Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, I don't know if you and Dragon are
gonna bail on us for Christmas weeks, so I figured
this would be the time to give you my NOBS
comment for the year. Thank you both for what you do.
You offer all of us goobers, great insightful commentary. Sometimes
(00:20):
you're absurd, but we love it. Merry Christmas. You're filthy animals, Michael.
I'm pushing the white microphone on the red button on
the app to give you a follow up to my
last talk back. I take back what I said. You're
taking the next two weeks off. What am I gonna do?
I don't even know how to function. Gosh, I depend
(00:42):
on you guys too much.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
He can't quit you. We're just a little blue pill,
the different little blue pill. We're not a little blue
pill that makes it happy. We're a little blue build.
It just makes it. Uh. I have studiously avoided this
(01:08):
dumb ass controversy going on between different MAGA groups, the
different you know, particularly the millennials, gen Z, gen X, whatever,
all those you know. Okay, boom where I'm looking over
my shoulder, All you Jenners whatever back there that are
(01:30):
all in fighting, sit down and listen to dad, because
you finally crossed the line yesterday. Turning Point usasuh. They
call it a Amerafest or America Fest something like that.
It's a conference they have every year. They had it
(01:51):
down in Phoenix, and they had two speakers, both of
whom I really don't particularly like all that well, Ben
Shapiro Tucker Carlson, and the two of them spent their
time attacking each other. And that's fine. I really don't
give a rat ask whether they do or not. But
(02:15):
the media is now grabbing it and talking about let
me just see. I think the headline on Drudge has
been replaced, but let me see if it's still what
it was when I looked at it earlier. Yeah, they've
moved on to something about Epstein good grief, But here
it still does have they just moved it. There were
(02:39):
three headlines. There were at the top of the Drudge
page last night and this morning Maga war erupts at
Turning Point conference. The next headline Shapiro Carlson trade blows
and in the third simmering battle, and of course the
usual suspects all chime in. Media Eye, Politico, Washington Post,
(03:00):
New York Times. I haven't checked Today's Wall Street Journal,
but I'm sure they've all weighed in during the During
Shapiro's a speech, he attacked Tucker Carlson because, and I
agree with this. Carlson has hosted some very controversial guests
on his podcast. That's fine with me. He can host
(03:25):
anybody he wants to. This is a lesson for all
of you little gen zers and gen xers and millennials
that listen to me. Pay attention. You're going to get
a lesson in the First Amendment here that you're not
going to get in law school. You're not going to
get in some dumb ass university you're going to And
if you did go to some dumbass university, I promise
(03:46):
you they didn't teach you this. And if you if
you ever graduated from high school, I promise you they
didn't teach you this either. So pay attention during the
as I said during the speech Shapiro's speech, Ben Shapiro,
he attacks Tucker Carlson because he's interviewed Nick Flantes, who
(04:06):
is a self avowed like Nazi white supremacist. He's interviewed
Andrew Tate, who is a I think convicted I may
be wrong. But I think he's a convicted pedophile. He's
a sexual pervert. And he said, I don't. He's kind
(04:26):
of like the Kardashians. He's just famous for being famous.
I really, I couldn't tell you anything constructing that Andrew
Tate or for that matter, Nick Fwant has done to society.
And then Candace Owens, the young black woman that I mean,
if you want to delve into conspiracy theories, you go
(04:48):
listen to Candace Owens. Now, I don't care if Tucker
Carlson interviews any of or all of them. I'm not
saying don't interview them, although it sounds to me like
that's what Ben Shapiro is doing. Here's what Shapiro said.
(05:09):
The people who refuse to condemn Candace Owens truly vicious attacks,
and some of them are speaking here, are guilty of cowardice, Yes, cowardice.
The fact that they have said nothing while Candace has
been vomiting all sorts of hideous and conspiratorial nonsense into
(05:29):
the public square for years is just cowardly, he continues.
And here's where he goes after Tucker Carlson. If we,
meaning Shapiro, if we offer a guest for your viewing.
We owe it to you to ask the kinds of
questions that actually get it the truth. If we agree
(05:51):
with a guest, that's fine. But if we agree with
a guest, we should own it. For example, if you
host a Hitler apologist, a Nazi loving anti American piece
of refuse like Nick Flantes. You know the Nick Flantes
who said that the Vice President of the United States
is quote is a quote fat gay race trader married
(06:15):
to a Jeet close quote. The person who said that
Charlie Kirk was a quote retarded idiot close quote. The
person who said and part of my language here is
his quote that he quote took turning Point USA and
fed it. And that's why it's filled with Groiper's close quote.
If you have that person on your show and you
(06:37):
proceed to glaze him, you ought to own it. What
does Bin Shapiro mean by glaze him? Glaznel's people means
you give them a platform, you let them spiel everything
that is vile, and you never challenge it. I don't
(07:00):
have a problem if you host any of these people.
I'm not trying to get Tucker Carlson in trouble to
deplatform him and I'm certainly not telling him who he
can and cannot interview. I think he has a First
Amendment right to interview anybody he wants to, and they
(07:21):
can spew whatever vile stupidity they want to spew. However,
and here's where you need to learn about the First Amendment.
If you are going to do that, and you don't
question them about their vileness, or you don't question them
about their Nazism, or you don't question them about their bigotry,
(07:45):
you don't question them about their white supremacy or their
pedophilia or anything else, then Ben Shapiro is right. You
own that. And now you have now elevated that kind
of speech to a high level, and you have a
right to do that. I think it's wrong, but I
(08:08):
defend their right to do that. But let's be honest.
If you do that, then you own it. And Shapiro
is right about that. But Shapiro then continues and says,
Charlie Kirk knew that Nick Flantees is an evil troll,
and that build him up as an act of moral imbecility.
