March 25, 2025 • 39 mins
This podcast edition of Kenny Webster's Pursuit of Happiness features author Austin Petersen and journalist Holly Hansen. ( @KennethRWebster )
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Jack ganon government sucks the suit of happiness. Radio is
d ux Liberty and freedom will make you smile of
a suit of habin and us on your radio toil,
just as cheeseburger is a living rise at the food.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
All right.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
A fire broke out at Disney World in the Epcot
Center part of the theme park there down in Orlando,
and people were losing it. I mean the parents were shrieking,
they were crying, they were pleading for someone to come
help them with their kids, and then the fire broke out.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
Hi, I'm Kenny Webster. You turned on your radio.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
That means you're listening to a radio show where my
voice is the voice that you hear coming out of
your radio or the internet.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
I don't know how you hear me anyway, Thanks so
much for tuning in today. Holly Hanson stopping by with
the latest from what's going on in the political of
the Southeast Texas region of the country.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
I do.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
That's where we are, so we're gonna find out what's
going on with local elected officials here.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
Stick around.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
She's a journalist and speaking of authors, people that write
things for a living, Austin Peterson is stopping by from
the Walton and Johnson online store and the Libertarian Republic.
There's this article in the Wall Street Journal about how
women don't want to get married anymore because men aren't
earning enough money. And I don't believe that that's the
real reason why Austin does. I'm gonna challenge him a
(01:30):
little bit. Two millennial men who have already gotten married
in their lifetime are going to have an argument over
what's going on with people slightly younger than us and
their dating habits. Spoiler alert. I think I might have
a little more insight as I am recently divorced. But
that's besides the point. It's not about me and my
broken marriage. That's not why you're listening.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
No, and why would you be.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
You're here today to find out what's going on in
the world, and I'm here to tell you about it.
One news story I didn't have time to get to yesterday,
but mostly because I didn't quite under I don't watch
sixty minutes, do you?
Speaker 5 (02:01):
I mean?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
I watch it when there's a something phenomenal happens. There's
some you know, viral news story, and everybody, well, did.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
You hear that?
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Sixty minutes piece, sixty minutes isn't a big deal to me,
and it never has been. But I will tell you
somebody that I think watches it every week, President Donald Trump.
I think I believe that President Donald Trump watches sixty
minutes every Sunday night. And the reason I believe that
is more than once when nobody was talking about sixty minutes,
Donald Trump had an opinion on whatever was seen on
(02:30):
TV that weekend, and he yesterday he had a lot
to say about George Clooney, according to her for Today
at Breitbart dot com. After that sixty Minutes puff piece
segment on George Clooney from last weekend aired, Trump took
to social media and he labeled Clooney a second rate
movie star. Clooney was on sixty Minutes last weekend and
(02:51):
he was talking about his role as the Edward the
as Edward R. Murrow in the Broadway adaptation of good
Night and Good Luck.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Now.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
I didn't not know this, but apparently Clooney is now
working on Broadway. He directed and co wrote a two
thousand and five movie that No One Talks About Anymore,
which grossed fifty five million dollars. That was a discussion
as well. And in that interview, Donald Trump had some thoughts.
He reacted to it, and he said.
Speaker 6 (03:17):
Why would they, now highly discredited sixty Minutes be doing
a total puff piece on George Clooney, a second arrate
movie star in a failed political pundit. He fought hard
for Sleepy Joe's election and then right after the debate
dumped him like a dog. Later, I assume, under orders
from the Obama camp, pushed all out for Kamala, only
(03:37):
to soon realize that was not going to work out well.
Speaker 4 (03:40):
End quote.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Trump went on to remind people of how sixty Minutes
rigged the interview for Kamala to help make her answers
sound better. Remember, they asked her questions what was it
about Ukraine and Israel? And she gave a bad answer,
and they took a segment a different portion of the interview,
and they spliced it together so that it sounded like
she had a quick, arn't response to a question about
foreign policy. You know, Trump filed a twenty billion dollar
(04:06):
lawsuit against CBS for that election interference. Now CBS can
either face the humiliation of settling that lawsuit or the
humiliation of the discovery of evidence unless the case gets dismissed,
which I don't think it will be. The Clooney sixty
minutes segment that he's reacting to. It is a puff puse.
(04:29):
It's a moment when the media comes and asks the question,
you know, how do we make George Clooney seem relevant again?
They asked him a question about Joe Biden stepping aside,
and then he laughs kind of smugly and says, I
was raised to tell the truth. He said, I had
seen the president up close for this fundraiser, and I
was surprised.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
He says.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
He goes on end quote, so I feel as if
there was a lot of profiles and cowardice and my
party through all of that end quote.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Guys, that fundraiser took place in June last year.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
It wasn't until the debate with Trump a month later
that Clooney published an article in The New York Times saying,
you wanted Biden to step down?
Speaker 4 (05:12):
He is not being honest.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Clearly, Colooney knew that Biden was a disaster a month earlier,
sat on that information and did nothing. It wasn't until
everyone else realized it that he spoke up. So that's
a lie. Clooney also claims he worries most about the
government bullying the media. Where was this profile encouraged when
(05:35):
Joe Biden refused to do press conferences? Where was Clooney
when the Biden administration revoked hundreds of press passes? Where
was Clooney when then Senator Harry Reid reportedly threatened ABC's
broadcast license over the Path to Line eleven? Do you
remember that it was a mini series mildly critical of
Bill Clinton? Where was Cloney when ABC complied and buried
(05:58):
the forty million dollars minute series forever? Most people forgot
about this. I don't I remember it. Where was Clooney
during the cancel culture blacklisting in the MacArthur era we
just suffered through? You'll note that sixty Minutes failed to
challenge him on any of this. They didn't bring it
up in that segment. Where was George Clooney when the
(06:20):
fake news media failed to report on the Elon Musk
Nazi salute hoax or the all White Trump Party hoax,
or the Russian collusion hoax, or the Kyle Rittenhouse hoax,
or the Russian bounty hoax, or the nine hundred thousand
Kids hospitalized because of coronavirus hoax, or the Iowa poll hoax,
or the libs of TikTok murdered nine binary teenager hoax.
(06:40):
The list goes on and on and on, as far
as second rate movie star goes Trump's exactly right. George
Clooney has not been in a lot of good movies.
Oh brother, we're out. Though I was a good one.
I'm sure if I thought hard, I'd think of another one.
As a filmmaker, as an actor, He's had no lasting legacy.
The only reason we remember who George Clooney is is
(07:03):
because he gets real political from time to time.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Hello, my name is Pedro.
Speaker 7 (07:10):
My favorite things to do as smuggle drugs, procreate like
a rabbit, and listen to Pursuit of Happiness Radio with
producer Kini Peace Stupy.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Civil asset forfeiture, property rights evidence. There's so many different
reasons why the government could take away.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
Property from you.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
I'm always bothered by the fact that liberals and conservatives
alike will both decide how they feel about the government
seizing of assets based on who's involved.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
You know.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
The obviously context always matters, But it feels like this
is one of those things where Republicans and Democrats will
agree on the government taking your property if it suits
a narrative, and they won't if it does. As a libertarian,
I feel like we need to be consistent on this stuff.
There's recently a Texas Supreme Court ruling involving lawsuits against
(08:06):
Houston for the constitutional violation of property right. So I
don't see a lot of people writing about this. I
don't see a lot of news reports on it. The
City of Houston may not justify a regulatory taking of
property under police power. Obviously, I don't speak illegal ease.
I barely even speak English. That's why I invited Holly
Hansen from the Texan Dot News to explain it to us. Holly,
(08:29):
give us the cliff notes, give us the who, what, when?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Where?
Speaker 3 (08:31):
Why? Why did the Texas Supreme Court have to weigh
in on whether or not Houston could take our property away?
Speaker 8 (08:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (08:39):
So this gets a little bit complicated, right. And when
people think of the government taking their property, they think
about the imminent domain and they think about, you know,
them coming in and taking your property to build a
highway or a gas pipeline or something like that. But
there's another kind of taking. That kind occurs when the
government implements some kind of regulation in or does something
(09:01):
that damages someone's property so that it's not usable. So
what happened a couple of years ago after Hurricane Harvey
is you have this property owner and it was actually
for a development and theyde planned. They've gotten permits to
build these homes, and then the city changed the organces
and said, well, if you're going to build homes on
(09:21):
these properties, you have to elevate the land two feet
above the floodplain. And it effectively made the property unusable, right,
so they couldn't develop it. So now they've got millions
and millions of dollars invested in this. You know, there's
started getting ready to start construction and so forth, all
of a sudden it's unusable. And so there's a court case.
