Speaker 1: You're listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: Hey, everybody, welcome to the Buck Saxton Show. We've got
Speaker 2: our friend Aaron McIntyre on this episode. He does a
Speaker 2: great podcast. He's at the Blaze. You should check out
Speaker 2: everything that he is up to over there. Mister Oran,
Speaker 2: appreciate you coming back absolutely, thanks for having me again.
Speaker 2: So recently, there's this big decision that comes down on
Speaker 2: affirmative action, and one of the most interesting things about it,
Speaker 2: I think is.
Speaker 1: Something that you and I.
Speaker 2: Have talked about off air, which is that the institutions
Speaker 2: that are affected by this are largely taking the attitude of, oh,
Speaker 2: it's unconstitutional, whatever, we'll still do it, We'll still find
Speaker 2: a way.
Speaker 1: What's going on there? What does that tell us?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you could see right away that Harvard immediately responded
Speaker 3: by just saying, oh, that's nice, we'll comply with this,
Speaker 3: and immediately pointed to it. It sees as a loophole
Speaker 3: and the ruling where yes, technically you can no longer
Speaker 3: evaluate students solely based on their race or give them
Speaker 3: explicit additional points for that kind of admission. But you
Speaker 3: can think about that when they are justifying kind of
Speaker 3: the things they've overcome, and so there's still this loophole
Speaker 3: of okay, well, as long as they maybe put in
Speaker 3: an essay or they explained it as part of how
Speaker 3: they fought back against depression, that kind of thing, then
Speaker 3: you can consider it. You just can't put it directly
Speaker 3: into say what kind of sat or Act score is accepted.
Speaker 2: I mean, I feel like the takeaway from all this
Speaker 2: is that the only way this really changes is that
Speaker 2: now there's at least a constitutional precedent handed down by
Speaker 2: the court here in terms of the interpretation of it that.
Speaker 1: Will allow for more lawsuits.
Speaker 2: You know, what you had at this point was the
Speaker 2: court seemed divided at the lower level, had to make
Speaker 2: its way all the way up. So I suppose now
Speaker 2: you just have to be able to get the data
Speaker 2: to see that the same discrimination, racial discrimination, that's what
Speaker 2: this is everybody, that's what the courts were doing, That
Speaker 2: same discrimination would continue on. And so I feel like
Speaker 2: there have to be many more lawsuits, Like basically this
Speaker 2: is the start of stopping the affirmative action regime. It's
Speaker 2: not like this switches it all overnight.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, absolutely, this is the beginning of the war,
Speaker 3: and at the end of it, it simply allows it
Speaker 3: to take place. Like you said, a lot of these
Speaker 3: institutions are already changing. They already saw this coming. This
Speaker 3: ruling was predicted for a while, and so a lot
Speaker 3: of these institutions had already decided to move to more
Speaker 3: of an essay based admission as opposed to a test
Speaker 3: score admission. And that's because the data becomes much harder.
Speaker 3: Then you can kind of fudge everything. You can still
Speaker 3: apply the same biases, but you can do so without
Speaker 3: it being easily numerically quantifiable. Of course, the ruling itself
Speaker 3: actually explicitly says they can't do that, like says, you
Speaker 3: can not resubstantiate this, you know, this regime kind of
Speaker 3: just under a different way, just just with essays or
Speaker 3: something instead of test scores. But it's very clear again
Speaker 3: from the messages that places like Harvard scent that they
Speaker 3: intend to do so. And so the big question is
Speaker 3: going to be follow through. So often, especially on the right,
Speaker 3: we see, you know, the base sees an election or
Speaker 3: Supreme Court ruling or maybe a piece of legislation pass
Speaker 3: and say, oh great, the battle's one. I can go
Speaker 3: back to grilling, I can go back to raising my
Speaker 3: family and go back, you know, to just you know,
Speaker 3: being a normal citizen. But that's actually not what happens
Speaker 3: immediately afterwards. That ruling does not enforce itself. And if
Speaker 3: you don't have the mechanisms, if you don't have the
Speaker 3: institutions that are going to go after these people, if
Speaker 3: you don't have lawsuits, if you don't have a DOJ,
Speaker 3: obviously our current do is not going to do that.
