The Bogosity Podcast, early and ad-free!
Become a subscriber at Patreon, SubscribeStar, or Discord.
Use the links at donate.bogosity.tv.
Welcome to the Bogosity Podcast for the week of December 14 2025, the podcast that can't roller skate in a buffalo herd.
This is your host, Shane Killian. This will be the last regular podcast for 2025! Can you believe it?
So we'll see you in January for our year in review.
Until then, let's crenelate the News of the Bogus.
The story so far: The New York Times wants your private chats.
Specifically, anything you might have told ChatGPT anytime ever.
They even tried to make OpenAI preserve your deleted chats and turn those over, but they lost that one at least.
But of the remaining chats, they want to make OpenAI turn over 20 million of them.
Supposedly they've been "de-identified," but regular listeners know how little that helps.
And keep in mind: this is the news media, not just The New York Times,
but The Guardian, The Atlantic, Raw Story, and over a dozen others!
Imagine those muckraking yellow journalists getting all of the personal information you've put in,
even private thoughts you put in for therapeutic reasons or even just for fun, so they can troll through it.
The main culprit here is magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang,
who refused to see sense and kowtowed to basically everything the news media wanted.
Except the deleted ones; that was a road too far even for her, but that's a pretty extreme limit!
So now, they're taking it up to presiding Judge Sidney H. Stein.
In their 31-page memo, they lay out, as clearly as anyone could possibly want,
that this is a sideshow that should never have been allowed in the first place.
Plaintiffs have had more than satisfactory discovery,
but impermissibly want more, inexplicably claiming that their analysis
just wouldn't have a sufficient sample size unless it's at least 20 million.
That should make any statistician listening bark out loud with laughter.
But, of course, we know what it really is: not a statistical analysis, but cherry-picking,
so they can pick out a handful of outputs that just so happen to make their case
that they can then pretend is typical.
There's just no other reason for wanting that much!
Especially when you figure that even the Plaintiffs' experts have said
that only 0.001 to 0.006% of ChatGPT conversations are relevant!
As for Judge Wang, she refused to allow a stay so that Judge Stein
can properly review the briefs he requested and issue his final decision.
Yes, she wants to force them to go ahead and start handing over your private chats!
So they issued another memo to Judge Stein, saying, quote:
"All parties agree that the 20 million conversations at issue
include a massive amount of inherently private, sensitive, confidential, proprietary,
and even privileged information belonging to ChatGPT users
who have no role or stake in this case and no opportunity to object
to the disclosure of this information in these proceedings.
But as a result of those Orders,
OpenAI will soon be forced to hand over this information to Plaintiffs and their experts,
which would amount to one of the largest transfers of private personal information
ever ordered by a United States District Court.
The scale of this disclosure is irreconcilable with Rule 26's critical proportionality requirement.
This Court should intervene immediately to stop it."
As for the claim that the chats will be "de-identified," quote:
"That was factually wrong.
As OpenAI has explained in two (unrebutted) sworn witness declarations,
the de-identification process is not designed to remove information
that is private but non-identifying— i.e., the exact kind of information
that the Court below held was immune from disclosure
when denying OpenAI's motion to compel the Times to produce its own chatlogs."
Oh, yeah, if you missed that:
they caught The New York Times using ChatGPT for accounting and journalism purposes!
But Judge Wang mysteriously said that this information was too private and just couldn't be turned over.
Quote: "Put simply, just removing names, contact information,
and numeric identifiers from a record in which a user also discusses details of their finances,
immigration status, trading strategies, or investigative journalism
does not mean that the record is no longer private, sensitive, confidential, or privileged.
None of the Court's Orders explain why the disclosure of this type of private information
should be immune from discovery
when it was generated by the Times in its own chatlogs using OpenAI's models,
but not when it was generated by innocent non-parties with no role, stake, or voice in these proceedings."
And OpenAI has a much better method for doing so, which Judge Wang ignored, quote:
"Over a month ago, OpenAI advanced a detailed proposal
under which the parties would use techniques that they have used for months in other areas of this case
to accomplish each and every one of Plaintiffs' user-data related discovery goals.
The parties can conduct whatever analyses they need through non-content metadata like classifiers,
which would not require the unnecessary disclosure of the private information in those conversation logs.
That proposal balances the needs of the case with the privacy interests of OpenAI's users.
