Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Speaker 1: Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
Speaker 1: the information, all the debates of this now the Leyton
Speaker 1: Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to podcasts two hundred and forty five for July third,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four. Speaking of dates, nineteen ninety four saw
Speaker 2: the publication of a book with the title Lost Rights,
Speaker 2: The Destruction of American Liberty. It was the third book
Speaker 2: by libertarian journalist James Bouvart, who is now, by the way,
Speaker 2: written eleven books. Then in nineteen ninety nine came Freedom
Speaker 2: in Chains, The Rise of the State and the Demise
Speaker 2: of the Citizen. And I recall referencing this on properly
Speaker 2: quoted a bit. In fact, here's an example of what
Speaker 2: the book contained. Paternalism is a desperate gamble that lying
Speaker 2: politicians will honestly care for those who fall under their power.
Speaker 2: The night watchmen state has been replaced by highway robber states,
Speaker 2: governments in which no asset, no contract, no domain is
Speaker 2: safe from the fleeting whim of politicians. So much of
Speaker 2: political philosophy throughout history has consisted of concocting reasons why
Speaker 2: people have a duty to be tame animals in politicians' cages.
Speaker 2: The surest effect of exalting government is to make it
Speaker 2: easier for some people to drag others down. The growth
Speaker 2: of government is like the spread of a dense jungle,
Speaker 2: and the average citizen can hack through less of it
Speaker 2: every year. And trusting governments nowadays means dividing humanity into
Speaker 2: two classes, those who can be trusted with power to
Speaker 2: run other people's lives and those who cannot even be
Speaker 2: trusted to run their own lives. Now, I got feedback
Speaker 2: from somebody who told me that I was wrong. The
Speaker 2: book was wrong. There was no truth to it, and
Speaker 2: I suspected at the time, and I think eventually time
Speaker 2: has proven that James Bouvard was right on target, that
Speaker 2: the loss of rights doesn't matter whether it's America, Australia,
Speaker 2: New Zealand, Britain. The loss of rights, the invasion if
Speaker 2: you like, of more and more of what is now
Speaker 2: called the authoritarian state, has succeeded in doing what he
Speaker 2: suggested it would. So let's get to the year of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four. His latest book, Last Writes, The Death
Speaker 2: of American Liberty. The other books that I've got of
Speaker 2: his are all hardcover, so therefore there are cover flaps
Speaker 2: that I can refer to. The trouble with paperback is
Speaker 2: that there are no cover flaps. So from the West
Speaker 2: Coast Review of Books three hundred and thirty five well
Speaker 2: packed but easily read pages of condemnations. Seldom, if ever,
Speaker 2: I have so many egregious acts of government and officers
Speaker 2: been presented so succinctly as in this book at a
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal. Remarkable, astonishingly, broad, excellent. Mister Bouvard's unrivaled
Speaker 2: research has resulted in a virtual encyclopedia of modern government abuse.
Speaker 2: And I think that we can relate to that in
Speaker 2: this country, or any country, but particularly English speaking countries,
Speaker 2: which seem to becoming more and more prolific in their failings.
Speaker 2: So in the conversation to be had in a few moments,
Speaker 2: I can promise that you'll be impressed with his ability
Speaker 2: to cope with an unstructured interview, my favorite kind, his
Speaker 2: retention of events and details, and his sometimes intentional humor,
Speaker 2: sometimes not. We had a lot of fun, and I
Speaker 2: hope you enjoy it now a little bit of domestic housekeeping.
Speaker 2: Mister producer is enjoying herself in London. She'll be back
Speaker 2: in two weeks time, but she's having a great time
Speaker 2: with her girls and meeting up with old family and
Speaker 2: friends and what have you. I get two reports today
Speaker 2: and there's always a smile on her face. Well, the
Speaker 2: reason I mentioned that is because she's not going to
Speaker 2: be here for the mail room. But I've grabbed two
Speaker 2: or three letters that I wanted to share, and I
Speaker 2: will follow that with an opinion piece by a highly
Speaker 2: esteemed law professor with regard to the Supreme Court's historic
Speaker 2: presidential immunity decision. Everybody is talking about it. If they're
Speaker 2: not talking about it, it's only because they're writing about it.
Speaker 2: And I've never seen anything quite like it. So many frustrations,
Speaker 2: so many opinions of varying kinds, and the unwillingness of
Speaker 2: some people to understand exactly what the Supreme Court is
Speaker 2: there for. And I'll quote you that after the letters,
Speaker 2: there are essential fat nutrients that we need in our diets,
Speaker 2: as the body cart manufacture them. These are Omega three
Speaker 2: and Omega six fatty acids, Equisine is a combination of
Speaker 2: fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil, a formula that
Speaker 2: provides an excellent source of Omega three and Omega six
Speaker 2: fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios. The Omega six
Speaker 2: from evening primrose oil assists the Omega three fish oil
Speaker 2: to be more effective. Equisine is a high quality fish
Speaker 2: oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil that works synergistically
Speaker 2: for comprehensive health support. Source from the deep sea sardines
Speaker 2: Anchovisa magrol provide essential Amiga three fatty acids in their
Speaker 2: purest form without any internal organs or toxins. Every batch
Speaker 2: is tested for its purity before it's allowed to be sold.
Speaker 2: Equisine supports cells to be flexible, so important to support
Speaker 2: healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health. Equisine can support mood,
Speaker 2: balance and mental clarity and focus in children, all the
Speaker 2: way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus, brain health, and
Speaker 2: healthy eyes as we get older. It was in as
Speaker 2: a premium, high grade fish and evening primrose oil to
Speaker 2: be taken in addition to a healthy diet and is
Speaker 2: only available from pharmacies and health stores. Always read the
Speaker 2: label and users directed and if symptoms persist, seeing your
Speaker 2: healthcare professional. Farmer broker Auckland James Bovard. James is the
Speaker 2: author of eleven books, including the nineteen ninety four bestseller
Speaker 2: Lust Writes The Destruction of American Liberty Now just so
Speaker 2: happens when I made contact with Jim to do this podcast,
Speaker 2: because we spoke first of all, back in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: and we will make mentions of that, I'm sure in
Speaker 2: a moment. But I got in touch with him as
Speaker 2: the debate of last Friday Our Time was about to
Speaker 2: get underway, and I invited him on to the podcast,
Speaker 2: and after the debate was over, he sent me an acceptance,
Speaker 2: and one of the first things he said to me
Speaker 2: was I've got a new book out, and I thought, well,
Speaker 2: that's great. The new book is called Last Rites, and
Speaker 2: it's published thirty years after a book called Lost Rights
Speaker 2: that we discussed with James the first time we spoke.
Speaker 2: And I'm looking at it now and I've got green
Speaker 2: ink all over it where I have marked it for
Speaker 2: that particular interview. Thirty years between those two books, Lost
Speaker 2: Rights and Last Rites. Jim Bovart, it's great to have
Speaker 2: you back on the podcast. I'm thrilled that you were
Speaker 2: able to do it, and thank you.
Speaker 3: Hey, thanks so much for having me back on. I'm
Speaker 3: just glad that since we talked loud fun, that you
Speaker 3: were able to persuade your Prime minister to leave the country.
Speaker 2: I think that she got persuaded by all and sundry
Speaker 2: to be honest.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, she's certainly left a void in the hearts
Speaker 3: of people like you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's no room in my heart. I'm afraid. But
Speaker 2: she but she she claimed that she had run out
Speaker 2: of gas and didn't have enough to carry on at
Speaker 2: the time, something which I think proved itself to be incorrect.
Speaker 2: That was the reason that she gave, and that's what
Speaker 2: that's what they accepted, well, most people. But I think
Speaker 2: I think we've seen otherwise. I would I would prefer
Speaker 2: to suggest that because of the policies that she followed,
Speaker 2: the price of petrol went so high that she couldn't
Speaker 2: afford it to fill it up anymore.
Speaker 3: That's a good line. That's a good line.
Speaker 2: Now, Lost Rights and Lost Rights, the second book, which
Speaker 2: is new, was based as a follow one to the
Speaker 2: first book, Lost Rights, Was it not.
Speaker 3: It's fairly obvious to me. Yeah, well, you know, it's funny.
Speaker 3: Back when Last Rites came out in nineteen ninety four,
Speaker 3: people thought I was cynical, But you know, here we
Speaker 3: are thirty years down down the road, and the nineteen
Speaker 3: nineties looks like practically a golden era for American liberty
Speaker 3: compared to nowadays, because so many things have gotten so
Speaker 3: much worse. It was like it was like the politicians,
Speaker 3: both parties, presidents see so much power after the nine
Speaker 3: to eleven attacks, starting wars, setting torture loose around the world,
Speaker 3: and then then we had COVID, and it was a
Speaker 3: sign that the politicians could destroy far more rights and
Speaker 3: liberties than they ever thought possible. And there are so
Speaker 3: many dangerous precedents from that. There are me biting Americans
Speaker 3: in the backside for a long time.
Speaker 2: The other book that I have enjoyed of yours, not
Speaker 2: that there aren't more, I was or is Freedom and Change,
Speaker 2: The Rise of the States and the Demise of the Citizen.
Speaker 2: So this was ninety nine from memory that you published
Speaker 2: that twenty five years ago, and I look across to
Speaker 2: my bookshelf and I see won by Victor Davis Henson,
Speaker 2: The Dying Citizen. So we've got the rise of the
Speaker 2: States and the demise of the citizen, the dying citizen.
Speaker 2: Twenty five years later, how much of things changed in
Speaker 2: that twenty five years.
Speaker 3: Well, things have gotten a whole lot worse. And part
Speaker 3: of what's frustrating to me is here I am top
Speaker 3: thumping on this issue going back forty years now. But
Speaker 3: what's striking to me is that there was at the
Speaker 3: time I was coming of age in the seventies, maybe
Speaker 3: the eighties as well, there was still it was like
Speaker 3: a trade market of Americans. They were proud of their
Speaker 3: love of freedom and independence and basically telling the government
Speaker 3: to go screw itself. I mean that it was almost
Speaker 3: an American trademark. Maybe it was already fading a lot
Speaker 3: by that point, but nowadays folks have got a lot
Speaker 3: more docile attitude. There was a survey, a recent survey
Speaker 3: showed that over a recent survey that showed around thirty
Speaker 3: percent of young adults support mandatory government surveillance cameras inside
Speaker 3: the home to prevent domestic violence or other violations of
Speaker 3: the law. Now, if someone is so boneheaded that they
Speaker 3: want to have a government surveillance camera in their own home,
Speaker 3: they are lost souls. I mean, I guess I try to.
