Leighton Smith Podcast #281 - April 23rd 2025 - Kurt Schlichter - The Leighton Smith Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of this now the Leighton
Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to Podcasts two hundred and eighty one for April
twenty third, twenty twenty five. This podcast is into its
seventh year, which I struggle to comprehend for a variety
of reasons, but one of the rewards. One of the
highlights of doing it is discovering individuals who are unknown,
in introducing them to you and in many cases to myself,

(00:50):
and in other cases they are unfamiliar with us sort of.
There are two forms of media that are booming at
the moment, columnists and podcasts. Columists have been at it
for hundreds of years, podcasts not so much. But there's
one essential aspect that is applicable to both that render

(01:11):
them valuable. Independence. Independence as in unencumbered by overlords, independence
as in expressing what you think, not fitting into a
mainstream keral. Kurt Schlichter is an interesting man, as we'll
discover shortly and I have read his columns on and

(01:31):
off for a period of time, but it occurred to
me more recently that we needed somebody of his ilk
in this country who could write about local things in
somewhat the same manner, and adorned on me that that
individual probably exists. And I want to give you an example.
Readers of this blog have long known about our frustration

(01:55):
with Wellington's lack of action by career bureaucrats over practically
every important issue facing New Zealand. The pointless Party has
continued under national Take the latest Treasury report, for example,
it's called Teyara Makapuna twenty twenty five Consultation on the
Draft Content of the Treasury's Long Term Insights Briefing Sustainable

(02:18):
and Resilient Physical Policy through Economic Shocks and Cycles. With
a long winded title like that, the report is bound
to be nonsense, and so it is. What's the point
of this one hundred and eleven page exercise in stupidity?
The new Secretary Treasury sums it up when he says,

(02:40):
we hope this briefing will encourage New Zealanders to talk
about whether we are leaving enough in the public purse
for future New Zealanders. How exciting is that all talk,
no action. The nation is fed upwards talking and debating.
It's fed up with Finance Minister Willis saying that she
is taking advice on every single issue because she has

(03:01):
no plan and no clue about economics and finance. Why
is the Treasury Secretary being paid to talk all day?
Why was he even hired? Now this is from Robert
McCulloch from Auckland University and he's been writing columns now
under the title or under the address of down to

(03:21):
Worth Kiwi or down to Worth dot Kiwi. Anyway he
goes on, I recommend finding this yet another rubbish Treasury
report in your bim. It's a waste of one million
dollars of taxpayer money. It reads like a first year
macroeconomics textbook. Why didn't Finance Minister Willis by Principles of

(03:43):
Economics by Greg Mann? I can't pronounce this guy's lam.
I don't know m A n kiw manky mank you
for ninety dollars rather than ask Treasury to write an
imbasilically patronizing version of it. It provides not one solution
to the primary underlying question posed by the report, namely
how to avoid New Zealand's long term physical challenges stemming

(04:06):
from population A. He concludes this particular commentary, I remember
visiting the Treasury to present the plan together with Sir
Roger Douglas. We were scheduled to meet the then Treasury
Secretary at around nine am, and our earlier one of
his minions called and said the big boss Man couldn't

(04:27):
make the meeting. So I said we couldn't make it either.
Then they called back and said he could make the meeting.
The Treasury never cited our article and never gave a
damn about coming up with a concrete plan to solve
New Zealand's rising death and deficits. All it does is talk.
All it wants us to do is talk. All the

(04:47):
new Secretary wants to do is talk. All Willis wants
to do is talk and seek advice. I think I
thought him pretty much on a par with today's guest.
Close anyway, Now, at the back end of this podcast,
after the mail Room with Missus producer, I've included a

(05:07):
message that Pope Francis said to his bishops in America
only a couple of weeks few days before he died
and it is a it's a targeted message and it
has to do with migration, and I think you'll find
its comments rather interesting. Whether you agree or not is

(05:28):
up to you. I would like to discuss it with
the departed Pope, but that's not possible now in a moment. Kerch,
schlicktter Lat and Smith. Buckerlan is a natural oral vaccine
in a tablet form called bacterial l sate. It'll boost
your natural protection against bacterial infections in your chest and throat.

(05:50):
A three day course of seven Buckleland tablets will help
your body build up to three months of immunity against
bugs which cause bacterial cold symptoms. So who can take
buccolan well, the whole family from two years of age
and upwards. A course of Buckelan tablets offers cost effective
and safe protection from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective

(06:11):
a few days after you take buccolin and lasts for
up to three months following the three day course. Buccolin
can be taken throughout the cold season, over winter or
all the year round. And remember, Buckelan is not intended
as an alternative to influenza vaccination, but may be used
along with the flu vaccination for added protection, and keep
in mind that millions of doses have been taken by

(06:33):
Kiwi's for over fifty years. Only available from your pharmacist.
Always read the label and uses directed and see your
doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker Auckland Kurt Schlichter is

(07:00):
an interesting man with a background from which he built
what I have described as some character. So to a
lot of other people, he has character and he is
a character. He served in the military, retiring in twenty fifteen.
He retired as a full fully fledged colonel with a
degree from the Army War College. He is an author

(07:23):
of novels. He's an opinion writer, writing three columns a
week for the town Hall dot com in two thousand
and nine, and this seems to be a major claim
to fame, because anywhere you read about Kurch Slickter they
pretty much quote this. In two thousand and nine, Andrew
Breitbart recruited him personally to write I believe on Hollywood,

(07:46):
Big big Hollywood. How did he approach you? By the way,
Welcome to New Zealand. I know this is the first
time you've been here.

Speaker 3 (07:54):
Well, thank you.

Speaker 4 (07:54):
I've inn all over the world. New Zealand's on my list.

Speaker 2 (08:00):
Of course.

Speaker 4 (08:00):
I know. All I know about New Zealand is you
had magnificent fighting forces and the Lord of the Rings
and animals.

Speaker 3 (08:09):
But I'm eager to come there someday if I'm allowed
in the country.

Speaker 2 (08:11):
Well, we know how to sink ships too, especially our own,
well as such as I presume tonight.

Speaker 4 (08:17):
The story, I do know the story, and it's a
story in all the Western militaries. I'm sure we'll touch
on that at some point, but let me let me
get to Andrew.

Speaker 3 (08:27):
I was a full time.

Speaker 4 (08:29):
Lawyer at the time, a litigator, but I had I
had finished my stand up comedy career, which went on
for a few years, and I deployed with the army
overseas d Kosovo. I came back and I was doing
still doing a little freelance writing. I had written, you know,
opinion pieces. I had written jokes by a BMW, writing

(08:50):
jokes living in Los Angeles.

Speaker 3 (08:53):
That's the kind of thing you do.

Speaker 4 (08:54):
And one day somebody from law school said, you've got
to meet this friend of mine, Andrew Breitbart. And I
had heard of him. I knew he was out there.
I knew he was starting these websites and we met
and we bonded over Mexican food and alternative music. We're
big fans of books, and I got to know him
and one day he's doing Big Hollywood, which was a

(09:15):
kind of a conservative.

Speaker 3 (09:16):
Take on Hollywood. It was the first of his Breitbart stuff.

Speaker 4 (09:19):
And I saw this story in the newspaper about the
new Star Trek movie and they were going to open
it and wait for the American troops.

Speaker 3 (09:26):
That was that was gonna be the premiere.

Speaker 4 (09:28):
And I'm a big believer that you know from being
in the military that when your guys do something positive,
you reinforce it. Because if you were enforced positive, you're
gonna get more positive. So I sent Andrew an email saying, Hey,
you got to get somebody to write a story about this.
If they're doing good things to Yatta, say that, and
he said, why don't you write it? And I wrote

(09:49):
it and I immediately got a writer's packet, So.

Speaker 3 (09:53):
I was one of the first big Hollywood writers. I'm
so early.

Speaker 4 (09:56):
I also had no non disclosure agreement, which came later
and when Breitbart kind of after Andrew's unfortunate death, Andrew
became a friend.

Speaker 3 (10:07):
But after his n passing.

Speaker 4 (10:09):
Breitbart kind of went through some troubles, and I kept
getting calls from the media because I became known as
the one guy who could talk about Breitbart because I
didn't have a non disclosure. But I wouldn't because I
hate the meeting. So but Andrew was a great guy,
a true visionary. He is somebody who saw things in
a way no one else did. I've never met anyone

(10:30):
like him. His death was a terrible surprise. Well it
shouldn't have been. I had lunch with him two weeks
before him and a conservative movie star in Los Angeles,
and you know, he had a couple of lunch fears.
He looked terrible, and I said, Andrew, you gotta take
care of himself. No, no, no, I got too much work
to do. I got more to do. And he literally
worked himself to death.

Speaker 2 (10:52):
He is what was it that actually? What was it
that actually killed him? Did they have a find out
he had.

Speaker 4 (10:58):
He had a congenital heart condition and it was complicated
by lack of exercise and stress, and he basically basically
had our art attack. For lack of better people said,
well he was poison and everything. Come on, I saw Andrew,
he was not put He worked himself to death. He

(11:21):
was a patriot. He put saving his country and his
people over his own health.

Speaker 2 (11:29):
Who would you who would you say? Who would you
say would come closest to him today?

Speaker 3 (11:36):
Today?

Speaker 4 (11:38):
Oh wow, it's funny because there are hundreds of us
who came from Andrew, Brian, Ben Shapiro, Larry.

Speaker 3 (11:48):
O'Connor, My gosh. In two thousand and nine, the.

Speaker 4 (11:50):
Three of us were doing an hour long radio internet
radio show every Thursday night, Larry Show.

Speaker 2 (11:57):
You know.

Speaker 4 (11:57):
And now Ben Shapiro is basically a corporation and himself
Dana lash just.

Speaker 3 (12:02):
He inspired so many people, but no one's like him.
There's not one guy who's adding out a vision.

Speaker 4 (12:10):
We're all running along in our various ways fulfilling his vision.

Speaker 3 (12:15):
So it's it's very hard.