(09:44):
And what the city tried to say is that, well,
we're just using basically what they call it police powers
that they're saying, well, this change in regulation is for
the good of the community. It's a good thing, so
we don't have to compensate the property owner. And you know,
the landowner is fighting for the right to suit. Now
(10:05):
to be clear, they haven't won this case, but it
went all the way up to the Supreme Court of
Texas and basically with the Supreme Court of Texas said,
is that, well, yeah, you can sue even if the
city or your local government implemented this regulation or you know,
new ordinance or what have you for the good of
the community, if it ruins your property, if there's damages
(10:28):
to your property, then you can sue them. And this
is you know, it's kind of not your you know,
big top headline of the week or anything like that,
but it has a lot of implication for all of
the property owners in the state of Texas who are
trying to get compensation because something the government did ruins
(10:48):
the value of their property. And the big case we
had last year where what came from those ranchers that
their property was completely damaged by construction of Inner Date
and they were trying to sue the State of Texas
the Department of Transportation for compensation it ruined their family
land because it flooded after that, and they haven't actually
(11:11):
won that case, but the Supreme Court said, yeah, you
have a right to sue the You know that we
do have these protections in both the National Constitution and
federal Constitution and the state constitution that you know, even
if the government says they're doing something for your good,
if it ruins your property, then you're entitled to some
(11:31):
compensation and you can sue under that. So I just
thought the Yeah, so it's you know, for property owners
who have been trying to get compensation in the state
of Texas, it's been pretty frustrating for the past I
don't know, decades, because it costs a lot of money
to see your government. They have a lot of money
(11:52):
to fight you, and it takes years and years. Sometimes
it can take ten or fifteen years to result these cases.
But this gives a little bit of an opening and
a little bit of an opportunity for some of these
folks who are trying to defend their property rights. I mean,
the foundation in this country is in part on the
(12:14):
notion that individuals have property rights. You had the right
to property right and you're protected into the constitution. So yeah,
it's a little bit hard to follow.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
I don't think it was.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
I think it's very simple right, you have property rights.
I admire the Texas Supreme Court for coming down on
the right side of this argument. I will say though,
that even with the justice system on your side, still
going to take a long time. You and I have
if I'm not mistaken, Without picking into the details of
getting into specifics, you and I have covered stories on
this show before involving property right disputes in the state
(12:50):
of Texas that took so long to get resolved that
by the time they were resolved, the married couple that
it had affected had been long divorced and weren't even
speaking anymore.
Speaker 9 (13:00):
That's that's correct. In fact, that case that you're referring
to is still pending before the court. The City of
Keema has appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas and
they're just waiting for a response.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
All right, Well, before we run out of time here,
because we gotta I only have a little bit, a
little bit of time in this segment.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
I got a SoundBite.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
I'd love to get your reaction to Jasmine Crockett has
been all over the news lately. The congress woman from
Texas has been She made a statement about how we
have to punch Ted Cruz and she wants to take
down Elon Musk. Last weekend, Jasmine Crockett was speaking for
the Human Rights Campaign I believe it's like a gay
rights civil rights group. But when you see that yellow
(13:42):
and blue equals sign, that's the group she's speaking for.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
And she made this comment about Governor Greg Evan because
we in these hot ass Texas streets.
Speaker 10 (13:51):
Honey, y'all know we got Governor high Wheels down there.
Speaker 9 (13:57):
Come on now, and the only.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
Thing hot about him is that he is a hot
ass mess honey.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
So all right, Jasmine Crockett called him Governor hot Wheels.
People are pretty mad about this. I will say this
is holly for you. It's not okay. It's obviously not appropriate.
I have to report on this. Honestly, I've heard that
joke told by other people thousands of times. I mean,
I've heard liberals tell that joke. I've conservatives tell that joke.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
It's not funny.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
You shouldn't make fun of people in wheelchairs. Obviously, we've
spent a lot of time on this radio show raising
money for wheelchairs for warriors. I'm sure most people know
how I feel about it. What I've never heard is
an elected official in a public in a public advice
speak that in front of an audience before. I mean,
this is uh, that is pretty ballsy. Move for Jasmine Crockett.
Speaker 9 (14:50):
You know, it is pretty shocking. I think that asman,
Congresswoman Crockett is trying to make a name for herself.
You know, she's done a lot of these sort of
you know, splash videos feeling the popular culture and that
kind of thing, and you know there's going to be
a segment of her base that thinks that's very funny.
And I've heard other people, as you say, make that joke.
(15:10):
I have to agree, it's distasteful, it's inappropriate, and honestly,
at the end of the day, I don't think it
persuades anyone to side with Congresswoman Crockett. And that's not
the kind of rhetoric that's going to convince people that
you're on the right side of these policy debate. No. No,
(15:30):
then it's just really distasteful.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
It's going to be really interesting to see which Texas
State Democrats disavow that comment and which ones don't, you know,
because you know, the role silence is violence, as they claim.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Holly, you're an awesome journalist.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
I encourage people to check out your work at the
Texan News and follow Holly on social.
Speaker 5 (15:48):
Medialy from Texas Broadcasting across the people's before think of America.
This is perceives of how it is radio with Ken
Webstern Judio a producer Kenny Keeping.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
All right, we're gonna have a quick segment and then
Austin Peterson's gonna be stopping by right after this next
break so we could talk about this article that was
just in the Wall Street Journal claiming women don't want
to get married anymore because men aren't making enough money.
Speaker 4 (16:19):
I'm gonna challenge that. But before we get to.
Speaker 8 (16:21):
That, it's time once again for voicemail messages from you.
The following voicemail messages were sent from listeners just like you,
using the Iheard Radio app. If you want to send
us a voicemail, just download the iHeartRadio smartphone app and
push the talkback button. You can send us a thirty
(16:43):
second audio recording that we will play on the show
at a future date, probably because it would be impossible
to play your audio messages on a previous date.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
So what are you waiting for? Download the app and
leave us a message today.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
All right, somebody asked me recently if we were if
I was no longer playing voicemails on the show, and
the truth is I just haven't played them in a while.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
We're still playing them on there. I find them to
be interesting.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
And so if you've left voicemail messages for me and
you haven't heard them on the show, I'm gonna start
doing that again.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
You heard, you heard the dancing clown? Explain it to you.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Download the iHeartRadio app, push the talkback button. We only
ask that you try to make a quiet in the background,
and please don't swear anyway.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
Let's get caught up on some of the voicemails we
haven't played in a while. Hey, Kenny, you know you
know what you're talking about.
Speaker 11 (17:32):
Before you start spouncuff over the air man, Yeah, look
up the definition of a pediofile.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
You can.
Speaker 11 (17:41):
She's not fifteen year old. Don't make you a pedio file,
all right? Check out the definition.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Man, Okay, later, I think I recently mentioned on the
show that if a fully grown man's in a relationship
with a sixteen year old a fifteen year old, that
person would be a pedophile.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
This person says, not the case.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
This person that left a voicemail message is obviously very
bothered by that. Now, according to the definition of a
pedophile is a person that's sexually attracted to children. In
my opinion, if you're fifteen, you're a pedophile. That's just
my opinion.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Okay, but any rate in no state in America is
a fifteen year old considered to be an adult. There
is no state with an age of consent lower than sixteen.
Thirty One states, along with the District of Columbia, set
the age of consent at sixteen Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut
District to Columbia. The list goes on and on the
point this person's getting at is that it's this person
(18:34):
that just left a voicemail message seemed to think it's
It sounds like he's suggesting that it's okay to have
sex with a fifteen year old. I disagree. I'm curious.
I'm curious what you radio listeners think. Feel free to
leave a voicemail message and tell us what you think.
Is that person creepy and weird? Or am I out
of line for suggesting a fully grown adult shouldn't date
a fifteen year old?
Speaker 4 (18:54):
Hey, Kenny, as fast as I can.
Speaker 10 (18:56):
Tax cuts to the movie industry is good because usually
the deal is only like the first three million or
something like that, and we're talking productions that go to
like thirty five forty five million dollar budgets to all
the people they employ, the taxes that they pay and
the money that they put into the system makes the difference.
(19:16):
So that's why it's worth it. Don't be like Bobby
Jendall and screw the film industry.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
Okay, So Bobby Jendall used to be the governor of
Louisiana and he was not a par I didn't know this.
Apparently he was not a big fan of subsidies for
the film industry. I made the point on this show
recently it would be nice to get property tax relief
in the state of Texas before we start giving out
tax subsidies to Hollywood movie studios.
Speaker 4 (19:40):
I still stand by that.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
But to your point, sir, I don't mind a tax
cut to any kind of industry. I do get a
little nervous thinking about what kind of people in Hollywood
might be attracted to move to Texas if we're giving
out subsidies to people in that line of work.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
But I digress. A tax cuts still.
Speaker 12 (19:55):
Good morning, Guys or afternoon Kenny, whichever it may be. Yeah,
one night I picked up a girl from Fat City
and on the way to my house she told me
she wanted to eat my babies. Confused me and freaked
me out. It sure wasn't what Tyson was talking about. Wow,
(20:18):
weird but fun. What for a night?
Speaker 5 (20:22):
You know?
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Crazy?
