Speaker 1: Lateens General. Welcome to the lait to base.
Speaker 2: Well, it's great to have your company.
Speaker 3: I'm James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond coming up.
Speaker 3: US President Joe Biden is abused by crowds, but he's
Speaker 3: so confused he thinks they're praising him. Plus a brilliant
Speaker 3: Donald Trump troll. We'll show you all of that a
Speaker 3: bit later. Plus when we look at the papers, Queensland
Speaker 3: Premier Stephen Miles has a rethink on immigration and good
Speaker 3: news for South Australian viewers. If you've been using your
Speaker 3: mobile phone while driving, you may.
Speaker 2: Be off the hook.
Speaker 3: We'll talk about all of that when we get to
Speaker 3: tomorrow's front pages. But first, a judge has found that
Speaker 3: Victorian police were aggressors using unlawful violence when dealing with
Speaker 3: anti lockdown protesters during the COVID pandemic. Now, the comments
Speaker 3: came in relation to an incident back in May twenty
Speaker 3: twenty one, when Melbourne was in the midst of harsh restrictions.
Speaker 3: A huge police contingent confronted about hundred and fifty protesters
Speaker 3: in the city. There are a whole lot of arrests,
Speaker 3: among them three men arrested for assaulting police, but a
Speaker 3: judge said on Friday that evidence against the men was
Speaker 3: inadmissible because the police officer's own body cameras showed that they,
Speaker 3: rather than the men charged, were the aggressors. In fact,
Speaker 3: the judge said, the men were reacting to quote unlawful
Speaker 3: violence instigated by the police themselves. County Court Judge Liz
Speaker 3: Gainer said that police could have dealt with the protesters
Speaker 3: other than resorting to violence.
Speaker 2: Listen to what she said. She said. It could have been.
Speaker 3: Done by the issuing of infringement notices at any stage,
Speaker 3: informing them that they were in breach of the restrictions
Speaker 3: and that they were to be placed under arrest. However,
Speaker 3: the police chose not to respond that way. I'm satisfied
Speaker 3: that in arresting mister Reeves, he was one of the gentlemen,
Speaker 3: police used unnecessary and unwarranted force and violence. They simply confronted, pushed,
Speaker 3: and attacked him before bring him to the ground. In
Speaker 3: my view, they used unlawful violence in arresting mister Reeves. Now,
Speaker 3: this of course raises the question will police involved in
Speaker 3: what the judge called unlawful violence themselves be charged or
Speaker 3: are Victoria police above the law?
Speaker 2: And what about all the other examples.
Speaker 3: Of police brutality we saw during the COVID pandemic. Police
Speaker 3: brutality is a pretty serious charge, Caleb. So you've got
Speaker 3: to wonder, does this raise calls for an inquiry or
Speaker 3: dare I say a royal commission?
Speaker 4: Oh no, you're not seriously suggesting we should look into
Speaker 4: what happened during the pandemic, are you, James?
Speaker 1: That he's an absurd suggestion.
Speaker 4: Of course, we ought to have a royal commission at
Speaker 4: all of these things, amongst many others, or to be investigated.
Speaker 4: The Victorian Police Commissioner Shane Patton should be taking a
Speaker 4: very hard look at himself right now and he should
Speaker 4: have been out on the front foot on the weekend
Speaker 4: responding to this story. As far as I'm aware, he
Speaker 4: has not done so because it's not the only example,
Speaker 4: and we saw some footage there of the way people
Speaker 4: were treated by Victorian police during the pandemic when they
Speaker 4: protested peacefully. I was at a number of those protests.
Speaker 4: It was at the Herald Sun at the time, and
Speaker 4: it was largely peaceful. I mean, the only thing you
Speaker 4: could say for getting a bit shrety was maybe some
Speaker 4: angry charts, but largely what it was was the protesters
Speaker 4: facing off with the police because the police had come
Speaker 4: along with the rubber bullets, and the protesters would all
Speaker 4: line up to try and defend themselves, and you'd occasionally
Speaker 4: have a can or something thrown. Big deal, but the
Speaker 4: police willed it to happen. Essentially, they turned up in
Speaker 4: large numbers, and we haven't seen those sort of numbers
Speaker 4: of police rock up to any of these anti Jewish
Speaker 4: pro Palestinian rallies, have we. But they turned up in
Speaker 4: large number, antagonized the protesters and in many cases got
Speaker 4: what you presume they were asking for. And let's not
Speaker 4: forget there was a woman in her seventies who was
Speaker 4: pepper sprayed in the face, a grandmother. Well, she lay
Speaker 4: on the page was yeah, yeah, she'd been knocked down.
Speaker 4: She's laying there on the ground and she's getting pepper
Speaker 4: sprayed by police. She's not a danger to anyone. We
Speaker 4: had reporters at the Herald Son that were rounded up
Speaker 4: and put in the bag of a bag of back
Speaker 4: of paddy wagons because you know, they were there reporting
Speaker 4: on what was going on.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely absurd to think what was going on
Speaker 1: in Victoria.
Speaker 4: I'm glad to see a little bit of blowback from
Speaker 4: the judiciary. Now, hopefully it opens the door to civil
Speaker 4: cases because there were so many other people who suffered
Speaker 4: damage at the hands of the police at that time.
Speaker 4: Hopefully it opens the floodgates a bit here.
Speaker 5: And how do you like this poetic justice, because this
Speaker 5: case was bought by the state since the men who
Speaker 5: were arrested and as judge just checks out their body
Speaker 5: cam footage and goes, you guys were absolute thugs.
Speaker 6: So what happened was this one guy.
Speaker 5: Who, as the judge said, they just barged up to
Speaker 5: threw on the ground after punching him in the face.
Speaker 5: Mind you all captured on bodycam footage. The two other
Speaker 5: gentlemen who got involved was simply trying to help out
Speaker 5: their mate who was being absolutely animaled by the police.
Speaker 5: So those two guys then got involved as well. The
Speaker 5: state takes them to court to push the case that
Speaker 5: these guys were the aggressors, this violence was called for,
Speaker 5: and the judge is like, there's absolutely no proof of that.
Speaker 5: And I do hope, like you say, Caleb, this opens
Speaker 5: a can of worms for the police brutality that we
Speaker 5: saw in Australa. Maybe we never forget the sight of
Speaker 5: unarmed Aussies fleeing from police as they were fired upon
Speaker 5: with rubber bullets. Let us never forget the woman Monica
Speaker 5: Smith who was put in solitary confinement for twenty two days.
Speaker 5: She did nothing violent, they dubbed her as an anti vaxxer,
Speaker 5: and well, that just justifies everything, doesn't it. Really, twenty
Speaker 5: two days in solitary confinement?
