Speaker 1: On Sky Wields Australia.
Speaker 2: This is the Winder Paney Show.
Speaker 3: Good evening and welcome to the Reader Paney Show. Coming
Speaker 3: up tonight, we have a digital only special and we've
Speaker 3: got the best of the best, the fabulous Panel featuring
Speaker 3: gab Power and Caroline Markers, the always insightful Kosure Gata
Speaker 3: on the latest from the US, and we do have
Speaker 3: a token mail tonight. My second favorite Texan Alex Stein
Speaker 3: will be here too.
Speaker 4: Let's jump right into it. Johnny min Now is host.
Speaker 3: Of The Power Hour, Gabriella Power and Sky News Senior
Speaker 3: reporter Caroline Marcus Ladies.
Speaker 4: Let's start with the University of Sydney.
Speaker 3: They're looking to hire a teen academics to help indigenize
Speaker 3: and decolonize their courses. One of the new roles is
Speaker 3: for a senior Education Design Officer who would be executing
Speaker 3: transformative curriculum projects aimed at embedding average regional and Torres
Speaker 3: Strait Islander knowledge perspectives, texts and media within curricula projects.
Speaker 4: Caroline, I'll start with you.
Speaker 3: Our students are prospective employers calling out for Sydney. You
Speaker 3: need to do this to decolonize the curriculum.
Speaker 5: I very much doubt it. I certainly haven't seen any
Speaker 5: such calls reader, But it's gener typical of our academia,
Speaker 5: isn't it. I mean, what does this even mean? Does
Speaker 5: decolonizing the curriculum mean you have to change the language
Speaker 5: because English is the language of the colonizers. After all,
Speaker 5: we're going to be expecting the students to do their
Speaker 5: courses in one of the many Aboriginal languages that there
Speaker 5: are in this country. Look, it's part of this sort
Speaker 5: of ridiculous move to decolonize everything. Just the other day
Speaker 5: we saw reports of moves to decolonized breastfeeding whatever that means.
Speaker 5: What Universe City of Sydney, which is the country's oldest university,
Speaker 5: should really be doing is de anti semitizing its campus
Speaker 5: because it was It holds the terrible honor of having
Speaker 5: the longest running pro Palestinian encampment on its grounds, which
Speaker 5: featured members of his book career and extremist Islamist group
Speaker 5: that the university failed to expel from its grounds who
Speaker 5: were part of these encampments, and its vice chancellor has
Speaker 5: had to apologize for Jewish students and staff for failing
Speaker 5: them so instead of putting their resources and their energies
Speaker 5: into tackling that racism. They introduced this whole new kind
Speaker 5: of segregation. It would seem a move to segregate Indigenous
Speaker 5: students from other races Australians, White Australians, foreign students. It's
Speaker 5: you know, it's completely mystifying to me, but it also
Speaker 5: doesn't surprise given what we see in institutions around this country.
Speaker 4: Gabby.
Speaker 3: We've seen universities using our money, our tax pay money
Speaker 3: to push this sort of activism, and I would say
Speaker 3: they're also selling false hope. We have so many junk
Speaker 3: degrees that really don't help the graduate find a good
Speaker 3: job and saddle them with debt, waste years of their time,
Speaker 3: and I'd like a little bit of focus on that
Speaker 3: because they seem to be just money making machines that
Speaker 3: are also in the business of activism.
Speaker 6: Absolutely, and I couldn't agree more with what Caroline said.
Speaker 6: Sydney University needs to do a better job of focusing
Speaker 6: on getting rid of its anti Semitism after those disgusting
Speaker 6: displays that we saw last year where anti Semitism was
Speaker 6: allowed to fester. We saw those anti Israel encampments taking
Speaker 6: place Jewish students targeted and this just comes as no
Speaker 6: surprise that this is what Sydney University is doing. And
Speaker 6: if somehow decolonizing the curriculum was going to somehow achieve
Speaker 6: better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, and of course I'd support it,
Speaker 6: I absolutely would.
Speaker 1: I think everyone would.
Speaker 4: But it is activism.
Speaker 6: It is going to make no difference to the lives
Speaker 6: of Indigenous Australians. And I completely agree with what Just
Speaker 6: Enterprise has had to say on this issue today. She
Speaker 6: said that the University of Sydney is trying to ingrain
Speaker 6: separatist notions. She said that this is just another example
Speaker 6: of a demonstration of an inner city elites just entrenching
Speaker 6: ideas of separatism on our education system. And her point
Speaker 6: that she makes is that the latest Closing the Gap
Speaker 6: data suggests that Indigenous Australians are still behind other Australians
Speaker 6: in year twelve completion rates, and also that targets for
Speaker 6: Indigenous children to be developmentally on track are worsening. And
Speaker 6: so these ideas, oh, these issues rather should be taking priority,
Speaker 6: not these ideological concerns such as decolonizing the curricula. And
Speaker 6: she's absolutely correct. The priorities are completely wrong. Warren Mundine,
Speaker 6: of course, like the no vote last year, also claims
Speaker 6: that this is just in doctrination. We're not seeing universities
Speaker 6: challenging ideas, challenging concepts that you know, this should be
Speaker 6: a place where we are really way more free and
Speaker 6: engage in freedom of academic study. This is absolutely outrageous,
Speaker 6: but again it doesn't surprise me. It comes after and
Speaker 6: it's not Sydney Union that's alone in this. We just
Speaker 6: saw recently Mcquarie University. It's now under a view for
Speaker 6: making sure that students were marked on their ability to
Speaker 6: deliver an acknowledgment of country. Its something that is just
Speaker 6: so tokenistic.
Speaker 3: Yep, we voted no in the race based referendum, but
Speaker 3: the universities, the academics are just ignoring the people's will
Speaker 3: and are pushing ahead. They're doubling down on this race
Speaker 3: based activism. Now let's turn our attention to Minique Ryan's
Speaker 3: seat of Qyong, where some of our supporters have been
Speaker 3: busy destroying signs promoting the liberal candidate. They're Melia Hamer. Yesterday,
Speaker 3: this vision of Monique Ryan's husband Peter Jordan, tearing down
Speaker 3: a poster made headlines around the country. Are you a
Speaker 3: Monique Ryan supporter of ripping down people's signs?
Speaker 7: Are you?
Speaker 8: Is that what you're doing?
Speaker 9: It belongs to me. Hey, you can take it off
Speaker 9: the property, but it belongs to me.
Speaker 10: If it goes back up, it'll be taken down again.
