← Truth in the Barrel
Truth in the Barrel
This Week Unfiltered | 08.21.25
00:59:18
Today Denver is back for our UNFILTERED episode. What should the US president be doing if he wanted to help Ukraine instead of Putin? We discuss the president’s war of mail-in voting, and talking about slavery as a part of American history too...
Loading summary
Transcript143 lines
- [00:00]
A
Whether you're into comedians roasting each other's life choices or turning yesterday's bad decisions into today's funny stories. Amazon Music's got the most ad free top podcasts included with Prime. Download the Amazon music app and get in on the joke. Or go to Amazon.com adfreecomedy that's Amazon.com adfreecomediDy to catch up on the latest episodes without the ads. What do you think makes the perfect snack? Hmm, it's gotta be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient. Could you be more specific? When it's cray venient.
- [00:35]
B
Okay.
- [00:36]
A
Like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter, available right down the street at am, pm. Or a savory breakfast sandwich I can.
- [00:41]
B
Grab in just a second at am pm.
- [00:43]
A
I'm seeing a pattern here. Well, yeah, we're talking about what I crave, which is anything from am, pm. What more could you want? Stop by AMPM where the snacks and drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. That's cravenience am pm. Too much good stuff today.
- [00:58]
B
Denver is back for our unfiltered episode. What should the United States President be doing if he wanted to actually help Ukraine instead of Putin? We discussed the President's war on mail in voting. And talking about slavery as part of American history is apparently now too woke. Plus, the U.S. navy is off the coast of Venezuela. RFK Jr. Is taking on pediatricians now. And Governor Gavin Newsom decides to act like a juvenile to shed light on our president who acts like a juvenile. This is Truth in the Barrel, a different kind of whiskey rebellion.
- [01:44]
A
I'm so excited to be here.
- [01:48]
B
Welcome, everyone. The Truth in the barrel. I'm Amy McGrath, co host, Denver Riggleman is back. How are you, Ben?
- [01:54]
A
I am good. I was just, you know, we were talking beforehand. Amy, if I never have any more airplane champagne, I'm happ. And by the way, that sounds like a country song. I don't even know why.
- [02:05]
B
Airplane champagne.
- [02:06]
A
That's right. I don't want no more airplane champagne. Yeah, so. But no, it's. It's good to be back. You know, my company has sort of bloomed, so I'm trying to take control. But it's really nice to see you and I know you've had some great shows, sort of got some fomo, so. But no, it's been fun to watch you and. But it's good to be back.
- [02:25]
B
Yeah, it's good to have you back. But folks, if you. If you missed the live show last Tuesday Check it out. Apple, Spotify, YouTube, I can't say all the different platforms we're on, but find the platform that you like. Go back, listen to that show. We had a great show with JoJo from jurors. Joanne Carducci, she's suburban mom, social media influencer. Man, she's a hoot. Loved having done the show with her, but certainly love having you back. Denver for Unfiltered today.
- [02:58]
A
I'm excited. I mean, it's not like we don't have anything to talk about, Amy.
- [03:03]
B
I know, I know we're going to get right into it, but something that you said right before we started this show, Denver, I wanted you to talk about real quick is your distillery and how the tariffs are really hurting that business.
- [03:21]
A
Yeah, we've, you know, we saw this ripple effect, Amy, about a month ago, there was distilleries closing down, but a lot of businesses that were having trouble with their supply, supply chains. And we knew that even though other companies have been hoarding supplies. Right. That it was going to hit us at some point. And we got hit about seven days after the PPI report. I told my wife, I'm like, we're going to get hit. I said, I don't see any way around the glass because you can only get glass really from India, Mexico or China. I mean, those are the three big places for bottle glass, like, like this. Right. So that's really what it is. So when we got the email, my wife called me, she goes, honey, and you know, my wife's a tough lady. We have gone through hell in the spirits business over the, since COVID And the COVID surcharges on a lot of this haven't been taken off yet. So we're still dealing with COVID surcharges years later. Well, we got an email, Amy, that said we were having a 14% increase in wholesale glass corks, things like that, with another 25% increase coming that directly aligned with the tariffs from the Trump administration. Directly aligned. And I don't think people realize we have to make decisions. We either have to raise our prices, cut labor, or cut out bottle lines. That's it. There's no, we can't, there's, there's no other way because the margins in the liquor business in certain states like Virginia, which are 10 times worse than doing business in Kentucky. It's just, it's ridiculous. Right. So you also have the state mandated tax loads that aren't being lessened at all. They're actually being increased. So now we have this. So we have this exponential growth. But the direct, Here we go. I hope people can understand this. The direct, the direct tariff line is this, tariffs passed on to wholesalers, passed on to retailers, passed on to consumers.
- [05:14]
B
Right?
- [05:16]
A
Yep, that's it. There's no other. I, I try to, you know, it's a tax, it's a tax. I, I, my, my mind explodes when you talk to people who've never actually run a, have no idea how economics work or just can't understand fifth grade English.
- [05:34]
B
Well, but it's also the American people haven't really experienced tariffs before. So like a lot of people don't really understand or know what they are because we haven't had leaders that have been so stupid to institute these massive 1920s, 30s type of tariffs. And so we're not used to it. And so it does require some explaining. And you know, and it is what it is right now.
- [06:07]
A
It's, it's brutal. And I, and I hope, and I know it's going to pass down. It's so funny. The economists, like, listen, there's going to be a 6 to 12 month lag on tariff increase and an exploding PPI, which is the Producers Price Index. And then you have the cpi, which is the Consumer Price Index. The PPI correlates to the cpi. That means that higher production costs and tariffs create a situation where there's inflation based on a artificial tax that's imposed based on tariffs and the rising costs of goods. So economics 101. Sorry, yeah, didn't mean to get into that.
- [06:49]
B
It's important though. So we have other things we gotta talk about.
- [06:53]
A
Yes, ma'. Am.
