Leighton Smith Podcast #278 - April 2nd 2025 - Matt Margolis

Matt Margolis is an independent author of books and editorial opinion.

His first successful book was “The Worst President in History”.

We talk at length about judicial activism and its proliferation, and other broader issues.

We share the opinions of Ramesh Thakur and Kurt Schlichter, along with some very good correspondence in the Mailroom with Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks ed B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcast now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the US now the
Leyton Smith Podcast, cowered by News Talks EDB.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Welcome to Podcast two hundred and seventy eight for April
the second, twenty twenty five. Twelve months ago, in podcast
two thirty two, we held conversation with Roger LD. Simon.
Simon is a writer of books, both fiction and nonfiction.
He's also a screenwriter of standing. He was on my
list for some time as a prospect of interest, based

(00:50):
mostly on his personality and life experience. Now at the
time he had deserted Beverly Hills and reinstated himself and
wife to Nashville, Tennessee. That also held an attraction. But
the main reason that I mentioned Roger Simon now is
that he was the founder of PJ Media, and that's

(01:11):
where we find Matt Margolis. Matt is a conservative commentator
eclomist whose articles have been aired widely. Mike Levinn describes
him as a great columnist. I think he's terrific and
we'll talk with mister Margolis very shortly, but first on
a somewhat different note, We fought for democracy and lost

(01:33):
to bureaucracy, a piece written by Ai Fabler, who is
a satirist on one hand and a serious writer on
the other. You can decide for yourself on this occasion.
Very good friend of mine as well. He is a
good friend of mine. Actually a very good friend of mine,
he writes, suffered a traumatic event the other day. Her

(01:54):
friendly little French poodle ran up to an Alsatian dog
that was on a chain, intending to say bojour common ZeVA,
and was instantly bitten to death. Now I'm not a
doggy person. I never could get them to flush the toilet.
But I was moved by my friends loss. And as
the cause came for the execution of the beastly guard dog,

(02:17):
I couldn't in brackets. I couldn't help but think that
we wouldn't blame it for its behavior if we remember
to understand its nature. It brought to mind the Lawrence J.
Peter joke, the noblest of all dogs is the hot dog.
It feeds the hand that might sit. But I refrained
from repeating this at the time. None of this was

(02:38):
comfort to my friend. Of course, that same phrase came
to mind when another friend was on a rant about
the abject failure of our politicians. Specifically, he was berating
the Minister of Transport, who had promised to get rid
of road safety cones and lift speed restrictions on open roads.
Here we are a year later, he moans, no speed

(03:00):
restrictions have been lifted, and this morning an entire lane
was blocked by forty orange cones so one bloody worker
could fix some hole cover on the sidewalk while the
commuter traffic was backed up for miles. He should be sacked. Sacked,
said the friend. Well, he's been moved to the Ministry
of Health, as it happens, where he'll quickly accumulate even

(03:23):
more public opprobrium. Nevertheless, I quietly pointed out that it
wasn't the minister who had failed to act. It was
the bureaucrats at the ministry. If they had to blame,
why doesn't he sack them? He shouted. Ah, that's a
whole subject on its own, I could have said, because
their trade union, with their euphemistic title of the Public

(03:46):
Service Association, has ensured that bureaucrats are unsackable. Instead, I replied,
before blaming the bureaucracy for its behavior, we need to
understand its nature. Not surprisingly, he looked at me blankly.
This little exchange made me realized that I need to
find some simple answers to the question of what makes

(04:07):
bureaucrats behave the way they do, and, more importantly, to
explain why it is that governments don't run countries bureaucrats do.
In Part one of this essay last week, I tried
to make the point that we use the word democracy
in Western societies as if it were the foundation stone
of Western civilization, despite the fact that only seven point

(04:29):
eight percent of the world's population reside in what are
described as full democracies, and with Little New Zealand occupying
second place in the democracy table, it is evident that
our standards are so low that it is doubtful if
such a thing as a full democracy exists. Here are

(04:51):
some things to consider. Firstly, why are Western bureaucracies overwhelmingly
left wing? Second how does the size and autonomy of
bureaucracies continue to rise exponentially? Thirdly, why do governments have
no ability to force bureaucracy to execute their policies even

(05:11):
when they are legislated. Now the answers to those questions
and further interesting writing you'll find under the headline of
under the search engine. If you like of Ai Fabler
spelt as it sounds, and it's worthy of your attention
Now Matt Margolis after the break a short one.

Speaker 1 (05:32):
Laton Smith.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
Leverrix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin.
It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal
decongestent action. It's fast acting for fast relief and it
works in under an hour and lasts for over twenty

(05:54):
four hours. Leverrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose,
deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Leverrix is an
antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quantity. So next
time you're in need of verner effective antihistamine, call into
the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l e v Rix

(06:15):
Leverix and always read the label. Take as directed and
if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer broker Auckland

(06:36):
mad Magoldus is a conservative commentator and columnist. He is
the author of a number of books that appeared on
numerous radio and television programs, apparently even CNN. His breakout
book was the Worst President in History, The Legacy of
Barack Obama. More recently, Airborne How the liberal media weaponized

(06:57):
the coronavirus against Donald Trump, and we shall we shall
discuss nubrous things, including how the liberal media has weaponized
everything against the Donald Trump ever since that book came out. Now, Matt,
it's a great pleasure to talk to you, and I
thank you for your time and your contribution.

Speaker 3 (07:15):
Well, thanks for having the I'm looking forward to it.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
This is probably the first visit you've ever had to
New Zealand, so welcome.

Speaker 3 (07:22):
It definitely is. And it's funny to go as my
wife always talks about how she bi like to go
visit the country sometime, and I guess I mean I
got a middle bit closer to that than she will.

Speaker 2 (07:33):
Well, there is some there are plenty of reasons to come,
and there are a few reasons not to. But anytime
you want the advice, I'm only happy to pass it on. Now,
there is so much really that we can we can discuss,
but I want to start with the fact that you've

(07:54):
written that the deck is stacked against Donald Trump more
than we knew, more than ever. Can you explain that?

Speaker 3 (08:05):
Well, you know, it's funny because having lived through the
first term presidency and now currently the second one, it
always feels like he has a lot more working against
him than any other president ever has. And you know,
full as thing as I've been interested in politics and now,

(08:25):
I mean, it's been obvious that Republicans in the United
States have a much harder time because the media is
working against them, and it's just very difficult for you know,
for any kind of balance on how the media covers
these things. And you know, we spent the last for
years with the media Clement repeated be about you know,

(08:49):
Trump is a further democracy, He's a dictator. And then
they will behold, he wins the men's the election, he's
back in office, and they're all sitting there on like, well,
what are we going to do about this? And so
everything that was just awful about his first term is
in terms of the media coverage and how everything is
kind of stacked against him, have just gotten worse.

Speaker 2 (09:11):
You know, the media is.

Speaker 3 (09:13):
Reallyturing hard right now to push this narrative, for example,
that you know, his polling numbers have tainted, and you
know that's just not exactly true. I mean, we there
are polls that show his pull his his approval ratings
have gone down, But when you look at the pollsters
that are actually you know, have been as a record

(09:34):
of accuracy, he's actually doing quite well.

Speaker 2 (09:38):
But you know, I think the.

Speaker 3 (09:39):
Worst thing that we're seeing right now it is the
way that the courts have just been absolutely weaponized against them.
I mean, he can't blow his nose without someone going
to court and basically saying that he can't. You know,
he can't use a tissue. It's it's just it's just
really gotten out of hand. How do you think he's
handling it? You know, I've written about this before, and

(10:03):
I think that the key thing that I take from
highest handleg it now is that he's he's handling get
a lot better than how he was in his first term.

Speaker 2 (10:14):
We see the administration and his.