Speaker 3: But you know, if you don't have a Trump or
Speaker 3: Desanti's DOJ later on, that starts pushing this kind of stuff,
Speaker 3: AG's all that stuff. If they don't follow up, then
Speaker 3: none of this actually happens. It's just a ruling that's
Speaker 3: dead in the water.
Speaker 2: Also, is me that given the arguments that were made
Speaker 2: in that blockbuster decision six ' three striking down affirmative
Speaker 2: action is unconstitutional in college admissions, how is it that
Speaker 2: we can still have racial preferences in hiring and racial
Speaker 2: preferences in government contract government contracts being given out to people?
Speaker 1: Do you know what I mean? It seems to me
Speaker 1: like this all the same arguments apply about all of this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's why this was such a huge ruling. It's
Speaker 3: not just the college admissions, though obviously that is a
Speaker 3: huge one, because, for better or for worse, admission to college,
Speaker 3: especially the IVY League, is kind of the elite signaler
Speaker 3: in our society. Getting that credential. I mean, you may
Speaker 3: be learning nothing there, you might just be getting some
Speaker 3: kind of gender studies trash degree, but just by having
Speaker 3: that credential, suddenly you're part of the elite. You're part
Speaker 3: of the ruling class. You've kind of got the golden ticket.
Speaker 3: And so the fact that that was racially biased, that
Speaker 3: that was particularly bent towards specific races, was a huge deal.
Speaker 3: But like you said, this affirmative action policy, you know,
Speaker 3: moves far beyond the academic sphere. It impacts everything in
Speaker 3: our society, especially when it comes to jobs and these
Speaker 3: kind of things. And so if this ruling applies there,
Speaker 3: then you would imagine the logic would travel to all
Speaker 3: these other institutions. But again, that can't happen without lawsuits.
Speaker 3: That can't happen without follow through legal pressure. I mean,
Speaker 3: state legislatures need to start banning affirmative action, and governors
Speaker 3: need to be passing, you know, whatever they can to
Speaker 3: make it clear that this won't be allowed in their states.
Speaker 3: This this has to be a follow through on every
Speaker 3: level that enables these different operatives, these different lawyers, these
Speaker 3: different attorneys general to kind of make this move. Hopefully
Speaker 3: once you get a Republican one in there, that will
Speaker 3: actually put the pressure not just on schools but on
Speaker 3: other institutions like corporations.
Speaker 2: Did you find that the arguments that came across from
Speaker 2: the A couple of the liberal justices who you know
Speaker 2: dissented from this ruling. There are three of them, but
Speaker 2: you know, two in particular, were really.
Speaker 1: Upset by this.
Speaker 2: It was interesting to see they really couldn't hide the
Speaker 2: emotional impact that this has on them specifically. But also
Speaker 2: I would assume more broadly, for people that really support
Speaker 2: this regime, and that the argument really seems to just
Speaker 2: be some version of we really like this, and life
Speaker 2: is unfair, and it's unfair for minorities, but only some minorities,
Speaker 2: and so it should continue just because we like it.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't really understand. When I read through
Speaker 2: the dissense, it didn't really feel like there was an argument.
Speaker 2: It just felt like there's a lot of racism, and
Speaker 2: this helps with the racism because we say so yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, in some ways you almost kind of have
Speaker 3: to respect the honesty there. Finally, we're not hiding behind
Speaker 3: any kind of legal tricks here. It's just the fact
Speaker 3: that this works well for the Democratic coalition. This gives
Speaker 3: benny's to people that we like. These are the people
Speaker 3: who vote for us, or are the people we identify with,
Speaker 3: and this benefits them, and therefore it should stay in
Speaker 3: place because we like it. And to be fair, this
Speaker 3: community has been told from time and memorium by the
Speaker 3: Democrats that this is the only system that holds them
Speaker 3: in place. This is the only way they could possibly
Speaker 3: get ahead or stay even even you know, at all,
Speaker 3: and so that if it ever was removed, then it's
Speaker 3: a catastrophe and all of a sudden, you know, these
Speaker 3: different minority communities will just kind of fall by the wayside.
