October 9, 2025 • 50 mins
Segment 1: Libs Cooking the Crime Statistics
Segment 2: The Psychology of Political Bumper Stickers
Segment 3: Jobob talks to Michael Knowles at the Student Action Summit in Tampa, FL
Segment 4: Michael Knowles’ SAS Interview, part 2
Segment 5: Michael Knowles’ SAS Interview, part 3
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):
Welcome into Turning Point tonight. We're together. We are charting
the course of America's cultural comeback through the mockery of
terrible live ideas. I want to be fully transparent with you, folks.
When live events are taking place, sometimes it's difficult to
plan for. On Tuesday, Vivek Ramaswami and Greg g and
Forte were giving a speech at the Turning Point event
in Bozeman, Montana.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
It ran a little bit long.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
It cut off the first couple segments of our show,
but I thought that that was really interesting. So if
the event tonight isn't still going, you're going to see
what we filmed on Tuesday, which is important and evergreen.
It has to do with the governor in California. And
if the event is still going, then well you won't
see this to begin with. Following that, again, pending the
(00:53):
event and how the live events go, it still could
be going. Who knows. In the TV world. There are
some fascinating interviews we took from the Student Action Summit
earlier this summer in Tampa. So hope you enjoy whatever
it is that you're about to see, whether it's the
continuation of the Turning Points event, which I am at
with Glenn Beck. I'm speaking to you from the future
(01:17):
or SaaS events, SaaS interviews, or what I believe was
a very very cool couple segments regarding the governor, King
Dictator of California, one Gavin Newsom. Whatever it is that
you're seeing, I hope you enjoy it and I appreciate
you tuning in. We'll see you tomorrow back live here
on Turning Point Tonight.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
God bless America.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Gott to remind you, TPT ATPUSA dot com is the
email you're gonna want to send anything, anything that comes
across your desk that you're like, hey, this should be
talked about, or if you're watching the show, you have
any comments, thoughts, concerns, criticisms, even were not the libs.
We don't like censoring people just because they are wrong.
I'm sorry disagree. TPT ATPUSA dot com is the place
to send all of your emails. I've actually been bonding
(02:00):
to several of them because I don't know, it's fun.
It's fun engaging with you folks on the email. Tptatpus
dot com. You should also subscribe to our YouTube channel,
Turning Point Tonight. Some interesting and fun things coming there.
Make sure you don't miss it because there's gonna be
exclusive stuff on the internet. Subscribe to our TPT YouTube
channel as well. I want to get to this story
because I think this is super important debunking the statistics
(02:24):
that are being thrown around by big blue state governors
and big blue city leaders. Well, okay, the statistics show
that blue cities and states are safer when it comes
to crime and homicide, so says the libs running those areas. Now,
this is all coming on the back of President Trump saying, Hey,
we're gonna send the National Guard into these areas in
(02:48):
order to protect the federal facilities. Like in places like Portland,
whre Agon is so peaceful. You can just enjoy a
nice cup of coffee on the veranda and go to
a cafe. It's all peaceful and nothing ever happens there.
But in response to that, there have been memes being made.
Governor Abbott of Texas posted a meme that basically said,
(03:10):
the blue leaders are very very upset President Trump. Do
not touch our crime. We love our crime in this city. Now,
what's been interesting is a bunch of the blue governors
have been responding to that tweet, specifically New York and
California with some statistics. Now, the question is whether or
not those statistics are accurate and representing the whole picture.
(03:32):
First of which is Governor Kathy Hokeel. She responded with
to that meme that Governor Abbot posted with this, Texas
total crime rate is twenty point five percent higher than
New York's. In case you're confused, that means it's worse.
Of course, lives are trying to do those Mike Drop,
(03:53):
I gotcha. With these sorts of statistics, Well, then you
have to ask the question, is that really what's going on?
Is crime in New York actually less bad than it
is in Texas? Okay, let me solve this problem for you.
I know this is going to come as a shock
to most people, but in the great State of Texas,
(04:14):
they do this crazy thing called.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Enforce the law. They actually prosecute.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Crime, and therefore they have more convictions of criminals, unlike
in the state of New York, specifically in New York City,
where they don't prosecute crime. And guess what if you
don't prosecute crime, Yeah, you're gonna have less of a
crime percentage of your overall population against other places that
(04:41):
do prosecute crimes. Let me give you an example. This
is our friend Savannah Craven. You may remember this clip
from I believe April of this year where she was
just walking and talking on the streets to people as
people are supposed to do and got attacked for her troubles.
Go ahead and play clip seven. Tune up having a
child's here.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
I'm not the one who admitted they would be okay
with killing babies and foster care and killing children that
have been abused.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
That's the point what secks.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
That is horrible and I apologize for having to show
that to you, but again need to make a point
of the example here, Glenn, can you pull up graphic
nine to because this is what Savannah ended up looking
like after this brutal attack by a person who wants
to kill babies, which shouldn't be surprising. If you're willing
to kill people, why would you not be willing to
punch people in the face? Will lo and behold? Several
(05:34):
months later, Alvin Bragg, the famous Manhattan District Attorney, dropped
all of the charges. I believe graphic eight would be
sufficient for right now, the same guy who made up
a big case to prosecute the former president of the
United States the current president of the United States, President
Trump didn't charge this on video, clear assault of a
(06:00):
conservative activists who's just asking questions on the street. Now,
I know this is one example, but it would be
crazy to think that this didn't happen over and over
and over again, especially considering the fact that this was
freaking on video and you're still not going to prosecute
it as a crime. All of that's to be said, sure,
(06:20):
Kathy Hokel. I guess in theory, statistically, you can say that, well, yeah,
there are twenty percent more crimes in the state of Texas. Well, yeah,
if the state prosecutes crimes and therefore has criminals being
locked up, yeah, you're gonna have a higher percentage of
quote unquote crime that is convicted. If you don't prosecute,
(06:43):
guess what, You're gonna have more crime, and your statistic
is also going to be lower. That's not exactly how
we want to run the cities in this country. We'd
actually like to prosecute crime and enforce the law. And
if you don't, you don't get to brag about how
your crime rate is quote unquote lower. Ask anybody on
the street if they feel safer in New York City
(07:05):
or in really any city in Texas. They're going to say,
you know, I feel safer in Texas because they actually
prosecute crime, which actually is a deterrent for criminals, which
brings us to another big blue governor. Governor Gavin Newsom
of California also quote tweeted or quote posted next this
meme from this very accurate meme from Governor Greg Abbot.
(07:30):
He says, hey, at Greg Abbott, Texas homicide rate is
thirty nine percent higher than California's. Call home your national
guard and deal with your crime epidemic. Ooh, burn from
the governor of California. I wonder where he's getting those statistics. Well,
they actually came from the CDC, And yeah, those are
(07:51):
the statistics posted in the CDC. But you have to
ask yourself, well is that day to accurate. Well, the
FBI came out with a new system of reporting crime
and crime data nationwide, and if you ask the question, well,
does California entirely adhere to those new reporting practices, the
(08:13):
answer is no. In twenty twenty two, ninety eight point
eight percent of Texas law enforcement agencies. We're we're adherent
to the new FBI system, the National Incident based Reporting System. Basically,
one hundred percent of Texas policing agencies submitted all of
(08:36):
their data to the FBI in twenty twenty two. Again,
this is part of a rollout of the FBI's again
national incident based reporting system. California, fifty percent half of
the agencies in California did not report to that system.
And here, I guess I don't know if the math
works out here, but if you don't report by up
(08:58):
to half of the crimes committed in your state, I
would imagine that the crimes in.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Your state would look lower.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Is not difficult math. Now, the numbers that Gavin was
citing were from twenty twenty three, just to be fair,
and not much improved. It only jumped to seventy five
percent in California of policing agencies were reporting to the
national Incident based reporting system that the FBI has, and
it wasn't including one of the biggest crime centers, San
(09:28):
Bernardino County, California. And if you're familiar with California, you're
familiar with San Bernardino and if you omit the crime
statistics from that county, guess what it's gonna look like.
You have less crime. Now, the numbers from twenty twenty
four and obviously twenty twenty five are not available. But
the bottom line here is Governor Newsom is quoting statistics
(09:50):
based on his own state statistics that aren't in compliance
with the federal numbers and then claiming that he's done something. Now,
I will say this, it's not homicide rates aren't good
at all. We don't want to see homicide rates anywhere
in the country. Red state, blue state, purple state, doesn't matter.
Homicide is bad. I feel like that's a thing that
(10:11):
we all know and I don't think it needs to
be reiterated. But at the same time, you can't fudge
the numbers and then post statistics that the CDC has,
but they only have them because you guys didn't report
all of the crime statistics that came in through this
new system. I realized it's a little bit convoluted, it's
a little bit to nuanced. But that's what conservative conservatism is.
(10:33):
It's the ability to deal with nuance. The bottom line
here is, if you don't report all the crime statistics. Yeah,
the crime statistics are going to look lower. Thanksgavin for
helping point that out through the state that is not
that is not submitting all of the data. By the way,
it was interesting too several of the articles about this,
(10:55):
we're talking about how California is not compliant because the
system is too differ. In other words, the dumb bureaucracies
in California haven't adapted to the new system, whereas Texas
no problem at all. One hundred percent of them are
reporting to the entirety of all of their quote unquote
crime statistics. But again, Governor Newsom and Governor Hogel are
(11:18):
trying to play off these statistics as if they mean
something without obviously giving the full picture.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
What's the quotes?
Speaker 1 (11:25):
There lies damn lies and statistics, and that is what
we are seeing here. But there was one other governor
that was in that meme shared by Greg Abbott. I'm
surprised he didn't take up the entire scene because well,
physical dimensions being at play, and that was JB.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Pritzker.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
This I thought was interesting too. This is coming out
of bright Burton News. They actually compiled all of the
crime data and the shooting victims in the in Chicago,
specifically throughout the last ten years, and the number is
staggering and shocking. War Zone Chicago sees over thirty two
(12:08):
thousand shooting victims in the last decade alone. This comes
on the heels of a bright Bart report where they're
talking about last week alone, thirty people were shot, five
of them fatally. And this is another interesting statistic too. Yes,
Chicago's shooting deaths have gone down. One of the freakonomics
(12:30):
components of that is the ability to save people from
gunshot wounds has gone up, So the shootings have relatively
stayed the same. Deaths have gone down, which is good.
That's a good thing. We don't want to see more deaths.