Speaker 6: Are you insane?
Speaker 5: Then?
Speaker 6: Of course there's the case of Zoe Lee.
Speaker 5: Buller, the very pregnant woman who was arrested in her
Speaker 5: home by police for sharing simply a post about one
Speaker 5: of these freedom rallies and being like, hey, get around it,
Speaker 5: I'm going to be there. It's And that's to say
Speaker 5: nothing of all the fines of people simply for leaving
Speaker 5: their homes. We've seen dribs and drabs of cases bought
Speaker 5: against the state during that tyrannical time, actually getting up
Speaker 5: most recently the Supreme Court in Queensland that found some
Speaker 5: of the mandates for ambos and police officers were unlawful.
Speaker 5: How do you like that our lawmakers making laws that
Speaker 5: aren't even lawful. I just hope that these cases keep
Speaker 5: coming and that these people do see their day in court,
Speaker 5: because I have no doubt that the brutality that we
Speaker 5: saw across that terrible period in Australia's history was I
Speaker 5: too went to plenty of those protests, and the only brutality,
Speaker 5: the only aggression I ever saw was from the cops.
Speaker 5: And you're already in a very heightened place of emotion there.
Speaker 5: You've got people who have been stripped of the ability
Speaker 5: to feed their families and.
Speaker 6: Provide a roof over their heads.
Speaker 5: You go after people's livelihoods, You've gone after their everything.
Speaker 5: So rightly, people were angry, rightly, people were rallying, But
Speaker 5: the only times it ever turned to violence it was
Speaker 5: the cops laying into people who were prostrate on the
Speaker 5: ground with several knees on them, as cops would gang
Speaker 5: up on just one man lying there.
Speaker 3: The other thing with this and police are normal people, right,
Speaker 3: but the protesters had been so demonized by state press,
Speaker 3: used by health officials. These are tinfoil hat wear as
Speaker 3: their conspirators. They are a danger to public health. They
Speaker 3: don't care about Grandma. That you can kind of not
Speaker 3: to excuse police behavior at all.
Speaker 2: I hope not.
Speaker 3: But when you consider police are just their normal people,
Speaker 3: but they're dealing with crowds who have been so demonized
Speaker 3: by the political class that you've got a tinderbox that's
Speaker 3: been created. It wasn't just police, it was health officials
Speaker 3: polycoctions that helped to create this situation.
Speaker 5: Absoluity, there's like a muscle, Yeah it was.
Speaker 1: It was as the New.
Speaker 5: South Wales premiere at the time, being like, I wouldn't
Speaker 5: even be in the same room as an unvaccinated person.
Speaker 6: For crying out loud.
Speaker 5: When you locked all us unvaccinated people down, then you
Speaker 5: had to excuse every outbreak that you had on breakthrough cases.
Speaker 5: Remember that breakthrough cases all over the place, even though
Speaker 5: the unvaccinated couldn't go anywhere because they didn't have a
Speaker 5: vax pass and that was their explanation all these breakthrough cases.
Speaker 6: How many breakthrough cases.
Speaker 5: Do we need to have before people all were allowed
Speaker 5: to question the efficacy of that which they were breaking through.
Speaker 4: It became like a mass psychosis and let us never
Speaker 4: forget and we should really bear it in mind. What
Speaker 4: can be done when you have tyrannical leaders that have
Speaker 4: the ear of the people, and the people are scared.
Speaker 4: Daniel Andrews played Victoria like a fiddle. And you know,
Speaker 4: that's not to say that everyone in Victoria is dumb,
Speaker 4: but a lot of people were scared at the time
Speaker 4: and they did whatever they were told because they were
Speaker 4: worried about the consequences. And Andrews knew that, and he
Speaker 4: used it for his own power, and the police were
Speaker 4: the arm of that. So you wouldn't blame Daniel Andrews,
Speaker 4: knowing all of this, for wanting to perhaps shield that
Speaker 4: vision away from you. You know, maybe we should ban
Speaker 4: it from social media. Well that's certainly what the federal
Speaker 4: government tried to do with the footage, of course, of
Speaker 4: Bishop ma Mai Emmanuel, who was stabbed in his church
Speaker 4: about a month ago. The e Safety Commissioner Julian went
Speaker 4: off to court to get an injunction against X of
Speaker 4: course formerly Twitter now owned by Elon Musk, to stop
Speaker 4: them showing footage of the stabbing, which had been live
Speaker 4: streamed on Facebook mind you on its platform now late
Speaker 4: last month. That injunction was successful and in the end
Speaker 4: what X had to do was basically put a warning
Speaker 4: over the top of the video, so that you couldn't
Speaker 4: automatically watch it. Curiously, if you posted the video again
Speaker 4: after the post that had been flagged, there was no issue.
Speaker 4: It was essentially geo blocked, so you couldn't watch it. Well,
Speaker 4: now would you believe it? When they tried to have
Speaker 4: that extended. The court has said no, there is no
Speaker 4: justification to continue with the banning of this footage being shown.
Speaker 4: And of course mar Marie Emmanuel himself, the bishop who
Speaker 4: was stabbed, said I don't have a problem with the
Speaker 4: vision being shown. The Federal Court has said no, it
Speaker 4: should be open for all to see, and thank Heavens,
Speaker 4: it puts the Safety Commissioner on the back foot to
Speaker 4: some degree because there is now a precedent, a decision
Speaker 4: from the.
Speaker 1: Federal Court that says no.
Speaker 4: In these cases, free speech reigned supreme and as X
Speaker 4: argued quite rightly, the footage wasn't terribly graphic. It was
Speaker 4: essentially news footage. The idea that it would encourage more
Speaker 4: terrorist events, alleged terrorist events in this case would not
Speaker 4: hold up. The court has agreed, and thank god for that.
Speaker 3: You know, the funny part about this case is the
Speaker 3: Federal Court judge who is a hero because he stood
Speaker 3: up for free speech.
Speaker 2: His name's Jeffrey Kennett, So when I was I.
Speaker 3: Thought Jeff Kennet's but Brett Walker, SC who represented X.
Speaker 3: He told the court the idea it's better for the
Speaker 3: whole world not to be able to see this obviously
Speaker 3: newsworthy matter is a startling one. Even more startling is
Speaker 3: that it ended up in the Federal Court.
Speaker 2: The Australian government.
Speaker 3: Classified this footage of Bishop mar Murray Emmanuel being stabbed
Speaker 3: as gratuitous and graphic violence, which I mean it was
Speaker 3: shocking because you don't expect to see a clergyman attacked
Speaker 3: in his own pulpit, but you could barely make out
Speaker 3: the knife, let alone blood or gore. It's the same
Speaker 3: classification they use for child porn. So the Australian government
Speaker 3: went right over the top with this and have really
Speaker 3: embarrassed themselves on the world stage.
