Oct. 16, 2010 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
40:58
20101016_Hour_3
|
Time
Text
Welcome to the Political Cesspool, known worldwide as the South's foremost populous radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the political cesspool is your host, James Edwards.
Not James Edwards, everybody.
James had some errands to run.
He had to run out and get some milk and some other things for his family.
So I decided to step in.
This is James' co-host, Bill Rowland, and I will be with you for the last hour.
And I've got two outstanding guests joining us for the remainder of the show.
So stick with me.
Our first guest for night, before we do that, let me announce, of course, that is always, we're broadcasting from WLRM 1380 in Memphis, Tennessee.
And all I can say is our great audience is out there.
And so we're going to save the best for last.
And with me tonight, for the last hour, are two outstanding intellectuals on the right who have done as much or more than anybody else to really create and to establish and maintain a highly intellectual debate or conversation or dialogue or,
you know, might as well say narrative from the right, the true right, not the neocon right, not the Republican right, the true right, the right wing of the United States that people realize is the true voice of America.
So joining me tonight first, and we're going to try to work this.
We're doing our best to work this.
There may be a few technical problems, but we're going to work on it.
Joining me tonight first is Paul Gottfried, who is a regular guest on our pro, on our show.
And as we know, Paul has been on plenty of times.
Paul, are you there?
I am here.
Outstanding.
Well, good.
We were just before we went on the air, we were having sort of this tug-of-war of what you and Richard, our other guest, who I'll introduce in just a minute, our other guest, we're going to do.
So now we're all planning on converging on the moment, so to speak.
But anyway, Paul, I know you've got a lot you want to talk about, and so we're going to get into it.
The recent upheaval or the recent controversy over Rick Sanchez and his comments regarding Jews in the media.
Paul, I'm going to let you take over from there.
Well, okay, I did have a piece that I wrote on Tacky Mag.
Some of it was written tongue-in-cheek, but I thought the treatment of Rick Sanchez for saying what is self-evident indicates what the late Joseph Sobran once stated that if the people I am criticizing were as powerless and vulnerable as they claim, I would not have to fear for my job right now.
And I think Sanchez was saying the obvious when he claimed that Jews are disproportionately represented in the media, play a decisive role in shaping what I suppose is called public opinion, and also limit political discussion of political debate in a way that is found expedient or compatible with their own interests.
Now, once having said that, I'm not quite sure that the way the Jewish media define Jewish interests are necessarily in the interests of Jews, or that all Jews have very much to do with defining those interests.
But there does seem to be sort of a well-established, intercommunicating group of Jewish mediocrats that have not only a great deal to do with the shaping and reshaping of public opinion,
but also with the construction of what are considered to be acceptable, decent, moderate, conservative and liberal positions.
And that what is considered to be acceptable conservative opinion is just as much under Jewish influence as what is considered to be acceptable liberal opinion.
Well, I listened to the Rick Sanchez interview, and what I found most interesting is that actually I don't recall that Rick Sanchez mentions Jews at all.
He makes reference to Jon Stewart and Jon Stewart's people or who supports John Stewart.
He never even mentions Jews, but the automatic reaction from CNN and other people is that this was an anti-Jewish diatribe.
And actually he never mentioned Jews at all.
No, no, I think at least by implication, he was telling us the truth.
And they knew that unless anybody else say anything like this again, they're just going to shut them up.
I think the situation is comparable to what you see in much of Europe today, in which people have to go around saying this is the freest, most democratic societies that have ever existed in our countries.
I mean, Germans are required to say this.
If they don't say this, they might get thrown in jail or lose their jobs.
The reality, of course, is that most of these societies are far less free than they were 100 years ago, and people are under the gun to say politically correct things, lest they be destroyed professionally.
In the case of Europe, less criminal charges be brought against them.
So I think people feel coerced into saying certain things and avoiding mention of other things which are quite obvious.
And I agree with you about Sanchez.
He did not explicitly attack Jewish influence in the media.
I think he just suggested that the group to which Jon Stewart and someone else belong to are sort of disproportionately represented in the media.
Another point I would raise, since I mentioned this in my Tacky Mag piece, is to say that a particular group, whether it's Jews, Irish Catholics, Serbian Orthodox, or anybody else,
has disproportionate representation in the media is not the same as saying that those groups win Nobel Prizes for literature or are disproportionately represented among people who hit 60 home runs a year.