- [06:54]
B
During the live show. Okay. Just a few days ago, a listener who actually sort of seemed to really want to give the President some praise or at least defend the President with this disastrous Alaska meeting, he asked what I thought was a fair question of Jojo and I, and he basically asked, well, what would you do about Putin if you were president? Okay, I, I thought, I think that's a fair question. And look, every, everybody wants peace. And I don't blame President Trump for talking with Vladimir Putin. I think the way he did it was weak and inept. Bringing Putin to the United States, rolling out the red carpet, complete with a flyover that costs millions of dollars, by the way. And this was after saying to the world that there would be consequences should Putin not agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine. And guess what, folks? Putin didn't agree to a ceasefire, didn't agree to anything. And did Trump follow through with any consequences? No. So right now in my mind, Trump is already rewarding Putin because he's giving him more time to attack. And this meeting that you saw in the Oval Office a few days ago at the beginning of the week, the meeting that was the meeting that was called, you know, historic by the Republicans who are all defending this, that took place. It took place because our allies could not trust Trump, could not trust that he wouldn't sell out Ukraine. So I want to get back to the question and kick it over to you because I have some thoughts, but what should Trump and the United States be doing about Putin if you don't like what has currently been going on?
- [08:59]
A
So, you know, I go back to Ukraine a third time. You know, I've been dealing with Eastern Europe my entire life in the intel field and in the military field. I know how they act. I think right now I probably know more than the whole intelligence apparatus because they got fired by Tulsi Gabbard, right? So here's where I'm thinking. We have to fund Ukraine on a level we've never funded before. My guess is, as we set at a monthly allotment in the billions to make sure that they're tracking inventories, we need to send our own supply specialist over there and advisors to ensure that material is being used efficiently. But we also need to increase the amount of drone support that we're giving, that we should give. Also, we should be learning about drone support over there. But here's what I would tell Putin, and this is, if it was President Riggleman, here's what we're going to do. If you don't withdraw immediately, we're going to increase our military aid, but we're going to expedite NATO membership for Ukraine, which means as soon as they're part of NATO, we will invoke Article 5. Sociopaths only feel pain. There is no other way to deal with Putin than through maximum force. Now, a lot of people are like, oh, my God, Denver, oh, my God, you're awful. You're a warmonger. You know, I'm gonna get that right. No, Putin is a warmonger. America is supposed to stand up for countries that are democratically, you know, based, institutionally based, but also protecting their sovereign territory. So for me, it's rearming Ukraine advisors for efficient resources, right? For use of resources, ensuring we're getting lessons learned, increasing our drone material and parts shipments into there, because we enter now into a drone warfare. And lastly, after all that, with Article 5 threats and NATO threats, is we enforce a no fly zone and that we. That is what I would do.
- [10:54]
B
That's very bold, you know, to say. I mean, I'm not. There's. You can make a good case for all of that. I think, first of all, Putin is the one who started this war.
- [11:07]
A
Yes.
- [11:08]
B
Not Zelensky, not NATO, no one else. Putin is the one who wants this war to continue. And I think you have to take a step back and take a look at what has been done so far. Okay, so the war was started in 2022. So how did the rest of the world, the United States, the EU respond? What did the last administration do? Biden put sanctions on Russia. The EU put sanctions on Russia. Russia's foreign assets have been frozen. The majority of Russian banks have been cut off from the global banking system. We've sent weapons and lots of aid, both Europe and the United States, to Ukraine for it, to defend themselves. Okay. And so that's what happened during the Biden administration. We got two new members into NATO, so we've started to beef up NATO. NATO starting to increase their defense spending. Okay. So all of that happened, started under the last administration, continued under this administration. However, since Trump has been in the White House, he has been all over the place. Okay. Russian attacks have gotten worse.
- [12:25]
A
Oh, yes.
- [12:25]
B
There have been no severe consequences that he keeps talking about. Okay. There's no more sanctions. He hasn't instituted any. Any more sanctions. Actually eased off of some sanctions. There's been no ceasefire. Russia has no motive under Trump, during the Trump administration, to stop what he's doing. There's no severe cost to what he's doing right now, thanks to, in my mind, to Donald Trump. So what can be done? I agree with a lot of what you said. You know, more sanctions. We don't need to ease them off. We need to put more. We need to give Ukraine more weapons. Don't cut them off. Don't cut them off from intelligence sharing. Give them more. Okay. The secondary sanctions could be done. And I think that term has been thrown around a lot lately. Secondary sanctions. A lot of people may not know what that is. Can you explain what secondary sanctions are you talking about?
- [13:21]
A
Downstream sanctions? Yeah. So that's. Anybody who deals with a primary sanctioned country is also sanctioned based on how they act, with support on that. That's really what it is, and I can explain it. I'll give you a micro example. Are you ready for secondary sanctions? Okay, so say you have a company, right? So you have a company that's doing business with a sanctioned partner and you have another company that comes in Right. That wants to do business with a partner outside of that specific sanctions threshold. So let me put it to you this way. So a non EU partner comes in to a EU sanctioned company based on the Russian war and say they want to buy assets or do some type of transaction. The issue that they're going to have is that they roll into there. They could be subject to. Amy. Secondary sanctions because those secondary sanctions roll down to that entity regardless if they're in the primary sanctions node or into the, in, in that mold. And I've had to deal with this so many times on the Financial Services Committee. So when you're looking at secondary sanctions, and I'm trying to, even the more I try to make this simple, the more I'm making it more complex. But it's, I'm sorry, Amy, I apologize.
- [14:34]
B
Okay.
- [14:34]
A
But the, but the issue is that there is a complexity to this. Because secondary sanctions say you're dealing in a specific asset and you try to end run those sanctions and grab that asset or trade that asset, you are automatically under the sanctioned platform, which means you can't do business with the primary sanction partners at all. Regardless if you're a member of the EU or NATO or a US entity, you can't do business with them and you're sanctioned. So that's, I hope that helps to explain it.
- [15:07]
B
Yeah. No. So in the case of Russia right now, what is, I always tell people the Russian economy is a one hit wonder, right.
- [15:16]
A
It's natural resources, right.