Speaker 3 (10:16):
Farmer are prepared to handle this, uh, this situation. They're
all being on to fight back than they were and
during his first term. I'm quite I mean I'm not
happy that this is happening, but at the same time,
I am happy with the way the administration is responding
to it. They are not they're not taking it sitting down.

(10:36):
They're they're really, uh, you know, quite frankly that they're
they're doing farm there aggressive. You know, I mean, Trump
is calling out these road judges, and you know, they're
they're they're clearly not they're not letting this get to
them that they kind of expect.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
They they knew this was going to happen.

Speaker 3 (10:56):
And they've they close and that they're ready to fight
hard against it.

Speaker 2 (11:01):
Anti Trump judged Bosebury assigned to lift the law Fair
Group's Signal Gate suit. Now this written by Debrahin from
American Greatness. The activist federal judge who tried to swart
the Trump administration's deportation flights to El Salvador earlier this month,
has been assigned to a left wing lawfare group's lawsuit

(11:21):
related to the Signal Gate controversy. How does this, How
does this work? How does it happen in the American
legal system, in the judicial system that you get to
choose your own judge in your own court knowing the
answer that or the response you're going to get from
that judge. So you're a winner right from the get

(11:43):
go in ninety nine percent of cases, it appears, how
do they get away with that?

Speaker 3 (11:49):
Yeah, it's a very good question. You know here we're
being tited this that Bosberg has been randomly assigned to
the case.

Speaker 2 (11:59):
No one really believes that.

Speaker 3 (12:02):
You know, the whole concept of forum sharping is is
not new in the American judicial system. Republicans here have
been cong us out for a long time. Left wing
groups know what they're doing. They specifically go to jurisdictions

(12:22):
where they know the judges are going to work in
their favor, where the outcome is essentially predetermined. You know,
we saw this, but the legal cases against Trump last year.

Speaker 2 (12:36):
In New York.

Speaker 3 (12:37):
You know, everybody're like, oh, well, New York City is
where he spent, but it's it's an incredibly democrat city.
He was never going to get a fair shake there.
And the judge, the judges in those various cases were
berry even trying to hide the fact that they were
stacking the deck against Trump. And this is a huge

(13:00):
problem because you know what we're seeing is like right now,
is that's what's happening is these liberal groups are going
to these lower courts, these district courts, for russ should
have no authority whatsoever with dictating federal policy. It's just
not how it should be working. And republic and in
Congress are now trying to do something about it and

(13:24):
prevent these lower courts from from being able to to
to basically hamstring the administration. And this is something that
really should the benefit any any president, regardless of party.
It shouldn't be that easy to just go shopping for
a judge who you know is going to rule how

(13:44):
you want to in order to stop the the president
from doing their job. This is this is a system
that has just become incredibly corrupt over the history of
our country. And it's it's really kind of sad because
you know, the United States has a reputation for being
the land or breado and an opportunity, uh and and

(14:06):
it's really become almost like, yeah, those third world banana
republics that we always make fun of for being notoriously
corrupt and really would become lit different. And it's it's
a shameful thing to be seen happen. And I'm hopeful
that we can do something about it, because when you

(14:28):
grow up in this country, you're you're taught to believe
releas it used to be. Tab this is the land
of opportunity, and everyone gets a fair shake. But the
reality is is that that's that's no longer true.

Speaker 2 (14:39):
When when I was growing up, well in more recent years,
should we say, but still growing I established for myself
that the American Constitution was the greatest political document that
was ever ever written. And the living proof was America
as it as it was. If we go back a
few decades, it appears now that and you've been and

(15:01):
you've been basically saying this that it isn't what it
It isn't what it what it was that the Democrat Party,
for instance, is not and I've heard this a few times,
is not your grandparents or even your parents' party. Absolutely,
it's totally it's totally different. But people still hang in there,

(15:21):
died in the world. Democrat voters seem to just just
tolerated or don't they know, aren't they paying attention? Why
is it like that?

Speaker 3 (15:32):
Well, you know, I think a lot of it comes
down to you know, you know, Republicans have a reputation
for being a very patriotic party and Democrats really don't.
You know, the only time Democrats seem to have any
sort of affinity for the United States is when they're
in power, but anytime otherwise they're not. And it seems

(15:55):
that this may set of a Democrat now is that
America is evil. Nothing you've ever done is good. We
are scourged on the on the on the planet where
the bordermens that are in the World War, and anybody
which isn't true, you know, it's they They have this
innate desire to think the worst of the United States.

(16:16):
And I think that all that is it's building, it's
building up inside them and they and it just keeps
building up, bill it and all this pressure, it keeps
becoming this bigger thing. And yeah, it's it's really kind
of unfortunate. But there are a lot of reasons I
think why we we I mean, we could spend days
talking about how this happened. Yeah, but you know, I

(16:39):
feel like and I'm only I'm I just turned forty five,
and you know, so I haven't I haven't been around
terribly long on the grand scheme of things. But for
the time that I relied in condese in of politics,
it feels like it really been from a time where
Republicans and Democrats could work together, it could be civil,
to a time where they just clearly can't. And and

(17:03):
that's a problem, you know. We we're just seeing that
the American just take their hatred of this country into
almost every facet of their lives, and that's to be
a divide in this country, making it impossible for the
two sides to work together on anything.

Speaker 2 (17:19):
Looking at the history of the Democrat Party, they're responsible
for a lot of things that were bad and wrong,
slavery and whatever. Well, let me approach it this way,
our coroach of Stephen Suker knew we had on the
podcast a couple of years back. A democracy dies in darkness. Also,
the Trump era Washington Post would have us believe that's

(17:39):
a nice sounding sentiment and one that should have applied
to the paper, and it's reporting long before Trump arrived
at the White House. But it's also trite and naive.
It is far closer to the truth to say that
democracy dies out in the open, in the daylight, right
in front of our faces, and with the approval of
most of the people working at the Washington Post. And

(18:01):
then the key sentence. In reality, democracy dies in the
court rooms and just quarters of our nation. Is there
a plot involving the judiciary that is staring everybody in
the face but not being recognized enough.

Speaker 3 (18:20):
Well, this is definitely prior of the strategy that Democrats
have had for amount of times that I mean for decades.
They have used the courts to get what they want
where they couldn't do it through the legislative process. That's
not neil, I've known this for a long time. It's
just that, you know, I think we see it being
far more aggressive now. I mean, we are seeing almost

(18:42):
every similar decision that Trump is making being challenged. You
can't you can't run a government like that. You you
couldn't have run a business like that. I mean, imagine
if every single decision of the bass of the company
was challenged by the people, you know, by people down
below all the time, and you won't be able to function,

(19:04):
you know, I mean, the president is the chief executive
of the of the country, and when he's not able
to do his jib and every single course, every single
action that he takes is challenged, it is nothing is
getting done. And you know it's we see, you know,

(19:26):
I always find myself frustrated when like when, like when
Joe Bidy was president, and you know, he would do
something and it was cleolly unconstitutional. And the the level
of UH Republican organizations conservative organizations using the same tactics

(19:46):
is not nearly the same that they. It just feels
like they they don't have that same hunger to challenge
that even when and believe me that they do plenty
of times. I mean, we saw things like Joe Biden
saying that he's going to forgive out the student note
loan debt of all these Brier wars. You know, that

(20:09):
was take challenge to been to the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court said you can't do it. But then when
Joe Biden started saying, well, forget what the Supreme courses,
I'm going to find other ways to do it, you
know that he he did that, and some of that
stuff was reversed, of course, but you know, and it
felt it feels like, you know, whatever happened under Joe Biden,

(20:32):
it's not near the same, it's not the same level.
And we and we noticed that when you there are
statistics out there where it shows that the member of
you know, nationwide injunctions per president, and the number that
have had occurred under Trump is far more then than
what happens under Democrat presidents. And it's because they're a

(20:53):
fan or aggressive to the with the strategy. And I
think the answer to that is we got to relive
in because we can't. We can't have a country renting
like this. You know, all we're going to see is
the status quo maintain itself, and you're going to see
almost no difference between who is president because thingers can

(21:14):
do to do anything.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
I followed your your columns you're writing, and there's plenty
of it, particularly over the last couple of weeks or
a few weeks, because there is there has been so
much meat for the grinder, new dirt, new dirt on
Judge Bosberg raises more questions. Was something that I think

(21:36):
was written on the on the twenty sixth of March.
It's the day that I preded it. Anyway, the district
court judge who recently blocked President Donald Trump's efforts to
deport illegal alien gang members attended a suspiciously partisan legal
conference just months before his ruling, According to a judicial
ethics report, did that did that story go anyway.

