Leighton Smith Podcast #249 - July 31st 2024 - Patrick Basham & Ramesh Thakur - The Leighton Smith Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News talkst B. Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of us, now the Leighton
Smith Podcast powered by News Talks B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and forty nine for July
thirty one, twenty twenty four. Patrick Masham returns after an
extended but unintended absence I think about ten months. Patrick
founded the Democracy Institute in Washington, d C. And London
and his organization does regular polling for the London Daily
Express and more, and his polling method has proven pretty

(00:51):
accurate to date. And part two of the eighty minute
interview that we did with Ramesh thecur on important matters
such as the dangers of a cash free society, and
there are plenty diversity in equity and inclusion, etc. And
we also cover Julian Massage the rights and wrongs as

(01:13):
we see it, and we have a bit of variation,
and there are other matters as well. Now, something that
I'm adverse to doing is predicting the next week's content
of a podcast, because things tend to happen but the
announcement today by in New Zealand regarding the company's green
agenda has well, I've got to say it's amused me.

(01:37):
Reading comments this morning also frustrated me. So there are
issues to address, but they will have to wait in
a moment. Patrick Basham Patrick Bajem is well known to

(02:05):
the majority of listeners to this podcast because he has
appeared on numerous occasions over a number of years. In fact,
we first met I think it was twenty thirteen when
he was actually in New Zealand. He is the founding
director of the Democracy Institute, which is based in Washington
and London. It's a research organization and Patrick does a

(02:27):
lot of research. In fact, you are doing a great
deal of research at the moment. Patrick, It's great to
have you back on the podcast. The Laily Express is
exploiting your work.

Speaker 3 (02:40):
Yes, indeed, high lighton. Wonderful to be back with you
and with your final audience. Alwas appreciating the invitation, the
opportunity to have a conversation with you about important things. Yes,
we do a lot of public and private polling, and
most of our public polling in terms of American politics
is for The Daily Express Family of newspapers out of

(03:02):
the UK, and so we always do at least a
monthly poll for them, but we also do more real
time timely polls when news merits, and there's been a
lot of that lately. So we continue to pump out
the numbers. They continue to please some and irritate others,

(03:23):
but that probably means that we're maybe getting it close
to the mark.

Speaker 2 (03:27):
Indeed, is it difficult to keep up at the moment.

Speaker 4 (03:31):
It is.

Speaker 3 (03:32):
One of the things that's always difficult with polling is
is to figure out just what it is that people
are focused on. You know, you're always asking what most
important issue is that type of question that your audience
will be very familiar with, and where in the normal
course of events that ebbs and flows. But there are

(03:54):
only occasional events that and it sort of interventions that
really can in the short, medium or long term really
sort of upset those particular apple carts or really sort
of change the nature of the public debate. But in
the US context, of course, over the last several weeks,
you know, we had the first we don't have with

(04:15):
the last to the last Biden Trump debate, Then we
had the assassination attempt on Trump. Then we had the
Republican Convention, Then we had Biden quitting the race. Now
we have you know, Harris against Trump. Apparently, So all
of this happened within a number of weeks, and most
of it within there's a couple of weeks at the outside,
and you're pulling all the time during that and trying

(04:37):
to catch trying to catch people's while they're paying attention
to this.

Speaker 4 (04:42):
This new issue.

Speaker 3 (04:44):
Figure out how much change that is creating in voters'
minds and consequently perhaps their decision making itself and their
actual voting. But then something else comes along, either while
you're pulling, right after you've pulled, that doesn't blow it up,
but just throws up potentially throws a lot of sparing
of the works in the sense of how do you
disentangle it all and figure out, Okay, what's happened. The

(05:07):
change we're seeing is mostly because the assassination attemptor it's
mostly because Trump's convention speech, where it's mostly because Biden
got out of the race, it's mostly because of Harris, right,
and so all of us on the polling side, if
you know, if we're honest with ourselves and with others,
you know, it's it's an art. It's art more than
science when it comes to this stuff, and often people
say the same. The things to do is just sort

(05:27):
of let let it all out and just let time
pass and things will become more obvious with the passage
of time.

Speaker 4 (05:34):
That's a huge of.

Speaker 3 (05:35):
Course, that we don't have any more of these unexpected
events happening over the next few weeks and months.

Speaker 2 (05:43):
I've got to I've got to mention my favorite question
in one of the two polls you've done in the
last couple of weeks. See if you can guess what
it is? Yeah, the the so we've got a yes, no,
and don't know what answers. Thirteen is my lucky number,
and yes is thirteen.

Speaker 4 (06:03):
Oh it's the Is it the hunt of Biden?

Speaker 2 (06:05):
You got it? Sure, good hunter Biden seek Democratic presidential nomination.
And it just stunned me that there were actually thirteen
percent of respondents who said yes. Do you think they
had any idea what they were talking about? What the
question was?

Speaker 4 (06:20):
I think so? Would you see?

Speaker 3 (06:22):
That means that about a third a third of Democratic
voters are saying yes to that, and they are the
folks who think that Joe Biden is just a wonderful father.
His son has just had some bad luck and has
been maligned by the media and the Republicans. And what

(06:45):
Hunter has been doing, it was doing, you know, well,
arguably it's still doing, but certainly was doing up to
Joe Biden's departure from the presidential race, was counseling his father,
being a good son, trying to run the country as
best he could in his father's literal absence. And they just,

(07:06):
you know, they think that thing critical is a lie,
and they will say they will support anything that Biden
did or does. They will support anything that anything the
Hunter does or says.

Speaker 4 (07:19):
You know, it's it's a reflexive default position.

Speaker 3 (07:22):
And but apart from those folks, those find people, everybody
else pretty much understands that you wouldn't you know, you
wouldn't want to hunt Biden though within within striking distance
of running.

Speaker 4 (07:34):
A fish and chip shop, let alone the presidency.

Speaker 2 (07:39):
Well at least you'd have access to his supply.

Speaker 3 (07:43):
The the no figure was absolutely you, yes, there was
a madness to there was a method to his madness.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
Perhaps, yes, So the no vote was eighty four percent
and don't know, three percent you can forgive that. Don't
know it's because there's always a bunch of them. But
the pulling that you've done throughout some throughout numbers and attitudes,
and for instance, let me go back to the very basics,

(08:14):
should Biden resign the presidency. So this is out of date,
but the yes vote was sixty three percent, twenty eight
and don't know nine, So that is now that has
now happened, and we transit to missus Harris, and she's
doing pretty well at the moment. How would how would

(08:36):
I don't think you've done anything on her just yet,
but how would she be performing now in your polling?
Do you think?

Speaker 3 (08:44):
Well, we actually did our most recent poll that came
out over last week, just a few days ago. It's
the first poll that we have had her up against
Trump as the presumptive nominee. We've been polling Trump against
Harris for quite some time as a possibility if if
Biden jumped or was pushed. But so we do have

(09:04):
one since she since Biden left the president that the
election scene, and since she jumped in and was anointed
by all the important people in the Democratic Party, we
do have one one poll on this and so I
would say in answering, in answering your question about what
do we think is also pushing back a little against

(09:26):
your sort of introduction to this, in that I would
say that Harris isn't doing particularly well, and that the
narrative that in the last several days everything has changed
and this is now an uber competitive race where Harris
is really sort of neck and neck with Trump is

(09:47):
to this point sort of without foundation, and I can
I can risk boring you in your audience.

Speaker 4 (09:53):
By sort of fletting that out a little. If you'd
like it, go for it.

Speaker 3 (09:57):
Well, Okay, So first of all, this the context of
the media narrative in America pre debate with Biden was
that is a very competitive close race, right, and the
criticisms of Biden from the Republicans weren't sticking because they
were so manufactured and the things in the country were

(10:20):
pretty good. Just that Biden wasn't getting enough credit. So
therefore it was a competitive race, otherwise he would have
won it to be winning easily. Then the debate comes
along and everybody sees what the other side has been
saying for years, which is Biden can't do the job.
Everybody pretty much agrees, and then Biden started to lose
support apparently, which was true. He lost more support. Then

(10:42):
the assassination attempt comes on Trump, build sympathy for Trump.
Then the Republican invention happens, good, you know, positive vibes
for Trump and the Republicans. So at the end of
that process, everyone's agreeing that Trump is a shoe in
to win. But what I would argue is that for
a year Trump was in a very strong position. Weren't

(11:04):
guaranteed to win, but pre debate he was a heavy favorite.
Everything that happened, the debate, the assassination attempt, the convention
made it going from quite probable to almost guarantee.

Speaker 4 (11:17):
So I sail this because the media.

