Speaker 1: Escape, Tomar Rubber Resort. Hey everyone, this is Jack Fairschild's
Speaker 1: the Right Side Radio program and license reviewed, and I
Speaker 1: want to talk to you for a second about my pillow.
Speaker 1: My pillow is quite simply the finest pillow on the market.
Speaker 1: My pillows patented interlocking fills adjust to your individual sleep
Speaker 1: needs regardless of sleeping position. This innovative fill then holds
Speaker 1: that position all night, helping you fall asleep faster, stay
Speaker 1: asleep longer. The founder and owner of Mine Pillow, Mike Lindell,
Speaker 1: personally guarantees that my pillow will be the most comfortable
Speaker 1: pillow you'll ever own, and I'll add my own guarantee
Speaker 1: as well. And right now you can get up to
Speaker 1: eighty percent off of all My Pillow products, including bedsheets, slippers, towels,
Speaker 1: down comforters, mattresstoppers, even coffee when you go to MyPillow
Speaker 1: dot com and enter the special promo code Midnight Ride
Speaker 1: no space in between Midnight and Ride and remember enter
Speaker 1: the promo code m D Night rd E and save
Speaker 1: big while getting the best night's sleep you've ever had.
Speaker 1: The Midnight Ride the home of the anti establishment movement.
Speaker 1: This network features great programming such as Chris McDaniels, America,
Speaker 1: God and Country, The Right Side Radio Show, Paul Revere's
Speaker 1: Liberty Layer, and many more coming soon. So check out
Speaker 1: the Midnight Ride today. Head to the Midnight Ride dot
Speaker 1: com and check out all the amazing content.
Speaker 2: This show is a part of the Midnight Ride Network.
Speaker 1: Hell the Sam.
Speaker 3: What's your name at the time of his had a
Speaker 3: statue every started chicking of his and eagle will fly.
Speaker 3: Pennis gonna be him, win you him out of the
Speaker 3: free start a beel and it'll be like the whole
Speaker 3: wips raining down on broty, courtesy and liberals be worn.
Speaker 2: Your viewpoints will be subjected to straight scrutiny. You're listening
Speaker 2: to Right Side Radio because my eyes have been blown wide.
Speaker 4: We have come together here because the American people deserve
Speaker 4: better from those to whom they entrust, our nation's highest officers.
Speaker 4: We stand united and are resolved to do something about it, which,
Speaker 4: whether we like it or not spelled Judy, you and
Speaker 4: I have a rendezvous with destiny.
Speaker 2: You tuned into right Side Radio.
Speaker 1: Alright, guys, you have founded it is the right Side
Speaker 1: Radio program.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 1: We are recording this one on the Thursday, March the
Speaker 1: twenty seventh, twenty twenty five. Oh goodness, this will probably
Speaker 1: be an abbreviated version of the Right Side Radio program
Speaker 1: because later today we will be recording the newest episode
Speaker 1: of Chris McDaniel's America. Now why everything is slated to
Speaker 1: go as planned and Chris will be there as the host.
Speaker 1: If you know anything about how Chris's schedule has been
Speaker 1: going lately, I need to be prepared for the likely
Speaker 1: occurrence that something unlucky pops up last minute for Chris
Speaker 1: and I will be sitting in the conductor's chair. Again,
Speaker 1: that's not the plan. We are hopeful and excited that
Speaker 1: Chris is supposed to be back on today, but due
Speaker 1: to that unstability currently with his schedule because he's got
Speaker 1: a I think he told me at least four different
Speaker 1: cases that at any given moment can change his entire day.
Speaker 1: So it's a lot more unpredictable at the moment what
Speaker 1: he's dealing with. So as such, I'm going to keep
Speaker 1: this show short. And basically I debated whether or not
Speaker 1: to do one this morning or wait and record one
Speaker 1: this evening or even tomorrow morning. But last night there
Speaker 1: was a mayoral debate for the city of Laurel. For
Speaker 1: those of you my national listeners, you're probably famili You're
Speaker 1: with Laurel, Mississippi because of the television show hometown. There
Speaker 1: is an incumbent mayor, and then there are three challengers.
Speaker 1: Of the three challengers, only one bothered to show up
Speaker 1: to the debate last night. Now, because I was covering
Speaker 1: the debate for the newspaper. No, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: give my opinion on who won the debate or anything
Speaker 1: like that. I'm going to remain objective as far as
Speaker 1: that and the actual debate itself is a relevant to
Speaker 1: the topic. Because again, I understand I have listeners outside
Speaker 1: of this general area. I've got listeners and other parts
Speaker 1: of the country. So I don't want to make my
Speaker 1: focus be on a city election that only a small
Speaker 1: number of my listeners care about. Now, my question today,
Speaker 1: and this is a question I've been asking for a while.