One suggests tremendous political influence, the other ones suggest nothing of the kind.
They're sort of accomplishments in non-political areas.
The other point I make is that not only would I consider disproportionate Jewish influence harmful for public opinion, I would consider the same to be true for Irish Catholics, Serb Orthodox, or any other group that has very strong ethnic concerns and passions and dislikes other groups for ethnic reasons.
So, you know, I would be equally critical if the same disproportionate influence were exercised by some other group that is profoundly ethnocentric and has very, you know, very, so we say, transparent political, cultural, social interest.
Well, however, though, that this, of course, control of the media is very much a public enterprise.
This is not something that you can hide under a bush, so to speak.
I could also say that white southerners and westerners control the rodeo circuit.
But obviously, that would not get a reaction from people.
Isn't it really more about who's controlling the opinions in this country as far as you're right?
And it really does not have to, it really doesn't have to be a matter of the fact that it is controlled by Jews, but it's seeming almost desperation among the Jews in the media that they deny this, the existence of their power.
We've got a break coming up.
We'll be right back with Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer.
Don't go away.
There's more Political Sesspool coming your way right after these messages.
When the truth is to be...
Welcome back.
To get on the political cesspool, call us on James's Dime, toll-free, at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the Political Cesspool, Danny Nita.
And we are back with the political cesspool.
I'm Bill Rowland, standing in tonight for the last hour of the show for James Edwards, who had to go run some errands and take care of some business tonight.
And with me tonight, two outstanding guests, Paul Gottfried, author, scholar, journalist.
The list goes on and on with him.
And now, just joining us, Richard Spencer, who is the former associate editor of American Conservative Magazine and also former editor of Taki magazine and is currently the founder and I guess chief operator of alternative right.com.
And Richard, I'm going to give you a chance to talk for a minute.
Welcome to the show.
Thanks for having me.
Well, it's good to have you on.
Of course, we met recently in Nashville, and I got a chance to talk to you there after you made a rather bold speech at Vanderbilt University, which I think we covered on the last show.
But I know there's a project that you are particularly interested in, and that is the H.L. Mincin Society.
Give us a little rundown on the H.L. Mincin Society.
Well, sure.
It's actually the H.L. Mincin Club.
And we're meeting for our third annual gathering, which is a conference, on October 22nd.
And we're meeting in Mincin's hometown of Baltimore, which is a good convenient place for anyone in who is so unfortunate to live in the Beltway.
But also, if you live anywhere in the East Coast, it's pretty easy to get there.
And it's going to be a great conference.
Paul will be giving two speeches that will certainly light the room on fire.
One of them will be, one of them is very provocatively titled, How the Left Won the Cold War.
And that's going to look at how we think that we've defeated the evil Marxists and commies, but we've essentially ended up in a world in which the left is right now.
And anyway, the whole theme of the conference is PC.
And so we're going to really take a hard-hitting, no prisoners look at this dominant form in the modern age.
And also, I'm sure people would be interested, Peter Brimelow, who's the editor of VDARE, and he's also a financial columnist as well.
He'll be giving the keynote address on Saturday night, October 23rd, on neo-socialism and essentially how the old socialism of uniforms and mass purges and gulags and gray industrial have obviously collapsed and are completely unworkable.
But we have something in contemporary society that in some ways is far worse and is unfortunately might even have far lasting power.
And that's a kind of neo-socialism based on the government moving money around in society in order to achieve its vision of a pan-racial order or its vision of equality or whatever it's trying to achieve.
And also, you know, John Darbisher of National Review, who's one of the few real right-wingers who's still involved in the conservative movement, he'll be there.
Tons of other people.
I could go down the list.
We'll be talking about political correctness in Europe.
We're going to cover Canada and Eastern Europe, things like that.
Political correctness in South Africa.
Ilana Mercer will be there.
The list goes on.
It's really just going to be an exciting conference.
And I think anyone can attest that you simply won't get this anywhere else.
We're often actually afraid that Janet Napolitano might send Gouduzen or something at some point just to shut the whole thing down.
Because it's just simply not the kind of thing that you can find anywhere else.
It's thoughts out of season, so to speak.