Speaker 3 (11:20):
And the Democrats publicly at least refused to acknowledge the
fact that Trump was in such a strong position. They've
always they've argued the problem was Biden has simply become
too old and appeared not up to the job anymore
more physically than anything. So they've switched out Biden for Harris,
and they're saying, so there we are, We're right, right,

(11:41):
we were right. It wasn't about the policies or how
people felt about the country. About Biden's as a president,
it was simply, you know, he was too snow seen
as too old. No, we've got this young, energetic vice
president and she's going to do really well.

Speaker 4 (11:54):
And look at these polls showing that she's doing really well.

Speaker 3 (11:57):
What those polls The reason those polls are showing that
Trump's lead has shrunk or you know, might even be
neck and neck with Harris, is that what those polls
are doing is they are I don't know if it's intentional,
but certainly the outcome is that they are over sampling Democrats.
They're including too many Democrats disproportionate number of Democrats, then

(12:22):
their size of the electorate. And that means that if
you have five to ten percent too many Democrats almost
whom all of whom are going to vote for the
Democratic candidate, then you get it. Instead of trumping up
by six, he's up by two, or Istred, of being
up by four, it's now a tie, or Harris is
up by one, this kind of thing. If you are

(12:43):
more careful about these things, as I hope we are
and some others are, then what you see is what
we see, which is we see almost no change. So,
for example, after the convention and the assassination attempt. Our
second most recent poll, we had Trump up nine against Biden.

(13:06):
Our first poll, almost recent poll Trump against Harris, Trump
is up eight and.

Speaker 4 (13:14):
Trump's numbers aren't down significantly.

Speaker 3 (13:17):
What it is is that Democrats were so depressed and
disenchanted with Biden by the time he dropped out. The
fact they now have a living, breathing candidate, they are relieved,
They are at least temporarily energized. And some of them
who were not going to vote, and some of them
who are going to vote for Robert Kennedy Junior as

(13:39):
a sort of sort of protest, I've sort of come back.
So Harris is the margin between Harris and Trump is
one point in our polling, different less different than what
it was, smaller than what it was between Trump and Biden.
And if you look at, you know, all the demographic breakdown,

(13:59):
all of those numbers that were looking so good for
Trump and so bad for Biden among blacks and Hispanics,
even amongst women, the white working class in the PA,
and they're all those numbers haven't shifted.

Speaker 4 (14:11):
Those numbers are still the same. Now this is the.

Speaker 3 (14:13):
First poll, you know, we'll be doing lots of polls
between now and November five. Yep, but there's no Well,
my point is that we've been told as a search
that everything's changed now, and what I'm suggesting to your
audience is that there is no us there's no rigorous
empirical evidence to support that.

Speaker 2 (14:32):
I'm looking at the the figures that you mentioned. I
only had to spool down two pages and I found
it and realized that I was in era. But I
did wonder. I had wondered that poll was done. I'm
looking at the demographic subgroups just at the moment, and
then there's the main one forty eight to forty to

(14:52):
Harris above it. That was done after after Joe stood
down and she was declared the runner, or prior to that.

Speaker 3 (15:05):
Yeah, it was afterwards, because he stood down on the Sunday,
and then in the next forty eight to seventy two hours,
I mean, she declared her.

Speaker 4 (15:12):
It was immediately she was endorsed by Bob.

Speaker 3 (15:15):
The only thing that hadn't happened by the time we
took the poll is Obama hadn't endorsed her, but everyone
had come together. They'd announced that there weren't going to
be any other candidates allowed at the convention, et cetera,
et cetera. So at that point, the only shooter drop
was and I thought this might be possible that Obama
because he didn't want Harris. But it turns out he's

(15:35):
been out maneuvered by her and her cabal, that he
was holding back an endorsement because he had another candidate
in mind and he was going to jump He's going
to throw in at the convention. And I thought that
might be you know that if it was a silver
bullet for the Democrats, that would be it. Obama being
a very savvy operator in these in these regards, but

(15:56):
he saw the writing on the wall. He wasn't able
to wouldn't be able to get Harris out. So subsequent
to that poll, he's endorsed. Obviously, he's endorsed Harris.

Speaker 2 (16:04):
I'm interested also in who convinced Biden to leave in
people's opinion, and that runs from thirty six percent thinks Obama,
and surprisingly who convinced Biden to leave on four percent
was Jill Biden.

Speaker 3 (16:21):
Yes, yes, well people recognize, I mean it's you know,
it's not exactly a secret that Joe Biden didn't want
to go. But there was a there was a window
of persuadability there. But Jill Biden everybody knew she had.
She was gripping on to the furniture in the Oval office.
She was not going to give up her presidency. I mean,

(16:42):
I'm sorry, her position is first Lady without a fight,
right literally, I mean, there are strong rooms. I don't
know if they're true, but I suspect they may be that.
For the past two years, Joe Biden was okay with
leaving as long as he left was able to leave
with his head held high, but Jill.

Speaker 4 (17:00):
Biden refused to go along with it.

Speaker 3 (17:03):
And more recently, of course, Joe Biden wasn't going and
didn't go with his head held high.

Speaker 4 (17:08):
And that was his problem.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
He just couldn't bear the thought of being ousted and
what that would mean for his legacy.

Speaker 4 (17:16):
And of course, it turns out they.

Speaker 3 (17:18):
Were able to get him out because Obama and Harris
were able to tell him, you know, look, you either
go now or we're going to, you know, in vote
the twenty fifth Amendment and we'll get the votes and
they'll kick you out because you're incapacitated.

Speaker 4 (17:32):
And how that going to look on your legacy?

Speaker 3 (17:34):
So you know, the Letter of two evils as far
as by Joe Biden was concerned, but I'm sure Jill
Biden probably had to be medicated in order to get
her literally out of the building.

Speaker 2 (17:45):
Well, come time for the changeover, I think they should
have armguards on the on the White House, indeed, especially
the furniture rooms. Let me just ask you for your
personal opinion on how this will turn out. I mean,
I know it's a long call still, but how do
you think it will end up?

Speaker 4 (18:06):
Strictly the election itself.

Speaker 3 (18:07):
Yeah, with the obvious but necessary caveat that anything can
happen with ninety nine days out of the time I'm
speaking with you, Layton, so with less than one hundred days,
there's plenty of time for something major to happen. And
obviously the last several weeks tell us that major things
can happen, some predictable, some not.

Speaker 4 (18:29):
So with that caveat out of.

Speaker 3 (18:32):
The way, I would say it is highly improbable that
Harris can pull this off. And just to sort of
hopefully the audience ske sort of Pracie my rationale. If
you're looking at this, you take the names away, take
Harris away, and all the pros and the connotations that

(18:55):
go with that name, and Trump away and the connotations
that go with his name. You look at the state
of the country economically, socially, in terms of foreign policy,
place in the world, all of that, and you look
not just at the raw numbers, but you look at
what people what most people, what their quality of life is,
what their what their fears, frustrations are, their anger, how

(19:18):
they see the direction of the country, how see their
own they see their own futures.

Speaker 4 (19:22):
You see.

Speaker 3 (19:23):
You look at how young people are viewing things quite
differently than they.

Speaker 4 (19:27):
Were when Obama was president.

Speaker 3 (19:30):
You look at how Hispanics are looking at uh looking
heavily towards the Republicans in a way they happened since
George W.

Speaker 4 (19:37):
Bush. You look at how arguably a fifth to a quarter.

Speaker 3 (19:40):
Of black voters seriously thinking of voting in a way
that they ever voted before. And then you say, you
have a president, if a former president running whose presidency,
whilst almost would argue it was demonstrably far superior to
the one that followed it, the current one. The important
point is that if you ask, if you ask Americans

(20:04):
what they think of Trump's presidency, was it a success
or a failure. Was it better or worse than what's come?
Since they have always been surprisingly positive about Trump's presidency,
will they be passing month of the Biden presidency, they
become more favorable. So now the retrospective for you on
Trump the fore and president is more positive than negative,

(20:26):
much more. And then you have a vice president attempted
to succeed the president who.

Speaker 4 (20:34):
Has never run for national office.

Speaker 3 (20:37):
Well, she's run for her party's nomination once, but did
so poorly. She had to get out before any votes
were cast because it was going to be a disaster.
Who who throughout her Korea has never won a competitive race,
you know, just hasn't it hasn't had that opportunity or.

Speaker 4 (20:54):
Or has failed when she's when she's attempted it.

Speaker 3 (20:57):
And who has historically low favorability ratings, and is ranked
ranked by the public, not by historians, but it's ranked
by the public as of the worst vice president anyone
can remember. You pull that together, and it's hard to
see how it adds up literally or figuratively in favor

(21:18):
of Harris. It just, you know, it's just the trends
aren't there, The signs aren't there. It doesn't you know,
It just doesn't seem plausible that a race that was
Trump's almost guarantee to win ten days ago is going
to be a close run thing because they swapped out

(21:40):
a very unpopular president for an even more unpopular candidate.