- [15:18]
B
It's, it's oil, it's natural gas, it's natural resources. Okay. That is how, that is how they fund, that is their whole economy. So Russia has been sanctioned so much since the start of this war by the EU and the United States. And so in order to keep its revenues up, it has to trade oil, which it has with all these other countries, China, India, Turkey, the uae. And so it does that. So secondary sanctions in the case of Russia would be the United States and the EU proposing things like punishing those other countries or businesses in those other countries for taking the oil, for doing business with Russia. So you're punishing the third party country so that they don't, are, they aren't incentivized to now do business with Russia. So in the, in the case of, of Russian energy, the United States, it's a bipartisan bill which I would love to see passed. It's legislation that would enable 500% tariffs. Now, we hate tariffs, but on goods from countries that buy or sell Russian oil and natural gas. So that's pretty bold. I don't know if it'll pass, but, like, that's what secondary sanctions are. If you really wanted to squeeze Russia, you could.
- [16:49]
A
I would say even if it's passed, it'll be vetoed. And I think, you know, when you're looking at what happened. Oh, by the way, Amy, this is. This is a great topic, Secretary sanctions. Because now we can talk about, you know, Ukraine and Putin and also Zelensky. When is the Putin, Zelensky meeting scheduled? Have you heard? You know, I know this was a historic summit, but when is this scheduled? Yeah, what's going on there?
- [17:12]
B
Maybe they'll have it in the Arctic.
- [17:15]
A
Well, I think Putin said, hey, I'll meet with him if he comes to Moscow. And I'm like, zelensky. I mean, nothing above the second floor, please.
- [17:24]
B
The Arctic may be the only country that's not going to arrest Putin if, you know, if he comes.
- [17:28]
A
I don't even. Well, they might. You know, they might. But I do. I do fear. I think Zelensky does fear heights if he goes to Russia, you know, and I think he doesn't. You know, he wants to make sure there's ground floor level meetings because he doesn't want to follow a window. I think also there's no way Zelensky is going to Moscow. But here's the other thing, Amy, and this is. You're on it. Let's talk about sort of secondary. Right. So when you're talking about secondary sanctions and you're going to this. Why, how can Putin call Zelensky a Nazi as a Jewish president, say all these incredible things on the disinformation side and propaganda side, call him evil and then meet with him. Putin has to save face. There is no way Putin meets with him on neutral territory. Just want to let you know, I. I just don't see it happening.
- [18:16]
B
Well, and there's no way that Russia is going to, or Putin is going to agree to any type of security guarantee. You know, the last weekend, Witkoff and Rubio get on TV and everybody's talking about security guarantees, and that's a good thing. I would love to see Ukraine get a security guarantee. I was shocked when witkoff said Article 5, like, security guarantees. I was like, man, for real. Because if you're talking Article 5, folks, that is like NATO. You might as well be in NATO.
- [18:51]
A
Which might as well.
- [18:52]
B
That would be great. It's just that Russia is never gonna go with that. So, you know, it's, It's. This is. This is a problem.
- [19:00]
A
Well, you saw J.D. vance trying to backtrack with his own comments about calling Putin well mannered, very soft spoken, really cares about the Russian people. I mean, you talk about fifth column bs. I, I, it's just amazing to me, Amy, as soon as they come out tough, I think Trump's like, no, no, no, no, no. I have business interests in Russia and it's more important that I get Trump Tower Moscow than what the American people or Ukrainian people have to deal with.
- [19:25]
B
Yeah, I, I, I don't see, I mean, look, we were all hopeful when, when some of this stuff was happening over the weekend, but I had a bad feeling that nothing was going to happen and it could actually make it worse. And I, I, I don't think right now, I'm not sure it's made it worse except to say that it's get, it's definitely giving Vladimir Putin more time, more leeway to bomb people.
- [19:52]
A
I mean, the night after the meetings, Amy, I'm getting videos from Ukraine of people in Kyiv and other towns, you know, because I know them personally, like Denver. Look outside my window and you see an explosion. You hear the buzzing of drones shaheds or FPVs. And yeah, it, the, the attacks the following evening were absolutely massive. After, after the meeting with Zelensky and Trump.
- [20:13]
B
Yeah, well, we're gonna move on because there's a lot of other things to talk about.
- [20:17]
A
So much, so much Denver.
- [20:20]
B
I wan, what is wrong with mail in voting? The President came down or, or wants to come down with an executive order to get rid of mail in ballots and voting machines lying, of course, saying that they're inaccurate. Now this whole thing, this whole action by the President backed up by Republicans, right? Everything that he does is totally backed up by all these Republicans.
- [20:46]
A
They're cowards, all of them.
- [20:48]
B
Totally. This action is, that isn't about, in my mind, it's not about making voting or elections more secure. It's about scaring people and it's about trying to lay the groundwork to not accept the midterm election results. And that should alarm people in my mind.
- [21:11]
A
Well, I mean, you have an L shaped ambush at every polling station, right? I mean, Amy, if there's no mail in voting or there's no voting machines and now you have this paper ballot and you're in this long line, intimidation happens, right? Or why wouldn't you have DHS or ICE out there looking for anybody who doesn't look like us, right? To see if they have their papers. I mean, it's ludicrous. Mail in Voting and voting machines work. It's very, very technologically specific, but it also is validated. It's data, validated voting methodologies. Here's the thing, it's obviously unconstitutional. The states control their own voting, right? I don't know. But our Supreme Court has bought and paid by the federal society and heritage. You know, and you're like, Denver, you're talking this way. Oh, my God. Well, of course they are. Look at the way they've been. It's, it's ludicrous. Right? We, we can't keep trying to dance around some of the things that, that seeing, because I know how Republicans act probably better than most because, oh, by the way, I was a Republican congressman and during Trump's term. Yay. You know, the first one. So. But I think that's the issue here, right, Is this is about intimidation. So here's how you really steal elections in 2020. It wasn't Dominion or Smartmatic or broken algorithms or Chinese servers. All of it made up by the Donald Trump administration and filtered through social media influencers all the way to January 6th. In the coup attempt in 2024, there wasn't a stolen elation by Starlink and Elon Musk. Sorry, Democrats, that didn't happen either. That's a conspiracy theory. However, the way to steal an election is to disenfranchise voters through process laws and intimidation beforehand. This is how you steal an election, is by limiting. It's through subtraction. The Republicans have to win by subtraction. That's the only way they can win based on demographics and what this economy is going to do, because stupidity is terminal. And as we talked about, tariffs, it's going to crash. There's just no way around this is going to happen. So now we're to a point where the only way they can win is through this sort of bizarre legislation, executive orders that are blatantly unconstitutional. And then you have a Supreme Court that we have to count on to tell us what we already know. And I am not quite sure that will happen.