Speaker 3 (20:24):
I don't here at the Walton Johnson Show, we're very
much against eating babies. We don't think you should have
sex with the fifteen year old or eat a baby,
so please don't do that. The Pursuit of Happiness Radio
Network and the Walton and Johnson Radio Production Company are
both adamantly opposed to both of those things.
Speaker 7 (20:42):
You are listening to the Pursuit of Happiness Radio Pursuit
of Happiness. We don't have that in Mexico.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
We should check some more voicemails coming up.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
You ever read a mainstream news story that explains a
cultural phenomenon and you just don't believe it.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
I don't believe what I just read.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
There's a Wall Street Journal article today by Rachel Wolfe,
and she did what's from the other day, But you
know it's a recent article.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
It's gone viral, as you can if it's from last weekend.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
It's under the lifestyle relationships and Saturday Essays section of
the Wall Street Journal. And as you could probably guess
from the music playing in the background, the wedding march
from the flash Gordon, of course, that's Queen. The nineteen
eighties was a very different time. Well, you know what,
why don't we start the explanation there. In the nineteen eighties,
(21:35):
I think it was really the end of the nuclear family, right,
we were moving. It was post sexual revolution. The birth
control pill was quite common. Women were not uncommon in
the workforce. That was a regular phenomenon.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Then.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
Kenny Webster was but a little toddler, and women had
corporate jobs. Even if I never found the shoulder pads
that women wore in the nineteen eighties and their business
suits to be attractive, I don't understand the point of that,
but I do know that a shift from that to this.
The article in the Wall Street Journal I want to
react to here is called American women are giving up
on marriage. Major demographic shifts have put men and women
(22:10):
on divergent paths. That's left more women resigned to being single.
The numbers aren't netting out. What they described in the
article is that because women are earning more money than men,
they no longer want to marry men. I don't believe this.
I don't believe that that's the real reason why. But
I'm willing to be objective here. I'm open minded to this.
(22:31):
My experience is as such. First of all, most of
the women, as you guys know if you listen to
the show I recently became divorced when not thrilled about it.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
But look, it happens. It happens to about half of us.
Pretty common.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
Right, So I'm dating again, and my experience is a
that women are not making more money than me. But okay,
that's you know, that's my experience. It's anecdotal. And then
B that women do want to get married. Most women
I meet immediately tell me they want to get married,
they want to have kids. Now, again, anecdotal, that's just
my experience. They're using raw data and statistics here to
(23:05):
explain how most women don't want to marry men that
earn less money than them. And I don't even believe that.
I don't believe that. How many OnlyFans models out there.
Women generally control two industries, right, Despite what this article
would suggest, Women generally tend to control two industries, sex
and beauty. Beauty and sex. Those are things women dominate in.
(23:25):
It's true, right, models, cosmetics, fashion, whatever, porn? What kind
of women are those men dating? Unemployed losers? May be
handsome unemployed losers, but do you think that most porn
stars only fans models, Instagram models, fashion designers, you know, pick,
you know, we push the domino away from there and
teeter into all the other little industries that women tend to.
(23:48):
Do you think those women are all marrying men that
earn more than them now created. When it comes to celebrities,
there's some truth to that. You know, Taylor Swift's not
going to marry an unemployed loser other than Dolly Parton.
Most female celebrities don't end up with a guy that
is less famous, or wealthy or successful than them.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
But I digress. I just don't believe this.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Call me skeptical, And again, I'm basing this only entirely
on my own experience, and maybe I'm just different.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
I do know.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
My friend Austin Peterson is a student of culture. He's
a man who studies a lot of field research. What
is happening in the zeitgeist of humanity here in the
western half of the world. Austin Peterson, you may be
familiar with from The Libertarian Republican, also runs the online
store for the Walton and Johnson Show. He's an author,
a media personality. Austin, you saw the story American women
(24:42):
are given up on marriage?
Speaker 4 (24:44):
Do you buy it? Do you think that that's why?
Do you think this has to do with income levels?
Speaker 5 (24:49):
Yes, Kenny, Yeah, I'm shocked at your point of view
on that one. I hope everybody out there in the
Gulf Coast, beautiful Gulf of America, is having a wonderful day.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
Thanks for having me back. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (25:01):
You sound like you've got some cope. And I know
a lot of right wing conservative men who are in
your situation, Kenny, and a lot of them are coping.
And this is where the red pill came from. Originally,
the red pill community came out of these discussions of
men sharing their notes. You know, I've got a gay buddy,
a gay guy, and he says that if being gay
(25:23):
were a.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
Choice, it would be the right choice.
Speaker 5 (25:26):
And while that may be funny, you and I we
can't choose to be gay. But it's hard out there
for the men. It is hard out there for the
young men. I absolutely believe it. Fifty one percent of
women age eighteen to forty were single in twenty twenty
three from forty one point eight percent, so in the
last twenty five years an additional ten percent of women
(25:49):
choosing not to get marriage. College educated single women unmet
expectations is why they don't want to get married. They
were not meeting their exs. Because, Kenny, what's happening is
it's we're still living in a time when you know me,
If the Titanic sinks, it's still women and children first,
(26:11):
and the men have to stay on board the ship
while the women and children get away in the lifeboats.
We still have a mentality from the late eighteen hundreds
that places standards and expectations on the behavior of men
while women are completely and totally liberated from their old
gender roles. Now, I don't hate women. I love women,
(26:32):
but we have to talk about a society that says
women are completely and totally free to do as they please,
to get as much education as you want, get as
many jobs as they want. But men still have pay
on the first date and provide and be the main
providers and make more than their wives because here's the thing, Kenny.
The statistics don't lie. If your wife makes more than you,
(26:53):
she's gonna cheat on you, she's gonna leave you more
often than not. It's that doesn't happen in all cases.
But if you are not doing your job as a
provider man, you are not considered.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
To be worthwhile.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
This is why men and Mike Andrew Tate have been
getting traction here in the United States, because men have
started to come to realize through the red Pill they
started these communities. They started to realize that they're getting
a raw deal, and it's not even equality for women
would be a step down in the United States.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Kenny.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
And if we can't have it, it's true.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
Well, I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just funny to
hear someone explain it like that. I don't look Austin.
It's always everyone always assumes cause and effect.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
They see something happening and they see how and what
the result is, so they assume cause. There certainly is
a correlation right between modern day professional career standards for
women and the marriage rates being down.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
But is it possible that the actual cause and effect
is something else? Is it possible that part of the
reason why the marriage rates are down is simply because
for some people it's just fun to date. Is you know,
it's convenient, it's fun. They like having a different person
they could be with every month or two. I mean,
we're all assuming that this has entirely to do with
(28:13):
income level, and I'm just not sure that our conclusion
is so accurate.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
Have you asked the average college educated woman what her
opinion is on politics lately, Kenny, have you? I mean,
if you can get past the mesmerizing effect of their beauty,
and many of them are quite stunny when they go.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
To college, what happens to them?
Speaker 9 (28:37):
Right?
Speaker 5 (28:37):
The diverging world views between men and women is why
the gap between our political views and our values, Kenny,
between the values that men hold and the women that
the values that women hold, have never been more divergent.
Thirty nine percent of women eighteen to twenty nine identified
as liberal in twenty twenty four versus twenty five percent
(28:59):
of men, as a gap that's tripled since twenty fourteen.
Only fifty eight percent of young women see marriage is
essential to the American dream versus.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
Sixty six percent of men. Swipe left. If you voted
for Trump.
Speaker 5 (29:13):
Right, progressive women in conservative regions actually go even harder.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
To the left to resist the values that you suppose.
Speaker 5 (29:22):
And a US thousand and I imagine many of your listeners,
especially the ten percenters, absolutely right.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
The ideological divide.
Speaker 5 (29:30):
Between men and women has never been wider, and you
wouldn't listen.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
People can have their opinions.
Speaker 5 (29:36):
It's fine, it's free country and the rights individual liberty.
But you've got to live with them, Kenny. You know,
I had a very prominent, very prominent celebrity one time,
turned to me one time and I know this, this
is the tuxedo night dinner, and he said, whatever you do,
Austin Mary a libertarian woman, he said, Mary, a woman
who shares your values. He's like, oh, your life will
be hell essentially, and paraphrasing, he' said your life will
(29:58):
be hell. And those women I got the last helicopter
flight out of Saigon when I got my beautiful redheaded
libertarian Wifey Staffy. But you know, when she came along,
I was like, Austin, for forego all women before her,
because she they are rare as Hen's teeth, Kenny. So
you have to understand, you know what I'm saying is true.
(30:20):
The values of these young women are so far left
that they would make Stalin blush.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
Okay, but we're talking about a very specific group of
college educated women, you know, age twenty one to twenty
nine or thirty five and below. Generally, after women become
married in America, they don't. They often leave the liberalism behind.
After women become married have a kid more often than out,
they're not like that anymore.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
And again totally anecdotal, right. But my experience has been when.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
I'm going out on dates with women who tend to
be very liberal, I don't tell them what I do Austin.
It's I don't tell them what I do for a living.
I'm the dating apps. I put down that I'm in advertised,
which is technically true, right, And generally I just wait,
I listen to them talk about politics.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
I sit it out. Women love when you let them talk.
You probably have figured this out.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
You're married.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
You've noticed that anyone really likes talking about themselves. But
women love to tell you about their opinions. They love
to opine. And once they've run out of things to
say and I've heard all their talking points, I start
to form what my response is going to be and
then I and then more than once I've read pilled them. Now,
these aren't women that I remain in relationships with. It's
(31:30):
probably a safe bet that months afterwards they end up
hating me. But at least for that brief fleeting moment
and time there, I feel like, for lack of a
better explanation, you can date the liberal out of a woman.
Maybe maybe I'm an optimist Austin. That's just been my experience.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
It can be, it can happen.
Speaker 5 (31:49):
But they But but I'll tell you that on along
enough curve, they're going to buck you. They're going to
They're eventually going to revert back to the mean. And
and here's the thing. You're taking a sniper approach to this,
which I can respect.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
I can respect.
Speaker 5 (32:06):
I took the Genghis Khan approach to it, where it
was like cast wide, nets wide and far day, lots
of people. Right, and put yourself out there, be exactly
who you are, because Kenny, it's obvious. You know your
position of power that's elevated from a position of the media, right,
give that platform is attractive to women. You could use
(32:26):
that to attract women. You say you don't choose to
do that. You tell them you're an advertising and all
that kind of stuff. That's fine, But the problem is
is that you have to have volume to be able
to make the decisions about You have to know what
is a good woman and what is not a good woman.
And by the time you get to about our age
is about the time you found out what a good
(32:46):
woman is and what's not. I mean, I'm sure you
had heartbreak. I had my heartbreak back in my days, right,
you know, you know exits that cheated on you or whatever. Right,
But you had to have those experiences until you and
build those experiences up to where you can know what's
a good woman what's not a good woman? Kenny, you
and I I mean, you'd be first to say it
can be hard. You can get into a relationship with
(33:07):
someone I think you know them and then all of
a sudden things change. Right, So opening yourself up completely
and totally for who you are, Yes, it's going to
attract the wrong, wrong type of women, but it's also
going to track the right type of woman, and it's
your job to sift them out. So I think the
Genghis con strategy is much better than the the zi
lezetive sniper strategy in.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
My opinion, Well, to your point, I am divorced, so yeah,
and I live with I didn't want to.
Speaker 5 (33:32):
I didn't want to.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Like, No, you're right, No, you're correct about that. I
live alone with a French bulldog named Milton Friedman. So
to your point, I know it's in it. But one
of one of my best friends is is a physical
trainer in a gym. It's a pretty good job. His wife,
on the other hand, is a lawyer.
Speaker 4 (33:50):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
I think that the attractive business woman hooking up with
the muscular lumberjack type.
Speaker 4 (33:56):
I think that's a thing, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (33:59):
You You will date a waitress, you, Kenny, You will
date I did. You will date a girl who scrapes
barnacles off the bottom of a ship that's that sales
to catch guld shrimp in the Gulf of America.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
Will women say the same, Kenny, They won't.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
As a matter of fact, they won't say the same thing.
Women will not date you or consider you unless you
are at least as good as them, if not more,
And even if you are at least making as much
money as.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
Them or have as much cloud as them.
Speaker 5 (34:29):
They still expect you to pay on the first date,
and they still expect you to do all the chival
chivalrous things. So my question here is, and this is
really the real question the centrality of this debate, Sunny,
and it's a challenge. I don't know if you'll be
able to answer this or not, but how can we
function right? How could we possibly return back to what
you know, a situation where men and women need each
(34:50):
other and rely on each other if women are liberated
from their gender roles and men are not in.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
Order for society to continue to thrive in the population. Yeah,
I mean obviously.
Speaker 5 (35:04):
Countries obviously well right, but you know, funny, but here's
the thing, the question women American women don't want those
people either, right, They barely want white men that are
that are average and make a decent way.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
Are liberal women are racist?
Speaker 5 (35:20):
You're saying, of extremely absolutely, But they'll they'll pay black
men if they make enough money and play football.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
But the but the uh, the thing about the here's
the thing.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
The only liberation from gender roles that men experience is
either being gay or being transgender. So if if liberation
from male gender roles leads to homosexuality or to transgenderism. Well,
then you're not, you're not.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
You're still not. You're out of the dating pool.
Speaker 5 (35:49):
Right, So if you want a heterosexual relationship, women are
entirely liberated from their gender roles. I mean, they're constrained
by biology nature if they want to have kids. But
they don't want to have kids, they don't want to
get married. So then what does liberation for heterosexual men
look like from gender roles, Well, it looks like not
paying for the first date, not being the provider. But
(36:09):
women can't accept that. So it's a catch twenty two, Kenny,
We're an impasse. What do we Either we can do
two things. We can either one liberate men from their
gender roles further, which women aren't going to allow, or
two we put women out back into the kitchen and
they make the sandwiches again, which do you think is
more likely to happen?
Speaker 2 (36:28):
Right, So you can't have it both ways.
Speaker 5 (36:31):
You can't go down the men, women and children first,
Like I said, equality being a step down. You can't
have women liberated from their gender roles and then men not,
and then men still be having to live in by
the standards of chivalry in.
Speaker 4 (36:43):
The late eighteen hundreds, hundreds, I would agree with that.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Okay, option three, we legalize sex work for women, thus
making right, Well, well wouldn't.
Speaker 8 (36:56):
They of men?
Speaker 5 (36:58):
They're plenty of jiglos. I need plenty oflows, and they
made good money.
Speaker 3 (37:03):
And I was going in the other direction on this.
I think if your average guy could just legally pay
for an escort or a prostitute or a massage therapist,
he probably wouldn't care that much about you know, the
gender shock, right, the women make your shock.
Speaker 5 (37:19):
You know, people with people love to portray pornography as
some like, you know, an industry of men praying on women,
and there's certainly is an aspect for that. But if
you think that women don't, like, leefully participate in a
lot of these acts a lot of times, you know,
the problem is, Kenny, is that, like we still have
this concept of this victimhood mentality of women.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
They're not victims now.
Speaker 5 (37:40):
As a matter of fact, many of them, many of
them since the nineteenth Amendment, Kenny, have become our oppressors.
Do you think that it's a is this a causation
correlation fallacy that the rise of authoritarianism in the United
States has come along with tem you know what came
along with women's with women's suffrage, temperance. Yeah, yeah, that's
that shall touch liok or shall not touch arts? Where
(38:02):
do you think all of the restrictions? What do you
think it all comes from?
Speaker 9 (38:04):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (38:04):
Think of the children?
Speaker 2 (38:06):
Do you it's the Where do you think the.
Speaker 5 (38:08):
Tyranny is coming from? Who's voting for it? Who do
you think is voting to put the transgenders in the
in the in the girls' sports? You think it's men,
Kenny voting for that?
Speaker 3 (38:18):
I mean, I I assume that it's people that are
absolutely nuts from both of the two genders. But I
will tell you this, we went a little This is
that I could talk about this for hours, but we
did go a little along on this segment. We got it,
hey real quick, what's going on at I LOVEWJ dot com.
Speaker 5 (38:34):
Everybody who's anybody has got at this point in time,
has got a Golf of America beach towel. Okay, so
if you don't have a Gulf of America beach towel,
you're going to be the person at the Gulf of America,
you know, spring break party without one. Don't be like
that fear of missing out is a powerful marketing tool,
and I'm leaning heavily into it. Don't be the person
(38:55):
who misses out gets your Golf of America merch at
I LOVEWJ dot com.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
We've got a new.
Speaker 5 (39:00):
Design coming out. I don't know if there's any eighties
fans of Miami Vice out there on the Gulf Coast,
but we've got the Department of Government Efficiency instead of
cops from the eighties, We've got the doge from the
nineteen eighties leisure suit wearing Miami Wece style Miami Doze
Howels coming to a Walton and Johnson collection in the
(39:20):
next twenty minutes. By the time your audience hears this,
they will have a bunch of new products in your collection.
And I love WJ dot com, So check it out
and I'll see you at the beach.
Speaker 4 (39:29):
I love it. Austin Peterson, Hey to the rest of you,
have an awesome day. We'll be back brighton early tomorrow
morning for more of what you bought a radio for.
You are listening to the Pursuit of Emmy.
Speaker 10 (39:46):
This radio tell the government to kiss yours when you
listen to this show.
Jack ganon government sucks the suit of happiness. Radio is
d ux Liberty and freedom will make you smile of
a suit of habin and us on your radio toil,
just as cheeseburger is a living rise at the food.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
All right.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
A fire broke out at Disney World in the Epcot
Center part of the theme park there down in Orlando,
and people were losing it. I mean the parents were shrieking,
they were crying, they were pleading for someone to come
help them with their kids, and then the fire broke out.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
Hi, I'm Kenny Webster. You turned on your radio.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
That means you're listening to a radio show where my
voice is the voice that you hear coming out of
your radio or the internet.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
I don't know how you hear me anyway, Thanks so
much for tuning in today. Holly Hanson stopping by with
the latest from what's going on in the political of
the Southeast Texas region of the country.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
I do.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
That's where we are, so we're gonna find out what's
going on with local elected officials here.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
Stick around.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
She's a journalist and speaking of authors, people that write
things for a living, Austin Peterson is stopping by from
the Walton and Johnson online store and the Libertarian Republic.
There's this article in the Wall Street Journal about how
women don't want to get married anymore because men aren't
earning enough money. And I don't believe that that's the
real reason why Austin does. I'm gonna challenge him a
(01:30):
little bit. Two millennial men who have already gotten married
in their lifetime are going to have an argument over
what's going on with people slightly younger than us and
their dating habits. Spoiler alert. I think I might have
a little more insight as I am recently divorced. But
that's besides the point. It's not about me and my
broken marriage. That's not why you're listening.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
No, and why would you be.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
You're here today to find out what's going on in
the world, and I'm here to tell you about it.
One news story I didn't have time to get to yesterday,
but mostly because I didn't quite under I don't watch
sixty minutes, do you?
Speaker 5 (02:01):
I mean?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
I watch it when there's a something phenomenal happens. There's
some you know, viral news story, and everybody, well, did.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
You hear that?
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Sixty minutes piece, sixty minutes isn't a big deal to me,
and it never has been. But I will tell you
somebody that I think watches it every week, President Donald Trump.
I think I believe that President Donald Trump watches sixty
minutes every Sunday night. And the reason I believe that
is more than once when nobody was talking about sixty minutes,
Donald Trump had an opinion on whatever was seen on
(02:30):
TV that weekend, and he yesterday he had a lot
to say about George Clooney, according to her for Today
at Breitbart dot com. After that sixty Minutes puff piece
segment on George Clooney from last weekend aired, Trump took
to social media and he labeled Clooney a second rate
movie star. Clooney was on sixty Minutes last weekend and
(02:51):
he was talking about his role as the Edward the
as Edward R. Murrow in the Broadway adaptation of good
Night and Good Luck.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Now.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
I didn't not know this, but apparently Clooney is now
working on Broadway. He directed and co wrote a two
thousand and five movie that No One Talks About Anymore,
which grossed fifty five million dollars. That was a discussion
as well. And in that interview, Donald Trump had some thoughts.
He reacted to it, and he said.
Speaker 6 (03:17):
Why would they, now highly discredited sixty Minutes be doing
a total puff piece on George Clooney, a second arrate
movie star in a failed political pundit. He fought hard
for Sleepy Joe's election and then right after the debate
dumped him like a dog. Later, I assume, under orders
from the Obama camp, pushed all out for Kamala, only
(03:37):
to soon realize that was not going to work out well.
Speaker 4 (03:40):
End quote.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Trump went on to remind people of how sixty Minutes
rigged the interview for Kamala to help make her answers
sound better. Remember, they asked her questions what was it
about Ukraine and Israel? And she gave a bad answer,
and they took a segment a different portion of the interview,
and they spliced it together so that it sounded like
she had a quick, arn't response to a question about
foreign policy. You know, Trump filed a twenty billion dollar
(04:06):
lawsuit against CBS for that election interference. Now CBS can
either face the humiliation of settling that lawsuit or the
humiliation of the discovery of evidence unless the case gets dismissed,
which I don't think it will be. The Clooney sixty
minutes segment that he's reacting to. It is a puff puse.
(04:29):
It's a moment when the media comes and asks the question,
you know, how do we make George Clooney seem relevant again?
They asked him a question about Joe Biden stepping aside,
and then he laughs kind of smugly and says, I
was raised to tell the truth. He said, I had
seen the president up close for this fundraiser, and I
was surprised.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
He says.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
He goes on end quote, so I feel as if
there was a lot of profiles and cowardice and my
party through all of that end quote.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Guys, that fundraiser took place in June last year.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
It wasn't until the debate with Trump a month later
that Clooney published an article in The New York Times saying,
you wanted Biden to step down?
Speaker 4 (05:12):
He is not being honest.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Clearly, Colooney knew that Biden was a disaster a month earlier,
sat on that information and did nothing. It wasn't until
everyone else realized it that he spoke up. So that's
a lie. Clooney also claims he worries most about the
government bullying the media. Where was this profile encouraged when
(05:35):
Joe Biden refused to do press conferences? Where was Clooney
when the Biden administration revoked hundreds of press passes? Where
was Clooney when then Senator Harry Reid reportedly threatened ABC's
broadcast license over the Path to Line eleven? Do you
remember that it was a mini series mildly critical of
Bill Clinton? Where was Cloney when ABC complied and buried
(05:58):
the forty million dollars minute series forever? Most people forgot
about this. I don't I remember it. Where was Clooney
during the cancel culture blacklisting in the MacArthur era we
just suffered through? You'll note that sixty Minutes failed to
challenge him on any of this. They didn't bring it
up in that segment. Where was George Clooney when the
(06:20):
fake news media failed to report on the Elon Musk
Nazi salute hoax or the all White Trump Party hoax,
or the Russian collusion hoax, or the Kyle Rittenhouse hoax,
or the Russian bounty hoax, or the nine hundred thousand
Kids hospitalized because of coronavirus hoax, or the Iowa poll hoax,
or the libs of TikTok murdered nine binary teenager hoax.
(06:40):
The list goes on and on and on, as far
as second rate movie star goes Trump's exactly right. George
Clooney has not been in a lot of good movies.
Oh brother, we're out. Though I was a good one.
I'm sure if I thought hard, I'd think of another one.
As a filmmaker, as an actor, He's had no lasting legacy.
The only reason we remember who George Clooney is is
(07:03):
because he gets real political from time to time.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Hello, my name is Pedro.
Speaker 7 (07:10):
My favorite things to do as smuggle drugs, procreate like
a rabbit, and listen to Pursuit of Happiness Radio with
producer Kini Peace Stupy.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Civil asset forfeiture, property rights evidence. There's so many different
reasons why the government could take away.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
Property from you.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
I'm always bothered by the fact that liberals and conservatives
alike will both decide how they feel about the government
seizing of assets based on who's involved.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
You know.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
The obviously context always matters, But it feels like this
is one of those things where Republicans and Democrats will
agree on the government taking your property if it suits
a narrative, and they won't if it does. As a libertarian,
I feel like we need to be consistent on this stuff.
There's recently a Texas Supreme Court ruling involving lawsuits against
(08:06):
Houston for the constitutional violation of property right. So I
don't see a lot of people writing about this. I
don't see a lot of news reports on it. The
City of Houston may not justify a regulatory taking of
property under police power. Obviously, I don't speak illegal ease.
I barely even speak English. That's why I invited Holly
Hansen from the Texan Dot News to explain it to us. Holly,
(08:29):
give us the cliff notes, give us the who, what, when?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Where?
Speaker 3 (08:31):
Why? Why did the Texas Supreme Court have to weigh
in on whether or not Houston could take our property away?
Speaker 8 (08:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (08:39):
So this gets a little bit complicated, right. And when
people think of the government taking their property, they think
about the imminent domain and they think about, you know,
them coming in and taking your property to build a
highway or a gas pipeline or something like that. But
there's another kind of taking. That kind occurs when the
government implements some kind of regulation in or does something
(09:01):
that damages someone's property so that it's not usable. So
what happened a couple of years ago after Hurricane Harvey
is you have this property owner and it was actually
for a development and theyde planned. They've gotten permits to
build these homes, and then the city changed the organces
and said, well, if you're going to build homes on
(09:21):
these properties, you have to elevate the land two feet
above the floodplain. And it effectively made the property unusable, right,
so they couldn't develop it. So now they've got millions
and millions of dollars invested in this. You know, there's
started getting ready to start construction and so forth, all
of a sudden it's unusable. And so there's a court case.
(09:44):
And what the city tried to say is that, well,
we're just using basically what they call it police powers
that they're saying, well, this change in regulation is for
the good of the community. It's a good thing, so
we don't have to compensate the property owner. And you know,
the landowner is fighting for the right to suit. Now
(10:05):
to be clear, they haven't won this case, but it
went all the way up to the Supreme Court of
Texas and basically with the Supreme Court of Texas said,
is that, well, yeah, you can sue even if the
city or your local government implemented this regulation or you know,
new ordinance or what have you for the good of
the community, if it ruins your property, if there's damages
(10:28):
to your property, then you can sue them. And this
is you know, it's kind of not your you know,
big top headline of the week or anything like that,
but it has a lot of implication for all of
the property owners in the state of Texas who are
trying to get compensation because something the government did ruins
(10:48):
the value of their property. And the big case we
had last year where what came from those ranchers that
their property was completely damaged by construction of Inner Date
and they were trying to sue the State of Texas
the Department of Transportation for compensation it ruined their family
land because it flooded after that, and they haven't actually
(11:11):
won that case, but the Supreme Court said, yeah, you
have a right to sue the You know that we
do have these protections in both the National Constitution and
federal Constitution and the state constitution that you know, even
if the government says they're doing something for your good,
if it ruins your property, then you're entitled to some
(11:31):
compensation and you can sue under that. So I just
thought the Yeah, so it's you know, for property owners
who have been trying to get compensation in the state
of Texas, it's been pretty frustrating for the past I
don't know, decades, because it costs a lot of money
to see your government. They have a lot of money
(11:52):
to fight you, and it takes years and years. Sometimes
it can take ten or fifteen years to result these cases.
But this gives a little bit of an opening and
a little bit of an opportunity for some of these
folks who are trying to defend their property rights. I mean,
the foundation in this country is in part on the
(12:14):
notion that individuals have property rights. You had the right
to property right and you're protected into the constitution. So yeah,
it's a little bit hard to follow.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
I don't think it was.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
I think it's very simple right, you have property rights.
I admire the Texas Supreme Court for coming down on
the right side of this argument. I will say though,
that even with the justice system on your side, still
going to take a long time. You and I have
if I'm not mistaken, Without picking into the details of
getting into specifics, you and I have covered stories on
this show before involving property right disputes in the state
(12:50):
of Texas that took so long to get resolved that
by the time they were resolved, the married couple that
it had affected had been long divorced and weren't even
speaking anymore.
Speaker 9 (13:00):
That's that's correct. In fact, that case that you're referring
to is still pending before the court. The City of
Keema has appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas and
they're just waiting for a response.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
All right, Well, before we run out of time here,
because we gotta I only have a little bit, a
little bit of time in this segment.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
I got a SoundBite.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
I'd love to get your reaction to Jasmine Crockett has
been all over the news lately. The congress woman from
Texas has been She made a statement about how we
have to punch Ted Cruz and she wants to take
down Elon Musk. Last weekend, Jasmine Crockett was speaking for
the Human Rights Campaign I believe it's like a gay
rights civil rights group. But when you see that yellow
(13:42):
and blue equals sign, that's the group she's speaking for.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
And she made this comment about Governor Greg Evan because
we in these hot ass Texas streets.
Speaker 10 (13:51):
Honey, y'all know we got Governor high Wheels down there.
Speaker 9 (13:57):
Come on now, and the only.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
Thing hot about him is that he is a hot
ass mess honey.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
So all right, Jasmine Crockett called him Governor hot Wheels.
People are pretty mad about this. I will say this
is holly for you. It's not okay. It's obviously not appropriate.
I have to report on this. Honestly, I've heard that
joke told by other people thousands of times. I mean,
I've heard liberals tell that joke. I've conservatives tell that joke.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
It's not funny.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
You shouldn't make fun of people in wheelchairs. Obviously, we've
spent a lot of time on this radio show raising
money for wheelchairs for warriors. I'm sure most people know
how I feel about it. What I've never heard is
an elected official in a public in a public advice
speak that in front of an audience before. I mean,
this is uh, that is pretty ballsy. Move for Jasmine Crockett.
Speaker 9 (14:50):
You know, it is pretty shocking. I think that asman,
Congresswoman Crockett is trying to make a name for herself.
You know, she's done a lot of these sort of
you know, splash videos feeling the popular culture and that
kind of thing, and you know there's going to be
a segment of her base that thinks that's very funny.
And I've heard other people, as you say, make that joke.
(15:10):
I have to agree, it's distasteful, it's inappropriate, and honestly,
at the end of the day, I don't think it
persuades anyone to side with Congresswoman Crockett. And that's not
the kind of rhetoric that's going to convince people that
you're on the right side of these policy debate. No. No,
(15:30):
then it's just really distasteful.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
It's going to be really interesting to see which Texas
State Democrats disavow that comment and which ones don't, you know,
because you know, the role silence is violence, as they claim.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Holly, you're an awesome journalist.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
I encourage people to check out your work at the
Texan News and follow Holly on social.
Speaker 5 (15:48):
Medialy from Texas Broadcasting across the people's before think of America.
This is perceives of how it is radio with Ken
Webstern Judio a producer Kenny Keeping.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
All right, we're gonna have a quick segment and then
Austin Peterson's gonna be stopping by right after this next
break so we could talk about this article that was
just in the Wall Street Journal claiming women don't want
to get married anymore because men aren't making enough money.
Speaker 4 (16:19):
I'm gonna challenge that. But before we get to.
Speaker 8 (16:21):
That, it's time once again for voicemail messages from you.
The following voicemail messages were sent from listeners just like you,
using the Iheard Radio app. If you want to send
us a voicemail, just download the iHeartRadio smartphone app and
push the talkback button. You can send us a thirty
(16:43):
second audio recording that we will play on the show
at a future date, probably because it would be impossible
to play your audio messages on a previous date.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
So what are you waiting for? Download the app and
leave us a message today.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
All right, somebody asked me recently if we were if
I was no longer playing voicemails on the show, and
the truth is I just haven't played them in a while.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
We're still playing them on there. I find them to
be interesting.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
And so if you've left voicemail messages for me and
you haven't heard them on the show, I'm gonna start
doing that again.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
You heard, you heard the dancing clown? Explain it to you.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Download the iHeartRadio app, push the talkback button. We only
ask that you try to make a quiet in the background,
and please don't swear anyway.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
Let's get caught up on some of the voicemails we
haven't played in a while. Hey, Kenny, you know you
know what you're talking about.
Speaker 11 (17:32):
Before you start spouncuff over the air man, Yeah, look
up the definition of a pediofile.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
You can.
Speaker 11 (17:41):
She's not fifteen year old. Don't make you a pedio file,
all right? Check out the definition.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Man, Okay, later, I think I recently mentioned on the
show that if a fully grown man's in a relationship
with a sixteen year old a fifteen year old, that
person would be a pedophile.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
This person says, not the case.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
This person that left a voicemail message is obviously very
bothered by that. Now, according to the definition of a
pedophile is a person that's sexually attracted to children. In
my opinion, if you're fifteen, you're a pedophile. That's just
my opinion.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Okay, but any rate in no state in America is
a fifteen year old considered to be an adult. There
is no state with an age of consent lower than sixteen.
Thirty One states, along with the District of Columbia, set
the age of consent at sixteen Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut
District to Columbia. The list goes on and on the
point this person's getting at is that it's this person
(18:34):
that just left a voicemail message seemed to think it's
It sounds like he's suggesting that it's okay to have
sex with a fifteen year old. I disagree. I'm curious.
I'm curious what you radio listeners think. Feel free to
leave a voicemail message and tell us what you think.
Is that person creepy and weird? Or am I out
of line for suggesting a fully grown adult shouldn't date
a fifteen year old?
Speaker 4 (18:54):
Hey, Kenny, as fast as I can.
Speaker 10 (18:56):
Tax cuts to the movie industry is good because usually
the deal is only like the first three million or
something like that, and we're talking productions that go to
like thirty five forty five million dollar budgets to all
the people they employ, the taxes that they pay and
the money that they put into the system makes the difference.
(19:16):
So that's why it's worth it. Don't be like Bobby
Jendall and screw the film industry.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
Okay, So Bobby Jendall used to be the governor of
Louisiana and he was not a par I didn't know this.
Apparently he was not a big fan of subsidies for
the film industry. I made the point on this show
recently it would be nice to get property tax relief
in the state of Texas before we start giving out
tax subsidies to Hollywood movie studios.
Speaker 4 (19:40):
I still stand by that.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
But to your point, sir, I don't mind a tax
cut to any kind of industry. I do get a
little nervous thinking about what kind of people in Hollywood
might be attracted to move to Texas if we're giving
out subsidies to people in that line of work.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
But I digress. A tax cuts still.
Speaker 12 (19:55):
Good morning, Guys or afternoon Kenny, whichever it may be. Yeah,
one night I picked up a girl from Fat City
and on the way to my house she told me
she wanted to eat my babies. Confused me and freaked
me out. It sure wasn't what Tyson was talking about. Wow,
(20:18):
weird but fun. What for a night?
Speaker 5 (20:22):
You know?
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Crazy?
Speaker 3 (20:24):
I don't here at the Walton Johnson Show, we're very
much against eating babies. We don't think you should have
sex with the fifteen year old or eat a baby,
so please don't do that. The Pursuit of Happiness Radio
Network and the Walton and Johnson Radio Production Company are
both adamantly opposed to both of those things.