(08:31):
And this is precisely what Tucker Carlson did. He built
Nick Flantes up, and he ought to take responsibility for that,
just as he ought to take responsibility for glazing pornographer
and alleged sex trafficker Andrew Tate, or for mainstreaming fake
historian and pseudo Nazi apologist Darryl Cooper as America's best
and most honest popular historian. Hosts are indeed responsible for
(08:55):
the guests they choose and the questions they ask those guests. Yes, Ben,
they are, and they have a First Amendment right to
have them on their platforms and dispew whatever vile stuff
they want to spew. And Ben, I would also tell
(09:16):
you and remind you that if they allow that, then
they own it, whether they admit to owning it or not,
they have furthered that kind of vileness, racism, prejudice, bigotry, pedophilia, whatever.
They have given it a platform, and they are entitled
to do so, and you, mister Shapiro, are entitled to
(09:41):
call them out for it. That's the way the First
Amendment works. But then Tucker Carlson takes the stage and
Tucker says this quote, I just got here and I
feel like I missed the first part of the program.
Hope I didn't miss anything. Mean if meaningful, he mocked,
(10:02):
I don't think I did. No, I'm just kidding. I
watched it, I laughed, And then he continued to hear
calls for like deplatforming and denouncing people at a Charlie
Kirk event. I'm like, what, that's hilarious. Adding the whole
Red Guard cultural revolution thing that we hated so and
(10:25):
feared on the left, that we did everything we could
to usher in a new time where you could have
an actual debate. I mean, this kind of was the
whole point at Charlie Kirk's public life, and I think
that he died for it. I really believe that, and
I know a lot about it, because the last several
months of Charlie's life were devoted in part to arguing
about this event, in fact, this speech, in fact my
(10:48):
speech here, which he asked me to do earlier this year,
this summer, and was immediately put under just immense pressure
from people who give money to turning point, I would
assume good people who wanted him to take me off
the roster. Tucker, you missed the entire point all Ben
(11:11):
Shapiro said. Now, if let me just make this clear too,
If Ben Shapiro is truly trying to get Tucker Carlson
or his guests deplatformed, then that is wrong, and in
fact that's infringing, although you can't do it as an individual,
but you are violating the spirit of the First Amendment
(11:34):
because you're trying to, as he says, you're engaging in
reg guard cultural revolution by trying to shut down speech.
If you don't like the people that Tucker Carlson has on,
then you ought to bring on alternative points of view
to counter what Tucker failed to do in asking the
(11:56):
kind of questions that I believe Tucker should have asked
to challenge the vile things that his guests said. And
if Tucker Carlson fails to ask those questions, then Tucker
does own that, and that is in essence, effectively supporting
those things those people said. It would be like me
(12:16):
bringing on a politician, bringing on Jared Polis, like Jared
did the other day with Ross and Gina, and he
said something really stupid about, you know, Trump ought to
focus on affordability, and I find that extremely hilarious coming
out of Jared Polis's mouth. Had I've been interviewing Jared Pouls,
which is why I don't interview politicians. I would have said, well,
(12:37):
wait a minute, Governor, and I would have had my
you know, I would have had my am already and
it would have been, oh, let's look at affordability of Colorado.
Affordability in Colorado is in the dumpster because of X
y Z policies imposed by you and your fellow travelers
in the politbureau that are controlled by the Democrats down
the Broadway and Golfax. I would have challenged him because
(12:59):
I would not have allowed him to own what he
said by just simply letting it sit there. This is
why I don't have politicians on my program. But those
are That's the choice of anybody that if they want to,
that's fine. I'm not objecting to it. I'm just saying
that I choose not to do that. And the same
is true with this whole event going down in Phoenix.
(13:20):
They can argue all they want to, but what they've
got to learn is that I'm not and they should
not be trying to deplatform anyone. Instead, they should learn
that if somebody wants to have somebody on and they
want to question them, and they say something stupid, or
(13:40):
they say something false, or they say something that you
might believe, or I might believe, or even the host
might believe, is racist, bigoted, false, conspiratorial, whatever, Then I
think you do have an obligation to question and challenge that,
because otherwise, by letting it just sit there, you own it.
(14:01):
So Shapiro is right about that. But then for Shapiro
to go on and say he should not be allowed
to speak here is wrong. So they're both wrong, and
they're both playing this game of trying to truly deplatform
each other. Both of you need to sit down and
(14:23):
shut up, because if you're truly going to honor Charlie
Kirk's legacy, then what you ought to be doing is
not trying to deplatform each other and or the guests,
but you ought to be challenging what the guests say,
or if the host refuses to challenge, you should point out, oh,
(14:44):
Tucker failed to question. If Tucker failed to challenge, Xyz
and I would have asked these questions. In fact, if
you wanted to, you ought to have those very people
on and you should ask the questions. That's how this works.
This public fight going on between these two groups of
MAGA is not in the best interest of MAGA and
(15:06):
I think it is based on a complete false understanding
of the First Amendment. It gets back to we can't
take speech. Well, I certainly can. I've learned that over
the lot of my lifetime, So maybe it's time you
listen to your elders. I've learned that people say really horrible, stupid, racist, vile,
(15:29):
disgusting things, and if it's directed toward me, I can
make two choices. If it's done in private, I can
ignore it. If it's done in public, I can respond
to it, or I can ignore it. If I want to,
I can challenge them on it. But if somebody says
something that is vile, ugly, disgusting and you're offended by it,
(15:51):
well sucks to be you. You're offended by it. I'm
offended by a lot of things. But that doesn't mean
that I should try to shut that person down. I
should instead challenge that person. I should counter that person.
I didn't even have to do it to their face.
