June 12, 2025 • 48 mins
SEGMENT 1: Leftist media drops "facts" hoping the'll never be verified, as was the case with a recent article claiming thousands of citizens have been deported.
SEGMENT 2: Despite its claim to be non-partisan, the Smithsonian is making efforts to become non-partisan. Makes you wonder!
SEGMENT 3: Alex Clark and Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring discuss getting off antidepressants
SEGMENT 4: Jobob reacts to a rioter who was literally thrown down on this week's Throwdown Thursday!
SEGMENT 5: Charlie Kirk shares a conversation he had with Sean McMeekin
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 (00:08):
Well, the publicity stunts in these straight up lies keep
getting weirder and worse and more desperate for attention. But
I don't know that just seems to be how libs
do things nowadays. Also, the unsubscribed button on your email,
does it actually work or does it tell the people
that you've got a hot link here? And all of
a sudden, now you're subscribed to way more things. And
(00:31):
a non partisan group said, hey, we're going to be
more nonpartisan, which suggests that they weren't being nonpartisan to
begin with. All that and more coming up on this
episode of Turning Point Tonight. My name is Joe Bob.
Thanks so much for tuning in. Together, we are charting
the course of America's cultural comeback. This is Turning Point Tonight. Now,
before we get to that in our fantastic panel, what
(00:52):
I want to talk about is that I realize people
are getting a little bit of la riot fatigue or
just riot fatigue in general and the actual riots, but
the coverage of it people are talking about a lot.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Yes, it is a big story.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Here's the thing, though, they continue to lie about all
of the things going on. Most specifically in this particular
instance is from New York Magazine, to which I say, hey, libs,
we have the Internet. If you write something down that
is objectively factually wrong, we can check it. If you
(01:26):
say something on TV that is factually wrong. This isn't
the eighties where you can kind of just get away
with it because what you say gets.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Kind of lost into the ether.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
No.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
No, we can go back not all that long ago
and see that what you said was the exact opposite
of the truth. We're in a new time and age
where we have the Internet. In this particular case, New
York Magazine had an article written by a guy named
Jack Herrera, who's an independent New York based reporter, and
(01:55):
it basically said, can you prove your citizenship? For Americans
wrongfully detained by Ice, it can be nearly impossible to escape,
which is an insane thing to think. Are there going
to be US citizens that get mistakenly identified as illegal immigrants? Yes?
And guess what, I'm fully confident and so is everybody
(02:16):
else that will just get sorted out. It's gonna be
kind of an inconvenient thing, probably, but everything'll be fine.
But not, according to this article, if you're wrongly detained,
it could mean you get deported. This is a literally
from the article. Though Immigration enforcementner gets more attention under Trump,
(02:37):
ICE since its modern creation at after nine to eleven,
has mistakenly detained and sometimes deported thousands of US citizens
under presidents of both parties. Now obviously the implication there
being that, wow, thousands of US citizens get deported. Well,
the thing is he linked to the report, the Government
(02:58):
Accountability Office report detailing ICE's numbers and ninety six pages long.
I think he probably figured, well, nobody's actually gonna read this.
Good news is we have the freaking Internet, and I
didn't have to read it. I just put it through
groc and asked, hey, is this statement legit? Now understand
I did not actually read the ninety six page argument
or the ninety six page document.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
The Internet did, but it spit out this.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
The report notes that ICE identified six hundred and ninety
three cases which individuals claimed to be US citizens during
this period. The report confirms that hundreds of US citizens
have been detained by ICE, but then we're verified to
be US citizens and it was fine. In other words, no,
not thousands of people got deported. Yes, mistakes are made,
(03:44):
but we're talking about a country with three hundred and
thirty million people with tens of millions of illegal immigrants involved. Yeah,
a couple hundred mistakes are gonna get made, and guess what,
it's all gonna be sorted out and be fine, not
have to go into a whole nother die tribe.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
But I was talking to my wife about this last night.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
And I said, if I got swept swept up in
a raid and you got swept up in a raid,
I wouldn't be worried. I'd be like, this is inconvenient,
But I'm not concerned that you're gonna get shipped off
to Guatemala. And she said something actually really interesting and
thought provoking that I had never heard about. When you
wonder why are people fighting back against ice just sorted
out in the system, in the best justice system in
(04:21):
the world that we have, you brought up a really
really good point, and that was this, Well, if these
illegal immigrants are used to insanely corrupt governments, they might
think that we're the same way, which is actually a
great point. Now, the problem is that we're not, and
libs continuing to say that we are is going to
(04:42):
further the problem. But such is the performative state of
politics nowadays, the only thing and the best thing that
we can do is point out when they're making performative
pieces and just trying to get attention. Here to comment
on that and so much more is comedian Bo Robinson
and turning point us a Frontlines reporter Savannah Hernandez. Guys,
thanks so much for joining us, and thanks for sticking
(05:04):
with that long winded diatribe for real.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
To Bob, I'm just kidding, it was great, So.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Don't be sorry.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
So this is actually happening in real time, or at
least when we're when we're having this conversation. Alex Padilla,
senator from California, got arrested for questioning DHS Secretary Christy Nome.
Watch this video clip, guys, and I want to get
your reaction about He's just asking questions. He's not bombarding
a podium, he's not yelling things out during press conversion.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Just asking questions. Got arrested for asking questions. Watch this.
I'm Senator Alexia.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
I have questions for the secretary because the fact of
the matter is.
Speaker 5 (05:46):
Half a dozen selling criminals that you're on your on your.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Off.
Speaker 6 (05:53):
That's a lot of pushing and shoving.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
For some questions.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Now it looks like at the end of that he
did start to go Okay, finally let's go out, Savannah.
I mean your initial thoughts on this as it's kind
of unfolding to me, it just seems like a publicity stunt,
because everything in politics is just a publicity stunt. And
Gavin said on his Instagram feed, he just he was
arrested for asking questions. So I said, okay, well, if
(06:22):
I go to one of your press conferences, just yell incoherently.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
That's just fine. You're just gonna let that happen because
all I'm doing is asking questions. I don't know what
are your thoughts.
Speaker 4 (06:30):
Well as somebody who has confronted multiple politicians, including our
former Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buddha judge. The reason
why it's funny, right, because when I ask questions, I'm
not pushing my way into a secret service member. But
for some reason, it's always the Democrat security who are
coming and pushing me away. But when it's the other foot,
(06:52):
they think that it's okay to like bombard and push
and you know, make their point known and then try
to scream free speech. That's not how that works. It's
just so funny to see the double standard because again,
if you're you know, a right wing or even just
like an American citizen who wants to talk to a politician,
they will shut you down immediately. And this is how
they treat you. We don't really say anything about it.
(07:13):
But then meanwhile, democrats like they make it a point
to make it a publicity sent to go and bombard
and to go and bully and go and scream in
the middle of a press conference.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Come on, yeah, I guess again, it's not a free
speech thing. He's got all the free speech he wants.
He's got the Internet, you've got you can question the
secretary after she's done making her statements. But bo, like,
do you think that this is the sort of thing
that lives are gonna see and go as clearly a
(07:41):
guy trying to get attention or they're going to be like, oh, yeah,
we're in a fascist dictatorship because you can't.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Do like, I don't know, how is this going to
be perceived?
Speaker 6 (07:50):
Or remember, liberals have the mind of a goldfish.
Speaker 7 (07:52):
That the ten second tom right, So they've already forgotten
about all the law fair and prison senses. They tried
to give Donald Trump six months ago, and they're probably
going to take this out of context and say that
he got pushed out while he was trying to support
ice or support illegal immigrants, when clearly he was yelling
and screaming in the middle of a press conference and
his linemen skills didn't come into effect here as he
(08:15):
couldn't really shove back and got pushed out of the room.
I just hope he's not a line coach anywhere. That's
going to be a real problem. His team's not going
to do very well. So yeah, I think the Libs
are going to see this and they're probably going to
side with him. Of course they would, why would they
do anything else. But you know, the truth is is
there's a lot of context missing from this. So I
don't think you should be able to push and shove
(08:35):
your way to the front of Christy.
Speaker 5 (08:36):
Nam's press conference. It's a little a little uneasy unless
you're just trying to get attention. I immediately went to
Senator Padilla's social media accounts and screenshot at how many
followers he has. Gavin Newsom, by the way, has climbed
half a million followers in the last week, just on
Instagram alone, which is his only goal. He doesn't actually
care about stopping anything. He just wants to gain followers
(09:00):
and gain attention.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Speaking of people who are trying to gain attention, we
played this video yesterday on the show. Sam wasn't here,
she was actually doing the reporting, but this is this
is her getting a video of a confrontation between white
libs blocking black people from getting to work to fight racism.
I think watched this one more time and uh, and yeah,
(09:24):
we'll discuss. I don't.
Speaker 8 (09:37):
But you could just knock again.
Speaker 9 (09:39):
You're not going How is it the people protest if
there isn't, I'm starting a black woman from going to work.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Oh no, not work.
Speaker 4 (09:53):
About starting black people from going to work.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Look at this.
Speaker 9 (09:57):
I'm not pausing.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
I'm not trying to work just for me, sev what
so okay again? I know viewers watched this yesterday, but
it's I want to get your take. What is going
through your head when you're watching this? Are you like
I would be struggling not to laugh at the absurdity
of white people stopping black people from going places in
(10:18):
the name of stopping racism against black people.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
I think I don't know.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Yeah, the hypocrisy was astounding, and a lot of people
too online were like, Sah, why are you making this
about race? It should it be about race. No, these
are the exact same people who for the past ten
years said that they should be in power because they
know how to run the country properly. This is them
running the country. This is them shutting down Black mothers,
American mothers, all Americans from going to work, from taking
(10:44):
care of their children. This interaction went on for about
seven minutes, So this was a seven minute clip that
I cut down to three minute or to thirty seconds here,
and I let them stand there for five minutes and
try to like work through on their own, like, hey,
maybe we should let this woman who's trying to, you know,
take care of her child and get to work through.
And it never clipped in their mind, which is why
(11:06):
I finally asked that question. And to be quite honest
with you, I have never gotten such a pompous response
as I did with this guy. Apparently it comes from money.
Apparently he's an activist out in New York City who
comes from a very wealthy family. Imagine that, Joe, Bob.
But this is the left wing. They hate you and
This is what it's like when they're empowered. They don't
care if you have a family, they don't care if
(11:26):
you have bills to pay. They've got important things to
protest and illegal immigrants to riot for.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Yeah, especially legal criminals.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
But the good thing is there and then their country legally,
and that makes it okay. Bo, as a white yourself,
how do you plan how do you on making something
better for us two minorities on this panel? What are
you gonna do to stop us in the name of
helping us?
Speaker 2 (11:53):
I don't know.