Speaker 5: Yeah, indeed, which the E Safety Commissioner is very good
Speaker 5: at doing. Can anyone tell me, because this woman has
Speaker 5: been the E Safety Commissioner since twenty seventeen, what good
Speaker 5: has she done?
Speaker 6: What actually wins.
Speaker 5: Does she have where she could point to a list
Speaker 5: of stuff. Well, we sprung this child porn syndicate. We
Speaker 5: took down this, we protected those, We've clamped down on
Speaker 5: online abuse. No, she just seems to be good at
Speaker 5: running up a massive bill for taxpayers with all.
Speaker 6: These court cases.
Speaker 5: Because of course it's not just this case, it's also
Speaker 5: Billboard Chris, which we talked about a couple of months ago.
Speaker 5: If it was even that, it was more like a
Speaker 5: matter of weeks where she had reached across jurisdictions. This
Speaker 5: guy's in Canada and had simply tweeted saying, what is
Speaker 5: this guy?
Speaker 6: A dude who works as a health advisor to the
Speaker 6: United Nations. What is he doing advising.
Speaker 5: Anyone on health when all his previous posts are about
Speaker 5: best reality bondage, his pochon for orgies, etc.
Speaker 6: And so on.
Speaker 5: That is what the E Commissioner decided that she would
Speaker 5: flex on, and now he's taking her to court over that,
Speaker 5: as he should.
Speaker 6: But again, who's paying for these court cases? You are?
Speaker 5: I am, what a waste of money when this woman
Speaker 5: could be dedicating her every waking moment to ripping off
Speaker 5: child pornography. Just get it off the internet. Everyone's on
Speaker 5: a unity ticket on that. You want to keep children
Speaker 5: safe like you keep telling us go after that, not
Speaker 5: these diculous cases that nobody even agrees with.
Speaker 3: And let's never forget it was a coalition government who
Speaker 3: appointed the E Safety Commissioner in the first place. Peter
Speaker 3: Dutton would be wise to make it a policy initiative
Speaker 3: that if he wins government get rid of her, because,
Speaker 3: as you said, what has she actually accomplished?
Speaker 5: Indeed, But we should also remark that this trial is
Speaker 5: not over. The trial will now continue to look at
Speaker 5: the merits or you and I would say the lack
Speaker 5: thereof of the E Safety commissioners demand to x. So
Speaker 5: this is just a preliminary kind of at the beginning
Speaker 5: of the trial, the judge is saying, look for the
Speaker 5: extent of the trial or for now anyway, we're removing
Speaker 5: the block on that video.
Speaker 6: But it's not over by a long shot.
Speaker 3: But as The Australian newspaper pointed out today, Elon Musk
Speaker 3: won E Safety Commissioner nil in South Australia the state
Speaker 3: premier there. He's gotten on the social media is evil bandwagon.
Speaker 3: He wants to make it impossible for children aged under
Speaker 3: fourteen to have a social media account. Now this opens
Speaker 3: up all sorts of cans of worms. Let's have a
Speaker 3: listen to what he said and then will discuss the
Speaker 3: merits of his brilliant idea.
Speaker 7: Is my government's objective to ban access two major social
Speaker 7: media platforms for all children under the age of fourteen,
Speaker 7: and then for fourteen and fifteen year olds they should
Speaker 7: require parentalics consent before they can get access.
Speaker 3: So I don't think there's any parent who would argue
Speaker 3: that social media is having a detrimental effect on kids.
Speaker 3: Think most people would agree with that, And there was
Speaker 3: a survey done recently in South Australia that mirror surveys
Speaker 3: around the world that a majority of people do think
Speaker 3: that it would be better if young people were not
Speaker 3: using social media. But to ban children under the age
Speaker 3: of fourteen from using it and require fourteen and fifteen
Speaker 3: year olds to have parent permission is a couple of things. Firstly,
Speaker 3: is that okay to do or is that anti free
Speaker 3: speech and the rights of individuals? Secondly, how do you
Speaker 3: actually achieve that without instituting some sort of digital id
Speaker 3: which won't just be applied to children trying to access
Speaker 3: an Instagram or Facebook account, but rather will be used
Speaker 3: for nefarious purposes for the rest of us.
Speaker 6: Yeah, indeed, and we saw.
Speaker 5: What will be really interesting about this inquiry is how
Speaker 5: there because that's what the inquiry is, how do we
Speaker 5: enforce such a thing. It bears mentioning that Instagram and Facebook, if.
Speaker 6: You're opening an account with them, they require you to
Speaker 6: be at least thirteen is of age. But it's not
Speaker 6: That doesn't work because kids just lie. We're like, yeah, sure,
Speaker 6: I'm thirteen.
Speaker 3: Can I just say if you're thirteen and on Facebook, like,
Speaker 3: what's wrong with you? Your grandmother's on Facebook? Just tell
Speaker 3: kids grandmas on Facebook. They immediately won't want any part
Speaker 3: of it.
Speaker 5: Kids should be on Instagram and how they communicate with
Speaker 5: their friendsends and photos and all the rest of it.
Speaker 5: So you already have that in place. It obviously doesn't work.
Speaker 5: And if the government is to implement a bean then
Speaker 5: of course it is going to take some very far reaching,
Speaker 5: stringent conditions. And my first thought on this was when
Speaker 5: in late twenty twenty the Morrison government did this whole
Speaker 5: inquiry about online.
Speaker 6: Abuse and how can we crack down on it?
Speaker 5: And one of the recommendations that came back was that
Speaker 5: people would be required to have a social media passport
Speaker 5: and to get one of those, you would have to
Speaker 5: give these platforms at least one hundred points of identification,
Speaker 5: your passport, your license.
Speaker 6: Whatever, whatever.
Speaker 5: But what an impediment on privacy that is? They then
Speaker 5: know exactly who you are, where you live, what your
Speaker 5: political persuasions are like these platforms don't already have enough information,
Speaker 5: which we've learned recently and quite a few times now,
Speaker 5: especially from Meta.
Speaker 6: They're more than happy to sell your.
Speaker 5: Data Ambridge Analytica. Great doco on Netflix if you want
Speaker 5: to know how Facebook sold us all out in the
Speaker 5: twenty sixteen election. But they want that data so they
Speaker 5: can skew the public.
Speaker 6: Sentiment regarding anything, really, because if.
Speaker 5: You have that data, you can turn hearts and minds
Speaker 5: whichever way you want them to go. But this would
Speaker 5: require absolutely every single one of us undergoing this in
Speaker 5: order to prove that we are who we say we
Speaker 5: are and we are as old as we say we
Speaker 5: are in order to access our own social media accounts.