Of course, I'm lucky because I have I have a
(16:12):
microphone where I can do it. I have a microphone
where I can do it, you know, for you know,
actual number of hours every single week, and those two
much larger than I am, and actually I would think, well,
maybe I'm wrong about this. I was going to say
as well educated, if not more educated than I am,
(16:34):
although I'm not sure any either one of them have
advanced graduate degrees, but I do. In case they don't,
maybe they just don't have the extensive knowledge that I
do of the First Amendment. So it's sad to say,
but if you're going to operate in this sphere, then
you ought to understand that this fight is not good
(16:56):
for the MAGA movement. This fight is not good and
it's totally unnecessary. There's an entirely different way to approach it.
But here's what I think is going on. They both
have large public platforms, and you know, do I wish
that I had been invited to speak at the turning
(17:18):
point of it in Phoenix? Oh? Absolutely, because I would
have lectured them just like I am right now, probably
gotten booed off the stage. But somebody, somebody older than
the two of them ought to stand up to them
and say stop it. You're behaving like children, and it's
not good for the movement, it's not good for conservatism,
and it certainly ignore the free speech. If you don't
(17:41):
like what they're saying, they encounter it with more speech,
and then I would say to those that are not involved,
to all of you, let's quit being such wusses when
it comes to things that are discussing vile and objectionable.
Because if everything that is said this vile, you know, racist, objectionable,
(18:05):
whatever it might be, whatever agity of you want to
put on, that's the real world. I'm sorry to break
it to you, but there are bigots out there in
our society, not just in our society, in every society.
They are really vile people. There are Nazi There are
true Nazis out there. There are true anti Semis out there,
(18:25):
There are true KKK members out there, there are true
white supremacists out there. There are you know, anti gay,
anti everything out there. That doesn't mean that you tried
to shut them down. You counter them with a better argument.
And if you're offended by what they say, recognize that
(18:47):
you're offended, but recognize that, oh they have a right
to say it, and I have an obligation to counter it. Okay,
(19:08):
that's all I can say. Okay, Okay, I was going
to move on to the next topic. However, there's a
text message that I want to respond to just to
make sure that I don't leave anything diluted or unclear
seven zero ninety seven, writes Mike. Doesn't the First Amendment
(19:29):
just apply to the government. If someone is spewing or
seemingly supporting vile trash all while writing the coattails of
their past reputation, it cannot possibly be the responsibility of
a private organization to sponsor it or propagate it. If
that organization is private, would may be just as responsible
(19:52):
for what their guests say. By not bringing someone on,
aren't you speaking to your opinion of someone? Giving someone prominence.
Prominence isn't always wise when it's unnecessary. It's not stopping
that person from speaking or taking him off the Internet,
but showing you don't agree with the person and not
giving them prominence on your platform. That's not calling in
(20:15):
the government to silence them. I think you've I'd have
to I'm have to dissect this sentence by sentence because
I think you've conflated several points that I was trying
to make. First, in terms of the First Amendment, yes,
it generally applies only to government, but there are certain
(20:36):
special circumstances which in which it can apply to individuals
or private organizations themselves. So it's not strictly government, although
that is primarily it's just the courts have carved out
some very specific exceptions. Then, if someone is spewing or
(20:59):
seemingly supporting vile trash all while writing the coattails of
their past reputation, it cannot possibly be the responsibility of
a private organization to sponsor it or propagate it. It's not.
And in this case, these are both private platforms. Ben
Shapiro and The Daily Wire are their own private organization,
(21:24):
and Tucker Carlson Media or whatever he calls his organization
is their own organization, and Turning Point USA is its
own organization. So what each of them do is entirely
up to them. But then you have Shapiro and Tucker
using the TPUSA platform to attack each other, and that's fine,
(21:51):
I have no problem with that, but when they do
the attack, they completely ignore those individuals. Tucker and Shapiro
each have their own individual rights to say what they
want to say, just as Turning Point USA has the
(22:13):
right to invite whomever they want to invite, including Shapiro
and Tucker, who have both said, in my opinion, stupid stuff.
Tucker's probably been worse than Shapiro, but I really don't
like you the one of them. But turning point, USA
has the right to have both of them at their
convention down in Phoenix. I'm not saying that. I'm saying
(22:34):
that what Shapiro and Tucker are doing in attacking each
other completely misses the First Amendment rights of each other,
because they have the right to do so, and each
of them are partially right and partially wrong. This is
where the nuance comes in, and this is where you've
really got to pay attention. When Shapiro says that Tucker
(23:00):
should not be allowed to be a turning point, he's
wrong about that, because that's turning points decision. When he
says that Tucker has these vile people on, and Tucker
has some really stupid people on, and Tucker doesn't challenge them,
then Tucker should own and we should all infer that
(23:20):
he supports them. If if I if I brought someone
onto this program that said, really, let's say racist stuff,
and I didn't challenge them on it, you would be
I think legitimately inferring then I must support that because
I didn't challenge it, which is why I don't bring
(23:44):
people on, particularly politicians, because it would be nothing but
an argument. If I brought Jared Poulos on here, it'd
be horrible. Radio could just be arguing all the time.
So I just make it a I've made it a
standard of my practice, my practice for almost any years
now not to interview politicians. I just I don't want
to waste my time. I've dealt with them at the
(24:07):
highest level. I dealt with Jared Polist when he was
a congressman. I dealt with you know, brain fart, Yeah, good,
what's his name? Uh? Diana to get But you know,
Diana and I got along fine because we both knew
where we stood, and she and I had lots of
(24:27):
nice arguments. We'd have them on the airplane. We'd find
ourselves sitting next to each other on the airplane coming
back from DC, and we'd argue about something going on
in the news, and you know, and and but it
was it was friendly, and it was it was it
was fun. It was actually a good, good debate. But
she didn't change my mind. I didn't change her mind. Then,
when when Shapiro says that, you know, Tucker shouldn't you know,
(24:52):
be allowed to do all that stuff Shapiro is wrong.
Then when Tucker comes back and here's what, let me
find what Tucker said. When Tucker comes back on and
Tucker says, let me scroll down and find it, Tucker says, dude,
Charlie Kirk stood firm and is often stated and deeply
(25:14):
held belief that people should be able to debate. I
kind of thought we'd reach the end of that cancel
culture as far as I'm concerned, we have, and I'm
not going to play by those rules. I'm not going
to engage in that. Tucker is right, he doesn't have
to engage in cancel culture. But Tucker has to recognize
that when he has someone on like Nick Fwantes and
(25:36):
he does not challenge his white supremacist, Nazi, you know, beliefs,
then I take it that, oh well, then Tucker must
agree with that. Now, whether that's right or wrong is immaterial,
because Tucker has left that void. So I fill that
void by concluding that, well, you didn't challenge it, so
(25:59):
you must agree with it. Because it's so vile and
it's so horrible. You didn't challenge it, so well you
must agree with it. Now. I'm not calling for Tucker
to be d platform or to be shut down. I'm
just saying that I want you, I want I'm actually
what I'm trying to do here speak to the people
(26:21):
at Turning Point USA that you don't like what Tucker says.
He has a right to not say it, or to
say it, to have the guests he chooses to have
or not have. But when he doesn't challenge them, then
I think you're legitimate in inferring that. Oh, then he
must support that, But don't call for his d platform me,
(26:42):
which is what Shapiro seems to be doing by talking
about you know, he's he glazed. He doesn't he gives
them glaze, meaning he gives them cover. And that is
what Tucker got does. But Shapiro, you do the same
thing oftentimes by not giving your counterviewpoint to something or
(27:06):
not challenging someone. But then the third point I would
make is this having this argument of all places at
Turning Point USA, when you ought to be celebrating the
kind of free speech advocacy that Charlie Kirk engaged in,
having this kind of fight so that the cabal is, look, oh,
(27:26):
look at the fight. You know, Maga's splitting apart, blah,
blah blah blah. That's just stupid. That's just stupid politically
on the part of Shapiro and Tucker Carlson. If you
want to have that debate, you'll have that debate behind
closed doors. If you want to have that debate with
each other, do it on your own platforms. Don't do
it at the one place that I think was truly.
(27:48):
I mean, if anybody personified the embodiment of the First Amendment,
it was Charlie Kirk. Bring on your questions, challenge me
on anything, all listen to anybody and all challenge you wanted.
If I disagree with you, and if I agree with you,
I'll tell you why I agree with you. For me,
Charlie Kirk personified my view of the First Amendment, but
(28:11):
he never had break times.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Well, since we got ripped off last Friday on taxpayer
relief shots, and I get a sneak and suspicion we're
going to get ripped off for the next two weeks
as well, how about you throw us at Goober's our
Christmas present early and do taxpayer relief shots today. Thank
you for your attention to this matter.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Well, I did pay attention to your matter, but the
assumption that you make that dragon that are going to
give Goober's a Christmas gift would dream of it. Wow,
they're delusional, truly. The thing that we really care about them,
I mean we lie and you know, fake it that genuinely.
(28:57):
We don't give a rat that's about you, not at all.
If you haven't figured that out by now, I don't
know really, but I do have a good story for
a lead into the taxpay relief shots. The Australian Prime
Minister Anthony Albanize has announced a new nationwide gun buyback program.
(29:18):
Did it there yesterday December nineteenth? But their December nineteenth?
So just days after that terrorist mass shooting, that massacre
of Jews at Bondi Beach that killed fifteen people. Now
this echoes to nineteen ninety six buy back following the
Port Arthur massacre. So do you kind of get a
(29:38):
pattern here? Let's see nineteen ninety six Port Arthur, you
have a massacre, so you invoke a gun buyback program.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Hmm.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Must not have worked out too well because then on
you know, back on December whatever it was, you have
another massacre. And now on December nineteen you announced another
gun by back after Martin Bryant killed thirty five pabook
Port Arthur. April twenty eight, nineteen ninety six. Then Prime
Minister John Howard enacted the National Firearms Agreement. Did it
(30:12):
within twelve days? Well they're they're going to even faster now.
They banned semi automatic rifles and shotguns. The taxpayer funded
buy back collected nearly seven hundred thousand guns, having gun
owning households and contributing to at least one story. Oh,
zero mass shootings, but we'll get to this just a minute.
(30:32):
Zero mass shootings in the next two decades, alongside a
sixty percent drop in gun homicides. They included twenty eight
day waiting periods, genuine reason requirements for licenses, and a
push for a national registry, though implementation of that remains
uneven across all the different states down there now under
(30:54):
this plan. Under Alvinza's plan, funded equally by federal and
state governments, they expect hundreds of thousands of firearms surrendered
and destroyed from roughly four million civilian guns. Matt, you
think it's going to happen? Post nineteen ninety six, data,
according to one story, shows that firearm deaths fell sharply studies.
(31:18):
Some studies credits with the bands on rapid fire weapons
for curbing mass killings. Yet did that really happen? Let's
see Australia. Listen to this. Australia saw zero mass shootings
defined as five plus deaths after that buyback between nineteen
(31:44):
ninety six and twenty sixteen. But the key is a
mass shooting is defined as five plus deaths. Well, then
that means that the twenty eleven Hectorville siege that killed
three with legal guns, and between twenty three and twenty
(32:05):
twenty five events like the Whimbilla attacked five dead semi
automatics that were legally held the loopholes, over four million
civilian guns exceed the pre port Arthur totals with illegal
and three D printed weapons. Oh, on the rise according
to law enforcement in Australia. The Bondi Beach attackers, they
(32:29):
used six registered high powered rifles, so they were exploding
the per owner limits absent that were absent until this
new buyback program. So no, it didn't stop so called
mass shootings depends on how you define mass shootings. Oh,
they still had shootings, they still had murders, and they
still had the those two examples, they gave you that
(32:52):
in other parlance we would have considered a mass shooting,
except oh, definitionally, no, you can't count that
Hey, Michael, I don't know if you and Dragon are
gonna bail on us for Christmas weeks, so I figured
this would be the time to give you my NOBS
comment for the year. Thank you both for what you do.
You offer all of us goobers, great insightful commentary. Sometimes
(00:20):
you're absurd, but we love it. Merry Christmas. You're filthy animals, Michael.
I'm pushing the white microphone on the red button on
the app to give you a follow up to my
last talk back. I take back what I said. You're
taking the next two weeks off. What am I gonna do?
I don't even know how to function. Gosh, I depend
(00:42):
on you guys too much.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
He can't quit you. We're just a little blue pill,
the different little blue pill. We're not a little blue
pill that makes it happy. We're a little blue build.
It just makes it. Uh. I have studiously avoided this
(01:08):
dumb ass controversy going on between different MAGA groups, the
different you know, particularly the millennials, gen Z, gen X, whatever,
all those you know. Okay, boom where I'm looking over
my shoulder, All you Jenners whatever back there that are
(01:30):
all in fighting, sit down and listen to dad, because
you finally crossed the line yesterday. Turning Point usasuh. They
call it a Amerafest or America Fest something like that.
It's a conference they have every year. They had it
(01:51):
down in Phoenix, and they had two speakers, both of
whom I really don't particularly like all that well, Ben
Shapiro Tucker Carlson, and the two of them spent their
time attacking each other. And that's fine. I really don't
give a rat ask whether they do or not. But
(02:15):
the media is now grabbing it and talking about let
me just see. I think the headline on Drudge has
been replaced, but let me see if it's still what
it was when I looked at it earlier. Yeah, they've
moved on to something about Epstein good grief, But here
it still does have they just moved it. There were
(02:39):
three headlines. There were at the top of the Drudge
page last night and this morning Maga war erupts at
Turning Point conference. The next headline Shapiro Carlson trade blows
and in the third simmering battle, and of course the
usual suspects all chime in. Media Eye, Politico, Washington Post,
(03:00):
New York Times. I haven't checked Today's Wall Street Journal,
but I'm sure they've all weighed in during the During
Shapiro's a speech, he attacked Tucker Carlson because, and I
agree with this. Carlson has hosted some very controversial guests
on his podcast. That's fine with me. He can host
(03:25):
anybody he wants to. This is a lesson for all
of you little gen zers and gen xers and millennials
that listen to me. Pay attention. You're going to get
a lesson in the First Amendment here that you're not
going to get in law school. You're not going to
get in some dumb ass university you're going to And
if you did go to some dumbass university, I promise
(03:46):
you they didn't teach you this. And if you if
you ever graduated from high school, I promise you they
didn't teach you this either. So pay attention during the
as I said during the speech Shapiro's speech, Ben Shapiro,
he attacks Tucker Carlson because he's interviewed Nick Flantes, who
(04:06):
is a self avowed like Nazi white supremacist. He's interviewed
Andrew Tate, who is a I think convicted I may
be wrong. But I think he's a convicted pedophile. He's
a sexual pervert. And he said, I don't. He's kind
(04:26):
of like the Kardashians. He's just famous for being famous.
I really, I couldn't tell you anything constructing that Andrew
Tate or for that matter, Nick Fwant has done to society.
And then Candace Owens, the young black woman that I mean,
if you want to delve into conspiracy theories, you go
(04:48):
listen to Candace Owens. Now, I don't care if Tucker
Carlson interviews any of or all of them. I'm not
saying don't interview them, although it sounds to me like
that's what Ben Shapiro is doing. Here's what Shapiro said.
(05:09):
The people who refuse to condemn Candace Owens truly vicious attacks,
and some of them are speaking here, are guilty of cowardice, Yes, cowardice.
The fact that they have said nothing while Candace has
been vomiting all sorts of hideous and conspiratorial nonsense into
(05:29):
the public square for years is just cowardly, he continues.
And here's where he goes after Tucker Carlson. If we,
meaning Shapiro, if we offer a guest for your viewing.
We owe it to you to ask the kinds of
questions that actually get it the truth. If we agree
(05:51):
with a guest, that's fine. But if we agree with
a guest, we should own it. For example, if you
host a Hitler apologist, a Nazi loving anti American piece
of refuse like Nick Flantes. You know the Nick Flantes
who said that the Vice President of the United States
is quote is a quote fat gay race trader married
(06:15):
to a Jeet close quote. The person who said that
Charlie Kirk was a quote retarded idiot close quote. The
person who said and part of my language here is
his quote that he quote took turning Point USA and
fed it. And that's why it's filled with Groiper's close quote.
If you have that person on your show and you
(06:37):
proceed to glaze him, you ought to own it. What
does Bin Shapiro mean by glaze him? Glaznel's people means
you give them a platform, you let them spiel everything
that is vile, and you never challenge it. I don't
(07:00):
have a problem if you host any of these people.
I'm not trying to get Tucker Carlson in trouble to
deplatform him and I'm certainly not telling him who he
can and cannot interview. I think he has a First
Amendment right to interview anybody he wants to, and they
(07:21):
can spew whatever vile stupidity they want to spew. However,
and here's where you need to learn about the First Amendment.
If you are going to do that, and you don't
question them about their vileness, or you don't question them
about their Nazism, or you don't question them about their bigotry,
(07:45):
you don't question them about their white supremacy or their
pedophilia or anything else, then Ben Shapiro is right. You
own that. And now you have now elevated that kind
of speech to a high level, and you have a
right to do that. I think it's wrong, but I
(08:08):
defend their right to do that. But let's be honest.
If you do that, then you own it. And Shapiro
is right about that. But Shapiro then continues and says,
Charlie Kirk knew that Nick Flantees is an evil troll,
and that build him up as an act of moral imbecility.
(08:31):
And this is precisely what Tucker Carlson did. He built
Nick Flantes up, and he ought to take responsibility for that,
just as he ought to take responsibility for glazing pornographer
and alleged sex trafficker Andrew Tate, or for mainstreaming fake
historian and pseudo Nazi apologist Darryl Cooper as America's best
and most honest popular historian. Hosts are indeed responsible for
(08:55):
the guests they choose and the questions they ask those guests. Yes, Ben,
they are, and they have a First Amendment right to
have them on their platforms and dispew whatever vile stuff
they want to spew. And Ben, I would also tell
(09:16):
you and remind you that if they allow that, then
they own it, whether they admit to owning it or not,
they have furthered that kind of vileness, racism, prejudice, bigotry, pedophilia, whatever.
They have given it a platform, and they are entitled
to do so, and you, mister Shapiro, are entitled to
(09:41):
call them out for it. That's the way the First
Amendment works. But then Tucker Carlson takes the stage and
Tucker says this quote, I just got here and I
feel like I missed the first part of the program.
Hope I didn't miss anything. Mean if meaningful, he mocked,
(10:02):
I don't think I did. No, I'm just kidding. I
watched it, I laughed, And then he continued to hear
calls for like deplatforming and denouncing people at a Charlie
Kirk event. I'm like, what, that's hilarious. Adding the whole
Red Guard cultural revolution thing that we hated so and
(10:25):
feared on the left, that we did everything we could
to usher in a new time where you could have
an actual debate. I mean, this kind of was the
whole point at Charlie Kirk's public life, and I think
that he died for it. I really believe that, and
I know a lot about it, because the last several
months of Charlie's life were devoted in part to arguing
about this event, in fact, this speech, in fact my
(10:48):
speech here, which he asked me to do earlier this year,
this summer, and was immediately put under just immense pressure
from people who give money to turning point, I would
assume good people who wanted him to take me off
the roster. Tucker, you missed the entire point all Ben
(11:11):
Shapiro said. Now, if let me just make this clear too,
If Ben Shapiro is truly trying to get Tucker Carlson
or his guests deplatformed, then that is wrong, and in
fact that's infringing, although you can't do it as an individual,
but you are violating the spirit of the First Amendment
(11:34):
because you're trying to, as he says, you're engaging in
reg guard cultural revolution by trying to shut down speech.
If you don't like the people that Tucker Carlson has on,
then you ought to bring on alternative points of view
to counter what Tucker failed to do in asking the
(11:56):
kind of questions that I believe Tucker should have asked
to challenge the vile things that his guests said. And
if Tucker Carlson fails to ask those questions, then Tucker
does own that, and that is in essence, effectively supporting
those things those people said. It would be like me
(12:16):
bringing on a politician, bringing on Jared Polis, like Jared
did the other day with Ross and Gina, and he
said something really stupid about, you know, Trump ought to
focus on affordability, and I find that extremely hilarious coming
out of Jared Polis's mouth. Had I've been interviewing Jared Pouls,
which is why I don't interview politicians. I would have said, well,
(12:37):
wait a minute, Governor, and I would have had my
you know, I would have had my am already and
it would have been, oh, let's look at affordability of Colorado.
Affordability in Colorado is in the dumpster because of X
y Z policies imposed by you and your fellow travelers
in the politbureau that are controlled by the Democrats down
the Broadway and Golfax. I would have challenged him because
(12:59):
I would not have allowed him to own what he
said by just simply letting it sit there. This is
why I don't have politicians on my program. But those
are That's the choice of anybody that if they want to,
that's fine. I'm not objecting to it. I'm just saying
that I choose not to do that. And the same
is true with this whole event going down in Phoenix.
(13:20):
They can argue all they want to, but what they've
got to learn is that I'm not and they should
not be trying to deplatform anyone. Instead, they should learn
that if somebody wants to have somebody on and they
want to question them, and they say something stupid, or
(13:40):
they say something false, or they say something that you
might believe, or I might believe, or even the host
might believe, is racist, bigoted, false, conspiratorial, whatever, Then I
think you do have an obligation to question and challenge that,
because otherwise, by letting it just sit there, you own it.
(14:01):
So Shapiro is right about that. But then for Shapiro
to go on and say he should not be allowed
to speak here is wrong. So they're both wrong, and
they're both playing this game of trying to truly deplatform
each other. Both of you need to sit down and
(14:23):
shut up, because if you're truly going to honor Charlie
Kirk's legacy, then what you ought to be doing is
not trying to deplatform each other and or the guests,
but you ought to be challenging what the guests say,
or if the host refuses to challenge, you should point out, oh,
(14:44):
Tucker failed to question. If Tucker failed to challenge, Xyz
and I would have asked these questions. In fact, if
you wanted to, you ought to have those very people
on and you should ask the questions. That's how this works.
This public fight going on between these two groups of
MAGA is not in the best interest of MAGA and
(15:06):
I think it is based on a complete false understanding
of the First Amendment. It gets back to we can't
take speech. Well, I certainly can. I've learned that over
the lot of my lifetime, So maybe it's time you
listen to your elders. I've learned that people say really horrible, stupid, racist, vile,
(15:29):
disgusting things, and if it's directed toward me, I can
make two choices. If it's done in private, I can
ignore it. If it's done in public, I can respond
to it, or I can ignore it. If I want to,
I can challenge them on it. But if somebody says
something that is vile, ugly, disgusting and you're offended by it,
(15:51):
well sucks to be you. You're offended by it. I'm
offended by a lot of things. But that doesn't mean
that I should try to shut that person down. I
should instead challenge that person. I should counter that person.
I didn't even have to do it to their face.