Speaker 3: I try to use intellectual triage in this sense. There
Speaker 3: are some people who can recognize this, or some people
Speaker 3: have got the instincts or the values. But when someone's
Speaker 3: in favor of having government surveillance cameras in their own
Speaker 3: home just to make sure that they don't don't misbehave,
Speaker 3: it's like, I mean, this is this is like a
Speaker 3: parody of a free society, of a free citizen. And
Speaker 3: it's interesting to see how this came out. During the
Speaker 3: COVID pandemic, I followed the government advisories closely, and I
Speaker 3: got a lot of laughs. And thanks to Anthony Fauci,
Speaker 3: I never had any rust build up in my cynicism.
Speaker 3: It was always out there. But something which I would
Speaker 3: do almost every weekend during the pandemic. I was out
Speaker 3: leading hikes because hey, we're outside. People need to get
Speaker 3: out and breathe and banter and joke and scoff at
Speaker 3: the government. And so there was a there was an
Speaker 3: old canal towpath from the eighteen twenties nearby here along
Speaker 3: the Potomac River, the scene now canal towpath, and so
Speaker 3: so I'd be leading hikes out there, and you know,
Speaker 3: I'm outside, and so I wasn't wearing a mask. And
Speaker 3: I literally had people screaming and cussing at me because
Speaker 3: I wasn't wearing a mask. And this is a towpath.
Speaker 3: There was wide enough for a team of mules, so
Speaker 3: it was basically wind enough for an eighteen wheel truck.
Speaker 3: And there was there was one guy. Actually it was
Speaker 3: about three years ago. I was walking along with the
Speaker 3: group and I was in front of the group and
Speaker 3: guy points at me like he'd seen Dracula and he
Speaker 3: holds his coat up above over his face and points
Speaker 3: at me. He says, you're not wearing a mask. And
Speaker 3: I felt like saying good one, sherlock, and I just
Speaker 3: said yep, and then just kept walking. And then he
Speaker 3: turns and shouts, you know, so you think your beard
Speaker 3: is a mask? And I just kind of shrugged and
Speaker 3: kept walking and then he shouts, your beard is ugly.
Speaker 3: So here I am. I'm walking along, there's simping to
Speaker 3: doing a hike, and I'm getting heckled for my beard
Speaker 3: because I'm not wearing a not wearing a COVID mask.
Speaker 3: But the mask didn't work. You're outside, your sunshine there's when.
Speaker 3: But it was like it brought out the cravenness and
Speaker 3: so many people, uh there was there were so many,
Speaker 3: So many governments were encouraging people to become narcs, to
Speaker 3: be phoning in reports of violators. A favorite example mine
Speaker 3: came from Massachusetts. Somebody went to a strip tees bar
Speaker 3: and filed a complaint that the stripper did not have
Speaker 3: a face mask.
Speaker 2: Did any of these people get put through i Q tests?
Speaker 2: You know, you could have You could have come to
Speaker 2: New Zealand. You could have spent you could have spent
Speaker 2: a couple of weeks in a hotel, and then you
Speaker 2: could have gone walking on some of our beautiful tracks.
Speaker 2: They're world famous, and you could have caught the same abuse.
Speaker 3: Really yeah, wow. I would have thought people in New
Speaker 3: Zealand would have been more reasonable, But obviously I'm ignorant.
Speaker 2: Well you've never been here, so you can be excused
Speaker 2: for being underinformed. I want to go back now and
Speaker 2: start with the because this was the reason, and then
Speaker 2: we'll come back and we'll spend plenty of time on
Speaker 2: last rite, the death of American liberty. But come back
Speaker 2: to to what I said at the beginning, and this
Speaker 2: was all about the debate. You watched it, I would imagine, Oh,
Speaker 2: how I suffered, didn't we all? I had to get
Speaker 2: up and walk around from time to time, which sort
Speaker 2: of relieved the shortness of breath that I was experiencing.
Speaker 2: But out of that And I don't want to spend
Speaker 2: too much time on this because I had plenty of
Speaker 2: discussion already. But what was your take once it was over,
Speaker 2: or if you prefer soon after it began?
Speaker 3: Well, actually I enjoyed watching it, so it was cat
Speaker 3: nep persnics. People have attacked me for the last couple
Speaker 3: of years because I've written a bunch of articles for
Speaker 3: New York Posts and other places pointing out that Biden
Speaker 3: is losing it, pointing out that Bien can't walk across
Speaker 3: the stage without falling over, sometimes pointing out that Bien
Speaker 3: did us UH five hours of interviews with the Special
Speaker 3: Council over his U five hours over the his crimes
Speaker 3: with federal documents were classified, and the Biden administration is
Speaker 3: fighting tooth and nail to prevent Americans from hearing the
Speaker 3: audio tapes of those interviews because they show how incredibly
Speaker 3: out of it is. But there were there were there
Speaker 3: were a lot of comments in there, which which I found,
Speaker 3: you know, fascinating. I mean, Biden was at one point
Speaker 3: was was attacking Trump for his position on abortion, and
Speaker 3: Biden talked about the huge problem with the young women
Speaker 3: who were raped by their sisters and therefore would need
Speaker 3: to have access to abortion. And this is not a
Speaker 3: problem I'd heard of before. So there was it was interesting.
Speaker 3: It was interesting Biden. Twelve years ago, Biden was a
Speaker 3: vice president, he debated Senator Tim Congressman Paul Ryan, who
Speaker 3: was the nominee for the Republicans. Biden was very quick.
Speaker 3: Biden put on one of the best performances of any
Speaker 3: president or vice president in debates, uh, since since the
Speaker 3: turn of the century. Very good, but I mean, he
Speaker 3: was Biden was. Biden in that debate was just kind
Speaker 3: of pawing and he wasn't able to fall up. And
Speaker 3: the worst news that he got from the host at
Speaker 3: one point is you still have eighty seconds left, and
Speaker 3: it's like he's this and he's just kind of struggling.
Speaker 3: And it was, I mean, and it was he was
Speaker 3: so badly couch a coach by the his White House
Speaker 3: staffers campaign team. Uh, there was there was a line
Speaker 3: he was doing his closing statement, he suddenly starts talking
Speaker 3: about lead pipes, and I'm thinking, you know, not a
Speaker 3: good idea to bring a lead pipe to a closing
Speaker 3: after how you performed tonight.
Speaker 2: It was a surprise, so it appears, so they claim
Speaker 2: to many many people Democrats specifically, I wasn't surprised in
Speaker 2: the slightest, were you.
Speaker 3: I was expecting Biden to do a little bit better.
Speaker 3: I was. I was thinking that they'd be able to
Speaker 3: get him, you know, pumped up like they did for
Speaker 3: the City of the the for the State of the
Speaker 3: Union address. Uh, I guess four or five months ago,
Speaker 3: when he actually performed much better than expected. I wasn't
Speaker 3: surprised that Biden did badly. Uh. And but it was
Speaker 3: clear from the first five minutes that he just wasn't
Speaker 3: talking well.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: There was there was someone who was kind of saying,
Speaker 3: well that Biden had actually Biden had Biden had won
Speaker 3: the debate if you looked only at the transcript, Well,
Speaker 3: it's hard to have a transcript when the guy's mumbling
Speaker 3: and just simply not enunciating well at all. So it's
Speaker 3: just it didn't make any sense. I mean, there was
Speaker 3: there was an answer he gave it about roe versus
Speaker 3: weight and the rules for the final trimester, final trimester
Speaker 3: of abortions, that that he just pulled it out of
Speaker 3: his backside. It was just there were so many things
Speaker 3: that were just completely wrong. He was claiming that that
Speaker 3: no US soldiers had died abroad during his term of office,
Speaker 3: and tell that to the widows of the Afghanists, the
Speaker 3: Americans killed in the Afghanist ce withdrawal. It was just,
Speaker 3: it was so out of touch, and it's it's actually
Speaker 3: kind of amusing to see the anguish of folks who
Speaker 3: have been covering for him. But there are so many folks,
Speaker 3: so many of these pundits and these big donors. They
Speaker 3: aren't upset by how Biden did. They're upset that Americas
Speaker 3: now saw it because it had been covered up.
Speaker 2: I want to I want to ask you about lies,
Speaker 2: the lies that we've lived through. Actually it's a Victor
Speaker 2: Davis Hanson Peace from from July, which is well for us.
Speaker 2: It was yesterday after last Thursday's debate, Biden himself laid
Speaker 2: to rest the Democratic lie that he was that he
Speaker 2: was robust and in control of his faculties. In truth,
Speaker 2: he demonstrated to the nation that he is a sad,
Speaker 2: failing octogenarian who could not perform any job in America
Speaker 2: other than apparently the easy task of presidents of the
Speaker 2: United States and the commander in chief in charge of
Speaker 2: our nuclear codes. Everybody is accusing everybody else, and this
Speaker 2: has been a growing plague of lying. He's a liar,
Speaker 2: He's a liar. Now you're a liar. How did it
Speaker 2: get to this point where people fail to understand who's
Speaker 2: lying and who's not.
Speaker 3: Well, perhaps the real problem is that people ever expected
Speaker 3: politicians not to be liars, because it's possible turn back
Speaker 3: the clock twenty five hundred years to Aristophanes and ancient
Speaker 3: Athens making jokes about paulicians just being the biggest liars
Speaker 3: and scant scoundrels scoundrels around And that's certainly that's our
Speaker 3: experience in this country. I think it's the experience in
Speaker 3: most countries where they have fairly open elections. Contested elections
Speaker 3: might be a better term. There was a There was
Speaker 3: a piece I did in October twenty twenty one month
Speaker 3: before the when Biden was first elected. He run against Bush,
Speaker 3: and I said Americans had to choose your liar election.
Speaker 3: Because both both Trump and Biden were just lying up
Speaker 3: and down and back and forth. It's still the same thing.
Speaker 3: Trump is not as dishonest as Biden, but I mean
Speaker 3: a lot of his ideas, a lot of the things
Speaker 3: he says are simply not accurate. But Trump can sound coherent,
Speaker 3: and that's you know, that's a big advantage when you're
Speaker 3: trying to con voters.
Speaker 2: Want to give you my opinion. Trump actually doesn't lie.
Speaker 2: You touched on it then and now and now I've
Speaker 2: forgotten already what you what you said. But Trump exaggerates,
Speaker 2: he embellishes, but I don't think he sets out to
Speaker 2: tell a lie, whereas others, and Biden's one of them. Obviously,
Speaker 2: go back to that first debate and that that question
Speaker 2: was regard to the to the to the laptop. Lied
Speaker 2: through his teeth and did it again and again, and
Speaker 2: it's only one example of thousands of them. Would you
Speaker 2: agree with you with with with my definition of each?