Speaker 5: I always say government always use the most reasonable and
Speaker 5: rational argument for these kinds of moves, and people go, oh, well,
Speaker 5: we all.
Speaker 6: Want to protect kids online.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, that is the job of parents, And I am
Speaker 5: sick and tired of the state stepping in and going, oh, we.
Speaker 6: Have a solution to this problem. No, you don't. That
Speaker 6: should be the jurisdiction of the parents.
Speaker 5: And you know full well that the only way to
Speaker 5: implement something like this is going to require a loss
Speaker 5: of privacy and therefore rights on behalf of everyday citizens
Speaker 5: across the board.
Speaker 4: And I'm not sure it really fixes the issue they're
Speaker 4: trying to fix anyway, right, So I'm sympathetic to the
Speaker 4: idea that that children probably shouldn't be on social media.
Speaker 1: Brain rot, it's poison.
Speaker 4: It has proliferated bullying so badly because of course, once
Speaker 4: upon a time, you know, you were a kid getting
Speaker 4: bullied in the school yard, but you at least got
Speaker 4: some respite when you went home and saw mum and dad.
Speaker 4: We don't even have that anymore, because they continue to
Speaker 4: bully you when you get home via text message or
Speaker 4: social media or whatever.
Speaker 1: It might be.
Speaker 4: It is the decision of the parents whether or not
Speaker 4: their kids are on social media, and they ought to
Speaker 4: be monitoring that. But you can remove social media from
Speaker 4: the mix and say, okay, well that's causing damage. So
Speaker 4: we've removed social media, but presumably a child who is
Speaker 4: in a position to be able to have a so
Speaker 4: social media account has access to the Internet and a device,
Speaker 4: whether it be a computer and iPad of phone whatever. Right,
Speaker 4: and there's so much other stuff that they can consume
Speaker 4: on the Internet anyway through so many other means that
Speaker 4: oh yeah, so we've removed social media, but it doesn't
Speaker 4: stop them going on any other website on the Internet.
Speaker 4: And again that is a decision of the parents to make.
Speaker 4: They can set up blocks on their internet service at home,
Speaker 4: and on and on it goes. It's for the parent
Speaker 4: to decide so that he's not going to go on Facebook,
Speaker 4: so he's not going.
Speaker 1: To get bullied.
Speaker 4: Well, great, they'll find some instant messaging service. Oh, kids
Speaker 4: aren't dumb. They always find a way around.
Speaker 5: Online games that kids play these days have a little
Speaker 5: right discord, absolutely, so there's still problem is not solved.
Speaker 2: Two more things on this.
Speaker 3: Firstly, if they found a way to do this in
Speaker 3: South Australia, how does it work.
Speaker 2: When you've got one state?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that makes it illegal, but you'll just go the
Speaker 3: border and all of a sudden you've got the internet free.
Speaker 3: The other thing here is if Peter Ramanowskus is really worried?
Speaker 1: Did you call him use Malanowskis?
Speaker 3: Ramanascus is a football player. Isn't he an AFL player?
Speaker 1: Malanhawskis.
Speaker 3: Anyway, if the Premier of South Australia is really concerned
Speaker 3: about the welfare of young people, why did he vote
Speaker 3: against an inquiry into the treatment of kids with gender dysphoria.
Speaker 3: If you're really worried about welfare, that'll be an inquiry
Speaker 3: worth pursuing.
Speaker 2: Or why did the South.
Speaker 3: Australian government use taxpayer money to bring Sam Smith of
Speaker 3: all people to South Australia to perform in a concert.
Speaker 3: If you're worried about the influence on young people, why
Speaker 3: spend taxpayer money on that. So he's ignored those two
Speaker 3: things but taken up the social media issue, which makes
Speaker 3: you a little bit suspicious.
Speaker 5: It does look rather virtue signally to me.
Speaker 6: I wrote, the first state in Australia has going to
Speaker 6: lay the SmackDown. Yeah, how exactly do you propose to
Speaker 6: do that? I don't think.
Speaker 5: So let's go to the States now, where earlier this
Speaker 5: month they introdue used in Congress and anti Semitism bill.
Speaker 5: Now it sounds great on the face of it, but
Speaker 5: it bears noting that antisemitism, like all kinds of racism,
Speaker 5: is already illegal in the States, and this bill was
Speaker 5: introduced in a very unorthodox way.
Speaker 6: The Congress wasn't allowed.
Speaker 5: To debate it, talk about the contents. It was just
Speaker 5: rushed through, looking all the world like a knee jerk
Speaker 5: type bill as they see these cases of massive antisemitism,
Speaker 5: particularly on their university campuses. But a closer look at
Speaker 5: this bill gives rise for concern. Firstly, his Senator Royd
Speaker 5: Chip from Texas talking about the extraordinary way in which
Speaker 5: it was just foisted upon them in.
Speaker 8: The House again and today on the floor of the
Speaker 8: House of Representatives, we had another show vote to make
Speaker 8: people feel good about themselves by passing a bill that
Speaker 8: says anti Semitism in the title. We didn't have a
Speaker 8: chance to amend it. We didn't have a chance to
Speaker 8: discuss it, to debate it, we didn't have a hearing
Speaker 8: on it. It was jammed through to take advantage of
Speaker 8: this political moment while all of these horrific things are
Speaker 8: going around the country. We don't believe in thought police.
Speaker 8: We don't believe that a bill should be brought to
Speaker 8: the floor of the United States House of Representatives having
Speaker 8: not gone through committee that has a reference in it
Speaker 8: to international organizations definitions.
Speaker 5: The international organization he's referring to is called the International
Speaker 5: Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It's not based in America, and yet
Speaker 5: their definition is the one that's gone into this bill
Speaker 5: giving Americans rights for concerns saying, hang on a minute,
Speaker 5: why is an organization that has worked with the UN
Speaker 5: extensively in the past, The UN certainly not known for
Speaker 5: its love of Israe, and yet these people get to
Speaker 5: decide what ken and can't come out of the mouths
Speaker 5: of Americans.
Speaker 6: Very concerning. Indeed, some of the measures in.
Speaker 5: This bill are some of the most drastic overreach that
Speaker 5: many Americans say they have not seen anything that violates
Speaker 5: the First Amendment worse than this thing in their entire lifetimes.
Speaker 5: Here's a quote from Senator Matt Gates. He tweeted this evening,
Speaker 5: I will vote against the ridiculous hate speech bill called
Speaker 5: the Antisemitism Awareness Act, and anti Semitism is wrong.
Speaker 6: But this legislation is written without regard.
Speaker 5: For the Constitution, common sense, or even the common understanding
Speaker 5: of the meaning of words. The Gospel itself would meet
Speaker 5: the definition of antisemitism under the terms of this bill.