Speaker 4 (12:16):
I mean, there are there are a lot of great
guys out there doing innovative things, but there there's there's
no new Andrew.

Speaker 3 (12:22):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (12:23):
He was the equivalent of the the internet, equivalent of
Rush Limbaugh to the radio, which is the He was
the beginning and the end of the story.

Speaker 2 (12:34):
I read. I read an opinion piece earlier today. It
was written by somebody who I didn't used to like,
but more recently have have come to well, feel more
friendly toward basically because I think this particular person has
has changed attitude to some degree. But he hated Andrew.

(12:58):
His name's Matt, Matt Tybee really, and you know Matt.

Speaker 3 (13:03):
I I don't know him personally. I think he is.

Speaker 4 (13:08):
He's one of the people who found the ground shifting
underneath him. I don't know how much he's changed, but
I know that the people who used to be his
allies have changed.

Speaker 3 (13:17):
He didn't like Andrew is stunning Andrew.

Speaker 4 (13:20):
A lot of leftists personally liked Andrew.

Speaker 3 (13:23):
He was just a great god. As a person.

Speaker 4 (13:27):
He wasn't uh, you know, he was a tough fighter,
but he wasn't cruel or petty. Uh.

Speaker 3 (13:35):
He was just you know, and and he you know.

Speaker 4 (13:38):
I'm surprised that he actively hated him.

Speaker 3 (13:40):
On a personal level.

Speaker 4 (13:41):
I could see them hating him for his politics because
some you know, lunatics think they should invest that kind
of hatred.

Speaker 3 (13:49):
In their political stuff. But that that sucks me.

Speaker 2 (13:53):
Well, it was it was out of Rolling Stone, and
I went looking for something and came across this. So
let me just quote you briefly a little of it.
There's some couple of pages, but just a bit. Give
him this the right way provocateur had his moments. So
Andrew Breitbart is dead. Here's what I have to say

(14:14):
to that. And I'm sure Breitbart himself would have respected
this reaction. Good fim, there's words in here I can't say.
I couldn't be happier he's dead. I say this in
the nicest possible way. I actually kind of liked Andrew Breitbart,
but not in the sense that I would ever have
wanted to hang out with him or even be caught
within one hundred yards of him without a hazmat suit on,

(14:36):
but respected the shamelessness. Breitbart didn't do anything by halves,
and even his most ardent detractors had to admit that
he had a highly developed, if not always funny, sense
of humor. But he went on and finished up in
much the same way. He was generous, and then he
came back and put the boot in again. I was shocked.

(14:58):
I was shocked also, but then I realized that in
those days it was a long time ago. Now he
was writing for Rolling Stone, and rolling Stone as a
well something on its own.

Speaker 4 (15:08):
Well, I simply hope that. I'm sure all of us
have embarrassing things that we're ashamed of that we've written
in the past, and I hope nobody digs up something
that reflects of mine, that reflects so poorly on my character.

Speaker 3 (15:23):
And I hope Matt Tayebe has thought about that over
the years and come to a different conclusion.

Speaker 2 (15:30):
I want to.

Speaker 4 (15:31):
That's just it's mortifying in the sense that I'm not offended.

Speaker 3 (15:37):
I just think less of him.

Speaker 2 (15:38):
Maybe you should read the whole thing, just to put
it more in perspective, but it's entitled the death of
a douche. Having washed our hands of that, let me
continue in somewhat the same vein what I'm quoting you
is a piece written by a university professor in Auckland
on his blog. Yesterday, the US President lambast at Harvard

(16:03):
University he ordered its federal funding to be cut for
those curious about the inner organizational workings of such places.
The comments the president made as a social media post
were not directed at the university as a whole. When
one reads closely. He's particularly upset about former Democratic Party

(16:24):
New York mayor Bill de Blasio being appointed to a
visiting fellowship at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Other appointments
at the Kennedy School also are also driving the president crazy.
So who else is sitting in those ivory towers alongside
the likes of de Blasio. New Zealand's former Prime Minister
Jacinda Adern. Of course, she is also a fellow at

(16:48):
that school, appointed from twenty four to twenty five. Her
title is Angelopolis Global Public Leader's Fellow. What did the
President say about the Kennedy School hiring the likes of Adern?
Harvard has been hiring almost all woke, radical left idiots
and bird brains who are only capable of teaching failure

(17:11):
to students and so called future leaders. These leftist dopes
are teaching at Harvard, and because of that, Harvard should
not be considered on any list of the world's greatest
universities or colleges. How should offended New Zealanders feel about that?

Speaker 4 (17:27):
Well, look, Donald Trump is a different kind of American president.

Speaker 3 (17:31):
He is much.

Speaker 4 (17:34):
More akin to the kind of guys to put up
tall buildings and work on steel and sheet rock and
cement than he is the kind of people who teach
at Harvard. One of the problems that we faced in
the United States and throughout the Western world is the
leftists have taken control of our institutions.

Speaker 3 (17:56):
They have changed.

Speaker 4 (17:57):
Much like a virus takes control of a cell to
turn it to its own purposes, which is usually creating
more viruses. These leftists have taken the institutions and turn
them into essentially leftist conformity factories and taking them off
task from.

Speaker 3 (18:16):
Their institutional goals.

Speaker 4 (18:18):
You know, back back in the old days, Harvard was
supposed to uh, uh, you know, train preachers. Then it
was supposed to train you know, leaders for the government,
uh and uh business and society. And now it changed.
It trains a bunch of amas loving half wits. The
the fight in the United States is over what to

(18:40):
do with these institutions. Do we attempt to retake them
or do we destroy them and build something else.

Speaker 3 (18:49):
I remember Maggie Thatcher.

Speaker 4 (18:52):
One of the brilliant things she said for her time
was first you win the argument, that you win the election.
That's changed now as and I thought that I wish
I could take credit for it. I saw somebody else
say it. Now We're not interested in winning the argument,
We're interested in winning the fight. And Harvard is not

(19:14):
losing its money because it has leftist teaching. Harvard is
losing its money specifically because it's not complying with the
civil rights laws that the money that the federal government
gives it come attaxed with. They always come with strings.

(19:35):
And in fact, this has been law for forty years.
If you are a university that is not abiding by
civil rights laws, according to a case called Bob Jones
University versus the United States, you are not allowed to
get a tax exemption.

Speaker 3 (19:50):
You're also not allowed to get federal funding.

Speaker 4 (19:53):
So Harvard, if it's you know, if it wants to
continue not abiding by federal civil rights laws, it is
free to not take federal money. I don't understand why
my pocket has to get picked. And April fifteenth was
tax day in the end United States.

Speaker 3 (20:09):
I'm not seeing why.

Speaker 4 (20:09):
My my money needs my pocket needs to get picked
to go subsidize a place that is biased against Jews,
white Americans, Asian Americans. And again I'm not sure. I'm
not kind of throwing these things out there. There was
a Supreme Court last year that found that Harvard was
discriminating against.

Speaker 3 (20:27):
Asians in admissions. That's done the due process has happened.
That's an established fact.

Speaker 4 (20:33):
And Harvard, of course, as Democrats tend to do, is
massively resisting attempts to force it to comply with civil
rights laws. And now the hammer comes down. That's that's
that's how it is. There is a huge infrastructure of leftists,
not only in the United States but around the world, non

(20:54):
governmental organizations funded by American taxpayers, mostly at doing tasks
that our counter to the interests of the United States.
Donald Trump's the president of the United States. He's not
citizens of the world. Okay, he's not a he's not

(21:14):
a representative of some new world order. He is the
President of the United States. And I expected president of
the United States to act in the interests of the
United States of America. I expect the president of Ukraine
to act in the interests of Ukraine. I expect the
Prime Minister of New Zealand to act in the interests
of New Zealand.

Speaker 3 (21:35):
And.

Speaker 2 (21:35):
And that's a change that would be nice. Yes, I
heard somebody refer to you as the writing king of x.
Could you explain how how you became the writing king
of X.

Speaker 3 (21:51):
Uh?

Speaker 4 (21:52):
You know, I started on exd boys sixteen years ago.
I was a stand up comic. I I liked writing
pithy jokes. The part about LAW that I liked was
writing pithy briefs. Some people like crossword puzzles, people like Sudoku.
For a long time, I liked writing jokes. There's a

(22:13):
structure to jokes. There's a formed of writing jokes. If
you read my columns, you'll see I write in essentially
stand up comic.

Speaker 2 (22:23):
Uh oh yeah.

Speaker 4 (22:25):
And and I find I find Twitter mentally stimulating. It's fun,
and I like I like talking to people. I like
arguing with people. I like making points, I like learning things.
I like videos about cute otters rolling around in the water.
I just love everything about X. It allows you to

(22:48):
participate in the marketplace of ideas in a way that
was never possible before. Of course, Andrews de Brype are
huge visionary for X. He knew that X was going
to be something huge. But you know, I've had I've
had conversations with the Vice President and state on X.

Speaker 3 (23:10):
Also met him in person.

Speaker 4 (23:11):
He's another Ohio guy like me h and a great guy,
wonderful guy, brilliant guy.

Speaker 3 (23:17):
His wife's even smarter.

Speaker 4 (23:20):
But you know it gives you a chance to really
participate in your own culture, in your own politics.

Speaker 3 (23:28):
The stink you want to I think that's great.

Speaker 2 (23:31):
You say, his wife's even smarter. I think every man
should every man should have a smarter wife.

Speaker 4 (23:37):
Uh, well, he's certainly does and he is a smart cat.

Speaker 3 (23:41):
Do not be fooled.

Speaker 4 (23:42):
Here's this idea that Americans who don't live on the
coast are a bunch of flat jaws and yokuls who
are just waiting to ambush innocent canoeists. That that is
very much not true. You know, go find a Texas
cattleman and see if you can out negotiate him.

Speaker 3 (24:00):
It's it's gonna be tough.