- [23:22]
B
Yeah, I mean, and this is what you're seeing in Texas with the gerrymandering. Yes, but Trump's social media post when he talked about this, and maybe Doug can throw this up, there is, I quote, they must do what the federal government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them for the good of the country to do. Meaning, like he, he wants. He, he's telling them where I'm going to have this executive order. I'm going to get rid of mail in ballots. I'm going to get rid of voting machines. And he's saying, you know, they have to do what the federal government tells them to do. That as you, as you just mentioned.
- [24:03]
A
That'S, that's, it's, it's not even American. That's just fascist, authoritarian.
- [24:08]
B
Section four gives the power to the states to determine the, quote, manner of elections. The word manner, that's mail. Mail in voting falls under the word manor, folks. Okay, so it's in the Constitution. And then second, second point is he got apparently this idea, he's had it for a while, but he got like re. Energized about this idea. From who?
- [24:32]
A
Vladimir Putin? From Vlad the bare chested horse rider.
- [24:37]
B
Tips Denver from a dictator. Okay, and then, and then three other countries, a host of other countries as well as the United States do mail in voting. And it, there's like no significant fraud in mail in voting in the United States. And all of this happened, by the way, on the same day that Newsmax was told that they have to pay, yeah, $67 million to Dominion Voting Systems because Newsmax spread false claims that the voting systems and that voting technology was, you know, rigged. They, they said it was rigged in 2020. And of course it wasn't. So it's just like, it's almost unbelievable. But mail in voting, I have used mail in voting for almost my entire adult life, certainly the 24 years in the military. And, and what a lot of people have to realize is mail and voting, all of our military members use mail in voting. Anybody that, that is a, like an airline pilot or has a job, you know, goes to, to other countries, as you do for business a lot. Guess what? We can't always be around on election day. It also is really important for like elderly people, people who can't get out, handicap people. This is like dumb. This is really dumb.
- [26:12]
A
What does that mean with the woman yelling and it's the cat sitting there, do you know what I'm talking about? And the woman's yelling, but it's absentee voting. The GOP is screaming that mail in voting and absentee voting is, is different. And then the cat's like, are they bailing it? You know what I mean? Of course it's so ridiculous when they try to quibble over unconstitutional policies because they're a bunch of little authoritarian loving, you know, mouth breathers, you know, and I, and you know, and it's just like, Jesus, you know, they're just so ridiculous. But you know, Putin giving election tips is like, Jeffrey Dahmer giving cuisine tips. You know, it's, you know, it's, it's, it's ridiculous. You know what I mean? I mean it's ludicrous that the guy who interfered in our 2016 elections and 2020 elections, let's be honest, this is, you know, disinformation. By the way, Tulsi Gabbard just got rid of the formal line influence shop. Just want everybody to know. And the Global Engagement center is also gone. So we're not tracking any foreign disinformation to manipulate our election anymore. Amy, that's a little odd. Yeah, so, but I just find it amazing right now that that mail in voting, right, using machines, fine. Everything's validated. And the fact that they're trying to intimidate people by going to all paper ballots. Disenfranchising. Trying to gerrymander during midterms, right? Think about this, right? Midterm gerrymandering in Texas because they know they're going to lose the majority. That's why they did it. Absolutely. Every state should retaliate based on what Texas is doing. But the issue that you have is this. Here's the long term issue. We have no working democracy anymore because we really have no swing districts anymore. Now what do we do? Now we're into literally almost a political civil war every two years as we're going through these election cycles. I think it calls for a third party. I know that's another thing at some point. But that's the issue, right? Gerrymandering is going to destroy this country regardless of who does it. But the Republicans decide to weaponize it during the midterms because of how badly they're doing. It's that simple.
- [28:13]
B
It's terrible. I mean, we've had gerrymandering for a long time. It happens after the census, which you know, is also in the Constitution. You take a census every 10 years, right? And you, you figure out where people are at and then you reallocate and re. Proportion and representatives based on that. And what the Republicans are doing right now is, is breaking that. You know, it's saying we don't like, we don't like we're in the middle of the decade. We're not going to wait until the census to redistrict. We're going to, we're going to do it right now because we're afraid we're going to lose the midterms. I mean there's, there's just, it's so undemocratic. Un American.
- [28:58]
A
The census conspiracy theories are coming out Right. All the Democrats, you know, the globalists and the deep staters have been making sure that illegals are counted in the census for disproportionate voting. So that conspiracy theory is out there right now. The brilliance of the Republicans is that they've learned how to mine ignorance on a level that all of us have a tough time understanding. And so they're using ignorance as a weapon, and they're using superior technology to weaponize ignorance through social media and through AI specific targeting and algorithmic targeting. So, you know, you have census conspiracy theories. Right. You have California's evil, even though Texas is the one doing the gerrymandering. So you have this algorithmic targeting to this massive zombie army that's just going to parrot these talking points at Thanksgiving dinners and while they're out at Rite Aid. And I think that's an issue that we're going to be fighting for the rest of our adult lives.
- [29:51]
B
Yeah. And we got to figure out how to, how to counter that quick.
- [29:56]
A
I mean, yes, that's. That's like. Well, yeah, there's no, there's no talking these people out of their stuff anymore, Amy. I think it's confrontation time. I mean, I'm not talking about. I'm talking about confrontational. Like, you don't let them say anything that goes unchecked. If it's ridiculous, you have to say, nah, you're full of. Here's why.