Speaker 5: The bill says, the definition of antisemitism includes quote contemporary
Speaker 5: examples of antisemitism end quote identified by the International Holocaust
Speaker 5: Remembrance Alliance. One of those examples includes claims of Jews
Speaker 5: killing Jesus. The Bible is clear, there is no myth
Speaker 5: or controversy on this. Therefore, I will not support this bill.
Speaker 6: Neither would I have.
Speaker 5: Matt Gates and Well said, they have literally said that
Speaker 5: it is anti Semitism to say that the Jews killed Jesus.
Speaker 5: Not only is this an undisputed historical fact, it's in
Speaker 5: their own talentid It was the Jews who said yes.
Speaker 5: When Ponscha's pilots threw it out to the crowd and said, okay,
Speaker 5: let's have a vote here. What do you want? The
Speaker 5: Jews cried, he deserves death. Crucify him, not just any death,
Speaker 5: by the way, crucifixion, which was the most painful, worst
Speaker 5: death the Roman soldiers could conjure up. This is got
Speaker 5: to be the worst case of overreach we've ever seen
Speaker 5: in terms of trying to protect anyone against a specific group,
Speaker 5: against claims of race and what it really said to
Speaker 5: me last point here was way to prove all the
Speaker 5: conspiracy theorists and make them think, oh, we're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: Because those who.
Speaker 5: Believe in the international Jewish conspiracy, or they control the media,
Speaker 5: they control the parliaments.
Speaker 6: You know, it goes on and on and on.
Speaker 5: This is just it's got them salivating to the point
Speaker 5: that I've never seen that mob that salivate in my
Speaker 5: entire life.
Speaker 4: It's absurd to think that you would legislate against the
Speaker 4: vilification or whatever of one particular group on its own right,
Speaker 4: because which is.
Speaker 6: Already outlooked by the way we've already.
Speaker 4: Had, We thought and the same discussion we've had here,
Speaker 4: and we've got to have a stronger laws on hate speech.
Speaker 4: We already have the laws on hate speech, we have
Speaker 4: laws against incitement, et cetera. What has happened in the
Speaker 4: US and a cost much of the Western world, is
Speaker 4: that the response in the face of the protests and
Speaker 4: the carry on and the rife anti sem has been
Speaker 4: so weak that they've been caught on the hop. And
Speaker 4: here's a bill to try and fix it. You could
Speaker 4: have fixed it any time between now and October seven
Speaker 4: last year.
Speaker 1: The laws already exist.
Speaker 4: You could have stepped in and stopped the antisemitism, the
Speaker 4: jew hatred, and you chose not to do it. So
Speaker 4: this is a Johnny Come Lately. Oh look, look we're
Speaker 4: fixed the issue. We fixed the issue. We've just taken
Speaker 4: some pro former document that someone's handed to us.
Speaker 1: Here we go, shove it on through. Look at us,
Speaker 1: How good we are.
Speaker 4: And by the way, these laws will probably never ever
Speaker 4: be used anyway, because they haven't already used the ones
Speaker 4: that already exist. But it's the same as we've got
Speaker 4: eighteen C in this country, for Heaven's sake, which makes
Speaker 4: it illegal to offend someone on the basis of their
Speaker 4: race or their ethnicity, et.
Speaker 1: Cetera, et cetera. It is not the job of the
Speaker 1: government to deal with that.
Speaker 4: We all condemn and I think on this program we've
Speaker 4: gone harder than most against Jew hatred, But it is
Speaker 4: not the job of the government to decide whether or
Speaker 4: not someone is or is not allowed to be offended
Speaker 4: in law. That is an issue for two people to
Speaker 4: deal with themselves. When it comes to genuine hate that
Speaker 4: incites violence, there are already laws against that, and.
Speaker 1: We do not need any further restriction.
Speaker 5: But what we've just seen past mac literally means it's
Speaker 5: going to be terribly awkward around Easter time for churches
Speaker 5: in America.
Speaker 6: To tell the Easter story like this is fact. I'm
Speaker 6: sure that most right.
Speaker 5: Thinking Jews have their own head in their hands, being like,
Speaker 5: why would you pass something this ridiculous that is in
Speaker 5: fact going to turn people against us, not get them
Speaker 5: on side.
Speaker 3: So the reason it could potentially make it illegal to
Speaker 3: say that the Jews killed Jesus is because this definition
Speaker 3: means it's anti semitic to blame all Jews for the
Speaker 3: actions of a few. So that's the issue, But it
Speaker 3: shows how much America has fallen from their Christian roots,
Speaker 3: which is.
Speaker 5: Really because no one would claim that all the Jews
Speaker 5: in the world were there I screaming, crucifying.
Speaker 3: No further than that, anyone with a basic understanding of
Speaker 3: Christianity understands, yes, the Jews killed Jesus, but the Jews
Speaker 3: were representative of all humanity.
Speaker 2: We all kill Jesus.
Speaker 3: Everybody is guilty of sinning against God, that's the point.
Speaker 3: So it's not specifically the Jews who are guilty, and
Speaker 3: the rest of us have no part in it.
Speaker 2: We all are guilty of that.
Speaker 3: So it shows how far America has fallen from its
Speaker 3: understanding of the Christian faith. But like you said, Caleb,
Speaker 3: there's already laws in place to deal with what is
Speaker 3: happening when you don't use the laws you've got, and
Speaker 3: so the government try to make more laws, all they
Speaker 3: do is just make an absolute mess. Now, the context
Speaker 3: for all of this, of course, is what's happening in
Speaker 3: university campuses around the States, and it just continues to
Speaker 3: get well. I was going to say stupider and stupider.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure if that's great grammar.
Speaker 2: You cold curate.
Speaker 1: You could be an lecturer.
Speaker 4: You could be lecturer at one of the Ivy League
Speaker 4: universities these days.
Speaker 3: If anyone give me a lecture at an Ivy League university,
Speaker 3: he check out the graduation at because it's graduation season
Speaker 3: at unis in America. Check out the graduation at Duke University.
Speaker 3: Now Jerry Seinfeld was a speaker, I would be thrilled
Speaker 3: if Jerry Seinfeld was the keynote speaker. Now, he is
Speaker 3: a Jew, but he's not part of the IDF. He's
Speaker 3: not like in the war cabinet room in Jerusalem. He's
Speaker 3: got no part in what's happening in Gaza, and yet
Speaker 3: students all walked.
Speaker 2: Out as soon as he got up to speak.
Speaker 3: Liz As if that's not bad enough, tell us about
Speaker 3: what happened at Berkeley University.