Speaker 4 (24:03):
And he makes no apologies for coming from a very
tough air a Appalachia. And then he he conquered you know,
he he met the standards of the United States Marines,
which are very high. He went to Yale Law School,
which is, you know, super prestigious, and held his own.
Then he went to Silicon Valley, held his own there,

(24:23):
became a senator, became Vice President of the United States,
and there's you know, there's this underlying bigotry against him
as kind of uppity because he didn't know his place,
and that just makes people like him more.

Speaker 3 (24:42):
And yeah, there's a lot.

Speaker 4 (24:43):
Of dynamics in America that I think are hard for
folks who aren't.

Speaker 3 (24:49):
Americans to see.

Speaker 4 (24:50):
And I had the advantage of living overseas quite frequentized
station in Europe two and a half three years once
and then a year and a half a year or
so another time, and I spent time over in Ukraine
and stuff. So I had a little and I married
an immigrant. My wife escaped casters Cuba and her family did,
so I think I have a little different perspective than

(25:13):
a lot of Americans, because you know, America is so
big you you really don't have to leave it to
see pretty much every facet of the world. But I
think a lot of people looking in America from the
outside don't fully get some of the nuances of our politics,
especially the kind of social class and cultural one.

Speaker 2 (25:33):
It's interesting you there's a picture of you on on
the website. I think it's I think it's on the
town hall side with you and your wife. You're looking
at each other and my wife. My wife came by,
looked over my shoulder and said, oh, he's good looking,
And I said not as good looking as his wife.

Speaker 3 (25:55):
Yeah, she saw. Sorry, I am such a Los Angelus
lawyer I married.

Speaker 4 (26:01):
She was a model for a while. I literally married
a model. That is the most Los Angeles lawyer stereotype possible.

Speaker 2 (26:08):
I am that show and you have and you have
been happy ever since.

Speaker 4 (26:13):
Well, yeah, and we just finished a book together. We
just wrote a novel together. It's gonna come out on
the twenty fifth called Los Angeles Silver Bullets on the
Sunset Strip, kind of a noir forties Raymond Chandler esque novel.
It's just so much fun to write, and we did
it together. We have a great cover artist, as all

(26:34):
my covers, so we just had the experience.

Speaker 3 (26:38):
Of doing that. It was just I mean, it's really
been a it's been nice.

Speaker 2 (26:42):
Well, as long as you've raised it, let's carry on
with the with the book topic, because I have a
copy of The Attack, and I think you wrote this
on your own. I did from the author of Weeks
from the the Will, I read a book once. It
took me two years from the author, from the author
of the People's Republic series The Attack. Now it's described

(27:06):
as fripening only one description. Give us a give us
a quick brief because it's not on it's not on sale.
It's not on sale here, and I think it arguably
should be.

Speaker 4 (27:19):
I I wrote it right after October seventh, uh, because
I gotta tell you, I'm I'm concerned. Like I said,
I'm retired army colonel's strategic Studies degree. I'm in contact
with a lot of military people. I still talk to
a lot of folks doing military things. We had a
wide open border, and we had lots of enemies, and

(27:43):
we the United States and I think other countries too,
as we've seen, are extremely vulnerable to mass attack, to
asymmetrical attacks, them hitting us at our weak point designed
to break our spirit. The Attack Talks is essentially an
oral history. It has about twenty five chapters each an
individual who experienced some piece of a giant three day

(28:06):
attack by thousands of jaha is supported by outside governments
who use the weaknesses of the United States to literally
murder as many Americans as they can with the idea
of breaking our spirit. Now, I don't think that would
break America's spirit. I think you would see America react
with a cold fury that would make chill the spine

(28:28):
of gageous con But We are a tremendously vulnerable country,
but we're also a tremendously tough country, and we're a
country that's ready to protect itself.

Speaker 3 (28:39):
While I am in Texas. I'm in Texas right now.

Speaker 4 (28:42):
Every time I walk out the door, I have a
nine millimeter pistol on my hip unless I'm going to
a bar, every single time in case something happens. California
has a little different gun laws. It's kind of a
fascist state. We'll fix it and then I'll carry there.
But we are unbelievably vulnerable, and our government, by leaving

(29:05):
our border open, let pretty much anybody in, and if
you get them in at a very low cost, with
minimal intelligence, minimal logistics, minimal command and control, you could
launch a devastating attack that would kill tens of thousands
of Americans.

Speaker 3 (29:24):
And that's what the attack's about. It is I wanted
to write it. I wrote like Sir John Hackett.

Speaker 4 (29:32):
General Sir John Hackett wrote The Third World War back
in I think nineteen eighty, and that was a huge
book that made people look at NATO again and say,
wait a minute, we're not ready for the Soviets. And
I did in the same style the oral history style,
create a character in one place to give you a
piece of it. So it's not a Thetan Death March

(29:55):
of statistics, numbers and rhetoric.

Speaker 3 (29:59):
I tried to make it the story.

Speaker 5 (30:01):
Of men and women, moms, dads, eric and you, repairman, comps, medics,
all of them.

Speaker 4 (30:12):
What part of this did they experience? What does that
tell you about the vulnerabilities as a whole? And of
course the of course, one of the things is a
B two bomber pilot who leads America's revenge against the
country that plans. And you know, we lost three thousand

(30:35):
people on nine to eleven, and we killed hundreds of
thousands of people. If they killed tens of thousands of us,
our enemies ought to be very, very frightened.

Speaker 2 (30:43):
I just flicked through the book while you were talking
and came across chapter twenty one, which is set in Houston.
There is a there is a development taking place in Texas.
I think it's I think it's in Dallas rather than Houston,
although it could be could be wrong.

Speaker 3 (30:58):
I think it's near Waco.

Speaker 2 (30:59):
But you know what I'm talking about, Yes, I know what.

Speaker 3 (31:02):
You're talking about.

Speaker 4 (31:04):
It is a town that essentially is being built to
operate under Sharia law essentially, and it's a foothold in
Texas as a municipality, and that can't be allowed to happen.
Now there's one law, it's our constitution. We don't have

(31:24):
two laws. We don't have two dual tracks. One of
the problems in the United States is we got away
from something that made us great, which is when you
come here, you shed who you are and you become
an American.

Speaker 3 (31:37):
I don't care where you came from.

Speaker 4 (31:40):
A guy who came from Nigeria's as much an American
as a guy who came from Stuttgart right or in
in my family's case, Bavaria.

Speaker 3 (31:49):
But some people got away from that.

Speaker 4 (31:52):
And one of the great things about America is we
thought of ourselves as Americans first. You know, for a
long time, if you went up to a white American,
you would say, well, what are you? And in lots
of other countries, and I was in Coastavot, so I
know a little about Balkanization, walk up to what are you?
We're on an American? Well you have white skin, and

(32:13):
so what you know. My grandfather came from Midland. I
have a great pasta recipe what's that now?

Speaker 1 (32:19):
And it.

Speaker 4 (32:21):
I mean we had I remember in the California and
the National Guard a reserve unit down near Mexico. We
had a whole tank unit that operated in Spanish on
the radio. Super super patriotic, all American guys. They just
happened to speak Spanish and we were Americans first. And
when we got away from that, that really began. I mean,

(32:43):
this was the American miracle. I mean, when I was
in Costa, Though, you would go to a village of Albanians,
who are mostly Muslim, about ten percent of Christian. Mother
Teresa came from Albania. You you would in the next
village over would be Serbian.

Speaker 3 (32:57):
And they've been together, they lived next to.

Speaker 4 (32:59):
Each other in peace for one hundred and fifty two hundred,
three hundred, five hundred years. And then Melissa that came
in decided he was going to push a racialization agenda,
and pretty soon those Albanians and those serves were butchering
each other, butchering their neighbors. It was inconceivable to us
as Americans, and we've got to do everything we can

(33:22):
to stop that. How do you You've got to be American,
you can't be anything else.

Speaker 2 (33:28):
How do you interpret that? I mean, you've had you've
had I would suggest vast experience on the waterfront. How
would you describe and explain the willingness and the quickness
of people to turn on each other and sort of
sort of the other lot.

Speaker 4 (33:48):
It's throughout history, that's what human beings have done. In
a way, America and some of the other in some
of our countries have beaten history. You know, they managed
to get beyond it. It wasn't we weren't faded to
do it. We could be better. Sure, there are always problems,

(34:09):
you know, New Zealand has has its own racial problems.
We certainly have ours. But the solution to those problems
is Pluber's una out of many one.

Speaker 3 (34:25):
And that's that's what we have to do. There's no
other way.

Speaker 4 (34:29):
You cannot You cannot have baltimization without hatred. It doesn't work.
History teaches us that, So we have to make a
conscious choice to minimize. You know, I have relatives who
came from Scotland. That all that needs to be is
a fun fact in my life. I don't need to be,

(34:50):
you know, militantly Scottish.

Speaker 3 (34:55):
I'm American, and that's that's really what we've got to
get back to here in.

Speaker 2 (34:59):
The unit sty Well, you're really you're really an Italian
Scottish American.

Speaker 3 (35:04):
Well I'm I'm not Italian.

Speaker 4 (35:07):
I am a percent German or Scottish and one percent Pannonian.
And I think back in the day of like Tiberius
or maybe Trajan, So some guy from the Balkans got assigned.

Speaker 3 (35:20):
To a legion up in up in Germany.

Speaker 4 (35:23):
And that's that's the one percent of my bloodbed's Balkans.

Speaker 2 (35:28):
I'm looking at the headline. I don't know whether you
familiar with Michael Snyder. No, he's a he's a religious man,
but he's a realist. And I came across FIW years
ago and the well I just stuff drops into my
box along with a million others. But occasionally I get
attracted by a headline. The US dollar is crashing and

(35:49):
our reserve currency status is in serious jeopardy? Is this
being done by design? Got a thought?

Speaker 4 (35:57):
I no, America. I think America is just he a
reserve currency because we are we are strong and free
despite our many problems. And I although there's a little
chaos and upsetting the world order right now, it's all
going to fade.

Speaker 3 (36:15):
And I got to tell you, you.