Speaker 2 (21:44):
Now I'm going to count to you because she has
won something where she was voted in.

Speaker 4 (21:51):
Did you know that which will voted into to which position?

Speaker 2 (21:55):
Well, let me quote you and declare from the current
Spectator Australia. James Allen, Who's Jim Allen, who is a
Canadian law professor who works in Well, he was in
New Zealand for a number of years and now in Queensland.
I will to quote you a diversity pick in the
oval office. Carl Harris does have one political victory. It's

(22:19):
the only democratically chosen office that saw her run required
actual voters to pick the winner, and she won. That
was back in twenty ten when Miss Arras ran for
the office of Attorney General of California. In that election,
Jerry Brown won the governorship against the Republican by thirteen points.
Barbara Boxer defeated her Republican opponent for the California Senate

(22:42):
seat race that year by ten points, and Kamala Harris
defeated the Republican candidate in twenty ten by wait for it,
zero point eight percent. Yes, yes, and that's in California.
Let me remind you exactly.

Speaker 3 (23:02):
She has the unique status of being the only Democrat
in California to turn and an uncompetitive state wide race
into a competitive one.

Speaker 4 (23:12):
Yeah, and that you.

Speaker 3 (23:14):
Know, this is this is who they're hanging their hopes upon,
right and we see, I mean, just we know all
how wonderful it's going for her.

Speaker 4 (23:21):
We've been told the last few days. But if you
see what.

Speaker 3 (23:25):
What they're doing, how they're campaigning, it tells us a lot.
Because the Kamal Harris campaign, they started advertising and they
started their messaging, and she is to this point clearly
running as the woke candidate. It's all it's all pride stuff,
it's all transgender. There's not a white man in sightly,

(23:45):
it's not a white, straight white man. I mean, it's
the identity politics to the max. They are obviously believing
that the California electurer is the national electurer, or that
there are all these hidden woke voters who no one
else has discovered yet, who are going to come out
none of the hills, but you know, come out of
their their wine bars and their suburban mansions and vote

(24:08):
for her. Whereas at the same time, the Trump campaign
in the Swing States are running attack ads against Harris
on crime and immigration and running their own ads pro
Trump ads on immigration in the economy. I mean, just
what they're focusing on and how they're focusing on it
gives a strong signal as to which side, regardless of

(24:32):
whose right or wrong policy wise, but which side gets
it in terms of where the electorate is, you know.

Speaker 4 (24:38):
So it's I just don't see the magic yet.

Speaker 3 (24:41):
Maybe it's all going to pop up soon at the
convention or afterwards or during a debate, But that seems
highly unlikely, doesn't it.

Speaker 2 (24:47):
It does seem highly unlikely. I based my prediction in
twenty sixteen that Trump would win on the fact that
I could not believe and would not believe that the majority,
well the collective IQ of Americans, was so stupid as
to elect the other party who deserves and I mentioned, uh,

(25:08):
and I'm and I'm basing my prediction for this one
on exactly the same reasoning. Now, I want to I
want to transfer a little bit because the title of
that James Allen article a diversity pick in the Oval Office.
Alex Berenson, the journalist and author. Have you ever read
any of his his spy type books.

Speaker 4 (25:32):
I haven't.

Speaker 3 (25:33):
I'm more familiar with him during the COVID and post
COVID period with his critiques.

Speaker 2 (25:38):
Of yeah in that regard, Yeah, yeah, he wrote some.
He wrote a series. You know, there were a number
of series of books starring in each series from different
authors of you know, one particular hero, and he had one,
and I've got a collection of them. I just thought
i'd tell you he's written a piece that's about another piece.

(26:04):
If I'm making sense, and his is headed read this
and weak and then it brackets and be outraged. Heather
McDonald's been writing about the war on men for a while.
Today in City Journal she turned her attention to the
Boy Scouts, who are no longer the boy Scouts at all,
but Scouting America. Now. This is all about DEI and

(26:27):
associated woke matters. And when you read, and you can,
if you go to a Cityjournal dot org Cityjournal dot org,
you'll find the full piece written by Heather McDonald, and
it's worthy of attention. The Boy Scouts of America has
a Chief Diversity Officer and Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion.

(26:51):
The organization requires all Eagle Scouts to earn a badge
in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. And I can't go on
because I'll throw up. I wonder if well you tell me,
you tell us is wokeness and DEI on the way?
Is it under threat or is it still raging?

Speaker 3 (27:14):
It is all of the Abovely, it is still raging
because those who advocate for it, and more specifically, those
in positions either positions created to advocate for it, usually
paid for by the taxpayer or paid for courtesy of

(27:34):
big business. Those folks are true believers, and of course
they want the cottage industry to continue to continue to grow.
So that is not going to stop until they are stopped, until,
for example, you know, Coca Cola and McDonald's and you
name the big multinational, until they eliminate these positions, until

(27:57):
the government eliminates these positions, until the academy ellict eliminates
these positions, these folks will continue making their often high
six figure salaries and pouring out more of this nonsense. However,
as more and more regular folk come to understand what
is going on, what has been going on, and what

(28:18):
the plans are for the future. The normal, the regular folk.
The regular person's response is that they too are horrified.
They're baffled. At first, people don't believe it's true because
it is so bizarre, so surreal, so ridiculous, so farcical.

Speaker 4 (28:36):
And then they discover.

Speaker 3 (28:37):
Because they started looking at their kids' textbooks, or they
talk to people they work with and their experience in
the service, that they watch Disney films and programs. But
this is actually true, and most people think the world's
gone mad. There's not much they can do about it.
But some people, particularly when it comes to education. Parents,
a lot of parents are trying to take back control,

(28:59):
which is something that not just the woosters what the
liberal elites who govern education in most Western countries are
very resistant to allow to give that control back, not
just in a power sense, but ideologically.

Speaker 4 (29:16):
They actually think the parents shouldn't have control.

Speaker 3 (29:18):
The government should have control of your kid's education, obviously,
and so public opinion, which didn't really consider these things
until fairly recently, is massively overwhelmingly against all of this madness.
And those politicians who are brave enough to step out

(29:39):
in front of that public opinion and sort of tend
to walk walk in front of it, lead it as
best they can, you know, tend to do well. But
most politicians are still scared because they don't want to
be labeled racist and homophobic and all the rest of it.

Speaker 4 (29:56):
And just in terms of public opinion itself, just as this.

Speaker 3 (30:01):
Either be real, I mean, may or may not be
reassuring to your audience, but just as overwhelmingly voters are
against these transgender policies or you you know, the critical
race theory or d I and all of that, these
are not racist, homophobic, misogynistic people.

Speaker 4 (30:19):
They recognize there's a great deal. Look, there's all the
limbs in the.

Speaker 3 (30:22):
World between treating everyone equally regardless of gender, race, sexual
orientation and treating some groups discriminating in favor of certain
groups because they are the minority.

Speaker 5 (30:34):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (30:35):
And so the people get it now, more and more
politicians get it. But we're still a long way from
getting rid of it. Because as obviously, the the woosters,
the woke industry has you know, established pretty strong roots
in some places, and every you know, every Olympics opening

(30:55):
ceremony to bacle helps you know, helps thots.

Speaker 2 (31:01):
Well, it's just got a great big boost. Yes Watching
television yesterday, there was a sequence of commentaries by Kamala
Harris of her talking about equity, equity, equity, equity, equity everywhere,
and he just went on and on and on different
speeches and in equity, repeating herself. And if the if

(31:24):
the American public realizing that voted for her and she
became the president, I think of Mary, I think you'd
move out.

Speaker 3 (31:34):
Oh, it's yeah, it's it's pretty unimaginable because, you know,
when people were voting for Biden, here's somebody who's demonstrably.

Speaker 4 (31:42):
Corrupt on Earth the call and challenged in various ways.

Speaker 3 (31:48):
But he's someone who always, at least within his own party,
just went with the flow.

Speaker 2 (31:52):
Right.

Speaker 4 (31:53):
He was pro segregation at the beginning.

Speaker 3 (31:54):
He ended up being on the woke side because that's
just way the way the music was playing, and he
just you know, tried to go with that and very
successfully throughout you know, forty to fifty year career. Well,
Kamala Harris, she has to leaves this stuff, right. I mean,
she she is someone who is I mean, she's not
very bright. That's one problem, and she's rather unethical, that's

(32:18):
another problem. But she actually is a true believer. I mean,
she can't do anything more than spout talking points. She
can't debate it, she can't defend it, but she actually
likes it. You know, she wants more of it. And
you know, her problem is not that Trump's wall wasn't finished,
that it was started in the first place.

Speaker 4 (32:38):
I mean, that's why you know JD. Vass is debating her.