- [30:11]
B
Yeah, no, good point. All right. Well, Denver, the war on woke and DEI has come to the Smithsonian. Now it seems that mega and Republicans want to make slavery not so bad again. The President wants Smithsonian to change its exhibits. It sent a memo. Apparently the President. I never thought the President even went to a museum before, but apparently he really cares about this. And it's not just, I know what's in the headlines about the Smithsonian, but it's bigger than that. The National Park Service unveiled plans to rebuild a statue commemorating a man by the name of Albert pike, who is a Confederate brigadier general, a few blocks from the U.S. capitol, Arlington National Cemetery. The Secretary of Defense, Hegseth, who just loves the whole white supremacist thing, he wants to bring back the Confederate monument that was in Arlington National Cemetery for a long time. It had been there since 1914 when it was installed. It was installed there during the Jim Crow era. Right. And the goal of the monument was to, back in 1914, when they put it up, was to bring out or show the positive aspects of the Confederate movement. I mean, that was the goal of the monument itself. And so you know, this is making America great again, apparently.
- [31:49]
A
Well, to use I don't know why I'm in serial killer references today, but it's like a statue of John Wayne Gacy at the clown museum, right? I mean, it's just, it's ridiculous, but it's not, it's beyond ridiculous. I'm in Virginia, you're in Kentucky. We know about Confederate history. We know about the Lost cause mythology. We know they try to say this wasn't about slavery, it's about states rights. Well, the state's rights were so they could keep slaves. The fact that we're talking about, first of all, pike, some one star loser right to be reinstated is so egregious to the American mind, to people like me and you, Amy, I can't, I don't even know how to react to making slavery acceptable again. I don't know how, I don't know, even know. I don't have the words to characterize how appalled I am that we have an administration that's so Christo fascist and also nationalist, but white nationalist nationalist that we don't have the press. And Amy, I mean, this is a question I want to ask you. When does the press stop reporting on the best moisturizer on ABC Morning News and start talk? I'm serious, by the way. I, I just, I, I watched in the morning. I'm like, what's happening? There's so much happening from Tulsi Gabbard to Hexeth to cash Patel to J6 being re litigated, which is what this is all about with the machines, as you know, in the paper ballots is this goes back to the conspiracy theories are they're actually messaging to their voters. At what point does media, and I don't think they do because they're click. They're click horse, honestly. But even Joe Scarborough talking about Gavin Newsom rather than what Trump is doing, you know, and obviously we're going to get into that, but I don't understand, Amy, and I want you to help me understand what the heck is happening with media. I've been wanting to talk to you about this just on the phone, but where are we at?
- [33:48]
B
I think it's becoming normalized. Here's the thing. The Department of defense is spending $10 million. $10 million to restore a monument in Arlington National Cemetery that shows the positive aspects of slavery, that idolizes the Confederacy, traitors who wanted to uphold slavery. And, and, and Pete Hexeth is saying, well, you know, we shouldn't have renamed all these bases. And we shouldn't have taken these, you know, Confederate statues down. All that stuff is too woke. It's ridiculous. It should be front page news. This is crazy. And then let's go back to why these bases and these statues were taken down in the first place. By the way, it was passed by Congress that we would have a naming commission within the Department of Defense to look at all of these bases and, and. And that were named after Confederate traitors by bipartisan, like both sides. This, you know, looked at this and said, yeah, this, we. We shouldn't be like honoring slavery anymore. Okay. And so this naming commission was put together. Actually the, the idea for it happened during the first Trump administration and then it was. It was. It formed under the Biden administration. And I'm going to read you off some of the names Denver on this naming commission. Okay. Because, you know, Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump say it's too woke. All right. What. What they recommended. I'm gonna. I'm read you off some of these names.
- [35:34]
A
I'm ready.
- [35:35]
B
Tell me if these guys, these people are too woke. Okay.
- [35:38]
A
Okay. Okay. Okay.
- [35:40]
B
Admiral Four star Admiral Michelle Howard. Okay. Kai Siddal, US Army Brigadier General, historian, former United States Marine Corps Commandant Robert Kneller. General four star Corey Shockey, who is a scholar from the American Enterprise Institute. Is that too woke?
- [36:07]
A
I know that's not What. No.
- [36:09]
B
Yeah. Lt. Gen. 3 Star Gen. Tom Bostick, Oklahoma businessman appointed by the ranking member of the Republican House Armed Services Committee on the Republican side. From Oklahoma to woke. Huh? Republican Congressman. Republican congressman. You probably know him. Austin Scott from Georgia.
- [36:30]
A
Oh, I know Austin.
- [36:30]
B
Wow. Is he too woke?
- [36:33]
A
Austin?
- [36:34]
B
Colonel Rome. Yeah. Lieutenant Colonel Romo from the United States Air Force. These people are not exactly screaming woke here.
- [36:45]
A
No, they're not. I. Amy, you know, I always thought I.
- [36:53]
B
You.
- [36:54]
A
You've got me here, like, on to a point. You know, I'm never speaking recommended.
- [36:58]
B
Hey, change this stuff. It doesn't represent who we are as Americans. We shouldn't be celebrating these losers that were traitors to our country who fought and killed US Soldiers in the Civil War to uphold the institution of owning other human beings.
- [37:20]
A
I mean, I'm sorry it's so egregious and evil. And again, I think we can't be afraid to use that word. We have an administration that's embracing the evil of slavery as some type of historical statement to talk to their base, to message for more votes in rural districts. There's a song by the Dropkick, Murphy's First Class Loser. I don't think it was directly about Trump. Right. But it's, it's a song that really does sort of. I think it applies to Trump. And I think what you're looking at is why are we celebrating losing on this level, not only losing a war or losers in a separatist movement to leave the United States, but to support something as evil and heinous and dehumanizing and I. As slavery. Slavery. It's. And we're spending money from the taxpayers coffers to reinstitute. Yeah, that's.
- [38:22]
B
That, that's just one. We haven't even talked.