Speaker 3: I mean, the whole point of affirmative action, the way
Speaker 3: it was sold to people in theory was that it
Speaker 3: was a temporary fix to kind of address the fact
Speaker 3: that some people had not had a fair shake historically
Speaker 3: in the United States. But if that doesn't come with
Speaker 3: an expiration date. Then all you're doing is creating a new,
Speaker 3: different type of systemic racism. It's just now targeting people
Speaker 3: like whites and Asians as opposed to other minority groups.
Speaker 3: And you can't keep that in place forever. But these
Speaker 3: people were told that, you know that is essential. You
Speaker 3: know that this is basically the only way that you
Speaker 3: can participate in society, which should be kind of insulting,
Speaker 3: but I guess for some you know that is something
Speaker 3: you've taken as gospel.
Speaker 2: Did you see there was a there was a tweet
Speaker 2: that came out that went quite quite viral from a
Speaker 2: Democrat activist trying, I'm actually, I'm actually gonna pull this
Speaker 2: one up. Her name is Erica Marsh, Proud, Democrat, former
Speaker 2: field organizer for Biden. She her, of course, you know,
Speaker 2: because we have to know that one. But she had
Speaker 2: this tweet that that's gotten seen millions of times, and
Speaker 2: this was the day that the decision came out. Her
Speaker 2: tweet was, today's Supreme Court decision is a direct assault,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, a direct attack on black people. No black
Speaker 2: person will be able to succeed in a merit based system,
Speaker 2: which is exactly why affirmative action based programs were needed
Speaker 2: to decision. Is a travesty, like ten million views of
Speaker 2: this Basically, this has just gone completely virus a Democrat. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and I do think it raises some very uh, very
Speaker 2: uncomfortable questions about Democrats what they really think in the
Speaker 2: affirmative action regime. I mean, you kind of keep running
Speaker 2: into this, Oh, it doesn't change the standards. But if
Speaker 2: you change the standards, then you won't have black and
Speaker 2: Hispanic students getting into these schools or you know what
Speaker 2: I'm saying, Like, if you don't have the standards changing,
Speaker 2: they won't get in. But it doesn't change the standards,
Speaker 2: and if you don't change the standards, they can't get
Speaker 2: in in the numbers. And I mean in her case
Speaker 2: she said that like none of them, which is insane.
Speaker 2: But there's a problem here, right, the argument has a problem.
Speaker 3: Yeah, obviously it's it's a pretty awkward argument to make,
Speaker 3: if you know, if you're on that side. But at
Speaker 3: the same time, you have to remember the Democrats do
Speaker 3: get like ninety percent of the black vote on a
Speaker 3: regular basis, right, So for better or for worse, this
Speaker 3: is an argument that seems to be routinely winning people
Speaker 3: over to that side. I don't know what that says
Speaker 3: about how people feel about their opportunity inside the United States,
Speaker 3: but it's obviously not a narrative that can survive if
Speaker 3: you're going to have a society with any form of
Speaker 3: kind of racial harmony. You have a group that's being
Speaker 3: told all of the time that if there's not this
Speaker 3: artificial system elevating them, then they have no hope inside
Speaker 3: of meritocracy, and the group continually and regularly votes for
Speaker 3: the people who tell them that, which is a pretty
Speaker 3: terrible feedback loop.
Speaker 2: I want to ask in a moment here or if
Speaker 2: we are in a place where increasingly conservatives point to
Speaker 2: the Constitution and the response, whether over or more subtle
Speaker 2: in the background from democrats in the left, is so
Speaker 2: what and how that is manifesting itself in our institutions
Speaker 2: and our lay to day life here.
Speaker 1: So we'll get back to that in just a second.