None of the Orders even acknowledge that proposal,
and News Plaintiffs have never contended that the proposal
is unworkable or insufficient to meet the needs of this case.
By ignoring that more reasonable alternative and instead ordering the production of all 20 million records
notwithstanding their undisputed lack of specific, particularized relevance
to the claims and defenses in this action, the Court below committed clear error.
This Court should intervene to safeguard the privacy of OpenAI's users."
Good to know somebody is out there defending our privacy!
It's not the news media.
It'll never be the news media...
Presenting: the greatest game this side of Yuggoth!
You are H.P. Lovecraft's cat, and your name is Ni***
...Right. We can't say that on a podcast. Anyway, that's the point: Your name is a joke to him.
So now, you are out for revenge!
Using the Necronomicon, you come to the present day to buy a gun
to go vanquish him once and for all.
But the Necronomicon is devious, and it summoned Lovecraft's monsters as well.
Now, in a crumbling world, you must fight for the revenge you seek.
Fight monsters. Gain allies. Buy guns and armor for yourself and your team.
Defeat the bosses of each level.
Then get your revenge against Lovecraft himself.
Play Lovecraft's Cat! The link is at cat.bogosity.tv.
Yeah, we're doing cat.bogosity.tv, not...that other one.
What, you want me to get kicked off the Internet or something?
I'm gonna go more local here, and I don't know how much national attention this has been getting,
but the main catalyst got national news
after conservatives started sharing the story over social media.
I'm talking about the murder of of 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska
by Decarlos Brown Jr. after being released without bond despite having 14 prior arrests.
During the hearing, several people who knew him, including his own sister and mother,
had told the judge that Brown was insane and needed to be committed,
but magistrate Teresa Stokes, who never passed the bar exam or even held a law license,
released him on a written promise to appear.
Especially after the video of the hideous murder was released and caught national attention,
there was a big push for change.
Governor Josh Stein has signed Iryna's Law, which went into effect on the first and says, quote:
"For first violent offense, the only option is secured bond or house arrest (with a secured bond.)
For subsequent violent offenses, when a defendant has either a prior violent offense conviction
or is on pre-trial release, the judge must impose house arrest with electronic monitoring."
The judge must also consider the defendant's entire criminal history, not just convictions.
But the story here is how the sheriff of Charlotte reacted.
You'd think sheriffs would be all about law and order and keeping violent offenders off the street.
It'd be refreshing at least if he stood up for people who haven't yet had their trial,
meaning legally they're innocent because they haven't yet been proven guilty.
But no, Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden's complaint was that Iryna's Law would overcrowd the jails.
And he said this just days after yet another train stabbing, the second since Iryna's.
Well, maybe he's got a point—there are a lot of violent people in Charlotte!
As if I needed another reason not to go there...
It's weird. There's very little crime in my county, comparatively speaking.
Only when you hop the border, it seems.
McFadden acted as if the whole thing were a plot against him, quote:
"And we believe that the only reason that this caught national attention
is because it was caught on video and it was displayed across the United States,
and our local politicians at that time saw it was a political agenda,
or they could highlight her as a refugee and not an immigrant.
This is why they created Iryna's Law.
This law will cause our detention centers' numbers to rise.
We will have more people staying inside a detention center at a longer stay than normally.
Because it attacks the new bond referendum
and it attacks also the discretion that the magistrates and the judge has on releasing people."
And then, of course, he had to get his digs in on Charlie Kirk. Quote:
"And so, judges live in fear now, and I have to say that, because for an entire day,
we had to talk to the magistrates on how to live safely, how to travel safely,
and in the middle of all of that, they were concerned after the shooting of Charlie Kirk,
because they said to me, 'Well, what if they shoot me because of this?'
And so, they're going to be more cautious and reluctant to allow people to be released."
And, of course, he whined about not having enough money.
But the one question he didn't seem to want to address is:
Just why is Charlotte so freakin' violent in the first place?
If you're on the Wi-Fi in a coffee shop or hotel,
anyone on that network can get access to your traffic.
Do you really trust all of those strangers?
For that matter, do you really trust your ISP?
A VPN can protect you from prying eyes, disguise your location, and even foil government censors.
It's essential in this day and age, so go to vpn.bogosity.tv and you'll be taken to BoxPN.
