July 3, 2023 • 29 mins
Auron MacIntyre is a host and columnist at The Blaze.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
You're listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hey, everybody, welcome to the Buck Saxton Show. We've got
our friend Aaron McIntyre on this episode. He does a
great podcast. He's at the Blaze. You should check out
everything that he is up to over there. Mister Oran,
appreciate you coming back absolutely, thanks for having me again.
So recently, there's this big decision that comes down on
affirmative action, and one of the most interesting things about it,
(00:42):
I think is.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Something that you and I.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Have talked about off air, which is that the institutions
that are affected by this are largely taking the attitude of, oh,
it's unconstitutional, whatever, we'll still do it, We'll still find
a way.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
What's going on there? What does that tell us?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Yeah, you could see right away that Harvard immediately responded
by just saying, oh, that's nice, we'll comply with this,
and immediately pointed to it. It sees as a loophole
and the ruling where yes, technically you can no longer
evaluate students solely based on their race or give them
explicit additional points for that kind of admission. But you
(01:22):
can think about that when they are justifying kind of
the things they've overcome, and so there's still this loophole
of okay, well, as long as they maybe put in
an essay or they explained it as part of how
they fought back against depression, that kind of thing, then
you can consider it. You just can't put it directly
into say what kind of sat or Act score is accepted.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
I mean, I feel like the takeaway from all this
is that the only way this really changes is that
now there's at least a constitutional precedent handed down by
the court here in terms of the interpretation of it that.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Will allow for more lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
You know, what you had at this point was the
court seemed divided at the lower level, had to make
its way all the way up. So I suppose now
you just have to be able to get the data
to see that the same discrimination, racial discrimination, that's what
this is everybody, that's what the courts were doing, That
same discrimination would continue on. And so I feel like
(02:21):
there have to be many more lawsuits, Like basically this
is the start of stopping the affirmative action regime. It's
not like this switches it all overnight.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Yeah, no, absolutely, this is the beginning of the war,
and at the end of it, it simply allows it
to take place. Like you said, a lot of these
institutions are already changing. They already saw this coming. This
ruling was predicted for a while, and so a lot
of these institutions had already decided to move to more
of an essay based admission as opposed to a test
(02:53):
score admission. And that's because the data becomes much harder.
Then you can kind of fudge everything. You can still
apply the same biases, but you can do so without
it being easily numerically quantifiable. Of course, the ruling itself
actually explicitly says they can't do that, like says, you
can not resubstantiate this, you know, this regime kind of
(03:14):
just under a different way, just just with essays or
something instead of test scores. But it's very clear again
from the messages that places like Harvard scent that they
intend to do so. And so the big question is
going to be follow through. So often, especially on the right,
we see, you know, the base sees an election or
Supreme Court ruling or maybe a piece of legislation pass
(03:34):
and say, oh great, the battle's one. I can go
back to grilling, I can go back to raising my
family and go back, you know, to just you know,
being a normal citizen. But that's actually not what happens
immediately afterwards. That ruling does not enforce itself. And if
you don't have the mechanisms, if you don't have the
institutions that are going to go after these people, if
you don't have lawsuits, if you don't have a DOJ,
obviously our current do is not going to do that.
(03:56):
But you know, if you don't have a Trump or
Desanti's DOJ later on, that starts pushing this kind of stuff,
AG's all that stuff. If they don't follow up, then
none of this actually happens. It's just a ruling that's
dead in the water.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Also, is me that given the arguments that were made
in that blockbuster decision six ' three striking down affirmative
action is unconstitutional in college admissions, how is it that
we can still have racial preferences in hiring and racial
preferences in government contract government contracts being given out to people?
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Do you know what I mean? It seems to me
like this all the same arguments apply about all of this.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
Yeah, that's why this was such a huge ruling. It's
not just the college admissions, though obviously that is a
huge one, because, for better or for worse, admission to college,
especially the IVY League, is kind of the elite signaler
in our society. Getting that credential. I mean, you may
be learning nothing there, you might just be getting some
kind of gender studies trash degree, but just by having
(04:59):
that credential, suddenly you're part of the elite. You're part
of the ruling class. You've kind of got the golden ticket.
And so the fact that that was racially biased, that
that was particularly bent towards specific races, was a huge deal.
But like you said, this affirmative action policy, you know,
moves far beyond the academic sphere. It impacts everything in
(05:21):
our society, especially when it comes to jobs and these
kind of things. And so if this ruling applies there,
then you would imagine the logic would travel to all
these other institutions. But again, that can't happen without lawsuits.
That can't happen without follow through legal pressure. I mean,
state legislatures need to start banning affirmative action, and governors
need to be passing, you know, whatever they can to
(05:46):
make it clear that this won't be allowed in their states.
This this has to be a follow through on every
level that enables these different operatives, these different lawyers, these
different attorneys general to kind of make this move. Hopefully
once you get a Republican one in there, that will
actually put the pressure not just on schools but on
other institutions like corporations.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Did you find that the arguments that came across from
the A couple of the liberal justices who you know
dissented from this ruling. There are three of them, but
you know, two in particular, were really.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Upset by this.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
It was interesting to see they really couldn't hide the
emotional impact that this has on them specifically. But also
I would assume more broadly, for people that really support
this regime, and that the argument really seems to just
be some version of we really like this, and life
is unfair, and it's unfair for minorities, but only some minorities,
(06:45):
and so it should continue just because we like it.
I mean, I don't really understand. When I read through
the dissense, it didn't really feel like there was an argument.
It just felt like there's a lot of racism, and
this helps with the racism because we say so yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
I mean, in some ways you almost kind of have
to respect the honesty there. Finally, we're not hiding behind
any kind of legal tricks here. It's just the fact
that this works well for the Democratic coalition. This gives
benny's to people that we like. These are the people
who vote for us, or are the people we identify with,
and this benefits them, and therefore it should stay in
(07:18):
place because we like it. And to be fair, this
community has been told from time and memorium by the
Democrats that this is the only system that holds them
in place. This is the only way they could possibly
get ahead or stay even even you know, at all,
and so that if it ever was removed, then it's
a catastrophe and all of a sudden, you know, these
(07:40):
different minority communities will just kind of fall by the wayside.
I mean, the whole point of affirmative action, the way
it was sold to people in theory was that it
was a temporary fix to kind of address the fact
that some people had not had a fair shake historically
in the United States. But if that doesn't come with
an expiration date. Then all you're doing is creating a new,
(08:01):
different type of systemic racism. It's just now targeting people
like whites and Asians as opposed to other minority groups.
And you can't keep that in place forever. But these
people were told that, you know that is essential. You
know that this is basically the only way that you
can participate in society, which should be kind of insulting,
but I guess for some you know that is something
(08:23):
you've taken as gospel.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Did you see there was a there was a tweet
that came out that went quite quite viral from a
Democrat activist trying, I'm actually, I'm actually gonna pull this
one up. Her name is Erica Marsh, Proud, Democrat, former
field organizer for Biden. She her, of course, you know,
because we have to know that one. But she had
(08:47):
this tweet that that's gotten seen millions of times, and
this was the day that the decision came out. Her
tweet was, today's Supreme Court decision is a direct assault,
I'm sorry, a direct attack on black people. No black
person will be able to succeed in a merit based system,
which is exactly why affirmative action based programs were needed
(09:09):
to decision. Is a travesty, like ten million views of
this Basically, this has just gone completely virus a Democrat. Yeah,
and I do think it raises some very uh, very
uncomfortable questions about Democrats what they really think in the
affirmative action regime. I mean, you kind of keep running
(09:31):
into this, Oh, it doesn't change the standards. But if
you change the standards, then you won't have black and
Hispanic students getting into these schools or you know what
I'm saying, Like, if you don't have the standards changing,
they won't get in. But it doesn't change the standards,
and if you don't change the standards, they can't get
in in the numbers. And I mean in her case
she said that like none of them, which is insane.
(09:52):
But there's a problem here, right, the argument has a problem.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Yeah, obviously it's it's a pretty awkward argument to make,
if you know, if you're on that side. But at
the same time, you have to remember the Democrats do
get like ninety percent of the black vote on a
regular basis, right, So for better or for worse, this
is an argument that seems to be routinely winning people
over to that side. I don't know what that says
(10:20):
about how people feel about their opportunity inside the United States,
but it's obviously not a narrative that can survive if
you're going to have a society with any form of
kind of racial harmony. You have a group that's being
told all of the time that if there's not this
artificial system elevating them, then they have no hope inside
of meritocracy, and the group continually and regularly votes for
(10:43):
the people who tell them that, which is a pretty
terrible feedback loop.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
I want to ask in a moment here or if
we are in a place where increasingly conservatives point to
the Constitution and the response, whether over or more subtle
in the background from democrats in the left, is so
what and how that is manifesting itself in our institutions
(11:11):
and our lay to day life here.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
So we'll get back to that in just a second.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
But first off, everybody, there are a few sensations that
are better than feeling like you have the energy to
take on the world and win. That comes from having
energy and feeling as strong as you do at nine
pm as you do at nine am. And for guys,
a big part of this is having the proper levels
of testosterone. That doesn't come from just a cup of
coffee or getting a three day weekend. In it comes
from fueling your body with the right stuff. Chalk's Male
(11:38):
Vitality Stack has those ingredients. In fact, studies show the
leading ingredient in Chalk's Male Vitality Stack can replenish twenty
percent of your testosterone in just three months time. You'll
feel the positive results long before the ninety day mark
of this new day regime that includes Chalk's all natural ingredients.
Chalks Daily supplements are lab tested twice for purity and potency.
(12:00):
You'll find them online at Chalk dot com that's spelled
cchoq dot com. Save thirty five percent off the Chalk
subscription you choose for life when you use my name
buck in your purchase process that's Chalk choq dot com
and then name Buck for thirty five percent off. So
does it even really matter when we win these Supreme
(12:21):
Court decisions? I mean, you look at D C. Heller
for example, dcv. Heller, and you look at this, and
I think there are others that would come to mind
right away where we say, okay, So this is the law,
and then the left just figures out ways to say, well,
what are you going to do about it?
Speaker 1 (12:36):
How are you going to enforce it?
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Yeah, I think that's an increasingly difficult problem for conservatives
to address because again they do feel like, okay, well,
we won the constitutional argument, we got the judges appointed,
they ruled in our favor, we got the president elected,
we got this piece of legislation passed, and obviously from
here on out now that this is the law, the
constitution says you have to follow it and will be fine.
(13:01):
But that's not what actually happens. Right over and over again,
we see, you know, things like the executive branch just
to ignore executive orders from Donald Trump right that they
just don't care. Barack Obama says, hey, I'm going to
have this, dear colleague letter. All of a sudden, everybody
has let guys use the girl's bathroom, and it happens
overnight in a snap. Trump says, hey, you can't do
(13:21):
affirmative you can't rather, you can't do a diversity, equity
and inclusion training, and they get an executive ranch and
members of the executive branch just say, so what I'm
going to keep doing? It right, And the problem is
that the Democrats, whether you like it or not, understand
that at the end of the day, it's about political
will and not just laws on paper. Laws on paper
might be good, but really they're only enforced if people
(13:45):
who are in positions of power believe in them and
whether the people around them hold them to account. And
so the Democrats have been playing this game for a
long time with sanctuary cities and states and those kind
of things that just completely ignore the dictates of the Constitution, laws,
you know, Supreme Court rulings, those kind of things, and
Republicans are going to have to learn this trick because
(14:06):
we're already seeing, for instance, different courts that are trying
to strike down these no grooming laws, these laws that
ban child mutilation inside states that we call a sexual
transition gender transition, and states are trying to knock these down.
At some point, Republican governors are just going to have
to pull the same trick, call the bluff and say, okay,
you have that ruling, now enforce it.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Yeah, it does seem like the left is much more
comfortable with de facto nullification of Supreme Court decisions, that's
for sure. They just decide, yeah, well, what are you
really going to do about it? They certainly do this
on Second Amendment issues where they blatantly violate the Constitution,
and their attitude this is true in New York City,
for example, on handgun permitting. Their attitude is, yeah, we
(14:52):
know what we're doing is a violation of your rights,
but it's going to take you five maybe ten years
to even get Supreme Court to look at this. So
in the meantime, we get to just violate your rights
get what we want as a policy matter. No one's
going to stop us from it. In a blue state
like New York and tough, you know that that really
is the attitude they take. That's what they do.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Yeah, and unfortunately it's a winning strategy when you have
a kind of moral visions that are so incredibly divergent.
In the United States, it really is just the case
that the people who again care more about winning, are
just going to beat those who are playing by the rules,
playing by procedure. Now, that just means that Republicans have
(15:35):
to understand that you're in the same position if your
state legitimately passes a regulation that says, sorry, we don't
mutilate children here then it doesn't really matter what a
judge says. If they're lying about the Constitution, you just
kind of have to be like, Okay, well, we're still
not going to do that. And unless you know, no
one's going to come and force us to mutilate these kids.
(15:56):
So we're just not going to allow that to happen
under our watch. It's not the way that you want
a republic to run. It's not how rule of law
is supposed to work. But on one side has kind
of broken this compact. You can't just sit around pointing
and sputtering, right, that doesn't work. Oh, they're the real hypocrites,
you know. No, that doesn't do anything. They keep winning,
You keep staring and gawking, and it only moves leftward.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
I want to ask you orin about you mentioned this,
but the fight to protect children from the push of drag,
Queen Story Hour for Kids, and also surgery for kids,
transgender surgery, hormone blockers, all this stuff, trans ideology, and
how this is going now to the state level. It
(16:41):
may eventually make its way to the Supreme Court. We'll
get to that in just a moment. You know, your
computer can be your best tool or your worst nightmare
depending on whether crashes or not. It's rare that it does.
But when your computer does get corrupted or just planes
stop working, life can grind to a halt. For that
reason alone, you have to back up all of the
data on your computer. You can't leave that to chance.
I Drive provides the easiest, most economical solution for this.
(17:04):
Start backing up your computer data with them today. While
you're thinking about this one. Iedrive dot com is where
you start. You don't need any equipment, there's nothing to purchase.
In that way. I drive software starts backing up your
data while you're online, working away at whatever keeps you
busy in your computer. That's because i drive software works
in the background. It's safe and secure. Their cloud based
(17:24):
computers store your data with military grade encryption. No one
except you is going to access it, and you can
get it when you need it most anytime anywhere. I
Drive is the easiest, most secure backup cloud solution. Plants
start at less than seven dollars a month. Use my
name Buck as the promo code at checkout for ninety
percent off that for the first year. That's iDrive dot Com.
(17:46):
iDrive dot Com promo code Buck you'll get ninety percent
off your first year. So we have a number of
states or in that are passing laws that say that
children should should not be subjected to hormone blockers or
transgender surgery, which they're now calling gender affirmation surgery, which
(18:07):
is itself a propaganda term. I've already seen at least
one is that one. Maybe there are more judges have
said no, you can't do that, which I mean, this
is how crazy things go. They start doing something that's
never been done before. The state says, you know what,
we're we're actually not going to allow that, And now
you've got federal judges who were effectively saying no, there's
(18:28):
a basic constitutional right for a twelve year old to
cut off as genitals. I mean, that's what these judges
are doing.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
Absolutely, these these judges know that they can't allow states
to stand in the way of the civil rights revolution.
They've decided that this is the new civil rights movement,
this is the new frontier of the civil rights revolution,
and they're going to be the guys who kind of
push this through. Don't let those ugly, bigoted states stand
in the way of you know, the mutilation of twelve
(18:57):
year olds, and it's just insane. We've seen this across
the board, right we over the weekend we had footage
coming from these Pride parades like that, I believe the
one in Seattle where grown men are just completely exposing themselves,
riding bicycles around as part of the parade, waiving their
junk in front of crowds full of children. And last
time I checked, that's illegal, right, like, like no one,
(19:18):
we didn't. We didn't get rid of you know, indecent
exposure laws that's supposed to put you on some sex
of sex offender registry list. And yet these people are
doing it on a regular basis, with no fear from
law enforcement, no expectation that they'll be arrested, no expectation
that they'll be prosecuted. And this is a huge problem,
Like this cannot be allowed in the United States. We
(19:40):
cannot let some kind you know, dejure all this stuff
is illegal. But to facto, this has all been legalized.
And the even the police officers know this because they
would never interrupt what has basically become like a state
sanctioned you know, religious ritual in which these guys expose
themselves to children and you know.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
I think depending on the jurisdiction we're talking about, and
some of them, they might have even made nudity public
nudity no longer illegal. I think that may be the
chase in Seattle or San Francisco. So I approach it
from the perspective of it's not even just a function
of law, It's a function of what's what is decent?
(20:19):
You know, what is uh something that should that should
be exposed to kids and shouldn't. And I also just
I have to wonder, what does being naked like? What
does what does waving your genitalia around as a man
or as a woman in a parade have to do
with basic human you know, human rights and dignity and
pride and whatever like? What what is with and not
(20:42):
just the newity. We can take a little bit on this.
Why were there all these pride parades and this is
every year? This is not I used to live right
next to the Pride parade rout of New York City,
so I have seen this firsthand many many times. There's
a lot of like sex toys and bondage gear and
all this stuff. People, you know, this isn't common outside
of the lgbtqu I a plus plus plus activist.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Community, Like, what is going on?
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Yeah, that's kind of the amazing thing, right. Guys like
George Decay jumped on Twitter after this footage went wide
and said, oh, well, you know these people they were
gonna yell about Pride anyway, they were going to try
to ban Pride anyway, So there's no reason to self censor.
And it's like, what part of this is about self expression?
What part of this is censorship? You being asked to
(21:28):
wear pants around children is somehow a repression of your
ability to express yourself? What about it is you know
is so important to you that this happens? And I
think the answer is these are sexual identities by their
very nature, like that, that's what these identities mean. And
so when people are saying, well, you know, displays of
(21:49):
this stuff are essential and center to our identity, you
might just need to listen to what they're saying and
then realize that this no child should ever be around
this stuff. There were a few years ago the idea
that a child would go to a Pride parade would
have been insane. Everybody knew what these things were. They
were no holds barred type of Mardi gras things. Now,
(22:10):
a lot of us didn't like that, but at the
very least you can make a case that at least
it was adults only, and we understood that everyone there
was kind of of a specific age and had made
a decision that.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Kind of thing.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
But that is obviously not the case now. But the
fact that we have to have this argument, the fact
that there's any debate around the issue that a child
should be at an event that is explicitly explicitly sexual
in nature and always has been, really shows you that
kind of everything that was predicted by the resilionious right
in like the nineteen eighties was pretty much entirely correct,
and it's come to pass.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
Yes, the slope is quite slippery.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Yeah, this is something that we're seeing and a lot
of aspects in society speaking, which the feeling we have
right now around bud Light and the awakened right when
it comes to wokeness in corporate America, I want to
ask you don't answer it yet or in.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
Where you know this business.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
We're calling this a tease, but I'm going to come
back in a second here and I want you to
tell me. Are we seeing something that we should celebrate
in the sense that it's we're putting wins on the
board or should should we be more depressed that it
took bud Light putting a trans influencer out to effectively
(23:28):
insult the entire bud Light audience with politicization that they
didn't ask for. Is that just showing us that we're
defending on our own five yard lines, so to speak?
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Right?
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Which one is it? I want you to answer that
one for me in a second week come back. Famed
economist and bestselling author Nomi Prins is out with a
new warning. She says a small group of financial elites
are plotting a drastic action unlike anything we've seen since
nineteen seventy one. The White House, the World Economic Forum,
even Bill Gates are all involved. According to her research,
your ability to spend, borrow, save, and invest could soon
(23:58):
be restricted with the push of a button. Our financial
system is about to be transformed in a way that
would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. And
it all starts in July. Bank of America is calling
it inevitable. You've got any money in a US bank
account retirement plan, get all the facts at Disappearing dollar
dot com. You may not like what doctor Prince has
to say. But at the very least you'll be prepared
(24:19):
when events take a turn for the worst. Disappearing dollar
dot com Again, that's disappearing dollar dot com go there now,
paid for by rogue economics.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
All right, Oran, are we making headway or are we
making a goal line stand in the war on corporate wokeness?
Speaker 3 (24:40):
I think this is definitely a goal line stand. Like
you said, the fact that a product like bud Light
that obviously has the audience that it does, the core
audience that it has decided to go ahead and make
this move, is a problem. Also, you have the fact, like,
let's not forget where this whole bud light thing came from. Yes,
we remember it now because they had Dylan Mulvani and
a can. But right before that, a trans shooter murdered
(25:04):
six people, three of them children, at a Christian school,
and another transshooter was stopped in Colorado Springs who was
also planning to shoot up middle schools and churches. That's
when this happened. This happened right after they right after this,
while the President of the United States, instead of talking
about Christians or the terrible thing that happened to the
(25:25):
school was praising the trans community. Madonna was talking about
raising money not for the murdered family, you know, the
family of the murdered children, or for the school that
was impacted, but for the trans community. And at during
all of this stuff, while the bodies were still being buried,
Bud Lighty decided to slap Dulan mulvaney on a can
because it was Pride month and or a Pride month
(25:46):
was coming rather and it didn't matter, right, it didn't
matter when it actually happened in the world. We were
going to celebrate Pride Month even if these children had
just been murdered by a trans shooter. That's the beginning,
that's the genesis of this. It's sad that this had
to be worked out over a beer can, but at
the very least it's a win. I think it is
a win. I think people did wake up, and I
(26:07):
think it's because there was a cultural aspect to this. Right,
look at your buddy across the bar and be like, really, man,
Bud light you're that guy, And all of a sudden,
that meme of oh, that's the trans beer was much
more effective than any particular political argument. Memes are just
way more powerful than logical arguments, and I think that's
why this was such a big win. Now it's still
(26:29):
at its beginning stages. You're still only seeing these people
lose some money. You're not making the big games. Big
gains come with institutions change. So I think the big
thing will be can that populist you know, meme energy
be transferred over into long term institutional success. If the
answer is yes, then I think this is a win.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
As as you and I sit here speaking, the manifesto
of the transhooter in Nashville is still something that has
been kept from the public. There has been many months now.
I've never seen this happen before, and I think that
you speak aout instances. What are people supposed to think
(27:12):
when something like this happens and the system decides that
the motivation of a mass murderer, a murder of children
should not be publicly known because it may very well
be very politically damaging to the left.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
Yeah, you remember, like right after this, all of a sudden,
there were a bunch of brown white supremacists who showed up.
There's that guy who like drove towards the White House
and he had a neatly folded kind of Nazi flag,
even though he was like an Indian immigrant, and this
kind of thing, amazingly like, all of their ideologies were
immediately displayed, all of their motivations were immediately known and
(27:53):
made public, and they were decried and you know, called
the biggest problem in America by the President and everyone else.
But this manifesto can't come out right, this motive can't
be known, and everyone knows why. Everybody understands the answer here,
and if they're not going to say it out loud.
One of these things is politically useful to the system,
(28:15):
to the regime, and one of them is not. Everyone
knows what's in that manifesto, or at least to some degree,
what's probably in that manifesto, and everyone knows why it
can't get out, because if it got out while people
were still angry, where people were still shocked and devastated,
then they might have the political will to do something
about it. But if you wait long enough until nobody's
really paying attention again, you know, the fervor has died
(28:38):
down and nobody really remembers why you were, you know,
a boycotting bud light in the first place. Well, then
maybe you can start sneaking that stuff and it won't
be such a big deal.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Or in where should people go to listen to your
podcast read your work? What's the best place?
Speaker 4 (28:54):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (28:54):
Absolutely, I'm over on Blaze TV. Of course, you can
read my columns at The Blaze and then you can
subscribe to the podcast. I'm on YouTube, Rumble, Odyssey, all
those sites. But you can also get to the podcast
on your favorite podcast platform. It's the Oron McIntyre.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
Show, Always illuminating. Thanks for making the time for us.
Good to see you, Thanks for having me Man
You're listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hey, everybody, welcome to the Buck Saxton Show. We've got
our friend Aaron McIntyre on this episode. He does a
great podcast. He's at the Blaze. You should check out
everything that he is up to over there. Mister Oran,
appreciate you coming back absolutely, thanks for having me again.
So recently, there's this big decision that comes down on
affirmative action, and one of the most interesting things about it,
(00:42):
I think is.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Something that you and I.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Have talked about off air, which is that the institutions
that are affected by this are largely taking the attitude of, oh,
it's unconstitutional, whatever, we'll still do it, We'll still find
a way.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
What's going on there? What does that tell us?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Yeah, you could see right away that Harvard immediately responded
by just saying, oh, that's nice, we'll comply with this,
and immediately pointed to it. It sees as a loophole
and the ruling where yes, technically you can no longer
evaluate students solely based on their race or give them
explicit additional points for that kind of admission. But you
(01:22):
can think about that when they are justifying kind of
the things they've overcome, and so there's still this loophole
of okay, well, as long as they maybe put in
an essay or they explained it as part of how
they fought back against depression, that kind of thing, then
you can consider it. You just can't put it directly
into say what kind of sat or Act score is accepted.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
I mean, I feel like the takeaway from all this
is that the only way this really changes is that
now there's at least a constitutional precedent handed down by
the court here in terms of the interpretation of it that.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Will allow for more lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
You know, what you had at this point was the
court seemed divided at the lower level, had to make
its way all the way up. So I suppose now
you just have to be able to get the data
to see that the same discrimination, racial discrimination, that's what
this is everybody, that's what the courts were doing, That
same discrimination would continue on. And so I feel like
(02:21):
there have to be many more lawsuits, Like basically this
is the start of stopping the affirmative action regime. It's
not like this switches it all overnight.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Yeah, no, absolutely, this is the beginning of the war,
and at the end of it, it simply allows it
to take place. Like you said, a lot of these
institutions are already changing. They already saw this coming. This
ruling was predicted for a while, and so a lot
of these institutions had already decided to move to more
of an essay based admission as opposed to a test
(02:53):
score admission. And that's because the data becomes much harder.
Then you can kind of fudge everything. You can still
apply the same biases, but you can do so without
it being easily numerically quantifiable. Of course, the ruling itself
actually explicitly says they can't do that, like says, you
can not resubstantiate this, you know, this regime kind of
(03:14):
just under a different way, just just with essays or
something instead of test scores. But it's very clear again
from the messages that places like Harvard scent that they
intend to do so. And so the big question is
going to be follow through. So often, especially on the right,
we see, you know, the base sees an election or
Supreme Court ruling or maybe a piece of legislation pass
(03:34):
and say, oh great, the battle's one. I can go
back to grilling, I can go back to raising my
family and go back, you know, to just you know,
being a normal citizen. But that's actually not what happens
immediately afterwards. That ruling does not enforce itself. And if
you don't have the mechanisms, if you don't have the
institutions that are going to go after these people, if
you don't have lawsuits, if you don't have a DOJ,
obviously our current do is not going to do that.
(03:56):
But you know, if you don't have a Trump or
Desanti's DOJ later on, that starts pushing this kind of stuff,
AG's all that stuff. If they don't follow up, then
none of this actually happens. It's just a ruling that's
dead in the water.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Also, is me that given the arguments that were made
in that blockbuster decision six ' three striking down affirmative
action is unconstitutional in college admissions, how is it that
we can still have racial preferences in hiring and racial
preferences in government contract government contracts being given out to people?
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Do you know what I mean? It seems to me
like this all the same arguments apply about all of this.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
Yeah, that's why this was such a huge ruling. It's
not just the college admissions, though obviously that is a
huge one, because, for better or for worse, admission to college,
especially the IVY League, is kind of the elite signaler
in our society. Getting that credential. I mean, you may
be learning nothing there, you might just be getting some
kind of gender studies trash degree, but just by having
(04:59):
that credential, suddenly you're part of the elite. You're part
of the ruling class. You've kind of got the golden ticket.
And so the fact that that was racially biased, that
that was particularly bent towards specific races, was a huge deal.
But like you said, this affirmative action policy, you know,
moves far beyond the academic sphere. It impacts everything in
(05:21):
our society, especially when it comes to jobs and these
kind of things. And so if this ruling applies there,
then you would imagine the logic would travel to all
these other institutions. But again, that can't happen without lawsuits.
That can't happen without follow through legal pressure. I mean,
state legislatures need to start banning affirmative action, and governors
need to be passing, you know, whatever they can to
(05:46):
make it clear that this won't be allowed in their states.
This this has to be a follow through on every
level that enables these different operatives, these different lawyers, these
different attorneys general to kind of make this move. Hopefully
once you get a Republican one in there, that will
actually put the pressure not just on schools but on
other institutions like corporations.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Did you find that the arguments that came across from
the A couple of the liberal justices who you know
dissented from this ruling. There are three of them, but
you know, two in particular, were really.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Upset by this.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
It was interesting to see they really couldn't hide the
emotional impact that this has on them specifically. But also
I would assume more broadly, for people that really support
this regime, and that the argument really seems to just
be some version of we really like this, and life
is unfair, and it's unfair for minorities, but only some minorities,
(06:45):
and so it should continue just because we like it.
I mean, I don't really understand. When I read through
the dissense, it didn't really feel like there was an argument.
It just felt like there's a lot of racism, and
this helps with the racism because we say so yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
I mean, in some ways you almost kind of have
to respect the honesty there. Finally, we're not hiding behind
any kind of legal tricks here. It's just the fact
that this works well for the Democratic coalition. This gives
benny's to people that we like. These are the people
who vote for us, or are the people we identify with,
and this benefits them, and therefore it should stay in
(07:18):
place because we like it. And to be fair, this
community has been told from time and memorium by the
Democrats that this is the only system that holds them
in place. This is the only way they could possibly
get ahead or stay even even you know, at all,
and so that if it ever was removed, then it's
a catastrophe and all of a sudden, you know, these
(07:40):
different minority communities will just kind of fall by the wayside.
I mean, the whole point of affirmative action, the way
it was sold to people in theory was that it
was a temporary fix to kind of address the fact
that some people had not had a fair shake historically
in the United States. But if that doesn't come with
an expiration date. Then all you're doing is creating a new,
(08:01):
different type of systemic racism. It's just now targeting people
like whites and Asians as opposed to other minority groups.
And you can't keep that in place forever. But these
people were told that, you know that is essential. You
know that this is basically the only way that you
can participate in society, which should be kind of insulting,
but I guess for some you know that is something
(08:23):
you've taken as gospel.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Did you see there was a there was a tweet
that came out that went quite quite viral from a
Democrat activist trying, I'm actually, I'm actually gonna pull this
one up. Her name is Erica Marsh, Proud, Democrat, former
field organizer for Biden. She her, of course, you know,
because we have to know that one. But she had
(08:47):
this tweet that that's gotten seen millions of times, and
this was the day that the decision came out. Her
tweet was, today's Supreme Court decision is a direct assault,
I'm sorry, a direct attack on black people. No black
person will be able to succeed in a merit based system,
which is exactly why affirmative action based programs were needed
(09:09):
to decision. Is a travesty, like ten million views of
this Basically, this has just gone completely virus a Democrat. Yeah,
and I do think it raises some very uh, very
uncomfortable questions about Democrats what they really think in the
affirmative action regime. I mean, you kind of keep running
(09:31):
into this, Oh, it doesn't change the standards. But if
you change the standards, then you won't have black and
Hispanic students getting into these schools or you know what
I'm saying, Like, if you don't have the standards changing,
they won't get in. But it doesn't change the standards,
and if you don't change the standards, they can't get
in in the numbers. And I mean in her case
she said that like none of them, which is insane.
(09:52):
But there's a problem here, right, the argument has a problem.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Yeah, obviously it's it's a pretty awkward argument to make,
if you know, if you're on that side. But at
the same time, you have to remember the Democrats do
get like ninety percent of the black vote on a
regular basis, right, So for better or for worse, this
is an argument that seems to be routinely winning people
over to that side. I don't know what that says
(10:20):
about how people feel about their opportunity inside the United States,
but it's obviously not a narrative that can survive if
you're going to have a society with any form of
kind of racial harmony. You have a group that's being
told all of the time that if there's not this
artificial system elevating them, then they have no hope inside
of meritocracy, and the group continually and regularly votes for
(10:43):
the people who tell them that, which is a pretty
terrible feedback loop.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
I want to ask in a moment here or if
we are in a place where increasingly conservatives point to
the Constitution and the response, whether over or more subtle
in the background from democrats in the left, is so
what and how that is manifesting itself in our institutions
(11:11):
and our lay to day life here.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
So we'll get back to that in just a second.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
But first off, everybody, there are a few sensations that
are better than feeling like you have the energy to
take on the world and win. That comes from having
energy and feeling as strong as you do at nine
pm as you do at nine am. And for guys,
a big part of this is having the proper levels
of testosterone. That doesn't come from just a cup of
coffee or getting a three day weekend. In it comes
from fueling your body with the right stuff. Chalk's Male
(11:38):
Vitality Stack has those ingredients. In fact, studies show the
leading ingredient in Chalk's Male Vitality Stack can replenish twenty
percent of your testosterone in just three months time. You'll
feel the positive results long before the ninety day mark
of this new day regime that includes Chalk's all natural ingredients.
Chalks Daily supplements are lab tested twice for purity and potency.
(12:00):
You'll find them online at Chalk dot com that's spelled
cchoq dot com. Save thirty five percent off the Chalk
subscription you choose for life when you use my name
buck in your purchase process that's Chalk choq dot com
and then name Buck for thirty five percent off. So
does it even really matter when we win these Supreme
(12:21):
Court decisions? I mean, you look at D C. Heller
for example, dcv. Heller, and you look at this, and
I think there are others that would come to mind
right away where we say, okay, So this is the law,
and then the left just figures out ways to say, well,
what are you going to do about it?
Speaker 1 (12:36):
How are you going to enforce it?
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Yeah, I think that's an increasingly difficult problem for conservatives
to address because again they do feel like, okay, well,
we won the constitutional argument, we got the judges appointed,
they ruled in our favor, we got the president elected,
we got this piece of legislation passed, and obviously from
here on out now that this is the law, the
constitution says you have to follow it and will be fine.
(13:01):
But that's not what actually happens. Right over and over again,
we see, you know, things like the executive branch just
to ignore executive orders from Donald Trump right that they
just don't care. Barack Obama says, hey, I'm going to
have this, dear colleague letter. All of a sudden, everybody
has let guys use the girl's bathroom, and it happens
overnight in a snap. Trump says, hey, you can't do
(13:21):
affirmative you can't rather, you can't do a diversity, equity
and inclusion training, and they get an executive ranch and
members of the executive branch just say, so what I'm
going to keep doing? It right, And the problem is
that the Democrats, whether you like it or not, understand
that at the end of the day, it's about political
will and not just laws on paper. Laws on paper
might be good, but really they're only enforced if people
(13:45):
who are in positions of power believe in them and
whether the people around them hold them to account. And
so the Democrats have been playing this game for a
long time with sanctuary cities and states and those kind
of things that just completely ignore the dictates of the Constitution, laws,
you know, Supreme Court rulings, those kind of things, and
Republicans are going to have to learn this trick because
(14:06):
we're already seeing, for instance, different courts that are trying
to strike down these no grooming laws, these laws that
ban child mutilation inside states that we call a sexual
transition gender transition, and states are trying to knock these down.
At some point, Republican governors are just going to have
to pull the same trick, call the bluff and say, okay,
you have that ruling, now enforce it.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Yeah, it does seem like the left is much more
comfortable with de facto nullification of Supreme Court decisions, that's
for sure. They just decide, yeah, well, what are you
really going to do about it? They certainly do this
on Second Amendment issues where they blatantly violate the Constitution,
and their attitude this is true in New York City,
for example, on handgun permitting. Their attitude is, yeah, we
(14:52):
know what we're doing is a violation of your rights,
but it's going to take you five maybe ten years
to even get Supreme Court to look at this. So
in the meantime, we get to just violate your rights
get what we want as a policy matter. No one's
going to stop us from it. In a blue state
like New York and tough, you know that that really
is the attitude they take. That's what they do.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Yeah, and unfortunately it's a winning strategy when you have
a kind of moral visions that are so incredibly divergent.
In the United States, it really is just the case
that the people who again care more about winning, are
just going to beat those who are playing by the rules,
playing by procedure. Now, that just means that Republicans have
(15:35):
to understand that you're in the same position if your
state legitimately passes a regulation that says, sorry, we don't
mutilate children here then it doesn't really matter what a
judge says. If they're lying about the Constitution, you just
kind of have to be like, Okay, well, we're still
not going to do that. And unless you know, no
one's going to come and force us to mutilate these kids.
(15:56):
So we're just not going to allow that to happen
under our watch. It's not the way that you want
a republic to run. It's not how rule of law
is supposed to work. But on one side has kind
of broken this compact. You can't just sit around pointing
and sputtering, right, that doesn't work. Oh, they're the real hypocrites,
you know. No, that doesn't do anything. They keep winning,
You keep staring and gawking, and it only moves leftward.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
I want to ask you orin about you mentioned this,
but the fight to protect children from the push of drag,
Queen Story Hour for Kids, and also surgery for kids,
transgender surgery, hormone blockers, all this stuff, trans ideology, and
how this is going now to the state level. It
(16:41):
may eventually make its way to the Supreme Court. We'll
get to that in just a moment. You know, your
computer can be your best tool or your worst nightmare
depending on whether crashes or not. It's rare that it does.
But when your computer does get corrupted or just planes
stop working, life can grind to a halt. For that
reason alone, you have to back up all of the
data on your computer. You can't leave that to chance.
I Drive provides the easiest, most economical solution for this.
(17:04):
Start backing up your computer data with them today. While
you're thinking about this one. Iedrive dot com is where
you start. You don't need any equipment, there's nothing to purchase.
In that way. I drive software starts backing up your
data while you're online, working away at whatever keeps you
busy in your computer. That's because i drive software works
in the background. It's safe and secure. Their cloud based
(17:24):
computers store your data with military grade encryption. No one
except you is going to access it, and you can
get it when you need it most anytime anywhere. I
Drive is the easiest, most secure backup cloud solution. Plants
start at less than seven dollars a month. Use my
name Buck as the promo code at checkout for ninety
percent off that for the first year. That's iDrive dot Com.
(17:46):
iDrive dot Com promo code Buck you'll get ninety percent
off your first year. So we have a number of
states or in that are passing laws that say that
children should should not be subjected to hormone blockers or
transgender surgery, which they're now calling gender affirmation surgery, which
(18:07):
is itself a propaganda term. I've already seen at least
one is that one. Maybe there are more judges have
said no, you can't do that, which I mean, this
is how crazy things go. They start doing something that's
never been done before. The state says, you know what,
we're we're actually not going to allow that, And now
you've got federal judges who were effectively saying no, there's
(18:28):
a basic constitutional right for a twelve year old to
cut off as genitals. I mean, that's what these judges
are doing.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
Absolutely, these these judges know that they can't allow states
to stand in the way of the civil rights revolution.
They've decided that this is the new civil rights movement,
this is the new frontier of the civil rights revolution,
and they're going to be the guys who kind of
push this through. Don't let those ugly, bigoted states stand
in the way of you know, the mutilation of twelve
(18:57):
year olds, and it's just insane. We've seen this across
the board, right we over the weekend we had footage
coming from these Pride parades like that, I believe the
one in Seattle where grown men are just completely exposing themselves,
riding bicycles around as part of the parade, waiving their
junk in front of crowds full of children. And last
time I checked, that's illegal, right, like, like no one,
(19:18):
we didn't. We didn't get rid of you know, indecent
exposure laws that's supposed to put you on some sex
of sex offender registry list. And yet these people are
doing it on a regular basis, with no fear from
law enforcement, no expectation that they'll be arrested, no expectation
that they'll be prosecuted. And this is a huge problem,
Like this cannot be allowed in the United States. We
(19:40):
cannot let some kind you know, dejure all this stuff
is illegal. But to facto, this has all been legalized.
And the even the police officers know this because they
would never interrupt what has basically become like a state
sanctioned you know, religious ritual in which these guys expose
themselves to children and you know.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
I think depending on the jurisdiction we're talking about, and
some of them, they might have even made nudity public
nudity no longer illegal. I think that may be the
chase in Seattle or San Francisco. So I approach it
from the perspective of it's not even just a function
of law, It's a function of what's what is decent?
(20:19):
You know, what is uh something that should that should
be exposed to kids and shouldn't. And I also just
I have to wonder, what does being naked like? What
does what does waving your genitalia around as a man
or as a woman in a parade have to do
with basic human you know, human rights and dignity and
pride and whatever like? What what is with and not
(20:42):
just the newity. We can take a little bit on this.
Why were there all these pride parades and this is
every year? This is not I used to live right
next to the Pride parade rout of New York City,
so I have seen this firsthand many many times. There's
a lot of like sex toys and bondage gear and
all this stuff. People, you know, this isn't common outside
of the lgbtqu I a plus plus plus activist.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Community, Like, what is going on?
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Yeah, that's kind of the amazing thing, right. Guys like
George Decay jumped on Twitter after this footage went wide
and said, oh, well, you know these people they were
gonna yell about Pride anyway, they were going to try
to ban Pride anyway, So there's no reason to self censor.
And it's like, what part of this is about self expression?
What part of this is censorship? You being asked to
(21:28):
wear pants around children is somehow a repression of your
ability to express yourself? What about it is you know
is so important to you that this happens? And I
think the answer is these are sexual identities by their
very nature, like that, that's what these identities mean. And
so when people are saying, well, you know, displays of
(21:49):
this stuff are essential and center to our identity, you
might just need to listen to what they're saying and
then realize that this no child should ever be around
this stuff. There were a few years ago the idea
that a child would go to a Pride parade would
have been insane. Everybody knew what these things were. They
were no holds barred type of Mardi gras things. Now,
(22:10):
a lot of us didn't like that, but at the
very least you can make a case that at least
it was adults only, and we understood that everyone there
was kind of of a specific age and had made
a decision that.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Kind of thing.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
But that is obviously not the case now. But the
fact that we have to have this argument, the fact
that there's any debate around the issue that a child
should be at an event that is explicitly explicitly sexual
in nature and always has been, really shows you that
kind of everything that was predicted by the resilionious right
in like the nineteen eighties was pretty much entirely correct,
and it's come to pass.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
Yes, the slope is quite slippery.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Yeah, this is something that we're seeing and a lot
of aspects in society speaking, which the feeling we have
right now around bud Light and the awakened right when
it comes to wokeness in corporate America, I want to
ask you don't answer it yet or in.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
Where you know this business.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
We're calling this a tease, but I'm going to come
back in a second here and I want you to
tell me. Are we seeing something that we should celebrate
in the sense that it's we're putting wins on the
board or should should we be more depressed that it
took bud Light putting a trans influencer out to effectively
(23:28):
insult the entire bud Light audience with politicization that they
didn't ask for. Is that just showing us that we're
defending on our own five yard lines, so to speak?
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Right?
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Which one is it? I want you to answer that
one for me in a second week come back. Famed
economist and bestselling author Nomi Prins is out with a
new warning. She says a small group of financial elites
are plotting a drastic action unlike anything we've seen since
nineteen seventy one. The White House, the World Economic Forum,
even Bill Gates are all involved. According to her research,
your ability to spend, borrow, save, and invest could soon
(23:58):
be restricted with the push of a button. Our financial
system is about to be transformed in a way that
would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. And
it all starts in July. Bank of America is calling
it inevitable. You've got any money in a US bank
account retirement plan, get all the facts at Disappearing dollar
dot com. You may not like what doctor Prince has
to say. But at the very least you'll be prepared
(24:19):
when events take a turn for the worst. Disappearing dollar
dot com Again, that's disappearing dollar dot com go there now,
paid for by rogue economics.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
All right, Oran, are we making headway or are we
making a goal line stand in the war on corporate wokeness?
Speaker 3 (24:40):
I think this is definitely a goal line stand. Like
you said, the fact that a product like bud Light
that obviously has the audience that it does, the core
audience that it has decided to go ahead and make
this move, is a problem. Also, you have the fact, like,
let's not forget where this whole bud light thing came from. Yes,
we remember it now because they had Dylan Mulvani and
a can. But right before that, a trans shooter murdered
(25:04):
six people, three of them children, at a Christian school,
and another transshooter was stopped in Colorado Springs who was
also planning to shoot up middle schools and churches. That's
when this happened. This happened right after they right after this,
while the President of the United States, instead of talking
about Christians or the terrible thing that happened to the
(25:25):
school was praising the trans community. Madonna was talking about
raising money not for the murdered family, you know, the
family of the murdered children, or for the school that
was impacted, but for the trans community. And at during
all of this stuff, while the bodies were still being buried,
Bud Lighty decided to slap Dulan mulvaney on a can
because it was Pride month and or a Pride month
(25:46):
was coming rather and it didn't matter, right, it didn't
matter when it actually happened in the world. We were
going to celebrate Pride Month even if these children had
just been murdered by a trans shooter. That's the beginning,
that's the genesis of this. It's sad that this had
to be worked out over a beer can, but at
the very least it's a win. I think it is
a win. I think people did wake up, and I
(26:07):
think it's because there was a cultural aspect to this. Right,
look at your buddy across the bar and be like, really, man,
Bud light you're that guy, And all of a sudden,
that meme of oh, that's the trans beer was much
more effective than any particular political argument. Memes are just
way more powerful than logical arguments, and I think that's
why this was such a big win. Now it's still
(26:29):
at its beginning stages. You're still only seeing these people
lose some money. You're not making the big games. Big
gains come with institutions change. So I think the big
thing will be can that populist you know, meme energy
be transferred over into long term institutional success. If the
answer is yes, then I think this is a win.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
As as you and I sit here speaking, the manifesto
of the transhooter in Nashville is still something that has
been kept from the public. There has been many months now.
I've never seen this happen before, and I think that
you speak aout instances. What are people supposed to think
(27:12):
when something like this happens and the system decides that
the motivation of a mass murderer, a murder of children
should not be publicly known because it may very well
be very politically damaging to the left.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
Yeah, you remember, like right after this, all of a sudden,
there were a bunch of brown white supremacists who showed up.
There's that guy who like drove towards the White House
and he had a neatly folded kind of Nazi flag,
even though he was like an Indian immigrant, and this
kind of thing, amazingly like, all of their ideologies were
immediately displayed, all of their motivations were immediately known and
(27:53):
made public, and they were decried and you know, called
the biggest problem in America by the President and everyone else.
But this manifesto can't come out right, this motive can't
be known, and everyone knows why. Everybody understands the answer here,
and if they're not going to say it out loud.
One of these things is politically useful to the system,
(28:15):
to the regime, and one of them is not. Everyone
knows what's in that manifesto, or at least to some degree,
what's probably in that manifesto, and everyone knows why it
can't get out, because if it got out while people
were still angry, where people were still shocked and devastated,
then they might have the political will to do something
about it. But if you wait long enough until nobody's
really paying attention again, you know, the fervor has died
(28:38):
down and nobody really remembers why you were, you know,
a boycotting bud light in the first place. Well, then
maybe you can start sneaking that stuff and it won't
be such a big deal.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Or in where should people go to listen to your
podcast read your work? What's the best place?
Speaker 4 (28:54):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (28:54):
Absolutely, I'm over on Blaze TV. Of course, you can
read my columns at The Blaze and then you can
subscribe to the podcast. I'm on YouTube, Rumble, Odyssey, all
those sites. But you can also get to the podcast
on your favorite podcast platform. It's the Oron McIntyre.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
Show, Always illuminating. Thanks for making the time for us.
Good to see you, Thanks for having me Man
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.