It's not what you hear in the media.
It's not what you hear on Fox News.
It's not what you hear at the Big Magazine.
Really, in the spirit of Minkin, it's an independent intellectual right.
Hey, Richard, let me get you to speak up a little bit because we are having some audio problems.
But what you're saying is that communism has gone from Mao jackets to pink prom gowns, is what I think you're saying.
It's infiltrated into the society, actually into the consciousness of the American people.
And you know, I've even noticed that there's a certain, I won't say overt sympathy, but a certain amount of fascination even with countries like North Korea.
I mean, Americans seem to hold out some sort of hope for North Korea as if this next thug descendant of Kim Il-jung is going to be somehow the savior of the country, one who's just been made a general.
And there's this actual opinion or attitude among the American press that somehow North Korea is going to awaken in a new dawn and be saved by yet another Kim.
And obviously that's not the case, but don't you think that that sympathy, that sort of sympathetic view or bleeding heart towards North Korea is part of this conditioning that's been going on in America with regards to communism and wearing Che Guevara t-shirts and that kind of thing?
Well, I have to.
Go ahead.
Is this Richard?
I wrote a book, actually, on the post-Marxist left, and this is what I am giving my Friday night speech on at the Mincan Club.
I think what you get are two different perspectives within the current left.
One of them is a very sympathetic view toward communism as a movement of the past.
Therefore, in a country like Germany, which is the most heavily influenced by the post-Marxist, by call the post-Marxist left, which is multiculturalism, there is tremendous sympathy for Stalinism, for the vicious regime of Ulbricht in East Germany.
There is contempt for the West German government of Adenhauer because it was supposedly infiltrated by former Nazis.
Whenever it comes, the 1950s is viewed as the Red Scare decade, the decade of vicious McCarthyism in the United States.
So when it comes to the past, the commies are the good guys for the left.
Or they're people we don't want to get angry at, or the people who opposed them were fascists, anti-Semites, racist, or whatever.
When it comes to the present, however, I think the sympathy is with Muslims, with third world people, with those with weird lifestyles in the United States, with feminists who are trying to destroy the traditional Christian bourgeois family.
What you have is the victory of cultural Marxism or cultural radicalism on the left, but it is not the same as communism.
What we see now was something the communists tried to stamp out in Eastern Europe was communist heresy, this cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School.
But these are the ideas that have triumphed in the Western democracies, particularly since the end of the Cold War.
So I think that the sympathy for communism is always retrospective.
It's like looking back, you know, to some earlier, when they were the good guys, they were progressive, they were secularists, they were anti-Christian, they were scientific socialists, they were egalitarians, you know, but their day has come and gone.
And now we have an even better left, which is concerned with destroying the bourgeois family, empowering homosexuals, the transgendered, or whatever, and also with having open borders.
Hey, Paul, let me stop you right there.
We've got a break coming up.
But everybody out in the audience, stay tuned.
Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer with me tonight in the last hour.
And so far, an impossible to beat show.
So we'll be right back.
Don't go away.
The political cesspool, guys.
We'll be back right after these messages.
To get on the show and express your opinion in the Political Says pool,
call us toll-free at 1-866-986-6397.
And welcome back, everybody.
This is Bill Rowland sitting in once again for James Edwards, who had some errands to run tonight for his wife, and so he had to jump in the car and run out of the studio to go get some things for the baby.
So I'm going to have to stand in for him.
But you know what?
I got the best slice of the show tonight because I have with me Richard Spencer and Paul Godfrey, two outstanding guests.
And we've been talking about the H.L. Minken Club and the forthcoming meeting of that organization, and also about the lingering effects of Marxism, particularly the cultural Marxism that afflicts the United States and our society in this country.
Richard, I think you wanted to follow up on what Paul said just before the break.
Oh, yeah.
Well, Paul was making some very good points about this fact that, you know, before World War II with the left, you really, you did have a vision of a working class proletarian order, you know, taking over society and so on and so forth.
And the pre-World War II left, Marxian left, gave birth to a lot of the things that still remain as images of communism, like the uniforms, a certain kind of militarism, prison camps, and so on and so forth.
And certainly, whenever you see someone like Glenn Beck or someone like that critique the far left or communist, they seem to have images of everyone's going to wave hammer and sickle flags and all this kind of stuff.