Speaker 1: If you go back last year during the presidential elections
Speaker 1: and we talked about debates, then this is a question
Speaker 1: that steal rings for me. Doe debates actually matter on
Speaker 1: a national level. They can for sure, because you're going
Speaker 1: to get those thirty second sound bites. The actual meat
Speaker 1: of the debate doesn't matter they're on those national because
Speaker 1: it's all about who can get the most witty clip in.
Speaker 1: It's not about who has the best ideas. We've seen
Speaker 1: that time and time again. But we also saw last
Speaker 1: year what a disastrous debate can do to a candidate
Speaker 1: when Joe Biden took the stage and looked like he
Speaker 1: didn't even know where he was and next thing you know,
Speaker 1: the Democrats are scrambling to kick him off the ticket.
Speaker 1: So we do know when we observe these things that
Speaker 1: they still can play a significant role when it comes
Speaker 1: to these campaigns and the national level. But what about
Speaker 1: on a smaller stage last night, Again this being a
Speaker 1: mayor's debate, it was not open to the public due
Speaker 1: to the fact that it was done in a radio
Speaker 1: studio that was very small, so it wasn't like we
Speaker 1: had a ton of space, so basically campaign staff, media
Speaker 1: members that wanted to cover it, and the staff from
Speaker 1: the radio station. Before I get into any talk, I
Speaker 1: do want to give a lot of props to my boss,
Speaker 1: Jim Sigelski, who helped moderates along with one of the
Speaker 1: radio hosts. Jim is a consummate professional and put together
Speaker 1: some really good debate questions I think, questions that voters
Speaker 1: would want to hear answered. But the reason why I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk about this, what really drew me into
Speaker 1: making this a discussion point was, of course I go
Speaker 1: online after the debate, and because they streamed the debate
Speaker 1: online as well as hading it broadcast over the radio
Speaker 1: station last night, when I looked, I want to say,
Speaker 1: they were about three thousand views, which I mean, that's
Speaker 1: okay for a city election, but you'd like to see
Speaker 1: it higher. And then you scroll down and you start
Speaker 1: looking at the comments, and that's when you start to
Speaker 1: see the tribalism that we always talk about that is
Speaker 1: set in. There was nobody that I read commenting that
Speaker 1: didn't already have their mind made up. It was either
Speaker 1: raw Rod to the incumbent or raw Rod to the challenger.
Speaker 1: There was nobody commenting that they were being swayed by
Speaker 1: the debate. There was one absurd candidate that couldn't bother
Speaker 1: to come to the debate that kept commenting throughout, but
Speaker 1: he's relevant, But it was it's that sense that we're
Speaker 1: I fear we're losing something in our country now. Maybe
Speaker 1: of the three thousand viewers. Maybe the ones who were
Speaker 1: honestly they're hoping to see answers and see what each
Speaker 1: candidate had to offer. Maybe maybe they just weren't frequently
Speaker 1: in the comments section. I hope, but I highly doubt it.
Speaker 1: If you go back to your presidential debate and you
Speaker 1: watch those, and you just watch the scorecards that people
Speaker 1: are keeping online, and usually those fall into three different camps.
Speaker 1: The first camp, of course, is going to be the
Speaker 1: I'm on team whatsoever, I'm watching this debate just so
Speaker 1: I can gloat about how much better my candidate's doing
Speaker 1: than your candidate. That's probably the most prevalent that is
Speaker 1: your try camps. It could be because they truly believe
Speaker 1: in the candidate. It could be because they are blinded
Speaker 1: by party allegiances. Those are some of the factors that
Speaker 1: we see that go into the folks that come on
Speaker 1: to comment. The other one are the sky is following people.
Speaker 1: They are so hyper critical of their own candidate that
Speaker 1: no matter how good he or she is doing, they
Speaker 1: will be hyper critical of the very person that they
Speaker 1: are supporting. They also do this because in many ways
Speaker 1: they don't maybe fully want to don't want to admit
Speaker 1: to their friends that therefore the other candidate. They want
Speaker 1: to still be seen as on both sides and be objective,
Speaker 1: but they clearly are not objective. But by trying to
Speaker 1: create this illusion, they're being more critical of the person
Speaker 1: that they are more inclined to support. They too, are
Speaker 1: following into a different sect of tribalism. And the last
Speaker 1: is the pretentious crowd, the ones who just want to
Speaker 1: be critical of everyone and want to poke their chest
Speaker 1: out because they might be smarter than everyone else in
Speaker 1: the room. They want you to know that they're smart,
Speaker 1: and they want you to know that if they were
Speaker 1: on that debate stage, they would be better suited than others.