Speaker 2: But first off, everybody, there are a few sensations that
Speaker 2: are better than feeling like you have the energy to
Speaker 2: take on the world and win. That comes from having
Speaker 2: energy and feeling as strong as you do at nine
Speaker 2: pm as you do at nine am. And for guys,
Speaker 2: a big part of this is having the proper levels
Speaker 2: of testosterone. That doesn't come from just a cup of
Speaker 2: coffee or getting a three day weekend. In it comes
Speaker 2: from fueling your body with the right stuff. Chalk's Male
Speaker 2: Vitality Stack has those ingredients. In fact, studies show the
Speaker 2: leading ingredient in Chalk's Male Vitality Stack can replenish twenty
Speaker 2: percent of your testosterone in just three months time. You'll
Speaker 2: feel the positive results long before the ninety day mark
Speaker 2: of this new day regime that includes Chalk's all natural ingredients.
Speaker 2: Chalks Daily supplements are lab tested twice for purity and potency.
Speaker 2: You'll find them online at Chalk dot com that's spelled
Speaker 2: cchoq dot com. Save thirty five percent off the Chalk
Speaker 2: subscription you choose for life when you use my name
Speaker 2: buck in your purchase process that's Chalk choq dot com
Speaker 2: and then name Buck for thirty five percent off. So
Speaker 2: does it even really matter when we win these Supreme
Speaker 2: Court decisions? I mean, you look at D C. Heller
Speaker 2: for example, dcv. Heller, and you look at this, and
Speaker 2: I think there are others that would come to mind
Speaker 2: right away where we say, okay, So this is the law,
Speaker 2: and then the left just figures out ways to say, well,
Speaker 2: what are you going to do about it?
Speaker 1: How are you going to enforce it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's an increasingly difficult problem for conservatives
Speaker 3: to address because again they do feel like, okay, well,
Speaker 3: we won the constitutional argument, we got the judges appointed,
Speaker 3: they ruled in our favor, we got the president elected,
Speaker 3: we got this piece of legislation passed, and obviously from
Speaker 3: here on out now that this is the law, the
Speaker 3: constitution says you have to follow it and will be fine.
Speaker 3: But that's not what actually happens. Right over and over again,
Speaker 3: we see, you know, things like the executive branch just
Speaker 3: to ignore executive orders from Donald Trump right that they
Speaker 3: just don't care. Barack Obama says, hey, I'm going to
Speaker 3: have this, dear colleague letter. All of a sudden, everybody
Speaker 3: has let guys use the girl's bathroom, and it happens
Speaker 3: overnight in a snap. Trump says, hey, you can't do
Speaker 3: affirmative you can't rather, you can't do a diversity, equity
Speaker 3: and inclusion training, and they get an executive ranch and
Speaker 3: members of the executive branch just say, so what I'm
Speaker 3: going to keep doing? It right, And the problem is
Speaker 3: that the Democrats, whether you like it or not, understand
Speaker 3: that at the end of the day, it's about political
Speaker 3: will and not just laws on paper. Laws on paper
Speaker 3: might be good, but really they're only enforced if people
Speaker 3: who are in positions of power believe in them and
Speaker 3: whether the people around them hold them to account. And
Speaker 3: so the Democrats have been playing this game for a
Speaker 3: long time with sanctuary cities and states and those kind
Speaker 3: of things that just completely ignore the dictates of the Constitution, laws,
Speaker 3: you know, Supreme Court rulings, those kind of things, and
Speaker 3: Republicans are going to have to learn this trick because
Speaker 3: we're already seeing, for instance, different courts that are trying
Speaker 3: to strike down these no grooming laws, these laws that
Speaker 3: ban child mutilation inside states that we call a sexual
Speaker 3: transition gender transition, and states are trying to knock these down.
Speaker 3: At some point, Republican governors are just going to have
Speaker 3: to pull the same trick, call the bluff and say, okay,
Speaker 3: you have that ruling, now enforce it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it does seem like the left is much more
Speaker 2: comfortable with de facto nullification of Supreme Court decisions, that's
Speaker 2: for sure. They just decide, yeah, well, what are you
Speaker 2: really going to do about it? They certainly do this
Speaker 2: on Second Amendment issues where they blatantly violate the Constitution,
Speaker 2: and their attitude this is true in New York City,
Speaker 2: for example, on handgun permitting. Their attitude is, yeah, we
Speaker 2: know what we're doing is a violation of your rights,
Speaker 2: but it's going to take you five maybe ten years
Speaker 2: to even get Supreme Court to look at this. So
Speaker 2: in the meantime, we get to just violate your rights
Speaker 2: get what we want as a policy matter. No one's
Speaker 2: going to stop us from it. In a blue state
Speaker 2: like New York and tough, you know that that really
Speaker 2: is the attitude they take. That's what they do.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and unfortunately it's a winning strategy when you have
Speaker 3: a kind of moral visions that are so incredibly divergent.