Starting at just $2.99/month,
you can get unlimited high-speed connections to VPN servers all over the world,
and they don't log connections so your privacy is assured.
Travelling abroad, just VPN home and don't worry about what those other governments are doing.
Back at home, stop your ISP from traffic-shaping
and messing with the quality internet access you're paying good money for.
You can connect from multiple machines at once, including your smartphone or tablet,
and it supports all the secure standards including OpenVPN and SSTP.
Bypass censors and surveillance with your own secure VPN connection. Go to vpn.bogosity.tv.
So one of the big separation of powers cases, Trump v. Slaughter, was just heard by the Supreme Court.
Aside from being an excellent title for a pro wrestling matchup,
it actually happened because Trump had the audacity
to think he's actually in charge of the executive branch like the Constitution says
and fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.
The question being, can the President fire executive branch officers?
And if your answer to that is, "Duh!!!" Then you just might be smarter than a Supreme Court justice.
Since 1935, the courts and presidents have been following the case of Humphrey's Executor,
which said that multi-member commissions like the FTC were protected from at-will firing.
Another precedent they mentioned quite a bit was Seila Law, a 2020 case
where the court ruled that such for-cause protections violated separation of powers.
But that was only for single-director agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
So in the interest of making this incredibly long segment not any longer than it needs to be,
let's go ahead and hear one of the big concerns mentioned several times,
this one from Kavanaugh, worried about what this might mean for the Fed:
KAVANAUGH: The other side says that your position would undermine the
independence of the Federal Reserve and they have concerns about that, and I share those concerns.
KILLIAN: We should get rid of the Federal Reserve!
This just goes to show you how used people have gotten to this
blatantly unconstitutional massive government we have.
When an unconstitutional central bank, shot down twice before,
is now considered untouchable, well, we'll still have some work to do after this.
Now let's hear Trump's attorney try and explain this incredibly easy concept to Kagan:
KAGAN: When you put all of these agencies under complete presidential control,
what you are left with is a President that maybe, you know, your first sentence to me,
this is the kind of President you want, but a President with control over everything,
including over much of the law-making that happens in this country.
GENERAL D. JOHN SAUER: You have control over the executive branch, which he must and does have under our Constitution.
And, again, if that's really legislating, then there's a separate
constitutional problem that the legislative powers also have been taken away from Congress.
KILLIAN: And now Jackson:
JACKSON: And what I guess I don't understand is why they don't answer to Congress,
which establishes the law that they are bound to follow
and determines whether these agencies exist, funds these agencies.
KILLIAN: Because that's legislating. What we're talking about are executive functions!
Basic separation of powers!
And our founders knew all to well the horrendous consequences that would occur
if those walls of separation were torn down.
JACKSON: All of those things, it would seem to me, would be methods or mechanisms of control.
SAUER: The Constitution requires clear lines of political accountability.
JACKSON: I guess I have a very different view of the dangers and real-world consequences of your position.
KILLIAN: Yeah, it's called "separation of powers!" And the danger is of losing that.
JACKSON: Independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues,
some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by nonpartisan experts,
that Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of
the economy and transportation and the various independent agencies that we have.
KILLIAN: But Congress is supposed to be the experts here!
And whatever expertise they themselves lack, well,
that's why they keep dragging all these real-world experts in to testify at committee hearings.
That's what they're for!
What we should not do is turn over dictatorial power
to so-called "experts" that serve for life and are accountable to no one.
There are terms for that, such as "deep state" and "shadow government."
And here, you see it being defended by certain members of the country's highest court.
JACKSON: So having a President come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors
and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists and people who don't know anything
is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.
KILLIAN: Wait, you really think they weren't loyalists to begin with?
Or do you just not see that when they're on your side of the aisle?
JACKSON: There's a pretty significant danger that Congress has actually identified and cares about
when it determines that these issues should not be in presidential control.
KILLIAN: It's the Constitution that determines that, not Congress!
Congress cannot change the Constitution or delegate its authorities from one branch to another.
Unconstitutional unaccountable bureaucracies are far more dangerous than anything she's fearmongering about.
SAUER: I think the Court said it well in Free Enterprise Fund
when it said that we can have a government that functions without rule by functionaries.
We can have a government that benefits from expertise without being ruled by experts.
JACKSON: No, we can have, but I'm asking you about Congress's choice,
Congress's decision that, in these particular areas, we would like to have independence.