Speaker 11: There you go, Monique Ryan, There you go community values.
Speaker 3: You can see he's not very apologetic there. But after
Speaker 3: that vision made it to the media, he did apologize.
Speaker 3: But now a number of other instances of the til
Speaker 3: MP supporters vandalizing Amelia Hamer post have come to light,
Speaker 3: including this one interat This is not a very good
Speaker 3: look for the MP gab even though she's not the
Speaker 3: one who's participating in this, it is her campaign. Her
Speaker 3: own husband was caught doing this. Ah, how do you
Speaker 3: think the electorate is going to view this?
Speaker 6: How embarrassing for Minnie Ryan and her husband. Thank goodness,
Speaker 6: he was caught on camera for trying to take down
Speaker 6: that poster, walking away claiming that it was illegal. But
Speaker 6: I was speaking to people in Victoria in that electric
Speaker 6: yesterday and they were saying they were telling me that
Speaker 6: this is nothing new.
Speaker 4: But what is.
Speaker 6: Different about it is that this sign was getting taken
Speaker 6: down in broad daylight. The vision that you just played
Speaker 6: there is what has been occurring. If you've got a
Speaker 6: Liberal Party poster at the front of your home, it's
Speaker 6: likely not going to last twenty four hours. People from
Speaker 6: different campaigns are tearing them down and it's.
Speaker 4: Just such a poor reflection.
Speaker 1: But I think the.
Speaker 6: People in Kunon know what they're getting with Monique Ryan.
Speaker 6: We saw her side with the Greens in parliamentary votes,
Speaker 6: and this election is going to be such a different
Speaker 6: one than the previous election, where the Tears were just
Speaker 6: campaigning on climate change. Everyone is concerned about the cost
Speaker 6: of living crisis, and so I think Monique Ryan is
Speaker 6: really going to struggle. Obviously, this is not a good
Speaker 6: look for her. It's highly embarrassing and it says a
Speaker 6: bit about Monique's Menique Ryan's husband I should say.
Speaker 3: Well, yes, I'm surprised he wasn't wearing a mask when
Speaker 3: he was out there taking posters, because we know how
Speaker 3: much Monique Ryan loves a mask.
Speaker 12: Caroline.
Speaker 3: It's quite amusing because at the twenty twenty two election,
Speaker 3: Monique Ryan actually released a statement pledging and I quote
Speaker 3: here not to alter or damage the election collateral or
Speaker 3: electoral properties of other candidates, but it seems a husband
Speaker 3: and a number of her supporters don't share those sentiments.
Speaker 5: Well, either they've decided to move away from that promise
Speaker 5: or should they're just acting on their own accord. What
Speaker 5: I found pretty shocking in that video was how brazen
Speaker 5: it was of her husband. Not only did it happen
Speaker 5: in broad daylight, but I mean he's walking across the
Speaker 5: street with this huge poster on his arm. The person
Speaker 5: who caught him on camera was the homeowner's son. He
Speaker 5: asks him repeatedly, who are you?
Speaker 4: What's your name?
Speaker 5: And he refuses to say, as if that wouldn't come
Speaker 5: out at some point it was, and then he obviously
Speaker 5: issues this belated apology once he is called and the
Speaker 5: footage goes on air and it goes viral. A little
Speaker 5: bit late for that, But you know, the other thing
Speaker 5: that the Teals campaigned on was, of course, integrity. Not
Speaker 5: just Monique Ryan, but all the Teals promised to have
Speaker 5: more integrity as a party. Wanted to call it out,
Speaker 5: wanted to call out the bullying, the shouting, And yet
Speaker 5: we see time and time again how either the Teals themselves,
Speaker 5: or their supporters, or even their spouse in this case
Speaker 5: engage in that same kind of conduct which has the
Speaker 5: polar opposite of integrity. You know, we've seen Zalie Staggle
Speaker 5: shout abuse at the Opposition leader Peter Dutton, having to
Speaker 5: withdraw her comments for calling him a racist on the
Speaker 5: floor of Parliament. We've seen a legros spender, the Teal
Speaker 5: MP for Wentworth just yesterday have to apologize for failing
Speaker 5: to declare another three trusts that she had she hadn't
Speaker 5: disclosed or log that came after seven companies that she
Speaker 5: failed to disclose. She said these were oversights, but this
Speaker 5: is not what they themselves campaigned on and people do
Speaker 5: need to see, voters, do you need to see that
Speaker 5: they're getting a politician like any other politician in many
Speaker 5: respects and sometimes even worse.
Speaker 3: Now, let's get the latest on the disaster that is
Speaker 3: Disney's reimagining of a snow White, the film with the
Speaker 3: lead actress Rachel Zegler campaigned for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 4: That hasn't helped.
Speaker 13: Think oh for Kamala Harris, and it's actually non negotiable.
Speaker 13: Our rates are on the line, folks, are reproductive rates.
Speaker 13: Come on Gov Up Blue and if you disagree with
Speaker 13: the sentiment.
Speaker 4: Just set the on follow button. I don't need your business. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Well, the reviews are in, and it's a film that
Speaker 3: has been widely panned. Even the most progressive publications really
Speaker 3: had nothing nice to say about it. It seems nothing
Speaker 3: will save this disaster. Let's look at some of the reviews.
Speaker 3: Just some of the summaries here. Lazy and visually repellent,
Speaker 3: said The Independent, Exhaustingly all full and toe curlingly terrible,
Speaker 3: said The Guardian. The most controversial Disney adult nightmare ever
Speaker 3: said Rolling Shown. A strange hot mess, said the Huffington Posts.
Speaker 3: And good enough for TV, said Vanity Affairs. That's possibly
Speaker 3: the most positive review we've found there. The box office
Speaker 3: figures aren't great either. It earned eighty seven million on
Speaker 3: its global debut against the estimated two hundred and fifty
Speaker 3: million it costs. Now, we see it will make more money,
Speaker 3: but you compare that to what The Lion King released
Speaker 3: back in twenty nineteen May. Just in America, in its
Speaker 3: first weekend, it was one hundred and ninety one million,
Speaker 3: So their expectations, obviously when they spend that sort of money,
Speaker 3: were a lot higher. Caro, it is a hot mess.
Speaker 3: Can they salvage something out of this?