Speaker 3: I would I would agree with your definition. On Biden,
Speaker 3: I mean, folks forget and the final debate in October
Speaker 3: twenty twenty with Trump, Biden insisted that his family had
Speaker 3: never gotten any money from China, and this is just
Speaker 3: the biggest load of crap. I mean, at that point
Speaker 3: it wasn't a question of bribe or kickbacks or anything
Speaker 3: like that, but there was all kinds of money flowing
Speaker 3: from Chinese companies to various members of the Biden family,
Speaker 3: perhaps Joe himself. I'm not sure, but you know, Trump
Speaker 3: is okay. Back in the nineteen nineties, Back in the
Speaker 3: late eighties early nineties, I wrote a lot about agriculture
Speaker 3: policy and trade policy, and that was where I first
Speaker 3: learned that the things were special, and that in some
Speaker 3: ways New Zealand was one of the world leaders as
Speaker 3: far as moving to free market agriculture. I'm not sure
Speaker 3: if it's still the case, but they were doing far
Speaker 3: better than the US agriculture policy makers were Trump's comments
Speaker 3: about tariffs. So Trump wants to have a ten percent
Speaker 3: across the board tariff, which is just the dumbest damn
Speaker 3: idea around, because if you put a tariff on products
Speaker 3: which the US never produced and never will produce, it's
Speaker 3: simply attacks which multiple would multiplies as it's passed through
Speaker 3: the economy, and it cost it costs businesses and consumers
Speaker 3: far more than a benefits government and if you look
Speaker 3: at the impact of Trump's tariff policies in his first
Speaker 3: term in office, they were a disaster. But it's it's
Speaker 3: it's almost and it's sad because there's a big swath
Speaker 3: of conservatives now in America who are who are basically
Speaker 3: going back to you know, John Maynard Keynes as a
Speaker 3: guide for the economic policy. And and it's the same
Speaker 3: people who have no faith in politicians in general, somehow
Speaker 3: think that the US Commerce Department should be able to
Speaker 3: set prices for practically anything in this country by controlling
Speaker 3: and penalizing imports. And most of these folks have never
Speaker 3: even been to the Commerce Department. Uh, I was, you know,
Speaker 3: I spent I did a book on early nineties, and
Speaker 3: so I spent quite a bit of time there. There
Speaker 3: we was just all these bureaucrats walking down the hallway,
Speaker 3: and you could tell that it was possible to tell
Speaker 3: how many years it had worked for the Commerce Department
Speaker 3: by how low the seat of their parts hung.
Speaker 2: Intriguing.
Speaker 3: Maybe maybe not, Okay, maybe I'm telling too many jokes.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, No, no, no, no, it was I was
Speaker 2: listening intently. I was. I was un disavoided when you stopped.
Speaker 3: They said there, okay, waiting, where's the punchline? Okay, he's
Speaker 3: leaning up. Is there going to be a punchline? I
Speaker 3: hope there's a punchline.
Speaker 2: Were you in fact making reference there to the administrative
Speaker 2: state in part at least?
Speaker 3: Yeah? So it's it's Trump has made some very good
Speaker 3: comments condemning the deep state, and it was a deep
Speaker 3: state that had a big role in his defeat in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty. There was there were so many dirty tricks
Speaker 3: by the FBI, by the CIA, by other agencies. A
Speaker 3: lot of that stuff we have never yet learned. Part
Speaker 3: of my frustration is that Trump did not pull back
Speaker 3: the curtain behind hiding the Wizard of Oz. Trump. Trump
Speaker 3: talked tough, but when it came down to it, Trump
Speaker 3: put in. Trump put as the his chief of the
Speaker 3: c I A. A. Gina Haspellhood had had been a
Speaker 3: leader in the destruction of evidence of the US torture
Speaker 3: during the Bush administration as and it was Trump who
Speaker 3: appointed the FBI chief who utterly failed to curb the
Speaker 3: FBI agents from trampling the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment,
Speaker 3: which prohibits warrantless seizures. There were a lot of appointments
Speaker 3: that Trump made John Bolton, that's that's okay. You're talking
Speaker 3: about the need for peace and you bring in the
Speaker 3: biggest warmonger in Washington, John Bolton, a liar as John
Speaker 3: Bolton a liar. Uh, maybe he's just very, very badly
Speaker 3: informed and has a very bad memory.
Speaker 2: It's interesting. So back to back to the debate, or
Speaker 2: more specifically now the results of that debate. The world
Speaker 2: was in meltdown, at least half of it was in
Speaker 2: your country before the debate even even finished. For a start,
Speaker 2: I spent quite a bit of time the following day
Speaker 2: on CNN, and I'll i'll do a hard day. I'll
Speaker 2: dip in and out of CNN occasionally when when there's
Speaker 2: something that warrants it and there's an AD break on
Speaker 2: my preferred channel. But I left it there because because
Speaker 2: they were crying all over the screen, and I wanted
Speaker 2: to know how long they could keep this this fraud
Speaker 2: up for I can't I don't believe it's not I
Speaker 2: can't believe. I don't believe that any of them did
Speaker 2: not understand what they would do dealing with in the
Speaker 2: first place, that they covered for as much as they
Speaker 2: could and successfully for years, and all of a sudden
Speaker 2: that curtain was rent asunder and the exposure was there
Speaker 2: for everybody to see, and it was actually very entertaining
Speaker 2: because they didn't know what to do. And then following that,
Speaker 2: I suppose that the day after that, it was it
Speaker 2: was a case of well, who who was going to
Speaker 2: replace him? And so they were debating that and not one,
Speaker 2: not one decent suggestion was put forward, of course, because
Speaker 2: there is no decent suggestion. But the very latest when
Speaker 2: I went to bed last night was Michelle Obama was
Speaker 2: was was on the make, and she was being she
Speaker 2: was being set up for the conference when it happens.
Speaker 2: Do you think that's likely?
Speaker 3: I don't know, But I mean, folks are forgetting that
Speaker 3: that the that the Democrat already have someone who could
Speaker 3: be called in who is mentally sharper than Biden and
Speaker 3: has experience dealing with international crises. That's former President Jimmy Carter.
Speaker 2: Isn't he dead?
Speaker 3: No, No, he's not dead yet. I think he's in
Speaker 3: a hospice. But you know, I bet he would have
Speaker 3: done bear in the debate that Biden did. So I
Speaker 3: don't know about Michelle Obama. I've heard I'm hearing that.
Speaker 3: I'm hearing that more I wrote about her, I think
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty and before, she was leading a leading
Speaker 3: a crusade in childhood obesity. And as part of this crusade,
Speaker 3: the Obama administration pushed through a new federal program to
Speaker 3: give children free breakfasts in the classroom. And it was
Speaker 3: important to sway the kids to eat the breakfast, so
Speaker 3: they had a lot of doughnuts and chocolate milk and
Speaker 3: sweetened cereal and it was a huge sugar bomb. It
Speaker 3: was sort of like Homer Simpson was a patron saint
Speaker 3: of this program. I don't know if you've watched the
Speaker 3: Simpsons Simpsons, but Homer Simpson, the cartoon character, is always
Speaker 3: eating a donut, so he's a patron saint of this
Speaker 3: Michelle Obama program. And it was a disaster as far
Speaker 3: as making kids healthier, but it gave her lots of,
Speaker 3: you know, camera time, and she could be out there
Speaker 3: getting praise to solve problems. But no, I mean, I
Speaker 3: think that the Democrats are really desperate. The Michigan governor
Speaker 3: Gretchen Gretchen Whitmer is another name that's often being mentioned
Speaker 3: but written about her and folks. Folks forget that. People
Speaker 3: in Michigan. Michigan referred to her as the seed Demon.
Speaker 3: And she's called that because at the start of the
Speaker 3: pandemic she prohibited stores from selling garden seeds.
Speaker 2: Why did you do then?
Speaker 3: Because she said it was not essential, unlike the sale
Speaker 3: of government lottery tickets.
Speaker 2: It's amazing, isn't it. I heard someone who I respect
Speaker 2: yesterday saying that the mocking her and saying she was
Speaker 2: she was a straight out liar.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Mean every where, every way, every way you listen these days,
Speaker 2: specifically at the moment, the word liar is not infrequent.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, but this, this is actually a good thing.
Speaker 3: And as I said, you know, I felt like the
Speaker 3: seeing the seeing that debate, it was cat nip for centics.
Speaker 3: Uh and Americans. You know, Americans need to be more
Speaker 3: cynical about their elected leaders. Part of the trouble is
Speaker 3: so many people still expect the government to save their butt.
Speaker 3: And it's like, no, I mean, this is not what
Speaker 3: Washington does. Washington extends its own power, it sets I mean,
Speaker 3: it's always finding reasons to uh further intrude into private life,
Speaker 3: to trample more of our constitutional rights they haven't learned,
Speaker 3: and unfortunately, more and more Americans are completely unfamiliar, are
Speaker 3: completely unfamiliar with living life outside of federal control.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you a couple of questions regarding the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. You have I think mixed mixed approaches to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court? Am I right?
Speaker 3: What is the mixed approach? I'm dying to hear this.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm sure that somewhere you've you've complimented them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, back in nineteen eighty six.
Speaker 2: It won't happened. No, No, I mean since eighty six,
Speaker 2: what happened to change minds?
Speaker 3: They have made some good decisions. There are some justices
Speaker 3: who have have made some very good calls. The first
Speaker 3: page of the of the new book quote Supreme Court
Speaker 3: Justice Neil Gorsa of saying that everything has been criminalized
Speaker 3: now by the government. So that's a huge problem. But
Speaker 3: you know, sometimes they get it right. But it's it's
Speaker 3: frustrating that that they have this fairy tale notion of
Speaker 3: government power. There was a big decision on the censorship
Speaker 3: cases the the FBI, the White House Centers for Disease
Speaker 3: Control croudbeat Twitter, Facebook, and other social media companies to
Speaker 3: censor critics of Bim's policies to censor people that were
Speaker 3: raising alarms about election fraud, and it was a complete travesy.
Speaker 3: It's heavily documented. But the Supreme Court said, well, we
Speaker 3: don't think we're going to decide on this because the
Speaker 3: victims did not bring signed confessions by the government agents
Speaker 3: that censored them. And it's like the First Amendment. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's it's frustrating to me that people don't recognize if
Speaker 3: you let the government censor during an election, then there
Speaker 3: is no chance you're going to have an honest reading
Speaker 3: of Pollock preferences.