We don't want the President controlling.
KILLIAN: But the President is supposed to control the executive functions!
The President and only the President has executive powers!
SAUER: The constitutional design sets up three branches of government.
It forbids Congress from controlling what the executive branch does,
and it also forbids Congress from shaving away the President's control over the entire executive branch.
JUSTICE JACKSON: And what I'm positing is that Congress's decision here is not shaving away the President's control.
KILLIAN: Yes, it is!
JACKSON: What Congress is doing is saying we'd like to have independence—
nonpartisan experts working on certain issues for the good of the American people.
KILLIAN: How naïve do you have to be to believe that?
SAUER: No, that is largely Congress's decision with certain exceptions.
Congress cannot violate the separation of powers and threaten all of our liberties
in the way that it structures the government and has done so here.
JACKSON: What other agencies there are that have the kind of removal protections that are at issue here?
There are some, what, two dozen?
SAUER: That's what Seila Law said. That's probably a good accounting.
And, obviously, we have challenged four of them in this Court,
and we're challenging a handful of others in other courts as well.
JUSTICE JACKSON: But you could—you could challenge the National Labor Relations Board,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Commission on Civil Rights, potentially the Sentencing Commission,
the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the PConsumer Product Safety Commission.
All of these have that kind of structure.
KILLIAN: Yes! All of them! And they're all bad. Get rid of them, or at the very least seriously restructure them!
I mean, just getting rid of the NRC and letting atomic energy be regulated by the Department of Energy
would be a massive step forward in building out the clean, safe, affordable nuclear power we need.
All right, time to hear from the other side:
AMIT AGARWAL: The President's constitutional duty to execute the law
does not give him the power to violate that law with impunity.
KILLIAN: But who's violating the law here?
The Constitution, in setting up the separation of powers that was so important to our framers,
is the supreme law of the land, and it says that only the President has executive powers!
AGARWAL: Reasonable people can and do disagree about first principles,
but any abstract theory that would wipe away so much history and precedent should be a non-starter.
KILLIAN: Oh, really? Would you have said that about slavery or Jim Crow?
Sorry, but the Constitution trumps history and precedent. Deal with it.
AGARWAL: No tool of interpretation clearly supports the President's assertion of an
unrestricted and indefeasible authority to fire the heads of traditional independent agencies
like the Federal Elections Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
KILLIAN: Well, other than, you know, Article II Section 1 clause 1.
It was nice, though, to hear the Chief Justice try and summon up some cojones:
ROBERTS: Are there some cabinet departments that you say Congress could just take over?
Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Education, they think, well, we can do—
experts could do a better job of it and so we're going to say there is now an agency,
the agency for education, and it will be run by—whether it's a multi-member group or not,
we think it's important for Congress to have greater control over education, so
we're creating this new agency and its authorities will be everything that the current Department of Education has,
except it will be run by a commission and they can only be removed for cause. Is that all right?
AGARWAL: Yeah, I think that it is probably within the realm of possibility for agencies, yes.
And the constraint historically has been that these types of determinations
have been made through a process of political accommodation between Congress and the President,
and over the course of more than 200 years, we have not seen—
ROBERTS: Yeah. Well, sometimes that accommodation is greater than in other times.
I mean, we have situations, let's say, where the Congress,
both Houses are controlled by one party and the President is of the same party,
and they may decide that the government would be structured better by taking over these entities.
And so, which departments could Congress impose a multi-member commission instead of a secretary?
KILLIAN: And he never answers the question. So Gorsuch tries it for him:
GORSUCH: So the answer to the Chief Justice's question is,
tomorrow we could have the Labor Commission, the Education Commission,
the Environmental Commission, rather than Departments of Interior and so forth?
KILLIAN: And he still didn't answer.
At least Kagan has someone to be a sounding board for her statist fearmongering:
KAGAN: It strikes me, Mr. Agarwal, as I listen to this, you know,
if you go back to, let's say the Education Department, what the Chief Justice raised,
that the more realistic danger here is that we'll have an Education Department
as authorized by Congress, by law, that won't have any employees in it.
KILLIAN: Sounds all right to me!
AGARWAL: The real-world danger that is imminent right now that we know will happen:
that if Petitioners get their way, everything is on the chopping block.