Speaker 10 (11:54):
Yeah, I don't know, to be honest, honestly, I watched
this clip and I think to myself, well, how many
pot brins did this guy eat before he was asked
that question? Because Savannah asked him a pretty normal question
and you can see the browser go off in his
brain and his best response is work. And I'm just
I'm like, this guy is high off his behind right now.
Speaker 6 (12:17):
How is he supposed to move, let alone talk?
Speaker 1 (12:21):
That's but yeah, the pinwheel, the circle wheel of death
is happening right there, and the guy, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Again. I know we've recapped that already.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
With our guess yesterday, but I just thought since Savannah's here,
we might as well ask her about it, and I
thought it was a good time. Uh, Savannah and Bo
will be right back after the break to discuss the
non partisan group that definitely was not partisan because it's
government funded, talking about how they need to be more nonpartisan,
which implies that they were being partisan and more.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Coming up after the breakdo go.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Away, Welcome back to Turning Point.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Tonight.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
We're together. We are charting the course of America's cultural comeback.
Let's check in with Turning Points. White House Correspondent Monica
Page at the White House. Monica, So this we talked
about this a while ago, where the Senate passed a
bill that said, hey, no, no, no, no, no, California,
your whole EV mandate thing. I didn't know that the
(13:32):
Senate could do that, but it's because of these like
EPA waivers that they're allowed to.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
But phyllis in President Trump putting a putting.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
A squash to the whole every single car on the
road is gonna be an EV vehicle in California that
high in the sky. Gavin Newsom woke progressive nods such crap.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Well, that's essentially right. I mean under Joe Biden's leadership
and under California Governor Gavin Newsom, there were a lot
of regulations and a lot of red tape that was
put on gas powered vehicles and also diesel vehicles as well.
And President Trump is saying, listen, if you're an American,
you win in this country, you should be able to
drive whatever car you want in this country. So essentially
he signed these congressional bills that are putting this ban
(14:16):
on this California regulation that every car on the road
needs to be electric or should be selling electric only
by the year twenty thirty five. And in the previous administration,
when they were starting to kind of try and get
this renew scam, this green push, this climate change initiatives
passed through, they allocated millions of dollars to install electric
(14:37):
vehicle chargers, hoping that people will maybe buying more electric vehicles.
But they only really installed eight. That's it, just eight
ed chargers throughout this last four years under Joe Biden,
that's it. So President hilp was saying, enough with this.
If you are here in this country, you should be
able to drive whatever car you want. So enough with
these bands, Enough with these regulations. We're doing things our
(14:59):
way essentially.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
You know, I'd like to point out to the federal
government that if you need EV chargers to not be built,
I can do it for a cool two billion dollars.
Just send two billion dollars my way, and I will
not build an EV charger. Also in California too, I
don't know if you know about this or people around
the country know about this. You're not allowed to have
gas powered lawnmowers anymore. So it's super interesting because I
(15:21):
live in California. I went on the black market to
buy to buy a gas powered lawn mower because the
electric ones don't work.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
And it's just California versions.
Speaker 6 (15:31):
You know.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
You say that, Joe Bob, because in this Lesson administration,
they would have gas powered mowers right here on a lawn.
So everyone else has got to have electric mowers. But
the guys back here say, Okay, we're gonna have gas
powered mowers. You can smell the gas. So every time
they mow the lawn, you're like, Okay, this guy's really
that serious about EV's.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
At the risk of going off into a whole different
tankrent the city of Los Angeles several years ago banned
gas powered lawnmowers, but nobody enforces it because they've literally said, well,
enforcing it would be race because the type of people
that molds is substantially that would be a bad thing.
So it's just the Virtue Signal League overall is just hilarious.
(16:11):
You know, hey, Monica, you're you're not going to be
here tomorrow, but I guess it's a good reason. Because
you're going to the Young Women's Leadership Summit. Can you
tell us about what to expect their turning Points Flagship
Women's Conference.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
This is gonna be my first conference, my first time
at YWLS. Jobob so very excited about it, and with
it being my first time there, I'm also speaking at
it on Saturday afternoon around twelve thirty eight pm Central time,
So I've just been constructing. You know, what am I
going to say at this event? What can I expect here?
I'm excited to see everybody a bunch of like minded
(16:44):
young women and girls with big dreams and are all
you know about being welcomed home essentially, because that's what
the theme is of this year is welcome home. You know,
you have a home and a police here in America.
Despite your view and maybe your lifestyle not fitting in
with the mainstream narrative that so many women were bought
and sold that you know, you're your own boss woman
(17:06):
and you don't need a man, and you can do
it all yourself, and you could have it all. It's
very different and here, and it feels very welcoming and exciting,
and I plan to cover comparing in contrast in the
past two White House. It is this White House versus
the last one, especially as a female reporter here where
I wasn't getting any answers in the previous administration, and
now it's just a whole new life that we're living here.
(17:27):
So it's very exciting and it's gonna feel like one
big celebration, that's for sure.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Yeah, it's a it's a super exciting event. If you're
a woman, you can't go. If you're a dude, Monica
will be there, But no dudes. We've been saying that
a lot that we were promoting out on the show.
Why do you list happening this weekend in Dallas, Monica page,
have a great weekend, have fun, and we'll see a Monday.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Thanks guys, have a great weekend.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Lots of government agencies have a policy that they're going
to remain nonpartisan and not get involved in politics, and
many of them, including the blatantly left wing, very much
partisan organizations, say no, no, we were right. Now, we're
straight series, this is just based on education, NPR, PBS
(18:11):
come to mind. Well, turns out the Smithsonian, who's also
supposed to be a nonpartisan entity that gets a lot
of government funding as well, it turns out they're not
as partisan as as nonpartisan as they think. Let's bring
our panel back, sav says and Bo Robertson. Guys, So
this I thought was funny. Bo will start with you here,
(18:32):
Lonnie Bunch, the secretary over there at the Smithsonian. It
kind of like self owned himself in an email obtained
by the National the National Review. He was like, hey,
you know, obviously we're very nonpartisan, but but we're gonna
need to get better at being nonpartisan because some areas
was not so nonpartisan. In doing so, kind of implicated
(18:54):
himself saying, Okay, wait, you just said you're nonpartisan, but
you have to get better at that, which which means
you're aware of yourself being partisan. In fact, does he
know does he recognize that is are we gonna pull
funding from any of these organizations?
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Probably not.
Speaker 6 (19:11):
That's the worst part is I love giving my money.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
To people they call me racist and xenophobe.
Speaker 6 (19:15):
Right, these people come out of the woodwork. I forgot
who it was.
Speaker 7 (19:20):
It was a woman a couple weeks ago she became
president of what was it PBS, and she said, we're
not partisan either, while the senator or congress person called
her out her tweets about how she is obviously racist
and unforgiving towards white people, because it was about what
was it? The event where she was called out for
(19:43):
her anti white tweets and about blackness and then says
she's not partisan at all. So it's not surprising to me.
I'm hoping that Trump pulls the funding.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Though, Yeah, if he has the possibility of doing that,
I would imagine that.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Any attempts to do that would be met with the
jud the blocks President Trump doing with Savannah.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Of course, I don't know kind of your your thoughts
reactions to this, because I think the biggest thing, too
is a lot of these NGOs that are again supposed
to be nonpartisan outside of the Smithsonian, right, we were
finding out too, especially with all the riots that. Okay,
so some of the money being used by these NGOs
to fund I don't know, pallets of bricks just showing up,
(20:26):
looks like they're tied to government non government organizations that
get federal dollars. The whole nonpartisanship thing seems to be
pretty pretty much a farce.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
It seems like, yeah, you know, this reminds me of
the NPR CEO who was in front of an oversight hearing,
and you know, you had congressmen that were basically holding
up NPR articles that were like, what do you think
about this article that says I hate white men, white
men are bad. Put all white men in jail. And
they're like, we don't know where that came from. We're nonpartisan,
we don't have any political leanings. So you know, it's
(20:58):
just hilarious because these same organizations, these media companies that
we fund with our dollars and have been used to
indoctrinate all American citizens, they're the farthest thing from nonpartisan.
And you know, you know it, I know, job Bob.
It's why so many people are calling for DOGE cuts,
for PBS, for NPR, for various organizations like one we're
(21:18):
mentioning now to be defunded because US citizens are so
tired of our taxpayer dollars being utilized to radicalize people
in this country.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Yeah, I can't imagine why people would be upset about that.
It seems I don't know. I can't even make a
joke here.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
So here's what I think.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
This is an actual thing that affects every single person.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
I know. It's the most infuriating thing. Actually, it might be.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
The second most infuriating thing minus spam calls. But spam emails. Right, you, first,
you buy a pair of pants at I don't know,
a diesel store, and all of a sudden, you get
seven emails a day from Diesel. You click unsubscribe. But
according to a New Wall Street article, sometimes that subscribe
button doesn't work. And not only does it not work,
(22:07):
it tells the people on the other side, Hey, this
is a live email.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
We got one.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Let's go sell your information to everybody because now we
know this email actually works. Savannah the wa washtreet Journal
said it only happens like one in like every six
hundred times, but they did a big, long test, and
even that one, to me feels like it's grounds to
send people to GETMO.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
I just hate this so much.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
I don't know what should the punishment be for companies
that aren't actually unsubscribing you?
Speaker 4 (22:38):
Yeah, you know, Joe, Bob. One of my biggest gripes
in society is that you can't go to a store
without giving them your name, your birthday, your help, your
house number, your phone number, your email address. Like, just
give me the freaking pasts, and now my information is
being sold a great, amazing we love it. Oh goshho Bob.
It's like I was already block piled enough today and
then you hit me with the non working, working unsubscribe button.
(23:00):
How could you?
Speaker 2 (23:02):
I'm sorry this is but this is again the most
frustrating thing for me.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
I like, because there are emails that you get, I
get everybody gets that are actually important, but you miss
them because you get thirty nine emails about discounted pants
from the Banana Republic. I like, I don't and I'm
talking about I'm talking about the store Banana Republic, not
all the third world countries that we're trying to send
the illegals to.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Uh BO.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
I don't know what what should the punishment be if
you were if you were King of the world. What
would the punishment be for a non working unsubscribed button.
Speaker 6 (23:34):
I'd probably go for the Gretituneberg treatment.
Speaker 7 (23:36):
I'd probably find the person, sit them down and have
them force them to watch the emails come in one
by one. They can hit the unsubscribe. They're just gonna
get ten more emails, you know. I think that's a
fair treatment. Not allowed to move, they're they're not allowed
to delete them, and uh yeah, just keep the ball rolling.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
I love it.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
That's actually a pretty good one. That's the bane of
my existence is just watching the number of my emails
just go up by the hour. And I can't imagine
I'm alone in that. Make make unsubscribed buttons great again?
Is my I'm a single issue voter, President Trump. I
will vote for you for a third time, fourth time.
(24:13):
I shouldn't have said that. I will continue to vote
for whoever mandates unsubscribed buttons actually work. Bo Robinson, Savanna Hernandez, guys,
thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate you
taking the time.
Speaker 11 (24:26):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
Job coming up next day.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Fascinating clip from Alex scrsh Culture Apothecary podcast Don't go Away.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
We'll be right back after this.
Speaker 12 (24:49):
How do you feel as a psychiatrist about primary care
physicians being some of the main people prescribing, you know,
antidepressants to people.
Speaker 13 (24:57):
I think it's malpractice. I mean, if we think about
any depressants, right, you know, here is a pill that
will turn off the smoke detector in your brain to
the problems in your life. I mean there's just so
much in that. I mean, you would need to know
about their relationships, you would need to know about their work,
you'd need to know about their health, you'd need to
(25:17):
be spending so much time with that person to make
sure you're not actually making them worse. People who are
on these drugs as well, frequently don't even realize when
they're affecting them negatively because they're affecting their mind and
they have less insight when their brain is sort of
in that chemical spell, if you will, So you have
to go and talk to their spouse as well or
people who know them.
Speaker 9 (25:38):
So is that what you do?
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Yeah?
Speaker 13 (25:40):
Yeah, If you're doing psychiatry right, and you're prescribing, subscribing
mind altering drugs which change people's personalities and behaviors where
the person can't even realize if it's helping them or
hindering them. Sometimes you have to talk to family members
as well. Now, family medicine doctor they have like fifteen
(26:02):
minutes with some people, maybe it's like six seven minutes
of FaceTime. Maybe half of that they're talking about like
some other issue, like a cardiovascular thing, and then it's
just like, oh, you depressed have this. Yeah, there's no way,
I mean, there's absolutely no way you could use those
medications in a safe way when you actually think about
(26:23):
what they do and the consequences that could have for
a person.
Speaker 9 (26:27):
So that's basically my story.
Speaker 12 (26:29):
I had a ten minute, well just check up with
my primary care physician a couple of years ago.
Speaker 9 (26:33):
I had just casually mentioned, you.
Speaker 12 (26:35):
Know, oh my gosh, I'm so stressed out right now
at work or whatever, like just I had stuff going on,
and she just was like, oh, well, you know, that's
no big deal, Like it just sounds like you're a
little bit anxious. I'll just prescribe you lexipro. And I
was like, oh, well, what's that. She's like, Oh, it's
just like an anti anxiety medication. I'll put you on
a low dose. So that's all that happened. I was
not told anything about potential risks, side effects, whatever.
Speaker 9 (26:57):
I didn't know any better. This is way before I
had my awakening on pharma, so I just said okay.
Speaker 12 (27:01):
I got on that I remember accidentally, and it was
a very low dose. I think I was only on
five milligrams. But I had like ran out or something
and didn't go fill my prescription, and I think I
missed like two days. And I remember driving like I want,
I want to I want to crash into the median.
It was just very like like I want to do it,
(27:22):
and I was like resisting, like I just I don't
want to be here anymore. And I was like, something's
not right to fill my prescription. Now what's interesting is like,
now what I know is that it's not depression or
anxiety coming back, like it's like part of the withdraw
right of like not being on these drugs starting to
kick in. So then I got back on and then anyway,
I myself started which you probably don't do this, but
(27:43):
I started kind of tapering off and I just started
like cutting like a third of it off, and then eventually,
like after several months, went down to a half and
then you know, so I tapered myself off and I
fully got off lexipro probably in about six months, which
maybe too fast, I don't know. I didn't have any
issues getting off, but I was also a very low
DOS and I.
Speaker 9 (28:01):
Didn't even notice.
Speaker 12 (28:02):
Besides when I didn't take it that time where I
felt like I had ideations happening, I didn't ever notice
like a big difference in that I was feeling better
or less anxious at all while being on.
Speaker 9 (28:13):
The drug, Thank god. But that's that's my story on it.
Speaker 13 (28:16):
How long were you on it for, Alex?
Speaker 9 (28:19):
I think probably like two years now.
Speaker 13 (28:22):
What I want to ask you is in your follow
up appointments with your family doctor, how much did they
talk to you about how long are you going to
be on the med for?
Speaker 9 (28:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 13 (28:33):
What was the discussion? Was it just like kind of
they just kept refilling it?
Speaker 9 (28:36):
Or was this its like in your son a lexpro Yep, Okay,
that's it. Yeah, there's no discussion.
Speaker 13 (28:43):
It wasn't like, hey, has your job gotten better or
anything like that, or thing's changed in your life? Are
you sure you want to be on this never? I
don't think that's that uncommon for many people. I talked
to people and they're like, Hey, I was anxious because
I moved away for college. And they just get put
on an antidepressant and then like fifteen years later, they're
(29:04):
just like, oh, you just kept refilling it, and it's
like you feel like made your brain dependent on this drug,
like like cemented this this thing together for like fifteen
years now, and they just like just like let it go.
Speaker 9 (29:17):
So what is the correct tepering process for getting off
SSRIs or antida pressence?
Speaker 13 (29:22):
So yeah, so this is this is really my specialty
and what I do, and so it's symptom lead tapering,
and so I'm going to provide some parameters here. There's
variability in how people respond to coming off these meds.
Some people their brains are super elastic and they could
survive a rapid taper. You know, they can come off
(29:43):
after you know, two months. You know, some family medicine
doctors will do it that quickly and they'll feel poor,
but you know, maybe a month later, you know, six
weeks later, they're okay. There are a lot of people
out there where that's way too fast and they become
really symptomatic and they become they've become anxious like that
(30:03):
they've never imagined they have cognitive problems as well, and
to get them off the medications, you have to do
it much much slower. So generally, I think if someone
has been on antidepressants for over a year, they should
do one of these slower tapers. I typically recommend people
knock the dose down by five to ten percent per month,
(30:25):
and then they just adjust it as they go. You know,
if you do that and you're feeling fine, just knock
another ten percent off. But as you get lower, you
generally need to slow down. And this is actually the
part of it where most people fail their tapers, or
they'll end up just on like a small dose at
the very bottom. And I'll try not to get too
scientific here, but I do think it's helpful to imagine this.
(30:49):
At the higher doses of antidepressants, you know, there's a
space between two neurons and it's just flooded.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
With the drug.
Speaker 13 (30:56):
And so let's say it's like sixty of prozac, which
would be one of the higher doses. Geez, you could
drop that down by half and really not change receptor
occupancy at the neurons because there's still so much drug
like floating around, So you're on half the dose and
it's still like pretty much the same. But once you
(31:17):
get down to the lower dose range of a drug,
as you remove more and more, there's less of the
excess just like floating around in that space, and then
you start to disengage the receptors much more, and so
many people will feel like, oh, you know, I knocked
you know, ten off the prozac and I went to
(31:39):
fifty and it was fine. And I knocked another ten
off and I got to forty and it was fine.
And then they get all the way down to like,
let's say twenty, and then they knock another ten percent
off and then they feel it and they go, oh, no,
you know what's happening. I'm never going to be able
to get off this drug.
Speaker 9 (31:53):
And what are they feeling?
Speaker 13 (31:54):
So what they're feeling is that they've reached this tipping
point where there's no longer this big satch duration of
leftover drug, you know, sitting between the neurons, and now
there's not that much left. So they're really feeling each reduction.
So and this is the part where people fail. When
you get to the lower doses of the drug, you
(32:14):
have to understand that you have to move much slower
so eventually when someone will hit this withdrawal is usually
when I tell them to go and get a liquid
formulation of the drug, because it's really hard to just
break the tablets in half. At that point you don't
really have the level of precision that you need. And
(32:36):
so let's say you had ten of prozac, you would
just get ten milligrams and put it into ten mili
liters of the drug and then because a syringe has
so many, like find gradations on the side, you can
actually lower it down with much greater precision than if
you were to be you know, breaking up a tablet.
And so from that point onwards, you might just have
(32:58):
someone remove one milligram you know, every two to three weeks,
and then they can go down like that. The key
point here is do not panic if you go into
withdrawal at the end. You probably need to go onto
a liquid formulation and then use a syringe to sort
of steadily bring it down. And that's the way you
can safely get someone off.
Speaker 12 (33:19):
And what's the typical timeline for how long it takes
someone to fully get off a ne SSSR? Like, are
we talking about a year?
Speaker 9 (33:25):
Two years? What is it?
Speaker 13 (33:27):
I would say it's one to two years if someone's
been on them for like, you know, more than a
couple of years.
Speaker 12 (33:33):
If somebody is experiencing brains apps as they're trying to
taper off, like, what's your recommendation for how to deal
with that?
Speaker 2 (33:38):
Go up?
Speaker 9 (33:39):
Okay, so you need to go back up on the Yeah.
Speaker 13 (33:41):
Go back up. And this sort of links into one
of the problems with anydepressant withdrawal, which most people aren't
aware of, and it's a condition called protracted withdrawal. Now
this doesn't happen to everyone, but it's going to sound
really scary. This Actually most people are ok when they
go through abrupt withdrawals, but there is a fraction of
(34:03):
people out there that if they come off the medications
and they go into one of these bad withdrawal syndromes
like you mentioned with like brains apps, or they have
like really high anxiety that can almost be experienced like
a concussion or like a neurological injury. And so for
some people, when they have a lot of these withdrawal symptoms,
(34:23):
it doesn't get better even when they reinstate the drug,
and this can be a completely devastating condition that can
go on for years, and that's what I try and
do with these slow tapers, because it's not harmless to
just stop the drug in two months. It can, actually,
you know, it can cause really devastating problems.
Speaker 8 (34:45):
And immediately nobody else thought about you, who's just twenty
four to seven flooding the zone. Back to my thirteen
year old owning this space every day, getting a convert
and then I'm thinking about we're gonna stand back and
(35:06):
watch you.
Speaker 6 (35:07):
Run circles around us.
Speaker 11 (35:08):
He said it best At Turning Point USA, we're relentless.
We're changing minds on campuses every semester, defending conservative values
and fighting for America's future. Your donation helps keep us
on campus. Join the movement and donate to TPUSA today.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
Welcome back to Turning Point Tonight. We're together. We are
charting the course of America's cultural comeback. Like Charlie said,
you can go to TPUSA dot com and donate to
help keep conservative voices alive and well on college campus.
You can also find any of the events the Turning
Point is doing, including why to b a Less that
starts tomorrow in Dallas. If you are a woman, not
a man, a woman and not a man pretending to
(35:46):
be a woman either that no, an actual one. You
can go to that, I think TPSA dot com. Find
out if there's tickets still available. I know these things
sell out, so maybe they are. Maybe they are, don't
don't don't hold me to it in case there aren't.
You missed the boat, sorry lady, But why WLS is
happening this week, and I'm sure we'll have some fascinating
speeches from that next week here in Turning Point tonight. Also,
(36:07):
the Student Action Summit is happening in conjunction with the
Turning Point Academy Educator's Summit. Had to get all those
words straight in my head. That's happening in Tampa next
month again. Find out all of that information at TPUSA
dot com. You can also email the show anytime you
want TPT at TPUSA dot com. You can agree, whether
you can email, whether you agree or whether you're wrong.
(36:28):
We take all sorts of emails and read every single
last to the down of the punctuation. Every single thing
gets read TPT at TPUSA dot com. We haven't read
any emails in a while, and that's my fault. Maybe
we maybe we'll start getting back to that because I
know a lot of you guys have some insightful things
to say, including some of the folks that send stuff
like this to us.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
It's throw down Thursday. I don't know if we have
the themews. Do we have the theme us to day
out there there we go?
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Yes, but it's not your traditional throwdown Thursday where we
watch which conservatives generally usually Charlie or other people just
throw down with some libs. Ideologically speaking, obviously, nobody condone
physical violence, unless, of course, you're breaking the rules and
you need to have to impose those rules, like in
this particular instance. Now watch this clip. It may be
(37:18):
disturbing to some people. I don't think it will, but
but I will challenge you to do this. Try not
to laugh, because this is this is those of juicy
and good and great.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Hey, don't throw things at cops. Watch this. That video
(37:58):
is making the rounds on.
Speaker 1 (37:59):
The internet all day today, and I just I couldn't
get enough of it. I also love the slowed down
version of it, where you can see there was literal
air bornness, like the dude who stupidly through whatever he
threw the cop just gets leveled.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
And I love it.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
And we'll talk in a little bit about why I
love it, But the main point I don't even know
who that guy was. If that was just a good
Samaritan or a cop. Whoever, it was good on you,
great form, And I think some NFL teams might be
ringing your phone just a little bit to see if
you might want to play for them, especially I don't
know the Seattle Seahawks. Who needs some help on defense?
(38:37):
I know from personal experience. But here's the reason why
we like that sort of thing. It's not that we
like people getting hurt. Nobody likes watching just a random
person get hurt, and if you do, I strongly would
recommend that you seek some sort of professional help. But
why that stuff is so much fun to watch is
because people like seeing justice done. Because that I clearly
(39:01):
and obviously committed a crime in real time and then
paid the price for that crime, that is what we
like to see. We get the same sort of enjoyment
when somebody who commits a heinous crime gets slapped with
a huge penalty for that crime. It's not that we
like to see violence. It's not that we're bloodthirsty animals
that really want to see someone get hurt. Now, maybe
(39:23):
you do in sort of a competitive sport like the
UFC or something like that. It's not what we're talking
about here specifically. What we're talking about is you like
to see the rules that we have all agreed.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
Upon be upheld. That's what actually makes us feel good.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
It's not that you want to see a person who
probably hit his head pretty hard on the ground, and
for that I don't really have much sympathy. Maybe don't
throw tho things at cops. Back to the earlier point.
But the reason why I think all of us really
enjoy seeing that sort of thing is not the violent.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
Part of it.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
It's that justice is being done in real time. It's
clear and net evident that this guy through something at
the cops and then karma struck back. And that's not
really karma, I recognize that, but it's justice being done,
or at the very least the guys being apprehended. Because
in so many cases you see people bombarding retail stores
(40:15):
and banks and whatever else you can steal things from
and nothing ever happens to them, and that it just
doesn't sit right with people who understand that Western civilization
requires order.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
So that being said, that's why we love those sorts
of things.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
That's why I've watched that on repeat a thousand times,
and we'll continue to do so throughout the rest of
the day. That's gonna do it for us here at
turning Point tonight. We will see it tomorrow. Charlie is
gonna take us out, same time, same place. Manyana, God
bless America.
Speaker 11 (40:51):
Today, I have an amazing interview for you with my friend,
Professor Sean mcmeekon. We have a very in depth discussion
on Joseph Stalin, FDA are and how American liberals nearly
gave the country away to communists. It's super insightful. And
remember we have our Young Women's Leadership Summit at WHYWLS
twenty twenty five dot com. That's why WLS twenty twenty
five dot com. Make sure you attend our Young Women's
(41:14):
Leadership Summit starting tomorrow. I think you're gonna love this conversation.
Enjoy it, Okay, everybody, very special guest here and we're
gonna talk history communism, the rise, the fall, and then
the rise again with Professor Sean mcmeeeckon. Doctor mcmeekon, I
should say Sewan is absolutely Sean is fine. Yeah, we
(41:36):
have lots of these books are incredible accomplishments. You got
to write longer books. Well, yeah, I think that one's
a little longer than the other one. You're right, this
is incredible. I mean, this is I would love to
one day read it. I don't know if I have
the time, but I mean, look at the amount of
the bibliography here alone is like one hundred pages long.
Speaker 14 (41:56):
It's pretty long, believe it or. I actually cut about
forty thousand words from the original draft of that book
and it still ended up more than eight hundred pages long.
Speaker 11 (42:03):
So well, congratulations. I want to talk about this book
in particular and the theme which I love to overthrow
the world, the rise and fall and rise of communism.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
What is this book about.
Speaker 14 (42:16):
Well, so, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there
was a period of even almost called triumphalism. The most
famous phrase was probably Francis Fukuyamas talking about in the
history we had this image of Yeltsin bellowing on the tank.
It looked like communism was dead, buried finish. There was
even talk about this kind of Nuremberg trial for Communism
that everyone was maybe hoping for, wishing would happen. In
(42:38):
the same way that the Nurmberg Trials helped put Nazism
to rest and ruin and destroy its reputation forever. That
didn't quite happen, though, I mean I discovered when I
look into it all though I lived through it.
Speaker 2 (42:48):
At the time.
Speaker 14 (42:48):
I remember hearing about how the Communist Party was vaguely
on trial in Russia, but the details were a little murky.
I learned later what had actually happened in nineteen ninety
two was that the Communist Party had sued Boris Yeltsen
because he had outlawed the Communist Party and his position,
effectively was it wasn't just a party, it was kind
of this criminal organization, conspiracy fusing together with state structures
(43:09):
to produce this totalitarian impression. And they did talk about
some of this at the trial. But in the end,
here's the thing. The Communist Party won and they were relegalized,
and very soon they were actually the largest political party
again in the Russian Federation, and they very nearly defeated
Yeltsin in the ninety six selections. We also had China,
of course, I mean, that was the discordant part about
the story from the outset. If history had supposedly ended
(43:31):
with this Western triumph. Why did we have Tianneman Square
in nineteen eighty nine in China made jun nineteen eighty nine,
this incredibly dark storing this massacre in the streets of Beijing.
And then of course the CCP endurers in China to
this day, and you know, is given the world many
treats over the past a few decades, the COVID lock given.
Speaker 2 (43:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 11 (43:54):
So, first of all, congratulations on your work. I know
dangerously little about this, but we'll we'll try. Compared to you,
I know more than the guy in the street. But
so is it one of the reasons, such a great point,
I've never thought of it, that there was this clear
like we must put the philosophy of fascism on trial
in Nuremberg to put it to rest. Is one of
(44:16):
the reasons that never happened. Because the intelligentsia of the
West actually agreed with a lot of communistic Marxist precepts.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
I think there's something to that.
Speaker 14 (44:27):
The pretense of communism, of course, was always that they
were going to create this better world. It was a
sort of universal ideal, an ideal that of course has
led to a lot of death and destruction, but an
ideal many people believed in.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
They thought inequality is wrong.
Speaker 14 (44:42):
They thought it's it's not fair that the rich have
too much and the poor have too little, and that
some people don't have enough to eat. And this idea
that a vague version of this idea will always I think,
appeal particularly to younger people, you know, believe in whatever
the phrase is, social justice or equity. I mean, we
know that these words are loaded, but there's always some
kind of sympathy I think that people have for this idea.
(45:03):
Whereas Nazism is a little bit harder to defend because
it was a little more specific to one nation, to
one race, and it seemed to be chauvinistic and aggressive
and was associated with military aggression. It was not something
that had a lot of admirers really out there across Europe.
There were fascists, of course, but meaning once Hitler was
(45:24):
defeated and of course committed suicide and basically it was
no longer there, Nazism pretty much just died. It's not
like there were people are always saying they're Nazis under
your bed and so on, but in fact Nasim has
been basically dead and disappeared since nineteen forty five. Communism, unfortunately,
I think, in some form or other, will always be
with us, just because the idea continues to appeal.
Speaker 11 (45:44):
Let's define our terms, because I think that is one
of the struggles. What is communism, Where does it come from?
And has it actually ever been fully implemented?
Speaker 2 (45:54):
Well, it's a great question.
Speaker 14 (45:55):
There are certain almost dictionary definitions you could start with.
You could try out the manifest of the Communist Party
authored by marxsan Engles back in eighteen forty eight, where
there's actually a program. They talk about things like the
abolition of private property and exchange and credit, the centralization
of industry, of banking, they called it credit.
Speaker 6 (46:13):
That was the word they used.
Speaker 14 (46:15):
Industrial armies for agriculture. The centralization of the means of transport, communication,
which basically means the government controls, the media, controls everything.
Today it might be even broader than them, might be
the internet, or it might be airplane travel. In that day,
it probably would be the main roads, the main railroads,
the main avenues. Communication, that is, government control of a
(46:36):
large part of the economy, and the destruction or eradication
of private property. In practice, most communists regimes tried to
do this to one extent or another. They actually would
go out and they would, for example, nationalize the banks,
which effectively meant nationalizing people's bank accounts, often.
Speaker 2 (46:51):
Their private savings.
Speaker 14 (46:52):
I mean in Russia they actually had an agency devoted
to safe cracking, so they could crack into people's private
bank accounts. They would try to nation lies agriculture, they
would create these collective farms or state controlled farms. In practice,
none of these regimes ever quite succeeded. The Soviets in
the Chinese probably came closest or maybe in an even
more I think draconian and dark way, the Khmer Rouge
(47:15):
and Cambodian completely eradicating the private sector. But the fact
is it's impossible to do that. Everyone would basically starve,
and so you've always had some variety of a black
market or people trading on the sly black markets appearing,
and food stuffs and things like used cars to grease
the wheels.
Speaker 2 (47:33):
Of the economy.
Speaker 14 (47:34):
Because without that, and this very nearly happened in Rush
in the early days after the revolution, the economy just
basically collapsed. By nineteen twenty one, you had mass famine,
you had an industrial collapse, manufacturing collapse, the economy just
basically didn't work, and so for a while in Russia,
amazingly in the twenties, they actually tried to bring back
what they called They called it a new economic policy,
but basically it was a kind of modified capitalism, and
(47:56):
they allowed people to buy and sell again, because without
that everyone would have again, they would have starved.
Speaker 11 (48:01):
Then fish
Well, the publicity stunts in these straight up lies keep
getting weirder and worse and more desperate for attention. But
I don't know that just seems to be how libs
do things nowadays. Also, the unsubscribed button on your email,
does it actually work or does it tell the people
that you've got a hot link here? And all of
a sudden, now you're subscribed to way more things. And
(00:31):
a non partisan group said, hey, we're going to be
more nonpartisan, which suggests that they weren't being nonpartisan to
begin with. All that and more coming up on this
episode of Turning Point Tonight. My name is Joe Bob.
Thanks so much for tuning in. Together, we are charting
the course of America's cultural comeback. This is Turning Point Tonight. Now,
before we get to that in our fantastic panel, what
(00:52):
I want to talk about is that I realize people
are getting a little bit of la riot fatigue or
just riot fatigue in general and the actual riots, but
the coverage of it people are talking about a lot.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Yes, it is a big story.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Here's the thing, though, they continue to lie about all
of the things going on. Most specifically in this particular
instance is from New York Magazine, to which I say, hey, libs,
we have the Internet. If you write something down that
is objectively factually wrong, we can check it. If you
(01:26):
say something on TV that is factually wrong. This isn't
the eighties where you can kind of just get away
with it because what you say gets.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Kind of lost into the ether.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
No.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
No, we can go back not all that long ago
and see that what you said was the exact opposite
of the truth. We're in a new time and age
where we have the Internet. In this particular case, New
York Magazine had an article written by a guy named
Jack Herrera, who's an independent New York based reporter, and
(01:55):
it basically said, can you prove your citizenship? For Americans
wrongfully detained by Ice, it can be nearly impossible to escape,
which is an insane thing to think. Are there going
to be US citizens that get mistakenly identified as illegal immigrants? Yes?
And guess what, I'm fully confident and so is everybody
(02:16):
else that will just get sorted out. It's gonna be
kind of an inconvenient thing, probably, but everything'll be fine.
But not, according to this article, if you're wrongly detained,
it could mean you get deported. This is a literally
from the article. Though Immigration enforcementner gets more attention under Trump,
(02:37):
ICE since its modern creation at after nine to eleven,
has mistakenly detained and sometimes deported thousands of US citizens
under presidents of both parties. Now obviously the implication there
being that, wow, thousands of US citizens get deported. Well,
the thing is he linked to the report, the Government
(02:58):
Accountability Office report detailing ICE's numbers and ninety six pages long.
I think he probably figured, well, nobody's actually gonna read this.
Good news is we have the freaking Internet, and I
didn't have to read it. I just put it through
groc and asked, hey, is this statement legit? Now understand
I did not actually read the ninety six page argument
or the ninety six page document.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
The Internet did, but it spit out this.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
The report notes that ICE identified six hundred and ninety
three cases which individuals claimed to be US citizens during
this period. The report confirms that hundreds of US citizens
have been detained by ICE, but then we're verified to
be US citizens and it was fine. In other words, no,
not thousands of people got deported. Yes, mistakes are made,
(03:44):
but we're talking about a country with three hundred and
thirty million people with tens of millions of illegal immigrants involved. Yeah,
a couple hundred mistakes are gonna get made, and guess what,
it's all gonna be sorted out and be fine, not
have to go into a whole nother die tribe.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
But I was talking to my wife about this last night.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
And I said, if I got swept swept up in
a raid and you got swept up in a raid,
I wouldn't be worried. I'd be like, this is inconvenient,
But I'm not concerned that you're gonna get shipped off
to Guatemala. And she said something actually really interesting and
thought provoking that I had never heard about. When you
wonder why are people fighting back against ice just sorted
out in the system, in the best justice system in
(04:21):
the world that we have, you brought up a really
really good point, and that was this, Well, if these
illegal immigrants are used to insanely corrupt governments, they might
think that we're the same way, which is actually a
great point. Now, the problem is that we're not, and
libs continuing to say that we are is going to
(04:42):
further the problem. But such is the performative state of
politics nowadays, the only thing and the best thing that
we can do is point out when they're making performative
pieces and just trying to get attention. Here to comment
on that and so much more is comedian Bo Robinson
and turning point us a Frontlines reporter Savannah Hernandez. Guys,
thanks so much for joining us, and thanks for sticking
(05:04):
with that long winded diatribe for real.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
To Bob, I'm just kidding, it was great, So.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Don't be sorry.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
So this is actually happening in real time, or at
least when we're when we're having this conversation. Alex Padilla,
senator from California, got arrested for questioning DHS Secretary Christy Nome.
Watch this video clip, guys, and I want to get
your reaction about He's just asking questions. He's not bombarding
a podium, he's not yelling things out during press conversion.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Just asking questions. Got arrested for asking questions. Watch this.
I'm Senator Alexia.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
I have questions for the secretary because the fact of
the matter is.
Speaker 5 (05:46):
Half a dozen selling criminals that you're on your on your.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Off.
Speaker 6 (05:53):
That's a lot of pushing and shoving.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
For some questions.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Now it looks like at the end of that he
did start to go Okay, finally let's go out, Savannah.
I mean your initial thoughts on this as it's kind
of unfolding to me, it just seems like a publicity stunt,
because everything in politics is just a publicity stunt. And
Gavin said on his Instagram feed, he just he was
arrested for asking questions. So I said, okay, well, if
(06:22):
I go to one of your press conferences, just yell incoherently.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
That's just fine. You're just gonna let that happen because
all I'm doing is asking questions. I don't know what
are your thoughts.
Speaker 4 (06:30):
Well as somebody who has confronted multiple politicians, including our
former Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buddha judge. The reason
why it's funny, right, because when I ask questions, I'm
not pushing my way into a secret service member. But
for some reason, it's always the Democrat security who are
coming and pushing me away. But when it's the other foot,
(06:52):
they think that it's okay to like bombard and push
and you know, make their point known and then try
to scream free speech. That's not how that works. It's
just so funny to see the double standard because again,
if you're you know, a right wing or even just
like an American citizen who wants to talk to a politician,
they will shut you down immediately. And this is how
they treat you. We don't really say anything about it.
(07:13):
But then meanwhile, democrats like they make it a point
to make it a publicity sent to go and bombard
and to go and bully and go and scream in
the middle of a press conference.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Come on, yeah, I guess again, it's not a free
speech thing. He's got all the free speech he wants.
He's got the Internet, you've got you can question the
secretary after she's done making her statements. But bo, like,
do you think that this is the sort of thing
that lives are gonna see and go as clearly a
(07:41):
guy trying to get attention or they're going to be like, oh, yeah,
we're in a fascist dictatorship because you can't.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Do like, I don't know, how is this going to
be perceived?
Speaker 6 (07:50):
Or remember, liberals have the mind of a goldfish.
Speaker 7 (07:52):
That the ten second tom right, So they've already forgotten
about all the law fair and prison senses. They tried
to give Donald Trump six months ago, and they're probably
going to take this out of context and say that
he got pushed out while he was trying to support
ice or support illegal immigrants, when clearly he was yelling
and screaming in the middle of a press conference and
his linemen skills didn't come into effect here as he
(08:15):
couldn't really shove back and got pushed out of the room.
I just hope he's not a line coach anywhere. That's
going to be a real problem. His team's not going
to do very well. So yeah, I think the Libs
are going to see this and they're probably going to
side with him. Of course they would, why would they
do anything else. But you know, the truth is is
there's a lot of context missing from this. So I
don't think you should be able to push and shove
(08:35):
your way to the front of Christy.
Speaker 5 (08:36):
Nam's press conference. It's a little a little uneasy unless
you're just trying to get attention. I immediately went to
Senator Padilla's social media accounts and screenshot at how many
followers he has. Gavin Newsom, by the way, has climbed
half a million followers in the last week, just on
Instagram alone, which is his only goal. He doesn't actually
care about stopping anything. He just wants to gain followers
(09:00):
and gain attention.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Speaking of people who are trying to gain attention, we
played this video yesterday on the show. Sam wasn't here,
she was actually doing the reporting, but this is this
is her getting a video of a confrontation between white
libs blocking black people from getting to work to fight racism.
I think watched this one more time and uh, and yeah,
(09:24):
we'll discuss. I don't.
Speaker 8 (09:37):
But you could just knock again.
Speaker 9 (09:39):
You're not going How is it the people protest if
there isn't, I'm starting a black woman from going to work.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Oh no, not work.
Speaker 4 (09:53):
About starting black people from going to work.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Look at this.
Speaker 9 (09:57):
I'm not pausing.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
I'm not trying to work just for me, sev what
so okay again? I know viewers watched this yesterday, but
it's I want to get your take. What is going
through your head when you're watching this? Are you like
I would be struggling not to laugh at the absurdity
of white people stopping black people from going places in
(10:18):
the name of stopping racism against black people.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
I think I don't know.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Yeah, the hypocrisy was astounding, and a lot of people
too online were like, Sah, why are you making this
about race? It should it be about race. No, these
are the exact same people who for the past ten
years said that they should be in power because they
know how to run the country properly. This is them
running the country. This is them shutting down Black mothers,
American mothers, all Americans from going to work, from taking
(10:44):
care of their children. This interaction went on for about
seven minutes, So this was a seven minute clip that
I cut down to three minute or to thirty seconds here,
and I let them stand there for five minutes and
try to like work through on their own, like, hey,
maybe we should let this woman who's trying to, you know,
take care of her child and get to work through.
And it never clipped in their mind, which is why
(11:06):
I finally asked that question. And to be quite honest
with you, I have never gotten such a pompous response
as I did with this guy. Apparently it comes from money.
Apparently he's an activist out in New York City who
comes from a very wealthy family. Imagine that, Joe, Bob.
But this is the left wing. They hate you and
This is what it's like when they're empowered. They don't
care if you have a family, they don't care if
(11:26):
you have bills to pay. They've got important things to
protest and illegal immigrants to riot for.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Yeah, especially legal criminals.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
But the good thing is there and then their country legally,
and that makes it okay. Bo, as a white yourself,
how do you plan how do you on making something
better for us two minorities on this panel? What are
you gonna do to stop us in the name of
helping us?
Speaker 2 (11:53):
I don't know.
Speaker 10 (11:54):
Yeah, I don't know, to be honest, honestly, I watched
this clip and I think to myself, well, how many
pot brins did this guy eat before he was asked
that question? Because Savannah asked him a pretty normal question
and you can see the browser go off in his
brain and his best response is work. And I'm just
I'm like, this guy is high off his behind right now.
Speaker 6 (12:17):
How is he supposed to move, let alone talk?
Speaker 1 (12:21):
That's but yeah, the pinwheel, the circle wheel of death
is happening right there, and the guy, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Again. I know we've recapped that already.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
With our guess yesterday, but I just thought since Savannah's here,
we might as well ask her about it, and I
thought it was a good time. Uh, Savannah and Bo
will be right back after the break to discuss the
non partisan group that definitely was not partisan because it's
government funded, talking about how they need to be more nonpartisan,
which implies that they were being partisan and more.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Coming up after the breakdo go.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Away, Welcome back to Turning Point.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Tonight.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
We're together. We are charting the course of America's cultural comeback.
Let's check in with Turning Points. White House Correspondent Monica
Page at the White House. Monica, So this we talked
about this a while ago, where the Senate passed a
bill that said, hey, no, no, no, no, no, California,
your whole EV mandate thing. I didn't know that the
(13:32):
Senate could do that, but it's because of these like
EPA waivers that they're allowed to.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
But phyllis in President Trump putting a putting.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
A squash to the whole every single car on the
road is gonna be an EV vehicle in California that
high in the sky. Gavin Newsom woke progressive nods such crap.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Well, that's essentially right. I mean under Joe Biden's leadership
and under California Governor Gavin Newsom, there were a lot
of regulations and a lot of red tape that was
put on gas powered vehicles and also diesel vehicles as well.
And President Trump is saying, listen, if you're an American,
you win in this country, you should be able to
drive whatever car you want in this country. So essentially
he signed these congressional bills that are putting this ban
(14:16):
on this California regulation that every car on the road
needs to be electric or should be selling electric only
by the year twenty thirty five. And in the previous administration,
when they were starting to kind of try and get
this renew scam, this green push, this climate change initiatives
passed through, they allocated millions of dollars to install electric
(14:37):
vehicle chargers, hoping that people will maybe buying more electric vehicles.
But they only really installed eight. That's it, just eight
ed chargers throughout this last four years under Joe Biden,
that's it. So President hilp was saying, enough with this.
If you are here in this country, you should be
able to drive whatever car you want. So enough with
these bands, Enough with these regulations. We're doing things our
(14:59):
way essentially.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
You know, I'd like to point out to the federal
government that if you need EV chargers to not be built,
I can do it for a cool two billion dollars.
Just send two billion dollars my way, and I will
not build an EV charger. Also in California too, I
don't know if you know about this or people around
the country know about this. You're not allowed to have
gas powered lawnmowers anymore. So it's super interesting because I
(15:21):
live in California. I went on the black market to
buy to buy a gas powered lawn mower because the
electric ones don't work.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
And it's just California versions.
Speaker 6 (15:31):
You know.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
You say that, Joe Bob, because in this Lesson administration,
they would have gas powered mowers right here on a lawn.
So everyone else has got to have electric mowers. But
the guys back here say, Okay, we're gonna have gas
powered mowers. You can smell the gas. So every time
they mow the lawn, you're like, Okay, this guy's really
that serious about EV's.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
At the risk of going off into a whole different
tankrent the city of Los Angeles several years ago banned
gas powered lawnmowers, but nobody enforces it because they've literally said, well,
enforcing it would be race because the type of people
that molds is substantially that would be a bad thing.
So it's just the Virtue Signal League overall is just hilarious.
(16:11):
You know, hey, Monica, you're you're not going to be
here tomorrow, but I guess it's a good reason. Because
you're going to the Young Women's Leadership Summit. Can you
tell us about what to expect their turning Points Flagship
Women's Conference.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
This is gonna be my first conference, my first time
at YWLS. Jobob so very excited about it, and with
it being my first time there, I'm also speaking at
it on Saturday afternoon around twelve thirty eight pm Central time,
So I've just been constructing. You know, what am I
going to say at this event? What can I expect here?
I'm excited to see everybody a bunch of like minded
(16:44):
young women and girls with big dreams and are all
you know about being welcomed home essentially, because that's what
the theme is of this year is welcome home. You know,
you have a home and a police here in America.
Despite your view and maybe your lifestyle not fitting in
with the mainstream narrative that so many women were bought
and sold that you know, you're your own boss woman
(17:06):
and you don't need a man, and you can do
it all yourself, and you could have it all. It's
very different and here, and it feels very welcoming and exciting,
and I plan to cover comparing in contrast in the
past two White House. It is this White House versus
the last one, especially as a female reporter here where
I wasn't getting any answers in the previous administration, and
now it's just a whole new life that we're living here.
(17:27):
So it's very exciting and it's gonna feel like one
big celebration, that's for sure.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Yeah, it's a it's a super exciting event. If you're
a woman, you can't go. If you're a dude, Monica
will be there, But no dudes. We've been saying that
a lot that we were promoting out on the show.
Why do you list happening this weekend in Dallas, Monica page,
have a great weekend, have fun, and we'll see a Monday.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Thanks guys, have a great weekend.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Lots of government agencies have a policy that they're going
to remain nonpartisan and not get involved in politics, and
many of them, including the blatantly left wing, very much
partisan organizations, say no, no, we were right. Now, we're
straight series, this is just based on education, NPR, PBS
(18:11):
come to mind. Well, turns out the Smithsonian, who's also
supposed to be a nonpartisan entity that gets a lot
of government funding as well, it turns out they're not
as partisan as as nonpartisan as they think. Let's bring
our panel back, sav says and Bo Robertson. Guys, So
this I thought was funny. Bo will start with you here,
(18:32):
Lonnie Bunch, the secretary over there at the Smithsonian. It
kind of like self owned himself in an email obtained
by the National the National Review. He was like, hey,
you know, obviously we're very nonpartisan, but but we're gonna
need to get better at being nonpartisan because some areas
was not so nonpartisan. In doing so, kind of implicated
(18:54):
himself saying, Okay, wait, you just said you're nonpartisan, but
you have to get better at that, which which means
you're aware of yourself being partisan. In fact, does he
know does he recognize that is are we gonna pull
funding from any of these organizations?
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Probably not.
Speaker 6 (19:11):
That's the worst part is I love giving my money.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
To people they call me racist and xenophobe.
Speaker 6 (19:15):
Right, these people come out of the woodwork. I forgot
who it was.
Speaker 7 (19:20):
It was a woman a couple weeks ago she became
president of what was it PBS, and she said, we're
not partisan either, while the senator or congress person called
her out her tweets about how she is obviously racist
and unforgiving towards white people, because it was about what
was it? The event where she was called out for
(19:43):
her anti white tweets and about blackness and then says
she's not partisan at all. So it's not surprising to me.
I'm hoping that Trump pulls the funding.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Though, Yeah, if he has the possibility of doing that,
I would imagine that.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Any attempts to do that would be met with the
jud the blocks President Trump doing with Savannah.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Of course, I don't know kind of your your thoughts
reactions to this, because I think the biggest thing, too
is a lot of these NGOs that are again supposed
to be nonpartisan outside of the Smithsonian, right, we were
finding out too, especially with all the riots that. Okay,
so some of the money being used by these NGOs
to fund I don't know, pallets of bricks just showing up,
(20:26):
looks like they're tied to government non government organizations that
get federal dollars. The whole nonpartisanship thing seems to be
pretty pretty much a farce.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
It seems like, yeah, you know, this reminds me of
the NPR CEO who was in front of an oversight hearing,
and you know, you had congressmen that were basically holding
up NPR articles that were like, what do you think
about this article that says I hate white men, white
men are bad. Put all white men in jail. And
they're like, we don't know where that came from. We're nonpartisan,
we don't have any political leanings. So you know, it's
(20:58):
just hilarious because these same organizations, these media companies that
we fund with our dollars and have been used to
indoctrinate all American citizens, they're the farthest thing from nonpartisan.
And you know, you know it, I know, job Bob.
It's why so many people are calling for DOGE cuts,
for PBS, for NPR, for various organizations like one we're
(21:18):
mentioning now to be defunded because US citizens are so
tired of our taxpayer dollars being utilized to radicalize people
in this country.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Yeah, I can't imagine why people would be upset about that.
It seems I don't know. I can't even make a
joke here.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
So here's what I think.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
This is an actual thing that affects every single person.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
I know. It's the most infuriating thing. Actually, it might be.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
The second most infuriating thing minus spam calls. But spam emails. Right, you, first,
you buy a pair of pants at I don't know,
a diesel store, and all of a sudden, you get
seven emails a day from Diesel. You click unsubscribe. But
according to a New Wall Street article, sometimes that subscribe
button doesn't work. And not only does it not work,
(22:07):
it tells the people on the other side, Hey, this
is a live email.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
We got one.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Let's go sell your information to everybody because now we
know this email actually works. Savannah the wa washtreet Journal
said it only happens like one in like every six
hundred times, but they did a big, long test, and
even that one, to me feels like it's grounds to
send people to GETMO.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
I just hate this so much.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
I don't know what should the punishment be for companies
that aren't actually unsubscribing you?
Speaker 4 (22:38):
Yeah, you know, Joe, Bob. One of my biggest gripes
in society is that you can't go to a store
without giving them your name, your birthday, your help, your
house number, your phone number, your email address. Like, just
give me the freaking pasts, and now my information is
being sold a great, amazing we love it. Oh goshho Bob.
It's like I was already block piled enough today and
then you hit me with the non working, working unsubscribe button.
(23:00):
How could you?
Speaker 2 (23:02):
I'm sorry this is but this is again the most
frustrating thing for me.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
I like, because there are emails that you get, I
get everybody gets that are actually important, but you miss
them because you get thirty nine emails about discounted pants
from the Banana Republic. I like, I don't and I'm
talking about I'm talking about the store Banana Republic, not
all the third world countries that we're trying to send
the illegals to.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Uh BO.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
I don't know what what should the punishment be if
you were if you were King of the world. What
would the punishment be for a non working unsubscribed button.
Speaker 6 (23:34):
I'd probably go for the Gretituneberg treatment.
Speaker 7 (23:36):
I'd probably find the person, sit them down and have
them force them to watch the emails come in one
by one. They can hit the unsubscribe. They're just gonna
get ten more emails, you know. I think that's a
fair treatment. Not allowed to move, they're they're not allowed
to delete them, and uh yeah, just keep the ball rolling.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
I love it.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
That's actually a pretty good one. That's the bane of
my existence is just watching the number of my emails
just go up by the hour. And I can't imagine
I'm alone in that. Make make unsubscribed buttons great again?
Is my I'm a single issue voter, President Trump. I
will vote for you for a third time, fourth time.
(24:13):
I shouldn't have said that. I will continue to vote
for whoever mandates unsubscribed buttons actually work. Bo Robinson, Savanna Hernandez, guys,
thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate you
taking the time.
Speaker 11 (24:26):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
Job coming up next day.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Fascinating clip from Alex scrsh Culture Apothecary podcast Don't go Away.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
We'll be right back after this.
Speaker 12 (24:49):
How do you feel as a psychiatrist about primary care
physicians being some of the main people prescribing, you know,
antidepressants to people.
Speaker 13 (24:57):
I think it's malpractice. I mean, if we think about
any depressants, right, you know, here is a pill that
will turn off the smoke detector in your brain to
the problems in your life. I mean there's just so
much in that. I mean, you would need to know
about their relationships, you would need to know about their work,
you'd need to know about their health, you'd need to
(25:17):
be spending so much time with that person to make
sure you're not actually making them worse. People who are
on these drugs as well, frequently don't even realize when
they're affecting them negatively because they're affecting their mind and
they have less insight when their brain is sort of
in that chemical spell, if you will, So you have
to go and talk to their spouse as well or
people who know them.
Speaker 9 (25:38):
So is that what you do?
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Yeah?
Speaker 13 (25:40):
Yeah, If you're doing psychiatry right, and you're prescribing, subscribing
mind altering drugs which change people's personalities and behaviors where
the person can't even realize if it's helping them or
hindering them. Sometimes you have to talk to family members
as well. Now, family medicine doctor they have like fifteen
(26:02):
minutes with some people, maybe it's like six seven minutes
of FaceTime. Maybe half of that they're talking about like
some other issue, like a cardiovascular thing, and then it's
just like, oh, you depressed have this. Yeah, there's no way,
I mean, there's absolutely no way you could use those
medications in a safe way when you actually think about
(26:23):
what they do and the consequences that could have for
a person.
Speaker 9 (26:27):
So that's basically my story.
Speaker 12 (26:29):
I had a ten minute, well just check up with
my primary care physician a couple of years ago.
Speaker 9 (26:33):
I had just casually mentioned, you.
Speaker 12 (26:35):
Know, oh my gosh, I'm so stressed out right now
at work or whatever, like just I had stuff going on,
and she just was like, oh, well, you know, that's
no big deal, Like it just sounds like you're a
little bit anxious. I'll just prescribe you lexipro. And I
was like, oh, well, what's that. She's like, Oh, it's
just like an anti anxiety medication. I'll put you on
a low dose. So that's all that happened. I was
not told anything about potential risks, side effects, whatever.
Speaker 9 (26:57):
I didn't know any better. This is way before I
had my awakening on pharma, so I just said okay.
Speaker 12 (27:01):
I got on that I remember accidentally, and it was
a very low dose. I think I was only on
five milligrams. But I had like ran out or something
and didn't go fill my prescription, and I think I
missed like two days. And I remember driving like I want,
I want to I want to crash into the median.
It was just very like like I want to do it,
(27:22):
and I was like resisting, like I just I don't
want to be here anymore. And I was like, something's
not right to fill my prescription. Now what's interesting is like,
now what I know is that it's not depression or
anxiety coming back, like it's like part of the withdraw
right of like not being on these drugs starting to
kick in. So then I got back on and then anyway,
I myself started which you probably don't do this, but
(27:43):
I started kind of tapering off and I just started
like cutting like a third of it off, and then eventually,
like after several months, went down to a half and
then you know, so I tapered myself off and I
fully got off lexipro probably in about six months, which
maybe too fast, I don't know. I didn't have any
issues getting off, but I was also a very low
DOS and I.
Speaker 9 (28:01):
Didn't even notice.
Speaker 12 (28:02):
Besides when I didn't take it that time where I
felt like I had ideations happening, I didn't ever notice
like a big difference in that I was feeling better
or less anxious at all while being on.
Speaker 9 (28:13):
The drug, Thank god. But that's that's my story on it.
Speaker 13 (28:16):
How long were you on it for, Alex?
Speaker 9 (28:19):
I think probably like two years now.
Speaker 13 (28:22):
What I want to ask you is in your follow
up appointments with your family doctor, how much did they
talk to you about how long are you going to
be on the med for?
Speaker 9 (28:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 13 (28:33):
What was the discussion? Was it just like kind of
they just kept refilling it?
Speaker 9 (28:36):
Or was this its like in your son a lexpro Yep, Okay,
that's it. Yeah, there's no discussion.
Speaker 13 (28:43):
It wasn't like, hey, has your job gotten better or
anything like that, or thing's changed in your life? Are
you sure you want to be on this never? I
don't think that's that uncommon for many people. I talked
to people and they're like, Hey, I was anxious because
I moved away for college. And they just get put
on an antidepressant and then like fifteen years later, they're
(29:04):
just like, oh, you just kept refilling it, and it's
like you feel like made your brain dependent on this drug,
like like cemented this this thing together for like fifteen
years now, and they just like just like let it go.
Speaker 9 (29:17):
So what is the correct tepering process for getting off
SSRIs or antida pressence?
Speaker 13 (29:22):
So yeah, so this is this is really my specialty
and what I do, and so it's symptom lead tapering,
and so I'm going to provide some parameters here. There's
variability in how people respond to coming off these meds.
Some people their brains are super elastic and they could
survive a rapid taper. You know, they can come off
(29:43):
after you know, two months. You know, some family medicine
doctors will do it that quickly and they'll feel poor,
but you know, maybe a month later, you know, six
weeks later, they're okay. There are a lot of people
out there where that's way too fast and they become
really symptomatic and they become they've become anxious like that
(30:03):
they've never imagined they have cognitive problems as well, and
to get them off the medications, you have to do
it much much slower. So generally, I think if someone
has been on antidepressants for over a year, they should
do one of these slower tapers. I typically recommend people
knock the dose down by five to ten percent per month,
(30:25):
and then they just adjust it as they go. You know,
if you do that and you're feeling fine, just knock
another ten percent off. But as you get lower, you
generally need to slow down. And this is actually the
part of it where most people fail their tapers, or
they'll end up just on like a small dose at
the very bottom. And I'll try not to get too
scientific here, but I do think it's helpful to imagine this.
(30:49):
At the higher doses of antidepressants, you know, there's a
space between two neurons and it's just flooded.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
With the drug.
Speaker 13 (30:56):
And so let's say it's like sixty of prozac, which
would be one of the higher doses. Geez, you could
drop that down by half and really not change receptor
occupancy at the neurons because there's still so much drug
like floating around, So you're on half the dose and
it's still like pretty much the same. But once you
(31:17):
get down to the lower dose range of a drug,
as you remove more and more, there's less of the
excess just like floating around in that space, and then
you start to disengage the receptors much more, and so
many people will feel like, oh, you know, I knocked
you know, ten off the prozac and I went to
(31:39):
fifty and it was fine. And I knocked another ten
off and I got to forty and it was fine.
And then they get all the way down to like,
let's say twenty, and then they knock another ten percent
off and then they feel it and they go, oh, no,
you know what's happening. I'm never going to be able
to get off this drug.
Speaker 9 (31:53):
And what are they feeling?
Speaker 13 (31:54):
So what they're feeling is that they've reached this tipping
point where there's no longer this big satch duration of
leftover drug, you know, sitting between the neurons, and now
there's not that much left. So they're really feeling each reduction.
So and this is the part where people fail. When
you get to the lower doses of the drug, you
(32:14):
have to understand that you have to move much slower
so eventually when someone will hit this withdrawal is usually
when I tell them to go and get a liquid
formulation of the drug, because it's really hard to just
break the tablets in half. At that point you don't
really have the level of precision that you need. And
(32:36):
so let's say you had ten of prozac, you would
just get ten milligrams and put it into ten mili
liters of the drug and then because a syringe has
so many, like find gradations on the side, you can
actually lower it down with much greater precision than if
you were to be you know, breaking up a tablet.
And so from that point onwards, you might just have
(32:58):
someone remove one milligram you know, every two to three weeks,
and then they can go down like that. The key
point here is do not panic if you go into
withdrawal at the end. You probably need to go onto
a liquid formulation and then use a syringe to sort
of steadily bring it down. And that's the way you
can safely get someone off.
Speaker 12 (33:19):
And what's the typical timeline for how long it takes
someone to fully get off a ne SSSR? Like, are
we talking about a year?
Speaker 9 (33:25):
Two years? What is it?
Speaker 13 (33:27):
I would say it's one to two years if someone's
been on them for like, you know, more than a
couple of years.
Speaker 12 (33:33):
If somebody is experiencing brains apps as they're trying to
taper off, like, what's your recommendation for how to deal
with that?
Speaker 2 (33:38):
Go up?
Speaker 9 (33:39):
Okay, so you need to go back up on the Yeah.
Speaker 13 (33:41):
Go back up. And this sort of links into one
of the problems with anydepressant withdrawal, which most people aren't
aware of, and it's a condition called protracted withdrawal. Now
this doesn't happen to everyone, but it's going to sound
really scary. This Actually most people are ok when they
go through abrupt withdrawals, but there is a fraction of
(34:03):
people out there that if they come off the medications
and they go into one of these bad withdrawal syndromes
like you mentioned with like brains apps, or they have
like really high anxiety that can almost be experienced like
a concussion or like a neurological injury. And so for
some people, when they have a lot of these withdrawal symptoms,
(34:23):
it doesn't get better even when they reinstate the drug,
and this can be a completely devastating condition that can
go on for years, and that's what I try and
do with these slow tapers, because it's not harmless to
just stop the drug in two months. It can, actually,
you know, it can cause really devastating problems.
Speaker 8 (34:45):
And immediately nobody else thought about you, who's just twenty
four to seven flooding the zone. Back to my thirteen
year old owning this space every day, getting a convert
and then I'm thinking about we're gonna stand back and
(35:06):
watch you.
Speaker 6 (35:07):
Run circles around us.
Speaker 11 (35:08):
He said it best At Turning Point USA, we're relentless.
We're changing minds on campuses every semester, defending conservative values
and fighting for America's future. Your donation helps keep us
on campus. Join the movement and donate to TPUSA today.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
Welcome back to Turning Point Tonight. We're together. We are
charting the course of America's cultural comeback. Like Charlie said,
you can go to TPUSA dot com and donate to
help keep conservative voices alive and well on college campus.
You can also find any of the events the Turning
Point is doing, including why to b a Less that
starts tomorrow in Dallas. If you are a woman, not
a man, a woman and not a man pretending to
(35:46):
be a woman either that no, an actual one. You
can go to that, I think TPSA dot com. Find
out if there's tickets still available. I know these things
sell out, so maybe they are. Maybe they are, don't
don't don't hold me to it in case there aren't.