Speaker 2: Let me just quote you from that first page of
Speaker 2: Last Rites. We live in a world in which everything
Speaker 2: has been criminalized. You mentioned that, warned Supreme Court Justice
Speaker 2: Neil Gorsich, there are now more than This is what
Speaker 2: I wanted to do, because this is frightening. There are
Speaker 2: now more than five two hundred separate federal criminal offenses,
Speaker 2: a thirty six percent increase since the nineteen nineties, along
Speaker 2: with tens of thousands of state and local crimes. More
Speaker 2: laws mean more violators who can be harshly punished on command,
Speaker 2: resulting in arrests of more than ten million Americans each year.
Speaker 2: Thanks to the Supreme Court, police can lock up anyone
Speaker 2: accused of even quote, even a very minor criminal offense
Speaker 2: such as an unbeckled seat belt. How did it happen
Speaker 2: that those numbers skyrocketed like that? How did it happen
Speaker 2: that Americans let it happen?
Speaker 3: Those are two very good questions.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: The first question, how did it happen? You had the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court put the government power on a pedestal, both
Speaker 3: on a political pedestal, a legal pedestal, and a moral pedestal.
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court has bent so far over backwards that
Speaker 3: even when there are cases of police wrongfully shooting people
Speaker 3: or government officials lying, the Court has said, well, it's
Speaker 3: important not to be too strict here. Because I was
Speaker 3: writing about this case a day or two ago, and
Speaker 3: there was a wonderful phrase, which course escapes my memory.
Speaker 3: But the gist if it was that the that the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court was so biased in favored government officials and
Speaker 3: government intervention that they did not want to have any
Speaker 3: rulings that would inhibit the government from doing what the
Speaker 3: government thought needed to be done and what the government
Speaker 3: thought was best. This ties into the line from the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court decision last week. It was from the oil
Speaker 3: arguments a few months ago, but you had one of
Speaker 3: the Justice justices openly fretting about the openly fretting that
Speaker 3: the First Amendment could hamstring the federal government when it
Speaker 3: needed to intervene. And it's like, well, you know, this
Speaker 3: is why we have the First Amendment to hamstring the government,
Speaker 3: Because if you don't hamstring the government when they want
Speaker 3: to censor, then you don't have You don't have any
Speaker 3: kind of republic. You certainly don't have a democracy. You
Speaker 3: simply have the people in power for outbeating critics and
Speaker 3: misleading people. And that's what we had in this country
Speaker 3: for a long time, and I got a heck of
Speaker 3: a lot worse after nine to eleven. Unfortunately, most of
Speaker 3: the American media and most of the politicians don't seem
Speaker 3: to have learned anything about the failures of government in
Speaker 3: the last couple of decades.
Speaker 2: It has become ingrained in me that the media has
Speaker 2: as much to answer as anybody, if not more than everybody,
Speaker 2: that question that I asked you about, how did the
Speaker 2: American people let it happen? The media in the main,
Speaker 2: and I'm talking about the core media, the usual the
Speaker 2: New York Times, Washington Post and CNN and all the others,
Speaker 2: and by extension, by the way, to much of the
Speaker 2: rest of the world, because our media here take articles
Speaker 2: from those particular journals. CNN is the one that they
Speaker 2: refer to on television, in the papers, the New York Times,
Speaker 2: there's Washington Post articles, and I read some of them,
Speaker 2: and I come very close to throwing up in discuss
Speaker 2: somebody raised was Mike Levin actually a day or two back,
Speaker 2: raised the question of the owners of these institutions, because
Speaker 2: they're all they're all businesses who have shareholders, and why
Speaker 2: the people involved in the ownership don't start pulling their
Speaker 2: administrations apart.
Speaker 3: That makes it the assumption that their owners are unhappy
Speaker 3: with what the papers or their TV networks are doing.
Speaker 3: And I think that the owners are probably felt like
Speaker 3: they're being served very well by the kind of hogwash
Speaker 3: that's being served up to readers and viewers.
Speaker 2: Well, that question could link back to another one with
Speaker 2: regard to the debate last week. The two protagonists who
Speaker 2: were asking the questions were predicted to lean very heavily
Speaker 2: in favor of the incumbent president, but they have been commended,
Speaker 2: if not praised, in some quarters for being re to
Speaker 2: be pretty well balanced.
Speaker 3: You'll come in, Yeah, I mean I was expecting there'd
Speaker 3: be more biased and favorite Biden. But it's funny. There
Speaker 3: was a front page New York Times story, I guess
Speaker 3: on Saturday, and I just passed by it in the
Speaker 3: grocery store, and it was talking about how the silent
Speaker 3: microphone ended up being really bad for Joe Biden because
Speaker 3: flashback four years ago, Trump kept interrupting, I mean during
Speaker 3: Biden's speaking time, and so there was I think it
Speaker 3: was Napoleon who said, never interrupt your opponent when he's
Speaker 3: making a mistake, and that could be the guy for
Speaker 3: how Trump played that played the most recent debate, but
Speaker 3: it was the rules that were set ahead of time.
Speaker 3: Another part was you probably heard this is people were
Speaker 3: saying that the split screen that most Americans saw with
Speaker 3: the debate, I just it was devastating from Bye because
Speaker 3: he was there with his mouth hanging open and his
Speaker 3: eyes kind of on focused and you're thinking, like, you know,
Speaker 3: you know, it was probably a mistake for him to
Speaker 3: go with decaf.
Speaker 2: A mistake to go decaf.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was a mistake for him to go a
Speaker 3: mistake for him to go with decaf needed coffee. Okay,
Speaker 3: the joke did not translate, well, doll, but decaff means
Speaker 3: that you're having that you're getting no caffeine and you're
Speaker 3: low energy.
Speaker 2: Well I interpreted that correctly. I got it right, but
Speaker 2: I don't think you went far enough. So, I mean,
Speaker 2: we're jumping around all over the place. But you're very
Speaker 2: good at this, so I'm enjoying it. The the the
Speaker 2: opinion was, and it's certainly mine that in the State
Speaker 2: of the Union address he was spiked. Wasn't just it
Speaker 2: wasn't just non non decaf or caffeinated. He was spiked
Speaker 2: to the to the gills. Now I know, no, so
Speaker 2: the doctors would do that. I am shocked. I am shocked.
Speaker 2: I think that you're one of the last people to
Speaker 2: be shocked. And who said the doctors, who said the
Speaker 2: doctors were involved.
Speaker 3: Ah, that's true. Well, it's important to avoid an overdose
Speaker 3: in public if you're going to be doing those kind
Speaker 3: of supplements.
Speaker 2: And there and there was the other occasion earlier, and
Speaker 2: that was the one where he did it outside outside
Speaker 2: of building. I forget which, and it was stressed up was, well,
Speaker 2: the whole area was staged to look like the devil
Speaker 2: was speaking.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, are you talking about his speech in Philadelphia
Speaker 3: in September twenty twenty two. Yes, yes, that was. You know,
Speaker 3: it's always bad to take your inspiration on lighting from
Speaker 3: the from the woman who did Triumph of the Will.
Speaker 3: Is that what they did was a Nazi Yeah, well
Speaker 3: it seemed that way. The Triumph of the Will was
Speaker 3: a famous Nazi film of their rally at Nuremberg, I
Speaker 3: believe in nineteen thirty four. So, but with the red,
Speaker 3: with the red coloring and just some of the very
Speaker 3: angry type of lighting. And that was just after Biden
Speaker 3: had said that had said that Republicans were semi fascists,
Speaker 3: and I think it was in January the speech near
Speaker 3: Valley Forge. Fine came out and said Trump was, you know,
Speaker 3: quoting Hitler or being guided by Hitler. Basically tried to
Speaker 3: tie Hitler to Trump very tightly. There's there's certain standards
Speaker 3: there that used to be in American politics that you
Speaker 3: don't say that your opponent is Hitler. Okay, I mean,
Speaker 3: this is this is just this is bad form.
Speaker 2: Well that we've seen, We've seen a lot of that
Speaker 2: in the last few years. But going back to that
Speaker 2: decaffeinated appearance, to me, it was not fairly obvious. It
Speaker 2: was very old that he was on something. The next day,
Speaker 2: here is a guy that they tell us can only
Speaker 2: work between ten and four in the day. Other than
Speaker 2: that he falls apart. And he lived up to that
Speaker 2: without any shall we say, input from elsewhere. But the
Speaker 2: next morning after he was out of he was out
Speaker 2: of the waffle bar at two am. And so how
Speaker 2: much sleep did he get that night before going out
Speaker 2: the next day and at least pretending that he was
Speaker 2: full of vibrants and energy.
Speaker 3: No, I think you're right that there are that he
Speaker 3: was on some type of pharmaceutical boost, some type of drug.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that's happened with other presidents in
Speaker 3: the past. Folks don't realize how much of a scandal
Speaker 3: the president's health has been in this country ever since
Speaker 3: Woodrow Wilson, who was incapacitate with a stroke in nineteen nineteen,
Speaker 3: but his I took over and basically ran the government
Speaker 3: practically for the final year of his presidency. There's I
Speaker 3: saw on Twitter today a photo of the cover of
Speaker 3: the new issue of Vogue, and it's a big portrait
Speaker 3: basically full size of Jill Biden, Jill Biden, and so
Speaker 3: I had fun with Twitter. I said, Vogue has got
Speaker 3: a great photo cover photo of President Biden. So there
Speaker 3: have been a lot of lies about President's health of
Speaker 3: President Reagan in his last year in office was pretty
Speaker 3: much mentally shot, but they kind of cover that up.
Speaker 3: He would babble in public, but not too much. You know.
Speaker 3: It's but the fundamental problem is we have a structure
Speaker 3: of government at this point that gives so much power
Speaker 3: and arbitrary power and impunity to the president's I mean,
Speaker 3: it's practically the mirror image of what the founding fathers wanted.
Speaker 3: And this whole that we have to let the president
Speaker 3: do what he thinks right, no matter what the law
Speaker 3: of their constition is. It used to be a complete
Speaker 3: travecy of American values and American ethics. But this is
Speaker 3: where the country has been heading. And I've been barking
Speaker 3: at the Moon on this issue, but I haven't had
Speaker 3: much effect on the Moon or on American politics.
Speaker 2: Well, next time you're barking at the Moon or going
Speaker 2: to let me know and I'll join you down here.