KILLIAN: Yes!!! Let's go!!!
Now for some real questioning from Kavanaugh and Gorsuch:
KAVANAUGH: At least from my experience, it's very hard to get into the weeds of the particular
powers exercised by the FTC and distinguish it from some of the powers exercised by
some of the other cabinet agencies that we traditionally think of as executive, or the FCC, or the SEC.
All of those seem to—FERC, NLRB—when you get into them all.
So what's your answer to that?
KILLIAN: Again, he didn't really have one.
GORSUCH: I understand conclusive and preclusive entirely as we used it—
when you're speaking about executive power,
can the President control what's done in his departments? I get that.
And a criminal prosecution's a good example. I do not understand it as you use it.
Why isn't it just as conclusive and preclusive to decide whether to bring charges under the FTCA Act—
- AGARWAL: Civil charges. - GORSUCH: Civil versus criminal!
It's a conclusive and preclusive decision about enforcement decision
of a power of the federal government against individuals across the country.
AGARWAL: For example, from this Court's unanimous decision in Humphrey's Executor,
where you had that kind of civil enforcement taking place, and
a unanimous court, including all four justices from Myers, said that's okay.
And the kind of civil enforcement that was going on there,
you had complaints being issued, you had cease-and-desist orders—
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Cease-and-desist orders, but not lawsuits in court. They had to go to court.
And I'm just curious, though— fine, I accept your point, it's a good point about Humphrey's,
but why isn't that conclusive and preclusive decision whether to use the federal government's full power
in prosecution where you can seek fines and incur all of the penalties that are associated with violating the FTC Act?
AGARWAL: We have had all kinds of civil enforcement of federal statutes taking place,
including just private statutes that authorize private attorney
generals, as this Court has—has recognized in many, many cases.
GORSUCH: That's not the executive power, but criminal actions is the executive power?
AGARWAL: Yeah, I would not say that it—
GORSUCH: That—that's what you're asking us to think about?
AGARWAL: No, I would not put it that way. I would not say it's not executive.
GORSUCH: So it is executive?
AGARWAL: Yeah, in Seila Law, this Court said it's not only executive; it's quintessentially executive.
GORSUCH: So even some quintessentially executive functions, in your view,
are not vested in the President of the United States?
AGARWAL: I would not say that—I would not put it in this—
I would not say that that—yes, I would—I would say they're not—
GORSUCH: I think you have to say yes to that based on what you've just given us.
AGARWAL: They're not constitutionally committed to the person of the President
and to his sole and exclusive discretion.
KILLIAN: Okay, at this point, the less said the better.
Listen for yourself if you want to hear such wonders as Sotomayor
screeching about them "destroying the structure of government."
We'll just have to wait until they reach their decision.
Normally, that'd be in June, but since they fast-tracked the case, they may decide to release the decision early.
We'll just have to see, and hope that some of what's left of our constitutional protections remain intact.
I want to tell you about the eyeglasses I've been wearing for years.
As people can see on my videos, I have a very strong prescription,
which makes glasses more expensive, especially when I need computer glasses,
reading glasses, prescription sunglasses,
and most expensively, progressive lenses for general everyday wear.
To save money while still getting quality glasses, I get them from Firmoo.
In fact, I just got a pair of progressives with high index aspherical lenses
in a nice pair of frames my wife loves, for just over $100.
It would have been $500 to get them through my eye doctor.
Not only do they look good, the glasses are durable.
I've worn many pairs for several years without problems.
All orders come with a 30-day return policy,
a 3-month warranty, and one-on-one customer service.
Go to firmoo.bogosity.tv any time you need quality glasses at a low price.
Once again, that's firmoo.bogosity.tv.
And now it's time to propitionate this week's Biggest Bogon Emitter.
And this week, it's not just for RFK Jr., but for all of MAHA as well.
If it moves, ban it; if it stops moving, subsidize it. That seems to be their mantra.
After all that bogus whining and moaning about seed oils, RFK Jr.
got into office and basically bullied everyone he could not to use them.
Now, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has announced
a $12 billion bailout of America's farmers, paid for by tariff revenues.
You know, the farmers that were harmed by the tariffs to begin with.
But some of the farmers getting the bailout will be growers of corn (of course),
sunflower, canola, rapeseed, and safflower—in other words, the ones most commonly used for seed oils.