- [38:24]
A
That's what I'm saying, Amy. That's just the beginning. Right. We're going to have this cascading effect of, of loser statues popping up everywhere. Right? Loser here, loser there, loser over there. Look at all these losers. Right. And what does that do to the African American population? I'm telling you right now, the media, this should be front page every day. But the other thing, too is that I don't know how the GOP appeals to African American voters. And if the Democrats aren't smart enough to jump on all of this nonsense, I don't know what to tell you on that either. I just feel like my head's exploding. Media talking about moisturizers and you know, and just sort of calmly saying, well, there was never a meeting with Trump and Putin and Zelensky, but what a historic. No, it wasn't historic. It was ludicrous. It was showmanship in some gold plated, gaudy hoodoo state. You know, I don't even know what's happening. Right. And so I think that's where I, when you, when you got me here. Because sometimes I can come up with a phrase that sort of encapsulates what I'm feeling, but I'm so angry and enraged from an administration this ignorant. It's hard for me to put into words where I'm at right now.
- [39:31]
B
I mean, it just, it's ludicrous to say that the commission filled with that many experienced military officers and scholars that are not exactly from, you know, the left wing institutions.
- [39:50]
A
Anybody somehow woke.
- [39:51]
B
I mean, it's just ridiculous.
- [39:53]
A
Anybody except service. Well, I would say anybody accepts service under Trump, you know who they are.
- [39:58]
B
Yeah. All right, well, let's, let's get to whiskey because we, we haven't, you know, in a lot of shows. I, I know it's been a while. I wanted to, I know you got something going on, but I wanted to talk a little bit about Maker's Mark. Okay. This is Kind of like a favorite. This is a favorite in my family. So if you were to like ask like my mom, my dad, you know, growing up, what was it? What was their favorite bourbon? You know, growing up in Kentucky, they would always say Maker's Mark. And so, you know, it's, it's signature thing is this right here, which is this seal, right. That goes on the top. And so I have one that I haven't opened yet just to show everybody. Look how beautiful it is. Beautiful. Look at that. It's the signature. And this makes it. No bottle is exactly the same as another bottle because they hand dip them, you know, into the wax. And did you know, Denver, that the people that do this can only work at that station for no more than 30 minutes because it's so hot, you know?
- [41:05]
A
Yes.
- [41:06]
B
Yeah. So they can only, only do that for 30 minutes. The patent for this, well, the idea for it came from a woman. It was a couple that started maker's mark in 1953. And in 1955, the wife, her name was Margie Samuels, she was the one that had the idea for this for like marketing and she was also the one that came up with the bottle design. So the distiller was her husband and it was like his brand of whiskey or of bourbon, but it was her idea. So it was very much like you and your wife being sort of the husband, wife team there that created Maker's Mark. Not only the whiskey itself or the, the bourbon itself, which is kind of like a sweeter wheat. Bourbon is very good. But also what makes Maker's Mark special is, is the marketing, right?
- [42:09]
A
It is.
- [42:10]
B
And that was her idea.
- [42:11]
A
Christine's full, first full operational tour when she wanted to be a distiller was from Maker's Mark and that is her hero. So when you're talking Maker's Mark, that's something special. Also, even though our first mash bill was sort of mimicked from Old Crow, she went to more of a wheat based mash bill. Ours is very, very similar to Makers Marks mash bill. The other thing too. And, and I'm not trying to. I love like Maker's Mark and Four Roses, small batch or single barrel are my favorite table bourbons. Right. That's the one that's my go to, right. If I'm just chilling out, right, every now and then I'll, you know, jump to a Basil Hayden stuff. And you know, a lot of the times, you know, go to bars, they have, they think they have a lot of bourbon. They only have 10 brands and if a maker is there, hey, makers on the rocks. You know how easy that is to say, Amy? Makers on the rocks. Right. So that's what I do have, makers on the rocks. And I sound very cool when I do it. Can I get a makers on the rocks, please? Yeah, do you have one big rock? So, you know, so, so, so, yeah, I'm pretty excited about that. So we love makers. They were so kind to Christine. They showed us how they do their chemical composition and why they actually break their barrels between six and three quarters, I think, in seven and a half years, and why they have to be so specific. And the barrel blends, they actually do chemical testing to make sure that the barrel blends match one to another. Brilliant company, Just very impressive. But also were so kind to us and helped Christine get started in the business.
- [43:40]
B
That is awesome. And you know, this particular bottle here has my name etched in there.
- [43:45]
A
Yeah, we have1.
- [43:46]
B
Amy McGrath, U.S. marine Corps. That is this, it's really cool. And the other thing is there's this seal right here that you've probably seen on the, on the, and on the seal is a star with this S I V on there. Do you know what that is?
- [44:02]
A
What is that, Amy?
- [44:03]
B
So, yeah, this, so, yeah, I talked about the, the, the wife in 1955, Margie Samuels, her husband's name was Samuels. So, like, that was his name. I guess it was Samuel Samuels. I don't know. I have to look that up. But it's the S is for Samuels, which is the last name. And then the IV is the fourth.
- [44:26]
A
Generation, Samuel's fourth generation.
- [44:29]
B
It's his family and it's his name and they have it stamped on there.
- [44:34]
A
So I sort of knew, but I, I, so, but it, I wanted to hear it from you, ma'. Am. And here's why I wanted to hear it from you, because I wanted to show you that Christine, I'm not going to say copied, but on her bottles is her maker's mark. As you know, the maker's mark is what's on the bottle. That's what that is. Right. So I don't know if I can show everybody. I guess not. But her maker's mark is here. Right? So if you look on the bottles with her signature, her maker's marks are on the bottles when she does her reserves. So her cork is a metal puticle cork. It's very heavy, can also be used as a weapon. Right. If you need to. But yeah, but she took the maker's mark idea and incorporated into her Bottles based on Maker's Mark specifically.
- [45:18]
B
Very cool. Love it. Love it.
- [45:20]
A
Yes.
- [45:20]
B
All right.
- [45:21]
A
Yes.
- [45:21]
B
Let's get quick shots.
- [45:23]
A
And I got a gold spot. Yeah, I got a gold spot here, so. But we can talk about that another time.