Speaker 3: All right, the.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court decisions that have been handed down in
Speaker 2: the last few days, today being or yesterday actually being
Speaker 2: the last day of the year for them. Two cases
Speaker 2: that I want to mention to you, the Chevron case
Speaker 2: and of course the Trump case. Can you give us
Speaker 2: your precise opinion of each one and the results? And
Speaker 2: I'm asking this question now because you just made a
Speaker 2: comment about giving the president too much power, and I'm
Speaker 2: wondering whether or not the Supreme Court has realized that
Speaker 2: things are out of kilt her and realized that.
Speaker 3: Sorry, I shouldn't have laughed.
Speaker 2: Well, obviously said something stupid.
Speaker 3: No no, no, no, no, no, you didn't say anything stupid.
Speaker 3: It's a Supreme Court that it's been. But no, So
Speaker 3: you asked about the Chevron decision. The nineteen eighty four
Speaker 3: case canonized the notion that federal agencies deserved deference, far
Speaker 3: more difference than private citizens or even the Constitution in
Speaker 3: judging the powers that they seized and the policies which
Speaker 3: they proclaimed. And that was that's a license for administrative tyranny,
Speaker 3: and that's how it's played out in this country. And
Speaker 3: the Court pulled that back last week with the Chevron
Speaker 3: with a new decision striking down the Chevron precedence. It's
Speaker 3: a step in the right direction. There's a long ways
Speaker 3: to go back towards what we used to have in
Speaker 3: this country. As far as the Trump case, you know,
Speaker 3: it's it's a it's a frustrating situation here because there
Speaker 3: have been a lot of bullshit charges against Donald Trump
Speaker 3: in the last couple of years. Trump's opponents, including Biden,
Speaker 3: are using law fair. I mean, there were you know,
Speaker 3: there were so many, uh so many cases where they've
Speaker 3: simply waived a statue of limitation. And so you're going
Speaker 3: back several decades and he said, she said, it's like, well,
Speaker 3: if it was so bad, how come she didn't say
Speaker 3: that in nineteen ninety six. And if you and if
Speaker 3: you look at what they did in Georgia, I mean
Speaker 3: completely rigged situation. The the the the prosecution by Alvin
Speaker 3: Bragg which Jerry convicted Trump of thirty four felonies. I
Speaker 3: think that was a complete crock of you know bs
Speaker 3: what I.
Speaker 4: Said about the judge judge, Yeah, yeah, well, well I
Speaker 4: assume he'll get nominated to New York Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: So I mean it was a farce. It was a farce,
Speaker 3: and it was a farce from the get go. Having
Speaker 3: said that, I mean, it's certainly possible that Trump violated laws,
Speaker 3: that Trump, uh, that Trump did commit crimes. But the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court today basically said that a president is exempt
Speaker 3: from legal liability for his official acts during his term
Speaker 3: of office and afterwards. As I under said, I haven't
Speaker 3: read that closely. I was chasing some other rabbits today.
Speaker 3: But and so it's it's a very disturbing ruling. And
Speaker 3: there's I think there were three justices that were kind
Speaker 3: of uh, perhaps barking at the moon for their cause.
Speaker 3: But if you look at look at some of the
Speaker 3: rhetoric there, Yeah, there is reason to be concerned Nixon.
Speaker 3: Nixon was driven out of office in nineteen seventy four.
Speaker 3: Nineteen seventy seven, he sat down David Frost. It's great
Speaker 3: interviews with him, and one of and the best known
Speaker 3: line from that is the jest of it is, it's
Speaker 3: not illegal if the president does it. This is, unfortunately,
Speaker 3: this is the rule of thumb for the oval office
Speaker 3: in this century, starting with George W. Bush.
Speaker 2: Okay, so let's let me throw a couple of let
Speaker 2: me throw a couple of examples at you. The court
Speaker 2: ruled that as long as it was official duties, the
Speaker 2: president could not be held accountable. So who's going to
Speaker 2: decide and the court will obviously who's going to decide though,
Speaker 2: whether or not something is official part of his official
Speaker 2: job and what's not. For instance, when he made that
Speaker 2: speech on the sixth of January, was he fulfilling official
Speaker 2: function question one?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yes, yeah, it's it's so sad to see how
Speaker 3: the Biden administration and a lot of the media have
Speaker 3: endlessly demogogued. On January sixth, I actually had an article
Speaker 3: that came out during that ruckus, and it was talking
Speaker 3: about how even before then, the media and the Democrats
Speaker 3: had greatly expanded the definition of treason, and so they
Speaker 3: were talking about someone being guilty of treason practically if
Speaker 3: they questioned the twenty twenty election result. And this is
Speaker 3: before the ruckus at the Capitol. There were there were
Speaker 3: quite a few people, mostly guys who did violence or
Speaker 3: attack police that day, who deserve our sentences. But this
Speaker 3: whole notion that anybody who was within a mile of
Speaker 3: radius of the US Capitol wearing a MAGA hat deserves
Speaker 3: time in prison, it was crazy. It never made any
Speaker 3: sense to take a step back, going back to the
Speaker 3: question of the president and the law, turned back the
Speaker 3: clock twenty one years in this country. You've got George W.
Speaker 3: Bush invading Iraq on false pretenses. George Bush misled the nation.
Speaker 3: He knew or should have known that it was completely bogus.
Speaker 3: Bush and his team were out there blaming Saddam Hussein
Speaker 3: for the nine to eleven attacks. That was always bs.
Speaker 3: The Saudis had a hell of a lot more to
Speaker 3: do with it, but they were Bush's buddies, so we
Speaker 3: didn't hear about that. But you had vast carnish resulting
Speaker 3: from that. As I understand it, with the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: decision on the presidential immunity, Bush would be immune from
Speaker 3: indictment or prosecution on that. Granted it wasn't going to
Speaker 3: happen anyhow, but as a moral principle, I'm totally opposed
Speaker 3: to letting I'm totally opposed to letting presidents have this
Speaker 3: un over the power over the entire globe.
Speaker 2: See, I'm struggling to agree with you. At that particular time,
Speaker 2: I argued on radio in favor of what the Bush
Speaker 2: regime was doing, and I anchored it specifically to the
Speaker 2: fact that Todam Hussein claimed at one point that he
Speaker 2: or at least hinted strongly at one point that he
Speaker 2: had weapons of mass destruction, and on that basis where
Speaker 2: the words came from his own lips, I thought that
Speaker 2: validated what they were doing. Why was I wrong?
Speaker 3: Weapons of mass destruction is not a reason the slaughter
Speaker 3: a foreign nation. I mean, many, if not most, of
Speaker 3: the garments in the world, certainly the ones that are
Speaker 3: not in the Third World, have a lot of weapons.
Speaker 3: Somewhech would be classified as weapons of mass destruction. Simply
Speaker 3: because he possessed weapons did not give the American garment
Speaker 3: the right to kill tens of thousands of Iranqis if
Speaker 3: they had had weapons of mass destruction, unless they were
Speaker 3: using them against UH, using them to launch an attack
Speaker 3: against the US, the US had no right to go
Speaker 3: after him.
Speaker 2: His intention, though at the time was conveyed as being
Speaker 2: one of doing exactly that, was it not?
Speaker 3: And who was it who was conveying his intention him?
Speaker 3: I don't I don't think he was. I mean he
Speaker 3: made a lot of mistakes. He was. He was a
Speaker 3: ruthless dictator. H he killed a lot of innocent Iraqis,
Speaker 3: but I don't think that he ever said things that
Speaker 3: would have been justifiable pretext for US invasion.
Speaker 2: All right, let me let me stretch this just a
Speaker 2: little longer. So the the Iranians are undoubtedly unquestionably working
Speaker 2: on nuclear weapon weaponry.
Speaker 3: What's your source?
Speaker 2: Multiple sources? Are they credible? Well, it's a mean, I
Speaker 2: take your question. I've thought about it. I have thought
Speaker 2: about it constantly. Let me put it this way. We
Speaker 2: know what the what the Iranians are doing in supporting
Speaker 2: various groups like Hezballah over a period of time, and
Speaker 2: that their intentions, the intentions of the present administration, and
Speaker 2: it's been there for some time to wipe out Israel.
Speaker 2: Would you accept that?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: I mean, then what's what's your what's your source?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 3: Uh, there's there's a lot of alternative sources on the news.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think it's a bad government. Uh, it's
Speaker 3: a very oppressive government. But it's a part of the
Speaker 3: world where almost all the governments are bad and oppressive.
Speaker 2: Yes, but they're the biggest, they're the biggest, the biggest
Speaker 2: supporters of of terror, certainly in that part of the world,
Speaker 2: if not elsewhere.
Speaker 3: What is your definition of terror. Is it only private groups,
Speaker 3: because if you include government, governments do a hell of
Speaker 3: a lot more terrorizing than private groups.
Speaker 2: Would you accept that there is a danger that the
Speaker 2: Iranians might be behind a forthcoming attack on America and
Speaker 2: a nine eleven Is that possible?
Speaker 3: It's possible that they and a lot of other nations
Speaker 3: and other groups could attempt to launch another attack on
Speaker 3: the US. But it doesn't build confidence that it took
Speaker 3: US fifteen years to see the confidential Congress report linking
Speaker 3: the Saudi government to the nine to eleven attacks. I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, there were so many levels of so many
Speaker 3: shovels of bs that the US government and a lot
Speaker 3: of the American media did to avoid fingering the Saudis
Speaker 3: on the nine to eleven attacks. And the US government
Speaker 3: is still blocking lawsuits seeking to discover to discover the
Speaker 3: full extent of Saudi's support for the hijackers. Fifteen of
Speaker 3: the nineteen were Saudi's but that fact practically vanished once
Speaker 3: George W. Bush and Cheney said, Hey, it was Saddan. So,
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't trust folks who are trying to
Speaker 3: drag us into another war.
Speaker 2: Well, I have some sympathy with that. But my final
Speaker 2: point is if we accept that, I do that Iran
Speaker 2: has ambitions beyond its entitlementers. Okay, the different when they
Speaker 2: develop nuclear capability, they are going to be much harder
Speaker 2: to deal with. Would you approve then, if any administration
Speaker 2: of the United States, or for that matter, the Israelis
Speaker 2: with American backing, took out their nuclear capabilities before they
Speaker 2: reached the goal.