Speaker 3 (32:41):
I'd like him, for example, to ask her, which of
your Marxist economist father's beliefs did you do you agree with?
And which do you disagree with? You know, I mean
it's you know, it's in the DNA. I mean, I
think he was a thousand times smarter than her. It's
wrong on everything. She's wrong on everything and not very smart.

(33:01):
So it's it's even more alarming and probably even more
dangerous than if she if she was actually a smart
Marxist or a dim opportunist like Biden.

Speaker 2 (33:15):
Well, if he answered that sort of question, she'd probably
answer along the lines of what's gone before?

Speaker 4 (33:22):
Yeah, exactly exactly.

Speaker 3 (33:25):
And I mean the next spicacle of the press question,
of course, is to ask her what the reparations she's cutting,
giving her family slaveholding history in the Caribbean. But she's
she's she's there's so much low hanging fruit with a
candidate like her right in California. It's more difficult because
California is California. But in terms of what she has

(33:50):
to do to win, you know, she doesn't have to
convert people in Manhattan or even people in Florida. She
has to convert white blue collar men in the rust belt, right.

Speaker 4 (34:03):
She has to. She doesn't mean she doesn't like white men.
She doesn't like white people bring much at all, and
she has to convert them.

Speaker 3 (34:10):
And they're worried about illegal immigration and inflation and the
lack of manufacturing jobs and crime.

Speaker 4 (34:18):
It's a heavy lift for a candidate like her.

Speaker 2 (34:22):
Indeed, just finally want to quote you somebody named Matthew Garrett.
To my colleagues at Bakersfield College and nationwide, I say,
keep the faith. We are winning the battle one case
at a time. Is a conservative professor who got disciplined
for criticizing DEI and has won two point four million

(34:45):
dollars to settle the lawsuit against the college. Isn't that
great news? Headlines?

Speaker 3 (34:50):
It is great, and there are things happening in the
last let's say, twelve months that weren't happening twenty four,
thirty six, forty eight months ago, and this is very encouraging.
There were occasional victories, now the victories are starting to
pile up. Right, Are we at a currical mass? We
are in terms of we are in a critical mass in

(35:12):
terms of public opinion. But are we at a critical
mass in terms of policy, legislation, the law, in terms
of those who are those who are making decisions in
politics or in the corporate world, in academia. No, we're not,
but we appear to be closer, much closer than we were.
And how this election goes in November, not just presidentially,

(35:34):
but at the congressional level as well, is going to
tell us a lot about whether that momentum, positive momentum,
continues and we can kind of see the promised land somewhere,
maybe far in the distance, but at least it's there,
or whether we sort of look at each other and say,
my god, you know it's time to run for the.

Speaker 2 (35:53):
Hills lot as there's caves in the hills. I will
take this opportunity to say, well, actually, to ask you
how often, how frequently are you going to be running
the pulling?

Speaker 3 (36:07):
At least at least monthly, but it's probably going to
be twice a month the way things are looking now.

Speaker 2 (36:13):
All right, So I will utilize your figures and whenever
it is appropriate we shall talk. If you accept my invitation.

Speaker 3 (36:23):
Absolutely, whenever you think I can be helpful, I will
endeavor to do so.

Speaker 2 (36:29):
It is great talking to you again, Thank.

Speaker 3 (36:31):
You, Thank you late, and pleasure in honors Mine.

Speaker 4 (36:45):
Layton Smith.

Speaker 2 (36:47):
There are essential fat nutrients that we need in our
diets as the body can't manufacture them. These are Omega
three and Amiga six fatty acids. Equisine is a combination
of fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil, a formula
that provides an excellent source of Amiga three and Amiga
six fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios. The Omega

(37:08):
six from evening primrose oil assists the Omega three fish
oil to be more effective. Equisine is a high quality
fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil that works
synergistically for comprehensive health support. Sourced from the deep sea sardines,
Anchovisa magril provide essential Omega three fatty acids in their
purest form without any internal organs or toxins. Every batch

(37:32):
is tested for its purity before it's allowed to be sold.
Equisine supports cells to be flexible, so important to support
healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health. Equisine can support mood,
balance and mental clarity and focus in children, all the
way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus, brain health and
healthy eyes as we get older. Equisine is a premium

(37:55):
high grade fish and evening primrose oil to be taken
in addition to a healthy diet and is only available
from pharmacies and health stores. Always read the label and
users directed and if symptoms persist, seeing your healthcare professional.
Farmer Broker Auckland. Part two of the eighty minute interview

(38:18):
that we did with Ramesh the khur So, bringing it
back to the to the to the present and another matter.
We all agreed that speech, free speech is very important.
You can't have democracy without free speech, It's not possible.
So there was somebody who was in a crossover consistency.

(38:41):
I suppose there was somebody who spent a long time
either either penned up or in jail, who has very
recently been released, of course, and that is Julian Assange.
And you wrote on you called the column defending Assange.

(39:04):
I started out, if I may. I started out years
ago thinking he was guilty and deserved what he got.
But as time went by and I found out more,
in the end came to a to a different conclusion.
Now I have I have family members who have been
US military people in the States, and so if I

(39:27):
said this even today, I'd get my head torn off
because because they haven't changed their minds. But my final
word to people who say, well, why do you think so,
is because he has been He has spent his time
being behind bars and inhibited from from doing anything outside

(39:51):
of four walls for a long long time, so he's
paid the price. Anyway.

Speaker 5 (39:58):
You say, well again, I'm in via at the same
page in story now you and I. But we obviously
began differently because from the start I didn't think he
should have been interested if for another reasons. Firstly, he's

(40:21):
an Australian citizen. If you and I break an American law,
they can arrest us if you're in the United States.
I don't see why their law should apply extraterritorially twelves here.
So that's the first thing to remember, and of course
that makes it worse when they start talking about treason, Well,

(40:42):
your country. You can't be guilty of treason against another country.
It has to be your country. So I think second,
this convention of releasing information that you have that may
cause embarrassment discomfort to governments, if you do it.

Speaker 2 (41:08):
Responsibly as media.

Speaker 5 (41:12):
And withhold information rather than publish it that, in your judgment,
is going to endanger lives, then that has a long
and distinguished history, which as far as press freedom is concerned,
I don't have any problem with the media cooperating with
authorities not to put lives at risk. And so in

(41:34):
that article I did say, if in fact the disclosures
did lead to jeopardizing the lives of soldiers, then identify
that and prosecute those individually rather than a blanket back.
And what he was doing was he was publishing information

(41:54):
that showed illegal and possibly criminal activities by our own governments,
and that should never be punishable under our us if
you've got it to the rule of law and the.

Speaker 2 (42:09):
Freedom of the press.

Speaker 5 (42:12):
I think that is exactly what visual protection laws are
needed for and have evolved over time because we recognize that.
So the comparison to the Pentagon papers, I think is
very direct. And that example I gave of Australia's agencies
snooping on the East timor ease is after well, we

(42:33):
condemned these actions and when the Chinese and the Russians
and the Iranians do it, and I think we should
condemn the persecution of people on those lines as well.
So yes, if Asciance disclosed anything that led to identifiable
threats against people, far by all means prosecute them.

Speaker 2 (42:51):
For that is.

Speaker 5 (42:54):
No, I am not aware of a single case where
it has actually put someone's laugh at risk. Now and
for my point of is the single best example of
why I think I have been supporting me is that
video that I refert. Have you seen that video from
Baghdad in around two thousand and four where a helicopter gunship.

Speaker 2 (43:15):
Kills some people? Yes, yes I did.

Speaker 5 (43:19):
Because I gave the link to that that's still up
on the leg because I used to show that in
my lecture on human rights. In my classes, I would
show that slip and says, you know, this is why
the rest of the world reacts so cynically to the
rhetoric of Western countries. They have no credibility in saying

(43:41):
they're committed to human rights. You're talking to the US
military as I was living next to a serving US
Air Force kernel when I was in Tokyo, and after
the pictures of our grave and things like that came out,
he just came home and there and says, for the
first time in his life he feels the shame wearing
the uniform for the American military. So I think you

(44:03):
know the same argument we use about the police. If
you close ranks and you the one bad apple, you
condemn the whole barrel of apples. If you're going to
protect the honor and reputation of the military as you should,
then I think you have to call out the UK
bad person and punish them. Bring in mind that they

(44:30):
make difficult choices in the fog before, that's one thing.
But if they make deliberate choices to engage in activities
that under own laws are prohibited and a criminal may
be criminal.

Speaker 2 (44:43):
It goes back to.

Speaker 5 (44:45):
How do you accept gain of function research being funded
and then overseas jurisdiction because it's banned in your own country.
I think it's just as bad.

Speaker 2 (44:54):
So should doctor Faci be in in he should be
in the dock. I was thinking beyond the dock. He
he No, he isn't titled to the dew process. Oh sure,
I'm but sure, But I didn't mean I didn't. Yeah,
that would escape procedure. But I want procedure to take Well,

(45:16):
that's what I mean.