But in many ways, that's an old left that is really kind of over and done with.
The left is very good at constantly transforming itself and taking on new guises and so on and so forth.
Certainly after the end of the Second World War, the left had dumped the working class, which had actually proven itself to be quite culturally conservative in many ways, and had taken up with the wretched of the earth or what would be called the third world and essentially non-white populations, the people who were colonized by Europeans, and so on and so forth.
And the whole vision of revolution became something very different, and that became the dispossessed worldwide taking over these societies.
And this image has probably transformed again and again.
It's probably now it's not only the third world, but it's the gay third world or polymorphous perversity.
The left is very good at constantly transforming itself.
But I think a lot of people, it's kind of easy to look at someone like Kim Jong-il or North Korea for a conservative to look at that and say, ooh, bad, uniforms, gulags, no freedom, state-run, centrally planned economies, so on and so forth.
But the deeper argument we have to understand is that a kind of more advanced version of the left, which is about polymorphous perversity, which is about multiracialism, which is about the destruction of the bourgeois family and the Christian order of Europe, has triumphed in our own country.
And so it's quite easy to talk about, say, Vladimir Putin being authoritarian.
But the real critique is to see how these forces of the left, that kind of demonic, internal force of the left, has triumphed in the United States, much more so than it does in the Soviet Union.
I mean, there's actually a great deal of irony.
I think the people in charge of the Soviet Union, certainly after the Second World War, probably would have imprisoned or summarily shot most left-wing intellectuals in the universities who are talking about lesbianism and let's all have some big peace orgy.
They would have no patience for such people.
That was not part of that older left.
In some ways, there's aspects of that older left that one almost finds admirable in comparison with the new left and the new new left.
And the great irony of all is that you have the Soviet Union and a lot of these more, let's say, backward societies of centrally planned economies almost being a kind of sanitary cordon in which they,
you know, as bad as they were economically, and I don't support any of that kind of nonsense, they protected their population from the ravages of the postmodern left that has triumphed here in America.
And so, you know, a lot of people who grew up in the Soviet Union and you talk to them about, you know, how everyone's equal or, you know, we need to let all these third worlders into our country or, you know, Obama, you know, this man with a, you know, Muslim name who's a mulatto.
He represents the ultimate triumph of American values.
They look at all that like you're speaking some, you're Greek to them or something.
It does not make sense.
So, you know, this new new left, which has triumphed in America, has weirdly had little effect in the post-Soviet world to the point that they're often more conservative than we are.
They have more of a sense of a traditional society.
It's one of the great ironies of the Cold War.
Well, I think that the social conservatism of some of the former Eastern Bloc countries was clearly demonstrated this past week when Serbians actually rioted over the presence of homosexual marchers or homosexual demonstration in Serbia.
And of course, throughout these old Soviet bloc countries, there is a very strong conservative attitude, which makes you wonder just how much of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine had any social effect at all there.
I heard somebody talking this week also about the effect of all of these East Germans who were raised under communism spreading this ideology to the West.
And I'm going to slightly disagree with that and say, yes, but in the former East Germany is where some of the most conservative sentiments, in fact, are expressed.
And I know that some very, very right-wing groups are actually based in East Germany.
Right.
So, you know, I think, this is Paul.
I think this is absolutely the case.
I think East Germany has been radicalized by West Germany, which is a citadel of cultural Marxism, which was government reflects cultural Marxist values.
The East Germans celebrated Frederick the Great, Martin Luther as forerunners of socialism or whatever.
They threw homosexuals into jail.
One of the complaints of American conservatives after the neoconservatives took over the American right was that the Soviets were not sufficiently sensitive to homosexuals.
This is also an attack on Castro.
The real complaint was that communist countries were more conservative than the anti-communists were at the time.
And I think that this is one of the great ironies that the American right, which was screaming against communism, you know, as the great leftist enemy, seemed to be ignorant of the fact that the more dangerous left was in their own country.
And the more and the more in fact, part of that dangerous left became the conservative movement, which which eventually triumphed in the form of neoconservatism.
Let's talk for a minute about that and exactly that point, especially when concerning David Frum's action in firing one of his editorial writers on his website only after coming under pressure because of the lifestyle that this depraved creature, I think his name was Knepper, was leading.