Speaker 3: No, I would not do that because for over twenty
Speaker 3: years we've been hearing that the Iranians are two or
Speaker 3: three or four years away from having nuclear weapons. There
Speaker 3: have been so many false claims on this, and I
Speaker 3: think it would be folly to go into another Middle
Speaker 3: Eastern war with the nation that was a whole lot
Speaker 3: bigger than Iraq, and the US basically lost the Iraq war,
Speaker 3: that lost the Afghanistan war. And I don't see, you
Speaker 3: know what best out of three or best out of
Speaker 3: five here or what I mean. I don't see any
Speaker 3: reason for the US to intervene because things have worked
Speaker 3: out very badly for the US and for the nations
Speaker 3: where they intervened.
Speaker 2: So what would your advice be if you had Easia
Speaker 2: to the next president with regard to dealing with the Iranians.
Speaker 3: With regard to dealing with the Iranians, I mean I
Speaker 3: would I'd keep an eye on them. I would definitely
Speaker 3: keep an eye on them and see what they're up to.
Speaker 3: But it's not like we can afford to. You know,
Speaker 3: the the basic basic problem that has plagued the US
Speaker 3: foreign policy for decades is this notion that the US
Speaker 3: has a right and a duty to scourge any foreign threats.
Speaker 3: And uh, and it's been and it's it's a kind
Speaker 3: of notion that bligns Americans to the failures and follies
Speaker 3: of US foreign policy. And they're being a hell of
Speaker 3: a lot more than Congress or the American media recognize.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Let me ask you some quick questions. Having
Speaker 2: mentioned Michelle Obama already, who would you who would you
Speaker 2: choose or who would you rather see as the president
Speaker 2: if it came down to Michelle Obama and Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: Oh, this is a great choice. I mean, this is like,
Speaker 3: you know, there's a good comic comparison here. It's like, uh,
Speaker 3: and and second prize is two weeks in Philadelphia, right, yes,
Speaker 3: uh yeah, I I you know, they're both bad choices.
Speaker 3: So However, I think if either one of them is
Speaker 3: nominated then they will not win.
Speaker 2: So no, no, no, But if there was, I'm asking
Speaker 2: you which one you would prefer not to have.
Speaker 3: Well, Harris has more of a record as far as
Speaker 3: working for the government. The abuses that she committed as
Speaker 3: a prosecutor in California shouldn't have disqualified her forever, But
Speaker 3: they haven't.
Speaker 2: Extraordinary, isn't it.
Speaker 3: Yep? Biden, Well this is sorry, No, please go ahead.
Speaker 2: The Biden clan, I'm talking the whole family, you know,
Speaker 2: Camp David and what have you. The Biden clan do
Speaker 2: have issues that need to be dealt with? Do you
Speaker 2: not think.
Speaker 3: Like thievery and money laundering and collecting all kinds of bribes,
Speaker 3: those kinds of issues. Yeah, that'll do for stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it'll do for a start. But here again, this is
Speaker 3: this is something with that Supreme Court decision. Well, he
Speaker 3: was in office, and so it'd be kind of rude
Speaker 3: to prosecute, but it was kind of official because because
Speaker 3: he was seeing the president of China, this, that and
Speaker 3: the other. Yeah, I mean it used to be that
Speaker 3: presidents were like people understood that the rule of law
Speaker 3: means that no one is above the law. But with
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court decision today, and with a trend in
Speaker 3: this country for decades, not only do you have presidents
Speaker 3: who are above the law, you've got a vast number
Speaker 3: of top government officials who can commit crimes with impunity.
Speaker 2: Is it impunity because nobody will pursue them.
Speaker 3: That's how impunity normally works.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, not because they're protected by the law,
Speaker 2: but because nobody wants to Well to this point, nobody
Speaker 2: wants to take the head off the beast.
Speaker 3: You know, as some of both. I mean, but there's
Speaker 3: another wrinkle here, and that is a secrecy. The US
Speaker 3: government is creating trillions of phases of new secrets every year.
Speaker 3: That's equivalent to twenty billion filing cabinets full of double
Speaker 3: space pages. So government is committing more crimes than Americans
Speaker 3: will ever know. And so that's one more way that
Speaker 3: the deck is stacked against preserving our rights and liberties.
Speaker 2: What to quote you from your own work. Rather than
Speaker 2: the rule of law, we have a government of threats, intimidation,
Speaker 2: and browbeating. Government of the people defaulted into government for
Speaker 2: the people, which degenerated into perennially punishing people for their
Speaker 2: own good. Twenty five years ago, Supreme Justice Ruth Bader
Speaker 2: Ginsburg warned against permitting federal agencies the extraordinary authority to
Speaker 2: manufacture crimes? Has that got? That was twenty five years ago?
Speaker 2: How much worse is it?
Speaker 3: Got? A whole lot worse, a whole lot worse. If
Speaker 3: you look at a lot of gun violations, there's a
Speaker 3: lot of entreatment and those things drug case have been
Speaker 3: entrapment from the get go. It often happens when you're
Speaker 3: trying to do nail people for non violent or crimes
Speaker 3: of consent where people were selling something the government doesn't improve.
Speaker 3: You set somebody up. But no, I mean, there's just
Speaker 3: so many different sting operations. You've had the FBI setting
Speaker 3: up people, setting up people to do Ku Klux Klan
Speaker 3: protests with the FBI informants in charge. You've got the
Speaker 3: FBI paying for neo Nazi propaganda in some cases. You've
Speaker 3: got the FBI covering for all kinds of horrendous folks
Speaker 3: that help the FBI generate more cases.
Speaker 2: How much was the FBI involved in January sixth?
Speaker 3: You know, I wish I knew, I wish I knew.
Speaker 3: I think that they were involved a hell of a
Speaker 3: lot more than media's admitted. There were so many warning
Speaker 3: signs that were disregarded, they were involved in it. It
Speaker 3: would be great if we knew. Here we are three
Speaker 3: and a half years later and the governments has succeeded
Speaker 3: in covering up most of its role, and that ruckus.
Speaker 2: Well, by the way, you've just triggered something I hadn't
Speaker 2: even thought of. Trump has said that rather rapidly after
Speaker 2: gaining office he would release the files on the Kennedy murder.
Speaker 2: What do you think those What do you think is
Speaker 2: in those files?
Speaker 3: Lots of dirt? But Trump said, you do that last
Speaker 3: time too. Trump was making a big shortly before he
Speaker 3: left office. Trump made a big deal about all these
Speaker 3: federal documents he was going to release, but he got rolled.
Speaker 3: He didn't do it.
Speaker 2: Do you not think that this time around he's in
Speaker 2: a much different position to what he was for the
Speaker 2: first term, that he can capitalize on the knowledge that
Speaker 2: that he garnered during that period and the lessons that
Speaker 2: he learned.
Speaker 3: That rush and brings to mind my favorite line from
Speaker 3: Samuel Johnson about the triumph of hope over experience.
Speaker 2: Mmm. I felt there was something personal in that comment.
Speaker 3: No, it's just, uh, I would I would like to
Speaker 3: see you know, I'd be happy if Trump gets if
Speaker 3: if Trump does get elected, if he opens up these
Speaker 3: files and opens up these secrets. And I guess I'm
Speaker 3: I'm I'm skeptical because because a lot of the people
Speaker 3: that Trump has put around him and has has endorsed.
Speaker 3: There's a guy, a Congressman Mike Rogers, running from Michigan.
Speaker 3: He's going up against the guy who's really good, former
Speaker 3: Congressman Justin Mamash, who was great on civil liberties. But
Speaker 3: Mike Rogers was the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 3: I think when Edward Snowden did his leagues and this
Speaker 3: is a paraphrase, I think I'm doing it injustice. But
Speaker 3: Rogers said something to the fact, well, if people don't
Speaker 3: know that they're privacy has been violated, then their privacy
Speaker 3: really hasn't been violated. And it sounded kind of like
Speaker 3: the slogan that you hear from some guy that used
Speaker 3: date rape drugs, because.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't have thought of that. Thank goodness, you.
Speaker 3: Have a much loftier mind than I do. That's the
Speaker 3: difference in this entire interview. You know, that's where the
Speaker 3: disconnet comes from You're you're way up there amount olympus
Speaker 3: and I'm just just a muck raker.
Speaker 2: What are you talking about?
Speaker 3: I was trying to make a joke. It didn't work
Speaker 3: very well. Feel free to edit it out if you want.
Speaker 2: Maybe I'm just too busy trying to think of where
Speaker 2: we're going because I want to get a couple more
Speaker 2: things in before we conclude. Trump has yet to announce
Speaker 2: who his running mate will be. It's a pretty wide
Speaker 2: open field, and there's all sorts of arguments for all
Speaker 2: sorts of different people. Is there anybody that stands out
Speaker 2: for you?
Speaker 3: Well, I think it'd be great if he would choose
Speaker 3: Rand Paul is his running mate. That would be a
Speaker 3: real boost of confidence. Mike Lee would also be very good. Uh, basically,
Speaker 3: as far as someone who would give would have a
Speaker 3: very good compass on foreign policy, Center Vance would be good.
Speaker 3: A wild card would be Tulci Gavn, former Democratic congresswoman,
Speaker 3: but that's probably not gonna happen. There's lots of people
Speaker 3: whose names I'm seeing Benny about are utterly chilling, But
Speaker 3: give me a.
Speaker 2: Couple of those. Nikki Haley interesting why she's a warmonger.
Speaker 2: Do you think she would influence him that much?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah, I mean, you know, Trump is interesting. He's
Speaker 3: very intelligent, but in his you know, his in his
Speaker 3: initial term, perhaps his only term, but his first term. Anyhow,
Speaker 3: he didn't seem to pay that much attention to the
Speaker 3: details of government policy. He was busy tweeting and you know,
Speaker 3: watching Fox News, and it's like, you know, dude, you know,
Speaker 3: how about you put some control. It seemed like he
Speaker 3: just handed the keys to his administration to a son
Speaker 3: in law and his daughter, and it's like, you know, well,
Speaker 3: you know, good luck with this. That's an overstatement, but
Speaker 3: you know, he didn't do that well. But it was
Speaker 3: always a man issues in which he was pretty good.
Speaker 3: What's that?
Speaker 2: I think it was a bad look, the dreadful look. Dredful.
Speaker 2: So I want to throw a name at you and
Speaker 2: get your immediate reaction. John Radcliffe, Oh.
Speaker 3: You know on the it's ringing a small bell. Where's
Speaker 3: the bell?
Speaker 2: National Security advisor? Okay, he was involved in national security?
Speaker 3: Okay? And what him is VP or what?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I don't know enough to react.
Speaker 2: Okay, and that's fair enough. So probably finally I'm intrigued
Speaker 2: in your view of the developments in the Julian Massange case.