Speaker 7 (20:42):
You are listening to the Pursuit of Happiness Radio Pursuit
of Happiness. We don't have that in Mexico.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
We should check some more voicemails coming up.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
You ever read a mainstream news story that explains a
cultural phenomenon and you just don't believe it.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
I don't believe what I just read.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
There's a Wall Street Journal article today by Rachel Wolfe,
and she did what's from the other day, But you
know it's a recent article.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
It's gone viral, as you can if it's from last weekend.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
It's under the lifestyle relationships and Saturday Essays section of
the Wall Street Journal. And as you could probably guess
from the music playing in the background, the wedding march
from the flash Gordon, of course, that's Queen. The nineteen
eighties was a very different time. Well, you know what,
why don't we start the explanation there. In the nineteen eighties,
(21:35):
I think it was really the end of the nuclear family, right,
we were moving. It was post sexual revolution. The birth
control pill was quite common. Women were not uncommon in
the workforce. That was a regular phenomenon.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Then.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
Kenny Webster was but a little toddler, and women had
corporate jobs. Even if I never found the shoulder pads
that women wore in the nineteen eighties and their business
suits to be attractive, I don't understand the point of that,
but I do know that a shift from that to this.
The article in the Wall Street Journal I want to
react to here is called American women are giving up
on marriage. Major demographic shifts have put men and women
(22:10):
on divergent paths. That's left more women resigned to being single.
The numbers aren't netting out. What they described in the
article is that because women are earning more money than men,
they no longer want to marry men. I don't believe this.
I don't believe that that's the real reason why. But
I'm willing to be objective here. I'm open minded to this.
(22:31):
My experience is as such. First of all, most of
the women, as you guys know if you listen to
the show I recently became divorced when not thrilled about it.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
But look, it happens. It happens to about half of us.
Pretty common.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
Right, So I'm dating again, and my experience is a
that women are not making more money than me. But okay,
that's you know, that's my experience. It's anecdotal. And then
B that women do want to get married. Most women
I meet immediately tell me they want to get married,
they want to have kids. Now, again, anecdotal, that's just
my experience. They're using raw data and statistics here to
(23:05):
explain how most women don't want to marry men that
earn less money than them. And I don't even believe that.
I don't believe that. How many OnlyFans models out there.
Women generally control two industries, right, Despite what this article
would suggest, Women generally tend to control two industries, sex
and beauty. Beauty and sex. Those are things women dominate in.
(23:25):
It's true, right, models, cosmetics, fashion, whatever, porn? What kind
of women are those men dating? Unemployed losers? May be
handsome unemployed losers, but do you think that most porn
stars only fans models, Instagram models, fashion designers, you know, pick,
you know, we push the domino away from there and
teeter into all the other little industries that women tend to.
(23:48):
Do you think those women are all marrying men that
earn more than them now created. When it comes to celebrities,
there's some truth to that. You know, Taylor Swift's not
going to marry an unemployed loser other than Dolly Parton.
Most female celebrities don't end up with a guy that
is less famous, or wealthy or successful than them.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
But I digress. I just don't believe this.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Call me skeptical, And again, I'm basing this only entirely
on my own experience, and maybe I'm just different.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
I do know.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
My friend Austin Peterson is a student of culture. He's
a man who studies a lot of field research. What
is happening in the zeitgeist of humanity here in the
western half of the world. Austin Peterson, you may be
familiar with from The Libertarian Republican, also runs the online
store for the Walton and Johnson Show. He's an author,
a media personality. Austin, you saw the story American women
(24:42):
are given up on marriage?
Speaker 4 (24:44):
Do you buy it? Do you think that that's why?
Do you think this has to do with income levels?
Speaker 5 (24:49):
Yes, Kenny, Yeah, I'm shocked at your point of view
on that one. I hope everybody out there in the
Gulf Coast, beautiful Gulf of America, is having a wonderful day.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
Thanks for having me back. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (25:01):
You sound like you've got some cope. And I know
a lot of right wing conservative men who are in
your situation, Kenny, and a lot of them are coping.
And this is where the red pill came from. Originally,
the red pill community came out of these discussions of
men sharing their notes. You know, I've got a gay buddy,
a gay guy, and he says that if being gay
(25:23):
were a.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
Choice, it would be the right choice.
Speaker 5 (25:26):
And while that may be funny, you and I we
can't choose to be gay. But it's hard out there
for the men. It is hard out there for the
young men. I absolutely believe it. Fifty one percent of
women age eighteen to forty were single in twenty twenty
three from forty one point eight percent, so in the
last twenty five years an additional ten percent of women
(25:49):
choosing not to get marriage. College educated single women unmet
expectations is why they don't want to get married. They
were not meeting their exs. Because, Kenny, what's happening is
it's we're still living in a time when you know me,
If the Titanic sinks, it's still women and children first,
(26:11):
and the men have to stay on board the ship
while the women and children get away in the lifeboats.
We still have a mentality from the late eighteen hundreds
that places standards and expectations on the behavior of men
while women are completely and totally liberated from their old
gender roles. Now, I don't hate women. I love women,
(26:32):
but we have to talk about a society that says
women are completely and totally free to do as they please,
to get as much education as you want, get as
many jobs as they want. But men still have pay
on the first date and provide and be the main
providers and make more than their wives because here's the thing, Kenny.
The statistics don't lie. If your wife makes more than you,
(26:53):
she's gonna cheat on you, she's gonna leave you more
often than not. It's that doesn't happen in all cases.
But if you are not doing your job as a
provider man, you are not considered.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
To be worthwhile.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
This is why men and Mike Andrew Tate have been
getting traction here in the United States, because men have
started to come to realize through the red Pill they
started these communities. They started to realize that they're getting
a raw deal, and it's not even equality for women
would be a step down in the United States.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Kenny.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
And if we can't have it, it's true.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
Well, I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just funny to
hear someone explain it like that. I don't look Austin.
It's always everyone always assumes cause and effect.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
They see something happening and they see how and what
the result is, so they assume cause. There certainly is
a correlation right between modern day professional career standards for
women and the marriage rates being down.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
But is it possible that the actual cause and effect
is something else? Is it possible that part of the
reason why the marriage rates are down is simply because
for some people it's just fun to date. Is you know,
it's convenient, it's fun. They like having a different person
they could be with every month or two. I mean,
we're all assuming that this has entirely to do with
(28:13):
income level, and I'm just not sure that our conclusion
is so accurate.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
Have you asked the average college educated woman what her
opinion is on politics lately, Kenny, have you? I mean,
if you can get past the mesmerizing effect of their beauty,
and many of them are quite stunny when they go.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
To college, what happens to them?
Speaker 9 (28:37):
Right?
Speaker 5 (28:37):
The diverging world views between men and women is why
the gap between our political views and our values, Kenny,
between the values that men hold and the women that
the values that women hold, have never been more divergent.
Thirty nine percent of women eighteen to twenty nine identified
as liberal in twenty twenty four versus twenty five percent
(28:59):
of men, as a gap that's tripled since twenty fourteen.
Only fifty eight percent of young women see marriage is
essential to the American dream versus.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
Sixty six percent of men. Swipe left. If you voted
for Trump.
Speaker 5 (29:13):
Right, progressive women in conservative regions actually go even harder.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
To the left to resist the values that you suppose.
Speaker 5 (29:22):
And a US thousand and I imagine many of your listeners,
especially the ten percenters, absolutely right.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
The ideological divide.
Speaker 5 (29:30):
Between men and women has never been wider, and you
wouldn't listen.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
People can have their opinions.
Speaker 5 (29:36):
It's fine, it's free country and the rights individual liberty.
But you've got to live with them, Kenny. You know,
I had a very prominent, very prominent celebrity one time,
turned to me one time and I know this, this
is the tuxedo night dinner, and he said, whatever you do,
Austin Mary a libertarian woman, he said, Mary, a woman
who shares your values. He's like, oh, your life will
be hell essentially, and paraphrasing, he' said your life will
(29:58):
be hell. And those women I got the last helicopter
flight out of Saigon when I got my beautiful redheaded
libertarian Wifey Staffy. But you know, when she came along,
I was like, Austin, for forego all women before her,
because she they are rare as Hen's teeth, Kenny. So
you have to understand, you know what I'm saying is true.
(30:20):
The values of these young women are so far left
that they would make Stalin blush.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
Okay, but we're talking about a very specific group of
college educated women, you know, age twenty one to twenty
nine or thirty five and below. Generally, after women become
married in America, they don't. They often leave the liberalism behind.
After women become married have a kid more often than out,
they're not like that anymore.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
And again totally anecdotal, right. But my experience has been when.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
I'm going out on dates with women who tend to
be very liberal, I don't tell them what I do Austin.
It's I don't tell them what I do for a living.
I'm the dating apps. I put down that I'm in advertised,
which is technically true, right, And generally I just wait,
I listen to them talk about politics.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
I sit it out. Women love when you let them talk.
You probably have figured this out.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
You're married.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
You've noticed that anyone really likes talking about themselves. But
women love to tell you about their opinions. They love
to opine. And once they've run out of things to
say and I've heard all their talking points, I start
to form what my response is going to be and
then I and then more than once I've read pilled them. Now,
these aren't women that I remain in relationships with. It's
(31:30):
probably a safe bet that months afterwards they end up
hating me. But at least for that brief fleeting moment
and time there, I feel like, for lack of a
better explanation, you can date the liberal out of a woman.
Maybe maybe I'm an optimist Austin. That's just been my experience.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
It can be, it can happen.
Speaker 5 (31:49):
But they But but I'll tell you that on along
enough curve, they're going to buck you. They're going to
They're eventually going to revert back to the mean. And
and here's the thing. You're taking a sniper approach to this,
which I can respect.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
I can respect.
Speaker 5 (32:06):
I took the Genghis Khan approach to it, where it
was like cast wide, nets wide and far day, lots
of people. Right, and put yourself out there, be exactly
who you are, because Kenny, it's obvious. You know your
position of power that's elevated from a position of the media, right,
give that platform is attractive to women. You could use
(32:26):
that to attract women. You say you don't choose to
do that. You tell them you're an advertising and all
that kind of stuff. That's fine, But the problem is
is that you have to have volume to be able
to make the decisions about You have to know what
is a good woman and what is not a good woman.
And by the time you get to about our age
is about the time you found out what a good
(32:46):
woman is and what's not. I mean, I'm sure you
had heartbreak. I had my heartbreak back in my days, right,
you know, you know exits that cheated on you or whatever. Right,
But you had to have those experiences until you and
build those experiences up to where you can know what's
a good woman what's not a good woman? Kenny, you
and I I mean, you'd be first to say it
can be hard. You can get into a relationship with
(33:07):
someone I think you know them and then all of
a sudden things change. Right, So opening yourself up completely
and totally for who you are, Yes, it's going to
attract the wrong, wrong type of women, but it's also
going to track the right type of woman, and it's
your job to sift them out. So I think the
Genghis con strategy is much better than the the zi
lezetive sniper strategy in.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
My opinion, Well, to your point, I am divorced, so yeah,
and I live with I didn't want to.
Speaker 5 (33:32):
I didn't want to.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Like, No, you're right, No, you're correct about that. I
live alone with a French bulldog named Milton Friedman. So
to your point, I know it's in it. But one
of one of my best friends is is a physical
trainer in a gym. It's a pretty good job. His wife,
on the other hand, is a lawyer.
Speaker 4 (33:50):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
I think that the attractive business woman hooking up with
the muscular lumberjack type.
Speaker 4 (33:56):
I think that's a thing, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (33:59):
You You will date a waitress, you, Kenny, You will
date I did. You will date a girl who scrapes
barnacles off the bottom of a ship that's that sales
to catch guld shrimp in the Gulf of America.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
Will women say the same, Kenny, They won't.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
As a matter of fact, they won't say the same thing.
Women will not date you or consider you unless you
are at least as good as them, if not more,
And even if you are at least making as much
money as.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
Them or have as much cloud as them.
Speaker 5 (34:29):
They still expect you to pay on the first date,
and they still expect you to do all the chival
chivalrous things. So my question here is, and this is
really the real question the centrality of this debate, Sunny,
and it's a challenge. I don't know if you'll be
able to answer this or not, but how can we
function right? How could we possibly return back to what
you know, a situation where men and women need each
(34:50):
other and rely on each other if women are liberated
from their gender roles and men are not in.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
Order for society to continue to thrive in the population. Yeah,
I mean obviously.
Speaker 5 (35:04):
Countries obviously well right, but you know, funny, but here's
the thing, the question women American women don't want those
people either, right, They barely want white men that are
that are average and make a decent way.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
Are liberal women are racist?
Speaker 5 (35:20):
You're saying, of extremely absolutely, But they'll they'll pay black
men if they make enough money and play football.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
But the but the uh, the thing about the here's
the thing.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
The only liberation from gender roles that men experience is
either being gay or being transgender. So if if liberation
from male gender roles leads to homosexuality or to transgenderism. Well,
then you're not, you're not.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
You're still not. You're out of the dating pool.
Speaker 5 (35:49):
Right, So if you want a heterosexual relationship, women are
entirely liberated from their gender roles. I mean, they're constrained
by biology nature if they want to have kids. But
they don't want to have kids, they don't want to
get married. So then what does liberation for heterosexual men
look like from gender roles, Well, it looks like not
paying for the first date, not being the provider. But
(36:09):
women can't accept that. So it's a catch twenty two, Kenny,
We're an impasse. What do we Either we can do
two things. We can either one liberate men from their
gender roles further, which women aren't going to allow, or
two we put women out back into the kitchen and
they make the sandwiches again, which do you think is
more likely to happen?
Speaker 2 (36:28):
Right, So you can't have it both ways.
Speaker 5 (36:31):
You can't go down the men, women and children first,
Like I said, equality being a step down. You can't
have women liberated from their gender roles and then men not,
and then men still be having to live in by
the standards of chivalry in.
Speaker 4 (36:43):
The late eighteen hundreds, hundreds, I would agree with that.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Okay, option three, we legalize sex work for women, thus
making right, Well, well wouldn't.
Speaker 8 (36:56):
They of men?
Speaker 5 (36:58):
They're plenty of jiglos. I need plenty oflows, and they
made good money.
Speaker 3 (37:03):
And I was going in the other direction on this.
I think if your average guy could just legally pay
for an escort or a prostitute or a massage therapist,
he probably wouldn't care that much about you know, the
gender shock, right, the women make your shock.
Speaker 5 (37:19):
You know, people with people love to portray pornography as
some like, you know, an industry of men praying on women,
and there's certainly is an aspect for that. But if
you think that women don't, like, leefully participate in a
lot of these acts a lot of times, you know,
the problem is, Kenny, is that, like we still have
this concept of this victimhood mentality of women.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
They're not victims now.
Speaker 5 (37:40):
As a matter of fact, many of them, many of
them since the nineteenth Amendment, Kenny, have become our oppressors.
Do you think that it's a is this a causation
correlation fallacy that the rise of authoritarianism in the United
States has come along with tem you know what came
along with women's with women's suffrage, temperance. Yeah, yeah, that's
that shall touch liok or shall not touch arts? Where
(38:02):
do you think all of the restrictions? What do you
think it all comes from?
Speaker 9 (38:04):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (38:04):
Think of the children?
Speaker 2 (38:06):
Do you it's the Where do you think the.
Speaker 5 (38:08):
Tyranny is coming from? Who's voting for it? Who do
you think is voting to put the transgenders in the
in the in the girls' sports? You think it's men,
Kenny voting for that?
Speaker 3 (38:18):
I mean, I I assume that it's people that are
absolutely nuts from both of the two genders. But I
will tell you this, we went a little This is
that I could talk about this for hours, but we
did go a little along on this segment. We got it,
hey real quick, what's going on at I LOVEWJ dot com.
Speaker 5 (38:34):
Everybody who's anybody has got at this point in time,
has got a Golf of America beach towel. Okay, so
if you don't have a Gulf of America beach towel,
you're going to be the person at the Gulf of America,
you know, spring break party without one. Don't be like
that fear of missing out is a powerful marketing tool,
and I'm leaning heavily into it. Don't be the person
(38:55):
who misses out gets your Golf of America merch at
I LOVEWJ dot com.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
We've got a new.
Speaker 5 (39:00):
Design coming out. I don't know if there's any eighties
fans of Miami Vice out there on the Gulf Coast,
but we've got the Department of Government Efficiency instead of
cops from the eighties, We've got the doge from the
nineteen eighties leisure suit wearing Miami Wece style Miami Doze
Howels coming to a Walton and Johnson collection in the
(39:20):
next twenty minutes. By the time your audience hears this,
they will have a bunch of new products in your collection.
And I love WJ dot com, So check it out
and I'll see you at the beach.
Speaker 4 (39:29):
I love it. Austin Peterson, Hey to the rest of you,
have an awesome day. We'll be back brighton early tomorrow
morning for more of what you bought a radio for.
You are listening to the Pursuit of Emmy.
Speaker 10 (39:46):
This radio tell the government to kiss yours when you
listen to this show.
Popular Podcasts
Math & Magic: Stories from the Frontiers of Marketing with Bob Pittman
How do the smartest marketers and business entrepreneurs cut through the noise? And how do they manage to do it again and again? It's a combination of math—the strategy and analytics—and magic, the creative spark. Join iHeartMedia Chairman and CEO Bob Pittman as he analyzes the Math and Magic of marketing—sitting down with today's most gifted disruptors and compelling storytellers.
Eye On College Basketball
CBS Sports’ official college basketball podcast is the most entertaining and informative of its kind. Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander bring the sport into your ears at least three times per week with commentary, reporting, insider information and statistical analysis throughout college basketball all year long.
The Questlove Show
The Questlove Show builds on the award-winning Questlove Supreme podcast, bringing listeners into intimate, one-on-one conversations with peers, influences, and friends. Hosted by Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson, each episode uncovers the unexpected — from morning rituals and hidden talents to the art and experiences that shaped a guest’s journey. Sometimes playful, sometimes profound, always curious, QLS offers rare insight into leaders in music, film, television, comedy, literature, mental health, and beyond. It’s a fresh, unpredictable spin from a trusted source — a place where randomness is encouraged, tangents are welcomed, and conversations are anything but ordinary.