Speaker 1: But I'm not going to run for office. I just
Speaker 1: would rather sit there and point out that I could.
Speaker 1: Those folks are their own little tribe. Most people aren't
Speaker 1: one hundred percent sure which way they're going to vote,
Speaker 1: especially if it's in a primary debate. They don't want
Speaker 1: to be caught picking sides by anyone, but at the
Speaker 1: same time they want to point out how smart they are.
Speaker 1: So that's the third segment of these debate watchers that
Speaker 1: you typically see now. If you go back in time,
Speaker 1: debates had more meaning if you go back to the
Speaker 1: days of the Lincoln Douglas debates, those were lengthy, long
Speaker 1: debates that could have swayed elections. That's not what we're
Speaker 1: getting nowadays. What we're getting now, as I said, we're
Speaker 1: getting the rush to the sound bites. But we're also
Speaker 1: getting is a group of people that are sitting down
Speaker 1: watching these debates that have already made up their mind.
Speaker 1: They're not undecided. They're not folks that you're going going
Speaker 1: to grab that are trying to figure out who they
Speaker 1: might vote for. Now, these people that are watching these
Speaker 1: debates mind is firmly made up, maybe with good reason,
Speaker 1: and a lot of times probably just merely tribalism. And
Speaker 1: that's the inherent problem. Because I personally think debates are
Speaker 1: a good thing. I think we need more of them.
Speaker 1: It was nice to hear that both of the candidates
Speaker 1: that bothered to show up to the debate last night
Speaker 1: both would like to do more, and I'm strongly encouraged
Speaker 1: them to do more because, for one, call me a nerd.
Speaker 1: I enjoy debates, especially when they're civil, especially when they
Speaker 1: are driven by actually substitutive questions like last night's debate.
Speaker 1: Was I want to see more debates. But the problem
Speaker 1: is we have a public that has got such a
Speaker 1: small attention span. We've got a public that barely wants
Speaker 1: to pay attention to a show that they claim to
Speaker 1: be invested in. So how are you going to get
Speaker 1: them to be invested in a political debate when they're
Speaker 1: probably just going to show up an election day and
Speaker 1: click the box of the name that they recognize the most,
Speaker 1: or the box of the name that sent them the
Speaker 1: most mailers attacking the other guy's name. That's the way
Speaker 1: these elections work. Substantive ideas have taken a back seat
Speaker 1: to its tacks and nonsense. That doesn't mean that there
Speaker 1: aren't substantive things that might be considered an attack that
Speaker 1: you can bring up. Like if there's questions about a
Speaker 1: candidate's record that is substantive, it should be brought up,
Speaker 1: It should be brought to the limelight. There are questions
Speaker 1: about shady dealings that a candidate might have had in
Speaker 1: the past, substantive bring it up. But we move away
Speaker 1: from that so much, and we're just don't want to
Speaker 1: listen to the actual debate. Our minds made up. We're
Speaker 1: going to vote for candidate A or candidate B and
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what comes out, and it can be hard,
Speaker 1: stone cold facts, but when we look at it, we go, well,
Speaker 1: that's just that's just the other attack. Sometimes it is,
Speaker 1: but a lot of times, especially when brought up against
Speaker 1: an entrenched incumbent, they could be truthful or not necessarily
Speaker 1: an entrenched incumbent. But if it's somebody running that has
Speaker 1: a record from a previous office and it's a record
Speaker 1: that's less than Steller, that also is fair game. But
Speaker 1: we don't want to hear it because again, we are
Speaker 1: driven by that tribalism. We're driven by our belief that
Speaker 1: our guy is infallible, that our guy is not going
Speaker 1: to be in the wrong in any way, shape or force.
Speaker 1: And that goes back to the inherent question about debates.
Speaker 1: Are debates as meaningful as they once were? And the
Speaker 1: simple answer is no, they absolutely are not, and that's sad.
Speaker 1: Debates are probably one of the best measuring sticks we
Speaker 1: have to see how a candidate does under pressure, because
Speaker 1: whatever office they're running for is going to bring great
Speaker 1: pressure with it. Whatever office they're running for is going
Speaker 1: to be a very difficult They're going to be very
Speaker 1: difficult decisions. There are going to be times where a
Speaker 1: spotlight is shown directly on them that they don't necessarily
Speaker 1: want to have shown on them. And by being able
Speaker 1: to show that you can deal with these moments, by
Speaker 1: being able to show that you can deal with these instances,
Speaker 1: you might be showing folks that you are more qualified
Speaker 1: for the job than may they once thought you were. So, yes,
Speaker 1: we're losing something with the loss of debates, with the
Speaker 1: loss of attention on the debates. I enjoy them still,
Speaker 1: but they are not really swaying people when it comes
Speaker 1: to who they're going to vote for. The moment they
Speaker 1: turn on said debate, their mind was already made up.
Speaker 1: The moment they turned on said debate, they'd already picked aside.
Speaker 1: And if you don't believe me, just turn on social
Speaker 1: media read the comments nearing debates and you can see
Speaker 1: that loud and clear. And if you're trying to watch
Speaker 1: the debate with an objective open mind, even if you've
Speaker 1: already made your decision, but you're trying to objectively score
Speaker 1: the debate for the debate standpoint, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of times you're probably left scratch your head because you
Speaker 1: know the other guy might have got the better of
Speaker 1: the person you like right there, right then on that question,
Speaker 1: and you're questioning, why why aren't they saying that. Are
Speaker 1: they that much of a homer that they can't admit
Speaker 1: when their guy got the got beat in a question?
Speaker 1: Simple answer is no, they cannot. They can't fathom it.
Speaker 1: They have to be right, and since they're right, that's
Speaker 1: a uh. That's that's the sad part, and that's why
Speaker 1: debates aren't as compelling as they once were, as they
Speaker 1: should be. It's sad, people, it's sad. But that's where
Speaker 1: we are today in our country. That's where we are
Speaker 1: today in this day and age. How do we get
Speaker 1: the debates back? How do we draw them back to
Speaker 1: the point that they once were. How do we get
Speaker 1: them back to a level where they're impactful, where they're meaningful,
Speaker 1: where people are watching the debates and helping form decisions.
Speaker 1: I don't know. As we have more and more content
Speaker 1: to digest as a society, it may be a lost art.
Speaker 1: It may be one of those things where the best
Speaker 1: candidate isn't always going to be the one to get
Speaker 1: elected if we fall towards debates because style a lot
Speaker 1: of times Trump's substance. But the bigger point is, how
Speaker 1: do you get people that aren't paying attention until election day?
Speaker 1: How do you get them to tune in to the
Speaker 1: debates in the first place. And then we've got the
Speaker 1: other issue when it comes to debates. As I pointed out,
Speaker 1: this mayoral race that I was talking about is a
Speaker 1: four person race. Only two of the four showed up
Speaker 1: to participate, three were scheduled, one not showed one the
Speaker 1: one I mentioned before, who was a commentator during the debate,
Speaker 1: simply just never acknowledged it was existing when invited. This
Speaker 1: is part of the problem, especially on bigger stages, where
Speaker 1: incumbents often refuse to debate. Maybe it's because they have
Speaker 1: such a big lead that they look at it and go, well,
Speaker 1: the only thing that could happen if I were to
Speaker 1: sit down and debate is I could harm myself, So
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna do that. Or there's an old versus
Speaker 1: young contrast, and they don't want that pictured on the
Speaker 1: screen because they understand the style is already lost. So
Speaker 1: that's another issue is the fact that all too often
Speaker 1: we see incumbents hide behind their incumbency and hide behind
Speaker 1: their poll numbers and refuse to engage challengers in debates
Speaker 1: in the first place, So that makes debates less impactful
Speaker 1: because when they do happen, they're normally just larger races,
Speaker 1: like presidential races, and people just aren't watching or they've
Speaker 1: already joined a tribe. It's frustrating because, for one, I
Speaker 1: think that we should be forcing candidates into debates, and
Speaker 1: I personally think that anybody seeking public office that is
Speaker 1: un willing to face their opponent on a debate stage
Speaker 1: should not be considered for the office. But sadly, we
Speaker 1: reward incumbents every year for being cowards. Sadly, every time
Speaker 1: an incumbent refuses to participate in a debate, there's no
Speaker 1: punishment to them. It is a strategy that has been very,
Speaker 1: very beneficial for them. It's sad, it's frustrating, and again,
Speaker 1: I don't know how to fix it other than to
Speaker 1: put rules in place to force candidates on a debate stage.
Speaker 1: But until we see some substantive changes not just in
Speaker 1: the way that we consume content, but also in the
Speaker 1: way that we are pushing candidates to be as transparent
Speaker 1: as possible, I don't know that it will change. We
Speaker 1: need something that will drive these candidates to get on
Speaker 1: that stage. I don't know what that is. Maybe there's
Speaker 1: state law, maybe there's other ideas you can come up with,
Speaker 1: but it is usually in an incumbent's best interest to
Speaker 1: avoid the debate stage because when they get on that stage,
Speaker 1: they have a lot more to lose. They have a
Speaker 1: lot more to lose, and who knows. Now, before I
Speaker 1: wrap this one up, as I said, this is going
Speaker 1: to be a shorter show. That's the reason why all
Speaker 1: the ads were upfront today, I do want to talk
Speaker 1: about something, and some of you are gonna get mad
Speaker 1: at me, because yes, I'm going to be critical of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump here, because this was a major sticking point
Speaker 1: for me in his first term. And this is something
Speaker 1: that I was hoping that with the shackles removed of
Speaker 1: having to seek reelection, that we wouldn't see as much.
Speaker 1: But Donald Trump is once again endorsing establishment candidates. We
Speaker 1: saw it with his endorsement of Lindsey Graham, who I
Speaker 1: know has had his nose shoved directly up Donald Trump's rear,
Speaker 1: but not necessarily the type of candidate I want to
Speaker 1: see reelected. Then, of course, in my state, we see
Speaker 1: him endorsing Cindy Hyde Smith trying to ensure that she
Speaker 1: has no challenger and that no one else jumps in
Speaker 1: to run against her. What we need out of Trump
Speaker 1: is we don't need him Willy Nelly throwing out these
Speaker 1: endorsements of the very swamp creatures that he told us
Speaker 1: he was there to drain their existence. There's been a
Speaker 1: lot a lot more good being done under Trump's administration
Speaker 1: at the start of the second term. But as I
Speaker 1: told you a long time ago, I'm going to be
Speaker 1: critical when I disagree. I'm not going to hold my tongue,
Speaker 1: and this is one of those instances. And I'm sure
Speaker 1: if I start to go down the list of Trump
Speaker 1: endorsements for Senate or congressional races, I'm sure I'll find others.
Speaker 1: But the most egregious by far is the Lindsey Graham.
Speaker 1: Because Lindsey Graham's a moderate at best. He is a
Speaker 1: true down the wool rhino. He is not a conservative.
Speaker 1: Yet here we have Trump standing up there and endorsing him,
Speaker 1: and that's frustrating. The Hyde Smith one's frustrating merely because
Speaker 1: it came before an actual challenger. It came to try
Speaker 1: to discourage a challenger which tells you she was probably vulnerable.
Speaker 1: But Trump doing that and jumping out ahead of it
Speaker 1: is a protection bid for someone that I don't think
Speaker 1: has done much of anything. Now. She's egregious as the
Speaker 1: other senator from Mississippi, no, but she's also not doing
Speaker 1: anything that I would think would warrant endorsement from anyone
Speaker 1: outside of those who those lobbyists who keep her pockets lined.
Speaker 1: But here we are, and this is the very thing
Speaker 1: that I wanted to see less of. And here we are,
Speaker 1: not even one year in, only a few months in,
Speaker 1: and we're already getting our first round of bad Trump endorsements.
Speaker 1: Hopefully he'll get away from that. Hopefully some of this
Speaker 1: is just friendships that have been formed personally, unless it's
Speaker 1: taking down a swamp creature. I'd love to see Trump
Speaker 1: stay out of some of these. I definitely wish he
Speaker 1: would not endorse before the field has been made clear.
Speaker 1: But that's the game, and he is still playing the
Speaker 1: game even though he can't seek reelection. That's a major
Speaker 1: issue I have with Donald Trump. It is an issue
Speaker 1: I'll continue to have because I just don't like how
Speaker 1: the guy that wants to drain the swamp constantly endorses it.
Speaker 1: Does that mean I think he's a bad president? Does
Speaker 1: that mean I don't like Trump? No, not in the slightest.
Speaker 1: But we have to call out any politician when we
Speaker 1: disagree with him. We have to point out the times
Speaker 1: when they are wrong, and in this instance, endorsing Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham is wrong. Endorsing Rhino's is wrong, especially when we
Speaker 1: look back at the history of some of your bad
Speaker 1: endorsements Graham, Mitch McConnell, John McCain. We can go down
Speaker 1: a list and you have multiple bad endorsements, and yet
Speaker 1: we had a hope that you would steer clear of
Speaker 1: some of these bad endorsements that go around. But you're not.
Speaker 1: I mean, right out the gate, you're already giving us
Speaker 1: a couple of bad ones. I'm sure they're more out
Speaker 1: there that I just hadn't seen yet. But this is
Speaker 1: the problem. And again, I would love to see politicians
Speaker 1: already elected office to stay out of endorsing within primary elections.
Speaker 1: I would love to see them stay on the sidelines,
Speaker 1: let the primary play out the way that it needs to.
Speaker 1: We're never gonna get that. And I can assure you
Speaker 1: that if there is a strong challenger to either of
Speaker 1: the two senators I mentioned, I can assure you they're
Speaker 1: not going to step on the debate stage with them,
Speaker 1: especially not now, because they've got the endorsement from Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: That endorsement still carries a lot of weight. And because
Speaker 1: they have that endorsement, they know they can hide behind it.
Speaker 1: They've probably already made sure that they're going to get reelected.
Speaker 1: And it's frustrating because, again, if we're ever going to change,
Speaker 1: if we're ever going to take back this country, there
Speaker 1: are certain incumbents out there that we need to get
Speaker 1: out of office. Lindsey Graham is at the top of
Speaker 1: that list. But sadly, as long as Donald Trump plays
Speaker 1: this game with incumbent establishment Republicans and the public still
Speaker 1: values his endorsements the way that they have proven to
Speaker 1: in the past, we're not going to see us swamp drained.
Speaker 1: We're not going to see a substantial change. And that's
Speaker 1: sad to me. That's extremely frustrating because again, we expected more,
Speaker 1: We expected a lot different. Maybe that's on us. Maybe
Speaker 1: we shouldn't expected more, Maybe we shouldn't expected a lot
Speaker 1: different than the first term when it came to these endorsements,
Speaker 1: But we did, and maybe we'll see it down the road,
Speaker 1: But the first two I hear of looked way too
Speaker 1: much like more the same Anyway, guys, this has been
Speaker 1: the right Side Radio Program. Next week hopefully we'll be
Speaker 1: back to normal with a full hour long episode. I
Speaker 1: wanted to keep this one short again. Check it out
Speaker 1: hopefully if you're listening to this on Thursday. Later today,
Speaker 1: you'll be able to watch the newest episode of Chris
Speaker 1: McDaniel's America and we'll be able to sit back and
Speaker 1: talk about more stuff. But ask yourself that question. Do
Speaker 1: you watch the debates you still that they help you
Speaker 1: make your decision or you're one of the ones just
Speaker 1: jumping on social media to make sure you're seen with
Speaker 1: your tribe clamoring your support. I think we know what
Speaker 1: most people fall into in that camp. This has been
Speaker 1: the right Side Radio Program. We'll see you again real soon.
Speaker 1: Escape tomorrow, River Resort. Hey, everyone, and this is Jack
Speaker 1: fairshawd SO the right Side Radio Program and license reviewed
Speaker 1: and I want to talk to you for a second
Speaker 1: about my pillow. My pillow is quite simply the finest
Speaker 1: pillow on the market. My pillows patented interlocking fills adjust
Speaker 1: to your individual sleep needs regardless of sleeping position. This
Speaker 1: innovative fill then holds that position all night, helping you
Speaker 1: fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer. The founder and owner
Speaker 1: of Mine Pillow, Mike Lindell, personally guarantees that my Pillow
Speaker 1: will be the most comfortable pillow you'll ever own, and
Speaker 1: I'll add my own guarantee as well. And right now
Speaker 1: you can get up to eighty percent off of all
Speaker 1: my My Pillow products, including bed sheets, slippers, towels, down comforters,
Speaker 1: mattress toppers, even coffee when you go to MyPillow dot
Speaker 1: com and enter the special promo code Midnight Ride. No
Speaker 1: space in between Midnight and Ride, and remember enter the
Speaker 1: promo code m I D N I G H t
Speaker 1: R I d E and save big while getting the
Speaker 1: best night's sleep you've ever had. The Midnight Ride the
Speaker 1: home of the anti establishment movement. This network features great
Speaker 1: programming such as Chris McDaniels, America, God and Country, The
Speaker 1: Right Side Radio Show, Paul Revere's Liberty Layer, and many
Speaker 1: more coming soon. So check out the Midnight Ride today.
Speaker 1: Head to the Midnight Ride dot com and check out
Speaker 1: all the amazing content