- [45:28]
B
Good stuff. Oh, so good. All right, let's get the quick shots. First one we got. We got four of them today. Okay. I think.
- [45:36]
A
All right.
- [45:36]
B
Three or four. J.D. vance has had these river levels, Little Miami river here in. Close to Me in southern Ohio. He had these river levels adjusted for his canoe trip with his family. And this caused a lot of controversy because, you know, there are federal cuts going on right now to agencies dealing with recreation in America, but apparently it's okay for the Army Corps of Engineers to go in there, spend a ton of time and resources or whatever, and up the levels for. For JD's recreation.
- [46:09]
A
Where's Doge? Where's Doge? That's waste.
- [46:15]
B
Yeah. Cheers to the Army Corps Engineers, because, you know, they. They turn the switch and get it done. And I'm glad that JD could have a good, nice, fun time with his family.
- [46:25]
A
Well, I'm glad Doge didn't cut the Army Corps of Engineers because his canoe would have been sitting on the rocks awkwardly while he's praising Pooh.
- [46:34]
B
I have actually kayaked and canoed many times on the Little Miami River. It's. It is. It is a fun thing to do, but we. I never got a chance to actually raise the level of the water the way J.D. vance has. Has done.
- [46:49]
A
Well, Amy, there's another quick shot here. Our good friend RFK Jr has decided that he's going to go to war with the American Academy of Pediatrics over shots. And I want to read this.
- [47:01]
B
Not the same shots that were. We're.
- [47:04]
A
No, not these shots. God, Amy, you're so evil. I tell you. So here we go. Are you ready for this? Kennedy accused the group. I'm gonna. Can I read it like a newscast? Well, you know, but Kennedy accused the group of engaging in a pay to play scheme to promote commercial ambitions of AAP's Big Pharma benefactors. Okay. The issue is the CDC dropped its recommendations. Right. For the COVID shots, and the AAP is like, this is sort of ludicrous. And I think what we're getting with is we're talking about conspiracy theorists and delusionists and people like RFK Jr. Who's mentally ill. He has to go back to this sort of conspiratorial thinking, this big pharma, you know, sort of. They're. They're they're manipulating behind the scenes with the American Academy of Pediatrics to make sure they make a lot of money off the health of children. You know, that's exactly what it is, Amy. And that's the thing that bothers me. I've told you that stupid. The downstream effects are terminal. But right now we're now using pseudoscience and homeopathic remedy science. Right. Literally. I'm wondering if RFK Jr. Is like the best way to fight disease is leeches to go against people who actually care about children. I think that's what gets to me. Yeah.
- [48:23]
B
I mean, I just hope the American people recognize that. You should not be listening to this man who unfortunately is in charge of a major department of our government and health. You shouldn't be listening to a guy, I think he had a brain worm at one point.
- [48:44]
A
He did.
- [48:44]
B
Who does just really terrible stuff and is an anti vaxxer and all that. You should be listening to the doctors. Like actual doctors. I know ludicrous to have to say that, but actual doctors think that your children should be vaccinated. Then you should listen to them.
- [49:06]
A
I mean, it's. I just can't believe that you think doctors are smarter than RFK Jr. Amy. I'm just really stunned right now. I don't know what to say. I tell you, pretty nuts.
- [49:16]
B
Did you know, and I just found this out yesterday, Denver, that, that the United States Navy, so that Trump, the administration, the Department of Defense is sending three Navy Aegis cruisers to go off the coast of Venezuela to possibly do targeted strikes, I guess against drug cartels. Because I don't know what else they would be doing out there. I mean the, the Navy would need to have some Coast Guard law enforcement people with them if they're going to do counter narcotics types of stuff, you know, so there's a lot of like laws involved in international laws involving this stuff. They don't have landing craft with them. So they're not like invading amphibious. Invading Venezuela, I guess, which is a good thing. So this is, I would call it a show of force. What. What do you think?
- [50:11]
A
I think the Epstein files must be really bad. That's what I think. I think once we start sending cruisers off the coast of countries to distract from the Epstein files, I think we've jumped the shark. And this is all this is. I'm telling you, Amy, everything being done right now and you're seeing the zone being flooded with shit, including expending billions. Where's Doge right to send cruisers off the coast of Venezuela to go after cartels. Really? That's where most of cartels are, off the coast of Venezuela. Venezuela. Do you know how many cartels are around? I mean, there's other countries that have a lot more cartels in Venezuela. It's, this is actually a distraction for the American public based on delusions and conspiracy theories that are promulgated by the Trump administration. Much of this is how much they can do to distract from files from a pedophile that have Trump in there so many times. They should be called the Trump files. That's what's happening. That's where we're at as a country. And I'm just tired of it.
- [51:08]
B
Okay, fair enough. I mean, I'm gonna watch this. I don't really know what, what is up with this right now. I'm, I am, I am fairly worried about this idea because it continues to keep popping up in the news. It also with Mexico and Venezuela of the United States military doing these types of targeted strikes against drug operatives. I mean, I think that, that, that, that's, you're invading. You're, you're, you're attacking another country. And that, that should be concerning in my belief.
- [51:48]
A
Well, I mean, you know, Trump tries to, you know, and run the Constitution by calling everything an emergency. Right, Amy. And maybe this is just another emergency.
- [51:55]
B
I mean, I'm not, I'm not, I'd like to stop the drug cartels. I just, I'm not sure that bombing a sovereign country, it's the way to go.
- [52:04]
A
Yeah, it's rough anyway. Yeah.
- [52:05]
B
So you, you alluded to it earlier in the show. Gavin Newsom is trolling Trump now in the same way that Trump is, in my belief, is totally juvenile on social media and has been for a long time. And it's really terrible for the office of the presidency. But now the governor of California is sort of giving him a taste of his own medicine. What are your thoughts on this?