Speaker 3: Okay, Biden is you know there was a line and
Speaker 3: I wrote about this last week and I said, this
Speaker 3: is one of the areas where the Biden administration has
Speaker 3: been slightly less odious than the Trump administration, because it
Speaker 3: was a Trump administration that indicted him and hounded him.
Speaker 3: There was a USA Today article I did I guess
Speaker 3: six years ago that set of it that that said,
Speaker 3: instead of an indictment, Julian Nissan should get a Presidential
Speaker 3: Medal of Freedom for all the things that he exposed,
Speaker 3: helping Americans understand their government and the failures of US
Speaker 3: interventions in many countries.
Speaker 2: I have members of my family who are ex military,
Speaker 2: and just then for a start, I think otherwise, but
Speaker 2: I am I used them as an example of the
Speaker 2: fact that I've actually got had a bit of conversation
Speaker 2: with regard to this. But it's mostly military people or
Speaker 2: military connections who think otherwise and think that he should
Speaker 2: have been locked up for life or whatever. The fact
Speaker 2: that he the fact that he ended up not being
Speaker 2: Do you really think it was Biden's decision, because I don't.
Speaker 3: I think that the Biden people recognize that they could
Speaker 3: be embarrassed hugely by defeat in British court on whether
Speaker 3: he would be extradited. There was there was some impact
Speaker 3: from the media campaign, some of the top papers and
Speaker 3: outlets here pushing for assigns for the charges to be dropped.
Speaker 3: I don't know what other strings were being pulled. I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, this is a good example. Okay, so it was.
Speaker 3: It was a good decision, But how many years is
Speaker 3: it going to be until we find out what really happened?
Speaker 3: Five years, ten years, maybe after both of us are dead.
Speaker 2: Well, the same thing applies, I suppose to the to
Speaker 2: the Kennedy records.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, and that's the perfect example, because what
Speaker 3: the Chief Justice, Earl Warren, head of the Warrant Commission
Speaker 3: and others did. They had this big investigation and then
Speaker 3: sealed the records for seventy five years. I mean, this
Speaker 3: is complete bs. I mean that standard policy. I guess
Speaker 3: in Britain with the Official Secrets Act, maybe not the
Speaker 3: same number of years, but it makes a travesy of democracy.
Speaker 3: If folks don't know what the government is doing in
Speaker 3: their name, then they might as well be serfs in
Speaker 3: the Middle Ages.
Speaker 2: Again, I want to quote from last rites. School children
Speaker 2: are being sacrificed on an altar of social justice, from
Speaker 2: no child left behind to common core. Federal dictats have
Speaker 2: subverted academic standards and squanted billions of ours of our kids' lives.
Speaker 2: Teacher unions have worked to destroy local control of education,
Speaker 2: prevent teacher account ability, deny parents any voice, any voice
Speaker 2: in their children's education, and pointlessly shut down schools during
Speaker 2: the pandemic in lieu of literacy. Government schools are redefining
Speaker 2: gender and indoctrinating kids with values that many parents detest.
Speaker 2: When mothers and fathers raised hell at school board meetings,
Speaker 2: the Biden administration and the FBI labeled them as terrorst
Speaker 2: suspects and treated some of them, I will add, and
Speaker 2: treated some of them accordingly.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: I mean I knew that was going on, but I
Speaker 2: read that paragraph and I was It seriously got to me,
Speaker 2: how on earth.
Speaker 3: How on earth had this happened? Government schools. Teacher unions
Speaker 3: are some of the strongest unions in this country. They
Speaker 3: have really rolled a lot of the opposition. They've turned
Speaker 3: the schools, and especially in big cities where the schools
Speaker 3: are worse, where kids are at least likely to learn
Speaker 3: how to read to teacher unions have got the almost
Speaker 3: unlimited sway and it's it was fascinating to see how
Speaker 3: they shut down. There were all these protests by teachers
Speaker 3: they would have Teachers were outraged that they would have
Speaker 3: any risk when they went back to school during the pandemic.
Speaker 3: I mean, other workers had to accept the risk, but
Speaker 3: the teachers wanted to have their full salary and have
Speaker 3: these zoom classes where that were a complete failure and
Speaker 3: it did the greatest harm to low income kids that
Speaker 3: might not have good internet connections. So and then there's
Speaker 3: the other thing that the that the schools have gone
Speaker 3: on a crusade they are ignoring, like the phonics method
Speaker 3: for teaching reading, part of the reason that reading skills
Speaker 3: have gone so bad here, and instead they're just encouraging
Speaker 3: kids in kindergarten to question their own gender. I mean,
Speaker 3: this is this is I mean, it's a full employment
Speaker 3: program for therapists and it's an absolute travesy and there's
Speaker 3: so many loud is being messed up by this, and it's.
Speaker 2: An insanity yep. So the latest book, which came out
Speaker 2: a few months ago, is called Last Rights based on
Speaker 2: the book Thirty years Ago, Lost Rights, Last Rights, the
Speaker 2: Death of American Liberty. Why would why would people in
Speaker 2: this part of the world, New Zealand, Australia. I got
Speaker 2: a reasonable audience in America too, by the way, But
Speaker 2: in this part of the world, why would they know?
Speaker 4: Not?
Speaker 2: Why what would they get from reading that book?
Speaker 3: I think it'd be of interest to anyone in English
Speaker 3: speaking nations or other nations where you've got democratic or
Speaker 3: semi democratic nations where the government is seizing so much power,
Speaker 3: it's making a travacy of the constitution and people's rights
Speaker 3: are being lost every passing year. There are a lot
Speaker 3: of parallels. Uh, for instance, the the the chapter in
Speaker 3: the book Last Rice on COVID policy, a lot of
Speaker 3: parallels to what happened in Australia and New Zealand. Same
Speaker 3: type of hissoria we had Fauci here. I'm sure there
Speaker 3: were other demagogues in Australians in some of these states.
Speaker 3: Is it called states, provinces.
Speaker 2: States states in Australia.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I mean there were a couple of states
Speaker 3: I was reading about and it was just it was
Speaker 3: bizarre how far the power stretched, and.
Speaker 2: That would have been Victoria just for a stop.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, and there's the the chapter and gun control
Speaker 3: in there. I've got a discussion on the Second Amendment
Speaker 3: that talks about how firearms are a are an insurance
Speaker 3: policy against tyranny, because if the government takes away all
Speaker 3: your means means to resist, then your your cannon fodder
Speaker 3: for them. They can do whatever they want. And it's
Speaker 3: something the Founding Father is recognized. There's some one wonderful
Speaker 3: quotes from early American history because this is how the
Speaker 3: Americans beat the British in the seventeen seventies and seventeen eighties.
Speaker 3: But it's almost as if we're supposed to hate guns
Speaker 3: because people might resist the garment. But you know, if
Speaker 3: you look at history, there's a lot of garments that
Speaker 3: deserve resisting.
Speaker 2: Absolutely true, Jim. It's been well over now and it's
Speaker 2: been most enjoyable. I feel like I want to go
Speaker 2: on for longer, but I shan't stress you, but we'll
Speaker 2: do it again, hopefully in another three years. It's been
Speaker 2: a privilege.
Speaker 3: Oh well, it's a privilege for me to talk to
Speaker 3: such a great host who's famous, famous in multiple countries
Speaker 3: for your long record of top quality stuff. So and
Speaker 3: thanks for your thoughtful questions that pushed me to think
Speaker 3: a little bit and almost push me to the edge
Speaker 3: of my cynicism. That would be a victory or perhaps
Speaker 3: so Thank you and you take care, thanks so much
Speaker 3: having me on.
Speaker 2: Thank you Jack.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: The name of the company is Wet and Forget, and
Speaker 2: we all know why because the original product that Wet
Speaker 2: and Forget began to produce was Wet and Forget Moss
Speaker 2: and mold remover. But there's two kinds of Wet and
Speaker 2: Forget that you can purchase. There is the Wet and Forget,
Speaker 2: the original moss and mold remover, and there is the
Speaker 2: rapid application Wet and Forget. Now they have exactly the
Speaker 2: same active ingredient and they'll cover a similar area. It
Speaker 2: is only the actual application using the revolutionary reach nozzle
Speaker 2: that is so different. Rapid Application is non caustic and
Speaker 2: non acidic, and it contains absolutely no bleach none. Rapid
Speaker 2: Application is your concentrate and garden sprayer all in one.
Speaker 2: The most outstanding feature of Rapid Application is its reach nozzle,
Speaker 2: with its unparalleled reach of eight meters or if you like,
Speaker 2: two stories without using a ladder for a large concrete driveways, paths,
Speaker 2: et cetera. A quick change on the revolutionary reach novel
Speaker 2: gives you an incredibly fast application, more than fifty times
Speaker 2: that of a garden sprayer. So where do you get
Speaker 2: Wet and Forget? From Wet and Forgets over twenty standalone
Speaker 2: company stores nationwide. You can order online at wetinfiget dot
Speaker 2: co dot NZ ring them eight hundred and three zero
Speaker 2: three thousand, and don't forget. You can buy Wet and
Speaker 2: Forget in America, Britain, Australia and of course the Homeland,
Speaker 2: New Zealand. Now it's no fun doing the mail room
Speaker 2: on your own. It's not what it was intended for.
Speaker 2: But here are a couple maybe three letters that I
Speaker 2: shall dispatch my missus producer will be back in a
Speaker 2: couple of weeks. I watched the first twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: American presidential debate twice because I couldn't believe what I
Speaker 2: saw the first time round. I couldn't believe how unbiased
Speaker 2: the CNN moderators were. They gave reasonably fair treatment to
Speaker 2: both Trump and Biden. Secondly, I couldn't believe how bad
Speaker 2: Biden was. He was like a man with stage four
Speaker 2: Alzheimer's stuttering repeatedly and forgetting what he was saying mid sentence. Thirdly,
Speaker 2: I couldn't believe how witty Trump was. He was smashing
Speaker 2: back funny zingers and memorable one liners at a sitting
Speaker 2: possum that was Biden. Biden was the possum to Trump's headlights.
Speaker 2: In a post debate analysis, Daily Wire's CEO said something
Speaker 2: utterly profound. He said something along the following lines. Donald
Speaker 2: Trump initially ran for president in twenty sixteen, expecting he'd lose,
Speaker 2: and he won. Trump then ran for president in twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: expecting he'd win, and he lost. Trump now runs for
Speaker 2: president in twenty twenty four knowing he has to win. Indeed,
Speaker 2: if Biden or Kamada Harris wins the twenty twenty four election,
Speaker 2: America will lose her very soul. And then, on a
Speaker 2: completely different note, did you hear Tucker Carlson's brutal one
Speaker 2: liner on Jacinda Adern at his recent speech in Australia? Wow?