Speaker 5 (45:16):
He should be in the dog. He should be charged,
and he should be made to answer for that. And
he's and he's all alone.

Speaker 2 (45:21):
Either. Look, if I may, If I may, there's a
couple of other a couple of other areas that I
would like to touch with you.

Speaker 5 (45:28):
Last last let me just let me just turn the
back on you. So if if, if Fauci is approving that,
but the money comes from Defense Department because they're engaged
in the effort to develop defensive defenses against use of
biological weapons, do we say someone who releases that then

(45:49):
is a criminal and should be charged.

Speaker 2 (45:51):
I mean it's the same arguments. Some stage.

Speaker 5 (45:54):
If activities are being done that are illegal, and they're
burning done by our side, then we do need mechanisms
to find out about that. And I don't think we
should persecute in this case, people release that information.

Speaker 2 (46:07):
Well, i'd agree with that. Whistleblowers generally serve, serve well,
doing public service generally.

Speaker 5 (46:16):
Yeah, but I do I do maintain that other thing.
If in fact some of that information did cause identifiable
harm to individuals, then go after him.

Speaker 2 (46:24):
That's fine, I have no problem that good. The events
that took place place last Friday, in the middle of
all the other stuff with this global outage, the crowd
strike global outage, Yeah, I think the anti virus software
company say that again, the anti virus software company, Ah,

(46:47):
it shows the dangers of centralized reliance on technology. Well,
that's exactly my point. It was the first thing that
I said to to this producer, to my wife that
there's an there's there's a prime example. It's the best
one I've seen for a long time, prime example of
why cash should be maintained forever. H well, certainly for

(47:10):
the foreseeable future. And the replacement of cash, the withdrawal
of cash. And my understanding tell me if I'm wrong,
because if somebody only told me this a couple of
days ago from from Sydney, is that they've announced the
government's announced that cash will be gone in two years
in Australia, I haven't seen that. Yeah, well I've got
I've got I've got a feeling this particular person's got

(47:33):
it mixed up just slightly, but they're certainly heading everywhere.
Not necessarily if you're heading that fare.

Speaker 5 (47:38):
And I'm in the past couple of years, I've constantly
begun to use cash more and more. Well, I think
you're just putting ourselves at risk of complete social credit
system and government control.

Speaker 2 (47:53):
That's the collusion with a big tech that's that's the
that's the name of the game exactly.

Speaker 5 (47:59):
So so I am actually using cash a lot more now, right,
drawing cash and using it so obviously for a lot
of things you can't but central bank and on that Frida,
by the way, that's when I came back.

Speaker 2 (48:12):
I was lucky to escape that. I have traveled, I
have I have a friend who will be listening to
this at some stage who was caught caught in Los
Angeles with his son, young son, and I'm yet to
get the picture, but I believe he's got a good
story to tell. So the danger of centralized digital wealth,

(48:37):
central bank digital currencies is there, is there the possibility
in your mind that they could exist in conjunction with
the current system, or do you think that the introduction
of cbdc's will just provide leverage for for removing cash.

Speaker 5 (48:58):
We've seen two things. One is governments of different political
persuasions have discovered that the share of common interest in
gaining hold over technology that allows them to exit more
and more control over their own citizens.

Speaker 2 (49:17):
And so.

Speaker 5 (49:20):
Justin Todau in Canada had no compunction in the banking
and the financializing people associated with the Freedom Convoy of truckers,
and that included people who were giving ten dollars twenty
dollars more donations as well and.

Speaker 2 (49:34):
Freezing their assets.

Speaker 5 (49:37):
Now mister Mody looks at that and he says, what
a good idea. And weeks before the Indian election, the
opposition Congress party has its assets frozen under some alleged
violation of some laws or the He sees the weaponization
of the justice system and jailing of opponents in the

(49:57):
United States and he says, well, if the world's most
powerful democracy can do that, so it can be. And
I think there were three incumbent chief ministers at state
level who were put in jail. The head of the
General election and their ability to campaign was impeded. So
that's one side that governments have a shared interest in

(50:19):
expanding their power to control their citizens' activities and monitor
the citizens' citizens financial transactions, and they're moving in that direction.
So there's that site. The second thing is the elements
of the private sector discovering they have a shared interest
with governments and being able to monitor and surveil what

(50:42):
we are doing in terms.

Speaker 2 (50:43):
Of what by very by, and being able.

Speaker 5 (50:46):
To nudge our preferences towards particular products or to towards
particular ideologies and political parties. So that double centralization is
all at the expense of our liberties and freedom of
action and freedom from being monitored and put on the surveillance,

(51:10):
whether it's for our commercial activities purchasing history, or whether
it's for our political leanings and tendencies. So yes, it
goes back into that broader theme that varies me more
and more that we are moving into a world of
big Brother, in which big Brother is a combined national

(51:34):
and global behemoth. And you see that with the legacy
media in terms of news God and this and that
and then garm whatever the thing calls for, Where where
they're trying to remove from the plug is public sphere,
essentially people whose values or opinions they disagree with m

(51:56):
and that's happening more and more so it does worry me.

Speaker 2 (51:59):
Well it is happening in Australia.

Speaker 5 (52:02):
Yes, we have the Safety Commissioner who's goes after the
opinions of people. And do you remember this. She's an
American important and she took on a fight with your
own mosque on some things, so there you know.

Speaker 4 (52:17):
This was this.

Speaker 5 (52:19):
She asked for a couple of things. One was the
famous one where she wanted footage of the stabbing of
the archbishop. Yes, taken off not just in Australia but globally.
So the e Safety Commissioner, one individual with her staff,

(52:39):
asserted the right to decide what other people from in
other countries can and cannot watch. And it wasn't the
case of misinformation because this was an actual event that
had happened and she was saying, well, this may not
be wasted. At the same time, other things that were
worse from a physical violence point of view was still available.

Speaker 2 (53:00):
So there's that.

Speaker 5 (53:01):
But there's something else in respect of gender ideology that
she was trying the same thing in Australia. But this
is a phenomenon that that bureaucrats and technocrats decide what
we should think, what we should say, what we should
believe in, what we should buy, who should produce what
under what ours. So it's that assertion of government control

(53:22):
over all aspects of our daily activities that we witnessed
under COVID now being now the effort is being yet
to institutionalize and embed that as a permanent feature, which
is exactly what we were saying at the time that if
you comply. Now, don't be surprised you start to expand
and repeat this in other sectors.

Speaker 2 (53:43):
Yes, and there's still still much to be said about
about the COVID era. Yeah, but it's the same.

Speaker 5 (53:50):
You know, why why should the government decide that we
have to switch to electric vehicles.

Speaker 2 (53:56):
I'll just save the planet. Yeah sure, but surely you
know that.

Speaker 5 (54:03):
But you know, when when different forms of transport come
along and they have obvious benefits and cons and advantages,
people switch. Well, I think it's starting for government's picking
winners with regard to you know, you you have to
use renewables, you have to do electric vehicles, and again
the calculations that they don't They don't add up when

(54:23):
you actually go through it as well. So governments are
no better at picking winners today. In fact, they might
be worse than they have historically been.

Speaker 2 (54:31):
Well you've got you've got media companies still refusing to
entertain any alternative viewpoint when it comes to matters climate
and serving the planet, et cetera. And we've got them.
We've got them here, and they are disgrace because of it.
But I'm hoping that sooner or later something will happen.

(54:55):
There's one other thing I wanted to mention with regard
with regard to privacy, and that it is directly linked
to CBDCs et cetera. Privacy. We have people in positions
of influence, including one retired Prime minister in this country,

(55:15):
who have said, anytime that something comes up about privacy
and people not knowing what you're doing, etc. Has said, well,
have you got nothing to hide? You've got nothing to fear.

Speaker 1 (55:26):
Now.

Speaker 2 (55:26):
I know how old that that's saying is, and I
have the excital contempt for it. But the question is
why are they I've had nobody can explain this to
me yet, Why are there intelligent people that simply can't
see the light.

Speaker 5 (55:42):
Well, that's a deep philosophical question. I think the short answer.
My short answer would be that the share of the population,
so you're not talking to absolute numbers, but the proportion
of the population that habitually engages in independent critical thinking

(56:06):
has declined quite dramatically and reflects the switch from education
to indoctrination from early childhood all the way through school
and university and spread into all sectors of society. Who
would have thought thirty forty years ago the big corporates

(56:28):
would think they have any business telling us what we
should think, or what values we should adopt, or what
positions on controversial social and or contested not controversial, necessarily
contested social, political, economic, and even scientific issues, that they
have some comparative advantage in knowing what the quote unquote

(56:51):
truth is, the truth is, and telling us their views
and we should do what they tell us.

Speaker 2 (56:58):
And again on.

Speaker 5 (57:00):
That there're certainly in Australia there has been a pushback
and a recognition about the media boardrooms that maybe they
should pull back from this because they've discovered that a
majority of even their employees, shareholders, and certainly their consumers
do not align with their views, and it actually affects

(57:24):
the bottom line. And when I go into a supermarket,
I want fresh produce and quality products at most affordable prices.
I have absolutely no interest in learning about what the
view of their CEO might be in relation to any
social or political issue. Same with celebrities. And yet they

(57:45):
think that the echo chamber of the elites in the
different sectors of life has an position of virtuous enlightenment
that everyone else should be made to follow.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
Well, you know you want to do that, Go ahead
and do it. So the World Economic Forum is at
what point of its existence and influence? Now? Uh?

Speaker 5 (58:09):
Hopefully terminal? I might become a believer in God.

Speaker 2 (58:17):
Yet ah, I read, I read what you had to
say about religion. I was I was intrigued. But that
could be true.

Speaker 5 (58:24):
Well, I respect other people's religion, but yes you do, Yeah,
and that's of all fits. But I have problems myself
and that left religion a long time ago and no
desire to go back.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
Well, it's a free world, yeah, free will, fee will,
So I think we can continue with the free society.
Just one one other thing that I would like to include.
Why I leave it out? It's your white guilt, not
my white privilege. It's a headline from another of yours.

Speaker 5 (58:59):
That's a problem. That's the that's a problem, that's right. Yeah,
the problem is your white guilt, not my white privilege.

Speaker 2 (59:04):
But white guilt and colonization two things that go hand
and end at the moment and seem to be motoring
along fairly powerfully, are they both in Australia and New
Zealand and the USA and Canada. So what's the answer? Well,
it's puzzled me obviously.

Speaker 5 (59:23):
I mean, look, which major country, or which even middland
country can you point out to me today whose borders
do not reflect the use of force?

Speaker 2 (59:37):
Perhaps repeatedly in his history.

Speaker 5 (59:41):
It's been a part of history, and it's been a
part of the natural world as well, and I suspect
it will stay the case for a long time yet.
So if you're going to go back to the equivalent
of trying to trace the original sin, we're going to
lead to the most massive upheaval we've ever known, and

(01:00:01):
volatility and fighting all over again. So how do we
reconcile existing borders with present day values? Well, we don't
do that by reversing history. One second. I think the
net contribution of Western civilizations to global human welfare on

(01:00:24):
prosperity and education and longevity has been greater than that
of any other civilization and culture. And that's not such
a hard thing to document. In terms of the aspirations
that pretty much people's all over the world now have

(01:00:45):
two emulating the lifestyles and the benefits, the material benefits
and the intellectual benefits of that. And even with respect
to slavery, for example, the slave trade, again I think
it's not that difficult to document that probably the biggest
contribution to ending the slave trade, and some of the

(01:01:08):
highest costs that were made that were paid in that effort,
that came from Britain, and the biggest guilty parties in
the origins and volume of the slave trade would include
the Arabs and the Africans. So why this focus on

(01:01:32):
the sense of guilt And if that sense of guilt
was real and I'm sure I've said this, if not
to you, then to some other interview in New Zealand,
if that centers of guilt was real, and if that
sense of moral censure was real and genuine, authentic, then
huge numbers of people from the non Western countries would

(01:01:56):
not still be fighting to get into the West, and
it seems to be a confected outrage at the historical
role that some Western countries have had to play.

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
Other other thing.

Speaker 5 (01:02:08):
Anyone denies that, and all in favor of having an
honest accounting in our history books. But the honest accounting
goes both ways as well. I think there were benefits
that were brought to millions of people around the world
by Western civilization, and there were costs steps were brought
and in some cases resulting in genocide or neo genocide

(01:02:29):
of indigenous populations. But that is part of history, and
I think we should study history and learn from that,
but not engaged in an endless self vagulation which is
unmerited and self destructive. I think in one of the
articles that they'd say it's like Western societies are bent

(01:02:50):
on feeding their fuel into the fire that is consuming them,
which I find very puzzling. So the net contribution of
Western civilization I think has been positive rather than negative.
Other countries have also had stayed pasts, and we acknowledge
that we don't necessarily condone that. We certainly don't want

(01:03:11):
to have that nece society today, but I think we
should just insist on treating everyone who's lawfully in our
country and is a citizen the same, without distinction on
grounds of race or religion or whatever else inherited treat
So I don't understand the white guilt part, and if

(01:03:34):
it does exist, I don't see why I, who have
not been part of that, should be made to suffer
for that either. So it goes back to where we
started off and the general attitude almost the overseas Indians
as well, that what we want is to be left
alone and given the same opportunities. Well maybe if we
should an't that it's equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

(01:03:57):
So I still prefer the phrase equality of opportunity rather
than equity because that tries to look at it in
terms of outcomes. And you've seen that, you know the
decision from the US Supreme Court late last year whenever
it was on the Harvard admissions case. Japanese, none of

(01:04:20):
the Asian Americans who would have taken the case too
in the court system.

Speaker 2 (01:04:27):
But weren't there weren't there a lot of Japanese students
who were involved in it. No, it was Chinese and
Indians more than Japanese.

Speaker 5 (01:04:36):
It's but the Asian Americans were amongst the highest academic
scores and the lowest rates of admission. I think you
needed to be for an Asian American, it's you needed
to be in the ninetieth persentile, and your chances were
still lower than a Black in the fortieth personile, a

(01:04:59):
Hispanic in the sixtieth personyle, and a white in the
eightieth personile. So the four groups, the Asian Americans had
to be the most complet and in medical schools in
the different studies. Short this is from the American Enterprise Institute.
I think for medical schools, you on the same score,

(01:05:23):
a Black American had more than ten times a prospect
of getting admitted to medical school compared to an Asian American.
And again then it was the Hispanics the second most
advantage and the words third, and the Asians were at
the bottom. So that was what they had taken it.
It's very easy to demonstrate statistically. And finally the Supreme

(01:05:44):
Court said racial criteri you were illegal.

Speaker 2 (01:05:47):
So it goes back to the same thing.

Speaker 5 (01:05:49):
You believe in merit, you believe in the quality of opportunity,
and you believe in rewarding hard work. Then you get
a different student profile in universities and med schools and stuff.
Then if you start talking about equity and diversity. And
by the way, we've seen, going back to the pushback argument,
a lot of companies are now starting to dismantle the

(01:06:11):
deer elements of their bureaucracy, and so they should yep,
And well you see that, you saw the results of that. Well,
now there are allegations that that is partly to explain
the security failures with regard to the assassination attempt on Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:06:29):
Yes, with the Secret Service.

Speaker 5 (01:06:30):
Being interested in these efforts more than in basic competence.
And you'd think, well, it shouldn't affect universities, until suddenly
it I mean the consequence of that agenda, until suddenly
it did. When the three famous university presidents could not

(01:06:51):
answer a basic question under congressional testimony as to where
the calls to engage in ethnic expulsion of Jews or
whatever genesida Jews was to be prohibited. You remember how
they were completely unable to answer the simple moral question.

Speaker 2 (01:07:11):
God yes comes back.

Speaker 5 (01:07:13):
And all three happened to be women presidents, and the
Harvard one was clearly a diversity higher clearly or what
diversity higher I think for that phrase, that phrase has
become a presorative term now and they're saying that the
chief of the Secret Service is a diversity higher and
you see the results.

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
Well, it was, there was, there was.

Speaker 5 (01:07:36):
She may not survive tomorrow's hearing it in Congress on sorry,
there was.

Speaker 2 (01:07:40):
There was a similar similar lineup and they were all males,
roughly around the same time. Asked us being asked in
in the in the House inquiry how much? How much
CO two was there in the atmosphere? Few of them,
none of them knew, not one had no idea and

(01:08:07):
it was hell. We started this long but excellent conversation
with a quick mention of your book our enemy the government.
Let's conclude on it.

Speaker 5 (01:08:18):
Why the title, Well, if you have a commitment to
human rights, you face attention. The worst breaches of human
rights and violations of human rights occur in conditions of anarchy,

(01:08:39):
and you need the machinery of government and the legislative,
executive and judicial frameworks to enforce.

Speaker 2 (01:08:48):
Human rights.

Speaker 5 (01:08:50):
Laws and values, to legislate and enforce them. At the
same time, if you do have stable, effective function government,
then potentially the biggest threat to your human rights comes
from governments, and these are the powerful entrance toutality in
states with their government machinery, in countries like Nazi Germany,

(01:09:13):
like communss China, like Communist Soviet Union. As it was,
so that tension is an ongoing reality and we need
to navigate that. And parts many parts of what we've
been talking about for the past hour or whatever it
has been, has been in relation to the growing threats

(01:09:34):
to our freedom and civil leuties that comes from over
centralization and over expansion of the state into spheres of
social and personal activity that hitherto were separate and considered
sacrosanct and none of the state's business, like telling us
which type of car we should buy, or which type

(01:09:57):
of car manufacturers should make and produce, and punishing dealers
if they don't sell x percentage of a particular type
of vehicle. Governments should stay out of these sources of actctivities.
In that sense, our common enemy, just as governments have
a common interest in expanding the power at the expense
of citizens, see the people's share a common interest in

(01:10:20):
limiting the powers of governments.

Speaker 2 (01:10:22):
Hence our enemy the government. And it's a very good book,
and I recommend it. One other thing that I want
to recommend, Ramesh, is the transcript of the interview that
you did with Epic TV or Epoch TV, whichever with

(01:10:43):
someone from American Thought Leaders, and it runs eighteen pages
and it's full of great information, great commentary, and I
was actually sort of a bit envious when I read
it that I hadn't done it, But nevertheless it's superb. Yes,

(01:11:05):
I didn't know how to pronounce his name, but it's
it's You'll find it under the Romesha's name on the
on the Brownstone site. You just have to. You just
have to dig it at do a search the new
biosecurity state, and you'll get even more from that than
on top of what we've discussed in the last in

(01:11:28):
the last eighteen minutes, so you see time flies when
you're enjoying yourself.

Speaker 5 (01:11:34):
I want to thank you. Add one thing so that
don't leave a wrong impression. Going back to the secret servicing,
when the assassination on Trump, sure, I think I would
like to acknowledge that the courage of the individual members
of the immediate protective Unit, including the women, was no
less than that of the men when they all threw
themselves and formed a protective shield around Trump. So that

(01:11:57):
wasn't a comment on you know, I wasn't trying to
demonize or not technowledge contributions to individual members. But the
factory means that the women members were not the size
and height of the male members and therefore they could
not completely form that human shield when he will come
and he stood up again.

Speaker 2 (01:12:15):
That's the point, and that's the point that has been made.
And I have been in the same position that you
have and had to had to say that it wasn't.
It wasn't the fact that they were women, and you
may you've maybe do something that I reached across and
picked up a book and I bought this book for
my one of one of the girls, and it's by

(01:12:41):
an ex Secret Service agent whose name is Ivy Pomperess. Okay,
and there's two things I would observe. When Carolyn saw
the picture of her, she said, Wow, she's beautiful. I

(01:13:03):
couldn't say anything. But if I'd said that, you know, what,
what do you think it'd be out of for she's
a woman. The point being The book is called Becoming
Bulletproof Life Lessons from a Secret Service Agent former former
Protective Detail for three presidents and recipient of the of
the Medal of Valor Award. And I can't swear to this,

(01:13:29):
but I'm pretty sure she's five foot two mm five
foot two, which was probably shorter than those those women
the other the other the other day. But she was
patently very successful as a secret service agent. M And

(01:13:50):
on that note, I want to thank you, very very
very sincerely for a marathon effort. I'll leave you alone
for a little while, but your opinions are valuable, worthwhile
and to be heard by as many as possible. Thanks
lessen into the mail room for two hundred and forty nine,

(01:14:26):
MISSUS producer.

Speaker 6 (01:14:27):
Welcome lighton.

Speaker 2 (01:14:28):
How are you very well?

Speaker 6 (01:14:29):
Great?

Speaker 2 (01:14:30):
It would be rude of me not to ask how
are you?

Speaker 6 (01:14:33):
I'm always good. Thank you so much.

Speaker 2 (01:14:35):
I knew then I could have written the script anyway.
Let me begin from Dawn, reinforced by your earlier interview
of an authority on US international affairs. The name alludes
me to the effect that the Moscow Beijing Iran clique
is at pains to sustain the Biden Democrat regime. I

(01:14:56):
warmed to the above. Peace Harris given to hysterical outbursts
of laughter is an airhead. She watched her Biden brief
to deal with the exponential invasion of refugees across the
Texas border, so damaging to USA society and infrastructure. To
my mind, her present popular surge reflects mere public relief

(01:15:21):
from a medically senile, long incompetent Biden, whose leadership is
redolent of the adurn brand of progressive change early days.
Yet a couple of things to comment on that, just
briefly given to hysterical outbursts of laughter is an airhead. Oh,

(01:15:41):
I think I could do better than that, to be honest,
watched her Biden brief to deal with the exponential invasion
of refugees across the Texas border. I don't know that
I can agree with that statement. And you'll understand why
she was installed, so to speak, as the czar of
the border or whatever. But that meant nothing because this

(01:16:04):
has all been intentional. It was all. It was all
just window dressing, because that was the intent as many
as possible. And by the way, there are now appearing
signs evidence in fact of the fact that they're signing
them up to vote in this election.

Speaker 7 (01:16:23):
Leighton Colin says the podcast with Ramashakur was very interesting,
especially on Donald Trump.

Speaker 6 (01:16:30):
One piece.

Speaker 7 (01:16:31):
He said it is important for Trump to pick a
person for the vice presidency that would be in tune
with his ideas and understand him. That night, after I
played the podcast, I tuned into an interview by Jesse
Walters on Sky when he had Donald Trump and JD.
Vance on so keeping in mind what Tha Kerr had said,

(01:16:52):
I was really pleased with what I saw. The two
guests were adding to each other's statements and bringing each
other into the mix, even sometimes finishing each other's sentences.
It was an interview that showed a chemistry between the
two men. The Republican Party needs to push this hard,
as quite often the USA has had a presidency ticket

(01:17:12):
that hasn't jelled at all. The Democrats we the woke
diversity ticket of Biden and Harris has proven to be
very weak and bad for US and for the world.

Speaker 2 (01:17:24):
And Colin is quite correct and by the way, I
think I might make more reference to that David Flint's
article than Donald wrote about at the end of this podcast. Now,
Claire writes this old quote from J. D. Vance has
to be one of the funniest ever. Childless cat ladies.

(01:17:47):
Do you find that amusing?

Speaker 6 (01:17:50):
Well, not really, I do, of course you do. A
man who won't let me have a cat?

Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
No, no, but it's an old it's an old saying,
and he's just he's just resurrected it. And to sort
of indicate that she goes on. Derek Hunter, a conservative
American with a daily podcast, says frequently quote don't spike
the football on the five yard line. In other words,
don't count on Trump winning. It ain't over till the

(01:18:19):
fat lady sings on election day. The old fat lady's
getting a workout too. That's from Claire, who, by the way,
responds to your question about does she live in America
whatever a couple of weeks back, American expat living on
the west coast of the South Island.

Speaker 6 (01:18:35):
Lovely's beautiful.

Speaker 2 (01:18:37):
I think I knew that.

Speaker 6 (01:18:37):
Actually you know everything later, No, not quite.

Speaker 7 (01:18:41):
Nick says, longtime fan who greatly appreciates what you do.
Just wondering when or if you are getting Patrick Bashion
back on the podcast. He was always fascinating to listen
to and it would be great to hear his take
on what is happening in the States.

Speaker 2 (01:18:55):
Well, what do you reckon, Hey fix that one easily
and thanks for the tip. A reference to the article
in the New Zealand Herald on the twenty seventh of
the seven which was last Saturdays by Stephen Joyce Health
New Zealand overhaul sad yet predictable after merger missteps. This

(01:19:18):
Herald piece should be compulsory reading for all its Gainsayers
presumably can identify tangible health benefits from mister Little's reforms
other than those of an aspirational or anticipatory nature given time.
If so, such benefits are far from obvious, either for
Mary or non Mary. That more than a billion dollars

(01:19:40):
of taxpayers money was spent on this ideological exercise is
not justifiable, given that it did little more than raise
an expectation that health services for Mary would significantly improve.
No doubt those across the board languishing in pain on
waiting lists for elective surgery would express the matter more vehemently.

Speaker 7 (01:20:05):
Layton Jin says, the choice between Donald Trump's May America
Great Again and Kamala Harris what can be unburdened by
what has been is a choice between a man no, no,
I have no idea what can be She doesn't know either,
unburdened by what has been.

Speaker 2 (01:20:23):
I got told her? Who told you that previously?

Speaker 5 (01:20:27):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:20:28):
Right?

Speaker 7 (01:20:29):
Is a choice between a man knows what needs to
be done because he's been there before, and a woman
who merely spouts nonsensical limericks because she's never been able
to make it. Karmala Harris is having a cinder o
durn moment, thrust into leadership by accident, and totally ill
equipped to be a leader. As Jadie Vance said at
last Saturday's campaign rally in Minnesota, if there's one thing

(01:20:52):
we've learned about Kamala Harris, it's that she's had a
hard time winning votes because she's too extreme even for
the Democrats. Remember, in the twenty twenty primary, Harris dropped
out months before they even cast the first vote. She
was so unpopular she pulled in the low digit, in
the low single digits among the Democrats the entire campaign.

(01:21:13):
She wasn't even the top three in her home state
of California. And that's pretty embarrassing, ladies and gentlemen. That
was Jodie Vance's commentary. Trump made a most excellent choice
in selecting JD. Van as his vice president because, as
Ramesh the curb brilliantly equipped Vance's trump Ism without the
Trump character flaws.

Speaker 6 (01:21:35):
And if you think about.

Speaker 7 (01:21:36):
It, this American election is no longer a contest between
Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Rather, it is now a
contest between JD. Vance and Kamala Harris. I only hope
for the sake of the world that Americans have more
clever voters than the stupid ones.

Speaker 6 (01:21:51):
God help us either way.

Speaker 2 (01:21:53):
Did I that the fact that Vance was going to
debate her and now won't be, of course, because she
will be the leader debating Trump is a bit disappointing
for the simple reason that he wrote, Actually, I think
he'd pack her up and put her on the shelf. Hmm.

(01:22:14):
This is a little different, is personal. Late, after many
years of looking at this bottle of Clevedon Hills Ports
in the wine cupboard, we have finally opened it and
sit in front of the fire here in Marpor enjoying
a delicious, tasty after dinner drink. It is truly very special.

(01:22:36):
Thanks for the wonderful tipple from John and Lindall.

Speaker 4 (01:22:41):
I just.

Speaker 2 (01:22:43):
Have to say there was a bottle of the original,
the original bottle, because we had about four or five
different bottles with different releases. That was in the cupboard
at the back of the cupboard where you couldn't see it,
and I dug it out. This is a little while
back now dug it out. It was years old and
it only had about a a quarter of the bottle

(01:23:06):
in it, so I tried itsolutely outstanding. So I've got
about five bottles of the of the last edition of
the Layton Support from Cleveland Hills. What four bottles? I
did not know that I have. I think it's five.
And I've decided that everybody. There's so many people asking

(01:23:28):
when are you going to do it again? Look, it
was made by Enzo Bettio with some of his grapes
and most mostly mine, but some of his, and he
made it so well, and he's now off the scene.
He's not making wine anymore, and it doesn't want to
know about it, which is which is a shame. So
these five bottles, I've decided I'm prepared to sell three

(01:23:48):
of them at five thousand dollars a bottle. So anybody
who loved it so much and as a spare five,
then give me an email.

Speaker 6 (01:23:59):
That'll be the first financial thing that you that you
ever do properly you comfort you okay later? This is
from Salvatore.

Speaker 7 (01:24:13):
You were right to say that this week's from Esh
the Kurr interview was one of your best. His explanation
of the politics of the United Nations and the broader
un system was absolutely masterful. A fantastic education.

Speaker 2 (01:24:27):
At an email that was decidedly insightful. So finally from Brenda,
who wasn't writing to me but copied me in and
I think you'll see why when she writes high there
to the Reserve Bank. Hi, there, I see on your
site there is a submission portal for a digital cash survey.

(01:24:50):
I wouldn't have known about this if it were not
for a friend emailing it to me. Can you please
tell me when this was uploaded. I'd like to establish
how long you have given people to respond in relation
to the complexity of the situation, given that digital currency
has the potential to forever change the landscape of our
financial system and the way people live. I would like

(01:25:13):
to know what kind of advertising you have done to
let people know this survey is taking place. Most people
do not understand what digital money is, let alone what
they should or should not be in favor, whether or
not they should or should not be in favor of it.
I looked at the survey and found it too biased
to fill out. The survey works on the premise that

(01:25:36):
respondents agree with the CBDCs and then ask questions that
are confusing and in one case contradictory. Despite these issues,
I have made a submission. I urge the Central Bank
to extend the deadline of the submission date and make
greater effort to inform the public about it. It is
deeply concerning that I did not see this survey anywhere,

(01:25:59):
and it should have been in my algorithmic footprint due
to my interest in the subject. Additionally, it would be
beneficial to reword the survey to allow those who are
against cbdc's to express their views without being led by
the questions. Please respond urgently. I have posted this query

(01:26:20):
at the NZ Center for Political Research to see if
others were aware that this survey was available. Please advise Brenda.
Brilliant approach you've taken, and I will wait to see
whether you've got a reply with regard to that. This
is producer.

Speaker 6 (01:26:40):
Thank you, Thank you so much.

Speaker 2 (01:26:42):
Later, I've got lots of editing to do.

Speaker 7 (01:26:43):
You do the best bits won't be heard sarcastic bits.

Speaker 2 (01:26:58):
I indicated that I might refer to David Flint's article
that was referred to in a letter during the mail Room.
At the end of the podcast, we are there and
I shall fulfill my suggestion. David Plint has a long
history of success in life. An interesting character is one
way to describe him. But I want to concentrate on

(01:27:20):
only what really matters as far as his professional identity
is concerned. So under the heading of Korea. He was
admitted as a lawyer in New South Wales and in
England and Wales. He is Australian. He practiced for a
number of years, lecturing in several university business and law
schools that included a wide range of subjects including business, tax, antitrust, comparative,

(01:27:44):
constitutional and international law. Now the important part comes under
the heading of honors. Flint was awarded World Outstanding Legal
Scholar the World Jurists Association, Barcelona in October nineteen ninety one.
On twelve June nineteen ninety five, he was made a
Member of the Order of Australia in recognition of service

(01:28:06):
to the print media, particularly as chairman of the Australian
Press Council and to international relations. He has written widely
on matters and you can only say highly qualified to
make comment on many things, but particularly with regard to well.
I think what I'm about to quote you A number
of people don't understand my attachment to Donald Trump, and

(01:28:29):
I'm getting weary of explaining, so I thought, so I
thought i'd quote David Flint under the heading of a
Trump victory is critical. And keep in mind that this
is written by an Australian for an Australian audience. As
far as I'm concerned, New Zealand is part of that audience,
and New Zealand is not part politically of Australia. But

(01:28:52):
we don't have a closer relationship with any other country.
So what he says I think is relevant to New
Zealand as well as Australia. Donald Trump's election as the
forty seventh president is crucial, and not only to the US.
Four more years of appeasement to the Beijing Moscow Tehran axis,
uncontrolled immigration, and the prevalence of climate catastrophism and other

(01:29:17):
alien ideologies risk such damage to the US and Western
civilization of which we are part that it could be irreversible.
If anybody can return America to the power, respect, and
authority she once enjoyed, it is Donald Trump. Here's what
he suggests he will achieve. He'll close the borders to

(01:29:38):
the uncontrolled massive migration that Biden imposed in reach of
the law. As the forty seventh president, he will no
doubt relieve America from the ideologies of the Long March
through her institutions that have imposed themselves on the nation.
He will require freeloaders to become true allies. He will
return the Beijing, Moscow Tehran axis to the good behavior

(01:30:00):
that they prudently demonstrated during his first term. He will
restore peace in the Middle East, as he did with
the Abraham Accords. He has ensured his ideas will continue
with his choice of JD. Vance as candidate to vice president,
and whatever he does at home will be a lesson
for the free world. We must therefore ignore the commentariat

(01:30:23):
that scorned him, just as they scorned Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher,
John Howard, and Tony Abbotts. And he closes this three
page article with this short comment. Today, few will disagree
that this year's election is extremely important as Trump himself says,
it is the most important close quote. America is at

(01:30:47):
the crossroads. Only Trump offers salvation. His election is crucial
to America and to the free world, including Australia, and
I'm adding New Zealand. Now if you disagree with that,
I'm going to have a good reason why. Open to
your open to your prognostications. And I'll leave it there.

(01:31:09):
But if you want to read that article, you can
probably read it on the I can't guarantee it, but
you can properly read it on the Spectator Australia website
under the name of David Plint. Otherwise could pay you
dues I suppose, and join up with Spectator Australia. This
is not a paid ad. I've been saying it for

(01:31:30):
a long time. That will take us out for podcasts.
Two hundred and forty nine two fifty a quarter of
a thousand, No big deal, really, I suppose. But there
is something else attached to it that I'll make mention
of next week. So if you would like to write
to us Latent at newstalksb dot co dot Nz or
Carolyn at the same address newstalkszeb dot co dot Nz,

(01:31:54):
we shall return shortly with two fifty. In the meantime,
let me say, quite genuinely thank you for listening and
we'll talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:32:12):
Thank you for more from News Talks at b Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #249 - July 31st 2024 - Patrick Basham & Ramesh Thakur

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Leighton Smith Podcast #249 - July 31st 2024 - Patrick Basham & Ramesh Thakur