Speaker 5: Well, Berkeley University, University of California, Berkeley. She disrupted the
Speaker 5: commencement of hers with this wonderful anti Australia protests.
Speaker 6: Just listen to what she had to say.
Speaker 9: As a Berkeley student, we have a long history of protesting,
Speaker 9: and we did the same for our party in South Africa.
Speaker 9: It's not only therefreen than twenty years from now, the
Speaker 9: university is going to recognize it.
Speaker 5: As like, so, we're just protesting because it's what we
Speaker 5: do at Berkeley. Don't really know any facts or figures,
Speaker 5: but this is what we're known for and we're sticking
Speaker 5: to it. But speaking of walkouts, check out this one
Speaker 5: at the university in Virginia where the governor of the
Speaker 5: state got to give a speech, as we do with
Speaker 5: politicians at these auspicious events, and because he is a
Speaker 5: supporter of Israel. Check out the walkout that they staged
Speaker 5: at their own graduation.
Speaker 8: Visitors ologies faculty, sad, family and friends, Grand nation graduale.
Speaker 7: What a de scene for.
Speaker 6: You this morning to graduating class of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 6: Well done, guys.
Speaker 5: I'm sure you've saved many lives in Gaza by doing
Speaker 5: absolutely nothing but disrupting your own ceremony and for everybody
Speaker 5: else there as well. Many of them wouldn't have even
Speaker 5: known why.
Speaker 6: Really, And the.
Speaker 5: Governor gets up to give a speech and these kids
Speaker 5: start walking out high on their virtue signaling pedestals. Most
Speaker 5: people would have been like, the what the heck, where
Speaker 5: are you going?
Speaker 4: And apparently part of the issue with them with the
Speaker 4: governor Glenn Youngkin as well as his take on Tran's issues,
Speaker 4: it's I mean, you know, it's just so predictable, isn't it.
Speaker 1: There are kids in Gaza who would probably dream.
Speaker 4: Of the idea of being able to go to university.
Speaker 4: You've had the opportunity, you're there at your graduation, and
Speaker 4: the governor of your state, the state of course, would
Speaker 4: provide some money to the university. No, no, I'm just
Speaker 4: not going to have a part in this anymore. My god,
Speaker 4: we really should be worried about some of these kids.
Speaker 4: And speaking of how about this one in Colombia who's
Speaker 4: gone up to accept her diploma, and.
Speaker 1: Well she wasn't having a bar. Have a look at that.
Speaker 1: She takes the thing and rips it in half. How
Speaker 1: good you've gone through all these years at UNI. You
Speaker 1: know you're ready to go. Well, actually they're going to
Speaker 1: say ready to go.
Speaker 4: She probably did a BA Bachelor of Arts bugger all degree,
Speaker 4: so it probably.
Speaker 1: Wasn't of much value anyway.
Speaker 4: And in fact, by doing that she can then go
Speaker 4: and use it as toilet paper, which will probably be
Speaker 4: a better use for it in any case.
Speaker 1: You know, how mad do you have to be? And
Speaker 1: I noticed she's.
Speaker 4: Got handcuffs on as well, which is you know, some
Speaker 4: sort of statement about genocide in Gaza, and you got
Speaker 4: them rip up your own diploma if you if she
Speaker 4: went for a job anywhere, right, you'd be looking up
Speaker 4: that footage and you'd be going, I just sorry, We've
Speaker 4: had a better candidate.
Speaker 3: Well, I feel sorry for her because that's the most
Speaker 3: attention she will ever get for the rest of her life. Yes,
Speaker 3: if she's got any conviction at all, she will contact
Speaker 3: the university and get them to scrub the diploma from
Speaker 3: their database.
Speaker 2: So there's no record at all.
Speaker 5: Well, hopefully not so that employers can look her up
Speaker 5: and know just what they're getting in that package when
Speaker 5: they read her resume. But if you're here in Sydney,
Speaker 5: you know that we are having the wettest May in
Speaker 5: twenty one years. So I noted with great interest this
Speaker 5: week when Ben Fordham came to the party.
Speaker 6: And tweeted this. He said, it's not a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 6: Snowy hydro is cloud seating.
Speaker 5: They're pumping chemicals into the air to try and artificially
Speaker 5: increase rainfall. And here's what he had to say, straight
Speaker 5: from Fordham's.
Speaker 10: Mouth, The mob running snowy hydro are cloud seeding. Did
Speaker 10: you know this snowy hydro. He's pumping silver idine and
Speaker 10: indium trioxide into the air above the snowy mountains and
Speaker 10: they're doing it to artificially increase rainfall and snowfall. I'm
Speaker 10: not making it up. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Have
Speaker 10: a look at their website.
Speaker 5: We know you're not a conspiracy theorist. Then, because a
Speaker 5: lust conspiracy theorists have known, they've been doing this for
Speaker 5: over ten years. Yes the government can control the weather,
Speaker 5: and yes they are controlling the weather. I just love
Speaker 5: it when conspiracy theories become mainstream all of a sudden,
Speaker 5: because people will they just find out.
Speaker 1: That they're true fourteen percent.
Speaker 4: Apparently it can increase the snow and rainfall up there
Speaker 4: on the snowy mountains, which then, of course is useful
Speaker 4: for snowy hydro, which is one of the greatest failures
Speaker 4: of all time in terms of a nation nation snowy
Speaker 4: Hydro two point zero. We should point out the original
Speaker 4: snowy Hydro was a bit better, but this one that
Speaker 4: Turnbull dreamed up has been a bit of a disaster.
Speaker 4: But I'll tell you one place they do actually need
Speaker 4: to go and do a bit of cloud seeding, and
Speaker 4: that is over this swim center in Sydney today, where
Speaker 4: would you believe it, all the solar panels on the
Speaker 4: roof caught on fire. You know, they're simply trying to
Speaker 4: do their best to save the planet. You know, we're
Speaker 4: going to get all the sun to come down here.
Speaker 4: At Sydney Olympic Park today they had a swimming competition
Speaker 4: going on and you can see some of the smoke.
Speaker 1: Billowing out there.
Speaker 4: All the kids had to pile out of the pool
Speaker 4: because that lovely green solar panels they all caught on
Speaker 4: fire and sent emissions out into the atmosphere.
Speaker 1: How good is that?
Speaker 2: A Well, if you're going to have a fire, at
Speaker 2: least have it at the swimming pool.
Speaker 1: So yeah, they've got the water at.
Speaker 2: Their probably the best. But we need to go to
Speaker 2: a break. Just before we do go to the break, in.
Speaker 3: Relation to our earlier conversation read the pandemic, we do
Speaker 3: need to point out that it's still the government in
Speaker 3: Australia's advice that your best protection against COVID is the vaccine.