So, encourage production while oppressing consumption. Makes perfect sense.
What hasn't changed is the government's crony relationship with big factory farms.
If we were to assume they were being honest about seed oils,
then they care more about farmers than they do about keeping you healthy.
If they're not honest about seed oils...well, it's hard to say if that's better or worse!
So all of that makes MAHA this week's Biggest Bogon Emitter.
Do you have children? Or nieces or nephews?
Are you homeschooling, or just want to counter
some of the socialist indoctrination most children get in school?
If so, go to bogosity.tv/tuttletwins, and you'll be taken to a website
where you can get some great books for elementary-aged children.
The Tuttle Twins books are books about liberty and free market economics
that include children's versions of Bastiat's The Law, Leonard Read's I, Pencil,
and Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, as well as books about the Federal Reserve
and how regulations protect business cronies.
They'll learn about the harm caused by eminent domain,
or regulations passed in the name of safety, and fundamental concepts of liberty.
And as you can see from the sample pages on the website,
they're all easy to read and nicely illustrated.
They're just $9.99 apiece, or get a special discount
as well as free bonuses when you purchase all five.
You can even buy in bulk to donate to schools and local libraries.
So get the Tuttle Twins books at bogosity.tv/tuttletwins.
And now let's subterraneanizationalesserate this week's Idiot Extraordinaire.
So the old "No Tax on Tips Act" from the Ron Paul of yesteryear
became a campaign promise for Trump's second term,
and this time it actually passed, albeit as a rider to the One Big Beautiful Bill.
Also included was No Tax on Overtime and a tax deduction for seniors on Social Security.
Competing with Trump directly on the campaign trail,
Kamala Harris adopted it, as did a number of Democratic Gubernatorial candidates.
The polls showed this was popular with 73% of Americans across party lines.
Now, Democratic governors are saying they'll do whatever they can to block the bill.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent issued a scathing statement
against states including Colorado, New York, and Illinois, which he described as "liberal strongholds,"
for blocking their own residents from receiving these tax breaks. He said, quote:
"This partisan stonewalling is a direct assault
on the very families and workers liberal politicians claim to champion.
By denying their residents access to these important tax cuts,
these governors and legislators are forcing hardworking Americans
to shoulder higher state tax burdens, robbing them of the relief they deserve
and exacerbating the financial squeeze on low- and middle-income households.
We call on these holdout states to immediately conform and stop punishing their citizens for partisan games.
The American people voted for bold change, not bureaucratic roadblocks."
Ordinarily, state taxes follow the Internal Revenue Code, either automatically or through an annual bill.
That's to help simplify and standardize the tax code.
But states don't have to do that. They can put the screws on you as much as they want
and there isn't a thing the feds can do about it beyond whine.
For example, if you live in Colorado, you'll see an extra line on your tax form that says,
"Excess federal deduction for overtime pay."
Did you get the deduction? You'll have to add it back in to your state taxes!
New York has lines for "Add-back of exempt tip income" and "Add-back of exempt overtime pay."
Maine is doing similar line items for senior deductions, car loan interest, tips, and overtime.
Eric Clements, director of Tax Compliance at Thomson Reuters, said, quote:
"You must pay close attention to state adjustments for the next few years, as each state's approach differs.
This complexity makes DIY tax preparation less viable for affected clients."
Oh, great, more cronyism for H&R Block!
They're trying their best to get that money back
so they can continue stuffing their budgets with their favorite boondoggles.
But this time? It might backfire.
People remember that these are all things the Democrats said they wanted and failed to deliver.
And now they see how much they hate the fact that it was Trump that made them happen!
I'm sure we'll hear more on April 15th as people are suddenly forced to pay more attention to state taxes.
Might be a good season for "Taxation is theft!" memes.
So all of that makes these Democratic governors this week's Idiot Extraordinaire.
Well, that wraps up this "the royal posterior of a royal infant child" edition of the Bogosity Podcast.
I hope you enjoyed it; if you did, please go to donate.bogosity.tv for several ways to support,
and discord.bogosity.tv to join the discussion.
Subscribe at the Discord, Patreon, or SubscribeStar and you can listen early and ad-free.
Thank you for listening. Have a very happy holiday season, and we'll see you after the new year!
Until then, here's a quote from Milton Friedman:
"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."
The Bogosity Podcast is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International license.