Speaker 3 (21:57):
You know, as a member of the conservative media, you know,
certainly in conservative circles and it resonates, but you know,
that didn't really go anywhere our problems, say no. And
the thing I thought is like, we have kind of
this expectation and maybe it's maybe it's an unrealistic expectation,

(22:20):
but you know, we'd like to believe that judges are impartial,
that they look at the Constitution and try and try
to make wounds based on what the Constitution says. Then
judges like Boseberg, who has a history of partisanship regardless,
But when you go to these conferences that are clearly

(22:42):
have a partisan angle to them, you know, it's like
that they're not even trying to hide it anymore. And
I think that's kind of a big change that we've
seen in the past, you know, ten, fifteen, twenty years,
is that there really isn't any significant or they're not
even trying to hide it. They don't care. It's not

(23:02):
that they they they're shown their cards and we're just
kind of accepting it, like that they're conservative judges and
that they're are liberal judges and that's just how it is. Uh,
And it's unfortunate because you know, deep down I would
like to know that that judges are suffered in their

(23:24):
person their personal political beliefs from their rulings and are
looking up the Constitution and making their ruins based solely
on that. And we're not. We're not be having senac
for a long time, and you're still slowly get to
the point where people just accept that, which is which
is why you know the strategy worse because you know

(23:45):
the activists that are launching out these and lawsuits, they
know where to go, they know which judges to target
to to take on these cases.

Speaker 2 (23:54):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (23:55):
And it's not a good situation.

Speaker 2 (23:57):
No, it's not. I think there is a a different
attitude too well actually to life from both the Democrats
on one side and the Republicans on the other. The
Democrats tend to stick together more and when they're on
a campaign, they go for it and you don't find dissenters,
not very often. But on the on the Republican side,

(24:18):
you've got you've got quite an array of opinions and
they can vary even quite considerably. You get you get
more Republicans, for instance, in the Senate, that will the
post trump on on occasions than you'd ever find in
the in the Democrat in the Democrat team, it's a

(24:40):
it's an attitude that I can't understand. Why is it
that Republicans, particularly those who are who are elected to
office as a Republican, why they don't stand together more?

Speaker 3 (24:53):
I wish should do the answer to that, because you're
you're absolutely right. If I've seen this time and time again,
you know we're Democrats. You can have Democrats that are
left the statewide in red states through WARLD vault solidly
with with the Democratic Party no like nine percent of

(25:15):
the time, and they go back to their states to
a month for reelection, and the message I says, well,
you know these are moderate Democrats because well look at
this one vote that they did. But you don't see
that happening at all with the or happening as much
as Republican You'll see, you know, we've got quite a
few reliably reliably unreliable, well these radly unreliable Republicans. You know,

(25:45):
you've got Senator Rakowski in Alaska or Collins and Maine
where you know that they they clearly are certainly more split,
and when it comes to how often they support the
you know President Trump or anything advocates of the Republican position.
But I mean there's a variety that was. Like, just

(26:06):
just in Ohio, which thankful this happened. You know, there
was this Democrat, Senator Shared Brown, who kept getting re
erected despite the fact that he was a fall Leff
Democrat in a state that i was trending more and
more Republican. He finally was ested back in November, but
you know, he could have survived probably if he had

(26:28):
been at the election had been in an off year.
I think that much of what was able to help
him get booted with the fact that it was a
presidential erection that got a lot more turnout. But it
has been baffling me for years. How you know, like
a senator like John Tester and Montana was getting erected

(26:50):
and re elected in her fairly red state. Thankfully he
was funny booted out as well, but I mean it
was Yeah, I've seen it so many times with these
Democrats who pretend to be not or to be made
in the run for reelection who currently aren't. They've whack
step in the with the with the party readers and

(27:11):
they get away with it. It's always frustrating to me
to see the Republican Party just absolutely fail to unite.
I mean, Pete Hexeth was only barely able to get
confirmed to be Secretary of Defense because of, among other people,

(27:32):
just McCall all. Though I you're against them.

Speaker 2 (27:33):
He's a man who's he's a man who's very difficult
to come to grips with U.

Speaker 3 (27:39):
He is, but he is retiring, which I think is
a good thing. He's you know, and that's a whole
other thing as well, because Republicans have wanted him to
retire for a long time, because he's curly not up
to the job anymore. Yet you won't see Democrats main
to a bitment one of their own or you know,
should probably be retiring and put out the pasture. It's

(28:02):
just Democrats are so concerned about their own power that
they will overlook anything as long out just to get
what they want. Republicans less. So, I mean, there are
so many times I just dang herd against the Lord,
just wandering like why they can't just unite behind the
you know, particular cars and how much I can understand it.

(28:22):
But I am honestly to say that I don't.

Speaker 2 (28:25):
If I were to suggest to you that corruption has
something to do with it. You look at you look
at the connections that exists between numerous politicians of senior status,
look at the children, the spin off from the family,
you know who, who are making pots of money in

(28:47):
various parts of the world. Is there is there a
crossover and this is this maybe an unfair question for you,
but is there a crossover between some Republicans and some Democrats?
And the reason they stick together is because they have
a common bond in what I've just been trying to describe.

Speaker 3 (29:09):
Well, you know, I I think I think the real
issue is is that, you know, Washington, d c. Is
a very liberal area and the whole power structure there
is based on what can government do for you? But
getting money from the government, and you know, Democrats are
all about, you know what, let's fund this and fund that,

(29:30):
and so that kind of mindset of what government, how
government operates, really benefits the Democratic Party because they are
and willing to use their their position and government to
fund various things, and it benefits you know, members of
their families, various other I ask they have and so

(29:53):
Republicans are part of the part of this apparatus as well.
And but this apparatus really benefits this idea of using
the government to enrich that, you know, people that are
in involved in the system. And I think that's what
it's all about, was that, you know, it's like like
everything we're seeing now with the Department of Government efficiency

(30:16):
cutting all the waste, you know. I mean, Democrats have
found a way to be to enrich their families and
their allies through these wasteful programs, which is why they're
fighting so hard against it. The system I think just
naturally benefits Democrats and makes makes it easier for them
to align themselves together in a way that it's less

(30:40):
easy for Republicans.

Speaker 2 (30:43):
I think I indicated to you in a piece of
correspondence that down in this part of the world, we
get we get fed mostly stuff from the Lift Wing,
the New York Times, Washington Post, seeing, etcetera. That's where
most of the information comes from that's printed and utilized

(31:06):
on televisions and radio. The New York Times drops a
massive truths bomb on the Democrats. Now that was from
only yesterday that you that you were covered that what
was the truth bomb?