Speaker 5: Oh? I don't think so, I really don't. I mean,
Speaker 5: eclomy shocks. But when you have the lead actress playing,
Speaker 5: you know, the title role in the film, coming out
Speaker 5: and alienating half of its potential audience by saying that
Speaker 5: Trump supporters, Trump voters and Trump himself should never know
Speaker 5: peace f Donald Trump. That's another one of her lines
Speaker 5: in the lead up to this film. What do you
Speaker 5: honestly expect? I mean, they had to stop actually promoting
Speaker 5: this film because the promotions itself were so bad. I mean,
Speaker 5: it's not just the politics of the main actress. It's
Speaker 5: everything from casting someone who is of mixed race in
Speaker 5: a role that is literally supposed to be about a
Speaker 5: woman whose skin is as white as snow, from taking
Speaker 5: out the seven wolves from the title of the movie
Speaker 5: because that's now seen as too problematic somehow. You know,
Speaker 5: Rachel Zegler was supposed to believe is just so striking
Speaker 5: that even the supermodel like Gal Goodot is supposed to
Speaker 5: be homicidically jealous of her. I mean, we're supposed to
Speaker 5: completely suspend our disbelief in this movie, apparently, And I
Speaker 5: just feel like she has this intense hatred for the
Speaker 5: material that she's working with.
Speaker 3: She called it weird.
Speaker 5: She said, the Prince literally stalks snow wide in the movie,
Speaker 5: and they didn't want to do that. So it's just
Speaker 5: everything from the contempt for the original material, to the politics,
Speaker 5: to the casting has been a huge problem for this.
Speaker 5: And I have to say, I'm very much at the
Speaker 5: age where I'm reading fairy tales to my children and
Speaker 5: it is refreshing to go back to those old classics
Speaker 5: that existed before a time of political correctness and wokeness,
Speaker 5: you know, went mental with these stories and just engage
Speaker 5: in some good old fashioned storytelling for children. So I
Speaker 5: will not be showing them this remake. I think I
Speaker 5: will stick with the original.
Speaker 3: Well, no, because you'd have to watch it with them
Speaker 3: and that would be painful. Yab Caroen mentioned the fact
Speaker 3: that that the seven Dwarves aren't in this and again,
Speaker 3: this supposedly progressive, tolerant, compassionate point of view, or we
Speaker 3: can't have dowarves. That's depriving seven actors of jobs, actors
Speaker 3: who don't actually get that many offers. And this is
Speaker 3: a film, a motion picture where they would have earned
Speaker 3: good money. Would have had amazing publicity and they're deprived
Speaker 3: of that because I don't know, because woe Hollywood has
Speaker 3: decided even featuring dwarves in a title is somehow politically incorrect.
Speaker 6: Absolutely, and it kind of goes to Caroline's point that
Speaker 6: that's clear that there was some contempt for the original material,
Speaker 6: the fact that the dwarves weren't featured. Some of the
Speaker 6: comments that Rachel Zegler made, and you know, there is
Speaker 6: so much to say about her, just infuriating to watch
Speaker 6: some of the clips that you just played earlier, rita
Speaker 6: of her on the camp in the election campaign last year,
Speaker 6: promoting Kamala Harris. And you know, I think it's really
Speaker 6: on her to go back and correct the record now
Speaker 6: because she was spreading a lot of fear and disinformation
Speaker 6: that it was a campaign saying that, you know, reproductive
Speaker 6: rights are on the line. Now that we've got Donald
Speaker 6: Trump as president. I think she owes the American people
Speaker 6: an apology that actually reproductive rights were not on the line.
Speaker 6: There's no national abortion ban. Trump is putting measures in
Speaker 6: place to actually support people going through IVF. But I
Speaker 6: doubt Rachel Zegler is ever going to give Trump credit
Speaker 6: or correct the record herself, but she has made so
Speaker 6: many comments which show that she does have contempt for
Speaker 6: the original material. As Caroline suggested, she seems to be
Speaker 6: quite impressed that it's this woke remake and people aren't
Speaker 6: buying it. You know, you went through the figures earlier,
Speaker 6: but only forty three million dollars in ticket sales for
Speaker 6: the opening weekend on a film that costs two hundred
Speaker 6: and fifty million dollars.
Speaker 4: That's not a lot of money.
Speaker 6: You went through and highlighted some comparison, So The Lion
Speaker 6: King in twenty nineteen one hundred and ninety one million dollars,
Speaker 6: Beauty and the Beast in twenty seventeen one hundred and
Speaker 6: seventy four million dollars. People do not want to watch
Speaker 6: this new woke remake of this movie, and it's been
Speaker 6: in trouble for a while. You know, they scaled back
Speaker 6: the premiere that they were supposed to have. There's been
Speaker 6: a lot of controversy over the kind of political commentary
Speaker 6: that Rachel Zegler has made and speaking to lots of
Speaker 6: different people, even some of my friends that have no
Speaker 6: interest in politics, go why they're ruining this movie? It's
Speaker 6: a film that we all loved, it's a fairy tale,
Speaker 6: and then all of a sudden it's being rewritten. And
Speaker 6: you know, some of the comments that Rachel Zegler has
Speaker 6: made are just going viral online for all the wrong reason.
Speaker 6: She's so out of touch, and I think it really
Speaker 6: puts a bit of pressure on Disney about where it's heading.
Speaker 6: Are they going to get keep doing these remakes where
Speaker 6: they have to try and make them work or change
Speaker 6: the narrative and change the story completely doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 4: Well, they could just write a new story.
Speaker 3: I means, you don't have to take a classic fairy
Speaker 3: tale that's been loved for generations and destroy it. You
Speaker 3: can just write a new story about an empowered girl
Speaker 3: who wants to be a great leader and not call
Speaker 3: it snow white. Now, talk about Gwen Stefani. She could
Speaker 3: be your sister, Carrie. You to look very much alike.
Speaker 3: But this poor woman is facing This is a massive
Speaker 3: pop star, has been for well decades now, but she's
Speaker 3: facing this tsunami of hate, probably unlike anything she's experienced
Speaker 3: in her career. Or because she praised a video featuring
Speaker 3: Tucker Carlson. This was on X and she called it
Speaker 3: an enlightening, intelligent, beautiful interview. Caro, it was an interview
Speaker 3: where they were discussing God, Christianity, and yet for the
Speaker 3: feral left, just the fact that Tucker Carlson was involved
Speaker 3: was enough to see her viciously trolled.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and she's been called now this full on MAGA
Speaker 5: supporter just because she.
Speaker 6: Tweeted that there's nothing wrong with that.
Speaker 5: Not that there's anything wrong with that, but this is
Speaker 5: how the left and they cancel culture operates because it
Speaker 5: was acceptable to enjoy Gwen Stefani's music when she was
Speaker 5: a Democrat supporter, which she was and a donor. She
Speaker 5: hasn't even said that she is a Trump supporter, by
Speaker 5: the way, she hasn't even come out and had to
Speaker 5: say that. It's just these little clues that people are
Speaker 5: picking up on that Ooh, she may be an evil
Speaker 5: red hat wearing supporter. We can't support her. And people
Speaker 5: are saying, oh, she must follow her husband, Blake Shelton's
Speaker 5: politics because he's probably a Republican. He's a country singer.
Speaker 5: I mean, isn't that quite sexist in itself? Ultim believe
Speaker 5: that she can't have her own views as a woman,
Speaker 5: she must be taking her husband's views, but far from me.
Speaker 5: It to be it for me to suggest that, you know,
Speaker 5: democrats may be sexist. Look, no, it's ridiculous. Gwen Stefani
Speaker 5: is a cult icon, but she's constantly had these jabs
Speaker 5: being taken at her and from her music being problematic
Speaker 5: because it featured Japanese Harry Heiri girls and ridiculous, just ridiculous.
Speaker 3: The whole thing is ridiculous. So we've run out of time, Gab.
Speaker 3: But Blake Shelton's involvement is also hilarious. The fact that
Speaker 3: he's a country singer, so you must definitely be a
Speaker 3: Republican and if he's marrying her, then she must be
Speaker 3: a Republican. But yeah, this is the celebrity world. This
Speaker 3: is the feral Left. They think they own singers, actors, athletes,
Speaker 3: and any of them deviating from that group think of
Speaker 3: the left, they get attacked like this is a warning
Speaker 3: to others.
Speaker 4: Ladies.
Speaker 3: It's been a pleasure, thanks for your time tonight. Now
Speaker 3: it's time for left is losing it. This next clip
Speaker 3: is delicious. It's got my favorite ingredient, a big fat
Speaker 3: dose of instant karma. Watch here are some deranged Karen
Speaker 3: accosts a man on the New York subway for the
Speaker 3: crime of wearing a mega cap.
Speaker 4: She felt emboldened to be.
Speaker 3: A nasty blee, after all, she's in deep blue New York.
Speaker 3: But listen as others in the carriage tell her to
Speaker 3: back off, and they also tell her that people like
Speaker 3: her are the reason why Trump won. Enjoy and the
Speaker 3: best bit is about to come because this maga hating
Speaker 3: loser is about to land flat on her face.
Speaker 11: Literally, how good is that?
Speaker 4: Can you believe?
Speaker 3: That crazy woman chase that poor kid? As I said,
Speaker 3: instant karma. Now, the Democrats are in all sorts of trouble.
Speaker 3: Their approval rating is under thirty percent in the twenties,
Speaker 3: and the party is now being taken over by the
Speaker 3: lunious far left radical commis to ever be elected to
Speaker 3: public office in the United States. Among them is this
Speaker 3: charmer from the great state of Texas. Let's listen to
Speaker 3: how Jasmine Crockett used to sound.
Speaker 14: No one could have told me that when I went
Speaker 14: down to Austin. Now, what's it's like a little bit
Speaker 14: over a year ago that I would be running for Congress.
Speaker 14: So it's not what my plan.
Speaker 3: Was, what a nice girl, but marvel here at the
Speaker 3: accent switch or code switch as the kids call it.
Speaker 4: The trans kids. They want to play the sports lord,
Speaker 4: have mercy. That is the biggest issue that we had,
Speaker 4: says Win.
Speaker 14: Since Win find the little trans child that is ruining
Speaker 14: your life, like I mean.
Speaker 3: I'm just like talk about Kamala two point zero, God forbid.
Speaker 3: And now that she's adopted this ghetto persona. Despite her
Speaker 3: private school education, including at the very expensive, very exclusive
Speaker 3: ro It's College, Jasmine has been accused of in citing violence.
Speaker 14: On March twenty ninth, It's my birthday and all I
Speaker 14: want to see happen on my birthday is for Eli
Speaker 14: to be taken down.
Speaker 4: Yes, what a nice girl.
Speaker 3: And here she talks about wanting to punch opponents, including
Speaker 3: Ted Kruz.
Speaker 14: I think that you punch.
Speaker 4: I think you punch you.
Speaker 14: Okay, we're punching, but.
Speaker 4: Like it's dere Cruz.
Speaker 14: I mean like this dude has to be knots over
Speaker 14: the head like hard, right, Like there is no niceties
Speaker 14: with him, like at all, Like you you go clean.
Speaker 15: Off on him, right?
Speaker 3: Yes, the modern Democrats are the party of Neo Marxis,
Speaker 3: like IOC and Bernie Sanders. They're leading the party right now,
Speaker 3: leading them straight to the depths of hell.
Speaker 4: Isn't just about Republicans either.
Speaker 8: We need a Democratic party that fights harder for us too.
Speaker 9: We have a message for mister Trump, and.
Speaker 7: That is.
Speaker 2: We will not allow you to move this country into
Speaker 2: an oligarty.
Speaker 3: No wonder Gavin Usam is trying to relaunch himself as
Speaker 3: a moderate, not the far left governor of California. He's
Speaker 3: got a fair bit of baggage. Even CNN can see that.
Speaker 3: What chere as he claims that no one in his
Speaker 3: office would use the woke term LATINX latinxes, I like
Speaker 3: to say, except well someone did.
Speaker 15: By the way, not one person ever in my office
Speaker 15: has ever used the word LATINX.
Speaker 4: So can we finally put that to bad Yeah?
Speaker 1: But where did that even know?
Speaker 15: More LATINX everybody? Well, I just didn't even know where
Speaker 15: it came from. And like, what are people talking about?
Speaker 4: But there was a person who used LATINX. It was
Speaker 4: actually a really important person.
Speaker 5: It was him, right, Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4: And look, these aren't minor shifts.
Speaker 6: These are progressive issues that Gavin Newsom used to champion
Speaker 6: until fairly recently, and now he's not just walking away
Speaker 6: from them, he's sort of acting like they were never legitimate.
Speaker 15: I hope we can really putterly paint a picture in
Speaker 15: terms consciousness of how impactful this has been on the
Speaker 15: LATINX community. LATINX community, the LATINX and black communities got
Speaker 15: politicians that are banning not assault rifles, but the word LATINX.
Speaker 4: They're not even serious joining me now?
Speaker 3: Is Sky News contributor Kosha geta kosher We just saw
Speaker 3: Gavin News him there. He must see a golden opportunity
Speaker 3: here to appear like the moderate, the sane, sensible choice.
Speaker 3: But given how rady cool he has been a San
Speaker 3: Francisco mayor as California governor, can you really pull it off?
Speaker 4: Or is there's just too much baggage.
Speaker 16: There's a lot of baggage, and in this era we
Speaker 16: live in with unlimited videotape and clips immediately come out
Speaker 16: to counter them. It's really hard to just completely brush
Speaker 16: under the rug what you've done. But I do think
Speaker 16: the right should dismiss him at their own peril because
Speaker 16: he is a very savvy operator. He presents very well,
Speaker 16: he's good looking, has the hair, is now he's doing
Speaker 16: this thing of inviting right wing people onto his podcast.
Speaker 16: It's all part of the strategy because he does see,
Speaker 16: as you say, a void in there, there is an
Speaker 16: obvious leader. He's crafting his entry onto the national stage
Speaker 16: for obvious reasons, and we'll.
Speaker 4: See if it works.
Speaker 16: Well, see if it works. I find it difficult just
Speaker 16: because his record is so far left outside of the
Speaker 16: means from the party, and that will come out.
Speaker 3: Like he's had just significant failures in California. But like
Speaker 3: you said, he's going to have the media on his side.
Speaker 3: He's very good looking, he's charismatic. People who are not
Speaker 3: particularly engaged in politics would I think, be a little
Speaker 3: bit bamboozled by his presentation. He seems like someone who
Speaker 3: is competent. But then you look at what's happening in
Speaker 3: California and it's a mess.
Speaker 16: It is, and I think the wildfires as an example.
Speaker 16: You know, things feed because memories are short, but just
Speaker 16: the video and the imagery around that is going to
Speaker 16: live on for a very long time. And he presided
Speaker 16: over that along with others. So I do think he's
Speaker 16: got an uphillar battle, but do not discount him.
Speaker 3: Now mentioned Jasmine Crockett's ill considered comments. Earlier, Attorney General
Speaker 3: Pam Bondi has had this warning for the Democrat after
Speaker 3: she was accused of inciting violence.
Speaker 1: Now you have this congresswoman Crockett who is calling for
Speaker 1: attacks on Elon Musk on her birthday. Let's take him
Speaker 1: out on my birthday, she says. Yet she turns and says, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm not calling for violence. Well, she is an elected
Speaker 1: public official, and so she needs to tread very carefully.
Speaker 3: Elon Musk has death threats against incredible death threats, many
Speaker 3: of them. You would think any politician would not be
Speaker 3: pouring fuel on that fire. And those comments where you
Speaker 3: think they amount to incitement or not, they're unwarranted.
Speaker 16: Absolutely. So the bar for legal standard for incitement is
Speaker 16: very very high for good reason in the US. And
Speaker 16: as long as they're playing with words, you know, it's
Speaker 16: just words. But they do skirt awfully close to that
Speaker 16: line and be that as it made. It's not about
Speaker 16: legal adjudication, it's about just what a leader of a
Speaker 16: constituency should behave like. But the thing is that they
Speaker 16: do have a political shield where they know that it
Speaker 16: is difficult for Pamboni or somebody on the other side
Speaker 16: to really go after them and litigate them even if
Speaker 16: that's true. So they use that and that's why you
Speaker 16: see her. You see Maxine Waters comes to mind. She
Speaker 16: used to see pushback. You had Chuck Schumer reaping the
Speaker 16: whirlwind against the Supreme Court on the steps. You had
Speaker 16: Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey seeing openly that he's
Speaker 16: eating in a betting and illegal on top of his garage,
Speaker 16: which is against the laws. So they're definitely coming very
Speaker 16: close to that line. And we'll see how much the
Speaker 16: other side pushes back.
Speaker 3: And this is after a Republican was shot during a
Speaker 3: baseball game, Steve Scilice, and it seems to have really
Speaker 3: not sent the message home that they do have lunatic
Speaker 3: supporters who could take something that he said, even if
Speaker 3: it's kind of ingest, kind of not and do some damage.
Speaker 4: Now we talked about.
Speaker 3: Who's going to be the next lead day is at AOC?
Speaker 4: Is it Bernie Sanders?
Speaker 7: Is it?
Speaker 3: Gavin Usen? Kamala Harris is the one who's leading the polls.
Speaker 3: This is how badly the Democrats going. The failed presidential
Speaker 3: candidate is the most popular option for twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 3: according to a recent pole. Surely she can't run again.
Speaker 3: Do you think she has the appetite to do it?
Speaker 3: And would they be stupid enough to run her again?
Speaker 3: Because she was a uniquely terrible candidate appetite.
Speaker 16: I think she very well made invisibility. We've seen that
Speaker 16: before because she has never won anything competitive. She's great
Speaker 16: at getting appointed.
Speaker 5: She's really good at.
Speaker 16: Climbing the internal machinery of the Democrat Party. Yes, her
Speaker 16: positions in California were elected, but in California, as long
Speaker 16: as you're the chosen one within the Democrats are pretty
Speaker 16: much guaranteed that position. And we've seen how she's done
Speaker 16: every other which way. I think those pools just have
Speaker 16: recency bias, that she's frashened people's minds. So she palls well,
Speaker 16: but it's.
Speaker 4: Not gonna last.
Speaker 3: And I think there's a little bit of sympathy because
Speaker 3: she did lose and lost badly, lost the popular vote,
Speaker 3: lost every swing state. So I would imagine if you're
Speaker 3: a Democrat, you'd feel a little bit sorry for her.
Speaker 3: And this was a poll of Democrats and left leaning independence.
Speaker 3: Now let's play this clip of Bill. He's among those
Speaker 3: who can read the data and read it well and
Speaker 3: see the blue states are losing population, They're losing people,
Speaker 3: and they're losing power.
Speaker 2: California is projected to lose three seats, New York two
Speaker 2: also going to lose a seat. Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Speaker 2: Illinois or blue states. Who's getting these Texas, Florida, Idaho,
Speaker 2: and Utah. I mean, this looks like game over.
Speaker 4: It's very interesting, isn't it.
Speaker 3: Because there has been a lot of fear that all
Speaker 3: these Californians and New Yorkers, all these left leaning people
Speaker 3: moving to places like Tennessee and Texas and Florida, we're
Speaker 3: going to turn those states purple or perhaps blue down
Speaker 3: the track that were going to take their voting records
Speaker 3: with them. But perhaps it's actually going to work the
Speaker 3: other way, that their population shift is going to see
Speaker 3: more power for the red states.
Speaker 16: So there's another counter dynamic at play. So the thing
Speaker 16: underputting this, as you see is it's mass exodus from
Speaker 16: states and cities and counties that they ruined with far
Speaker 16: left policies, and then they themselves don't want to live
Speaker 16: in them, whether it's taxes or cultural things or everything else.
Speaker 16: So they believe and crime yeap things that really affect
Speaker 16: your day to day real life, and there is that
Speaker 16: problem on the downstream trickle effect of that in local
Speaker 16: elections and the people that end up coming in they
Speaker 16: do drift the lifestyle of the red states more blue.
Speaker 16: But the counter dynamic over here that Bill Maher is
Speaker 16: touching on is just a straight up mathematics because the
Speaker 16: House seats are based on apportionment. If suddenly two percent
Speaker 16: of the population moves from California to wherever Florida, then
Speaker 16: they lose to house seats Florida gains. And also he
Speaker 16: didn't mention this, but it would impact the electoral votes potentially,
Speaker 16: which is based on the same thing census counting of
Speaker 16: the population in each state, and that magical path to
Speaker 16: victory of two seventy nine. It could look differently in
Speaker 16: a few years if enough of this recalibration happens.
Speaker 3: I do wonder if that trend is going to continue
Speaker 3: now that Trump is president, because.
Speaker 4: Is his impact going to be in our to keep people.
Speaker 3: In blue states or are they going to be even
Speaker 3: more likely to flee to the red states where they
Speaker 3: can see this alignment between that state and the White
Speaker 3: House and the policies that are being advocated.
Speaker 16: It's a good point because if the big picture improves
Speaker 16: the or role economy and wages and the job market
Speaker 16: and crime and all of that that's under his purview,
Speaker 16: maybe it'll make the left wing states more tolerable to them,
Speaker 16: because there is a lot to love about those states.
Speaker 16: California and New York have amazing things about them that
Speaker 16: people I'm sure the bar is hire to finally leave them.
Speaker 16: The problem is they think local politics and especially schools,
Speaker 16: where that's the stuff that really hits home. And as
Speaker 16: long as they keep letting boys play in girls sports
Speaker 16: and things like that, I do think you'll see families
Speaker 16: pick up and move.
Speaker 3: Now, this is a big stuff up for the Trump administration,
Speaker 3: and really, if this reporting is accurate, then heads need
Speaker 3: to roll. The leftist activist editor in chief of The
Speaker 3: Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg was included on a message chain
Speaker 3: in which top Trump administration officials discussed strikes against the
Speaker 3: Hucci terror group in Yemen. Kosha this would be a
Speaker 3: stunning breach of national security. One of the men in
Speaker 3: that message, China Defense Secretary Peter Hegsitt, was asked about
Speaker 3: the breach.
Speaker 8: Can you share how your information about war plans against
Speaker 8: the Hoopis and Yemen was shared with a journalist in
Speaker 8: the Atlantic, and where those details classified details.
Speaker 9: So you're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so
Speaker 9: called journalists who's made a profession of pedaling hopes his
Speaker 9: time and time again to include the I don't know
Speaker 9: the hopes is of Russia Russia, Russia, or the fine
Speaker 9: people on both sides hopes or suckers and losers hopes.
Speaker 9: So this is the guy that pedals in garbage is.
Speaker 1: What he does.
Speaker 3: Kosher whoever's responsible, I don't care who was an innocent mista,
Speaker 3: whether it was incompetence or malicious.
Speaker 4: They have to go.
Speaker 3: If this is accurate, it is such an enormous breach,
Speaker 3: and you would just think in the second Trump term,
Speaker 3: mistakes like this can't happen.
Speaker 16: It's not good and they have very little margin fair
Speaker 16: so on the merits of it already because it's about
Speaker 16: a military strike national security. Potentially we haven't seen all
Speaker 16: the messages that were in there, but potentially there was
Speaker 16: classified or highly sensitive at least materials being used in
Speaker 16: that channel. And then this journalist who is not a
Speaker 16: friend of the administration at all, accidentally or maybe it
Speaker 16: was sabotage.
Speaker 10: I don't know.
Speaker 16: We'll find out. We may never find out. I think
Speaker 16: the issue is if it was Mike Walls in particular,
Speaker 16: that's one thing that's out there in the reporting. He
Speaker 16: also does bring a lot to the table national Security advisor,
Speaker 16: and so the role he's playing with negotiating all these
Speaker 16: deals globally, I'm sure President Trump will weigh that opposite,
Speaker 16: you know, this breach if it were at staff for
Speaker 16: a little bit different. And I'll also make the point
Speaker 16: that it would show I think leadership if they did something,
Speaker 16: especially if it's a staffer, because the same has not
Speaker 16: happened in other branches, like the Supreme Court never told
Speaker 16: us who lickd the Dobs decision, which was definitely malpractice
Speaker 16: or sabotage. And if he does that over here, I
Speaker 16: think it's a good message, but we'll find out.
Speaker 3: It's incredible because the journalist that's involved in this, Jeffrey Goldberg,
Speaker 3: is no ordinary journalist, no ordinary editor. He has been
Speaker 3: at the forefront complicit in multiple hoaxes and anti Trump propaganda,
Speaker 3: including the Fine People hoax. So for him to be
Speaker 3: the one involved, I think is astonishing. We will have
Speaker 3: to wait and see just what the real truth is
Speaker 3: behind this story.
Speaker 4: Now, let's talk about the peace.
Speaker 3: Still between Russia and Ukraine that's being negotiated, and the
Speaker 3: New York Post reports that despite the very tense meeting
Speaker 3: with the US president last month, Ukrainian President Zelenski believed
Speaker 3: Trump remains Ukraine's strongest weapon against Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 3: President Zolenski believes Trump is looking for a big win
Speaker 3: on the world stage by ending the war, and he
Speaker 3: said if he wants to, Trump can squeeze concessions from
Speaker 3: the Russians because he seems to be the only one
Speaker 3: that Putin fears. Zelenski said that to Time magazine. It
Speaker 3: was his first interview since that Oval Office dust up.
Speaker 3: It's been interesting to see how the fallout from that
Speaker 3: has progressed. We saw Europe beating its chest and making
Speaker 3: all sorts of pronouncements about boots on the ground, but
Speaker 3: it's gone back to the US negotiating this piece. Still,
Speaker 3: it's gone back to precisely what the White House wanted all.
Speaker 16: Along, return to the fundamentals. After all that doest settled.
Speaker 16: He's right, I think a lot of the points he
Speaker 16: made President Zelenski in that piece where he says that
Speaker 16: ultimately the US is his strongest weapon true because without
Speaker 16: the US, they don't stand a chance. Was famously put
Speaker 16: out into public and that meeting.
Speaker 4: It's true.
Speaker 16: I think he was honest when he said that Trump
Speaker 16: is the one person Putin fears, and we can litigate
Speaker 16: that word, but at least he wasn't saying Trump is
Speaker 16: Putin's puppet, which is something that the other side has
Speaker 16: been saying for far too long, and he is right.
Speaker 16: The third thing he said is that the US can
Speaker 16: squeeze Russia if they want. I think that's the key here.
Speaker 16: That the administration may not necessarily want that because they
Speaker 16: look through the lens of realism. They want to recalibrate
Speaker 16: US and Russia relationships. Doesn't mean it's perfect, doesn't mean
Speaker 16: everybody is perfect, but is that a better strategy for
Speaker 16: advancing US interests when you look at China and everything else?
Speaker 16: And that's kind of where he's going, So that's what
Speaker 16: they're looking at. Legacy does matter to Trump for sure,
Speaker 16: and the administration they want the win for political and
Speaker 16: legacy reasons. All of that is true. And if there's
Speaker 16: enough alignment across all the players on the chessboard, then
Speaker 16: hopefully a deal happens soon.
Speaker 3: And do you get the impression that what's best for
Speaker 3: the US is going to be at the heart of
Speaker 3: this steal. Of course, going to try to negotiate Advanche
Speaker 3: is still for Ukraine, but it also has to benefit America,
Speaker 3: because that's everything that.
Speaker 4: Trump cares about.
Speaker 3: And this point about putin fearing Trump that Zelenski made well,
Speaker 3: the fact that he didn't do anything during Trump's first
Speaker 3: term and now seems to be cooperating for now. It
Speaker 3: says something because we've seen him behave very differently with
Speaker 3: Biden and.
Speaker 16: Barackob undeniably, and that point was made about the campaign.
Speaker 16: People get it intuitively, and I think that's also why
Speaker 16: the Trump administration they're going to try and negotiate, hopefully
Speaker 16: as something with a lasting impact, because if the strategy
Speaker 16: is that he fears only the person in the White
Speaker 16: House now, that will end in three quarter years from now,
Speaker 16: and so putting in place something that is stickier would
Speaker 16: be beneficial for everybody.
Speaker 3: Well, there was that rumor that did the rounds and
Speaker 3: that the Trump camp did nothing to spell it that
Speaker 3: he threatened to bomb Moscow if Vladimir Putin's forces invaded
Speaker 3: Russia during his first term, and.
Speaker 4: Fuchsion obviously took that seriously.
Speaker 3: Whether whether he was ever going to follow through or
Speaker 3: not is a different story, but the doubt was enough
Speaker 3: to see him refrain from doing that.
Speaker 4: Koshagta, thank you so much for your.
Speaker 3: Time tonight, Joining me now is comedian and host of
Speaker 3: Primetime with Alex Stein on Blaze TV. Alex Elon Musk's
Speaker 3: transgender son has.
Speaker 4: Featured in teen Vogue.
Speaker 3: Vivian Jenna Wilson is also very active online.
Speaker 5: Would you give us some of your political beliefs?
Speaker 1: Kill everyone now, condone first degree murder, advocate cannibalism, felther
Speaker 1: my politics, felt is my life?
Speaker 3: Take whatever you like, and the twenty year old had
Speaker 3: plenty of nasty things to say about his father. He said,
Speaker 3: he's a pathetic man child. I'm not giving anyone that
Speaker 3: space in my mind. The only thing that gets to
Speaker 3: live free in my mind are drag queens. Alex Vivian's
Speaker 3: story is part of the reason why Elon Musk changed
Speaker 3: from a Democrat to a Republican, why he's so determined
Speaker 3: to do something about their woke mind virus, as he
Speaker 3: calls it, because his son started transitioning as a youngster.
Speaker 10: Well, you're exactly right. I mean, having your son to
Speaker 10: become a girl would be very traumatic, and I think
Speaker 10: that you would be able to easily see that it
Speaker 10: would be the indoctrination that these children are getting in
Speaker 10: the normal public schools or even the private schools. But
Speaker 10: what's happening here, Rita, and this is the problem that's
Speaker 10: happening in most schools when a young person decides to transition.
Speaker 10: We wouldn't let an eighteen year old, if you're under eighteen,
Speaker 10: get a tattoo. Why do we let young kids transition?
Speaker 10: The reason they do it, Rita, is because they want attention.
Speaker 10: And when your dad is one of the richest people
Speaker 10: in the world that is busy running ten different companies,
Speaker 10: how else can you get your father's attention other than
Speaker 10: trying to do something that's incredibly extreme, like changing your sex.
Speaker 10: So in a way, it is very sad. This story
Speaker 10: is very sad, But maybe it radicalized Elon Musk to
Speaker 10: speak out against this and actually change the narrative and
Speaker 10: you know, change the whole trajectory that we're currently on
Speaker 10: when it comes to this gender ideology and doctrination.
Speaker 3: Now we've spoken about the box office disaster that is
Speaker 3: Disney's Snow White, and the lead actress's delusions of grandeur
Speaker 3: are not helping here. She compares herself to a priceless
Speaker 3: piece of art, the winged victory.
Speaker 7: To everyone who hates when I win. The winged victory
Speaker 7: came to the Loop in pieces, and people still line
Speaker 7: up to see her.
Speaker 4: And I can only help.
Speaker 7: That despite my flaws, by my craps and my breaks,
Speaker 7: and there are many of them, at every premiere and
Speaker 7: everything I do, people will wait in line to see Alex.
Speaker 3: What has been the reaction to Disney is that life
Speaker 3: is expensive one goal.