And yet there was still a reluctance to get rid of him.
And now the left, and particularly the Huffington Post, is decrying the firing of this pervert as a big mistake.
I mean, isn't there some sort of convergence or of synthesis between some of these left and right attitudes that actually doesn't even have an ideological stamp?
It appears to be just insanity.
Well, I'll speak to that because this is Richard.
I almost feel like I made Alex Knepper because when I first launched my new website, alternativeright.com, I didn't actually expect the neocons to really take notice of it, but they did.
They attacked it right away.
And David Frum assigned his new codamite assistant, you know, Alex Knepper, to go after me and the website.
And this actually, I think this actually earned him a lot of friends amongst the conservative in the conservative movement and amongst neocons.
I noticed that after he did a kind of his own version of the unpatriotic conservatives piece that Fromm had did, where he bashed me and the rest of us as evil, anti-Semitic, tribalist, nihilist, Nazi, racist, whatever we are.
You know what, Richard?
I'm going to stop you right there.
We've got a break coming up, so that'll be the image in everybody's mind.
But when you come back, pick up on that very important cesspool, guys.
We'll be back right after these messages.
Call us tonight at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the political cesspool, James Edwards.
And James Edwards couldn't make it for the last hour, so he called me up at the last minute and said, Bill, will you come in and interview two of the best guests we ever have on the show?
And I said, sure.
So it's not Jay Edwards.
You've got Bill Rowland for the last hour.
In fact, the last segment of the last hour.
And we have had far too little time with Richard Spencer and Paul Godfrey, two intellectual giants of the right.
And Richard, I'm going to pick up with you talking about the cultural Marxism versus the old line Marxism, the old-fashioned Marxism of the Soviet Union and Cuba and so forth.
So picking up.
I think we've moved on to the not-so-great Alex Knepper page.
We had a file neocon.
Well, basically, the moral to this story is that if you support Israel and American foreign policy, you can pretty much support anything else, and the neocons will back you up and support you and promote you.
And I guess we've actually reached the limit of that deal, so to speak, with Alex Knepper, who supports pedophilia, and that was just a bit too much even for David Frum.
Basically, the story goes like this.
Alex Knepper, some 20-year-old blogger of no great talent, he was blogging for all these tons of conservative movement sites.
And he was David Frum's assistant of sorts at Frum Forum, which is David Frum's call to moderation and bombing of every country in the Middle East on the internet.
And essentially, he attacked me and my website and everyone on it back in March.
And we were nihilists and all this kind of weird stuff.
And he did it on really just very serious charges.
He looked at my Facebook account and would pick out things that I liked, so to speak, and then say that.
I mean, it was really some of the worst stuff I've ever seen in my life.
And a lot of people just looked into this Alex Knepper kid, and they sent me some links.
And essentially, this kid is this wild homosexual Satanist, literally, and he hates all Christian religions.
He's on all these groups, FUCK Mormonism, FUCK the Pope, so on and so forth.
Although he doesn't have scorn for Israel, which he thinks is some great expression of modernity or something like this.
And so therefore, he could be a neoconservative writer.
So essentially, you could hate the traditions of the West, the religious traditions of the West.
You could hate those people who say vote for the Republican Party, who are religious Christians of some sort, and think they're all evil or stupid or deluded or whatever he thinks of them, but still be a valued member of the conservative movement because you are a hyper-supporter of Israel.
And so this went on and on.
Essentially, there was some feud between Alex Knepper and some other kids, and they discovered that Alex Knepper's views were even more shocking than people previously knew, and that he was actually supportive of pedophilia.
He truly is a pervert.
And this was too much for David Frum.
And so with great, you know, David Frum wrote this article, with great regret and sorrow, I am forced to fire Alex Knepper.
So, you know, essentially, he tries to assassinate, you know, figuratively speaking, truly great and interesting writers, including Sovren, Pat Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, Sam Francis, Tom Fleming, even at one point, Bob Novak.
So these people who all are very accomplished men are terrible and evil, and you shouldn't even consider reading them.
However, Alex Knepper, a 20-year-old pervert who goes to the American University, is somehow some wonderful new voice of conservatism.
So this basically just shows you exactly where we are in the intellectual debate at the moment.
And it shows, I think, all the listeners, the takeaway for all your listeners is the just utter corruption and utter ridiculousness of left and right in the United States.
I mean, if our people are going to ever accomplish something, we've got to get over this idea that the neocons, we might disagree with them, but they're basically on our side, or voting for the GOP is good, or anything like that.
We've really got to get over that because the whole thing, left and right, is totally corrupt.
By the way, this is Paul.
The only thing I would add is that, this is a minor correction, is that the neoconservatives would not accept you if you were for Israel, no matter what else you believed.
As a matter of fact, they kicked me out of the conservative movement, and I was not against Israel.
I simply did things like question the 1964 Civil Rights Act and said that it sort of opened the door to affirmative action programs and government surveillance.
of commercial and other transactions, which I thought set a very dangerous precedent.
Now, it's all I had to do, and I was removed from the conservative movement.
I think it would be accurate to say you can wander as far as you want to the left.
And as long as you're good on Israel, I mean, somebody like Joe Lieberman is no problem to them, although he voted for late-term abortion.
He's not a problem.
So that they're quite open to people on the left as long as they're good on foreign policy.
Or the economy.
On the other hand, they have spent a tremendous energy destroying everyone to the right of the neoconservatives.
They did this from the time they took over the conservative movement in the 1980s.
Whereas the Alex Kneper and people like this certainly have room in their movement.
That's true.
I'll just add, this is Richard again.
I'll just add that we shouldn't think, I mean, obviously, Israel trade is a primary, it's a focus of much of neoconservatism, and it's an indispensable component of it.
But I do agree that you shouldn't underestimate their ideology.
They truly do believe in all this kind of stuff.
And if you don't thoroughly genuflect to the cult of Martin Luther King or if you say some things that are truly traditionalist, like we want to connect with European traditions, religious and cultural and otherwise, then you are a threat to the neocons, even if you say, even if you don't really have a strong opinion on Israel or support them in a passive manner.
I think that's absolutely true.
Well, certainly the neocon agenda does not match with that of most conservatives.
I mean, I don't think, for instance, that the neocons have much traction with the Tea Party movement, even though they've tried to put their fingers in it.
I don't really think they get it.
I don't think they really understand just what is rumbling beneath the surface there.
What I would say about the Tea Party people is most of them have a rather limited political vision.
They don't like Obama's health care plan.
There's a kind of general distaste for big government, except for programs they benefit from, like Medicare or Social Security.
So even their attacks on big government are very much limited by their self-interest.
Second of all, even if they succeed in electing some very good people to office, and the one that I like the best is Sharon Angle in Nevada.
Let's say they either have her or some other Tea Party.
But once they get to Washington, these people will inevitably fall under the influence of neoconservative journalists and policy advisors.
This has certainly happened to Sarah Palin, who on foreign policy sounds exactly the same as Norman Kodoritz.
Norman McDoritz backs her as a presidential candidate.
So there is this danger that if the Tea Party people succeed in winning elected office, then they will fall under the neoconservative.
The other thing is that Richard and I and you, we don't really shape the conservative movement to any great degree.
We do not have the resources or the media exposure to do this.
The neoconservatives do have resources, immediate exposure, so even well-meaning Tea Party people are going to come under their influence.
Yeah, I mean, I would agree with Paul.
I think some of my friends who have a more populist of a more populist bent, they have a kind of exasperation theory where the people are going to get, to put it frankly, pissed off enough, and then they're going to take back their country or something like that.
But you have to understand, you know, if they don't have a foundation, if they don't really understand who their real enemy is, if they don't understand how their culture is being shaped, then all they're going to do is to just fall into the arms of the neocons of the conservative movement or the Fox News people or things like that.
And, you know, I do think a lot of people are pissed off who are part of the Tea Party movement.
And I think that is they're right in being angry.
But if all they're going to talk about is restoring the Constitution, some vague restoring the Constitution or tax cuts or stop spending, you know, look.
Gentlemen, I hate to say it, we're out of time.
We're going to kind of fall into the arms of the neocons.
Yeah, we're out of time tonight.
And my thanks to my guests, Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried, and to everybody else, happy landings and good night from the political cesspools.
Tonight in the political cesspool.
To learn more about us or to make a donation to keep this program on the air, go to www.thepoliticalsupool.org.