Speaker 3 (31:21):
Uh? Well, the truth the truth, Bob knows is that
the Democrats have really destroyed their brand. Uh. They the
Democrats have a long history of being the party of
the little guy, of the working class, and for years
now they've just become the party that cares more about

(31:41):
preferred pronouns and prosperity. You know, they're the ones that
are that are trying to push for all this transgender nonsense,
for all the all this social.

Speaker 2 (31:51):
Justice that.

Speaker 3 (31:53):
Initiatives and all that stuff, D D and A that stuff,
and this is not what people care about. You know
that the past four years under Joe Biden have been
just horrible economically.

Speaker 2 (32:04):
We were crushed by.

Speaker 3 (32:07):
Rampant and floyd skyrocketing gas prices and they were doing
nothing about it. There In fact, they were the ones
that were telling us everything is fine, everything is great.
The gas versus going down, inflation is going down, Things
are cheaper, and they weren't. You can't tell people, and
it's easy to go up on on TV and line

(32:28):
of the public, but it's really hard to convince people
that prices are going down and inflation is going down,
that gas prices are cheap when people can see that
directly for themselves and they know from their UH, from
their bank accounts, that they don't have as much money
as they used to because they have to spend more
for the for the necessities of life. And that disconnect

(32:51):
is the reason why Trump won. He was the one
that was saying, there was a problem, we can fix it.
Let's focus on what matters. And Democrats really weren't. I mean,
they tried to, but you know, I mean there was
this whole thing. You know, another big issue aside from
them was of course immigration, illegal immigration in particular, and

(33:13):
Democrats were clearly all about open borders, letting people in.
This is the right thing to do. And then when
the polls started to show that people would get you know,
really kind of sick of the crime that they brought
with them, and you know, all that, so the so
the polls showed that the immigration was suddenly a top

(33:33):
tier issue of American voters. And then they start to
pretend to be, you know, very hawkish about the about
the border. But man, just really believe you because you know,
like we had the Biden administration claiming that they they
had brought you know, they had brought all the level
of encounters to the border are down. But what they

(33:56):
weren't telling you was that they went to record highs
on their watch too, so that they kind of wanted
credit for reducing illegal immigration when they really weren't. And
the fact of the matter is is that it doesn't
even even though they were starting to get a little
bit more hot fish on the board at least in
terms of what they were saying, and even to an
extent they were there was actually a small reduction in

(34:19):
border and captors towards the end of the Biden administration.
They they wanted people to believe something that that that
that meant that they were the ones that were fixing
the proud of and that Trump was just using it
as a campaign issue and anyone really believed that. Uh,
people are just just just sick of the lies. And
when you when you tell people this stuff and they

(34:40):
and they know they can see that's what's hackering to
their to their neighborhoods and to people that they know.
I mean, people are giving that they're seeing clime going
up and are seeing Democrats not address the issue of crime.
You know, all these things contribute to a national belief
that that Democrats just don't care about the problems that

(35:03):
are affecting the people. And the New York Times actually surprising.
They called them off for it, which is what made
you know. The New York Times, as you said, Rah,
is kind of like the the media wing of the
Democratic Party. For one to call them out on this
was actually a big deal, which is why I wrote

(35:23):
about it.

Speaker 2 (35:24):
Yep, it was, and it makes me wonder looking back
at their history whether The New York Times, every once
in a while designs is going to take that alternative
route just for a short term, and that then gives them,
they think, the cover for whatever else they do, because
they can claim that they are balanced and point to

(35:44):
one or two stories like that. That's that's my take
on it. I want to ask your opinion of a
couple of commentators, one very prominent, the other not so much,
not so well known, Victor Davis Hansome. What's your interpretation,
what's your interpretation of his approach?

Speaker 3 (36:04):
I mean, to be honest, I don't really follow aloud
of what he does.

Speaker 2 (36:10):
What he writes.

Speaker 3 (36:10):
I mean, I'm aware of him for sure, but I
don't worry follow him all about closely.

Speaker 2 (36:17):
Okay, is there a reason for that? Because I could
provide one, I think, but is there a reason for it?

Speaker 3 (36:23):
I mean, I spend pretty much all day every day
looking for things to write about, and a lot of
it is from a lot of different sources. There there's
just so much out there of it that I'm picking
off from that there isn't any like specifically that I'm like, oh,
I have to read this person I have to listen to.

Speaker 2 (36:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (36:41):
I can't even listen to a podcast as nually I
like too, because I can't write an article that'll listening
to a podcast. It is. And you know, my wife
listens to podcasts and I you know, she always thought me, oh,
you should listen to this, and it's like, I'd love to.
I just wish I had the time. Uh, you know,

(37:01):
it's uh, it's kind of the plight of being a
writer is that, you know, I have to read a
lot and then find something out of that to write
my own thing. You know, I, Doug, we get to
watch TV these days because to watch this is true bitter.

Speaker 2 (37:20):
Davis Hanson was on television yesterday and he's really come
out of the woodwork of late and he was commenting
on Justice Roberts, and he pointed out that coming up
is Robert's most important moment of his life, where he
has to intervene, must intervene, and if he doesn't, we're

(37:43):
not going to have a country. I scribbled these notes
down as he talked, because we're going to turn it
over to the three hundred and fifty or so left
wing judges and they're going to run the country. If
he thinks it's going to go away by being indifferent
or showing indifference, it's not. It's going to be energized

(38:07):
more and more suit and more and more, more and
more judges. So he has to step in and declare
unconstitutional and what the what the lower courts are doing,
and he has to do it very quickly. And I
would imagine you would agree with that. The other one,
seeing you've already commented on VD eight. The other one

(38:28):
is what sort of regard by Jeheff for Kurt Schlichter.

Speaker 3 (38:31):
Uh, he's a great guy. I've met him a couple
of times. I do read his stuff occasionally, when you
know he's he writes over a town hall and he's
he's got some great insight.

Speaker 2 (38:44):
I already read this this morning, because it no it
was published on twenty four March, but I already read
it this morning. The Agony of John Roberts. No, I'm
not going to quote it. I might do it later
in the podcast, but it's a it's a brutal and on,
or should put it this way, it's a brutally honest commentary.
Are there too Are there too many columnists? Do you think?

Speaker 3 (39:10):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (39:11):
Excluding your good self of course, Well.

Speaker 3 (39:14):
Obviously, uh, you know everyone. That's kind of the thing
with the UNAD is that anybody, everybody can go out
there and say what they want to say. Uh, And
you know, I think I I think I found in
my time in this business is that you don't even
know who's gonna say like absolute spat on thing. So

(39:36):
and you know, I don't think there's there's there's too many.
There may be too many on the left, but I'm
just on the kidding. But I think the good stuff
naturally is gonna get the more attention or hopefully and uh,
you know, just let let the market work it out.

Speaker 2 (39:55):
Yeah, there is there's one other I want to before
I move on a little, I would to refer to
the media in this part of the world, and on
this occasion, I'm talking about the Australian media, particularly the
best in Australia, and that is The Australian. Don't know
whether you've ever had a look at it or not,
but it is that is one that's taken the best

(40:19):
attitude of any media in Australasia for a long period
of time with its commentators and op eds. However, there
are exceptions, and this is one. This piece exemplifies it.
Doal Trump may be right when he insists that in
deporting illegal migrants on mass especially criminals across America's southern border,

(40:40):
he is fulfilling the mandate voters gave him last November,
Yet he is wrong to seek to ignore court rulings
on the issue and demand the judges who applied the
law of the land and the rule against him over
deportations be not it just impeached, but condemned as lunatics

(41:00):
and rogues. And it goes on in the same vein.
And there was another column written by a well known
commentator who took the same line that he is out
of order totally and bringing the judiciary into disrepute. And
it came to me not just as a surprise but
as a shock when I read it. Now, what are

(41:21):
those two commentators, those two commentaries, what are they missing?