Speaker 2: We're going to go to a break.
Speaker 3: When we come back, we look at what's making news
Speaker 3: in the papers tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Stick around.
Speaker 3: All right, let's get stuck into what's making news in
Speaker 3: tomorrow's papers.
Speaker 2: We'll start with the career Mail.
Speaker 3: Like most papers tomorrow, they anticipating the budget. Have a
Speaker 3: look at the characterature of Treasurer at Jim Chalmers there.
Speaker 3: It kind of gives you an idea of how the
Speaker 3: career mail regard the upcoming budget.
Speaker 2: Is that Santa's hat or is that a duncers.
Speaker 4: That's a very good I just want to know who
Speaker 4: his dentist is because that's a pretty good effort.
Speaker 1: I have to say, good.
Speaker 2: Chompers jim flation. They've already decided what the budget will be.
Speaker 3: The other story on the front page of the Courier
Speaker 3: Mail and Exclusive, the headline reads Premier's migration cut appeal.
Speaker 3: Premier Stephen Miles has demanded the federal government cut immigration
Speaker 3: levels while the state struggles with explosive population growth and
Speaker 3: a critical shortage of housing. Now he's appealed directly to
Speaker 3: Anthony Albanezi, saying that if migration continues at current levels,
Speaker 3: will need tens of thousands more homes every year than
Speaker 3: industry can build. Calebb is Stephen Miles just slow on
Speaker 3: the uptake. We've been talking about this for months. Others
Speaker 3: have been talking about it for just as long. Stephen
Speaker 3: Miles has just figured out maybe migration is a problem
Speaker 3: and is exacerbating the housing christ.
Speaker 4: Well, Stephen Miles is what five four or five months
Speaker 4: away from state election. I think maybe that might have
Speaker 4: something to do with it. And it's interesting to see
Speaker 4: a few labor premiers now at odds with the federal government,
Speaker 4: not just on this but other issues. Certainly, the alarm
Speaker 4: has been raised in New South Wales as well about
Speaker 4: the large numbers of people who are coming in through
Speaker 4: migration over in Wa. Now you have the Premier Roger
Speaker 4: Cook taking the fart up against the federal government because
Speaker 4: they want to ban live sheep exports, which is of
Speaker 4: course a big industry for them.
Speaker 1: Stephen Miles is right.
Speaker 4: I mean, it is difficult to deal with all these
Speaker 4: people coming in. But I would say to mister Miles,
Speaker 4: spare of thought for the people of Sydney and Melbourne,
Speaker 4: who take the vast majority of these margrants who come in.
Speaker 4: You think it's bad in Brisbane, you want to see
Speaker 4: what it's like in Sydney and Melbourne, the two biggest
Speaker 4: cities which take the lion's share of these migrants.
Speaker 1: You can't keep up.
Speaker 4: We all know that, even Stephen Miles knows that. But
Speaker 4: the federal government are they just sort of out at
Speaker 4: sea somewhere going, oh, we're going to cut the migration numbers. Well,
Speaker 4: we've yet to see any evidence of that.
Speaker 5: Every single premiere in the country should be putting this
Speaker 5: pressure on the Albneazy government. As Miles notes, the population
Speaker 5: growth of two point seven percent in the year to September.
Speaker 6: This is in.
Speaker 5: Queensland, alone was the highest in more than fifteen years.
Speaker 5: And he would know because of course Brisbane has these
Speaker 5: tent cities that he went and bought a pile of
Speaker 5: hotels to put the homeless people in because.
Speaker 6: Out of side, out of mind, and got to.
Speaker 5: Have things looking tidy and the lead up to an election.
Speaker 5: But it is all band aid policies or just no
Speaker 5: policies at.
Speaker 6: All that we're seeing.
Speaker 5: And indeed, one could argue in defense of the government,
Speaker 5: how rare for me that there's no amount of policies
Speaker 5: that can stem this time and provide housing where there
Speaker 5: simply is none for the numbers that are being shoved
Speaker 5: into our states from overseas.
Speaker 4: And if we're talking numbers, it's is here. One hundred
Speaker 4: and forty three thousand, six hundred people moved to Queensland
Speaker 4: in the year to September twenty twenty three, which is
Speaker 4: up from thirty two thousand, five hundred and ninety three
Speaker 4: in twenty nineteen. Fair old jump, isn't it. Let's go
Speaker 4: to the Advertiser where what a surprise, We've just lifted
Speaker 4: up one labor premier and now we're going to knock
Speaker 4: another down. Mallebach's state of Palestine Premier Peter Malanowskas has
Speaker 4: declared the state government agrees recognition of a Palestinian state
Speaker 4: is essential to the creation of peace and the Palestinian
Speaker 4: people have a right to demand immediate recognition at a
Speaker 4: heated Islamic community function. Now, what a surprise that he
Speaker 4: said it at an Islamic community function, because where else
Speaker 4: would he come out and say something like that. He's
Speaker 4: kind of got a play to the crowd. But what's
Speaker 4: the Premier of South Australia going to do? Oh god,
Speaker 4: you know it's bad enough that we've got.
Speaker 1: Albow think and he can run the world.
Speaker 4: Now, Peter Malanaskis reckons he can have an effect on
Speaker 4: what's going over on in Palestine. It just doesn't need
Speaker 4: to be said, right, And I get that he's there
Speaker 4: and he's trying to play to the cred it doesn't.
Speaker 1: Need to be said.
Speaker 4: The most logical thing that any premier or state politician
Speaker 4: could say on this matter is, look, this is just
Speaker 4: not in my purview. Take this issue up with the
Speaker 4: federal government. I'm here to deal with my first priority
Speaker 4: of the things that I can fix here in South Australia.
Speaker 1: What's going on in Gaza.
Speaker 4: I feel very sorry for you, but whatever I say
Speaker 4: is not going to fix anything.
Speaker 2: It's pure politicking.
Speaker 3: As the article points out, he's been criticized for defending
Speaker 3: Israel's right to self defense. He's been criticized for not
Speaker 3: lighting up monuments in honor of dead Palestinians.
Speaker 2: Because of the war in Gaza. So this is evening
Speaker 2: the score.
Speaker 3: And as you say, he knows and everyone else knows
Speaker 3: that the Premier of South Australia has not set foreign policy.
Speaker 2: Maybe it'd be better if he did.
Speaker 3: I you couldn't do Wilson Penny Warmth, but they rule
Speaker 3: of the same bag.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: If your name is Labor, there is very little differentiation
Speaker 5: whether we're talking about a Labor premiere or the Labor
Speaker 5: Cabinet in camera.
Speaker 4: Wong, of course, being another South Australian. Oh my god,
Speaker 4: we're not doing too well at the moment. Are another
Speaker 4: story on the front of the Taza tomorrow. Police have
Speaker 4: a fine time with camera.