But at the same time, if it's because they're able
to be saved at the hospital, well that doesn't eliminate
the danger of being shot on the war zone streets
(12:53):
of Chicago. According to Chicago Tribune, over three hundred and
thirty people have been murdered in Chicago thus far in
twenty twenty five. And it's up to JB. Pritzker, the
governor of Chicago, who is now saying Trump wants to
create a war zone.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Newsflash, JB. It's already a war zone.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Having said that, this is what JB. Pritzker is saying,
why President Trump is possibly sending National Guard to Chicago.
It's not because he's trying to protect federal agencies. It's
not because Chicago is in fact a war zone. It's
because of this ridiculous reason. Go ahead and play what
is it cut.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
For calling at them? But they think they can get
people used to the idea, and next year I fear
that what they're going to do is deploy these folks
eventually to polling places and say they're protecting the vote.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Yeah, that shouldn't be a problem. Jbrie. If everybody's able
to vote, and an American citizen therefore eligible to vote,
what would be the problem of making sure that the
polling stations are safe. If they're unsafe, maybe we should
beef up security and make them safe. Gavin Newsom also
said something similar to this, of ice might be at
(14:11):
the polling stations to intimidate voters. Why would that intimidate voters, Kevin?
Is it because maybe the voters that are voting shouldn't
be voting because they're here illegally. It's kind of a
conundrum you've got yourself in there again. The governors of
the blue states of around the country and claiming, no,
this is a we're totally peaceful, nothing is bad, nothing
(14:32):
bad is going on here. Fudging statistics, manipulating numbers and
then claiming that they've done something is hilarious and should
be seen as hilarious. I give this, I give this
four eye rolls. It's a new thing I'm doing. It's
a rating system that I have in line with the
Washington Posts Pinocchio's I'm gonna go with four eye rolls here,
and it's not the full five eye rolls, just because
(14:54):
homicide is bad regardless of where you are, and we'll
save that last eye roll for that specifically. But uh,
four eye rolls go to the blue governors of these
blue states who claim their crime is down. And as
we wrap this up, uh, just because we like to
hit on Portland, We're gonna talk to Van Hernandez a
little bit later about Portland. Claiming that their blue cities
(15:18):
and blue states are totally safe is ridiculous. Singing about
it is even more ridiculous. I regret to inform you
that the liberal boomers are singing yet again in the
in the totally safe city of Portland watched this. All right,
(15:52):
all right, let's let's we don't need any more of that.
Lying about statistics doesn't make cities safer, and singing about
them doesn't change reality. We got a great show plan
for you. I got some bumper sticker information. Do you
have a political bumper sticker? Do you see political bumper
stickers that you don't like? Well, there's some new statistics
out on how people react to the bumper stickers. Like
(16:14):
I said, we're gonna talk to Savan Hernandez, who is
in Portland for the last several days. We're gonna talk
with Turning Points White House correspondent Monica Page, and we're
gonna watch some hilarious videos done by dumb libs yet again,
because we love doing that here on this show. Don't
go away. We'll be right back after the break. Welcome
(16:48):
back to Turning Point tonight. We're together. We're charting the
course of America's cultural comeback through the mockery of terrible
ideas pushed by the left. You can email the show
anytime you want, TPT at TPUSA dot com. Left seen
each and every one of your emails and might respond
to him. And I know he's been saying we're gonna
try and get to more at the end of the show,
but there's been so much to get to it's a
little bit tough. So I am trying to respond to
as many as I can. Again. TPT at TPUSA dot
(17:10):
com love seeing each and every one of your emails.
Let us know in the emails. How do you feel
when you're driving your car and you get cut off
on the freeway? Okay, picture yourself in that situation. Now,
how do you feel if you're driving your car, you
get cut off on the freeway and the person driving
the car that cuts you off has a Harris Walls
sticker on the back of it, or proud liberal or
(17:33):
leftism is going to save the country. Or I'm a progressive,
or I like good coffee. All of those things mean
the same thing to me. You're definitely a lib And
how does that make you feel? Does it make you
feel worse inside? Is it going to elicit a different
reaction from you? Well? The answer, according to study finds
in a new report, is yes, actually it is. I
(17:55):
actually have some differing thoughts on this, but I want
to read just some of what this report is finding
out of party stickers, meaning like you know, if you're
a conservative and you see a libsticker, don't matter when
the driving is good, Yeah, it doesn't. I don't really
care about whoever's driving. If they are being a good driver,
they raise hostility. However, when driving is bad. What they
(18:19):
did here is they put people through like a simulator,
and the simulator used computer generated dash cam footage to
simulate realistic driving scenarios. Participants then watched videos of another
car either driving totally smoothly and had you know, different
bumper stickers on it, or driving badly, cutting them off,
(18:40):
forcing them to break hard, etc.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Etc. Things that you do when you're driving badly.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
The cars that displayed sorry, That car then displayed four
different options of the bumper sticker, neutral bumper stickers like
I love my dog, or stickers like proud Democrat or
proud Republican. So no bumper sticker of my dog, proud Democrat,
proud Republican. Turns out that if the sticker did not
(19:07):
align and this is both sides, by the way, did
not align with the person politically, it would elicit a
different response honking and feeling thermometer which is a different
rating that came up for this specific thing, shifted towards
colder reactions if the sticker did not align with the
person politically. And interestingly enough, they also tested for race,
(19:30):
and because we are not a racist country, turns out
didn't really have any statistical statistical significance at all with.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
The race of the driver.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
It did, however, with their political ideology or the way
that they leaned directionally. If a conservative was cut off
by a liberal one, that kind of makes sense, and
it probably happens more often because liberals tend to be
worst drivers because they hate cars and would rather take
public transit and trying to eliminate ownership of anything.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Because they don't like the way that the world is run.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
They don't like the free market society, and they're freaking
communists and want to get rid of cars altogether. Forgot
where I was going with that rant. I just kind
of had to keep going because that's generally the type
of person that cuts you off in traffic. Probably in
a lesser instance, when conservatives would cut liberals off, it
would have listened a similar reaction. Here's where I think
(20:21):
I personally differ from this When I see somebody cut
me off one, I'm never happy about it, but I
actually have the reverse reaction. I only get irritated when
I see conservatives cut me off because I feel like
they should know better, right. I have a higher standard
for conservatives overall, how they interact with me and how
(20:44):
they interact with the rest of the world. If a
conservative cuts me off in traffic, I get frustrated because
I know that we are better than them. I recognize, hey,
conservatives have a higher threshold of how we view the world,
and I think that conservatives are are should be held
to a higher standard because again, we are better. If
(21:04):
I get cut off by you know, somebody in a
Prius who has a you know, the peace sign with
save the bees and Kamala Harris for President or Proud dever,
whatever it is that that insinuates that they're a lib
I don't get as mad because.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
That's what I expect from them.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
I expect them to be to be bad, inconsiderate drivers
that just I need to do the thing that I
want to do. I missed my exit and for some reason,
you're gonna pay for it. Yeah, nobody likes getting cut
off in traffic, but if they cut me off and
they have I don't know, a free Palestine sticker or whatever.
(21:42):
The liberal cause of the moment, climate change is an
existential threat on their car. I go, yeah, that makes sense.
This person doesn't have regard for people behind them. And
while I'm irritated at being cut off in traffic, I
get it. It makes sense to me they're they're inconsiderate
people generally as a whole. I don't know if that's
(22:03):
a healthy way of me thinking about it, but I would.
I would love to see and hear your feedback and
reaction how you perceive people when they cut you off
in traffic and have a political sticker on the back
of their car TBT at tbusa dot com. It's kind
of par for the course to me, I expect that
from Libs when they're driving cars and you know, make
make bonehead errors and maneuvers. Shoot, I'm not sure if
(22:26):
we have a tire time. Basically, I want to get
to this really quick. How the media has covered the
would be assassin of Brett Kavanaugh, who is now a girl.
I guess for some reason, the ruling came down, the
sentencing came down for the guy. I'm not gonna say
his name who attempted to kill Brett Kavanaugh and the
(22:47):
news reporting around it was ridiculous. He is now saying
that he is a girl, which is crazy, but only
got eight years. And I'm sure this has been covered
in other places, but what I would like to cover
is the coverage of this. The New York Sorry, the
NBC newspeople wrote, a woman who pleaded guilty to attempting
(23:07):
to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh three years ago
was sentence on Friday. Oh yeah, the woman that did that.
NBC News continued on to say, Sophia, which I guess
I'll use that name because it's not a real name.
Now twenty nine, was arrested outside of the home in
June twenty twenty two when she intended to kill the
Associate Justice then herself. The New York Times actually added
(23:31):
something interesting to this, saying the judge also said that
a lower sentence was warranted because an executive order issued
by President Trump mandated that transgender woman beheld at male
only federal facilities, which she could, which she said, the
judge said, could interfere with her transitioning care. Basically, they're
(23:52):
saying well, the judge had to.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Give her a lighter sentence. Her again using that stupid.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Language, had to give this dude a light sentence because well,
he has to go to a male prison, and because
he is.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
A she that would be worse for her. Ridiculous nonsense.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
There's a bunch of more examples here, including from the
Washington Post, but I don't really have time to get
to it because we want to save some time for
a Monica page Turning Points, White House Correspondent. After we
talked to Savannah Hernandez all coming up here in Turning
Points tonight, don't go.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
I'll be right back after this.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show and not
the Ben Shamaier Shows. That correct, I.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Should chost that show too. I think do you have
the capacity? I don't talk fast enough. My voice is
slightly too deep, and I once asked Ben.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
I was like, why is it?
Speaker 3 (25:00):
I think my voice sounds nicer. I sold him this,
and you know what he said?
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Did he disagree?
Speaker 1 (25:05):
I don't. That's an objective truth.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
No, he may. I'm not true to It's just that's
what he said.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Though he actually said to me, he goes, you know,
the fact that my voice is kind of like fast
and you.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
Know, a little higher pishing goes.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
It keeps you on the edge of your seat, whereas
you like your voice all boring and they're like, a.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Maybe, maybe he's right.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Have you met anybody who listens to your show to
go to bed to go to That's that's the true test,
because you know some people. I listen to stand up
comedy every time I go to bed, like just really,
oh yeah, I have it in your pot. Probably a
bad habit of mine, yea. But it started when I
had an accounting professor in college who I could not
stay awake in his class, so I listened to his
(25:42):
lectures in my head. And then it's transitioning to stand
up comedy. But have you met anybody who's who's listened
to the Michael Moles Show as they fall asleep?
Speaker 3 (25:49):
I think I actually have. And then I was saying, well,
what if what about the flip side like Ben the show?
And I thought, well, maybe it's like I know people
who they'll put in his zin before they go to bed,
and that's kind of the Ben version me. I'm the
opium pipe before you go to bed. But Ben's the
he's like the fifteen MILLI Lippilly you know.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Oh bad?
Speaker 1 (26:07):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (26:07):
Interesting?
Speaker 1 (26:09):
What is your what is your You're at a be
conservative movement conference right, which I've realized is like the
Olympics of hot takes. Everybody's trying to out hot take
each other. Yeah, and uh, do you have one of
those prepared for for your speech tonight?
Speaker 4 (26:26):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Yeah, I'm gonna walk out. I'm gonna walk out and
say who you know? I say, hey, yeah, you know?
Speaker 3 (26:30):
And I say hey, So I think we can all
agree that the Epstein story is completely above board and
there are no additional questions.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
That is the joke you're gonna make, should I?
Speaker 1 (26:44):
I don't. Yeah, I wonder I think you should.
Speaker 3 (26:46):
Yeah, that that one because that's kind of the newsiest
part of the day and there. When when Trump was elected,
I had this thought, which is, should I try to
get a position in the administration?
Speaker 2 (27:00):
That could be really fun?
Speaker 3 (27:01):
I support Trump and I'm really excited by what they're doing.
I'd like to maybe help if I could. I thought
maybe that could be fun. Ultimately, you know, so, no,
maybe I won't do that because because there are downsides
to government. Looking at the past week, I am reminded
of of one reason people don't want to take these jobs. Yeah,
(27:21):
that's a thankless week, I'll tell you.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
Oh yeah, you're you're saying you don't consider yourself running
or see yourself running for anything.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
Or running or I was even when he got in,
you know, maybe I could help out the administration, but
or yeah, I mean maybe running down the line or
I don't know, you know, if my country called on me.
But there are downsides to running for office. There are
a million downsides. But even in this case, you got
people in the Trump administration who are are terrific, and
(27:49):
they're they've given up a lot in a private sector
to come help out.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
The country and the admin.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
And they're working tirelessly and often thanklessly.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
And then every so often.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Any issue comes up, like the Epstein thing, which it
could be one of two things. Either the official government
story is true and he was a really rich pervert
and he was friends with all the most powerful people
on earth. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Elie Maxwell's in prison for
trafficking girls to know one.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
So either that's true or so like, if that's true,
you have the whole story, yeah, or.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
That's not true or it's not the story, and guess what,
You're still not going to get the whole story.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
But either way, if this thing is.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
An intelligence operation, you ain't never gonna get those files.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Yeah, And then if it's not, you already.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
Have all the information, so there's no way out of it.
This is this is how I felt when the JFK
files were going to be released. I remember the ADMIN
released whatever, sixty thousand files or something, and I remember
that day, I said, whatever, they released JFK files, let
me know if you find anything.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
I moved on. The audience yelled at me.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
I said, you're ignoring this bombshell newstand said, bombshell news story.
One thing I promise you is there is nothing in
those files. Because if Kennedy were not killed by a
lone gunman and on Grassy Knoll, if Kennedy were killed
by the CIA, the Mob, the Masad, the Soviets, the Cubans,
(29:21):
George Bush, Lyndon Johnson, or some combination, they're off. If
you were killed by them.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
You ain't never gonna find out there. I just thought,
And so I guess.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
My defense of the administration is in state craft, there
is espionage, there are cover ups, there are grand strategic
objectives that involve global.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Alliances that could upset the entire world order.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
And sometimes you don't get full transparency, and governments can't
be fully transparent, and they shouldn't be fully transparent. And
I get all of that. But if you this week
are some of these really good guys, from Dan, Bongino
and Sattel all the way up to Trump himself, and
you have I love Trump's reaction where he goes, you're
(30:04):
asking me about this again, I want to talk about
all the good stuff I'm doing.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
If you're one of these guys, this has got to
be one of those ones where you think this is
the most thankless job in the world.
Speaker 1 (30:26):
Oh yeah, Oh, life objectively got way worse. Yeah, since yeah,
I would be happy being a billionaire in South Beach
and uh, not having any sort of responsibilities. Uh you
mentioned running for running for office and if your country
called on you. Okay, Now that's the excuse that just
about every politician. Yeah, it makes obviously you can't judge
(30:47):
the hearts of the average politician, but it always seems disingenuous.
Just it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
It is that Okay that in a lot.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Of ways politicians running for office. It's fully self. Yeah,
that's true. No, I mean that's why, I mean, you
have public service.
Speaker 3 (31:04):
I'm using the line jokingly obviously, but I know that.
But but it makes a good point that you're talking about,
which is people run. People do sometimes run for office
to get rich or famous or.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Have some influence.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Now I'm happy to say, not not bragging or nothing,
but by the grace of God and blank book sales
and everything that's fallowed since then, I haven't. I have
enough notoriety. I don't have to run for Congress to
get notoriety. I have enough money. I have more money
than I could make in Congress, and I think I've
got some political influence, so a little bit at a
(31:43):
little bit, but I mean sincerely.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
You know, they're probably of people with a lot more
political NaNs than I have.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
But meaning, if I were to run, all three of
those things would diminish. Yes, So you'd say, well, and
like for Trump at an extreme scale, all three of
those things diminished, and they tried to in prison and
murder him. So why would you do it? There there
is an answer, and it is a little bit self serving,
but it's a public serving too, which is you want
(32:09):
to do something you want to be in it. You
want to be the man in the arena and not
just the guy talking about the guy in the arena.
And I think that's very much Trump, and I think
that that can be good. Where you align kind of
personal ambition with the common good, that that is great.
And you get these politicians every once in a while.
For the rest of them though, as you say, these
guys who are self serving, you just want to get
(32:31):
famous or rich or corrupt, I don't whatever. You know.
I would say there are easier ways to make a buck.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
But in a way, I think we need those people.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
I have no interest, so you no need the We
need the people who are self serving to run for
Congress because I don't want to run for Congress.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
That sounds horrible.
Speaker 3 (32:51):
It sounds like the worst job on the planet is
the worst job in the planet being in Congress.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
It's even the Senate would be cool.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Being the president would suck.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Being in the Senate.
Speaker 3 (32:59):
The you're still away from your family five days a week.
You're still not allowed to make You can make quite
a good salary, but you can't make zillions of dollars.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Yeah, you can't. Can't really do anything. You can do
a little bit more than if you're in Congress.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
But you still don't have executive authority. So at least
president you can really do stuff.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
You can actually do something.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Yeah, But as a judge in Maryland says, otherwise, that's true.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
You can do stuff unless one out of seven hundred
district great judges like woke up on the wrong side
of the bed that day.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Yeah, you're right, that's true. So it's like you could
do it. But there is this.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Problem right now, I think on the right, which is
there's not much incentive to run for office.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Right, you can.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
We've built out our think tanks. We got these great
thing tanks. We built out great media organizations, great activist
organizations where you're in the private sector. But the Libs,
I don't know. There are gluttons for punishment. They want
to be in the government. They want to staff the bureaucraus.
They want to they want to trudge along in the
corridors of Congress.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
They they they want it more I think than we
do a lot of the time.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
In a did you throw that radio away?
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Sorry I lost my train of thought there.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Talking about Congress talking about.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Democrats trudge away like animals.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
So okay. So so here at turning point events, there's
a a big butting of heads of the conservatives versus
the libertarians, and there's a lot of libertarians who you know,
make compelling cases are here. You yeah know they're here.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
You let libertarians and they're undercover.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
They were let in because we have this pesky free
speech thing, but not.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Necessarily send them copies of my book.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
I don't know. Well, okay, So, so in that debate
between kind of the more lase fair and then the
more conservative government, do you think that there is a
with an increase in self morality or religion or Christianity
in the country, does that allow for more libertarianism?
Speaker 2 (35:11):
This, yeah, that makes sense, it does. It does. If
we were to return to a.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
Place where we had true freedom, which is the ability
to regulate ourselves and the inclination to do so, where
you don't so much need the heavy end of government
or cultural institutions, then yeah, we could tolerate more like
ridiculous dope smoking reddit using libertarianism. The problem is, though
the acid of that ideology would just.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
Instantly once again begin.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
To erode and corrode the edifice, the conservative edifice on
which it's all built and you'd wind up in the
same place.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
You know. I love my libertarian friends.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
The best thing I can say about libertarianism is.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
I like the people.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
Yeah, but the ideology is ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (35:56):
It's based on a false conception of human nature that
says that is fundamentally an individual, not a member of.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
A political community.
Speaker 3 (36:04):
Yeah, And it says that freedom is the ability to
do whatever we wish, not the right to do what
we ought to do. And it's just live and wrong,
and it is politically ineffectual, it's electorally unpopular, and not
to put too finn a point on it, but it's bad.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
But does how you really feel?
Speaker 1 (36:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (36:24):
Yeah, but we the people are great.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
And the reason that there remains a conservative libertarian alliance
is because of mutual affection that comes out.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
Of like the Muslims and the trans It's like they
have no business cohabitating at all.
Speaker 2 (36:37):
And yeah, yeah, for some reason, you're a common enemy
the Jews.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
Yeah, so they like.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
After the Second World War, you had the hard left
really the communists, Yes, and the libertarians hated communists because
of the collectivism. The traditional conservatives hated communists because of
the atheism and the materials, and the warhawks hated Communis
the Soviet Union rather because of expansionism and imperialism. So
(37:07):
we all got together and that worked until it didn't,
you know, but in the nineties it stopped working.
Speaker 2 (37:11):
So it's an incoherent marriage.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
Yeah, and I think the libertarian moments such as it
is passed and that's yes, it's okay that it passed,
as good that it passed. So all those libertaries. I
like the people, but just just come on over to
the consider It's okay. The water is warm, I said.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
I said, probably something too spicy in too short of
a time to give full context to what I was saying.
I'm not even gonna say it here because it's probably
you got to say it. Hold on, come on, we
were talking. I was going to pose the question, if
you could change or alter one historical moment in US history,
what would it be. That question was posed to me.
(37:50):
I said, decided to get the Civil Rights Act and
didn't and didn't get the full.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
The full chance to which is that you hate black people. Obvious,
that's it.
Speaker 1 (37:59):
They did come to that conclusion because then I said,
signed the Civil Rights Act, and then they said and
that'll do it for us here and no context whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (38:07):
That didn't actually happen.
Speaker 1 (38:08):
I explained it a little bit, but Brown v.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
Board of Education. That was the.
Speaker 1 (38:15):
It helps because I.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
Think I'm dark enough, and I think if you tan enough,
you will be as well.
Speaker 3 (38:19):
Yeah, I know the Sicilians are a racially liminal people.
Speaker 1 (38:22):
No, fine, but everyone.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
Sees your point, which is the point Chris Caldwell made
in Age of Entitlements.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
So I was, yeah, that's I think the book that
everybody's referenced recently of well, that's probably a couple of
years old now, but yeah, the idea that the government.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Shouldn't dictate well, and it ended created the Civil Rights Act.
I mean, there have been many civil rights acts in
the American is, of course, but the Civil Rights Act
in the sixties created effectively a parallel and rival constitution.
This is why every government office has a civil rights division,
because it eliminates free association, which is intrinsic to the
(38:56):
first version of constitutional principles. And so it you just
have this rivalry, and and sometimes the Civil Rights Constitution
wins out, and sometimes the old Constitution wins out. But
that's Coldwell's thesis and that's I suspect what you're talking about.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
Yeah, and exactly, And I wish we had a video
monitors showed there's a there was a video that I saw.
It was one of those New York Subway card like
interview things, and he was interviewing this older black woman
and she's like, what's your hottest taken? She said, bring
back segregation, Like if it's a wide owned restaurant, I
(39:31):
want to know that your food isn't good. And I
thought to myself, you know, I think race has been
horrible and nobody should ever do it.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
But but but did you hear them?
Speaker 1 (39:41):
But the idea you include or disinclude, somebody should be
(40:02):
by the on the prerogatives And I'm.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
Really opposed to genocide. But maybe I phrased that incorrectly. No,
of course though, but I would go back further than that.
Speaker 3 (40:12):
You know, there there are there were errors that led
to that kind of stuff. Even get I'll get in
more trouble than you did for the Civil Rights Act,
which is that the fourteenth Amendment creates a lot of problems. Yeah,
again not because of the nineteenth Amendment. Well, just created
more protests derivatives.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Yeah, that's all right. And we'll get to that one eventually.
Speaker 2 (40:31):
But the Fourteenth Amendment creates a lot of problems.
Speaker 3 (40:34):
Not even people always focus on that as basically just
a way to welcome black people into the fabric. But
the problem is it's so overly broad that that the
basis of so much terrible jurisprudence that allows the Libs
to just rewrite the Constitution is grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment,
whether an invisible ink or or in the plain text
a bit also incorporating the Bill of Rights to the States,
(40:57):
and it creates it creates this kind of casque aiding
effect of jurisprudence that really upends the whole political order.
And so if you really wanted to start fixing stuff
in American history, and maybe maybe that or for you,
I don't know, I'll hold dread Scott or something outrage Well.
Speaker 1 (41:15):
What is what is the same question posed to you?
What what kind of pinnacle turning point event, Hey, turning.
Speaker 2 (41:21):
Point there we go.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
H what event might you not necessarily completely flip, but
alter in just a little bit of way that you
think would set the country on a better trajectory historically.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Well, now this is a little Monday morning quarterback. And
I'm not I don't think this.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
That's the whole premise of this question or asking you
if this is a history.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
This is not realistic, but it's one.
Speaker 3 (41:45):
It's one thing to say I would I would not
have ratified the seventeenth Amendment. That is more plausible than
what I'm about to say, Okay, which is I think
there might be a chance that the Civil War could
have been avoided. Every other country managed to get rid
of slavery without a civil war. Yeah, now we were
a little bit different. We were quite reliant on it.
(42:06):
The cotton gin, you know, accelerated the primacy of slavery
or the significance of slavery to the economy. We had
this kind of interesting historical development. They really give you
a north in the South. And so I don't know
that it would have been avoidable, but there were a
series of unfortunate events that led up to the Civil War.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
Had we been able to eradicate slavery.
Speaker 3 (42:29):
In a more orderly and conservative way without spilling the
blood of six hundred thousand Americans, I think a lot
of the historical wounds and negative self perception that we have.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
Would would would have evaporated. This is so not where
I was planning on going here.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
But do you think do you think Wilberforce was successful
in that because of proximity, things being closer together and
you're able to talk to people more as opposed to
kind of the North and the South be so geographically distance.
Speaker 3 (42:57):
Sure, the geographical distance is symbolic of an ideological difference,
which is that the South was the nearest thing. Russell
Kirk talks about this, the South was the nearest thing
we've ever had in America to the Old World, to
feudalism in an odd kind of nineteenth century form. But
this is the opening of Gone with the Wind, you know,
(43:18):
the land of gentlemen and knights and cavaliers. So you
have this old world kind of feudalism in the South,
and then you have this wiggish Yankee.
Speaker 2 (43:28):
Puritanical ideology in the North.
Speaker 3 (43:32):
Probably the true heirs of Northern Puritanism, Northeastern Puritanism.
Speaker 2 (43:39):
Is the left, Yeah, I think pretty clearly.
Speaker 3 (43:42):
And so you had these incompatible really religious ideas and
anthropological ideas, and that that was going to come to
a head. Probably it ended up coming to a head
in this moment where just as slavery was waning, it
became economically viable again, got it got a second life,
and because America was expanding west, Yeah, it was gonna
(44:06):
you know, you had a major battle for for power
in the country. And so maybe I'm under I'm undermining
my own answer, But maybe you just could not have
avoided it in a way that other countries that were
locked on their borders basically and were a little more
homogeneous in their ideology, maybe maybe they they had an
(44:27):
advantage that we did not.
Speaker 1 (44:29):
So to paraphrase what you just said, you would change
the fact that maybe we didn't have to go.
Speaker 2 (44:34):
To the Civil War, but we had to. Also you
know what you would want.
Speaker 3 (44:38):
Yeah, your answer, of course would be you you wish
we still had slavery. Obviously, No, that would be that
would be a big one. I mean, the but there's
so many others like the the the mass migration of
the nineteenth century.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
If we had seen down the.
Speaker 3 (44:59):
Pike with that would do uh, that would be we
should we probably think a little different.
Speaker 2 (45:05):
You would have been labeled as mean. That would have
been very.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
Mean of you to too mean, I know, and I
would every culture is the same, would be a little
less swarthy because my Sicilian ancestors would not have made
it here, which should be a tragedy for America.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
But you know, the when I think of.
Speaker 3 (45:23):
These historical what ifs, what ifs though I don't know,
they don't do a lot for me because of something
that we've lost a sense of, which is the providence
of history. So you think, let's go all the way
back to Constantine. Let's go back to the Battle of
the Milvian Bridge.
Speaker 1 (45:39):
Okay, is this the one where he sees the sign
from God and decides effectively in his mind's going.
Speaker 3 (45:47):
To be attributes the victory to Christianity and then the world. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exact.
I mean then, truly it's one of the most significant
events in the world because of a battle, but it's not.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
That's not the only one.
Speaker 3 (46:00):
The Battle of Poitier, called the Battle of Tourist seven
thirty two, Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, repels a
large Muslim arm one hundred and fifty miles outside of Paris.
Had he lost that battle, which by all rights he
could have, there would not be a Christian Europe. There
would not have been a High Middle Ages or a Renaissance.
It would be part of the caliphate. Fifteen to seventy
one Battle of Laponto, same thing. That battle was won
(46:24):
because Christians prayed the Rosary in Europe.
Speaker 2 (46:28):
We were out numbered in the sea the wind. I mean,
it is unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (46:31):
Battle of Vienna, largest cavalry charge in history, all these moments.
Where my take on it is we all like to
play this parlor game.
Speaker 2 (46:38):
What event would you change in history?
Speaker 3 (46:40):
Yeah, because we're all activists in modernity.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
But I don't think I don't think of myself as
an activist.
Speaker 3 (46:45):
Yeah, and I actually prefer to not want to change
the world at all. I want to understand the world.
I want to read meaning into history. Because for the
Christian you know, we're we claim to know history. We
claim to know how it begins, how it turns, the incarnation,
and how it ends.
Speaker 2 (47:03):
We claim to know the ending history.
Speaker 3 (47:05):
In this way, the progressives are kind of just like
a perverse version of us, which liberalism is kind of
just a perversion of Christianity.
Speaker 2 (47:11):
So we claim to know that. Yeah, but we're still here.
History is still unfolding. So what do we do.
Speaker 3 (47:18):
Well, there's a wonderful scholar, Giuseppe mats Auto who makes
the point in a book about Dante, says, the task
incumbent on the Christian wayfarer is in this time of
history where we're waiting for the end, to scrutinize the
signs of the times, to make sense of the signs
that God imprints on the world.
Speaker 2 (47:36):
That's my view of it.
Speaker 3 (47:37):
So rather than say, what would happen if we hadn't
passed the nineteenth or whatever, it's like everything would be better. No,
rather than just think about that, you'd say, Okay, what
does it mean?
Speaker 2 (47:44):
What does it mean that we did that?
Speaker 1 (47:46):
Then, in a weird way, I feel vindicated in an idea.
Never Mind, I was gonna say, there's no more pretentious
thing to say an idea for a book, but the
good guys always win, and kind of and kind of outline, Hey,
there's a reason that the Athenians won the Battle of Marathon,
(48:07):
and to all that forward because this is.
Speaker 3 (48:10):
Was better that was Actually that's a Norm MacDonald joke
where really he goes, he goes, yeah, I'm writing this
history book right here, and you know what, turns out
that the good guys won every single war that's ever
been fought, because the victors write ditory, but I actually
am writing a book on a similar topic.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
Though you can keep that title.
Speaker 1 (48:27):
That's it.
Speaker 2 (48:28):
That's not my title. But I like, regardless of all
your books gonna be about and you stole it from me.
Speaker 3 (48:32):
Yeah, I know, cameras are the litigation, this is it,
but but I am.
Speaker 2 (48:37):
I am writing a book on providence and history.
Speaker 3 (48:39):
But because I think that point is very well said,
you know, actually you're.
Speaker 2 (48:43):
Taking it to an.
Speaker 3 (48:45):
Even further logical conclusion, which is the good guys always win,
at least in the sense of God's passive will.
Speaker 2 (48:51):
So it doesn't mean that we don't do anything.
Speaker 3 (48:53):
We have to act, we have to participate, you know,
but we really our participation is cooperating with God's will.
Speaker 2 (49:00):
That's what we're after.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
It's gonna refrain myself from making a Calvinist joke, but
this was This was great. We didn't do any of
the gimmicky things. Can we do one gimmicky thing? Because
I thought this would be fun. I am a voracious
reader of the New York Times, which is one of
one in the conservative movie.
Speaker 2 (49:17):
Are you into sado Masochism?
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Yeah, I do it to punish myself for my sins.
But I thought this was these these My favorite parts
of the New York Times is the ethicist piece right
to the ethicist, and then the ethicist gives you their
opinion the least ethical advice. Well, I would like to
read an ethical question to you, get your answer, and
(49:41):
then judge it against the ethicist in the New York
Times
Welcome into Turning Point tonight. We're together. We are charting
the course of America's cultural comeback through the mockery of
terrible live ideas. I want to be fully transparent with you, folks.
When live events are taking place, sometimes it's difficult to
plan for. On Tuesday, Vivek Ramaswami and Greg g and
Forte were giving a speech at the Turning Point event
in Bozeman, Montana.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
It ran a little bit long.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
It cut off the first couple segments of our show,
but I thought that that was really interesting. So if
the event tonight isn't still going, you're going to see
what we filmed on Tuesday, which is important and evergreen.
It has to do with the governor in California. And
if the event is still going, then well you won't
see this to begin with. Following that, again, pending the
(00:53):
event and how the live events go, it still could
be going. Who knows. In the TV world. There are
some fascinating interviews we took from the Student Action Summit
earlier this summer in Tampa. So hope you enjoy whatever
it is that you're about to see, whether it's the
continuation of the Turning Points event, which I am at
with Glenn Beck. I'm speaking to you from the future
(01:17):
or SaaS events, SaaS interviews, or what I believe was
a very very cool couple segments regarding the governor, King
Dictator of California, one Gavin Newsom. Whatever it is that
you're seeing, I hope you enjoy it and I appreciate
you tuning in. We'll see you tomorrow back live here
on Turning Point Tonight.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
God bless America.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Gott to remind you, TPT ATPUSA dot com is the
email you're gonna want to send anything, anything that comes
across your desk that you're like, hey, this should be
talked about, or if you're watching the show, you have
any comments, thoughts, concerns, criticisms, even were not the libs.
We don't like censoring people just because they are wrong.
I'm sorry disagree. TPT ATPUSA dot com is the place
to send all of your emails. I've actually been bonding
(02:00):
to several of them because I don't know, it's fun.
It's fun engaging with you folks on the email. Tptatpus
dot com. You should also subscribe to our YouTube channel,
Turning Point Tonight. Some interesting and fun things coming there.
Make sure you don't miss it because there's gonna be
exclusive stuff on the internet. Subscribe to our TPT YouTube
channel as well. I want to get to this story
because I think this is super important debunking the statistics
(02:24):
that are being thrown around by big blue state governors
and big blue city leaders. Well, okay, the statistics show
that blue cities and states are safer when it comes
to crime and homicide, so says the libs running those areas. Now,
this is all coming on the back of President Trump saying, Hey,
we're gonna send the National Guard into these areas in
(02:48):
order to protect the federal facilities. Like in places like Portland,
whre Agon is so peaceful. You can just enjoy a
nice cup of coffee on the veranda and go to
a cafe. It's all peaceful and nothing ever happens there.
But in response to that, there have been memes being made.
Governor Abbott of Texas posted a meme that basically said,
(03:10):
the blue leaders are very very upset President Trump. Do
not touch our crime. We love our crime in this city. Now,
what's been interesting is a bunch of the blue governors
have been responding to that tweet, specifically New York and
California with some statistics. Now, the question is whether or
not those statistics are accurate and representing the whole picture.
(03:32):
First of which is Governor Kathy Hokeel. She responded with
to that meme that Governor Abbot posted with this, Texas
total crime rate is twenty point five percent higher than
New York's. In case you're confused, that means it's worse.
Of course, lives are trying to do those Mike Drop,
(03:53):
I gotcha. With these sorts of statistics, Well, then you
have to ask the question, is that really what's going on?
Is crime in New York actually less bad than it
is in Texas? Okay, let me solve this problem for you.
I know this is going to come as a shock
to most people, but in the great State of Texas,
(04:14):
they do this crazy thing called.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Enforce the law. They actually prosecute.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Crime, and therefore they have more convictions of criminals, unlike
in the state of New York, specifically in New York City,
where they don't prosecute crime. And guess what if you
don't prosecute crime, Yeah, you're gonna have less of a
crime percentage of your overall population against other places that
(04:41):
do prosecute crimes. Let me give you an example. This
is our friend Savannah Craven. You may remember this clip
from I believe April of this year where she was
just walking and talking on the streets to people as
people are supposed to do and got attacked for her troubles.
Go ahead and play clip seven. Tune up having a
child's here.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
I'm not the one who admitted they would be okay
with killing babies and foster care and killing children that
have been abused.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
That's the point what secks.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
That is horrible and I apologize for having to show
that to you, but again need to make a point
of the example here, Glenn, can you pull up graphic
nine to because this is what Savannah ended up looking
like after this brutal attack by a person who wants
to kill babies, which shouldn't be surprising. If you're willing
to kill people, why would you not be willing to
punch people in the face? Will lo and behold? Several
(05:34):
months later, Alvin Bragg, the famous Manhattan District Attorney, dropped
all of the charges. I believe graphic eight would be
sufficient for right now, the same guy who made up
a big case to prosecute the former president of the
United States the current president of the United States, President
Trump didn't charge this on video, clear assault of a
(06:00):
conservative activists who's just asking questions on the street. Now,
I know this is one example, but it would be
crazy to think that this didn't happen over and over
and over again, especially considering the fact that this was
freaking on video and you're still not going to prosecute
it as a crime. All of that's to be said, sure,
(06:20):
Kathy Hokel. I guess in theory, statistically, you can say that, well, yeah,
there are twenty percent more crimes in the state of Texas. Well, yeah,
if the state prosecutes crimes and therefore has criminals being
locked up, yeah, you're gonna have a higher percentage of
quote unquote crime that is convicted. If you don't prosecute,
(06:43):
guess what, You're gonna have more crime, and your statistic
is also going to be lower. That's not exactly how
we want to run the cities in this country. We'd
actually like to prosecute crime and enforce the law. And
if you don't, you don't get to brag about how
your crime rate is quote unquote lower. Ask anybody on
the street if they feel safer in New York City
(07:05):
or in really any city in Texas. They're going to say,
you know, I feel safer in Texas because they actually
prosecute crime, which actually is a deterrent for criminals, which
brings us to another big blue governor. Governor Gavin Newsom
of California also quote tweeted or quote posted next this
meme from this very accurate meme from Governor Greg Abbot.
(07:30):
He says, hey, at Greg Abbott, Texas homicide rate is
thirty nine percent higher than California's. Call home your national
guard and deal with your crime epidemic. Ooh, burn from
the governor of California. I wonder where he's getting those statistics. Well,
they actually came from the CDC, And yeah, those are
(07:51):
the statistics posted in the CDC. But you have to
ask yourself, well is that day to accurate. Well, the
FBI came out with a new system of reporting crime
and crime data nationwide, and if you ask the question, well,
does California entirely adhere to those new reporting practices, the
(08:13):
answer is no. In twenty twenty two, ninety eight point
eight percent of Texas law enforcement agencies. We're we're adherent
to the new FBI system, the National Incident based Reporting System. Basically,
one hundred percent of Texas policing agencies submitted all of
(08:36):
their data to the FBI in twenty twenty two. Again,
this is part of a rollout of the FBI's again
national incident based reporting system. California, fifty percent half of
the agencies in California did not report to that system.
And here, I guess I don't know if the math
works out here, but if you don't report by up
(08:58):
to half of the crimes committed in your state, I
would imagine that the crimes in.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Your state would look lower.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Is not difficult math. Now, the numbers that Gavin was
citing were from twenty twenty three, just to be fair,
and not much improved. It only jumped to seventy five
percent in California of policing agencies were reporting to the
national Incident based reporting system that the FBI has, and
it wasn't including one of the biggest crime centers, San
(09:28):
Bernardino County, California. And if you're familiar with California, you're
familiar with San Bernardino and if you omit the crime
statistics from that county, guess what it's gonna look like.
You have less crime. Now, the numbers from twenty twenty
four and obviously twenty twenty five are not available. But
the bottom line here is Governor Newsom is quoting statistics
(09:50):
based on his own state statistics that aren't in compliance
with the federal numbers and then claiming that he's done something. Now,
I will say this, it's not homicide rates aren't good
at all. We don't want to see homicide rates anywhere
in the country. Red state, blue state, purple state, doesn't matter.
Homicide is bad. I feel like that's a thing that
(10:11):
we all know and I don't think it needs to
be reiterated. But at the same time, you can't fudge
the numbers and then post statistics that the CDC has,
but they only have them because you guys didn't report
all of the crime statistics that came in through this
new system. I realized it's a little bit convoluted, it's
a little bit to nuanced. But that's what conservative conservatism is.
(10:33):
It's the ability to deal with nuance. The bottom line
here is, if you don't report all the crime statistics. Yeah,
the crime statistics are going to look lower. Thanksgavin for
helping point that out through the state that is not
that is not submitting all of the data. By the way,
it was interesting too several of the articles about this,
(10:55):
we're talking about how California is not compliant because the
system is too differ. In other words, the dumb bureaucracies
in California haven't adapted to the new system, whereas Texas
no problem at all. One hundred percent of them are
reporting to the entirety of all of their quote unquote
crime statistics. But again, Governor Newsom and Governor Hogel are
(11:18):
trying to play off these statistics as if they mean
something without obviously giving the full picture.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
What's the quotes?
Speaker 1 (11:25):
There lies damn lies and statistics, and that is what
we are seeing here. But there was one other governor
that was in that meme shared by Greg Abbott. I'm
surprised he didn't take up the entire scene because well,
physical dimensions being at play, and that was JB.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Pritzker.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
This I thought was interesting too. This is coming out
of bright Burton News. They actually compiled all of the
crime data and the shooting victims in the in Chicago,
specifically throughout the last ten years, and the number is
staggering and shocking. War Zone Chicago sees over thirty two
(12:08):
thousand shooting victims in the last decade alone. This comes
on the heels of a bright Bart report where they're
talking about last week alone, thirty people were shot, five
of them fatally. And this is another interesting statistic too. Yes,
Chicago's shooting deaths have gone down. One of the freakonomics
(12:30):
components of that is the ability to save people from
gunshot wounds has gone up, So the shootings have relatively
stayed the same. Deaths have gone down, which is good.
That's a good thing. We don't want to see more deaths.
But at the same time, if it's because they're able
to be saved at the hospital, well that doesn't eliminate
the danger of being shot on the war zone streets
(12:53):
of Chicago. According to Chicago Tribune, over three hundred and
thirty people have been murdered in Chicago thus far in
twenty twenty five. And it's up to JB. Pritzker, the
governor of Chicago, who is now saying Trump wants to
create a war zone.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Newsflash, JB. It's already a war zone.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Having said that, this is what JB. Pritzker is saying,
why President Trump is possibly sending National Guard to Chicago.
It's not because he's trying to protect federal agencies. It's
not because Chicago is in fact a war zone. It's
because of this ridiculous reason. Go ahead and play what
is it cut.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
For calling at them? But they think they can get
people used to the idea, and next year I fear
that what they're going to do is deploy these folks
eventually to polling places and say they're protecting the vote.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Yeah, that shouldn't be a problem. Jbrie. If everybody's able
to vote, and an American citizen therefore eligible to vote,
what would be the problem of making sure that the
polling stations are safe. If they're unsafe, maybe we should
beef up security and make them safe. Gavin Newsom also
said something similar to this, of ice might be at
(14:11):
the polling stations to intimidate voters. Why would that intimidate voters, Kevin?
Is it because maybe the voters that are voting shouldn't
be voting because they're here illegally. It's kind of a
conundrum you've got yourself in there again. The governors of
the blue states of around the country and claiming, no,
this is a we're totally peaceful, nothing is bad, nothing
(14:32):
bad is going on here. Fudging statistics, manipulating numbers and
then claiming that they've done something is hilarious and should
be seen as hilarious. I give this, I give this
four eye rolls. It's a new thing I'm doing. It's
a rating system that I have in line with the
Washington Posts Pinocchio's I'm gonna go with four eye rolls here,
and it's not the full five eye rolls, just because
(14:54):
homicide is bad regardless of where you are, and we'll
save that last eye roll for that specifically. But uh,
four eye rolls go to the blue governors of these
blue states who claim their crime is down. And as
we wrap this up, uh, just because we like to
hit on Portland, We're gonna talk to Van Hernandez a
little bit later about Portland. Claiming that their blue cities
(15:18):
and blue states are totally safe is ridiculous. Singing about
it is even more ridiculous. I regret to inform you
that the liberal boomers are singing yet again in the
in the totally safe city of Portland watched this. All right,
(15:52):
all right, let's let's we don't need any more of that.
Lying about statistics doesn't make cities safer, and singing about
them doesn't change reality. We got a great show plan
for you. I got some bumper sticker information. Do you
have a political bumper sticker? Do you see political bumper
stickers that you don't like? Well, there's some new statistics
out on how people react to the bumper stickers. Like
(16:14):
I said, we're gonna talk to Savan Hernandez, who is
in Portland for the last several days. We're gonna talk
with Turning Points White House correspondent Monica Page, and we're
gonna watch some hilarious videos done by dumb libs yet again,
because we love doing that here on this show. Don't
go away. We'll be right back after the break. Welcome
(16:48):
back to Turning Point tonight. We're together. We're charting the
course of America's cultural comeback through the mockery of terrible
ideas pushed by the left. You can email the show
anytime you want, TPT at TPUSA dot com. Left seen
each and every one of your emails and might respond
to him. And I know he's been saying we're gonna
try and get to more at the end of the show,
but there's been so much to get to it's a
little bit tough. So I am trying to respond to
as many as I can. Again. TPT at TPUSA dot
(17:10):
com love seeing each and every one of your emails.
Let us know in the emails. How do you feel
when you're driving your car and you get cut off
on the freeway? Okay, picture yourself in that situation. Now,
how do you feel if you're driving your car, you
get cut off on the freeway and the person driving
the car that cuts you off has a Harris Walls
sticker on the back of it, or proud liberal or
(17:33):
leftism is going to save the country. Or I'm a progressive,
or I like good coffee. All of those things mean
the same thing to me. You're definitely a lib And
how does that make you feel? Does it make you
feel worse inside? Is it going to elicit a different
reaction from you? Well? The answer, according to study finds
in a new report, is yes, actually it is. I
(17:55):
actually have some differing thoughts on this, but I want
to read just some of what this report is finding
out of party stickers, meaning like you know, if you're
a conservative and you see a libsticker, don't matter when
the driving is good, Yeah, it doesn't. I don't really
care about whoever's driving. If they are being a good driver,
they raise hostility. However, when driving is bad. What they
(18:19):
did here is they put people through like a simulator,
and the simulator used computer generated dash cam footage to
simulate realistic driving scenarios. Participants then watched videos of another
car either driving totally smoothly and had you know, different
bumper stickers on it, or driving badly, cutting them off,
(18:40):
forcing them to break hard, etc.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Etc. Things that you do when you're driving badly.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
The cars that displayed sorry, That car then displayed four
different options of the bumper sticker, neutral bumper stickers like
I love my dog, or stickers like proud Democrat or
proud Republican. So no bumper sticker of my dog, proud Democrat,
proud Republican. Turns out that if the sticker did not
(19:07):
align and this is both sides, by the way, did
not align with the person politically, it would elicit a
different response honking and feeling thermometer which is a different
rating that came up for this specific thing, shifted towards
colder reactions if the sticker did not align with the
person politically. And interestingly enough, they also tested for race,
(19:30):
and because we are not a racist country, turns out
didn't really have any statistical statistical significance at all with.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
The race of the driver.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
It did, however, with their political ideology or the way
that they leaned directionally. If a conservative was cut off
by a liberal one, that kind of makes sense, and
it probably happens more often because liberals tend to be
worst drivers because they hate cars and would rather take
public transit and trying to eliminate ownership of anything.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Because they don't like the way that the world is run.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
They don't like the free market society, and they're freaking
communists and want to get rid of cars altogether. Forgot
where I was going with that rant. I just kind
of had to keep going because that's generally the type
of person that cuts you off in traffic. Probably in
a lesser instance, when conservatives would cut liberals off, it
would have listened a similar reaction. Here's where I think
(20:21):
I personally differ from this When I see somebody cut
me off one, I'm never happy about it, but I
actually have the reverse reaction. I only get irritated when
I see conservatives cut me off because I feel like
they should know better, right. I have a higher standard
for conservatives overall, how they interact with me and how
(20:44):
they interact with the rest of the world. If a
conservative cuts me off in traffic, I get frustrated because
I know that we are better than them. I recognize, hey,
conservatives have a higher threshold of how we view the world,
and I think that conservatives are are should be held
to a higher standard because again, we are better. If
(21:04):
I get cut off by you know, somebody in a
Prius who has a you know, the peace sign with
save the bees and Kamala Harris for President or Proud dever,
whatever it is that that insinuates that they're a lib
I don't get as mad because.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
That's what I expect from them.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
I expect them to be to be bad, inconsiderate drivers
that just I need to do the thing that I
want to do. I missed my exit and for some reason,
you're gonna pay for it. Yeah, nobody likes getting cut
off in traffic, but if they cut me off and
they have I don't know, a free Palestine sticker or whatever.
(21:42):
The liberal cause of the moment, climate change is an
existential threat on their car. I go, yeah, that makes sense.
This person doesn't have regard for people behind them. And
while I'm irritated at being cut off in traffic, I
get it. It makes sense to me they're they're inconsiderate
people generally as a whole. I don't know if that's
(22:03):
a healthy way of me thinking about it, but I would.
I would love to see and hear your feedback and
reaction how you perceive people when they cut you off
in traffic and have a political sticker on the back
of their car TBT at tbusa dot com. It's kind
of par for the course to me, I expect that
from Libs when they're driving cars and you know, make
make bonehead errors and maneuvers. Shoot, I'm not sure if
(22:26):
we have a tire time. Basically, I want to get
to this really quick. How the media has covered the
would be assassin of Brett Kavanaugh, who is now a girl.
I guess for some reason, the ruling came down, the
sentencing came down for the guy. I'm not gonna say
his name who attempted to kill Brett Kavanaugh and the
(22:47):
news reporting around it was ridiculous. He is now saying
that he is a girl, which is crazy, but only
got eight years. And I'm sure this has been covered
in other places, but what I would like to cover
is the coverage of this. The New York Sorry, the
NBC newspeople wrote, a woman who pleaded guilty to attempting
(23:07):
to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh three years ago
was sentence on Friday. Oh yeah, the woman that did that.
NBC News continued on to say, Sophia, which I guess
I'll use that name because it's not a real name.
Now twenty nine, was arrested outside of the home in
June twenty twenty two when she intended to kill the
Associate Justice then herself. The New York Times actually added
(23:31):
something interesting to this, saying the judge also said that
a lower sentence was warranted because an executive order issued
by President Trump mandated that transgender woman beheld at male
only federal facilities, which she could, which she said, the
judge said, could interfere with her transitioning care. Basically, they're
(23:52):
saying well, the judge had to.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Give her a lighter sentence. Her again using that stupid.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Language, had to give this dude a light sentence because well,
he has to go to a male prison, and because
he is.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
A she that would be worse for her. Ridiculous nonsense.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
There's a bunch of more examples here, including from the
Washington Post, but I don't really have time to get
to it because we want to save some time for
a Monica page Turning Points, White House Correspondent. After we
talked to Savannah Hernandez all coming up here in Turning
Points tonight, don't go.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
I'll be right back after this.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show and not
the Ben Shamaier Shows. That correct, I.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Should chost that show too. I think do you have
the capacity? I don't talk fast enough. My voice is
slightly too deep, and I once asked Ben.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
I was like, why is it?
Speaker 3 (25:00):
I think my voice sounds nicer. I sold him this,
and you know what he said?
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Did he disagree?
Speaker 1 (25:05):
I don't. That's an objective truth.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
No, he may. I'm not true to It's just that's
what he said.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Though he actually said to me, he goes, you know,
the fact that my voice is kind of like fast
and you.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
Know, a little higher pishing goes.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
It keeps you on the edge of your seat, whereas
you like your voice all boring and they're like, a.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Maybe, maybe he's right.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Have you met anybody who listens to your show to
go to bed to go to That's that's the true test,
because you know some people. I listen to stand up
comedy every time I go to bed, like just really,
oh yeah, I have it in your pot. Probably a
bad habit of mine, yea. But it started when I
had an accounting professor in college who I could not
stay awake in his class, so I listened to his
(25:42):
lectures in my head. And then it's transitioning to stand
up comedy. But have you met anybody who's who's listened
to the Michael Moles Show as they fall asleep?
Speaker 3 (25:49):
I think I actually have. And then I was saying, well,
what if what about the flip side like Ben the show?
And I thought, well, maybe it's like I know people
who they'll put in his zin before they go to bed,
and that's kind of the Ben version me. I'm the
opium pipe before you go to bed. But Ben's the
he's like the fifteen MILLI Lippilly you know.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Oh bad?
Speaker 1 (26:07):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (26:07):
Interesting?
Speaker 1 (26:09):
What is your what is your You're at a be
conservative movement conference right, which I've realized is like the
Olympics of hot takes. Everybody's trying to out hot take
each other. Yeah, and uh, do you have one of
those prepared for for your speech tonight?
Speaker 4 (26:26):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Yeah, I'm gonna walk out. I'm gonna walk out and
say who you know? I say, hey, yeah, you know?
Speaker 3 (26:30):
And I say hey, So I think we can all
agree that the Epstein story is completely above board and
there are no additional questions.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
That is the joke you're gonna make, should I?
Speaker 1 (26:44):
I don't. Yeah, I wonder I think you should.
Speaker 3 (26:46):
Yeah, that that one because that's kind of the newsiest
part of the day and there. When when Trump was elected,
I had this thought, which is, should I try to
get a position in the administration?
Speaker 2 (27:00):
That could be really fun?
Speaker 3 (27:01):
I support Trump and I'm really excited by what they're doing.
I'd like to maybe help if I could. I thought
maybe that could be fun. Ultimately, you know, so, no,
maybe I won't do that because because there are downsides
to government. Looking at the past week, I am reminded
of of one reason people don't want to take these jobs. Yeah,
(27:21):
that's a thankless week, I'll tell you.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
Oh yeah, you're you're saying you don't consider yourself running
or see yourself running for anything.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
Or running or I was even when he got in,
you know, maybe I could help out the administration, but
or yeah, I mean maybe running down the line or
I don't know, you know, if my country called on me.
But there are downsides to running for office. There are
a million downsides. But even in this case, you got
people in the Trump administration who are are terrific, and
(27:49):
they're they've given up a lot in a private sector
to come help out.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
The country and the admin.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
And they're working tirelessly and often thanklessly.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
And then every so often.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Any issue comes up, like the Epstein thing, which it
could be one of two things. Either the official government
story is true and he was a really rich pervert
and he was friends with all the most powerful people
on earth. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Elie Maxwell's in prison for
trafficking girls to know one.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
So either that's true or so like, if that's true,
you have the whole story, yeah, or.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
That's not true or it's not the story, and guess what,
You're still not going to get the whole story.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
But either way, if this thing is.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
An intelligence operation, you ain't never gonna get those files.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Yeah, And then if it's not, you already.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
Have all the information, so there's no way out of it.
This is this is how I felt when the JFK
files were going to be released. I remember the ADMIN
released whatever, sixty thousand files or something, and I remember
that day, I said, whatever, they released JFK files, let
me know if you find anything.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
I moved on. The audience yelled at me.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
I said, you're ignoring this bombshell newstand said, bombshell news story.
One thing I promise you is there is nothing in
those files. Because if Kennedy were not killed by a
lone gunman and on Grassy Knoll, if Kennedy were killed
by the CIA, the Mob, the Masad, the Soviets, the Cubans,
(29:21):
George Bush, Lyndon Johnson, or some combination, they're off. If
you were killed by them.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
You ain't never gonna find out there. I just thought,
And so I guess.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
My defense of the administration is in state craft, there
is espionage, there are cover ups, there are grand strategic
objectives that involve global.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Alliances that could upset the entire world order.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
And sometimes you don't get full transparency, and governments can't
be fully transparent, and they shouldn't be fully transparent. And
I get all of that. But if you this week
are some of these really good guys, from Dan, Bongino
and Sattel all the way up to Trump himself, and
you have I love Trump's reaction where he goes, you're
(30:04):
asking me about this again, I want to talk about
all the good stuff I'm doing.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
If you're one of these guys, this has got to
be one of those ones where you think this is
the most thankless job in the world.
Speaker 1 (30:26):
Oh yeah, Oh, life objectively got way worse. Yeah, since yeah,
I would be happy being a billionaire in South Beach
and uh, not having any sort of responsibilities. Uh you
mentioned running for running for office and if your country
called on you. Okay, Now that's the excuse that just
about every politician. Yeah, it makes obviously you can't judge
(30:47):
the hearts of the average politician, but it always seems disingenuous.
Just it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
It is that Okay that in a lot.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Of ways politicians running for office. It's fully self. Yeah,
that's true. No, I mean that's why, I mean, you
have public service.
Speaker 3 (31:04):
I'm using the line jokingly obviously, but I know that.
But but it makes a good point that you're talking about,
which is people run. People do sometimes run for office
to get rich or famous or.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Have some influence.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Now I'm happy to say, not not bragging or nothing,
but by the grace of God and blank book sales
and everything that's fallowed since then, I haven't. I have
enough notoriety. I don't have to run for Congress to
get notoriety. I have enough money. I have more money
than I could make in Congress, and I think I've
got some political influence, so a little bit at a
(31:43):
little bit, but I mean sincerely.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
You know, they're probably of people with a lot more
political NaNs than I have.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
But meaning, if I were to run, all three of
those things would diminish. Yes, So you'd say, well, and
like for Trump at an extreme scale, all three of
those things diminished, and they tried to in prison and
murder him. So why would you do it? There there
is an answer, and it is a little bit self serving,
but it's a public serving too, which is you want
(32:09):
to do something you want to be in it. You
want to be the man in the arena and not
just the guy talking about the guy in the arena.
And I think that's very much Trump, and I think
that that can be good. Where you align kind of
personal ambition with the common good, that that is great.
And you get these politicians every once in a while.
For the rest of them though, as you say, these
guys who are self serving, you just want to get
(32:31):
famous or rich or corrupt, I don't whatever. You know.
I would say there are easier ways to make a buck.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
But in a way, I think we need those people.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
I have no interest, so you no need the We
need the people who are self serving to run for
Congress because I don't want to run for Congress.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
That sounds horrible.
Speaker 3 (32:51):
It sounds like the worst job on the planet is
the worst job in the planet being in Congress.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
It's even the Senate would be cool.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Being the president would suck.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Being in the Senate.
Speaker 3 (32:59):
The you're still away from your family five days a week.
You're still not allowed to make You can make quite
a good salary, but you can't make zillions of dollars.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Yeah, you can't. Can't really do anything. You can do
a little bit more than if you're in Congress.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
But you still don't have executive authority. So at least
president you can really do stuff.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
You can actually do something.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Yeah, But as a judge in Maryland says, otherwise, that's true.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
You can do stuff unless one out of seven hundred
district great judges like woke up on the wrong side
of the bed that day.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Yeah, you're right, that's true. So it's like you could
do it. But there is this.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Problem right now, I think on the right, which is
there's not much incentive to run for office.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Right, you can.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
We've built out our think tanks. We got these great
thing tanks. We built out great media organizations, great activist
organizations where you're in the private sector. But the Libs,
I don't know. There are gluttons for punishment. They want
to be in the government. They want to staff the bureaucraus.
They want to they want to trudge along in the
corridors of Congress.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
They they they want it more I think than we
do a lot of the time.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
In a did you throw that radio away?
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Sorry I lost my train of thought there.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Talking about Congress talking about.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Democrats trudge away like animals.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
So okay. So so here at turning point events, there's
a a big butting of heads of the conservatives versus
the libertarians, and there's a lot of libertarians who you know,
make compelling cases are here. You yeah know they're here.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
You let libertarians and they're undercover.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
They were let in because we have this pesky free
speech thing, but not.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Necessarily send them copies of my book.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
I don't know. Well, okay, So, so in that debate
between kind of the more lase fair and then the
more conservative government, do you think that there is a
with an increase in self morality or religion or Christianity
in the country, does that allow for more libertarianism?
Speaker 2 (35:11):
This, yeah, that makes sense, it does. It does. If
we were to return to a.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
Place where we had true freedom, which is the ability
to regulate ourselves and the inclination to do so, where
you don't so much need the heavy end of government
or cultural institutions, then yeah, we could tolerate more like
ridiculous dope smoking reddit using libertarianism. The problem is, though
the acid of that ideology would just.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
Instantly once again begin.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
To erode and corrode the edifice, the conservative edifice on
which it's all built and you'd wind up in the
same place.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
You know. I love my libertarian friends.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
The best thing I can say about libertarianism is.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
I like the people.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
Yeah, but the ideology is ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (35:56):
It's based on a false conception of human nature that
says that is fundamentally an individual, not a member of.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
A political community.
Speaker 3 (36:04):
Yeah, And it says that freedom is the ability to
do whatever we wish, not the right to do what
we ought to do. And it's just live and wrong,
and it is politically ineffectual, it's electorally unpopular, and not
to put too finn a point on it, but it's bad.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
But does how you really feel?
Speaker 1 (36:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (36:24):
Yeah, but we the people are great.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
And the reason that there remains a conservative libertarian alliance
is because of mutual affection that comes out.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
Of like the Muslims and the trans It's like they
have no business cohabitating at all.
Speaker 2 (36:37):
And yeah, yeah, for some reason, you're a common enemy
the Jews.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
Yeah, so they like.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
After the Second World War, you had the hard left
really the communists, Yes, and the libertarians hated communists because
of the collectivism. The traditional conservatives hated communists because of
the atheism and the materials, and the warhawks hated Communis
the Soviet Union rather because of expansionism and imperialism. So
(37:07):
we all got together and that worked until it didn't,
you know, but in the nineties it stopped working.
Speaker 2 (37:11):
So it's an incoherent marriage.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
Yeah, and I think the libertarian moments such as it
is passed and that's yes, it's okay that it passed,
as good that it passed. So all those libertaries. I
like the people, but just just come on over to
the consider It's okay. The water is warm, I said.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
I said, probably something too spicy in too short of
a time to give full context to what I was saying.
I'm not even gonna say it here because it's probably
you got to say it. Hold on, come on, we
were talking. I was going to pose the question, if
you could change or alter one historical moment in US history,
what would it be. That question was posed to me.
(37:50):
I said, decided to get the Civil Rights Act and
didn't and didn't get the full.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
The full chance to which is that you hate black people. Obvious,
that's it.
Speaker 1 (37:59):
They did come to that conclusion because then I said,
signed the Civil Rights Act, and then they said and
that'll do it for us here and no context whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (38:07):
That didn't actually happen.
Speaker 1 (38:08):
I explained it a little bit, but Brown v.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
Board of Education. That was the.
Speaker 1 (38:15):
It helps because I.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
Think I'm dark enough, and I think if you tan enough,
you will be as well.
Speaker 3 (38:19):
Yeah, I know the Sicilians are a racially liminal people.
Speaker 1 (38:22):
No, fine, but everyone.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
Sees your point, which is the point Chris Caldwell made
in Age of Entitlements.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
So I was, yeah, that's I think the book that
everybody's referenced recently of well, that's probably a couple of
years old now, but yeah, the idea that the government.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Shouldn't dictate well, and it ended created the Civil Rights Act.