Speaker 3 (41:25):
Well, you know, I think the key thing they're missing
is that, I like going back to this example where
Joe Biden, the Supreme Court rules against him on the
issue of being able to cancel student debt. He goes
out there and face the right after that and starts
finding all these little poles and finding other ways to
accomplish it. And then he goes out there is bragging

(41:47):
that the Supreme Court couldn't stop him. And I think
about that a lot in this particular context, because the
same people who are saying, oh my god, Trump can't
go after all, these judges can't sell out these things
and cough for that that they they were cheering bid

(42:08):
for defining the United States Supreme Court the top court
in the land. And the hypocrisy that these people are
demonstrating it tells you everything you need to know is
that for them, the ends justify the means. They don't
care about democracy, they don't care about judicial review, they

(42:30):
don't care about any of that. They care about what
they about their agenda, and they don't care how they
get to it. And so I mean, I hear all
these complaints about, you know, Trump can't do it, he
can't come there is a problem there is a problem
in this country where we are seeing judges, low level
judges at the district level, making nationwide injunctions in order

(42:54):
to stop the Trump agenda. You've never seen it happen
at this level before, and that tells you this is
a problem because I guarantee you every single person that
is complaining about how Trump is acting now would be
complaining about the judges at the situations where that the
situation was reversed. So I think everybody needs to take

(43:15):
a step back here and look at this from a perspective.
If this happened but the party switched, which you will be,
how would you feel about it? Because I's the only
way we're really going to get to any sort of
agreement as to what the what the appropriate level of
power these judges should have.

Speaker 2 (43:31):
It would will be the man's name. I was trying
to think of Henry Ergos, who has is basically an
economist but has a long history of commentary with the
paper and it's head at Donald Trump's contempt of the
judiciary puts rule of law at risk, and I read

(43:52):
it obviously and I thought, you don't know what you're
talking about. But the only thing I can the any
excuse I can make if an excuse is the word
is that he himself is not getting the right information
and writing he's writing one eyed half blow. But I
don't I don't want to drag you through that any
curther signal gait is is it digit?

Speaker 3 (44:16):
I don't think it's done yet, but you know, because
I think Democrats are really trying hard to turn it
into a big scandal. But I feel like, I mean
even now, like when it when it first happened, I
was running about it a lot because there was a
lot to say, there's a lot of narratives to counter.
Not so much anymore. I feel like interest in it

(44:38):
is waning. I've seen toils that that have shown that
it's really not an issue that people are that concerned about.
You know, in the end, people care about, you know,
the riots more than this kind of inside the belt
weigh stuff. And I don't see it really having a

(44:58):
lot of legs, and you know, going forward the next
you know, a week or so, I think it's gonna
be kind of stories when they first break you know
this that the they get a lot of attention first,
and then people move on to how those things and
it's exactly what's going to happen with this greetcause in
the end, nothing really bad happened here. Uh, you know,

(45:19):
it was a situation not good. I believe, I'm at
first in it. It's it's bad that Jeffrey Goldberg was
somehow included on this chat. However, I think the work
question is how to get there because we know that
this this wasn't a situation where it was highly classified

(45:39):
information that was sure that he got hold of. We
know that we know that there were ner names or
targets that were included in this in this chat that
he wasn't suddenly given access to the locations of where
they're targeting or hat or it was being done. The
actual content that was in the chat was really kind

(45:59):
of a nothing. But they're still trying really hard to
make this a situation that's going to be the bad
thing for Post and Trump because you know, the one
event that really tanked Joe Biden's presidency was the ash
withdrawal from from Afghanisteine. That was the key movement that

(46:22):
sin his approval ratings and see sentim under ratter where
they stay for the remainder of his presidency, and Democrats
are kind of looking for that watershed moment, that that
that key story that that's going to just completely evaporate
Trump's political capital.

Speaker 2 (46:39):
They think this is it.

Speaker 3 (46:40):
It's not that they're going to keep trying, But in
the end, I just don't I just don't see how
that's going to happen. Nobody, nobody died here. Uh, the
military operation was this success. And the real issue we're
going to have to get to the from this whole
thing is how did how did Goldberg get on this chat?

(47:01):
Who's responsible for and how to be made sure this
doesn't happening.

Speaker 2 (47:04):
Well, I'm looking, I'm looking and waiting for body to
be identified who did this with the intents, with the
intent of the out of the outcome, because I can't
see how this could have happened any other way than
intentionally by why some somebody who's not on the team.

Speaker 3 (47:23):
That's that's kin of my feeling as well. You know,
it was National Security Advisor Mike Waltz who set up
the chat, And I don't see how anyone involved in
this chat. You know, these are all Trump officials here,
why would any of them have Jeffrey Goldberg in their contacts?

(47:44):
Goldberg has a history of writing bogus pieces about Trump
publishing them. You know, there was a few different stories
that that he is the stubs where they've they have
been the bound rather quickly. This is not a guy
who people in them from Trump administration are going to
to leak information so that you know, this guts reporter.

(48:06):
He was not that guy. So the us is is
who put who put him in the chat and was
it really an accident or was it somebody who was
like Jeffrey Garblig is the kind of guy who if
he gets included on this thing, if there's something big
that happens, he can write this. He can write the
story that I want, uh and just totally undermine the administration.

(48:29):
And the thing is, this is not out of this
is not something that's been out of the ram of possibility.
There were people who served in the first Trump administration
who were absolutely one hundred percent trying to undermine him.
And I think he's done a good job of assumbing
a team this time around where that is less of
an issue. But there's probably no way that it's gonna

(48:49):
be zero percent possibility. There's gonna be some people who
are in there, staffers or aids, whatever that's are that
are thinking, I'm gonna I'm gonna be the true patriot
who undemanags Trump and it gets the impeached again. And uh,
you know it, I think I think that's what we're seeing.

(49:09):
And you know, I haven't seen any anything come out
since this broke to convince me otherwise.

Speaker 2 (49:16):
Yeah, let me finish up with those two things. You
write a piece today. Here's what the stranded astronauts have
to say about Trump and Musk. Give us give us
a brief description of what they had to say.

Speaker 3 (49:29):
Well, what they said, bariously it was was that they
were grateful for for Trump and for Elon Musk stepping
in and making sure that they got home.

Speaker 2 (49:38):
These are two astronauts.

Speaker 3 (49:42):
That have been had been in space for getting close
to a year, and they were only supposed to be
there for for I think about eight to nine days,
and they could have been home sooner. Now that the
reason why they were up there the fault of their
own you know, they went up around the Bowling star

(50:02):
Liner and there's some thruster issues and leagues that you know,
this psition was it's not safe for these guys to
come back on the on on this so they're going
to stay up there at the International Space Station. Duh.
The bad administration could have brought them home sooner, but

(50:22):
Elon Musk came out and supported Donald Trump. Elon Musk,
who're in SpaceX offers to bring these astronauts home, and
the Biden INSU mission just didn't didn't take them up
on it because they didn't want Musk, a Trump ally
to have a man, because it would it would have
made Trump looked good right before the election. And you know,

(50:48):
space travel is not you know, as much as for
the decades that we've been doing it, it's still very dangerous.
It's not routine. Unplanned space travel is very very risky.
And having these astronauts up there for you know, I'm
for the other year, when are supposed to be there
for a few days, complicates things. Yeah, I mean, this

(51:10):
is stuff that's way beyond my expertise. But still, I mean,
we're talking nearly three hundred days compared to the eight
that were planned. That they should have been brought home sooner.
And I think that, you know, I don't know politically
how these tile these two astronauts where they where they stand,

(51:31):
but I think they've recognized that This is some of
that should have transfummed politics, and they should have been
bat home sooner. In the grateful that Trump and Elon
Musk were able to get them back.

Speaker 2 (51:43):
Well, let's I forget that they didn't come home sooner
because Biden declined the offer of a ride. Right, So,
I think this exemplifies some something important. Though, as you right,
as expected, liftusweated the full damage control after the astronauts
returned home. They were desperate to downplay the Biden administration's

(52:04):
refusal to bring them home sooner. MSNBC love of claimed
that the astronauts were never actually stranded, while former astronauts
Scott Kelly, the twin brother of Senator Mark Kelly, insisted
that they always had a ride home. As you say,
if that were the case, why did it take nearly

(52:27):
a year to bring them back? But then you then
you conclude with the fact that the NASA confirmed confirmed
that the astronauts would not be home now had it
not been for Trump's intervention. But they will try anything,
and they don't care. They lie through their teeth.

Speaker 3 (52:44):
The thing is that they can get away with it
because they the luck expects that the media is going
to frust their narrative. And so that's why you know
they can gone n SMBC and say it, because the
people in the n SNBC are not going to challenge
that narrative. They're going to say, oh, you know, you're right,
this is whole thing is being you know, they're going
to accuse Trump of trying to politicize this whole thing.

(53:07):
And the thing is he was politicized well before Trump
even took office. It was Joe Biden who politicized it.
Who beers for basis saying we's just keep those asternints
up there entire after the election.

Speaker 2 (53:19):
Yeah. And finally, finally, the latest blow to European democracy
judge rules of Marine La Penn ineligible. That's today's news
also or yesterday's news when the podcast is released. This
is this is just another example of the of the
judiciary in democracies playing a different game, is it not.

(53:42):
You've got Romania. They arrested their chief opposition leader and
I think threw him in jail, made him ineligible. Now
Marine La Penn, and I might just throw in for
good measure that we have we have some issues in
this country with regard to the Supreme Court. That is

(54:04):
treating itself as being above its rain king. Is this
going to spread further? Do you think?

Speaker 3 (54:10):
Is it?

Speaker 2 (54:11):
Is it a danger that we really need all need
to pay attention to.

Speaker 3 (54:16):
Oh? Absolutely, I mean, I mean look, I mean, if
you think about it, this is exactly what we were.
What we saw last year, Democrats were using the courts
to try to stop Trump from being eligible to be president. Again,
there many others succeeded. They know that they can use
the judiciary as as a weapon. Uh and which tells

(54:36):
you that the judiciary has way too much power. Uh.
But you know that this is I think we have
to be really grateful that that it didn't work out
that Trump was able to beat these these cases and
and get get re elected, because if it had succeeded
here in America, then our bets are off. I mean,

(54:57):
you would you would see this explode, not just in
America but worldwide. Uh. You know, the every traditional uh
you know, Western nation, every single democratic country with somebody
just deep devolved into you know, these banana republics that
you were the party and power abuses the government too

(55:20):
to basically make it impossible for them to to to
to chunche themselves in power. And you know, I don't
think a lot of people really understand just how significant
it was that Trump was able to beat all this, because, uh,
it would have been a whole new error if if
they had succeeded. And uh, you know, America is supposed

(55:42):
to be like kind of beacon, a freedom for the
for the whole world, and here we are. We had
the city, the sitting administration, the battery administration literally use
in the court system to try to stop his baden's
chief political opponent from being able to come back into
the White House. Uh, this, this is this is a

(56:03):
huge situation, a huge problem that could have become just
perhaps the the end of the American experiment altogether. And uh,
without without America reading the way and shown the rest
of what has done, I don't know where. Yeah, and
it's uh, it's scary to think just how close we

(56:25):
came to that.

Speaker 2 (56:26):
Indeed, Matt you you highly endorsed by Mike Levin. I've
saved that till the end, and I think that's a
magnificent endorsement. The Margolis Manifesto, PJ Media, where else can
fuck read you? Well, those are the two.

Speaker 3 (56:46):
Main things, you know, I write daily over at Pjmedia
dot com. And then the Margolis Manifesto is my newsletter
and you can go there, go to Matt Marcoles dot
com and sign up for that, and uh, that's probably
the best.

Speaker 2 (57:01):
Those are the two best places to reach me.

Speaker 3 (57:03):
And the courses also Facebook and and X as well.

Speaker 2 (57:08):
Thank you for your time. I told you you'd be
free in an hour and I'm scraping in by one minute.
Oh thanks Soro Reuch for having me now podcast two

(57:33):
seven eight in the mail room with missus producer sitting
here waiting patiently. How are you late?

Speaker 3 (57:37):
And I'm great? How are you?

Speaker 2 (57:39):
I'm very well.

Speaker 3 (57:40):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (57:41):
So let's knock this off because there are things to
be done. I have things to be done this time, so.

Speaker 3 (57:47):
Go for it.

Speaker 4 (57:47):
Layton Peter says, My wife and I were always big
fans of yours. We had a holiday in and around
New Orleans because of your effusive praise, the best holiday
we've ever had. I have a high respect for guy Hatschhad,
but he doesn't get it all right. For instance, there
is no credible evidence that any virus has ever existed

(58:08):
that using proper science process to isolate then specify a
virus there are, of course man made organisms, in particular
as germ warfare or bioweapons, and then Peter goes on
to send you some links latent. Next, consider the vastly
greater evidence that the Darwinian evolution theory is false. There

(58:29):
is overwhelming evidence that human DNA was modified several times
over history using some form of alien technology. Next, consider
that the millions of people who died supposedly from COVID and.

Speaker 2 (58:42):
Wuhan in fact died from five G radiation.

Speaker 4 (58:46):
Thousands of five G towers were activated immediately before these deaths.
There is a long history of health issues as soon
as any EMF radiation starts, including when Morse code started
being sent by cable in the eighteen hundreds. Check to
the impossibility of so called virus is being spread by
touch or through the air. The correct history of the

(59:09):
Spanish flu provides the best evidence. And then Peter goes
on to say, it is a very complex story, but
the full picture is that the whole COVID fiasco was
a meticulously planned depopulation agenda over some twenty years. It
did not suddenly start in late twenty nineteen. And then

(59:29):
Peter says, late, and this is just for starters. And
then he lets you know that he and his wife
moved from Auckland to Kens in two thousand and four,
and he says, I was a management consultant and led
the restructuring of several government departments and corporations during and
after the David Longi government. Before that, I was the

(59:51):
general manager of the Auckland Star. And he is He
signs himself off as a management consultant and senior consulting principle,
so he knows what he's talking about, doesn't he.

Speaker 2 (01:00:03):
Well, here, we think you well, let's put it this way.
I hadn't read that. I invite any of all to
go back and listen to that again and then write
a reply to it, and I'll be very intrigued to
see what comes in good idea. Dear Latnan, Carolyn, what
a wonderful discussion this time with Guy Hatchett. The clear,

(01:00:25):
errordite way in which you both expose the truth about
COVID and biotechnology in general is surely something that will
wake up anyone who has hitherto been blind to it all.

Speaker 3 (01:00:37):
Hm.

Speaker 2 (01:00:37):
I think your letter in my letter clash a little.
This is especially so with the proposed Gene Technology Bill,
which Government flash Parliament seems determined to ram through onto
us despite any concerns and to hell with what the
public think. Now I have to tell you that's from

(01:00:58):
a retired GP Steve. I appreciate that, Thank you, Leighton.

Speaker 4 (01:01:05):
Nick says, I've just listened to your podcast with dot
or Guy Hatchild on what really happened with the recent
COVID nineteen pandemic. I've always been a COVID nineteen vaccine
skeptic and would like to let you know that there
are now very good reasons for being so. And then
Nick goes on to refer some attachments to you to
LAG which I'm sure you've seen, talking of myocarditis and increase,

(01:01:30):
an increase of cerebral thrombosis and other things, he says,
and still the vaccine has not been worthdrawn. Perhaps in
your role as a podcaster, you can exert some influence
and get the Health Minister Simeon Brown on your program
with a please explain for your interest. I've sent the
same attachments to the Prime Minister leaders of the Coalition
Simeon Brown and Shane Retti. I have taken this action

(01:01:54):
because the gene Technology bill will allow biotechnologists a free
reign to take risks that are likely to result in
similar outcomes. The question that must be asked is are
they deliberately trying to kill us? Perhaps in your role
as a well known podcast you might be able to
put this to the appropriate minister. And Nick says, I

(01:02:14):
will leave this information and there's a bit of it
to follow in your capable hands.

Speaker 2 (01:02:20):
I thank you. There are a number of suggestions be
made to me of recent times, and I'm not fond
of any of them really, and I have my reasons
which I don't want to expose yet maybe never, but
I've had some very strong feelings.

Speaker 3 (01:02:40):
I wonder what that's all about.

Speaker 4 (01:02:42):
Your guess is as good as mine.

Speaker 2 (01:02:43):
People from Simba from Melbourne. I appreciate your podcast very much, sir,
and I commend you for a great discussion with Guy Hatchett.
There is something you mentioned in two double seven about
the Democrat Party that I think you stated that the
saying goes today's Democrat Party is not the party of

(01:03:06):
your grandparents or parents. I beg to differ. The Democrat
Party is the party of slavery, It is the party
of segregation and its members formed the klu Klux Klan.
Its members created the abortion clinics deceptively named Planned Parenthood.
Many of these clinics were strategically placed in black neighborhoods

(01:03:29):
because the founders of PP were eugenists. It is the
party of Woodrow Wilson, the Racist and the Great fdr,
whose administration put Japanese people in internment camps. He also
denied Jews fleeing the Holocaust entry into America. The Democrat
Party is the party that overwhelmingly opposed civil rights legislation

(01:03:51):
and destroyed Black American families through welfare. It's the party
of the Weather Underground, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Now.
It is the party of communism, open borders, and critical
race theory. It's the party of child mutilation through genderism.
This party denies biological differences between males and females. It

(01:04:12):
pushes the global warming fraud, and was the force behind
the COVID nineteen tyranny. It is the party of Harvey Weinstein,
Roman Polanski, Jeffrey Epstein or Epstein, P. Diddy, and many
other horrible human beings. The Democrat Party is evil and
has always been that way since its creation and it

(01:04:35):
has never been truly held accountable. So I think it
is more appropriate to say today's Democrat Party is the
party of your grandparents. Now, virtually everything he said there
is something I read that I thought, I'm not sure
about that, but everything he said there basically is correct.

(01:04:55):
But he's also wrong in his conclusion about the It's
not the party of your parents or grandparents. And it's
very very simple, Simba. I was well aware of all
that you've read I said, and I appreciate it that
someone has actually written it to me. The point of
the saying is very simple. It's economics. It is that

(01:05:18):
the Democrat Party used to be the party of the
middle class. They are no longer. They are the party
of the super rich and the state dependent. The Republican
Party is now the party of the working class. So
there's been a switch and that's why that quote it
is not the party of your parents or grandparents. But

(01:05:39):
you are right to remind any and all of the
other things that you mentioned.

Speaker 4 (01:05:43):
Thank you, Layton john says. I listened to the absolute
concurrence to your chat with Guy Hatchard some years ago,
whilst a director on the now defunct New Zealand meat Board.
I did a six week tour of our major markets
looking at the potential or otherwise for GMOs in our
agricultural systems. My findings were unequivocal. No Way, Jose where

(01:06:06):
an island nation, so un like other food producers, we
can claim to be genuinely ge free. Such reputational status
fits neatly into our current reputation for nutritional and ethical provenance.
Whilst the science has moved from the days of Dolly
the Sheep, it's still evolving and it still risk aares
all hell. And then he encloses to you late in

(01:06:29):
an article I submitted to The Farmer's Weekly, basically coming
from a farming and marketing perspective as opposed to Guy's
far more er scientific objections, we reach the same conclusion,
John says. He says, I really think this is a
major issue for our New Zealand provenance, and then he
leaves you with this cute little phrase laateon. I tried

(01:06:51):
to follow the science, but it was simply not there.
I then followed the money. That's where I found the science.

Speaker 2 (01:06:58):
Ah from Jim in a podcast titled You're Being Lied
To About Cancer, How It's caused and how to stop it.
Tucker Carlson interview doctor Patrick Soon Shiong, who invented the
cancer drug abraxene, which is well known for its efficacy
against lung, breast, and pancreatic cancer. The doctor and his

(01:07:20):
team of scientists discovered that what kills cancer is our
body's natural killer cells and T cells, so they created
T cell cancer vaccines, and because COVID works like cancer,
he and his international team of hundreds of scientists focused
on developing a T cell based vaccine that supercharges the

(01:07:41):
immune system to clear the COVID virus. As a result,
to dates, doctor Patrick Soon Shung Chiong has not contracted
the COVID virus yet, Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci both
opposed the doctor's efforts and pushed mRNA vaccines instead, which
not only MUCKs around with our genes, but it also

(01:08:03):
does not clear the COVID virus. As Guy Hatchet, one
gene change in our body can upset the delicate fundamentals
of our bodies. Yet political elites like Collins and Fauci
would shut down doctors like Patrick Soon Schong and Robert
Malone and choose to let big farmer experiment with our bodies.

(01:08:26):
After the mass COVID vaccinations, doctor Patrick soon Schong was
alarmed to see an unprecedented rise in pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer,
and colon cancer in younger people in his hospitals. I
guess what's done is done. But the moral of the
lesson is this, don't genetically engineer anything if you're not God,

(01:08:51):
not the bats, not the mosquitoes, and certainly not the humans.

Speaker 4 (01:08:57):
Just quickly, lighton. Max has sent you this something he
has sent to One News. He says, quick one. I
thought i'd share my complaint and feedback to you about
One News. And then the piece says, Hi, not really
a complaint, just letting you know. I will no longer
be watching your program. It's just too biased and I'm
sick of it. I wish the government would step into

(01:09:20):
intervene so other voices can be heard that aren't hard left,
climate alarming, green and woke. I appreciate you probably won't
care until you've broadcast yourselves out of a job and
then expect a government payout.

Speaker 2 (01:09:32):
Thanks Max. And then Max says to you loving the podcast, please,
that you are and your comments aren't far from factual.

Speaker 3 (01:09:43):
How would we know we never watch it?

Speaker 2 (01:09:45):
Just I did the other night. I watched the first
that's right, I watch the first segment. Simon was on,
so I could cope basically, but there were a couple
of stories there that I wanted to see that we're
contributory to my thinking. Okay, at it later, Yes, that's it, great,
Thank you, Thank you so much to you. Next week, well, yeah,

(01:10:05):
big week.

Speaker 3 (01:10:20):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:10:20):
I was about to tell you an amusing little story,
well thought of amusing, but I think I'll save it,
hopefully to the end. All I have to do is
remember I want to share with you some of this
article by Kurt Schlichter, who I have great admiration for.
He wrote a column called the Agony of John Roberts.

(01:10:43):
John Roberts, of course, being the Chief Justice of the
American Supreme Court and the man who is causing much
of this legal disruption, he's responsible for it. So pity
poor John Roberts. No, he's not corrupt and compromised. No,
he's simply a man who has found himself at a
pivotal time and place, in a position of great responsibility

(01:11:06):
for which he is utterly un suited. He's not a
dumb man. He is, in fact, a very smart man.
Hugh Hewitt, who was a broadcaster, knew him personally in
the Reagan administration and testifies to that. I have no
doubt it's true. I know many smart people who have
similar flaws. As objectively intelligent as John Roberts is, he

(01:11:27):
is unwise and he is endangering the institution he wants
to preserve because he does not understand human nature all
the times he finds himself in Frankly, I'll take wisdom
over raw intellect any day of the week. If he
had the capacity to lead that he so manifestly lacks,
John Roberts could save his institution with decisive and bold action.