Of course, I'm lucky because I have I have a
(16:12):
microphone where I can do it. I have a microphone
where I can do it, you know, for you know,
actual number of hours every single week, and those two
much larger than I am, and actually I would think, well,
maybe I'm wrong about this. I was going to say
as well educated, if not more educated than I am,
(16:34):
although I'm not sure any either one of them have
advanced graduate degrees, but I do. In case they don't,
maybe they just don't have the extensive knowledge that I
do of the First Amendment. So it's sad to say,
but if you're going to operate in this sphere, then
you ought to understand that this fight is not good
(16:56):
for the MAGA movement. This fight is not good and
it's totally unnecessary. There's an entirely different way to approach it.
But here's what I think is going on. They both
have large public platforms, and you know, do I wish
that I had been invited to speak at the turning
(17:18):
point of it in Phoenix? Oh? Absolutely, because I would
have lectured them just like I am right now, probably
gotten booed off the stage. But somebody, somebody older than
the two of them ought to stand up to them
and say stop it. You're behaving like children, and it's
not good for the movement, it's not good for conservatism,
and it certainly ignore the free speech. If you don't
(17:41):
like what they're saying, they encounter it with more speech,
and then I would say to those that are not involved,
to all of you, let's quit being such wusses when
it comes to things that are discussing vile and objectionable.
Because if everything that is said this vile, you know, racist, objectionable,
(18:05):
whatever it might be, whatever agity of you want to
put on, that's the real world. I'm sorry to break
it to you, but there are bigots out there in
our society, not just in our society, in every society.
They are really vile people. There are Nazi There are
true Nazis out there. There are true anti Semis out there,
(18:25):
There are true KKK members out there, there are true
white supremacists out there. There are you know, anti gay,
anti everything out there. That doesn't mean that you tried
to shut them down. You counter them with a better argument.
And if you're offended by what they say, recognize that
(18:47):
you're offended, but recognize that, oh they have a right
to say it, and I have an obligation to counter it. Okay,
(19:08):
that's all I can say. Okay, Okay, I was going
to move on to the next topic. However, there's a
text message that I want to respond to just to
make sure that I don't leave anything diluted or unclear
seven zero ninety seven, writes Mike. Doesn't the First Amendment
(19:29):
just apply to the government. If someone is spewing or
seemingly supporting vile trash all while writing the coattails of
their past reputation, it cannot possibly be the responsibility of
a private organization to sponsor it or propagate it. If
that organization is private, would may be just as responsible
(19:52):
for what their guests say. By not bringing someone on,
aren't you speaking to your opinion of someone? Giving someone prominence.
Prominence isn't always wise when it's unnecessary. It's not stopping
that person from speaking or taking him off the Internet,
but showing you don't agree with the person and not
giving them prominence on your platform. That's not calling in
(20:15):
the government to silence them. I think you've I'd have
to I'm have to dissect this sentence by sentence because
I think you've conflated several points that I was trying
to make. First, in terms of the First Amendment, yes,
it generally applies only to government, but there are certain
(20:36):
special circumstances which in which it can apply to individuals
or private organizations themselves. So it's not strictly government, although
that is primarily it's just the courts have carved out
some very specific exceptions. Then, if someone is spewing or
(20:59):
seemingly supporting vile trash all while writing the coattails of
their past reputation, it cannot possibly be the responsibility of
a private organization to sponsor it or propagate it. It's not.
And in this case, these are both private platforms. Ben
Shapiro and The Daily Wire are their own private organization,
(21:24):
and Tucker Carlson Media or whatever he calls his organization
is their own organization, and Turning Point USA is its
own organization. So what each of them do is entirely
up to them. But then you have Shapiro and Tucker
using the TPUSA platform to attack each other, and that's fine,
(21:51):
I have no problem with that, but when they do
the attack, they completely ignore those individuals. Tucker and Shapiro
each have their own individual rights to say what they
want to say, just as Turning Point USA has the
(22:13):
right to invite whomever they want to invite, including Shapiro
and Tucker, who have both said, in my opinion, stupid stuff.
Tucker's probably been worse than Shapiro, but I really don't
like you the one of them. But turning point, USA
has the right to have both of them at their
convention down in Phoenix. I'm not saying that. I'm saying
(22:34):
that what Shapiro and Tucker are doing in attacking each
other completely misses the First Amendment rights of each other,
because they have the right to do so, and each
of them are partially right and partially wrong. This is
where the nuance comes in, and this is where you've
really got to pay attention. When Shapiro says that Tucker
(23:00):
should not be allowed to be a turning point, he's
wrong about that, because that's turning points decision. When he
says that Tucker has these vile people on, and Tucker
has some really stupid people on, and Tucker doesn't challenge them,
then Tucker should own and we should all infer that
(23:20):
he supports them. If if I if I brought someone
onto this program that said, really, let's say racist stuff,
and I didn't challenge them on it, you would be
I think legitimately inferring then I must support that because
I didn't challenge it, which is why I don't bring
(23:44):
people on, particularly politicians, because it would be nothing but
an argument. If I brought Jared Poulos on here, it'd
be horrible. Radio could just be arguing all the time.
So I just make it a I've made it a
standard of my practice, my practice for almost any years
now not to interview politicians. I just I don't want
to waste my time. I've dealt with them at the
(24:07):
highest level. I dealt with Jared Polist when he was
a congressman. I dealt with you know, brain fart, Yeah, good,
what's his name? Uh? Diana to get But you know,
Diana and I got along fine because we both knew
where we stood, and she and I had lots of
(24:27):
nice arguments. We'd have them on the airplane. We'd find
ourselves sitting next to each other on the airplane coming
back from DC, and we'd argue about something going on
in the news, and you know, and and but it
was it was friendly, and it was it was it
was fun. It was actually a good, good debate. But
she didn't change my mind. I didn't change her mind. Then,
when when Shapiro says that, you know, Tucker shouldn't you know,
(24:52):
be allowed to do all that stuff Shapiro is wrong.