Speaker 3: In the United States, it really is just the case
Speaker 3: that the people who again care more about winning, are
Speaker 3: just going to beat those who are playing by the rules,
Speaker 3: playing by procedure. Now, that just means that Republicans have
Speaker 3: to understand that you're in the same position if your
Speaker 3: state legitimately passes a regulation that says, sorry, we don't
Speaker 3: mutilate children here then it doesn't really matter what a
Speaker 3: judge says. If they're lying about the Constitution, you just
Speaker 3: kind of have to be like, Okay, well, we're still
Speaker 3: not going to do that. And unless you know, no
Speaker 3: one's going to come and force us to mutilate these kids.
Speaker 3: So we're just not going to allow that to happen
Speaker 3: under our watch. It's not the way that you want
Speaker 3: a republic to run. It's not how rule of law
Speaker 3: is supposed to work. But on one side has kind
Speaker 3: of broken this compact. You can't just sit around pointing
Speaker 3: and sputtering, right, that doesn't work. Oh, they're the real hypocrites,
Speaker 3: you know. No, that doesn't do anything. They keep winning,
Speaker 3: You keep staring and gawking, and it only moves leftward.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you orin about you mentioned this,
Speaker 2: but the fight to protect children from the push of drag,
Speaker 2: Queen Story Hour for Kids, and also surgery for kids,
Speaker 2: transgender surgery, hormone blockers, all this stuff, trans ideology, and
Speaker 2: how this is going now to the state level. It
Speaker 2: may eventually make its way to the Supreme Court. We'll
Speaker 2: get to that in just a moment. You know, your
Speaker 2: computer can be your best tool or your worst nightmare
Speaker 2: depending on whether crashes or not. It's rare that it does.
Speaker 2: But when your computer does get corrupted or just planes
Speaker 2: stop working, life can grind to a halt. For that
Speaker 2: reason alone, you have to back up all of the
Speaker 2: data on your computer. You can't leave that to chance.
Speaker 2: I Drive provides the easiest, most economical solution for this.
Speaker 2: Start backing up your computer data with them today. While
Speaker 2: you're thinking about this one. Iedrive dot com is where
Speaker 2: you start. You don't need any equipment, there's nothing to purchase.
Speaker 2: In that way. I drive software starts backing up your
Speaker 2: data while you're online, working away at whatever keeps you
Speaker 2: busy in your computer. That's because i drive software works
Speaker 2: in the background. It's safe and secure. Their cloud based
Speaker 2: computers store your data with military grade encryption. No one
Speaker 2: except you is going to access it, and you can
Speaker 2: get it when you need it most anytime anywhere. I
Speaker 2: Drive is the easiest, most secure backup cloud solution. Plants
Speaker 2: start at less than seven dollars a month. Use my
Speaker 2: name Buck as the promo code at checkout for ninety
Speaker 2: percent off that for the first year. That's iDrive dot Com.
Speaker 2: iDrive dot Com promo code Buck you'll get ninety percent
Speaker 2: off your first year. So we have a number of
Speaker 2: states or in that are passing laws that say that
Speaker 2: children should should not be subjected to hormone blockers or
Speaker 2: transgender surgery, which they're now calling gender affirmation surgery, which
Speaker 2: is itself a propaganda term. I've already seen at least
Speaker 2: one is that one. Maybe there are more judges have
Speaker 2: said no, you can't do that, which I mean, this
Speaker 2: is how crazy things go. They start doing something that's
Speaker 2: never been done before. The state says, you know what,
Speaker 2: we're we're actually not going to allow that, And now
Speaker 2: you've got federal judges who were effectively saying no, there's
Speaker 2: a basic constitutional right for a twelve year old to
Speaker 2: cut off as genitals. I mean, that's what these judges
Speaker 2: are doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, these these judges know that they can't allow states
Speaker 3: to stand in the way of the civil rights revolution.
Speaker 3: They've decided that this is the new civil rights movement,
Speaker 3: this is the new frontier of the civil rights revolution,
Speaker 3: and they're going to be the guys who kind of
Speaker 3: push this through. Don't let those ugly, bigoted states stand
Speaker 3: in the way of you know, the mutilation of twelve
Speaker 3: year olds, and it's just insane. We've seen this across
Speaker 3: the board, right we over the weekend we had footage
Speaker 3: coming from these Pride parades like that, I believe the
Speaker 3: one in Seattle where grown men are just completely exposing themselves,
Speaker 3: riding bicycles around as part of the parade, waiving their
Speaker 3: junk in front of crowds full of children. And last
Speaker 3: time I checked, that's illegal, right, like, like no one,
Speaker 3: we didn't. We didn't get rid of you know, indecent
Speaker 3: exposure laws that's supposed to put you on some sex
Speaker 3: of sex offender registry list. And yet these people are
Speaker 3: doing it on a regular basis, with no fear from
Speaker 3: law enforcement, no expectation that they'll be arrested, no expectation
Speaker 3: that they'll be prosecuted. And this is a huge problem,
Speaker 3: Like this cannot be allowed in the United States. We
Speaker 3: cannot let some kind you know, dejure all this stuff
Speaker 3: is illegal. But to facto, this has all been legalized.
Speaker 3: And the even the police officers know this because they
Speaker 3: would never interrupt what has basically become like a state
Speaker 3: sanctioned you know, religious ritual in which these guys expose
Speaker 3: themselves to children and you know.
Speaker 2: I think depending on the jurisdiction we're talking about, and
Speaker 2: some of them, they might have even made nudity public
Speaker 2: nudity no longer illegal. I think that may be the
Speaker 2: chase in Seattle or San Francisco. So I approach it
Speaker 2: from the perspective of it's not even just a function
Speaker 2: of law, It's a function of what's what is decent?
Speaker 2: You know, what is uh something that should that should
Speaker 2: be exposed to kids and shouldn't. And I also just
Speaker 2: I have to wonder, what does being naked like? What
Speaker 2: does what does waving your genitalia around as a man
Speaker 2: or as a woman in a parade have to do
Speaker 2: with basic human you know, human rights and dignity and
Speaker 2: pride and whatever like? What what is with and not
Speaker 2: just the newity. We can take a little bit on this.
Speaker 2: Why were there all these pride parades and this is
Speaker 2: every year? This is not I used to live right
Speaker 2: next to the Pride parade rout of New York City,
Speaker 2: so I have seen this firsthand many many times. There's
Speaker 2: a lot of like sex toys and bondage gear and
Speaker 2: all this stuff. People, you know, this isn't common outside
Speaker 2: of the lgbtqu I a plus plus plus activist.
Speaker 1: Community, Like, what is going on?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's kind of the amazing thing, right. Guys like
Speaker 3: George Decay jumped on Twitter after this footage went wide
Speaker 3: and said, oh, well, you know these people they were
Speaker 3: gonna yell about Pride anyway, they were going to try
Speaker 3: to ban Pride anyway, So there's no reason to self censor.
Speaker 3: And it's like, what part of this is about self expression?
Speaker 3: What part of this is censorship? You being asked to
Speaker 3: wear pants around children is somehow a repression of your
Speaker 3: ability to express yourself? What about it is you know
Speaker 3: is so important to you that this happens? And I
Speaker 3: think the answer is these are sexual identities by their
Speaker 3: very nature, like that, that's what these identities mean. And
Speaker 3: so when people are saying, well, you know, displays of
Speaker 3: this stuff are essential and center to our identity, you
Speaker 3: might just need to listen to what they're saying and
Speaker 3: then realize that this no child should ever be around
Speaker 3: this stuff. There were a few years ago the idea
Speaker 3: that a child would go to a Pride parade would
Speaker 3: have been insane. Everybody knew what these things were. They
Speaker 3: were no holds barred type of Mardi gras things. Now,
Speaker 3: a lot of us didn't like that, but at the
Speaker 3: very least you can make a case that at least
Speaker 3: it was adults only, and we understood that everyone there
Speaker 3: was kind of of a specific age and had made
Speaker 3: a decision that.
Speaker 1: Kind of thing.
Speaker 3: But that is obviously not the case now. But the
Speaker 3: fact that we have to have this argument, the fact
Speaker 3: that there's any debate around the issue that a child
Speaker 3: should be at an event that is explicitly explicitly sexual
Speaker 3: in nature and always has been, really shows you that
Speaker 3: kind of everything that was predicted by the resilionious right
Speaker 3: in like the nineteen eighties was pretty much entirely correct,
Speaker 3: and it's come to pass.
Speaker 1: Yes, the slope is quite slippery.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is something that we're seeing and a lot
Speaker 2: of aspects in society speaking, which the feeling we have
Speaker 2: right now around bud Light and the awakened right when
Speaker 2: it comes to wokeness in corporate America, I want to
Speaker 2: ask you don't answer it yet or in.
Speaker 1: Where you know this business.
Speaker 2: We're calling this a tease, but I'm going to come
Speaker 2: back in a second here and I want you to
Speaker 2: tell me. Are we seeing something that we should celebrate
Speaker 2: in the sense that it's we're putting wins on the
Speaker 2: board or should should we be more depressed that it
Speaker 2: took bud Light putting a trans influencer out to effectively
Speaker 2: insult the entire bud Light audience with politicization that they
Speaker 2: didn't ask for. Is that just showing us that we're
Speaker 2: defending on our own five yard lines, so to speak?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Which one is it? I want you to answer that
Speaker 2: one for me in a second week come back. Famed
Speaker 2: economist and bestselling author Nomi Prins is out with a
Speaker 2: new warning. She says a small group of financial elites
Speaker 2: are plotting a drastic action unlike anything we've seen since
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy one. The White House, the World Economic Forum,
Speaker 2: even Bill Gates are all involved. According to her research,
Speaker 2: your ability to spend, borrow, save, and invest could soon
Speaker 2: be restricted with the push of a button. Our financial
Speaker 2: system is about to be transformed in a way that
Speaker 2: would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. And
Speaker 2: it all starts in July. Bank of America is calling
Speaker 2: it inevitable. You've got any money in a US bank
Speaker 2: account retirement plan, get all the facts at Disappearing dollar
Speaker 2: dot com. You may not like what doctor Prince has
Speaker 2: to say. But at the very least you'll be prepared
Speaker 2: when events take a turn for the worst. Disappearing dollar
Speaker 2: dot com Again, that's disappearing dollar dot com go there now,
Speaker 2: paid for by rogue economics.
Speaker 4: All right, Oran, are we making headway or are we
Speaker 4: making a goal line stand in the war on corporate wokeness?
Speaker 3: I think this is definitely a goal line stand. Like
Speaker 3: you said, the fact that a product like bud Light
Speaker 3: that obviously has the audience that it does, the core
Speaker 3: audience that it has decided to go ahead and make
Speaker 3: this move, is a problem. Also, you have the fact, like,
Speaker 3: let's not forget where this whole bud light thing came from. Yes,
Speaker 3: we remember it now because they had Dylan Mulvani and
Speaker 3: a can. But right before that, a trans shooter murdered
Speaker 3: six people, three of them children, at a Christian school,
Speaker 3: and another transshooter was stopped in Colorado Springs who was
Speaker 3: also planning to shoot up middle schools and churches. That's
Speaker 3: when this happened. This happened right after they right after this,
Speaker 3: while the President of the United States, instead of talking
Speaker 3: about Christians or the terrible thing that happened to the
Speaker 3: school was praising the trans community. Madonna was talking about
Speaker 3: raising money not for the murdered family, you know, the
Speaker 3: family of the murdered children, or for the school that
Speaker 3: was impacted, but for the trans community. And at during
Speaker 3: all of this stuff, while the bodies were still being buried,
Speaker 3: Bud Lighty decided to slap Dulan mulvaney on a can
Speaker 3: because it was Pride month and or a Pride month
Speaker 3: was coming rather and it didn't matter, right, it didn't
Speaker 3: matter when it actually happened in the world. We were
Speaker 3: going to celebrate Pride Month even if these children had
Speaker 3: just been murdered by a trans shooter. That's the beginning,
Speaker 3: that's the genesis of this. It's sad that this had
Speaker 3: to be worked out over a beer can, but at
Speaker 3: the very least it's a win. I think it is
Speaker 3: a win. I think people did wake up, and I
Speaker 3: think it's because there was a cultural aspect to this. Right,
Speaker 3: look at your buddy across the bar and be like, really, man,
Speaker 3: Bud light you're that guy, And all of a sudden,
Speaker 3: that meme of oh, that's the trans beer was much
Speaker 3: more effective than any particular political argument. Memes are just
Speaker 3: way more powerful than logical arguments, and I think that's
Speaker 3: why this was such a big win. Now it's still
Speaker 3: at its beginning stages. You're still only seeing these people
Speaker 3: lose some money. You're not making the big games. Big
Speaker 3: gains come with institutions change. So I think the big
Speaker 3: thing will be can that populist you know, meme energy
Speaker 3: be transferred over into long term institutional success. If the
Speaker 3: answer is yes, then I think this is a win.
Speaker 2: As as you and I sit here speaking, the manifesto
Speaker 2: of the transhooter in Nashville is still something that has
Speaker 2: been kept from the public. There has been many months now.
Speaker 2: I've never seen this happen before, and I think that
Speaker 2: you speak aout instances. What are people supposed to think
Speaker 2: when something like this happens and the system decides that
Speaker 2: the motivation of a mass murderer, a murder of children
Speaker 2: should not be publicly known because it may very well
Speaker 2: be very politically damaging to the left.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you remember, like right after this, all of a sudden,
Speaker 3: there were a bunch of brown white supremacists who showed up.
Speaker 3: There's that guy who like drove towards the White House
Speaker 3: and he had a neatly folded kind of Nazi flag,
Speaker 3: even though he was like an Indian immigrant, and this
Speaker 3: kind of thing, amazingly like, all of their ideologies were
Speaker 3: immediately displayed, all of their motivations were immediately known and
Speaker 3: made public, and they were decried and you know, called
Speaker 3: the biggest problem in America by the President and everyone else.
Speaker 3: But this manifesto can't come out right, this motive can't
Speaker 3: be known, and everyone knows why. Everybody understands the answer here,
Speaker 3: and if they're not going to say it out loud.
Speaker 3: One of these things is politically useful to the system,
Speaker 3: to the regime, and one of them is not. Everyone
Speaker 3: knows what's in that manifesto, or at least to some degree,
Speaker 3: what's probably in that manifesto, and everyone knows why it
Speaker 3: can't get out, because if it got out while people
Speaker 3: were still angry, where people were still shocked and devastated,
Speaker 3: then they might have the political will to do something
Speaker 3: about it. But if you wait long enough until nobody's
Speaker 3: really paying attention again, you know, the fervor has died
Speaker 3: down and nobody really remembers why you were, you know,
Speaker 3: a boycotting bud light in the first place. Well, then
Speaker 3: maybe you can start sneaking that stuff and it won't
Speaker 3: be such a big deal.
Speaker 2: Or in where should people go to listen to your
Speaker 2: podcast read your work? What's the best place?
Speaker 4: Sure?
Speaker 3: Absolutely, I'm over on Blaze TV. Of course, you can
Speaker 3: read my columns at The Blaze and then you can
Speaker 3: subscribe to the podcast. I'm on YouTube, Rumble, Odyssey, all
Speaker 3: those sites. But you can also get to the podcast
Speaker 3: on your favorite podcast platform. It's the Oron McIntyre.
Speaker 1: Show, Always illuminating. Thanks for making the time for us.
Speaker 1: Good to see you, Thanks for having me Man