Speaker 2: Talk about zingers? I think I did, actually, but a
Speaker 2: couple of comments. Couldn't believe how unbiased the CNN moderators were.
Speaker 2: They gave fairly. They gave reasonably fair treatment to both
Speaker 2: Trump and Biden. True, that was my feeling too. Then
Speaker 2: somebody drew attention to the fact that there were and
Speaker 2: I can't remember the numbers now, how many questions twenty
Speaker 2: two questions, I think, And there were percentages of questions
Speaker 2: that were directed favorably for Biden, and the number that
Speaker 2: were favorable towards towards Trump were far fewer. I can't
Speaker 2: remember the numbers, but you get my drift. The other
Speaker 2: point was that he was like a man was a
Speaker 2: stage for Alzheimer's. No, he's more advanced than that. Apparently,
Speaker 2: what I gather he is in stage five. The estimation
Speaker 2: is that he's in stage five of seven stages of Alzheimer's.
Speaker 2: So not a good look now from Eileen. The father
Speaker 2: of communism, Karl Marx defined communism as the abolition of
Speaker 2: private property. So do we really want to enact animal
Speaker 2: farm here in New Zealand? Good luck for the future
Speaker 2: of our food production under that hammer. Climate change Marxists
Speaker 2: are essentially social activists, posing as guardians of the environment
Speaker 2: while they live up large as Champagne socialists, big carbon
Speaker 2: footprints in their designer footwear as well dedicated followers of
Speaker 2: fast Fashion with a special twist lurid green hypocrisy. Well,
Speaker 2: I don't know that the Champagne socialists Chardonnay, maybe not Champagne.
Speaker 2: I don't think they could afford Champagne, and I suppose
Speaker 2: if they did have it, it was probably shoplisted, if
Speaker 2: you get my drift. And then, finally, in this very
Speaker 2: short mail room, thank you both for the podcast, but
Speaker 2: please don't bring mister Trump into the conversations. Sorry to
Speaker 2: say it makes me wonder if you're getting contributions to
Speaker 2: include him and shore up support while we've got an
Speaker 2: audience in the US, I don't think the numbers are
Speaker 2: big enough to make a difference. I'm desperately wanting New
Speaker 2: Zealanders to take on board a lot of what is
Speaker 2: talked about in your podcasts, and I occasionally forward them
Speaker 2: in the hope that they make a difference or at
Speaker 2: least in form because we can't rely on our media.
Speaker 2: Having Trump as an opening topic would put a lot
Speaker 2: of people off, and rightly so. Yes, most of us
Speaker 2: don't know much about American politics, but what we do
Speaker 2: know is in the past your subject has proven over
Speaker 2: and over his arrogance, and in my book, humility is
Speaker 2: a far greater trait. Thank you again and hoping you'll
Speaker 2: stick to the huge concerns that we have here in
Speaker 2: our own country. Look forward to your next podcast. Very
Speaker 2: grateful for Oliver Hart, which is perspective and experience. Sincerely
Speaker 2: hope he stays put and doesn't add to the brain drain.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: I concur with you on that point, and I can
Speaker 2: only suggest that you're going to have to be selective
Speaker 2: in what you forward on because Trump is going to
Speaker 2: feature ever more so in the next few months. It
Speaker 2: is unavoidable, and there is good reason for it too.
Speaker 2: And I hope that you enjoyed the interview today. You
Speaker 2: say that most New Zealanders or many New Zealanders don't Yes,
Speaker 2: most of us don't know much about American politics. I've
Speaker 2: worked over the years to try and assist in that regard.
Speaker 2: Maybe I'm failing, And that would appear to be the
Speaker 2: right place and time to introduce the article that I
Speaker 2: may mention of the introduction with regard to the decision
Speaker 2: by the Supreme Court as it's called this historic Presidential
Speaker 2: Immunity decision, and the author is Jonathan Turley, who is
Speaker 2: a very successful professor of law. He is a Democrat,
Speaker 2: has been a democrat, is still a Democrat. But he
Speaker 2: has to be about the most intelligent Democrat that exists anyway.
Speaker 2: He is more concerned, I think, than anything else with
Speaker 2: the Constitution and its retention in its original form at
Speaker 2: appropriate interpretations thereof. He writes columns for various organizations, including
Speaker 2: The New York Post, and this is where this particular
Speaker 2: article finished. He has a prelude on his website to this,
Speaker 2: but I think I should cut straight to the column itself.
Speaker 2: Within minutes of the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity,
Speaker 2: liberal politicians and pundits seem to move from hyperpose to
Speaker 2: hyperventilation when not breathing into paperbags. Critics predicted again the
Speaker 2: end of the republic. CNN's Van Jones declared that it
Speaker 2: was quote almost a license to thug in a way.
Speaker 2: Senator Richard Blumenthal declared, my stomach turns with fear and
Speaker 2: anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an
Speaker 2: out of controled court close quote, and denounced six justices
Speaker 2: as extreme and nakedly partisan hacks politicians in robes. Limenthal
Speaker 2: has previously shown greater intestinal fortitude as when he threatened
Speaker 2: the justices that they would either rule as Democrats demanded
Speaker 2: or face seismic changes to their court. Jones warned the
Speaker 2: justices that politically it's bad for them to rule this way.
Speaker 2: The comment captures the misguided analysis of many media outlets.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court was designed to be unpopular to take
Speaker 2: stands that are politically unpopular but constitutionally correct. Indeed, Democrats
Speaker 2: have become the very threat that the Court was meant
Speaker 2: to resist. Recently, senators demanded the Chief Justice, John Roberts
Speaker 2: peer to answer to them for his decisions. Roberts wisely declined.
Speaker 2: Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer previously declared in front of
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, this is out the front of the building.
Speaker 2: I want to tell you Gossich. I want to tell
Speaker 2: you Kavanagh, you have released the whirlwind and you will
Speaker 2: pay the price. Leveling threats at the justices of the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. Now, Representative Alexandria Acasia Cortez announced that she
Speaker 2: will seek the impeachment of all six of the Conservative judges.
Speaker 2: She was immediately joined by other Democrat members. Notably, scholars
Speaker 2: have long disregarded where to draw the line on presidential immunity.
Speaker 2: The Court adopted a middle approach that rejected rejected extreme
Speaker 2: arguments on both sides. Yet, because Ecazio Cortez disagrees with
Speaker 2: their decision, she's declared that this is an assault on
Speaker 2: American democracy. It's up to Congress to defend our nation
Speaker 2: from this authoritarian gamchare. Previously, Acazio Cortez admitted that she
Speaker 2: doesn't understand why we even have a Supreme Court. She asked,
Speaker 2: how much does the current structure benefit us? I don't
Speaker 2: think it does. Other members, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 2: have called for the packing of the court with additional
Speaker 2: members to immediately secure a liberal majority to rule as
Speaker 2: she desires. For these pundits and politicians, justice is merely
Speaker 2: an extension of politics and subject to the whims of
Speaker 2: the majority. These are the same voices who chastised to
Speaker 2: Judge Eileen Cannon for slow walking her decisions by holding
Speaker 2: hearings on constitutional questions. They pointed to Judge Tanya Chutkam,
Speaker 2: who supported the efforts of Special Counsel Jacksmith to try
Speaker 2: Trump before the election, turning her court into a rockets docket. Indeed,
Speaker 2: at the oral argument. Chief Justice Roberts marveled at the
Speaker 2: conclusory analysis by Patricia Ann Millet in upholding Chutkin. He
Speaker 2: reverred to the opinion celebrated by the left as little
Speaker 2: more than declaring a former president can be prosecuted because
Speaker 2: he's being prosecuted. Chutkin and the d C Circuit were fast,
Speaker 2: but ultimately wrong. Indeed, the Supreme Court noted that the
Speaker 2: judge created little record for the basis of her decisions.
Speaker 2: In a perverted sense, democrats are giving the public a
Speaker 2: powerful lesson in constitutional law. As Alexander Hamilton stated in
Speaker 2: The Federalists Number seventy eight, judicial independence is the best
Speaker 2: expedient which can be devised in any government to secure
Speaker 2: a steady, upright, and impartial administration of laws. This is
Speaker 2: the moment that the Framers envisaged in creating the Court
Speaker 2: under Article three of the Constitution. It would be our
Speaker 2: bulwark even when politicians lose faith in our constitution and
Speaker 2: seek to dictate justice for those who they dislike. In
Speaker 2: my new book, The Indispensable Right Free Speech in an
Speaker 2: Age of Rage, I discuss other such moments in our history.
Speaker 2: This is not our first age of rage, During periods
Speaker 2: of intense fear or anger, people often turn on free
Speaker 2: speech and other rights as inconvenient and outdated. We've heard
Speaker 2: the same voices of the faithless today. MSNBC commentator Eli
Speaker 2: Mistel has called the Constitution trash, and I argued that
Speaker 2: we should simply dump it. Law professors Ryan Doffler of
Speaker 2: Harvard and Samuel Moyne of Yale called for the Constitution
Speaker 2: to be radically altered to reclaim America from constitutionalism. None
Speaker 2: of these threats or bloviating will work. The Court is
Speaker 2: designed to stand against everyone and everything except the Constitution.
Speaker 2: It was forged for this moment, and Jonathan Turley is
Speaker 2: the JB. And Borris C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest
Speaker 2: Law at the George Washington University School of Law. I
Speaker 2: think that column lays it out as well as anybody
Speaker 2: can on what the situation is, why it's happening, and
Speaker 2: why the Constitution is what term what matters more than
Speaker 2: anything else. It's been a very, very busy week on
Speaker 2: the news front, and I can only imagine it's going
Speaker 2: to be maintained for a period of time. So we
Speaker 2: shall see what happens in the next few days. And
Speaker 2: as much that could, and take our leave from two
Speaker 2: forty five. So if you'd like to correspond with us
Speaker 2: Layton at NEWSTALKSB dot co dot NZ, Latin at newstalks
Speaker 2: AB dot co dot NZ, or Carolyn at NEWSTALKSZNB dot
Speaker 2: co dot com in Z. We shall return for podcast
Speaker 2: two hundred and forty six very shortly. Until then, as always,
Speaker 2: thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from News Talks ed B. Listen
Speaker 1: live on air or online, and keep our shows with
Speaker 1: you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio