do that if you're a new guy coming in.
You know, Newsom couldn't come in and just say, no, I'm not going to debate.
Right.
No, you have to.
So that actually might put them in the situation where they have to keep Joe Biden as the nominee, which my God, my God, what a shit show that's going to be.
Just insane.
Makeup, Llamas, and Howard Stern00:10:54
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Strong Cell.
Strong Cell is a scientific breakthrough in NADH supplementation.
You don't have to pay thousands of dollars to get NADH into your system anymore.
Strong Cell's proprietary delivery system combines NADH, COQ10, marine collagen, and many other essential vitamins to boost your body's cellular function.
There are cells in every area of your body.
So if your cells are healthier, you'll be healthier.
This is not a stimulant.
It does not contain any caffeine.
So you don't have to worry about getting jitters.
This is proven health at the cellular level, not an overnight fix.
It takes your body a little time to utilize the NADH.
So give it a full month to see the results.
NADH is like the power source for every living cell in your body.
You already have it, but it declines drastically as early as your 20s.
So go visit strongcell.com and make sure to use the promo code Dave20 to save 20% off your entire order.
That's strongcell.com.
Promo code Dave20 for 20% off your entire order.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right.
Uh, before we wrap up, we did, you know, we spoke a little bit about experts the other day.
So, let's or earlier today.
Uh, so let's take a look at.
We got some expert information from Neil deGrasse Tyson, uh, who is a scientist.
That's gonna listen to scientists.
This would be one of those examples.
If you want to know what's going on with gender, you always go right to an astrophysicist because that's who knows.
Um, so anyway, I don't even know where this is from, but you sent this to me, Rob.
So, here we are.
I was making the rounds.
Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson on transgenderism.
Point is apparently the XXXY chromosomes are insufficient because when we wake up in the morning, we exaggerate whatever feature we want to portray the gender of our choice.
Either the one you're assigned, the one you choose to be, whatever it is.
And so, now here, so now just to tie a bow on this, I say to you, somewhere I read, somewhere, I think I read that the United States was a land where we have the pursuit of happiness.
Yes.
Suppose no matter my chromosomes, today I feel 80% female, 20% male.
I'm going to, I'm going to put on makeup.
I'm going to do that.
Tomorrow I might feel 80% male.
I'll remove the makeup and I'll wear a muscle shirt.
Why do you care?
What, why, why, what business is it of yours to require that I fulfill your inability to think of gender on a spectrum?
Oh, can I, can I take that one?
Oh, oh, because you're uh, because you're pushing it on children.
That's why.
That's why I care.
Because you're pushing this anti-science insanity onto young, helpless children.
That's why I care.
So, oh, so is that was that a rhetorical question, or was he actually calling on us to answer that?
What listen, you know what happened with Neil deGrasse Tyson?
Was he got me too'd a few years back, but he survived his me tooing.
Um, and he has just ever since then, he just will say nothing except exactly what the establishment wants him to say.
You know, like it's, it's it, there's an interesting dynamic.
You also don't get me wrong, there's some people like Howard Stern, for example, is just like totally humiliated himself over the last few years.
I mean, I don't know where he's at.
I don't listen to the show, I haven't listened to the show in decades, but um, I believe he was like up until very recently still not going into the studio because he's terrified of COVID.
I still think he doesn't.
Yeah, it's it was insane.
Remember, it was there was the thing, I think we might have played it on the show where he like um chastised uh Baba Bowie's son for giving him a hug.
He's like, What are you doing, man?
What are you doing?
You're giving your dad a hug, there's COVID.
And like, they had masks on and shit.
He was still like, it's insane.
Um, but uh, there's a thing where you know, these guys who you know, Howard Stern could all it would take would be like someone at the New York Times deciding we're bringing Howard Stern down and he's done.
Like, oh, all they have to do is like, yeah, let's go through the old tapes.
Do you know how many different modern day violations Howard Stern is guilty of committing throughout the years?
You know, like just all you'd have to do is decide, hey, we're bringing Howard Stern down.
Go through the tapes, find me the best things you can find me.
I mean, N-bombs, sexual harassment, racist shit, all the shit you could think of.
He's done.
Um, and so it's interesting when you see some of these people who always have every single approved opinion now.
You're like, I wonder how much of this is just you like living in fear of being like, you know, like being ruined and humiliated and all of that.
Look, this idea that a scientist is going to sit there and tell you that maybe you wake up one day and feel like science isn't real is so laughable.
It was like, why?
Again, this is just the most basic argument.
And look, but he says this thing about like, well, what about the pursuit of happiness?
Who are you to say I can't put makeup on one day?
Again, this is such a straw man.
Almost no one.
So maybe you could find a tiny sliver of like far right wingers who are actually advocating you shouldn't be allowed to wear makeup if you're a man.
But I mean, you'd be hard pressed to find like five people, like not just online trolls, but like five real public figures who feel that way.
You'd be hard pressed to find it.
That's not really what anyone's arguing.
But like you're a scientist, dude.
Why are we not allowed to talk about what's real and what's not real?
If someone said to Neil deGrasse Tyson, oh, the earth is flat, he would right away go off about what astrophysicists know about how the world, the earth is round and all of this stuff.
He would immediately be correcting you, right?
And then if you were to say to him, it's like, hey, man, like, why are you jumping down?
Maybe I just woke up today feeling like the earth is flat.
He would not find this to be a compelling counterpoint.
So the question here is not, can a dude put on makeup if he feels like doing like fine.
I don't care.
Do whatever you want to do.
But if we're having a conversation, why do me and you, scientist man, have to pretend something that's not real is real?
And what if he wakes up one day and feels 80% llama?
Can he be a llama now?
I mean, like, yeah, he can live his life as a llama, but why do me and you have to pretend that he's a llama?
This is just ridiculous.
And if anyone and no one in the trans activist community has an argument for this, why you can't like, why, why can't I just bend all of reality if I can bend some of it?
Why can't I just be like, I identify as someone who lives in the 1400s?
So now I need you to respect me and tell me that it's 1485.
Tell me that.
I like when he's going off at the 80s today.
I'm 80% male.
And so I, you know, I dress as a male.
The next day I'm 20%.
And so I flip in.
I'm wearing the makeup.
Sounds like a pretty exhausting lifestyle.
Like even just dealing with clothes is exhausting.
Imagine you're just trying to decide, you know, like you put on an outfit and you're like, yeah, my tits look too big in this.
I guess I got to try on some other shirt.
And you're like, oh, I don't look like I have tits in this shirt.
So then you just buy 40 of them so you don't have to keep going through that process.
But can you imagine going through that where like you put on all the female makeup in the morning and you're like, you know what?
I feel it.
It's not doing it for me today.
I'm going to be a guy.
You might just want to see somebody so that you don't have to go through that because that sounds really exhausting.
Is that even the trans argument, though?
No, I don't think anyone like I don't even think you're.
Yeah, I thought it was like, no, I was a woman born in a man's body, but now he's just going like, I don't know, you know, it's however you're feeling that day.
You want to mix it up?
Do it.
I don't know.
It's all just so.
Yeah, I guess I'm pro freedom.
No one said if you're an adult, you can't.
But like you said, it's we all care because you're forcing us to, I guess, change our views and lifestyles to accommodate.
And you're also pushing it to make it so normalized that you praise kids and families that are engaging in this and you're legalizing what appears to be mutilation more than it appears to be actual health care.
Right.
Yeah.
I think well said.
And I think as the point that we've made before on the show is that, look, and the truth is that I think most religious people would agree with this, right?
That there's, first of all, this is a religion.
The transgender thing is a religion.
And that's okay.
You can have a religion.
There's lots of religions.
But most even, at least in modern Western societies, most even devout Christians, they would say that if you're a devout Christian and somebody else was an atheist and they go, you know, they just wanted to talk about it on a show or something.
And they go, you know, I don't believe in this.
I don't think there's any evidence to support the idea that Jesus was the son of God.
I don't think there's any evidence to support that there is a God.
I don't believe in it, whatever.
And you were to say to them, the Christian was to say, that is so offensive that you would deny my reality and you shouldn't be allowed to say that and you should be canceled for saying this.
I think all of us, whether you're a Christian or an atheist, would go, whoa, whoa, whoa.
You don't have a right to tell him he can't say that.
He has a right to think.
He has a right to pursue what he believes reality is.
And you have to have an argument back with him or ignore him and go do your own thing.
But you can't just tell him he's a bigot.
Shut up because he doesn't believe the same religion you believe.
Like that's just not how civilized people ought to behave.
And so that's kind of the point.
Obviously, the first thing is like pushing it on children and all that sick shit.
But even beyond that, it's like, no, like we're allowed to talk about this, especially if the conversation is with a fucking scientist.
Because the scientific perspective is that, no, you either have a Y chromosome or you don't.
That's the scientific understanding of this.
But again, I should listen to Dan Natterman here.
I should really just defer to the experts.
He is an expert.
Who are we?
All right, we're going to wrap up there.
Come check us out on the road.
Go check out the Summer Porch tour, robbythefire.com.