Speaker 10: Well, the reaction has been absolutely horrible. It is the
Speaker 10: worst box office from a Disney live action remake that
Speaker 10: they've ever done. In Dumbo didn't do very well, but
Speaker 10: this is actually performing much lower than Dumbo. And this
Speaker 10: couldn't happen to a better person. In my opinion, Rachel
Speaker 10: is literally the star of a Disney movie, and she
Speaker 10: acts like she's some sort of victim, and that's the
Speaker 10: sort of mentality that is just poisoning people's minds, Like
Speaker 10: she acts like her life is so bad considering she's
Speaker 10: a multi millionaire actress living out every struggling actresses or
Speaker 10: actors dream, and she just kind of, you know, hand
Speaker 10: waves it like she's still some sort of victim, when
Speaker 10: in reality, she should be a movie star, she should
Speaker 10: be happy, she should be you know, a political or
Speaker 10: positive but she's not that way. She loves Kamala Harris.
Speaker 10: She was, you know, as woke as they are, and
Speaker 10: you know, you know, they're saying, you know, go woke,
Speaker 10: get broke, and Disney's going to lose money on this movie.
Speaker 10: And I believe it only made less than a million
Speaker 10: dollars in China, which is a huge indication that it
Speaker 10: will not do well globally.
Speaker 3: Oh goodness, may she didn't have a post saying if
Speaker 3: you're going to vote for Trump, just unfollow me, and
Speaker 3: I think a lot of people have just taken that
Speaker 3: advice and not supportive of her projects. And in fact,
Speaker 3: if the film is as bad as they say, you're
Speaker 3: not going to go along and watch it anyway. Now,
Speaker 3: another project that isn't doing it too well is Michelle
Speaker 3: Obama's podcast. The figures haven't been great and she's out
Speaker 3: there promoting, and you've got to give her credit for that.
Speaker 3: She's out there doing interviews, and in this one, she's
Speaker 3: asked about her political ambitions.
Speaker 12: When people ask me what I ever run, the answer
Speaker 12: is no, you know, I mean you then if you
Speaker 12: ask me that, then you have absolutely no idea the
Speaker 12: sacrifice that your kids make when your parents are in
Speaker 12: that world. I think we've done enough, question asked and answered,
Speaker 12: never going to happen, Alex.
Speaker 3: The Obamas have done enough. I think we can agree
Speaker 3: with that.
Speaker 10: Oh, they've done more than enough. But you know, I
Speaker 10: think there's real trouble in paradise. I think that's why
Speaker 10: you know she's not going to run. It's because her
Speaker 10: and Barock or you know, they're on the rocks, and
Speaker 10: she wants to blame her children, and you know that's
Speaker 10: her prerogative. But if her and Barock were still in love,
Speaker 10: I don't know why she wouldn't consider running for president,
Speaker 10: considering that she's probably more talented than Kamala Harris, and
Speaker 10: that is you were just talking about earlier. You know,
Speaker 10: that is who they predict to be the next candidate
Speaker 10: for the next presidential election. So they have nobody to
Speaker 10: put up or president that is actually likable, that has
Speaker 10: really achieved anything that is noteworthy. So I wouldn't be
Speaker 10: surprised if they tried to make her do this. But
Speaker 10: she's not going to run because her and Obama are
Speaker 10: obviously having relationship issues. So she has bigger fish to
Speaker 10: fry than trying to run for president.
Speaker 4: And that podcast.
Speaker 3: You are familiar with the medium, You would have participated
Speaker 3: in many successful podcasts. What would you advise her if
Speaker 3: you were her producer?
Speaker 4: How would you improve it?
Speaker 3: Because thus far it has been not exactly been compelling,
Speaker 3: and it hasn't been pulling in the figures.
Speaker 10: I mean, if you want my honest opinion, how does
Speaker 10: she make a successful podcast? It'd be easy just say
Speaker 10: she loves Donald Trump. If she became conservative, it would
Speaker 10: be the number one podcast. If she started talking like,
Speaker 10: oh I love Trump, everybody would have to go listen
Speaker 10: to it. So I'm just saying, if she wants numbers,
Speaker 10: she wants views, she should do the opposite of what
Speaker 10: we expected she should become. You know, she should be
Speaker 10: you know, a big Trump supporter Trump podcast. Think about
Speaker 10: the numbers that that would do.
Speaker 3: You know what you're onto something she doesn't even have
Speaker 3: to go that far.
Speaker 4: If she just.
Speaker 3: Deviates on one issue from the leftist group.
Speaker 4: Think, it can be anything.
Speaker 3: It could be men's in men in women's sport, it
Speaker 3: could be net zero craziness, It could be any number
Speaker 3: of policies. If she just took one of those and
Speaker 3: took a contrary position to the left, yes, it would
Speaker 3: have a huge reaction. Now, before you go, I'm going
Speaker 3: to ask you about the Venezuelan gang bangers being sent
Speaker 3: back to their home country, despite the fact that we've
Speaker 3: got activist judges, some of them appointed by Barack Obama,
Speaker 3: like Judge Patricia Millet, who are frustrating the efforts of
Speaker 3: the Trump administration to deport these gang bangers. This judge
Speaker 3: has even said, Alex that these prisoners are being treated
Speaker 3: worse than Nazis.
Speaker 4: What's your response to that.
Speaker 10: It's ironic that she compared flying Venezuelan gang bangers back
Speaker 10: to their home country of Venezuela as worse than the
Speaker 10: Nazis retreated, Considering after World War Two, it's a well
Speaker 10: known fact that a bunch of Nazis tried to run
Speaker 10: away to Venezuela, So that doesn't even make sense. She
Speaker 10: just doesn't even know her world's history. So trust me,
Speaker 10: those Nazis would love to be in Venezuela instead of
Speaker 10: the Nuremberg Trial. So she's insane. She's trying to handwave
Speaker 10: if I said that earlier, but she's trying to act
Speaker 10: like the Holocaust wasn't a big deal anytime she says that.
Speaker 10: And I hate that. I hate that they always use
Speaker 10: that term Nazi because it's just so misused and it's
Speaker 10: not what's happening to these Venezuelan immigrants. I got a
Speaker 10: free trip back home. I mean I would anybody would
Speaker 10: accept a free plane trip back home. We should have
Speaker 10: sent him back in the back of a bus my
Speaker 10: personal opinion, but you know I'm not Tom Holman.
Speaker 4: Alex Stean, thank you so much for your Tom tonight.
Speaker 10: Thank you read always a pleasure.
Speaker 3: And that's it for this special digital only edition. We'll
Speaker 3: be back to glob programming Wednesday evening, with Douglas Murray
Speaker 3: joining me at eleven pm.