Speaker 4 (36:16):
Know, most Americans, because of something called a four oh
one k are invested in the stock market. Right you
can invest tax free and that becomes retirement money. And
I am like everybody else, and nobody wants to look
at the nobody wants to look at their accounts online
while the stock market's going through turmoil, turmoil, But America

(36:38):
is it's hard to express it. In the nineteen eighties
under Ronald Reagan, you had an explosion of American prosperity
and just optimism and we were all out there going, man,
we can just do anything. And that, you know, went
through the nineties nine to eleven happened the Wall Street crash. Obama,

(37:02):
who didn't promote that, he was not a real American cheerleader,
but Donald Trump started bringing that back.

Speaker 3 (37:10):
First term. Biden kind of put a brake on it.

Speaker 4 (37:14):
But I think I can feel that, and I see
evidence the Americans are ready to work. Americans are ready
to get back out there and have a great economy again,
to have another.

Speaker 3 (37:26):
Golden age like we did in the eighties and nineties.

Speaker 4 (37:30):
And you know, it's weird that there's a whole generation
unless you were like forty. You were never an adult
when America was really hitting on all eight cylinders.

Speaker 3 (37:40):
You know, I'm sixty. I grew up.

Speaker 4 (37:44):
It never occurred to me ever that I could not
do or be whatever I wanted to be now as Californian.
So we have that positive attitude, but it never occurred
to me I couldn't do what I wanted to do,
and I've been able to do. I built a law firm,
I got to have a career active in reserve in
the army. I could be a stand up I could

(38:04):
write best selling books.

Speaker 3 (38:06):
I could be on the media.

Speaker 4 (38:08):
I did it, and that's it's that's same optimism, and
I you know, we want to get back to that,
and I think America is ready to do it. So
I think I think America is going to do it.
I think when the economic stuff, the reordering shapes out,
I think we're going to see America back and very strong.

(38:29):
Remember Trump has a huge incentive for economic success.

Speaker 3 (38:32):
He has literally.

Speaker 4 (38:34):
Got to do it and got to get things kicking
before November twenty sixth, when we have midterm elections to
re elect the House to representatives and thirty three of
our senators thirty three or one hundred, and he's got
to win in twenty twenty eight, and we saw what
happens when he loses. If the left gets power, they

(38:54):
will attempt to frame him again. And at least one
leftist and we don't know about the other guy, but
we know one was an active leftist tried to murder
it and ended up murdering one guy wounding a couple others.
So for Trump, he's really gotten a life and death
incentive for him and his family. I I think we're
I think the United States is going to get back

(39:18):
uh to becoming the economic engine uh it was, and
I think it's going to uh. I think our friends
around the world are going to uh share uh share.

Speaker 3 (39:29):
That with us.

Speaker 2 (39:30):
I'm quoting from from one of the one of your books,
The People's Republic.

Speaker 3 (39:37):
Oh boy, and.

Speaker 2 (39:38):
You want to explain that.

Speaker 4 (39:41):
People's Republic is the series of eight books about the
United States that has split into into a red and
a blue that is a conservative and a leftist uh
countries and uh it uh it involves a red operative
who goes into the leftist countries and shows what happens
if America essentially becomes a giant college campus.

Speaker 3 (40:03):
Uh and uh.

Speaker 4 (40:04):
You know it's funny in part, lots of action, lots
of humor, but it's scary too because there are some
fault lines in America and they, you know, they could
break over into violence. Some Hamasque loving scumbag tried to
burn the Jewish family of the governor of Pennsylvania live

(40:26):
the other day. They's broke in and threw firebombs in
his house. Yeah, And like I said, people try to murder.
The president did murder one American citizen who was simply
exercising his right to be at a political rally. They
blew his head off. The human capacity for violence is
never that far beneath the surface, and People's Republic talks

(40:49):
about what happens when it bubbles up.

Speaker 2 (40:51):
So the cride from the book, and I've chosen this
especially for I think obviously a mutual interest. The voice
of the television announceder warned that the climate change crisis
was once again just one year away from reaching the
point of no return, and urged the largely pedestrian citizen
ry to continue to reduce their collective carbon footprint full

(41:15):
stop butt and explain the butt what comes next?

Speaker 3 (41:22):
God, there's so much.

Speaker 4 (41:24):
I don't even remember that line, but it certainly sounds
like something I would write. I find the whole climate
change thing to be a bizarre manifestation of a pagan
religion at best, and a cheesy attempt to take money
and power from normal people through an abuse of science.
I have been told since I was a kid we

(41:45):
were on the verge of doo. We were gonna have
a population explosion that never worked out. We were gonna
have an ice age that didn't work out. We were
going to be boiled alive because the ozone layer was gone.
That didn't work out. We're going to be melted by
acid rain that didn't know how.

Speaker 3 (42:00):
And then we have been five years away from.

Speaker 4 (42:06):
Climate heat or oh look, global warming armageddon, and of
course that was We've had that for about thirty years.
And then then when it became obvious that wasn't go
work out, it became climate change. And as a lawyer
I really respected because when you have clime, when you
talk about climate change, literally anything the climate does except

(42:27):
stay perfectly static, proves your point. It's like the perfect argument.
As a lawyer, I really admire it. I mean, it's nonsense,
but I do admire it. And I've noticed that climate
change inevitably involves me becoming less free to do what

(42:48):
I want and me giving up money and power to
other people. There's I have searched high and low for
one thing to remedy climate change that makes me more freer,
or be freer, or more.

Speaker 3 (43:05):
Cross for us.

Speaker 4 (43:06):
And of course the point is to make me less
free and less prosperous, because then I'll be a more
willing surf.

Speaker 2 (43:14):
Over this period of time that we're discussing, you could
start with, well, I'm thinking nine to eleven, but we'd
have to go back a bit further actually, But through this,
let's say the last three to four decades, do you
think that human nature has changed?

Speaker 3 (43:31):
No?

Speaker 4 (43:33):
No, human nature won't change, which is why it is
so important to read history and think about history. You know,
one of the great hopeful signs to me was a
meme from not long ago. It says the average man
thinks about the Roman Empire two or three times a day,
and I thought that's terrific. I mean, it's a good start,

(43:54):
but you know, you also want to think about ancient Greece.
Do you want to think about more modern things? You want
to think about work thrift. You want to think about,
you know, the smooth Holly terrorists. You want to think
about the voice of Magella. You want to think about history,
because history teaches you how people are. And I found that,

(44:17):
you know, there are two things that'll tell you about
human nature better than anything else, which is history and
the Bible. Now, even if you're not religious, if you
read the Bible, the actions of human beings are that
it depicts are so archetypal that if you come to

(44:37):
an understanding of what they're talking about in there, you're
going to understand how people operate, particularly the Old Testament.

Speaker 2 (44:43):
I suppose it all really started for most people at
nine to eleven. But over a period of time I
suggested to people that if you don't understand biblical history,
you'll never understand what the issues are in the Middle East.

Speaker 4 (44:57):
Correct that it is so strange that, you know, so
many modern people think that history began, you know, thirty
years ago, forty years ago, and we don't exactly have
a crystal ball, but we've got a template that is history,
and you can look at it and you can see

(45:17):
how things works out. And sometimes it's scary, but sometimes
it provides a hopeful path. But nine to eleven really
knocked the United States out of its complacency and it
got back to America's roots. You gotta understand some about America.
We came to a continent dominated by indigenous people of

(45:38):
various levels of savage rate. We just found another altar
of Aztecs for butchering children. But you know, the indigenous
American Indians weren't particularly you know, nice people either, and
we fought our way across it and conquered it. America
is a country that is very, very tough. It's really

(46:00):
what we call JACKSONI and after Andrew Jackson. I don't
want to fight, but if I fight, I'm gonna kill you,
and I'm gonna kill everybody you ever met. And then
I'm going to come home so I don't have to
fight anymore. And unfortunately we got misguided after nine to eleven.
I'm a big believer in punitive expeditions. We should have
gone in Afghanistan and killed everybody who had anything to

(46:21):
do with it, destroy their infrastructure, and make them use
the name American to scare children for the next one
hundred generations.

Speaker 3 (46:32):
But then we should have left.

Speaker 4 (46:34):
We didn't, and a lot of Americans die by the way.
I want to thank New Zealand for its contribution. I
know that at least one SAS soldier won the Victoria
Cross who was a New Zealander.

Speaker 3 (46:48):
The bravery of New Zealand.

Speaker 4 (46:49):
Soldiers is legendary, and we American soldiers recognized and respected
so well.

Speaker 2 (46:55):
If you asked, if you asked virtually anybody here at
the moment, what's the standard about our defense forces, they
probably cry, well.

Speaker 4 (47:06):
Say here, we're rebuilt at Pete Hagsath is our new
Secretary of Defense infantry officer. He's you either want a
guy who's a number cruncher or a guy is a killer.
Right now we need a killer. He's a killer. We're
going to get back. I don't look the American spirit
that made us who we are, which includes our ability

(47:28):
to fight wars, is not dead. I'm no expert on
New Zealand, but I would expect that in times of trouble,
the New Zealanders will rise to the standards that New
Zealanders have always risen to. Again, New Zealanders are New
Zealand soldiers are very well respected by Americans. If you're
a professional Soldier Australia and New Zealand. Those guys are top,

(47:51):
top notch.

Speaker 2 (47:53):
And then we need to do it kick stout again.
I think I want to, I want to want to
transfer attention to the law in many respects. I mean,
I made some comments to three weeks back regarding and
I think I quoted a bit too, the Agony of
John Roberts. Yes, written by yourself, and I thought it

(48:15):
was an extremely good I'm looking I'm looking at it.
I'm looking at the pink and the green markings that
I like as my code. It's all green normally, and
then if it's pink, it's it's extra important.

Speaker 3 (48:30):
Oh wow.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
And you, I mean, you tell the story of John
Roberts from your perspective, which I think is pretty much
pretty much on target. So in the last in the
last two weeks, maybe even three, since since you wrote this,
has Roberts redeemed himself at all.

Speaker 4 (48:49):
A little bit for your listeners. The United States Constitution sets.

Speaker 3 (48:55):
For three branches.

Speaker 4 (48:56):
Article one is the legislature, Article two is the executive.

Speaker 3 (48:59):
Article three is the courts. And they are.

Speaker 4 (49:04):
Supposed to be coequal, but they're not quite. They check
and ballt each other The courts, of course, don't have
an army and they can't enforce anything. The executive, course
is commander in chief of the military, has federal law enforcement.
The legislative has the power of the purse power to
pass laws. The court can only issue rulings, and then

(49:27):
the Article two guys, the executive has to enforce them. Well,
we're having a fight between Article two the executive president
and Article three the courts. And the problem now is
you have district courts. You have the way we go
as district courts, they're the ones who i know, the
trials for everything. There's the second level, which is the
appellate level. There's eleven or twelve of those, and they

(49:49):
handle appeals. The Supreme Court handles about forty or fifty
cases from the courts of appeals or state courts, which
is a whole different thing every year. So the Supreme
Court's not out there, you know, being the Hindu god
that's pulling all the levers. It does a few things
to kind of set a standard, and then the lower

(50:10):
courts are supposed to follow. But we have a lot
of district court judges who are appointed by Biden who
do not have judicial modesty and are exceeding the proper
scope of their authority to impinge on the ability of
the executive to act. And we're having a fight over it.
People say it's a constitutional crisis. No, no, no, it's not.

(50:32):
We're having a fight over it. We're having a fight
in the courts. You know, Trump administrations complying with orders
right now, passively, aggressively in some cases.

Speaker 3 (50:42):
But complying with them.

Speaker 4 (50:43):
But one of the texts and balances for the executive
is to simply say it's an implied one. But you
can simply say no, it's not like you can send
a division to troops that don't make me.

Speaker 3 (50:55):
I'm not going to do it.

Speaker 4 (50:56):
And the courts always have to understand that John Roberts
is the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, is responsible for
trying to keep the power of the courts, which is
really based on its own moral authority. And a lot
of these district courts are blatantly making procedural and substance

(51:17):
rulings that are frankly ridiculous. Now, I litigate in federal
and state courts for thirty years. I've argued in front
of the courts with you. I never argued in from
the Supreme Court. But this is not an alien world
to me. I do look at what's happening now, and
it is crazy. It is not the standard law that
I practice for thirty years. A lot of it's just
frankly nuts and politically results driven. And this is a

(51:42):
fight that we have to have and we have to solve.
And at the end, the courts could come out with
a lot less power and authority if they squander it.
John Roberts needs to get his branch acting within its
proper role. And if he doesn't, at some point, Donald Trump's.

Speaker 2 (52:06):
Going to say no.

Speaker 4 (52:07):
And Donald Trump's going to have and Donald Trump's going
to do it on the eighty side of an eighty
percent issue. He's not going to do it on something
this controversial. He's gonna do this somewhere. Most Americans are like, oh, yeah,
that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, we shouldn't be
giving five hundred thousand dollars to support Ecuadorian transgender mind troops.

(52:31):
And normal people are going to go, well, if the
court tells them he has to do that, what good
are the courts? And then John Roberts's brands is going
to have a problem. So we're gonna have to work
this out.

Speaker 2 (52:42):
But well, you keep saying we're going to have to
work it out. But it's the it's the justices of
the Serene Court, the nine of them that really have
to have to do it, because if they don't do it,
if he doesn't come, if he doesn't wake up and
do what he's responsible for, then all hell could break loose,
could it?

Speaker 4 (53:01):
Well that that that's true, I guess I'm looking at
it in the sense of all.

Speaker 3 (53:07):
Americans have got to you know.

Speaker 4 (53:11):
The responsibilities on those nine, but all Americans have got
to get together and say, wait a minute, we want
a system that works, and the only way we have
a system that works is if everybody honors their obligations.

Speaker 3 (53:22):
And many of the disreports aren't doing that.

Speaker 4 (53:26):
The problem is there are a lot of Americans who
support ignoring the norms and guard rails. They keep the
Constitution humming along.

Speaker 3 (53:38):
And I talk about it a lot, the.

Speaker 4 (53:40):
New rules that there's a special exception for Donald Trump
to the norms and customs and rules that we usually practice.

Speaker 3 (53:47):
He's so bad, We've got to do something different. No, no, no,
no no.

Speaker 4 (53:51):
If you really want to preserve the system, when somebody
bad comes along, you use the system rigorously, You honor
every norm, and that's the best way to deal. If
you get rid of all the norms, don't expect unilateral disarmament.
Like I said, rep used to be about winning the argument.
Now they're about winning the fight. And there's a reason

(54:13):
for that.

Speaker 2 (54:14):
What about big law the situation that we're still developing,
I guess of the big law firms that Trump's been well,
the thej I guess, has been targeting, some say because
of what they did to him prior to in losing
the election in twenty twenty, or the previous election, if

(54:35):
you like. But these law firms seem to be compounding.
My understanding is, and you tell me if I'm wrong,
is that it started with a forty million contra deal
with one big law firm. It's now developed to the
point where the combination of all the law firms reputedly
are doing work for the government for nothing amounting to

(54:57):
a billion dollars. You know, Is that good or bang?

Speaker 4 (55:01):
A lot of these A lot of these big law firms.
The big law firms are very powerful. They do a
lot of the highest level work for corporation. They do
a lot of work with the government, decided to do
something that was, you know, at the time, seemed like
a good idea, which is.

Speaker 3 (55:16):
Get involved in politics.

Speaker 4 (55:19):
Well, their side lost, and Donald Trump is addressing a
lot of the issues that they got away with for
a long time, including civil rights stuff they were not
you know, they were discriminating and hiring for instance. He's
pressing them on that. He is taking security clearances away
from folks who have some shenanigans, particular about the Russia

(55:44):
Gates stuff. Trump is the guy who does not hesitate
to use his power against his opponents. Democrats have never
hesitated to do that. This is a new thing and
a lot of these law firms are suddenly figuring out, Wait,
maybe it was a bad.

Speaker 3 (55:57):
Bet to go in on one side.

Speaker 4 (56:00):
Folks who didn't get involved in politics aren't having a problem.
Folks who chose to get in politics they're having a problem.
Is this is this what I love to see? No,
I was against this when they wanted to change the
rules and start getting involved in politics. I thought it

(56:20):
was a bad idea. I said you shouldn't do it.
They said, no, we have a short term advantage. We're
going to grab it and I said, don't be surprised
if the new rules apply to you, and they're applying
the only Look, I'm a big believer in mutually assured
distruction and game theory.

Speaker 3 (56:38):
The only way you never win.

Speaker 4 (56:42):
By giving up and letting somebody's misconduct be rewarded, you
make it so painful for them that they either change
back to the old norms, which I would prefer, and
if they don't, at least my enemy didn't get away
with it.

Speaker 2 (56:58):
So two wrongs don't make it right. That's a line
that somebody would would throw about a situation like this.

Speaker 3 (57:06):
The question is is it a wrong because it's the rule.

Speaker 4 (57:10):
If the rule is you can use your political power
against your opponents, that's not a rule I want, But
that's the rule that exists when I have different rules.

Speaker 3 (57:19):
Yeah, do I think it's a bad idea.

Speaker 4 (57:20):
I think in general it's a bad idea, But I
think the unilateral disarmament's worse.

Speaker 3 (57:26):
I think it's I think it is.

Speaker 4 (57:28):
You know, you don't stick a bayonet in somebody's gut
as a general rule, but sometimes it's say they're a
Nazi and you're coming up a beach at Normandy. Yeah,
you stick a baynn in somebody's gut. Sometimes you got
to play hardball with folks. I didn't want this game.

(57:48):
This wasn't my choice. I didn't pick the rule set,
but I don't intend to lose.

Speaker 2 (57:53):
So what's the connection then, between what's what we're discussing
and the Constitution.

Speaker 4 (57:59):
Well, first of all, dal Trump's not doing anything that
I see that violates the Constitution. There are some some
of the things he wants the schools to do to
comply with the civil rights laws that exist and are constitutional.
I think there are some good faith debates there about

(58:20):
whether some of his demands are appropriate, particularly regarding some
of the departments.

Speaker 3 (58:29):
But overall, overall.

Speaker 4 (58:31):
What he's doing is within the bounds of the Constitution.
The Constitution is not like a foundational mad lib. I
don't know if you have mad libs in New Zealand,
but you kind of like fill in the blanks with
whatever you want.

Speaker 3 (58:45):
The Constitution's not like that.

Speaker 4 (58:47):
The Constitution says specific things, it doesn't say. It doesn't
mean whatever you think is best. It means what it means,
and I think he is abiding by the Constitution.

Speaker 3 (58:58):
We did have one.

Speaker 4 (58:59):
Notable error where a guy with a order not to
be removed Al Salvador. He was an alleged wife beater,
if you believe his wife's testimony under penalty of burgery,
who had been ordered removed after two or three hearings.
He got Sentel Salvador. He wasn't supposed to go to
El Salvador. He could have gone anywhere else because I'm.

Speaker 3 (59:16):
In to New Zealand.

Speaker 2 (59:17):
Not that you go on him.

Speaker 4 (59:20):
But that was a mistake, and there's a big fight
going on over that, and the Supreme Court unanimously said, look,
the guy's got to get some sort of doe process.

Speaker 3 (59:30):
Okay, all right, Well in a related case.

Speaker 4 (59:35):
So look, he's there's always constitutional arguments.

Speaker 3 (59:40):
I think you make.

Speaker 4 (59:41):
Those arguments, and if Trump's wrong, you know, you tell
me he's wrong. If he's not wrong, then that's the
power he has under our Article two.

Speaker 2 (59:50):
Okay, So who decides, Well, the first.

Speaker 4 (59:54):
Guy at his sight should be Trump in that he
should not ask for things that are manifestly unconstitutional.

Speaker 3 (01:00:01):
And we've had a problem with that.

Speaker 4 (01:00:03):
We had Barack Obama and his executive branch, for instance,
empower folks to censor speech by going to things like
Facebook and stuff and saying silence this guy. Massive First
Amendment violation. This is a huge issue. So the first
thing you do is you honor your oaths. You never ask,

(01:00:26):
you never allow your branch to do something that you
believe is clearly unconstitutional. There are other things where you
can have legitimate debates about it.

Speaker 3 (01:00:35):
That's where the courts come in. And the courts need to.

Speaker 4 (01:00:40):
Not reflexively vote in the way of the political party that.

Speaker 3 (01:00:46):
Nominated them to the post.

Speaker 4 (01:00:49):
They need to look at each issue individually, look at
the existing law, apply common sense and the normal canons
of judicial interpretation and come to a ruling, and then
the Court of Appeal needs to do it. And then
if it gets the Supreme Court, Supreme Court needs to
do and if you do it fairly and you do

(01:01:10):
it honestly, And a good test is, you know, did
a liberal judge across the across the aisle of vote
with conservatives?

Speaker 3 (01:01:20):
Did conservatives across the oud of vote with liberals. That's a.

Speaker 4 (01:01:25):
Good indicator that they're actually, you know, trying to think
these things through rather than just voting on pure politics.
The courts will be respected and you know, to have
a democracy, and of course America is a republic. I know.
I know that, but we'll call it a democracy because
people do for shorthand if you're to have a democracy,

(01:01:47):
you have to accept that you can lose. The key
to democracy is not what you can do. It's how
you react when you don't get your way. And if
you think your country is legitimate. You know, at the
end of the day, when you don't win on something,
you say, look, I was heard. I had a fair

(01:02:08):
chance to make my point. The people or the uh
you know, the tools of the people where an article one,
two or three looked at it and it came and
it came to a decision. It's contrary, but I can
accept that because I was heard and my voice was heard.
And democracy is not a problem a promise I always

(01:02:28):
get my way. It's a promise that we will have
forms and structure to protect my right to participate in
my own government.

Speaker 2 (01:02:35):
Talking of disagreements in the legal sphere, Letitia James, the
New York Attorney General, I can only I can only
say that it's it's a rarity to find such a
nasty piece of work. But she ran her campaign when
when she ran for the for the job on the

(01:02:56):
back of loocking Trump up forever, and she lost that one.
She tried the hardest, but she made it very difficult
and still hangovers from it. It looks like she's that
she's guilty of some corruption herself. Take it from there.

Speaker 4 (01:03:13):
Well, Letitia James essentially manufactured a civil suit against Donald
Trump's companies involving loans and valuations of properties, and there
was a trial from a judge who, frankly, to my view,
seems biased.

Speaker 3 (01:03:29):
That's up on a he got hit for like four
hundred million dollars. That is.

Speaker 4 (01:03:34):
Ridiculous in my view. It's up on appeal. I think
he'll be thrown out on appeal.

Speaker 3 (01:03:38):
But you were correct.

Speaker 4 (01:03:39):
She ran on a platform of I'm going to find
something to sue Donald Trump about.

Speaker 3 (01:03:44):
I mean, we talked about new rules.

Speaker 4 (01:03:46):
That's a really dumb new rule to have, particularly if
you have problems with your own mortgage issues. It is
a federal crime to lie on a mortgage application. There
is evidence from others, and I'm all, this's allegations.

Speaker 3 (01:04:03):
She has a right to a trial.

Speaker 4 (01:04:05):
I'm not presuming she's guilty, but the allegations are that
she lie in significant ways that saved her significant money
multiple times and bizarrely, long after the Statue of Limitations,
or long since long before the Statue of limitations, we've
run she represents herself as being married to her father

(01:04:25):
to get loans, which is just freakish. In any case,
these are federal crimes. The Department of Justice is the
news flash, is about ninety seven percent conviction rate. He
usually doesn't take cases it's going to lose, I would
expect because one of the houses was in Virginia, and

(01:04:46):
a federal crime can be charged anywhere the crime was committed.
While she's a New Yorker, I think there is a
decent chance. Maybe they do the Northern District. I don't
know if yeah, I think Northern District of New York
or the Eastern District of Virginia. They're not gonna do
this Southern District of New York, which is New York City.

(01:05:08):
But you go, the Department of Justice will find a
favorable venue, a favorable place where they think they have
a good jury pool that would be disinclined to have
sympathy for her, and they're going to charge her with
multiple felonies. Charger with mail fraud, wire fraud, various types
of fraud, and of course, mortgage fraud, and she could
go to jail for years, and politicians have gone to

(01:05:29):
jail for years, And I just think it's you know,
if you're gonna go after a guy who's president for
some sort of loan shenanigans, you better make sure your
loans are perfect down to the tee. You better have
your accountants go over them three or four times each. Okay,

(01:05:50):
she's not a smart lady, but I think this was arrogance.
I think when she decided that the new rule would
be I'm going to use the power of my political
office solely to go an attempt to punish by creating
and she did create these charges against Trump. They are
ridiculous ever bred brought against Aby before.

Speaker 3 (01:06:10):
Like I said, they'll be thrown out on appeal.

Speaker 4 (01:06:12):
Uh you know, you you need to understand that those
rules are going to get applied to you.

Speaker 3 (01:06:18):
And apparently some group went out got her.

Speaker 4 (01:06:21):
Stuff, took a look at it and said, hey, wait
a minute, she's lied, and uh uh, it's now been
referred to the Department of Justice. And I expect she'll
be charged, and I expect you'll be convicted, and I
expect she.

Speaker 2 (01:06:35):
Will go to jail couldn't happen to a NASA woman.

Speaker 4 (01:06:38):
Hey, you know, if you don't want none, don't start
None is the uh is the expression?

Speaker 3 (01:06:48):
You know?

Speaker 4 (01:06:48):
If she just said, Hey, if Donald Trump does something wrong,
I'll prosecute him.

Speaker 3 (01:06:52):
And if he doesn't do anything wrong, I.

Speaker 4 (01:06:53):
Won't everybody go oh okay, but no, no, she had
to make that the therapiece of her campaign.

Speaker 3 (01:07:00):
Oh well, but is that hoisted on your note her
own petard?

Speaker 2 (01:07:04):
As they say, as they say, I just want to
touch finally on Iran. I watched I watched Jack Keen
on television yesterday, the general retired general talking about the
nuclear talks with Iran, which seemed to be seemed to
be underway at some level between America and Iran. What

(01:07:26):
chance do you think? Oh? By the way, Keen had
no hesitation in saying that he thought that the Iranians
were lying through their teeth and that they wouldn't fulfill
the promises that were the deal that they were discussing.
What chance would you put on a serious fighting war
with Iran?

Speaker 4 (01:07:47):
Well, it wouldn't really be a war with Iran. It
would be a very one sided things. Remember, in the
conservative movement there were a lot of people who were
burned very very heavily about the War on Terror, and
they saw it mishandled. They saw a lot of Americans
and Allies killed and named without a strategy, without a plan.

(01:08:08):
And you know, there is an anti war strain through
the conservative American the Republican Party, largely because it's mostly
Republicans who go fight right, you know. You know, there
are not a lot of not a lot of liberal
Democrats from you know, Harvard and Princeton out there on
the front lines. I was until I became a reservist,

(01:08:31):
where all the senior officers are fairly successful businessmen. I
probably I came from a normal suburban family, as my
mom was a.

Speaker 3 (01:08:38):
Judge, so maybe I wasn't that normal.

Speaker 4 (01:08:40):
But I was always one of the more affluent guys
in the that I knew, and it was my guys
who paid the price. So there's there's an anti war thing.
But that said, Iran took our hostages in nineteen seventy nine.
We lost eight guys at Desert One trying to rescue them.
They killed hundreds of Americans in Beirut bombings. They killed hundreds,

(01:09:06):
maybe thousands of Americans in their way, and my feeling
about the Mulas is they all have to die, you
know they we taught. I mentioned people think about the Romans.

Speaker 2 (01:09:17):
I do too.

Speaker 4 (01:09:18):
The Romans didn't tolerate that stuff. I don't see why
Americans should. If you kill Americans, you need to die.
They cannot get nuclear weapons, they will use them, and
that has to be stought. So my choice, and it
is not the choice to some of my friends. For instance,
Jad Dance is reputed to be very against it.

Speaker 3 (01:09:40):
We don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:09:41):
Pete haggs Backs, who I support, is rumored to be
against it. I don't know what counsel is given the president.
Guys like Tucker Carlson, who I've met and I respect
a lot. Though I disagree with them about some things,
I disagree with them about this too. I am all
forgetting with Israel and conducting a comprehensive campaign to completely

(01:10:03):
annihilate both the nuclear weapons capability of the Iranians and
Thera leadership.

Speaker 3 (01:10:09):
I would kill all the mall as I could.

Speaker 4 (01:10:11):
I would wipe out their Republican guard and their security
apparatus to the Persian people can throw these semi humans dictators,
yoke off their back and become the great and prosperous
people they should be. The United States, particularly Los Angeles,
has benefited greatly by the number of Persians who escaped
and came over. And these are wonderful people who deserve

(01:10:33):
to be free, and I think we should help them.

Speaker 3 (01:10:37):
But we need to take out there.

Speaker 4 (01:10:40):
We need to take out their capacity to create nuclear
weapons and do ballistic missiles and pay them back for
murdering Americans.

Speaker 3 (01:10:49):
It's important to set a marker. If you kill an.

Speaker 4 (01:10:51):
American, just you know, make sure your affairs in order,
because we're going to get you, and we're going to
get everybody around you. So you might want to send
the family off somewhere else. And I have I make
no bones about that. This is a you know you,
if you're going to fight, you need to be serious.
That's the hallmark of Jacksonian foreign policy. Get in there

(01:11:16):
and win hard so that they never even dream of
messing with you again. A good example is Japan, where
both both my grandparents were on navy ships in the
Pacific when.

Speaker 3 (01:11:30):
That war ended.

Speaker 4 (01:11:32):
I right now, we have a correlation of forces over there.
We have b two bombers in position, we have two
carrier task forces, and this is all public information. I'm
not giving you anything secret therapalistic missile subs or cruise
missile subs, and the Israelis are ready to go. I say,
wipe out, wipe it out, get it done. That that

(01:11:52):
would be my vote. And if I was advising the president,
that's why i'd say. Of course, I'm not the president.
I didn't win an election. The trust isn't in me.
All I can do is give my best best advice
if asked, and that would be my best advice.

Speaker 2 (01:12:08):
Is well, I have to say, you've given us a
very good advice at opinion over the last eighty minutes,
and it's been most enjoyable. I thank you, and I
invite you to return at some stage.

Speaker 4 (01:12:22):
I would be happy to return anytime. I've really enjoyed it.
You man, you know, if you're representative of the kind
of level of a discourse that New Zealand has, congratulations
because that's that's that's sure impressive, because I think we've
talked about some important things.

Speaker 2 (01:12:42):
Thank you, good, thank you. Here we are for a

(01:13:03):
podcast two hundred and eighty one in the mailroom, missus producer.
Are you comfortable, I'm great.

Speaker 6 (01:13:09):
Well comfortable.

Speaker 2 (01:13:10):
I'm sitting on a very hard chair, same chair you
sit on every weekend. Never complained this week It's hard.
I don't know why. Okay, let me lead, if you
don't mind. On this occasion from Gatherine, salutations lately, after
all these years, a number one fan of your ZEBB
nine to twelve show makes contact. I loved those days

(01:13:33):
when they were never complete without hearing your latest renderings
on the news of the moment. I went into a
state of complete decline for a significant time after you
retired from that position. I always felt missus producer led
you to consider new perspectives on life. There was hope.
So when I went through a period of disillusionment at

(01:13:55):
your seeming to be stuck in the old paradigm, when
there seemed to be no recognition at the beginning of
twenty twenty of the propaganda that we were being fed,
when we were being assaulted from every quarter, I had
to turn to the US and UK for my updates
and information. Then I noticed your more recent guest list

(01:14:16):
and began listening again, and my faith in your judgment
has returned. It is so so wonderful to see because
you are and have always previously been an important truth
slash fact teller. I take that as a compliment I
would if I were you in terms of the whole
COVID debarcle. I do understand that my advantage has been

(01:14:37):
a background as an nz RM and midwife, had a
keen interest in what was to become a nightmare of
a time to look back on, but also realizing that
the repercussions are ongoing and still very current with the
health crisis that we are now experiencing turbo cancers, myocarditis,

(01:14:58):
in Barmer's clots, autoimmune issues, to name just a few.
I was deeply suspicious early on that the mRNA biowarfare
population control therapy should not be used, let alone mandated.
I agree it would have been acceptable to target vulnerable
groups and to use it for them, especially at the

(01:15:20):
beginning when there were so many unknown factors to consider.
Doctor Robert Malone and doctor Peter mccullor and doctor Pier
Corey with voices I heard early on, the authorities did
all sorts of things pre twenty twenty in preparing or
in preparation for their plan. This included changing the definition

(01:15:41):
of the word vaccine to incorporate this new and poorly
tested platform, mRNA. This product should be called genetic therapy.
Many people still do not understand this. And as she writes,
a whole lot more in bullet points so it doesn't
become too long and winded. And here's the first one

(01:16:03):
or two. And there are so many truth tellers now
in independent media into and people are starting to wake up.
Podcasts are such a great medium, and I enjoy being
able to hear exactly what is said, but also to
watch the body language. Well, let's if you've got podcasts
with pictures, which they were never meant to me. Podcasts
originally were audio, and so we stay with the tradition.

(01:16:26):
Maybe missus producer can talk me around as something. Secondly,
mainstream media, both here and internationally, is over and I
find it impossible to stomach their lives and half truths
on politics and to watch and know what mouthpieces they
are specifically for the left wing political parties, or maybe
that should be that they are for the left wing

(01:16:47):
political parties. TV and Z and The Herald have not improved,
and every mention of President Trump is still negative as
it has been since twenty sixteen. I do still have
a brief daily update from my Fox favorite hosts, and
to keep up with the current state of play, but
don't hang on their every word. We will leave politics
there and stay with COVID, and she makes mention of

(01:17:11):
Guy Hatchett, who was right on the money.

Speaker 6 (01:17:15):
Laden Jin says, I always thought that New Zealand politics
was boring compared to American politics. A Luxe and Hipkins
debate pales into comparison to a Trump Biden debate. Recently,
I was on a family holiday and Australia and I
turned into a leader's debate between Albanese and Dutton just
to get a feel of what the Australian political landscape

(01:17:35):
was like. And boy, to my surprise, I found that
Australian politics was even more boring than New Zealand politics.
Both Albow and Dutton struggled to articulate any inspiring vision.
As Nick Kata said in Your podcast, we knew Obama
clearly stood for woke, while Trump stood for anti woke.
With Albo and Dutten, I had no idea which either

(01:17:56):
of them really stood for in their debate. Quadrant Magazine's
Peter Smith gave a pretty good explanation in his short
article The Dripping wet alternative. He said Labour offers a
road to ruin and the Libs and Gnats seemingly same roads,
lower speed. He gave a long list of Albanesi's failures

(01:18:16):
and provided a reason why Albo might still prevail despite
leading the most inact government in recent history. Concluded by saying,
essentially it comes down to the absence of an opposition
party with conviction and courage. The Libs Wet through and
through inspire very few. It's time to start inspiring. Dutton

(01:18:39):
needs to inspire Australians or he will leave Australians with
a Labour Greens government. The twenty twenty five Australian election
will prove whether the Ossies have learned anything from their
Kiwi neighbors our greatest mistake of electing a Labour Greens government,
which ushered in six years of national pain.

Speaker 2 (01:18:59):
The aforementioned Peter Smith is an expat by the way,
I think comes from the Hawks Bay region, but I
could be wrong. It's onny a loose memory that tells
me that okay from Gerald. My wife is presently reclaiming
our office room at home after many years of it

(01:19:19):
becoming a storage place for nothing. We need.

Speaker 4 (01:19:23):
Later.

Speaker 2 (01:19:24):
Hello, that sounds just like you. Look around and tell
me what there is here that is not needed.

Speaker 6 (01:19:31):
Don't get me started, not in this room. Oh you
don't even get me started.

Speaker 2 (01:19:36):
You couldn't whilst filling our recycling bin with what now
is unwanted paperwork? Is she noticed with interest promises written
twenty years ago by the National Party. Initially we found
the words amusing. However, within minutes I became frustrated, then
annoyed that our society is still fighting the same issues today.

(01:19:59):
I'm sure similar frustrations have already been aired. However, wish
to share our findings with you, if only to start
a conversation with your listeners as to why obvious failing
standards are continuing to be our country's biggest challenge. I
look forward to any feedback, if any, to my question.
Or is it going to be easier to ask Trump

(01:20:20):
to consider New Zealand as their fifty first state instead
of Canada? And by the way, I so enjoy your
interviews and commentary, Hence I have been for some time
now an enthusiastic advocate for your podcast. Keep it up.
Best wishes, Gerald from the NAKI.

Speaker 6 (01:20:38):
Leighton David says, I've just finished listening to your episode
two eighty and I'm communicating with you about the study
on the intelligence of vaccine adherents. Both my older brothers
made the decision to get vaccinated for COVID. Both have
done well in their lives. The oldest was ducks of
his high school and came top in his years at
Forestry School at Canterbury University. He has had multiple jabs,

(01:21:00):
five or six and isn't quite sure. The second, as
an embsc in computer science, has worked in various parts
of the world undertaking time for companies using software. He wrote,
he has had at least two jabs. Both are retired
and live a very comfortable life regardless of doses. This
spares out the research by Ofir and scharraz I warned

(01:21:21):
them not to take the jab where it could have
serious consequences, but what would I know. I'm only a
conspiracy theorist. Big Farmer have captured many, many people. The
aforementioned brothers chose to hand over their health to buy
and large incompetent doctors and corrupt corporations rather than investigate
and make lifestyle changes. Tis a funny thing, this intelligence.

Speaker 2 (01:21:43):
It's from David. David interesting. I like hearing family stories
like that.

Speaker 6 (01:21:48):
I've just had my second shingles chab yesterday.

Speaker 2 (01:21:51):
Did you enjoy it?

Speaker 6 (01:21:52):
I did not enjoy it. Actually, I think I reacted
a little bit to both of them. But I'm quite
happy that I've had that you are, And in fact,
I only read this morning that there is new research
that reckons that an unan tended consequence of that particular
vaccination could be a relatively good resistance to dementia.

Speaker 2 (01:22:15):
They reckon.

Speaker 6 (01:22:16):
Now anyway, it's done. It's in my arm, which is
throbbing like crazy, even after eighteen hours.

Speaker 2 (01:22:23):
Just going back to the Naki because what I didn't
do was refer to what he'd actually he said a
picture of one of the things that they've been that
they found reading. And it's a bit difficult in the
reproduced form. But National is in the process of formulating policies.

(01:22:46):
As you will be aware, we have pledged an end
to race based policies and to get tough on crime.
There will be no backtracking on our commitment to ensure
that all New Zealanders, regardless of race, treated equally under
the law. We will end the race based absurdities and
political correctness which will otherwise condemned this country to a

(01:23:10):
Pacific backwater. But we need to address issues in education
that means that many of our youngsters leave school unable
to read and write properly and undertake basic mathematics. We
have urgent demands for new roads, but politically correct legislation,
thanks to Labor and the Greens, stops the bulldozers from

(01:23:30):
being started. Our streets in many areas are unsafe, and
police do not have the resources to respond quickly to burgeries.
And it goes on. I just thought a bit about
our streets are unsafe after that murder that took place
in Saint John's a few days ago. So finally from Jered.

(01:23:52):
It was Gerald previously. This is Jered late and as
you will read, I started as email after hearing your
podcast with Muriel Newman. Once I started, I kept coming
back to it with more thoughts, ideas and suggestions. I
would like to think that you will find them interesting,
although you may not agree with them all or any
of them. I've been meaning to drop you a line

(01:24:13):
for quite a while now, but listening to your not
so recent interview with Muriel Newman has prompted me to
get on with it and strike while the iron is hot.
Chris Luxen and National are sticking to their knitting and
think that if they get the economy back on track,
then they'll be voted in for a second term. Wrong,
says Gered. They're not addressing the one issue that concerns

(01:24:35):
most New Zealand is over thirty with IQs that actually
reach double digits, the Treaty of Waitangi and all its encumbrances.
Neither have they learnt from Comrades Clark and a Dern.
Those two put all the unpopular laws, rules and regulations
and bills into play as soon as they were in power.
It gave the voters three years or so to accept
or forget about them. I'm in my early seventies and

(01:24:57):
was born into a socialist country post World War II.
The country was relatively isolated from the rest of the world,
and we the citizens were insulated or detected from all
the negatives experienced by other countries in the world, especially
Europe and the devastation experienced there during the war. My
country was rock solid, no overseas debt, very little crime.

(01:25:20):
No one needed to lock doors. We slept with the
windows open. Mainly in houses that would today be considered
very low standard, if not condemned. Men worked, women stayed home,
looking after the house and brought up the children. Divorce
was difficult to get and people were brought up to
make the right choice of partner, as it was generally
accepted that marriage was for a lifetime. Christianity in all

(01:25:44):
its forms, were the country's religion, but that didn't stop
atheists from practicing their calling. Respect was throughout society. Schools
existed to educate children and were non political. We voted
in the government and just trusted them to get on
with the job. If we didn't like them, they paid
the price. Three years later. Politics were stable as it

(01:26:05):
was a first past The post system was paramount. I
seem to remember something along those lines. The final settlement
of the Treaty of the Treaty was paid to the
Mary Queen in I think nineteen thirty eight, and it
was the princely sum of over eight hundred thousand pounds.
The media was politically neutral and its functions were to

(01:26:26):
tell the truth, give a balanced story, and protect the
English language. The country's second main religion was rugby, and
when the All Blacks played the only conversation for the
week before was the coming game, and he goes on
for some considerable length and it runs into twenty pages.

(01:26:49):
I only printed the first four wow, twenty pages, but
it was a good effort, Jared, and I'm going to
keep those twenty pages. I have already filed them, but
I might refer to them from time to time. So
thank you, missus, producer, thank you latent. Thanks you may depart,
I shall and see you next week. You will. So

(01:27:23):
it's not for any particular religious reason that I'm going
to quote what is coming. It's more for the geopolitical
aspects of the papacy, and it needs to be recognized
that the Papacy of the Vatican has a geopolitical role
that it plays rightly or wrongly. I was tempted to

(01:27:44):
quote from Paul Williams book Operation Gladio, the Unholy Alliance
between the Vatican and the Cia and the Mafia. However,
this is appropriate because of the death of Pope Francis
and where the papacy goes from here. So it's a
letter of the Holy Father Francis to the bishops of

(01:28:05):
the United States of America, and it was written on
February ten of this year, Dear brothers of the Episcopate,
I'm writing today to address a few words to you
in these delicate moments that you're living as pastors of
the people of God who walk together in the United
States of America. And then follows ten points. The journey

(01:28:27):
from slavery to freedom that the people of Israel traveled,
as narrated in the Book of Exodus, invites us to
look at the reality of our time so clearly marked
by the phenomenon of migration, as a decisive moment in
history to reaffirm not only are faith in a God
who is always close incarnate, migrant and refugee, but also

(01:28:52):
the infinite and transcendent dignity of every human person. Now,
I can't guarantee the accuracy of some of the writing,
but I present it as it's written. Point two. These
words with which I begin are not an artificial construct.
Even a cursory examination of the Church's social doctrine emphatically

(01:29:12):
shows that Jesus Christ is the true Immanuel and refers
to Matthew one twenty three. He did not live apart
from the difficult experience of being expelled from his own
land because of an imminent risk to his life, and
from the experience of having to take refuge in a
society of the culture foreign to his own. The Son

(01:29:32):
of God, in becoming man, also chose to live the
drama of immigration. I like to recall, among other things,
the words with which Pope Pius the twelfth began his
Apostolic Constitution on the Care of Migrants, which is considered
the magna carta of the Church's thinking on migration, and
it goes like this. The family of Nazareth in exile, Jesus,

(01:29:56):
Mary and Joseph, emigrants in Egypt, and refugees there to
escape the wrath of an ungodly king, are the model,
the example, and the constellation of emigran and pilgrims of
every age and country, of all refugees of every condition,
who beset by persecution or necessity, are forced to leave

(01:30:18):
their homeland, beloved family and dear friends for foreign lands.
Number three. Likewise, Jesus Christ, loving everyone with a universal love,
educates us in the permanent recognition of the dignity of
every human being without exception. Note that without exception, in fact,

(01:30:38):
I'm sure you did in fact, when we speak of
infinite and transcendent dignity. We wish to emphasize that the
most decisive value possessed by the human person surpasses and
sustains every other juridical consideration that can be made to
regulate life in society. Thus, all the Christian faithful and

(01:30:59):
people of goodwill are called upon to consider the legitimacy
of norms and public policies in the light of the
dignity of the person and his or her fundamental rights,
not vice versa. Number four. I have followed closely the
major crisis that's taking place in the United States with
the initiation of Now number four gets to the grips

(01:31:24):
of what I think he's driving it. I have followed
closely the major crisis that is taking place in the
United States with the initiation of a program of mass deportations.
The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical
judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly
or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.

(01:31:50):
At the same time, one must recognize the right of
a nation to defend itself and keep community safe from
those who have committed violent or serious crimes while in
the country or prior to arrival. That said, the act
of deporting people who, in many cases have left their
own land for reasons of ex extream poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution,

(01:32:12):
or serious deterioration of the environment damages the dignity of
many men and women, and of entire families, and places
them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness. Number five.
This is not a minor issue. An authentic rule of
law is verified precisely in the dignified treatment that all

(01:32:35):
people deserve, especially the poorest and most marginalized. The true
common good is promoted when society and government, with creativity
and strict respect for the rights of all, as I
have affirmed on numerous occasions, welcomes, protects, promotes, and integrates
the most fragile, unprotected, and vulnerable. This does not impede

(01:32:58):
the development of a policy that regulates orderly and legal migration. However,
this development cannot come about through the privilege of some
and the sacrifice of others. What is built on the
basis of force and not on the truth about the
equal dignity of every human being begins badly and will
end badly. Number six. Christians know very well that it's

(01:33:21):
only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our
own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity.
Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interest that
little by little extend to other persons and groups. In
other words, the human person is not a mere individual

(01:33:42):
relatively expansive with some philanthropic feelings. The human person is
a subject with dignity, who, through the constitutive relationship with all,
especially with the poorest, congradually mature in his identity and vocation.
The true audo amorus that must be promoted is that

(01:34:04):
which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of
the good Samaritan, that is, by meditating on the love
that builds a fraternity open to all without exception. Number seven.
But worrying about personal community or national identity apart from
these considerations easily introduces an ideological criterion that distorts social

(01:34:27):
life and imposes the will of the strongest as the
criterion of truth. Number eight. I recognize your valuable efforts,
dear brother bishops of the United States, as you work
closely with migrants and refugees, proclaiming Jesus Christ and promoting
fundamental human rights. God will richly reward all that you
do for the protection and defense of those who are

(01:34:50):
considered less valuable, less important, or less human. Nine I
exhort all the faithful of the Catholic Church and all
men and women of good will, not to give in
to narratives that discriminate against and cause unnecessary suffering to
our migrant and refugee brothers and sisters. With charity and clarity.

(01:35:11):
Were all called to live in solidarity and fraternity, to
build bridges that bring us ever closer together, to avoid
wars of ignominy, and to learn to give our lives
as Jesus Christ gave his for the salvation of all.
And finally, number ten, let us ask our Lady of

(01:35:32):
Guadaloupe to protect individuals and families who live in fear
or pain due to migration and or deportation. May the
Virgin Moreener, who knew how to reconcile peoples when they
were at enmity, grant us all to meet again as
brothers and sisters within her embrace, and to take a

(01:35:53):
step forward in the construction of a society that is
more fraternal, inclusive and respectful of the dignity of all
fraternally Francis from the Vatican, ten February twenty twenty five. Now,
there's been one particular case that's had plenty of publicity
over the last week or so, and it is the

(01:36:14):
true story, sadly, of the thirty seven year old mother
of five who was assaulted, bashed, raped, slaughtered, not just killed,
slaughtered by an illegal immigrant, who, having seen him in
court pictures, seems to be totally unbothered by what he's

(01:36:37):
been charged with. Now, the question, if I were able
to interview by Francis, the question would be, so, where
does your dignity for everybody without exception go for this one?
How do you handle that? And he'd likely say, well,
there are obvious exceptions that you have to take into
account of, something along those lines. And the response is, well,

(01:37:02):
you take into you've got an attitude that everybody, everybody
is titled to the same level of dignity. What about
the next time another case comes up that's similar but
not as bad, So you extend it, and so you
extend it again and again, and before you know it,
the tyrannical judiciary has taken over, and there's no such

(01:37:25):
thing as dignity for anybody. Well, it's a sound argument,
might take a while, but it nevertheless is the way
that things generally unfold. So on that note, please if
you'd like to write to us Latent at NEWSTALKSB dot
co dot nz or Carolyn at NEWSTALKSNB dot co dot nz.

(01:37:46):
We love getting a correspondence. We will respond accordingly until
next time. For what is at two eighty two. We
shall leave you in peace and say thank you for listening,
and we'll talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:38:07):
Thank you for more from Newstalk st B. Listen live
on air or online, and keep our shows with you
wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Leighton Smith Podcast #281 - April 23rd 2025 - Kurt Schlichter

Episode Transcript

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #281 - April 23rd 2025 - Kurt Schlichter