You missed the boat, sorry lady, But why WLS is
happening this week, and I'm sure we'll have some fascinating
speeches from that next week here in Turning Point tonight. Also,
(36:07):
the Student Action Summit is happening in conjunction with the
Turning Point Academy Educator's Summit. Had to get all those
words straight in my head. That's happening in Tampa next
month again. Find out all of that information at TPUSA
dot com. You can also email the show anytime you
want TPT at TPUSA dot com. You can agree, whether
you can email, whether you agree or whether you're wrong.
(36:28):
We take all sorts of emails and read every single
last to the down of the punctuation. Every single thing
gets read TPT at TPUSA dot com. We haven't read
any emails in a while, and that's my fault. Maybe
we maybe we'll start getting back to that because I
know a lot of you guys have some insightful things
to say, including some of the folks that send stuff
like this to us.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
It's throw down Thursday. I don't know if we have
the themews. Do we have the theme us to day
out there there we go?
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Yes, but it's not your traditional throwdown Thursday where we
watch which conservatives generally usually Charlie or other people just
throw down with some libs. Ideologically speaking, obviously, nobody condone
physical violence, unless, of course, you're breaking the rules and
you need to have to impose those rules, like in
this particular instance. Now watch this clip. It may be
(37:18):
disturbing to some people. I don't think it will, but
but I will challenge you to do this. Try not
to laugh, because this is this is those of juicy
and good and great.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Hey, don't throw things at cops. Watch this. That video
(37:58):
is making the rounds on.
Speaker 1 (37:59):
The internet all day today, and I just I couldn't
get enough of it. I also love the slowed down
version of it, where you can see there was literal
air bornness, like the dude who stupidly through whatever he
threw the cop just gets leveled.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
And I love it.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
And we'll talk in a little bit about why I
love it, But the main point I don't even know
who that guy was. If that was just a good
Samaritan or a cop. Whoever, it was good on you,
great form, And I think some NFL teams might be
ringing your phone just a little bit to see if
you might want to play for them, especially I don't
know the Seattle Seahawks. Who needs some help on defense?
(38:37):
I know from personal experience. But here's the reason why
we like that sort of thing. It's not that we
like people getting hurt. Nobody likes watching just a random
person get hurt, and if you do, I strongly would
recommend that you seek some sort of professional help. But
why that stuff is so much fun to watch is
because people like seeing justice done. Because that I clearly
(39:01):
and obviously committed a crime in real time and then
paid the price for that crime, that is what we
like to see. We get the same sort of enjoyment
when somebody who commits a heinous crime gets slapped with
a huge penalty for that crime. It's not that we
like to see violence. It's not that we're bloodthirsty animals
that really want to see someone get hurt. Now, maybe
(39:23):
you do in sort of a competitive sport like the
UFC or something like that. It's not what we're talking
about here specifically. What we're talking about is you like
to see the rules that we have all agreed.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
Upon be upheld. That's what actually makes us feel good.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
It's not that you want to see a person who
probably hit his head pretty hard on the ground, and
for that I don't really have much sympathy. Maybe don't
throw tho things at cops. Back to the earlier point.
But the reason why I think all of us really
enjoy seeing that sort of thing is not the violent.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
Part of it.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
It's that justice is being done in real time. It's
clear and net evident that this guy through something at
the cops and then karma struck back. And that's not
really karma, I recognize that, but it's justice being done,
or at the very least the guys being apprehended. Because
in so many cases you see people bombarding retail stores
(40:15):
and banks and whatever else you can steal things from
and nothing ever happens to them, and that it just
doesn't sit right with people who understand that Western civilization
requires order.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
So that being said, that's why we love those sorts
of things.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
That's why I've watched that on repeat a thousand times,
and we'll continue to do so throughout the rest of
the day. That's gonna do it for us here at
turning Point tonight. We will see it tomorrow. Charlie is
gonna take us out, same time, same place. Manyana, God
bless America.
Speaker 11 (40:51):
Today, I have an amazing interview for you with my friend,
Professor Sean mcmeekon. We have a very in depth discussion
on Joseph Stalin, FDA are and how American liberals nearly
gave the country away to communists. It's super insightful. And
remember we have our Young Women's Leadership Summit at WHYWLS
twenty twenty five dot com. That's why WLS twenty twenty
five dot com. Make sure you attend our Young Women's
(41:14):
Leadership Summit starting tomorrow. I think you're gonna love this conversation.
Enjoy it, Okay, everybody, very special guest here and we're
gonna talk history communism, the rise, the fall, and then
the rise again with Professor Sean mcmeeeckon. Doctor mcmeekon, I
should say Sewan is absolutely Sean is fine. Yeah, we
(41:36):
have lots of these books are incredible accomplishments. You got
to write longer books. Well, yeah, I think that one's
a little longer than the other one. You're right, this
is incredible. I mean, this is I would love to
one day read it. I don't know if I have
the time, but I mean, look at the amount of
the bibliography here alone is like one hundred pages long.
Speaker 14 (41:56):
It's pretty long, believe it or. I actually cut about
forty thousand words from the original draft of that book
and it still ended up more than eight hundred pages long.
Speaker 11 (42:03):
So well, congratulations. I want to talk about this book
in particular and the theme which I love to overthrow
the world, the rise and fall and rise of communism.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
What is this book about.
Speaker 14 (42:16):
Well, so, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there
was a period of even almost called triumphalism. The most
famous phrase was probably Francis Fukuyamas talking about in the
history we had this image of Yeltsin bellowing on the tank.
It looked like communism was dead, buried finish. There was
even talk about this kind of Nuremberg trial for Communism
that everyone was maybe hoping for, wishing would happen. In
(42:38):
the same way that the Nurmberg Trials helped put Nazism
to rest and ruin and destroy its reputation forever. That
didn't quite happen, though, I mean I discovered when I
look into it all though I lived through it.
Speaker 2 (42:48):
At the time.
Speaker 14 (42:48):
I remember hearing about how the Communist Party was vaguely
on trial in Russia, but the details were a little murky.
I learned later what had actually happened in nineteen ninety
two was that the Communist Party had sued Boris Yeltsen
because he had outlawed the Communist Party and his position,
effectively was it wasn't just a party, it was kind
of this criminal organization, conspiracy fusing together with state structures
(43:09):
to produce this totalitarian impression. And they did talk about
some of this at the trial. But in the end,
here's the thing. The Communist Party won and they were relegalized,
and very soon they were actually the largest political party
again in the Russian Federation, and they very nearly defeated
Yeltsin in the ninety six selections. We also had China,
of course, I mean, that was the discordant part about
the story from the outset. If history had supposedly ended
(43:31):
with this Western triumph. Why did we have Tianneman Square
in nineteen eighty nine in China made jun nineteen eighty nine,
this incredibly dark storing this massacre in the streets of Beijing.
And then of course the CCP endurers in China to
this day, and you know, is given the world many
treats over the past a few decades, the COVID lock given.
Speaker 2 (43:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 11 (43:54):
So, first of all, congratulations on your work. I know
dangerously little about this, but we'll we'll try. Compared to you,
I know more than the guy in the street. But
so is it one of the reasons, such a great point,
I've never thought of it, that there was this clear
like we must put the philosophy of fascism on trial
in Nuremberg to put it to rest. Is one of
(44:16):
the reasons that never happened. Because the intelligentsia of the
West actually agreed with a lot of communistic Marxist precepts.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
I think there's something to that.
Speaker 14 (44:27):
The pretense of communism, of course, was always that they
were going to create this better world. It was a
sort of universal ideal, an ideal that of course has
led to a lot of death and destruction, but an
ideal many people believed in.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
They thought inequality is wrong.
Speaker 14 (44:42):
They thought it's it's not fair that the rich have
too much and the poor have too little, and that
some people don't have enough to eat. And this idea
that a vague version of this idea will always I think,
appeal particularly to younger people, you know, believe in whatever
the phrase is, social justice or equity. I mean, we
know that these words are loaded, but there's always some
kind of sympathy I think that people have for this idea.
(45:03):
Whereas Nazism is a little bit harder to defend because
it was a little more specific to one nation, to
one race, and it seemed to be chauvinistic and aggressive
and was associated with military aggression. It was not something
that had a lot of admirers really out there across Europe.
There were fascists, of course, but meaning once Hitler was
(45:24):
defeated and of course committed suicide and basically it was
no longer there, Nazism pretty much just died. It's not
like there were people are always saying they're Nazis under
your bed and so on, but in fact Nasim has
been basically dead and disappeared since nineteen forty five. Communism, unfortunately,
I think, in some form or other, will always be
with us, just because the idea continues to appeal.
Speaker 11 (45:44):
Let's define our terms, because I think that is one
of the struggles. What is communism, Where does it come from?
And has it actually ever been fully implemented?
Speaker 2 (45:54):
Well, it's a great question.
Speaker 14 (45:55):
There are certain almost dictionary definitions you could start with.
You could try out the manifest of the Communist Party
authored by marxsan Engles back in eighteen forty eight, where
there's actually a program. They talk about things like the
abolition of private property and exchange and credit, the centralization
of industry, of banking, they called it credit.
Speaker 6 (46:13):
That was the word they used.
Speaker 14 (46:15):
Industrial armies for agriculture. The centralization of the means of transport, communication,
which basically means the government controls, the media, controls everything.
Today it might be even broader than them, might be
the internet, or it might be airplane travel. In that day,
it probably would be the main roads, the main railroads,
the main avenues. Communication, that is, government control of a
(46:36):
large part of the economy, and the destruction or eradication
of private property. In practice, most communists regimes tried to
do this to one extent or another. They actually would
go out and they would, for example, nationalize the banks,
which effectively meant nationalizing people's bank accounts, often.
Speaker 2 (46:51):
Their private savings.
Speaker 14 (46:52):
I mean in Russia they actually had an agency devoted
to safe cracking, so they could crack into people's private
bank accounts. They would try to nation lies agriculture, they
would create these collective farms or state controlled farms. In practice,
none of these regimes ever quite succeeded. The Soviets in
the Chinese probably came closest or maybe in an even
more I think draconian and dark way, the Khmer Rouge
(47:15):
and Cambodian completely eradicating the private sector. But the fact
is it's impossible to do that. Everyone would basically starve,
and so you've always had some variety of a black
market or people trading on the sly black markets appearing,
and food stuffs and things like used cars to grease
the wheels.
Speaker 2 (47:33):
Of the economy.
Speaker 14 (47:34):
Because without that, and this very nearly happened in Rush
in the early days after the revolution, the economy just
basically collapsed. By nineteen twenty one, you had mass famine,
you had an industrial collapse, manufacturing collapse, the economy just
basically didn't work, and so for a while in Russia,
amazingly in the twenties, they actually tried to bring back
what they called They called it a new economic policy,
but basically it was a kind of modified capitalism, and
(47:56):
they allowed people to buy and sell again, because without
that everyone would have again, they would have starved.
Speaker 11 (48:01):
Then fish
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.