I mean, there have been many civil rights acts in
the American is, of course, but the Civil Rights Act
in the sixties created effectively a parallel and rival constitution.
This is why every government office has a civil rights division,
because it eliminates free association, which is intrinsic to the
(38:56):
first version of constitutional principles. And so it you just
have this rivalry, and and sometimes the Civil Rights Constitution
wins out, and sometimes the old Constitution wins out. But
that's Coldwell's thesis and that's I suspect what you're talking about.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
Yeah, and exactly, And I wish we had a video
monitors showed there's a there was a video that I saw.
It was one of those New York Subway card like
interview things, and he was interviewing this older black woman
and she's like, what's your hottest taken? She said, bring
back segregation, Like if it's a wide owned restaurant, I
(39:31):
want to know that your food isn't good. And I
thought to myself, you know, I think race has been
horrible and nobody should ever do it.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
But but but did you hear them?
Speaker 1 (39:41):
But the idea you include or disinclude, somebody should be
(40:02):
by the on the prerogatives And I'm.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
Really opposed to genocide. But maybe I phrased that incorrectly. No,
of course though, but I would go back further than that.
Speaker 3 (40:12):
You know, there there are there were errors that led
to that kind of stuff. Even get I'll get in
more trouble than you did for the Civil Rights Act,
which is that the fourteenth Amendment creates a lot of problems. Yeah,
again not because of the nineteenth Amendment. Well, just created
more protests derivatives.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Yeah, that's all right. And we'll get to that one eventually.
Speaker 2 (40:31):
But the Fourteenth Amendment creates a lot of problems.
Speaker 3 (40:34):
Not even people always focus on that as basically just
a way to welcome black people into the fabric. But
the problem is it's so overly broad that that the
basis of so much terrible jurisprudence that allows the Libs
to just rewrite the Constitution is grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment,
whether an invisible ink or or in the plain text
a bit also incorporating the Bill of Rights to the States,
(40:57):
and it creates it creates this kind of casque aiding
effect of jurisprudence that really upends the whole political order.
And so if you really wanted to start fixing stuff
in American history, and maybe maybe that or for you,
I don't know, I'll hold dread Scott or something outrage Well.
Speaker 1 (41:15):
What is what is the same question posed to you?
What what kind of pinnacle turning point event, Hey, turning.
Speaker 2 (41:21):
Point there we go.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
H what event might you not necessarily completely flip, but
alter in just a little bit of way that you
think would set the country on a better trajectory historically.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Well, now this is a little Monday morning quarterback. And
I'm not I don't think this.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
That's the whole premise of this question or asking you
if this is a history.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
This is not realistic, but it's one.
Speaker 3 (41:45):
It's one thing to say I would I would not
have ratified the seventeenth Amendment. That is more plausible than
what I'm about to say, Okay, which is I think
there might be a chance that the Civil War could
have been avoided. Every other country managed to get rid
of slavery without a civil war. Yeah, now we were
a little bit different. We were quite reliant on it.
(42:06):
The cotton gin, you know, accelerated the primacy of slavery
or the significance of slavery to the economy. We had
this kind of interesting historical development. They really give you
a north in the South. And so I don't know
that it would have been avoidable, but there were a
series of unfortunate events that led up to the Civil War.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
Had we been able to eradicate slavery.
Speaker 3 (42:29):
In a more orderly and conservative way without spilling the
blood of six hundred thousand Americans, I think a lot
of the historical wounds and negative self perception that we have.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
Would would would have evaporated. This is so not where
I was planning on going here.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
But do you think do you think Wilberforce was successful
in that because of proximity, things being closer together and
you're able to talk to people more as opposed to
kind of the North and the South be so geographically distance.
Speaker 3 (42:57):
Sure, the geographical distance is symbolic of an ideological difference,
which is that the South was the nearest thing. Russell
Kirk talks about this, the South was the nearest thing
we've ever had in America to the Old World, to
feudalism in an odd kind of nineteenth century form. But
this is the opening of Gone with the Wind, you know,
(43:18):
the land of gentlemen and knights and cavaliers. So you
have this old world kind of feudalism in the South,
and then you have this wiggish Yankee.
Speaker 2 (43:28):
Puritanical ideology in the North.
Speaker 3 (43:32):
Probably the true heirs of Northern Puritanism, Northeastern Puritanism.
Speaker 2 (43:39):
Is the left, Yeah, I think pretty clearly.
Speaker 3 (43:42):
And so you had these incompatible really religious ideas and
anthropological ideas, and that that was going to come to
a head. Probably it ended up coming to a head
in this moment where just as slavery was waning, it
became economically viable again, got it got a second life,
and because America was expanding west, Yeah, it was gonna
(44:06):
you know, you had a major battle for for power
in the country. And so maybe I'm under I'm undermining
my own answer, But maybe you just could not have
avoided it in a way that other countries that were
locked on their borders basically and were a little more
homogeneous in their ideology, maybe maybe they they had an
(44:27):
advantage that we did not.
Speaker 1 (44:29):
So to paraphrase what you just said, you would change
the fact that maybe we didn't have to go.
Speaker 2 (44:34):
To the Civil War, but we had to. Also you
know what you would want.
Speaker 3 (44:38):
Yeah, your answer, of course would be you you wish
we still had slavery. Obviously, No, that would be that
would be a big one. I mean, the but there's
so many others like the the the mass migration of
the nineteenth century.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
If we had seen down the.
Speaker 3 (44:59):
Pike with that would do uh, that would be we
should we probably think a little different.
Speaker 2 (45:05):
You would have been labeled as mean. That would have
been very.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
Mean of you to too mean, I know, and I
would every culture is the same, would be a little
less swarthy because my Sicilian ancestors would not have made
it here, which should be a tragedy for America.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
But you know, the when I think of.
Speaker 3 (45:23):
These historical what ifs, what ifs though I don't know,
they don't do a lot for me because of something
that we've lost a sense of, which is the providence
of history. So you think, let's go all the way
back to Constantine. Let's go back to the Battle of
the Milvian Bridge.
Speaker 1 (45:39):
Okay, is this the one where he sees the sign
from God and decides effectively in his mind's going.
Speaker 3 (45:47):
To be attributes the victory to Christianity and then the world. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exact.
I mean then, truly it's one of the most significant
events in the world because of a battle, but it's not.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
That's not the only one.
Speaker 3 (46:00):
The Battle of Poitier, called the Battle of Tourist seven
thirty two, Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, repels a
large Muslim arm one hundred and fifty miles outside of Paris.
Had he lost that battle, which by all rights he
could have, there would not be a Christian Europe. There
would not have been a High Middle Ages or a Renaissance.
It would be part of the caliphate. Fifteen to seventy
one Battle of Laponto, same thing. That battle was won
(46:24):
because Christians prayed the Rosary in Europe.
Speaker 2 (46:28):
We were out numbered in the sea the wind. I mean,
it is unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (46:31):
Battle of Vienna, largest cavalry charge in history, all these moments.
Where my take on it is we all like to
play this parlor game.
Speaker 2 (46:38):
What event would you change in history?
Speaker 3 (46:40):
Yeah, because we're all activists in modernity.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
But I don't think I don't think of myself as
an activist.
Speaker 3 (46:45):
Yeah, and I actually prefer to not want to change
the world at all. I want to understand the world.
I want to read meaning into history. Because for the
Christian you know, we're we claim to know history. We
claim to know how it begins, how it turns, the incarnation,
and how it ends.
Speaker 2 (47:03):
We claim to know the ending history.
Speaker 3 (47:05):
In this way, the progressives are kind of just like
a perverse version of us, which liberalism is kind of
just a perversion of Christianity.
Speaker 2 (47:11):
So we claim to know that. Yeah, but we're still here.
History is still unfolding. So what do we do.
Speaker 3 (47:18):
Well, there's a wonderful scholar, Giuseppe mats Auto who makes
the point in a book about Dante, says, the task
incumbent on the Christian wayfarer is in this time of
history where we're waiting for the end, to scrutinize the
signs of the times, to make sense of the signs
that God imprints on the world.
Speaker 2 (47:36):
That's my view of it.
Speaker 3 (47:37):
So rather than say, what would happen if we hadn't
passed the nineteenth or whatever, it's like everything would be better. No,
rather than just think about that, you'd say, Okay, what
does it mean?
Speaker 2 (47:44):
What does it mean that we did that?
Speaker 1 (47:46):
Then, in a weird way, I feel vindicated in an idea.
Never Mind, I was gonna say, there's no more pretentious
thing to say an idea for a book, but the
good guys always win, and kind of and kind of outline, Hey,
there's a reason that the Athenians won the Battle of Marathon,
(48:07):
and to all that forward because this is.
Speaker 3 (48:10):
Was better that was Actually that's a Norm MacDonald joke
where really he goes, he goes, yeah, I'm writing this
history book right here, and you know what, turns out
that the good guys won every single war that's ever
been fought, because the victors write ditory, but I actually
am writing a book on a similar topic.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
Though you can keep that title.
Speaker 1 (48:27):
That's it.
Speaker 2 (48:28):
That's not my title. But I like, regardless of all
your books gonna be about and you stole it from me.
Speaker 3 (48:32):
Yeah, I know, cameras are the litigation, this is it,
but but I am.
Speaker 2 (48:37):
I am writing a book on providence and history.
Speaker 3 (48:39):
But because I think that point is very well said,
you know, actually you're.
Speaker 2 (48:43):
Taking it to an.
Speaker 3 (48:45):
Even further logical conclusion, which is the good guys always win,
at least in the sense of God's passive will.
Speaker 2 (48:51):
So it doesn't mean that we don't do anything.
Speaker 3 (48:53):
We have to act, we have to participate, you know,
but we really our participation is cooperating with God's will.
Speaker 2 (49:00):
That's what we're after.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
It's gonna refrain myself from making a Calvinist joke, but
this was This was great. We didn't do any of
the gimmicky things. Can we do one gimmicky thing? Because
I thought this would be fun. I am a voracious
reader of the New York Times, which is one of
one in the conservative movie.
Speaker 2 (49:17):
Are you into sado Masochism?
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Yeah, I do it to punish myself for my sins.
But I thought this was these these My favorite parts
of the New York Times is the ethicist piece right
to the ethicist, and then the ethicist gives you their
opinion the least ethical advice. Well, I would like to
read an ethical question to you, get your answer, and
(49:41):
then judge it against the ethicist in the New York
Times
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!