- [52:30]
A
Oh, they're conflicted. They're very conflicted. But I will tell you this. I think it had to be done. And here's what I'm going to say. Have you seen how Fox and Newsmax and far right people and Megan Keller reacting to this? It's taking away from them, spreading disinformation, it's taking away from their propaganda. Right. He is taking away oxygen. It's like he's. What is it with when you talk to a phone scammer so they don't talk to the next person or they have these AI things now that'll talk to the Phone scammer. To keep them on the phone. Right. To scam them. Right? This is, this is what's happening, right? You're looking at, you know, listen, the GOP and MAGA are so mouth breathing, they're so ignorant, they're so ignorant that they're going to respond to this because it's a, it's a bright shiny thing. It's like a raccoon reaching for a trinket. They can't help it, right? That it, it's, it's, it's, it's cause and effect, right. It's just incredible stuff. And I think they sort of nailed it. Is it unserious? Yes. Does it mean our country is already in the toilet? Absolutely it does. I mean there's, we have the, probably the 2028 Democratic nominee trying to mimic Trump to try to take away and to make fun of him as a troll, as the two people that are, you know, sort of of leading both parties. Newsom is the leader of the Democratic Party. There's no doubt about it. He has taken over because of this. But it is a sad, sad commentary in the United States of America that that social media trolling now dictates who is the leading contender for the presidency of the United States.
- [54:06]
B
Yeah, I totally agree and I'm conflicted too. I mean, I, I feel like, you know, part of me feels like this is, this is a bit of a waste of time. We need to get back to talking about the real problem. We have. The Republicans just ripping away health care in terms of slashing Medicaid, how that's gonna hurt people so much with this bill that they just passed, the tariffs being terrible, prices gone up. We have a lot of problems in this country that we need to continue to tackle and we have this going on. On the other hand, I do believe it is exposing the, I don't even know if this is a word, the juvenile ness of the current president in a way that hasn't really been exposed before. When you kind of do it on from the other side and you look at it, you're like, wow, our president does this kind of stuff all the time. These, these stupid posts, these AI images of, you know, know, beefed up men with, with Donald Trump's head on them, you know, homoerotic. He like does this and we just, it's just Donald Trump. But when, when Newsom puts it out there, it is kind of like exposing that craziness in my mind.
- [55:27]
A
Well, we know Trump likes bare chested men that ride horses named Putin. Right. So what's the, I think maybe they just embrace, you know, who they are and, but no, I think, I think that's where we're at is that I don't know what we do at this point. Amy, me and you do laugh and we try not to be too serious because it, if you're not, you know, laughing, you're crying. But this is really frightening and it feels like Newsom had to do it. But it does show when you talk about juvenile behavior or childishness, it looks like 8 year olds in a slap battle. And I think that, but those eight year olds or people like Trump can control a trillion dollar military. So yeah, you know, that's what's scary. Right. It's like the, listen, it's the 12 year old bully that's been held back twice in the fifth grade class and I think, you know, stealing people's milk money and I think that's how MAGA acts. But also I think Newsom that felt he had to react to that.
- [56:25]
B
Yeah. And this gets into our Cheers, which is our final segment here. But you know, one of the things with Gavin Newsom is he's, he's, he's actually backing it up with fighting fire with fire because he's got this plan to push back against the Republicans gerrymandering and he's, you know, going through with it. And I mean, a lot of people are like, finally, you know, I don't think it's doing something necessarily about this craziness, but the Cheers that I had this week were the Texas Democrats who left the state in order to bring attention to the craziness, what the Republicans were doing and trying to gerrymander in the middle of the decade. And they came back and then one of them in particular, Representative Nicole Collier, when the governor of Texas said to all of the Texas Democrats, you're going to have to be monitored while you're here in Texas before this vote by the sheriff's department and the police. You're good, they're going to follow you everywhere, I guess. And she said, I don't agree to that and I'm not leaving and so I won't. They wouldn't let her out of the state house and she decided to sleep there. And then all of these other Democrats came in and did it with her in sort of a protest. And I, I just think, you know, we got to have leaders that are willing to, to do those sorts of things, bring attention.
- [57:59]
A
This is a huge cheers. But I want to let you know something, Amy, and people can say what they want. I'd have been arrested. There is no way that I had somebody follow me. And if they tried to follow me, I would have tried to get away from them. I would have aided them, because I know how. They're dumb. I would have. I would have left that. I'm about to curse. I better not. But I. Yeah, you want to hold me back, you have to arrest me. You have to beat me. And I can't believe that we're in a country that they had a permission slip or had to be followed. It just shows that Texas is broken. F that. I, I gotta tell you, I'm so angry about it. I, I don't have the words. I, I, I. There'd have been fights. I tell you what, I, I'd have fought people and the fact that they could keep it together like that. Cheers to them for not having violence, because Denver would have been violent. Cheers.
- [58:51]
B
Agree. Cheers. All right.
- [58:55]
A
Wow.
- [58:56]
B
Great show, Denver.
- [58:57]
A
My gosh. Thank you. And I know that it's been a while for me, and I apologize. It's been a minute. But, and, and it's just. It's just my life right now, Amy, because I know me and you actually have lives. We have a lot to do. But if people want to hear great stuff like this, they have to subscribe, right? They have to listen. And I know we're not screaming and hyperbolic. I know we don't have, you know, the dumb things that people put there to get clicks, but we are here to help people, and I hope they come on and listen to us as we try to use facts and data to push through a message of sanity. And they're going to have to go on YouTube and subscribe. They're going to have to look at all of our socials like X, Right? Like blue sky. But also true social. But also podcasts. You need to download our podcast and listen to us. And I hope they do. Do.
- [59:46]
B
Yeah. And we have a substack now.
- [59:48]
A
Oh, and a substack now. I mean, my God, we're everywhere.
- [59:51]
B
Be a part of that. All right.
- [59:52]
A
Yeah, that's right. And we're going to be on. You know, hopefully we get CBS late night, me and you. So that's next, right? That's great. That is great. That is great schedule, but cheers. Great show, Amy. Thank you.
- [60:03]
B
All right.
- [60:04]
A
This was wonderful. We hope to see everybody on the flip.
- [60:06]
B
Truth in the barrel, everyone.
- [60:08]
A
Truth in the barrel.