Speaker 1: How good is this story?
Speaker 4: Police will have to personally check every fine issued by
Speaker 4: new cameras to catch drivers using their mobile phones. Now,
Speaker 4: of course you'd probably be aware of these cameras. They're
Speaker 4: being slightly rolled out across the country where they affix
Speaker 4: them to bridges and on light posts and that sort
Speaker 4: of thing, so they can tell whether you're using your
Speaker 4: mobile phone, usually when you're sitting at the lights or driving.
Speaker 1: Under a bridge or something.
Speaker 4: But it turns out the images that these cameras in
Speaker 4: South Australia are taking a full of quote unquote in consistency,
Speaker 4: so they can't actually trust what the camera is telling
Speaker 4: them that people have been doing, so they actually had
Speaker 4: to devote police resources to individually going through each one
Speaker 4: of these photos and deciding whether or not you get
Speaker 4: a fine. Let's just hope you've got a copper on
Speaker 4: the day who's had enough of his job for the day.
Speaker 1: And he's like, no, get rid of it, no fines
Speaker 1: for anyone. I'm going home. It's five o'clock.
Speaker 3: Well, he's going to be pretty busy because since they
Speaker 3: started this trial they issued one hundred and seventy seven
Speaker 3: fines a day, and by the way, that's worth about
Speaker 3: ninety thousand dollars a day to the.
Speaker 1: Government ookne the revenue rate.
Speaker 5: Do you guys remember that story about the girl who
Speaker 5: got done for being on her phone and because she
Speaker 5: was wearing a mini skirt in her car and the
Speaker 5: camera was actually so clear.
Speaker 6: This was in New South Wales, not one of these
Speaker 6: dodgy South Australia cameras. It was rather.
Speaker 5: Inappropriate photo to take and so well did she not
Speaker 5: have to pay the fine? But the police were actually
Speaker 5: very apologetic about this photo that they'd taken of this
Speaker 5: young woman in her car.
Speaker 6: So maybe we should just all start wearing mini skirts.
Speaker 5: To the front page, what do you want to find
Speaker 5: or not?
Speaker 1: Caleb gotta do what you gotta do.
Speaker 6: I don't know the run page of the Herald Sun.
Speaker 6: Now hospitals are in shock. The splash reads. Regional hospital insiders.
Speaker 5: Say they will be forced to shut or amalgamate after
Speaker 5: elked memo from Victoria's health minister revealed orders that they
Speaker 5: must stick to new budgets. However, the state says it's
Speaker 5: bringing certainty to hospital funding.
Speaker 6: Well, how do you like that kind of certainty?
Speaker 4: I e.
Speaker 6: You're not getting any money.
Speaker 5: We know that we're gracing the headlines on an at
Speaker 5: least weekly basis as to what a burning dumpster fire
Speaker 5: our health system is in in Victoria.
Speaker 6: But you're not getting any money.
Speaker 1: So suck it up.
Speaker 5: And these hospitals are literally going Okay, suck it up
Speaker 5: means we either close down or amalgamate.
Speaker 6: That's our early track forward.
Speaker 3: What I love about this is the state government advis
Speaker 3: in these hospitals. Why don't you get rid of consultants
Speaker 3: and PR people as if the government doesn't use consultants
Speaker 3: and pr people left, right and center. Let's go to
Speaker 3: the front page of the Newcastle Herald. A good story
Speaker 3: to finish out on belly. Brilliant heroic pilot's perfect landing.
Speaker 3: A pilot has been praised for his textbook wheels Up
Speaker 3: landing yesterday after a light plane malfunctioned over Newcastle Airport.
Speaker 3: The plane was carrying three people, two passengers and a pilot.
Speaker 3: Its landing gear failed, so the fifty three year old
Speaker 3: pilot from Queensland he circled for four hours, getting rid
Speaker 3: of fuel you can see there, and then makes a
Speaker 3: perfect landing.
Speaker 2: No one injured.
Speaker 3: In fact, they all got out, got their cars and
Speaker 3: drove home.
Speaker 1: How do it? And a real Aussie hero.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, we're going to go to a break when we
Speaker 3: come back. The US political scene is never boring. Will
Speaker 3: show you Biden and Trump's latest in just a moment.
Speaker 3: I don't think we've ever had two political leaders in
Speaker 3: the US as entertaining as Biden and Trump.
Speaker 4: Caleb, I think you are quite right, and you know
Speaker 4: they're doing pretty well to be so entertaining at their age.
Speaker 4: Of course, Biden has reached eighty and Trump is fast
Speaker 4: on his heel. Speaking of being on his heels, we
Speaker 4: know that something. Barden isn't very good at his walking,
Speaker 4: whether it'd be going up steps or even in a
Speaker 4: straight line on a piece of grass. That's why he
Speaker 4: wears those stabilizing sneakers with his suits anymore.
Speaker 1: He can't even hack a pair of leather shoes.
Speaker 4: While he was out wandering around the other day, just
Speaker 4: sort of, you know, blissfully moving through the world, and
Speaker 4: he came across a throng of supporters, or at least
Speaker 4: he thought they were.
Speaker 1: I mean, take the man to have his hearing tested.
Speaker 4: If he could not tell that was a hostile crowd,
Speaker 4: I don't know what the hell.
Speaker 5: He's just pleased to see a crowd, because crowd. This
Speaker 5: guy has zero magnetism, and any Biden get together, you
Speaker 5: can count them.
Speaker 3: On one hand. His granddaughter, she knew, she knew exactly
Speaker 3: what was happening.
Speaker 1: Did you see she could not get in?
Speaker 2: She was not hanging around.
Speaker 5: But the size of the crowd in New Jersey on
Speaker 5: the weekend left no one in any doubt as to
Speaker 5: the popularity of President Donald Trump with an eighty thousand
Speaker 5: strong crowd.
Speaker 6: Here he is giving his thoughts on the present present president.
Speaker 7: You look at the economy, the real economy, not the
Speaker 7: fake economy.
Speaker 1: Everything they touch turns to one. You shouldn't use that
Speaker 1: la cata language.
Speaker 3: Look, look, you can't use the word okay, word is shi.
Speaker 5: But here he was correcting the crowd, being like, no,
Speaker 5: we're classier than this.
Speaker 6: How's that crowd?
Speaker 5: Though this is a blue state, this is New York,
Speaker 5: Yet they.
Speaker 6: Chowed up in throngs to cheery one.
Speaker 2: Trump is a great troll and a great entertainer.
Speaker 1: That's it from us.
Speaker 2: Stick around. Coming up in just a moment, it's the
Speaker 2: read the Penney Show.