Then when Tucker comes back and here's what, let me
find what Tucker said. When Tucker comes back on and
Tucker says, let me scroll down and find it, Tucker says, dude,
Charlie Kirk stood firm and is often stated and deeply
(25:14):
held belief that people should be able to debate. I
kind of thought we'd reach the end of that cancel
culture as far as I'm concerned, we have, and I'm
not going to play by those rules. I'm not going
to engage in that. Tucker is right, he doesn't have
to engage in cancel culture. But Tucker has to recognize
that when he has someone on like Nick Fwantes and
(25:36):
he does not challenge his white supremacist, Nazi, you know, beliefs,
then I take it that, oh well, then Tucker must
agree with that. Now, whether that's right or wrong is immaterial,
because Tucker has left that void. So I fill that
void by concluding that, well, you didn't challenge it, so
(25:59):
you must agree with it. Because it's so vile and
it's so horrible. You didn't challenge it, so well you
must agree with it. Now. I'm not calling for Tucker
to be d platform or to be shut down. I'm
just saying that I want you, I want I'm actually
what I'm trying to do here speak to the people
(26:21):
at Turning Point USA that you don't like what Tucker says.
He has a right to not say it, or to
say it, to have the guests he chooses to have
or not have. But when he doesn't challenge them, then
I think you're legitimate in inferring that. Oh, then he
must support that, But don't call for his d platform me,
(26:42):
which is what Shapiro seems to be doing by talking
about you know, he's he glazed. He doesn't he gives
them glaze, meaning he gives them cover. And that is
what Tucker got does. But Shapiro, you do the same
thing oftentimes by not giving your counterviewpoint to something or
(27:06):
not challenging someone. But then the third point I would
make is this having this argument of all places at
Turning Point USA, when you ought to be celebrating the
kind of free speech advocacy that Charlie Kirk engaged in,
having this kind of fight so that the cabal is, look, oh,
(27:26):
look at the fight. You know, Maga's splitting apart, blah,
blah blah blah. That's just stupid. That's just stupid politically
on the part of Shapiro and Tucker Carlson. If you
want to have that debate, you'll have that debate behind
closed doors. If you want to have that debate with
each other, do it on your own platforms. Don't do
it at the one place that I think was truly.
(27:48):
I mean, if anybody personified the embodiment of the First Amendment,
it was Charlie Kirk. Bring on your questions, challenge me
on anything, all listen to anybody and all challenge you wanted.
If I disagree with you, and if I agree with you,
I'll tell you why I agree with you. For me,
Charlie Kirk personified my view of the First Amendment, but
(28:11):
he never had break times.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Well, since we got ripped off last Friday on taxpayer
relief shots, and I get a sneak and suspicion we're
going to get ripped off for the next two weeks
as well, how about you throw us at Goober's our
Christmas present early and do taxpayer relief shots today. Thank
you for your attention to this matter.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Well, I did pay attention to your matter, but the
assumption that you make that dragon that are going to
give Goober's a Christmas gift would dream of it. Wow,
they're delusional, truly. The thing that we really care about them,
I mean we lie and you know, fake it that genuinely.
(28:57):
We don't give a rat that's about you, not at all.
If you haven't figured that out by now, I don't
know really, but I do have a good story for
a lead into the taxpay relief shots. The Australian Prime
Minister Anthony Albanize has announced a new nationwide gun buyback program.
(29:18):
Did it there yesterday December nineteenth? But their December nineteenth?
So just days after that terrorist mass shooting, that massacre
of Jews at Bondi Beach that killed fifteen people. Now
this echoes to nineteen ninety six buy back following the
Port Arthur massacre. So do you kind of get a
(29:38):
pattern here? Let's see nineteen ninety six Port Arthur, you
have a massacre, so you invoke a gun buyback program.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Hmm.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Must not have worked out too well because then on
you know, back on December whatever it was, you have
another massacre. And now on December nineteen you announced another
gun by back after Martin Bryant killed thirty five pabook
Port Arthur. April twenty eight, nineteen ninety six. Then Prime
Minister John Howard enacted the National Firearms Agreement. Did it
(30:12):
within twelve days? Well they're they're going to even faster now.
They banned semi automatic rifles and shotguns. The taxpayer funded
buy back collected nearly seven hundred thousand guns, having gun
owning households and contributing to at least one story. Oh,
zero mass shootings, but we'll get to this just a minute.
(30:32):
Zero mass shootings in the next two decades, alongside a
sixty percent drop in gun homicides. They included twenty eight
day waiting periods, genuine reason requirements for licenses, and a
push for a national registry, though implementation of that remains
uneven across all the different states down there now under
(30:54):
this plan. Under Alvinza's plan, funded equally by federal and
state governments, they expect hundreds of thousands of firearms surrendered
and destroyed from roughly four million civilian guns. Matt, you
think it's going to happen? Post nineteen ninety six, data,
according to one story, shows that firearm deaths fell sharply studies.
(31:18):
Some studies credits with the bands on rapid fire weapons
for curbing mass killings. Yet did that really happen? Let's
see Australia. Listen to this. Australia saw zero mass shootings
defined as five plus deaths after that buyback between nineteen
(31:44):
ninety six and twenty sixteen. But the key is a
mass shooting is defined as five plus deaths. Well, then
that means that the twenty eleven Hectorville siege that killed
three with legal guns, and between twenty three and twenty
(32:05):
twenty five events like the Whimbilla attacked five dead semi
automatics that were legally held the loopholes, over four million
civilian guns exceed the pre port Arthur totals with illegal
and three D printed weapons. Oh, on the rise according
to law enforcement in Australia. The Bondi Beach attackers, they
(32:29):
used six registered high powered rifles, so they were exploding
the per owner limits absent that were absent until this
new buyback program. So no, it didn't stop so called
mass shootings depends on how you define mass shootings. Oh,
they still had shootings, they still had murders, and they
still had the those two examples, they gave you that
(32:52):
in other parlance we would have considered a mass shooting,
except oh, definitionally, no, you can't count that
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
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.