(01:11:51):
But that's not who he is. Understand what John Roberts wants.
He is an institutionalist who has always wanted to protect
the judiciary branch. He wants it to be a fully
coequal branch that is respected by all. But the very
actions he has chosen to take or not take in
response to the current crisis of out of control subordinate

(01:12:14):
courts are guaranteeing that it will fail. Article three of
our Constitution provides for the judicial branch, but it does
not expressly provide the judiciary with any powers other than
those it earns in the eyes of the other two branches,
it cannot self enforce its decrees. Article one creates the Congress,

(01:12:35):
and the legislative branch has both the power of the
purse and the power to impeach to check the judiciary.
Article two establishes the presidency, but the Constitution does not
specify its checks and balances over the court. That power
is implied, and the implied power is for the executive

(01:12:55):
who runs the machinery of the federal government, including the
cogs and gears that carry guns, to simply say no
to an out of control judiciary. This implied power of
defiance is as much a check and balance as any
enumerated one, and without it you would have an unchecked
judiciary with hundreds of district court judges presuming to micromanage

(01:13:19):
the legitimate actions of the executive branch. You know, kind
of like what's happening now. Judge Roberts's problem is that
he wants to return to something like regular order in
the judiciary. What we have is highly irregular order. You
non lawyers need to understand that all these temporary restraining
orders and injunctions and so forth are insane. This is

(01:13:42):
not how law is done, either procedurally or substantively. I
did litigation for thirty years, he says, including in federal
courts up to arguing in front of the Ninth Circuit,
and never saw anything remotely like these antics. So realize
that this is abnormal. Abnormal times call for abnormal responses.

(01:14:04):
But that's not how John Roberts or his ilk work.
Remember he's a bushy, the kind of soft Republican who
sees his job less as fixing our broken government than
managing its gentlemanly decline. We've largely booted them out of
elective office, but Roberts has his seat for life. His
advocation is protecting his institution. He wants the judiciary to

(01:14:29):
be held in respect and obeyed, but he doesn't want
to do the hard stem work of disciplining his underlings
that makes that possible. He then goes on to discuss
all aspects of this in a brilliant, brilliant critique. And
there I'm going to leave it for the simple reason
that it's very long. Well it's four pages and I

(01:14:50):
got to one and a half. And I think that
if you're interested enough you'll find it for yourself. Kurt Schlichter,
s l I. C. Hteer the agony of John Roberts.
Find it, read it. It's on town Hall by the
Way dot com, town hall dot com. Now this morning
comes this report from the Senate. Senator Chuck Grassley introduces

(01:15:14):
Judicial Relief Clarification Act to reign in activist judges. Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Republic in Iowa, introduced a
proposal Monday to reign in judicial injunctions like the ones
currently hampering President Donald Trump's popular Marga agenda. The Judicial

(01:15:35):
Relief Clarification Act of twenty twenty five JRCA would limit
federal court orders to parties directly before the court, ending
the practice of universal injunctions. According to the Judicial Committee
majority press release, the bill also aims to clarify the
constitutional role of the judicial branch. According to the JRCA,

(01:15:59):
there are four points. Number one forbidds federal courts from
issuing sweeping relief against the government governments to persons not
before the court, ending the practice of universal injunctions, and
diminishing the incentive to forum shop for a sympathetic judge. Secondly,
requires parties seeking universal relief against the government to use

(01:16:22):
the class action process to show that class wide relief
is proper. Number three makes temporary restraining orders to rros
immediately appealable, strengthening a palette review, And fourthly amends the
Administrative Procedure Act and the Claratory Judgment Act to clarify

(01:16:43):
that courts may only issue relief under those statutes to
parties before the court. Now, Senator Grassley will hold a
hearing on Wednesday, their time to discuss his legislative solutions
to the bipartisan problem of universal injunctions. So we wait
to see whether that one flies anywhere. But nevertheless, they're

(01:17:06):
coming together and they're trying, and they need to be
effective even faster than they realized, as I think we've
established in this podcast in different places. So let me
conclude with this little story that I'm involved in in
a way. I discovered Massimo Duty, the well essentially men's

(01:17:30):
wear store, although they do sell women's clothing too, But
I discovered Massimo Duty in two thousand and seven in
Florence when I was there with Christian who was then fourteen,
and we were having a look at Italy first. Then
we went to France, which was his favorite, and generally

(01:17:51):
had a damn good time. But nevertheless, I bought in
this Massimo Duty store in Florence. I bought a pair
of genes. I still have them. I love them. I
love Massimo Duty, but I don't love it as much
as I used to. They now make the sort of
clothing for men, with exceptions that I'll get to in
a second, but they make clothing for men that is pathetic.

(01:18:15):
You can buy it any that sort of stuff anywhere.
It just hangs on you. They use gormless, ghastly young
males to model them. I mean they gormless needs needs
an upgrade. Actually, as far as they're concerned, I can't
watch the I can't look them up online, and I
can't watch the videos they have. They're awful now. They

(01:18:38):
have adopted this approach for reasons best known to them.
The last Massimo dirty store I was in was in
London eighteen months ago, and there was a salon and
it was I went in during the day when young
people were either working or in school or whatever, and
all I saw were these older men who were there
looking for bargains. And I thought, with the approach they're

(01:19:01):
taking today. They're not hooking these guys, but they do
have things in store that they don't necessarily advertise. I
have a jacket that I Caradon loves it a It's
not a sports jacket, it's not a dress jacket. It's
a jacket sort of that you just don't see. I've

(01:19:21):
never seen one like it, and I'm hanging on to
it for goodness sake. And you pick them up in store,
and they have different clothing in different places, like at
Dubai Airport, they have a store and you'll find things
there that you won't find in the city. So why
am I rabbiting on about this? Well, they started a
new campaign and I got notification of it at nine

(01:19:45):
twenty three yesterday morning. The Bring your Bag initiative has
been created with the goal of moving toward a more
efficient consumption of resources and promoting the reuse of bags
in our stores. Durned the page. It's got pictures. That
is why, after replacing plastic bags with new recycled paper options,

(01:20:07):
we decided to win encourage you to bring your own
reusable alternative when you visit our stores. Thanks to you,
our group reduced its paper bag consumption by over fifty
percent last year. If you still need a bag when
you visit us. The symbolic value of each of our
bags goes entirely to support environmental projects in over twenty markets,

(01:20:30):
from protecting ecosystems with the WWF to improving access to
water with water dot org to promoting regenerative agriculture with
Conservation International. I'll bet you even if the money goes there,
it doesn't go where it should in its entirety, by
any stretch of the imagination they finish up with, we

(01:20:52):
want to boost change forever. Police, give me a break.
Will I buy mesimoduty when I'm over in Europe in
a few months, only if I can find the sort
of thing that I've mentioned that I like that you
find only by going there and looking. I shall report
after the event that will take us out for forgive

(01:21:13):
me for my little tirade. But I know that some
of you shop there as well. You'll be excited about that.
Now we shall return shortly, but in the meantime, if
you'd like to correspond with us Latent at newstalksb dot
co dot nz or Carolyn at newstalksb dot co dot Nz.
So back again, in a few days time. Until then,

(01:21:34):
as always, thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.

Speaker 3 (01:21:44):
Thank you for more from News Talks B.

Speaker 1 (01:21:47):
Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows
with you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio