Leighton Smith Podcast #301 - September 10th 2025 - James Allan - 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 the sis, now the
Leyton Smith podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcasts three hundred and one for September tenth,
twenty twenty five. If you look into the podcast rearview mirror,
it's obvious that James Allen makes appearances irregularly but at
the same time consistently. That's because he's knowledgeable, reliable, opinionated
and entertaining. It's also because his academic reputation and common

(00:50):
sense and a sense of humor are compatible with the
podcast host and what's for, he enjoys it. So in
three ZHO one we start by comparing the Anglo democracies
and which at the moment is or are the most successful.
It is Professor Jim Allen in full flow. And let's
not forget that he was eleven years teaching at the

(01:12):
University of Target before moving on to the University of
Queensland where he holds shall we say, a superior position.
He's also worked and studied in other universities around the world.
But James Allen is not just a law professor, is
also an author, an economist, judicial activism, broken legacy, media,

(01:37):
Israel and Gaza, immigration and net zero are all matters
that get attention in podcasts three oh one, But there
is a lot more. Now. There was one matter that
I was going to raise with the good professor, but
he and I decided not to. Neither of us was
in the mood at the time. However, I am going

(01:57):
to raise it at the end of the podcast, after
the mail room and discuss it in some well with brevity,
I hope, but with some feeling from more than one angle.
Now that's got you interested, hasn't it. But in the meantime,
over the past decade, there has been an explosion of
interest in indigenous knowledge. The United States, Canada, Australia and

(02:20):
South Africa have been at the forefront of the movement
to integrate ancient wisdom with modern science and decision making
by applying it to everything from public health to climate change.
The appeal is both understandable and alluring. For millennia, indigenous
cultures have accumulated a vast repository of information that has
helped them to adapt and survive. Now, while these achievements

(02:43):
deserve respect, many practices promoted under the banner of indigenous
knowledge lack scientific merit and should be approached with caution.
In Australia, attempts to incorporate the Aboriginal practice of spiritual
healing into the health system has been met with alum
as it involves a belief in sorcery and supernatural intrusions

(03:04):
rather than biological agents. In the United States, alternative treatments
include Native American herbal remedies, spiritual ceremonies, and sweat lodgers.
The use of these untested therapies divert valuable resources away
from evidence based medicine and can legitimize ineffective alternatives. In

(03:25):
some cases, cancer patients have refused proven treatments for traditional remedies. Now,
with the failure of the health system from the highest
order over the last few years, you can't be surprised
that some people are prepared to try something different after
being let down so badly by so many. Anyway, let

(03:46):
me carry on the rise of indigenous pseudoscience. Nowhere has
the trend of embracing indigenous knowledge gained more of a
foothold in mainstream institutions than in New Zealand, where the
government has given its equal status with science in the
school qualification system. This elevation has resulted in many grandiose

(04:07):
claims about the of the Marie Lunar Calendar to influence
everything from human health and well being to horticulture and
the weather. In twenty twenty three, Mary politician Hahnam P.
Clark asserted that the calendar could be used to predict floods.
There is no evidence to support this claim. Many factors

(04:29):
affect rainfall, air and water temperature, atmospheric pressure, cloud formation,
wind humidity, the jet stream, and the burning of fossil fuels.
Maybe not so much. The moon is not one of them.
Just last year, the government allocated four hundred thousand dollars
to study if lunar phases affect pregnancy activities, despite studies

(04:51):
consistently showing no correlation between lunar phases was childbirth and
health outcomes. Such projects divert important resources from evidence based
maternal care. The relevant factors in birth outcomes are biological, genetic,
and medical, not the waxing and waane of the moon.
One of the more far fetched claims has been advanced

(05:12):
by psychiatrist doctor Hinemoa Elder. She has written a popular
book in which she asserts that the Maharu phase of
the Marie lunar calendar is associated with enhanced female sexual libido.
More concerning are reports of patients discontinuing their medication for
bipolar disorder to instead use lunar phases to regulate their mood.

(05:36):
And then, on August twenty seven in The Australian, Janet Elbertson,
a lawyer actually a retired lawyer now, but a woman
with great legal knowledge and she is a She is
a columnist for The Australian wrote the following news that
senior South Australian Health bureaucrat Rebecca Graham is concerned about
the impact of miscarriage on wait for it, the INTERSECTX

(06:00):
and trans community is only the latest manifestation of the
linear progression from progressive thought to extreamest lunacy. At one level,
Graham's comments to a parliamentary committee or inquiry that trans
women be included in conversations about stillbirths even though they
are biological men incapable of being pregnant, is undoubtedly belly

(06:25):
laugh material. However, the infestation of such ridiculous folly at
the highest levels of political and bureaucratic life is no
laughing matter. From genuine ideology to education, to the disastrous
failures of immigration policy and many other areas, the wholesale
abandonment of simple common sense by so called progressives is

(06:48):
the driving force of public policy failure. And she goes
on with quite a history, background and analysis of this
particular topic. So if you're an Australian reader, then Janet
Elbertson's column on the twenty sixth of August is waiting
for you at your leisure, So after a short break,

(07:10):
Professor James Allans. Leverrix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland
to the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay fever in skin,
allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual action antihistamine and

(07:32):
has a unique nasal decongestent action. It's fast acting for
fast relief and it works in under an hour and
lasts for over twenty four hours. Lebrix is a tiny
tablet that unblocks the nose, deals with itchy eyes, and
stops sneezing. Leverrix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to

(07:52):
the highest quantity. So next time you're in need of
an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy and ask for
Leverix lv Rix Levrix and always read the label, takes
directed and if symptoms persist, your health professional farmer broker
Auckland Layton Smith now Professor James Allan's very good to

(08:24):
have you back on the podcast. I appreciate it as always.

Speaker 3 (08:27):
How are you.

Speaker 4 (08:28):
Good, Thank you Layton, and I'm nice to year back
from your European vacation.

Speaker 2 (08:33):
Well it was. It was interesting because you went first
for five weeks and we followed on after about the
time you came back, so it's a case of who
had the better holiday. But I don't think I don't
think we want to spend too much time on that.
But you spent a lot of time in Scotland. I
believe my.

Speaker 4 (08:51):
Wife would always wanted to do one of those walks
where they take your bag to the next place, and
we apparently know the third most popular walk in Europe
is something called the West Highland Way, for you effectively
walk from just north of Glasgow to Fort William through
the Highlands along the east side of walch Loan, and

(09:12):
it was magnificent. You walk about seven or eight hours
a day. There's only one day that was really strenuous.
Well not even that, just long, but it was magnificent
and you'd arrive, have a beer, have a hot shower,
and then just go and eat and drink until you
collapsed into bed about eight o'clock and got up and
started early the next morning after a big breakfast.

Speaker 3 (09:34):
So it was just magnificent. The scenery was terrific.

Speaker 2 (09:37):
Well, I know you like your wine and I know
that Scotland's not good with wine production.

Speaker 4 (09:42):
To what was it, Well, they do have this thing
called the whiskey late not a lot of people might
have heard of it.

Speaker 3 (09:47):
In New Zealand did they have these tremendous distilleries.

Speaker 4 (09:51):
So we had a bit of whiskey and usually you
were so tired you had to have a beer at
the end of the walk. So we did manage the
scrape bar on the alcohol front, as long as you
stuck to salmon and venison. The Scottish food was great.
Not sure, I like porridge actually some of the smoked salmon.
Actually the food was surprisingly good, I'll put it that way.

Speaker 2 (10:14):
Well, something was I can't I can't drink whiskey at all.
I can't cope. Just the smell of it puts me off.

Speaker 3 (10:20):
Oh well, I've overcome that disability.

Speaker 2 (10:24):
So I don't want to anyway. Let me quote you
something to kick us off. When governments adopt policies that
are inconsistent with the values and convictions of the majority
of society, they risk creating deep divisions and civil unrest.
Law Making must not be driven by ideology or the

(10:46):
demands of small activist groups at the expense of the
wider population. Governments have a duty to safeguard's social cohesion
by grounding laws in shared realities and common values. Ignoring
the majority view not only undermines public trust in institutions,
but also fuels polarization, resentment, and comp Precisely what responsible

(11:10):
governance should seek to avoid. Is there any of that
that you disagree with?

Speaker 3 (11:16):
Yeah, big chunks of it.

Speaker 4 (11:17):
Actually, so, every every point of view is grounded in
an ideology. So when they talk about whoever this is,
when you talk about ideology, it's always some other person's
system of beliefs and yours are somehow the assumption is
that your your views are not grounded in some set
set of ideas. But an ideology is the set of ideas.

(11:39):
So you can't pass laws that aren't grounded in some
sort of ideology. Whether it's small government, big government, lots
of freedom, very collectivist, I don't know, So that that
part is a bit odd. And the other thing is
there's a lot of non shared values in the world
right now.

Speaker 3 (11:54):
It's not like.

Speaker 4 (11:55):
Governments can just find the sort of magical happy medium
between people who think that, you know, you can put
on a skirt, take some drugs, have some surgery, and
all of a sudden, you're a woman, and those who
think that people who believe that are completely insane. So
that's a touchy feely sort of set of views, I
think to some extent where we can imagine that there

(12:19):
is this set of views that the majority hold that
it completely uncontentious, and we're living in a world right
now where everything seems to be more and more contentious.
What do we want to do about mass migration? What
do we want to do about the economy? You know,
what do we want to do about transgender Do you
believe in merit or do you believe in diversity, equity, inclusion,

(12:39):
there's no sort of magical middle ground that somehow the
majority holds and is uncontentious. I mean, obviously we would
like the elected government to be making the decisions, but
they run on a set of policies, and when they
make promises to the voters, they should follow through on
that to the extent they can.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
Out of the anglosphere governments around the world, the Bible,
six of them in the main, which one is handling
all of this the best?

Speaker 4 (13:07):
Well, I mean, you and I both would agree on this.
I think late in that the Americans are half saving
Western civilization because we're not seeing any fight.

Speaker 3 (13:17):
In the politicians anywhere else.

Speaker 4 (13:19):
And so you can't go down the identity politics road
and still believe in individualism.

Speaker 3 (13:26):
And if you believe in merit, you have.

Speaker 4 (13:29):
To do everything in your power to crush the I
think it's Stephen Pinker, who's a man of the political left,
let's not forget that, who likes to quote Voltaire's famous
line about the Holy Roman Empire, which is that it
wasn't holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an empire.
And he says, and that's true of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Speaker 3 (13:49):
It's not diverse.

Speaker 4 (13:51):
It always functions to create a monolithic intellectual sort of
background or workplace or university. I can tell you that
deies not just drives all conservatives out of university. So
it's not diversity of thought at all. Equity, well, there's
all sorts of groups that get treated unequally. If you're

(14:11):
a white male, you're not going to be treated the
same as a sort of disabled female who's a lesbian.
Just not. So it's not diverse, it's not equitable, and
that's it. And in terms of inclusion, well, they drive
people away on purpose disfavored groups. When you see the
world in terms of groups and how much they've been
oppressed or you know, suffered suffered some kind of discrimination,

(14:35):
which usually you can't cash out. So diversity, equity and inclusion,
they're all misnomers. And so I think that Trump's done
a good job on that Friday's fighting that. I think
the single greatest achievement he had was to was to
stop the illegal immigration. And actually, if you saw the

(14:58):
latest jobs report, two million jobs were created for native
born Americans and one million were lost for people living
in the United States who weren't native born, and most
of those were illegals. And you know, that's a stunning
accomplishment that goes together with the two percent increase in
real wages, which I don't I think you have to
go back to Nixon to find that. So, you know,

(15:22):
I think that's good. I think Trump's fighting for free
speech is good. You know, we can argue about how
he's handling the Ukraine War. I'm not cessimistic about that
because I don't think there's any real option on the
table to deal with the second most nuclear armed country
on Earth. People who think you're going to invade Russia
have lost their mind. So I think Trump by far

(15:44):
and away is protecting free speech. He's he's focusing on
the individuals.

Speaker 3 (15:52):
And he's attacking a corrupt media.

Speaker 4 (15:54):
You know, the media, the legacy media is woefullly bad.
And I like the fact and to some extent this
is mimicked by the Canadian opposition leader Pierre Pauliev.

Speaker 3 (16:04):
But he's calling out.

Speaker 4 (16:05):
The journalists, and I don't like this, saying you work
for a corrupt organization that is not even remotely balanced.
So I think Trump is the US is by far
the best. Now you know, they've got a big split.
There's no sort of bipartisan agreement on anything in the US. Really,
these days, they can't even agree on fighting crime. You

(16:26):
would have thought everyone agrees we want less crime in Washington,
d C. It turns out Democrats do not want less
crime in Washington, d C. Even though it's it's federally
controlled and Trump can send in the National Guard anytime
he wants to Washington d C. The Democrats don't want
him to do that. So, I mean, I don't know
how you're going to function looking for consensus there is

(16:49):
no consensus.

Speaker 2 (16:50):
Well he has done that, of course, and now he's
happily claiming that he's he's returned Washington d C to
a very safe place. In fact, I think I saw
him say something like the safest place in the world.

Speaker 3 (17:05):
I mean, he overstates everything.

Speaker 4 (17:07):
It's definitely not the safest place in the world, but
it's much much safer the Washington d C has been
in a while. I think carjackings are down eighty six
eighty seven percent. They went eleven or twelve days without
a murder, which is that nobody can remember the last
time that was true in Washington, d C. And the
thing is that almost all murders are black people murdering

(17:28):
black people. So what Trump is doing is he's saving
black flags, which ordinary people like that. The sort of
political and journalistic elites who are deranged in their hatred
of this man, they would rather they just do not
want this to be successful. So go figure to what

(17:49):
I say.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
All right, So Chicago is next on the list. Apparently
the Chicago administration doesn't want him there at all and
doesn't want what his troops in there. Meanwhile, the mayor
of the mayor of Washington, d C. Is saying that
it's worked.

Speaker 4 (18:06):
Well, I don't think he can actually send in the
national So say in a federal system that the district
of Columbia is run by the central government, a bit
like Canberra in Australia. Because Australia copied the American Constitution,
we have the most written American written constitution in the world.

(18:27):
So there was nothing constitutionally to prevent mister Trump from
from sorting out Washington, d C. That's not true in Chicago.
Chicago is an Illinois the state. Now there's some little
things he can do in the way of enforcing immigration laws,
but he definitely can't send in extra police troops unless
they're requested, and Illinois and Chicago, which are very you know,

(18:53):
the Democratic strongholds, they will not be doing it. So
I suspect this is a bit political for Trump. He'll
just say, look what we did. We fixed all the
crime in Washington, d C. And the Democrats don't want
us to fix it in Chicago.

Speaker 3 (19:06):
So I don't know what his road plan is. If
it goes to court to lose, I.

Speaker 2 (19:11):
Think, well that will be that will be interesting. And
if he does lose, of course, the the well, I
think that you're quite right, it'll make a it'll make
quite a difference to the outcomes that of the next election.

Speaker 4 (19:25):
It's it's a political win and a legal loss. And
sometimes you know that that's deliberate. You said, well, I
don't even I don't expect to win in court, but
we're going to force them to go in and fight
for no more, for no more extra police officers.

Speaker 3 (19:37):
Good luck.

Speaker 2 (19:39):
Now, you mentioned the legacy media media in general, but
specifically the legacy media, and you say it's broken. When
you say it's okay, when you say it's broken, what
does that actually mean?

Speaker 3 (19:54):
Uh? Well, I think it is so.

Speaker 4 (19:59):
Lacking in political balance that you know most journalists would
rather would rather just not report anything that would help
mister Trump. And in Australia, you know, the ABC, to
my knowledge, does not have a single right of center
journal in terms of their sort of civil affairs reporting.

(20:26):
They don't have a single producer or a journalist who's
known to be a right of center voter.

Speaker 3 (20:31):
Not one. So I'll give you another example.

Speaker 4 (20:34):
If you look at that recent Minnesota school shooting, which
was in a Catholic school and was done by a
transgender guy who hated Trump, and he had written on
his gun. I think he killed two girls and maybe
more it was two when it first happened at seventeen

(20:56):
eighteen or injured.

Speaker 3 (20:58):
He had killed Donald Trump on his gun.

Speaker 4 (21:01):
And one of the three big terrestrial US television stations
reported that, because they cannot report anything that in any
way shows mister Trump in a favorable light, because this
killer had killed Donald Trump on his gun, they reported
it as they that the murderer had Donald Trump's name
on his gun.

Speaker 3 (21:18):
Now you could you can't. You can only laugh at
the sort of shoot spat of that.

Speaker 4 (21:24):
And you know they tied themselves in knots on the
whole transgender issue so CNN and NBC, New York Times,
they all wanted to say she was a was a
woman who was the mass murderer. And CNN worried about
misgendering a mass murderer, you know, in the school when
we knew it was a guy. I would say that

(21:45):
a lot of this is just a sort of a
mental illness. The Washington Post, again, they didn't know how
to report the identity. They even interviewed, CNN even interviewed
the former FBI Deputy director Andrew McKay. And that guy is,
you know, up to his neck in the Russian collusion scam.

(22:06):
You know, he he too wanted to use the preferred identity.
And you know how many of the legacy media are
noting that in terms of school shootings, there've been what
six or seven mass school shootings all done by transgender murderers. Denver, Georgia, Aberdeen, Nashville, Uvaldi, Philadelphia,

(22:28):
you know, the.

Speaker 3 (22:28):
List goes on. That's what I've got right now in
my head.

Speaker 4 (22:30):
But these are massively disproportionate numbers.

Speaker 3 (22:34):
And if you didn't have Twitter and acts, you would
not know this.

Speaker 4 (22:39):
You just would not know it because they're not reporting it.
And it always seems to go in one direction. So
if it's a if it's a white male murder, you
know that within seconds. If it's a black murderer or
transgender murder, the press does not want to report that.
They hold off as long as they can. The Nashville murderer,

(22:59):
they took six months to release the manifesto that showed
the person to be a crazed sort of transgender killer. Again,
if it had been a sort of white nationalist manifesto,
it would have been it would have been they would
have been running it on the front every day.

Speaker 3 (23:15):
Now.

Speaker 4 (23:16):
The problem is you lose confidence after a while if
all of the bias is in one direction. And that
is why I don't know how many people in New
Zealand know this, but a cable network, Fox News now
has more people watch the nightly news, not only more
than c and then an MSNBC put together, but also

(23:36):
more than any of the three established terrestrial channels. More
people watch Fox News than ABC, that's the American ABC,
than CBS and then NBC. This is an incredible problem
for the legacy media in that people have well, it
was you know, it was largely happening before COVID. But
the reportings during COVID, you might as well have just

(24:00):
made yourself proved and become a mouthpiece for government thuggery,
and so people have lost confidence. It's I think that's
true across all the elite institutions. I mean, I don't
trust public health officials anymore.

Speaker 3 (24:14):
The police.

Speaker 4 (24:14):
I grew up in the most pro police family ever,
in a sort of middle class Toronto household. I spent
all of my law school defending the police against pretty
progressive professors, and through most of my time as a
law school professor, and I thought it was the most
pro police. I wouldn't cross the street to help the
Victorian police officers now or London ones. They have become

(24:37):
agents for a sort of bizarre progressive thuggery. And you know,
once you lose the populace, it's very hard to police people.
I mean I literally wouldn't do anything to help them.

Speaker 2 (24:49):
And I understand that I told this story. I think
I mentioned that when I was doing one a podcast
out of London. But it was a shop nearby where
we were staying, and we were just going through the doors,
two sliding glass doors, you know, opening up, and that
this young guy came tearing out and coming down the

(25:14):
aisle after him was a guy who worked there, and
he was chasing him, and he got him on the
footpath outside. The guy who was being chased got away
from him. It took off across the road and up
the street on the other side, which goes up a hill,
all the while looking back over his shoulder and laughing.

(25:36):
He was a shoplifter. He was only mid teens. And
the reason, as far as I was concerned, why the
shopkeeper did not pursue him further and actually let him
go in the end, was because the chances are if
he did anything he would be charged with assault.

Speaker 4 (25:56):
He would have been he would be I think, I mean,
look what just happened to Graham Lenehan.

Speaker 3 (26:00):
Look at the Scottish girl who.

Speaker 4 (26:04):
Had a knife and drove off a young little girl
fourteen or fifteen up a skull and somewhere drove off
of would be I think it was an illegal immigrant
rapist or would be rapists, and the you know, the
police wanted to charge her for having an illegal knife.
Come on, they have completely lost the plot where they

(26:24):
they send five armed police officers to to arrest a
comedian who's visiting the UK because you know, they don't
like his transgendered tweets and he's been charged anti transgender tweets.
You know, free speech is in a seriously woeful way
in Britain. And I'm a huge anglophile, but it's it's

(26:47):
an embarrassment. And partly it's the senior police officers who
have been put into these roles on sort of affirmative
action grounds, and they have I don't think they carry
the majority of the police officers on the beat. But
the trouble is, you know, and the thing is, conservative
politicians get into power and they don't do anything about it.

(27:09):
They pass some of the laws, they get weaponized against them.
The test as a conservative is imagine your enemies would do.
How is there any way your enemies could use this
law in the most terrible way against you, Because they will,
and they don't seem to get that. They pass these
laws and you know, they're weaponized against people, and then.

Speaker 3 (27:29):
They go, we didn't see this coming.

Speaker 4 (27:30):
Well, you know, the political class around the anglosphere on
the right side of politics is just shockingly bad. And
then so people say to me, well, you know, I
don't like Trump's personality, or he's a boorish sort of
cross guy who's you.

Speaker 2 (27:48):
Know, they got brainwashed by a corrupt media right from
the get go. Not just a corrupt media, but a
corrupt government in the United States in particular.

Speaker 3 (27:59):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (28:00):
And Trump has his undesirable aspects not so many now
as he did before.

Speaker 3 (28:07):
No, I mean he's doing he's doing.

Speaker 4 (28:09):
I mean you always buy people wholesale, not retail. And
the kind of person who'll stand up to the relentless
legacy media attacks, which is about ninety six percent negative
for Trump. He could walk on water and they'd you know,
they'd be critiquing him. But the kind of person who
can stand up to that and trying to put him

(28:29):
in jail for life with what we're you know, bogus
criminal charges in my view, even getting convicted in New
York City on a charge that didn't even exist. They
made it up, and they try to bankrupt all The
kind of person who can stand for that and not
Buckle is not probably going to be the kind of
person you'll find out a middle class dinner party on

(28:51):
a Saturday night. He's going to be, you know, pretty
rough edges. I don't really care about that. I think
the most important thing right now, and given the state
of the West, is bravery.

Speaker 3 (29:02):
And that's what I want for almost.

Speaker 4 (29:05):
Anything, any appointment, anything, I want someone, you know, really,
the test for Rad's Center appointments is has this person
been hated already? And if they've been hated, how did
they respond to that? Were they brave or did they
back there? And that's the only criterion for appointments, right
because if you think you're going to appoint some quiet
person who's kept his or her head down for the

(29:27):
last three years and never uttered a peep, but you're
going to put them in some rule and they're going
to become brave, you're just deluding yourself. People who haven't
been brave yet aren't going to become brave.

Speaker 2 (29:39):
Well, there's a lot of delusion that goes on at
this point of time. Yeah, I experienced somebody yesterday. I
hit a discussion with someone I'm very close close to
who and I advise my listeners not to try and
guess because they won't and they might misallocate their feelings.
But it was obvious right from the I had to

(30:02):
be very careful right from the beginning that the brainwashing
had taken place there was no room for any adjustment yet.
But I haven't stopped. I haven't given up.

Speaker 4 (30:17):
Well, it's hard to news dealing because you really don't
have any much rightst center media.

Speaker 3 (30:22):
You've got podcasters like you.

Speaker 4 (30:25):
I guess you have Sky to the extent they run
the Australian Sky after dark shows, but it's I don't
know if they do or not. But the newspapers are
lost cause largely do you still have the National Business Review?

Speaker 2 (30:39):
It still exists, but I'm not sure in what condition. Okay, Uh,
you're you're right about the You're right about the media,
and there isn't a great deal of adjustment even after
what we've what we've been through. Uh, and there's there's
so much falsehood that is maintained by that media that
you just you just don't know, really.

Speaker 3 (31:03):
That's right.

Speaker 4 (31:03):
Some people open their eyes during COVID and you can
see that, you know, they were just.

Speaker 3 (31:09):
Flat out line, we're all in this together. While the
disease was.

Speaker 4 (31:12):
The virus was one thousand to ten thousand times more
virulent against over seventy fives than anyone under thirty, that
we weren't all in it together, and you know, masking
really there was never a.

Speaker 3 (31:25):
Study that showed it did much.

Speaker 4 (31:27):
And the social distancing rules were just made up out
of thin air, and they never actually tested the vaccines
for transmission.

Speaker 3 (31:35):
And when you find this all, let you start thinking
this was just.

Speaker 4 (31:37):
A I mean, they justified it to themselves, thinking they
were going to save lives. But it's never a good
idea to systematically lie to people because when you get
found out, people aren't going to believe you again. So
there you go, and I agree with you on anything
political or to do with the US. You just cannot

(31:59):
trust what you see coming from the public broadcasters in
Canada or Britain or Australia, I assume New Zealand as well.

Speaker 2 (32:05):
Correct. Correct, I've never quoted David Flint before, but I'm
going to briefly under the heading of a defenseless, debt
ridden and derelict. If the recent prediction in The Australian
that the Alberzi government will be in power for at
least nine years, perhaps longer is accurate, the results will

(32:26):
be a significant decline in both the wealth and well
being of Australians. This is the most left wing government
in the history of the nation, derelict in its duties
and already delivering a defenseless and debt ridden Australia. How
let me include the next line. While the leadership purports
to be in the political center, it is at heart

(32:49):
locked into some Marxist time warm. How does it happen
Andrews is gone, but still his shadow seems to look
all over Victoria.

Speaker 4 (33:03):
Yeah, so, I mean, I think Dave's probably right, and
we could argue about whether it's the Whitlam government was
more left wing than Albys, but I mean the.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
Problem right now is that there's no opposition.

Speaker 4 (33:16):
So as you say, in Victoria, the Dan Andrews, he
stepped down eventually, the thug who took us to Victoria
through COVID, and you know, spent a fortune and replaced
by Jacinta Allen and she's at least as left wing
as he is. And you know they'll win the next
election because the opposition Liberal Party doesn't disagree with them

(33:39):
on very much at all. And they had a leader
called John Pasuto who got sued by one of his
own MPs and he lost the defamation case because he
basically she was at a women for Women's Spaces thing.
And of course they're the Liberal parties terrified at the
transgender lobby and during this female MP's rally with other women,

(34:03):
including some famous British women, you know, some of the
neo Nazi's got in ba behind them and they took
a picture and he implied that she was a neo Nazi,
and you know, she sued him and he was encouraged
to subtle. He didn't do it, and so he's lost
the cost ruling. I don't know if that's come out yet,

(34:24):
but he's he's basically he would have been bankrupted except
that the Victoria Liberal Party opted to, you know, lend
them some money so he wouldn't be bankrupted. They say
it's because they don't want to lose his seat in
that by election. If he were made bankrupt, you have
to step down. But you know, they don't disagree on anything.
You can't get liberal parties to say we need to

(34:44):
pull out a net zero, which is really it's a
form of being able to think clearly. Where the five
biggest misters in.

Speaker 3 (34:53):
The world have all given up on net zero and.

Speaker 4 (34:57):
Most European countries aren't really paying too much attention to it.
Why is Australia fanatically committed to net zero. It's impoverishing us.
And you know, we we could go back to the
Stone Age tomorrow and it would make no difference to
the rate of increase in the world's temperature. So at
that point you have to say, well, why are we

(35:17):
doing this? And the only possible answer anyone could give
as well, we're going to be a moral beacon to
the Chinese poll up your We're going to be a
moral beacon to you know, developing India. We're going to
be a moral beacon to mister Trump. It's it's just daft.

Speaker 2 (35:32):
And so who's the who's the austrade in medicine?

Speaker 3 (35:36):
Uh Bowen, that's right, Think that's right. But you know
they're they're committed. But again we should be committed.

Speaker 4 (35:45):
Well maybe, but you know, we've got a we've got
a coalition liberal opposition leaders Susan Leey who's to the
far left of the party, Groom and she she basically
can't find anything to disagree with Labor.

Speaker 3 (35:57):
So that's why they keep winning.

Speaker 4 (36:00):
You know, opposition parties are meant to oppose, and we
have a real problem in Australia with our voting system.
I'm a big fan of first past the post, one
that New Zealand gave up on in nineteen ninety six.
But you know, there's two kinds of voting systems. There's
majoritarian voting systems and there's proportional. On majoritarian ones force

(36:22):
two big tent groupings to come up with some kind
of compromise manifesto and put it to the voters. So
the compromising is done before the election. And all proportional systems,
whether they're delivered on a list system like New Zealand
and Germany, or they're done through multi member constituencies like
Ireland besk TV that kind of thing. If you have

(36:43):
a proportional system, it's designed so that no one party
wins government. So these parties go in and they make
every promise under the sun, knowing they will never be
in a position to deliver on them because they will
never win a majority. And after the election you get
all the compromising and bargaining so between East, between ACT
and New Zealand First and the National Party there and

(37:04):
so it's all done away from the oversight of the votvoters.
So I like first past the post. I know that
sometimes it means you win forty percent of the vote
and you get sixty percent of the seats, but that's
a small price to pay. Now, Australia has a variant
of majoritarian voting system. It's ranked choice voting or alternative votes,

(37:25):
so effect are preferential voting.

Speaker 3 (37:27):
So you walk in in you number everything every candidate
from one to ten.

Speaker 4 (37:31):
When you have two functioning political parties, preferential voting is fine.
But when the Conservative Party becomes one centimeter to the
right of the Labor Party, about how the electorate is
disenfranchised and there's nothing you can do about it because

(37:52):
there's no way under preferential voting for a sort of
rebellious upstart party, like a reform with Nogel frage. You know,
you can blow up the two main parties under first
past the post. Doesn't happen very often, but you can
do it. It's possible with ranked choice voting. And so
you know, we're we have a broken voting system right

(38:14):
now and people are fleeing from the Liberal Party. So
so Canada has about seven hundred and fifty thousand members
in the Conservative Party because the vote the party members
picked the leader. Australia's Liberal Party has twenty or thirty
thousand members and the conservative people are leaving because they

(38:38):
have really no say and we have you know, half
to more than half the party room are progressive, woke,
left wing types who maybe are a bit centrist on
economic issues. And so at the last election in Australia
here in April or May, they went to the electric

(38:59):
with nothing. They didn't say we're going to get rid
of that zero. They didn't say we're going to slash immigration.
You know, they went with, you know, cut the price
of gasoline for a year. I mean, they did make
noises about nuclear which would have been fine, but they
stopped talking about that.

Speaker 3 (39:16):
And you think this.

Speaker 4 (39:17):
Is a terrible government and you're fighting on no fronts.
And you know, you can see that in all sorts
of countries, and when you look at European countries with
proportional voting, these sort of the sort of what are
labeled populist parties are getting ever more popular and they're
winning elections all through Europe. And by populous, of course,

(39:39):
the sort of establishment means we don't agree with you.
If you ask them to define populists, it basically they can't.
We don't like your policies because you know, they're slightly
conservative and they want a limited immigration and you know
they're not not in love with.

Speaker 3 (39:55):
The elite institutions.

Speaker 4 (39:58):
But so what I mean, there's nothing to love about
the elite institutions right now.

Speaker 2 (40:03):
Having having spent time in London two weeks just race,
I was disappointed in a number of things. Take Oxford
Street for instance. The advice to us when we were
going into Oxford Street on a Sunday was don't do it,
and any other time was do not walk around with

(40:23):
your phone in your hand because the young crims and
we saw some of them on bikes, actually young guys
mid teens. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is
that you were not safe in Oxford Street under almost
any circumstances. Now, that didn't stop the crowds coming. And
most of those crowds, I have to say, we're visitors

(40:45):
from far away places. Now you could tell by their dress,
for instance. But the agro with regard to crime in
the street is just well, it's extraordinary. I've already given
you an example of the shoplifter, but this was one
step up from that.

Speaker 3 (41:02):
Well, you know what I said that late Both our
kids live in London.

Speaker 4 (41:06):
My daughter's coming back to Utarlia, but we go once
or twice a year. In fact, for the last three
or four years, including through COVID, we've gone to London,
And I would sort of disagree in this way. Yes,
phone theft is probably the biggest in Europe in London,
but London's crime rate in terms of violent crime so murders, say,

(41:30):
would be a fraction of a fraction of what Washington,
DC is now after the Trump surge of policing. So
I mean, the murder rate in London is minute compared
to most big US cities. And at Oxford Street I
walk on all the time. I think no one's getting
murdered on Oxford Street, and I don't think anyone's getting

(41:51):
raped on Oxford Street.

Speaker 3 (41:53):
Maybe if you go to the East end of London.

Speaker 4 (41:54):
But what you will find is your phone will be
stolen if you're carrying it in your hand.

Speaker 2 (42:00):
You have to be a bit careful, so not just
find something ed it's women's.

Speaker 3 (42:06):
Yeah, yeah, that would happen too.

Speaker 4 (42:09):
But the kind of things you really violent crime you
see in the US, you really don't see it in Europe.
I think the statistics are pretty clear on that, but
I'm not I mean I'm not happy with the policing.
I think you know, if you got burgled and London,
the police would probably never come to your door. They'd
give you the little form you need for your insurance

(42:30):
and that would be it.

Speaker 3 (42:32):
So I'm not condoning it.

Speaker 4 (42:33):
I just think anyone who tells you you can't walk
around the core London tourist area because you'll you'll be
attacked as wrong. We walk through Region Parks, Hyde Park
maybe at nights. As a woman, you might not want
to walk around Regent's Park.

Speaker 2 (42:50):
But well, I don't know whether you saw the story
of the She had been a newsreader on television and
I think she was around I'm guessing around the seventy
age Marc. She came out of the bookshop Waterstone, Waterstone right,

(43:11):
and she came out and she was taken from behind
by a guy who kicked her in the back of
the knee. So she went down and turned out that
she was surrounded by a bunch of males and females,
all well dressed apparently according to her, and they got
a purse and all took off laughing. That was in

(43:33):
the middle of the day, and nobody lifted a finger again.

Speaker 4 (43:37):
You know, I think the police were if you tried
to help the woman, the police would charge you, you
the helper. So I mean there's a serious problem with
the way the elites are running the police to the
we I mean, when you lose James Allen as the
supporter of the police, you've.

Speaker 3 (43:53):
Got big problems.

Speaker 4 (43:54):
Because I'm a died in the wall proponent of the police.

Speaker 3 (43:59):
I've always supported them.

Speaker 4 (44:01):
I just feel they've become politicized and why again, we'll
probably come to talk about gramlin Ham.

Speaker 3 (44:07):
But when you're sending five armed police officers to.

Speaker 4 (44:10):
Arrest a guy for tweets he made, which weren't you know,
anything that would be it would be totally legal and
constitutionally protected in the US, and nobody comes to sort
of stop shoplifting. Now, partly that's the laws that have
been enacted and again largely not just labor in the
in the UK and here in Australia. Right if center

(44:31):
governments are enacting bad laws, speech inhibiting laws, laws that
make it, you know, so you.

Speaker 3 (44:39):
Can't prosecute shoplifting.

Speaker 4 (44:41):
So you can't blame the police if they can't prosecute shoplifters.
That's the fault of the government laws. But the kind
of uh, you know, it's it's discretionary. As the head
police chief for the chief for the metropolitan police, how
you allocate resources and you know they're choosing not to
send police officers out to deal with robberies burglaries anyway,

(45:05):
but they choose, yes, we're going to send five oign
police officers to arrest the comedian. That's that might be
pertinent because there's a bad law, but this is bad
police Heathrow.

Speaker 2 (45:17):
Let me let me quote to Jonathan Turley, the law
professor from Washington. Below is my column in Fox dot
com on the arrest of a well known comedian in
Great Britain. While the three social media posts in question
were political commentary rather than jokes, The arrest of Graham
is it Lenahan? I think so? Double do is the

(45:40):
is only the latest arrest of a comedian as part
of a global a global crackdown on free speech. The
postings would be considered protected speech in the United States
and should be protected anywhere. The rising censorship is literally
no joke in various Western countries, and then goes on
with reprinting his column. The fact that you've got a

(46:02):
professor of his level, which.

Speaker 3 (46:05):
Is a bit like yours and a man of the
left originally, let's be clear on a manager.

Speaker 4 (46:10):
Yeah, and all the charges he thinks that were brought
against the Trump were ridiculous and not ones that could
be promperly brought.

Speaker 3 (46:18):
Because so he's an honest guy. He's an honest guy.

Speaker 2 (46:21):
Well, he is your your grandfather's Democrat.

Speaker 3 (46:26):
Yeah, I mean, I mean, you're, you're, you're.

Speaker 4 (46:28):
If you asked who is the best Democrat president in
the last fifty years, I think it's obviously Bill Clinton.
Whatever you think about his you know, proclivities with the interns,
he was a you know, he was a very solid Democrat.
He ran a good economy, brought down welfare so that

(46:49):
it was they weren't spending a fortune on it. And
today Bill Clinton would be a Republican. I mean he's
not because he's you know, he's a he's a legacy
Democrat president, but his views would put him squarely in
the camp of Republicans. And so it's that Ronald reaganlin
I didn't leave the Democrat Party.

Speaker 3 (47:08):
They left me.

Speaker 4 (47:11):
That's sort of a huge problem. And when Turley says
there's a big free speech problem, well, once you decide
to make sensibilities and people's feelings of being offended more
important than robust debate or humor or anything else. I mean,
think back to the nineteen seventies with comedians like Don Rickles,

(47:33):
who in real life was a wonderful human being. Everyone
says so, but his his stand up routine was brutal.
He offended every group going everybody, and you know, it
was funny. But today we have past laws where the
feeling of being offended trump's any other consideration. Like, you

(47:57):
cannot run a multi cultural society where offense becomes the
key thing because then people there's so many things they
can't say. And when you do that, you just drive
things underground. I mean, if you stop people from saying
I think there's too much immigration, they will continue to

(48:18):
say it. They will just say it underground and it'll festers.
And these are things that need to be debated. I mean,
my own personal view is there's too much mass immigration
right now. We are not assimilating people, and that means that,
you know, I also think that if you run a
big ticket to mass immigration multicultural country, it makes it

(48:41):
very difficult to run a welfare state because welfare states
work where most people don't want to take welfare, the
sort of attitude that I grew up with. You know,
I grew up in a pretty working class area. People
would rather be dead back then than take welfare. The
minute you lose that attitude, it's just too expensive to
run a big ticket welfare country and you sort of

(49:02):
start blowing out the budget if you don't feel any
shame and taking free hands. And there's nothing wrong with
taking hand and if things go wrong in your life,
but if you're just having three generations of families taking
welfare handouts, well you can't run that kind of system anymore.
And so we need to talk about a range of things,

(49:23):
and they've taken that off. They try to silence people
by making it seem as though you know, you're you're
sitting outside the Overton window. The idea that it's it's
in respectable company, you don't talk about those sort of things. Well,
that's fine, but eventually then what you get is Nigel Farage,
who's going to talk about it and he's going to
win the next election. I put money on it right

(49:44):
now in Britain, or you get Donald Trump and you
can't have it both ways. If you're going to have
conservative parties that are completely emasculated and seem to stand
for nothing, then then other parties will take their place.

Speaker 3 (49:58):
And so I think the problem right now, there's a
host of problem, but truly's right.

Speaker 4 (50:03):
The elites in Europe have screwed things up so badly
that their last line of fens is to try to
stop people from talking about how badly they screwed things up,
and that you're not They're just not.

Speaker 3 (50:13):
Gonna be able to hold that line.

Speaker 4 (50:15):
I mean, we can see that Macron, you know, he's
gonna possibly his government's going to be it's not his government,
but the one he the prime minister he chose is
going to be brought down. And uh, Marie la Penn
if they don't throw her out of parliament, I'm pretty
bogus charges she's going to win the next election and

(50:36):
if they do throw her out, then another person in
her party is going.

Speaker 2 (50:39):
To win, all right, But if if they if she,
if she won, how would you feel about that?

Speaker 4 (50:45):
Well, you know, when you look at the list of
choices right now, you'd probably be voting for her with
our set of views, because there's nobody else offering any
remedies at all, and that's probable. I mean I I
enthusiastically vote for Nigel Farage because the problem is that
the world's oldest continually run political party, which is the

(51:07):
Conservative Party in Britain, probably the world's most successful party.
They were an office for fourteen years. They brought in
more and more limits on speech. They every election they
promised the cut immigration and they always increased it. They
were thugs during COVID complete and other thugs. They ate
the sort of policies of the Chinese Politburo.

Speaker 3 (51:30):
They ran up.

Speaker 4 (51:31):
They became the highest spending and taxing government since just
after the World War Two. And so you think, well,
why would anybody believe anything they say that after you,
after you've been in office fourteen years and won what
four or five elections, and you every time you've lied
to the voters, how do you come to them and say, well,

(51:51):
we might have lied those four last four times, but
this time we're telling you the truth.

Speaker 3 (51:56):
It's not going to work. It's like telling your spouse
I cheated on you four times here, but you know.

Speaker 4 (52:00):
That's all behind me. She'd be, she'd be you know,
they're ranged to believe you this time, and that's that
is what is the core problem for the Conservative Party.
They're now seeing all the right things, but nobody believes them.

Speaker 2 (52:13):
I've got to go back to twenty sixteen, twenty years
after the High Court's Wicic decision. How does the judicial
activism charge stand up.

Speaker 3 (52:25):
I think that the two things can be true.

Speaker 4 (52:27):
The Australian Top Court is comparatively sane by anglosphere standards,
So the Canadian Supreme Court is more activist than the
And by activists you mean I mean judicial user pation
of what is properly the role of the democratic legislature. Right,
So people can try to pick you up on definitions

(52:50):
and say what do you mean by activists? And so
let's just put the word activist away and talk about
unelected judges making social policy line drawing decisions that twenty
years ago we would have just assumed would be done
through the electoral process.

Speaker 3 (53:06):
Well, in Canada that happens more than in the US.

Speaker 4 (53:09):
So the Canadian Supreme Court, under with their really potent
and trenched Bill of Rights has gone crazy in my view,
I mean, that's just gone crazy.

Speaker 3 (53:17):
The Americans have judges have reigned it in a bit,
but by sort of.

Speaker 4 (53:23):
People with Westminster sensibilities and like parliamentary sovereignty.

Speaker 3 (53:26):
It's still waigh too much.

Speaker 4 (53:28):
The New Zealand Top Court recently just I think they've
gone crazy. You know, they're telling they're telling the elected
politicians they have to lower the voting age to sixteen.

Speaker 3 (53:38):
That was one of the worst cases you'll ever read.
They just you know, they used the.

Speaker 4 (53:43):
Statute that talked about discrimination to say that you can
read that into the Bill of Rights and basically that
the Bill of Rights was inconsistent with itself, and then
they pompously issued this this declaration of inconsistency or whatever
you call it.

Speaker 3 (53:55):
Over in New Zealand.

Speaker 1 (53:57):
Bad.

Speaker 4 (53:58):
The Australian judges are definitely as activists, as willing to
use power from the democratic elected the legislature here has
anytime in my twenty years. But there's still comparatively better
than the rest of the anglisher because we do not
have a national Bill of Rights, and so when they
do any of this, it looks so patently illegitimate. You know,

(54:21):
they made up an applied freedom of political communication. If
you go and read the cases that made it up,
you just laugh a lot. And you know, they've supercharged
this idea from the nineteenth I think it started originally
around nineteen fifty six, that there is this implicit separation
of powers which they use to make it hard for
the for the government to deal with illegal aliens or

(54:44):
people who come here claiming refugee status. But it's still
pretty marginal what.

Speaker 3 (54:48):
They're doing here.

Speaker 4 (54:49):
So I mean, I'm not happy with the trend in Australia,
but if you look at top courts, and I don't know,
the two worst would be India and Israel, and then
probably Canada would be next worse in the US, and
so we're still miles better. That the British Supreme Court
has become incredibly activist without a written constan and that's
because when they went into the EU, they signed but

(55:13):
they well they didn't sign up to it, but they
they locked in the European Convention on Human Rights through
the EU, and so the judges use that through the
Tony Blair all the Tony Blair constitutional innovations, I mean,
the man single handedly ruined the most successful constitutional arrangements ever.
So they farage government when it comes in and I

(55:36):
think rightfully will have to repeal the and he said
they will do this. They will have to repeal the
Human Rights Act, which is a sort of bill of
rights that brings in the European Convention. They have to
resolve from or leave the European Convention. I think they're
also going to have to leave the the a couple
of other conventions, possibly the Refugee Convention. So I think

(55:59):
they'll do that if they win. And they're going to
have to change how judges are appointed because again this
was a conservative government decided that the way you should
appoint your top judges is you should have a committee.
So instead of the elected government of appointing the judges.
Because trust me on this, ladon fifty years ago, the
median lawyer was to the you know, to the political.

Speaker 3 (56:23):
Right of the median voter.

Speaker 4 (56:24):
Today a couple of standard deviations to the left. Lawyers
as a class are very very progressively left wing. You know,
you have to have a pronoun tattooed on your forehead
before they'll let you in. I'm being physicious here, right,
So these are the people from whom we're picking judges.
And if you're a right of center political party, it

(56:46):
is not easy to find interpretively conservative judges. It is
not and what Britain, it's possible, but it's not easy
and you have to be committed to doing it. And
in Australia, you know, the Conservative the Liberal Party was
just ridiculously not paying any attention to their appointments. You know,
in nine years of Conservative government, they didn't appoint any

(57:06):
Conservative people to anything. I mean, I'm barely exaggerating. But
what they did in Britain, the Conservative government is they
bought this talk that's everywhere in law schools, all by
progressive people, that you need a commission to appoint judges.

Speaker 3 (57:20):
And so here's how it works in Britain.

Speaker 4 (57:22):
I mean there's two systems, the one right up to
the top court and then the one for all of
the others.

Speaker 3 (57:27):
But the one for all the.

Speaker 4 (57:28):
Others is they're basically sort of the same. So what
happens is there's thirteen members on this committee. Seven of
them are laid people, so everyone can say this is
a you know majority lay people, plumbers, secretaries, teachers.

Speaker 3 (57:42):
That's seven. The other six are the Lord Chief Justice
of Britain.

Speaker 4 (57:47):
That's the sort of second highest judicial posts, the Chancellor
of the Roles, you know, the third highest judicial figure,
the President of the Bar, the head of the Law Society,
and two other judges. So you have six of the
most senior legal figures in the country and they go
into a room with seven laid people, and we are
supposed to believe that the seven lay people are going

(58:10):
to stand up to these people. It's laughable, you know.
So what happens is that the judges and the senior
lawyers pick who the next judge will.

Speaker 3 (58:18):
Be, and so you get a.

Speaker 4 (58:21):
Wall to wall left leaning judiciary. And how a conservative
government couldn't see that this was the likely outcome is
beyond me. I mean, Nigel Formers will have to repeal the.

Speaker 3 (58:31):
It's called the judicial appointments.

Speaker 4 (58:33):
And they always say, oh, we're only going to We're
only going to appoint based on merit, But they never
tell you what they mean by merit, because at the
same time as they're going to appoint by merit, they're
supposed to take into account, you know, how many women
are on the bench, how many blacks are on the bench.
I mean, I don't know all of the all of
these sort of identity politics characteristics, but I can tell

(58:56):
you one thing. Even if you're just looking at raw
loyally technical skills, your analytical ability to take apart statutes
and cases, which you know is definitely a skill, and
that's not politically oriented. Well, how how you use that
skilled when you get into court will often depend upon

(59:18):
what your political views are. And so the traditional way
of making appointments has always been, well, the party that
wins makes the appointments. And of course they're carrying about merit,
but they'll pick someone who you know, might be a
federalist instead of a centralist, or they'll pick someone who's
against judicial expansionism, and that has ended in Britain, and

(59:39):
so you've got effectively wall to wall left leaning in
their place. So when they decided those those two major
Brexit cases, the two Miller cases, well that was I
think it was eleven eleven of the top judges said
on it was either every single one of them was
a remainer. And you're telling me that's irrelevant when they

(01:00:01):
in the first case was about the prerogative power where
they completely re wrote two hundred years of president on
what we mean by the power. And the second big
one was on paroguing parliament and they you know, they
overturned three hundred years of president all to make it
harder for Boris Johnson to bring in Brexit. And we're
supposed to believe that the political views these judges bring
to the table don't matter.

Speaker 3 (01:00:23):
I mean, come off it.

Speaker 4 (01:00:24):
And the Canadian courts when Trudeau tried to progue Parliament,
well they let in parogue Parliament, which is the right
thing to do, because you know, there's three hundred years
of precedent. So of course, to some extent, the attitudes
these judges bring to the table matters, and right of
center political parties need to be way more hard headed.

(01:00:45):
It took the Republicans in the US fifty years to
learn how to appoint judges, and they never really got
it right till Trump came in. And even with Trump
specifically looking for interpretively conservative judges, you know, it's not easy.
It's not really clear if Amy Coni Barrett has a
good choice, he's way better than the Democrats would appoint.

(01:01:06):
And the Bush appointment of Rob It's the Chief Justice,
well he's a disaster. I mean, he's not as bad
as the Democrats on no one would appoint him today. Well,
I mean he's not as bad as the Democrats because
sometimes he sides with the Republicans and sometimes he doesn't. Yeah,
I mean he's but he's a he's an insider elitist,
and he doesn't like he doesn't like Trump at all,

(01:01:29):
and he's you know, he's trying to to some extent,
what he wants is for everyone to think the Supreme
Court's great. And the problem is in a fifty to
fifty country, your top court gets politicized, and so the
people on the losing side of whatever the court decides
get pretty angry.

Speaker 2 (01:01:47):
I have got another three areas that I would have
liked to have covered, but we're pushing it now. I
want you to explain your attitude toward Israel.

Speaker 4 (01:02:00):
My attitude is basically the same as Douglas Murray's. If
someone attacks you, then more has consequences. When the Nazis
at Britain and you know, was bombing London, well, when
the war turned, Britain did whatever they had to do
to win the war, which include completely and totally leveling
Dresden to the ground.

Speaker 3 (01:02:20):
They were not sending food parcels to Dresden. They were not.

Speaker 4 (01:02:24):
And so we hold Israel to a higher standard than
any country that's ever fought a war, even while all
around Israel there are wars going on where neither party
is held to any kind of standard, but Israel gets
put under a microscope. And I think it's true that
they have been more careful. But the thing is, at

(01:02:47):
the end of the day, if Hamas is going to
station it's troops in schools and hospitals, Well, how do
you fight that war without attacking those places. It's not
Israel's fault that. I mean, even the Nazis weren't parking
their troops in schools. You know, they had some sort

(01:03:07):
of basic understanding that this is not a good idea.
And so, you know, is any country perfect when it
comes to un of course not. But in terms of
being the only democracy in the area which has a
what fifteen to twenty percent of the population is Arab,
and those Arabs aren't trying to leave Israel and move

(01:03:28):
anywhere else. And it's much better to be an Arab
in Israel than to be a Jew.

Speaker 3 (01:03:33):
In any of the surrounding majority Muslim countries.

Speaker 4 (01:03:36):
And in fact, it's probably better to be an Arab
in Israel than it is to be an Arab in
any of the Arab countries. And so the problem is
there's this hatred of Israel that you can't actually defend,
but you don't need to defend it because the Left
has captured all of our educational institutes and the kids
are you know, basically indoctrinated, and they don't even know

(01:03:58):
what from the river to the Sea means. It means
drive out every Jew who's in Israel. And they don't
know the river and they don't know the sea. And
they set up these Palestinian encampments at the universities. We
had one here at Uq and the the people who
are in charge of the universities don't do anything about
it for you know, weeks and weeks on end.

Speaker 2 (01:04:19):
And how does that leave you, How does that leave
you feeling what it's going on around you?

Speaker 4 (01:04:25):
Well, we had the only university in Australia and possibly
in the world where there was a counter encampment, a
tiny little encampment of basically Jews and a few Persians,
because the pre Homni Iran had very good relations with Israel.
So we get some of the sort of Persian students

(01:04:47):
who had come here at the time of the Iranian revolution,
their parents had come. But I would go every day
and have coffee with them, but with the with the Jews,
the Jewish kids, because they had these other these other
people were walking around taking photos.

Speaker 1 (01:05:02):
It was just raw.

Speaker 3 (01:05:05):
Sort of intimidation. So it made me feel like but
at the end of the day.

Speaker 4 (01:05:11):
You know, we've got a government here in Australia which
you know is recognizing Harmas, and so is every left
wing leader in the anglisphere. And I think even you're
supposedly seeing lux and I think didn't his government also
recognize Palistine. I don't know anyway, that's a terrible decision
in my view because he just encouraged Hamas. So I

(01:05:35):
personally am a big supporter of this sort of beachhead
of democracy in a very hostile world. I admire what
the Jewish people have done actually and their sense of commitment,
and they're willing to to defend themselves. I'm not sure
that young Australian kids, mostly boys, would be prepared to

(01:05:56):
fight for their country, and that's probably because they've gone
through school for twelve years being told that it's a
terrible racist sort of country. Whereas these are the best
places to live ever that we have created, especially in
the anglosphere, and yet we have allowed this sort of
set of this sort of these parasites to eat away

(01:06:20):
at our institutions, and we need to fix that. Mark
Stein always said everything is downstream of downstream of culture,
and I completely agree with that. I mean, it's all
very well and good to worry about the economy, but
if you're teaching kids that capitalism is no good an
individual initiative, it doesn't matter because it's all about which
groups have been oppressed. It doesn't really matter how you

(01:06:41):
look at the economy and your stuffed I mean, you
have to first come to the questions of the economy
where you can have a debate with a basic view
that competition is good and that merit matters, and that
individualism is a good way to run your country. And
if you don't have those values, then you know, arguing

(01:07:01):
about the tax rate is neither here nor there.

Speaker 2 (01:07:04):
Do you get a chance when you're teaching to take
on discussions like we're having at the moment.

Speaker 4 (01:07:11):
I give outside talks, but my basic view, Layton, is
the sort of old fashion one. Whatever I'm teaching, I
don't teach it in a political way. I do legal philosophy,
and even that I teach it in a way to
make sure that all points of view are out there,
because I think your job at a university is not
to run a political line. Now, when there are only

(01:07:32):
four sort of constitutional conservative legal academics in the country
of twenty eight million, maybe I should be more political.

Speaker 3 (01:07:40):
I mean, that's how do I get that figure?

Speaker 4 (01:07:42):
Well, because when they ran the Voice referendum, which was
a very left leaning proposal to change their Extralian constitution,
you had senior judges.

Speaker 3 (01:07:51):
Coming out for it. There were only four legal academics
who came out for no. I was one of them.
And by the way, when it went to the referendum,
it lost.

Speaker 4 (01:07:59):
Over sixty percent of Australia said no because it was
such a terrible idea. But you know, the entire loyally
cast with a few praise were the exceptions, were all
on board with this. If it had been a vote
for of the lawyers, and I had been a vote
of the judges, it would have sailed through.

Speaker 3 (01:08:16):
And so me, you know, I mean, there's the odd
student in.

Speaker 4 (01:08:21):
My class whose parents read the Spectator of the Australian
who knows I'm conservative, but I try to be, you know,
someone who looks at everything and I try not to
overtly take views. I mean, I never do an acknowledgment
of country or anything like that, but you know most people.

Speaker 3 (01:08:40):
Don't do those in class.

Speaker 4 (01:08:42):
So yeah, we had we definitely have a massive, major
problem in our universities. But I would start by trying
to fix the schools first, because it's even more important
to get kids through just the end of secondary school
without you know, having propaganda ram down their throat. Now,
I know that lots of kids just become cynical and

(01:09:02):
they realize they think it's garbage, and they just say
whatever they think they have to say to get a
good grade.

Speaker 3 (01:09:08):
But that's the best case scenario.

Speaker 4 (01:09:09):
That's the best we can say is that you know, this,
this attempt at blatant propaganda just creates a lot of phynics,
but it definitely works on some of them too. And
and there's no way to explain what's happening with the
anti seminism other than mass immigration, sometimes from places where

(01:09:30):
the groups do not share our worldview in the West
even remotely. Plus propaganda for the young, because you've got
these young wealthy students sort of you know, chanting Palestinian slogans.
The other really really weird thing about the whole rebirth
of anti Semitism for me. And I've got lots of

(01:09:51):
Jewish friends, but they're conservative Jewish friends. I say to them,
why does the majority of Jewish people vote for the
political left, who is really not helping Jewish people at all?

Speaker 3 (01:10:02):
And they say it's I can't really, you know, it's
a cultural thing for Jews.

Speaker 1 (01:10:07):
Now.

Speaker 3 (01:10:07):
Of course I'm speaking in general terms, and there's lots
of exceptions, but it is a weird thing.

Speaker 4 (01:10:12):
If you look around the world today, it's pretty obvious
that left the center parties are not have not are
not not in the business of helping Jewish citizens, whereas
the right of center parties that are more so. You know,
Trump really increased his Jewish vote, but it still wasn't
close behalf of American Jews.

Speaker 2 (01:10:34):
It's it's been tagged by somebody I respect as self hatred.

Speaker 3 (01:10:43):
I don't know, I mean, I'm not.

Speaker 4 (01:10:44):
I mean, I you know, you always hate that pop psychologe.
You're trying to look into somebody's brain, But it is.
It is a very odd thing. Sooner or later, these
groups move. You know, He's Trump got the majority of
Hispanic men. No one would have believed that twelve sixteen
years ago, they just wouldn't have believed that was possible
for a Republican to do.

Speaker 3 (01:11:06):
And these groups have moved.

Speaker 2 (01:11:09):
I'm going to pass on the on the murder. I
don't want to talk about it now.

Speaker 3 (01:11:16):
That's pretty depressing.

Speaker 2 (01:11:17):
Yeah. So I have a question for you. Lastly, out
of all the justices on the Supreme Court over the
last I don't know, thirty forty years, who would you
admire the most, Who would be the most productive in
reading their work?

Speaker 3 (01:11:37):
I think it's hard not to admire Clarence Thomas.

Speaker 4 (01:11:40):
You know, his grandfather was sharecropper, I think, and you
know he's got a consistent interpretive approach when it comes
to deciding cases, and with one I largely agree with.

Speaker 3 (01:11:53):
I don't agree with anybody all the time.

Speaker 4 (01:11:55):
He's pretty close to Scalia, but his backstory is better,
and he's braver. I mean, you know Scalia was very brave,
so maybe bravers not the right word. So I guess
if you said to me, who do I like right
now on your Supreme Court the most? I would probably
say Clarence Thomas. I liked his biography, his autobiography that
he wrote about himself.

Speaker 3 (01:12:15):
He did in the he did on the type. It's
worth reading.

Speaker 2 (01:12:19):
But I've got I've got a collection of Scalia.

Speaker 4 (01:12:22):
Well, Scalia was funny. Scalia was funnier. Scalia was just
you know, he'd write these singing descents that were very
very funny, laugh loud funny some of them. And so
he was a he was a bitingly funny man and aggressive.
But he never lived long enough to see uh Trump
come in and actually sort of recreate a Republican majority

(01:12:47):
appointed US Supreme Court.

Speaker 2 (01:12:50):
It was a very very sad day the day that
he he died unexpectedly. Yes, it was deprived, not just
America but the world of a giant brain.

Speaker 3 (01:13:01):
Yes it did.

Speaker 4 (01:13:01):
And and you know, at that point it looked like
Hillary Clinton would win, and you know, she would have
made three appointments and we would have massively left wing
leaning Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.

Speaker 2 (01:13:15):
You're going to be grateful when when you hang up
the phone, because we've been talking for over an hour
and it's been extremely interesting. But you always are.

Speaker 3 (01:13:26):
Well, you're too kind, latent, you sound like my mom.

Speaker 2 (01:13:29):
Yeah, I know you're going to bring your mother into
it again.

Speaker 4 (01:13:31):
Yes, no idea, but she's you know, she's now she's
now died, but she would have said that anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:13:37):
It has been a pleasure and I look forward to
the next time whenever, whenever it might be. But I
think that you're five weeks off had had restored some energy,
because you were full of it today.

Speaker 4 (01:13:49):
Thank you very much, lateon and all the best in
your No you return back to see if you can
have a word with the present government to be a
little braver, a little more conviction.

Speaker 2 (01:14:00):
I don't know how you do it, to be honest,
I'm not into politicians as much as I used to
be some time ago. But they're letting us greatly anyway,
but you're not, and I appreciate it, as I say,
thank you, and we will talk again.

Speaker 3 (01:14:15):
All right, I'll hang up, Thank you very much, Thank
you very much.

Speaker 2 (01:14:32):
Right versus producer. Here we are for the mail room
for podcast number three hundred and one. How are you
doing later?

Speaker 5 (01:14:38):
And I'm fabulous.

Speaker 2 (01:14:38):
How are you? I'm pretty damn good. Actually, this has
been a very interesting week from my perspective. Without going
into detail, but I do have to go into a
little bit of detail about something which I take as personal.
There is a wonderful woman. Her name is Raywan and
she has been baking Christmas cakes every year since at

(01:15:00):
least we started the podcast Stopped Radio started the podcast
every Christmas, and I have received another one of her
superb and I'm not exaggerating, folks, superb cakes to celebrate
podcasts number three.

Speaker 5 (01:15:15):
Hundred Get Raywind. Just as a side note, guess what
he had for dinner the night before last Christmas?

Speaker 3 (01:15:21):
Cake and yogurt.

Speaker 5 (01:15:22):
That was it? So yes, to say that we love
it is an understatement.

Speaker 2 (01:15:27):
Indeed. Now to go with that, I'm drinking for the
very first time a couple of something that I find
absolutely delicious. Missus producer has discovered cinnamon tea somehow. Now
I got onto cinnamon really when we were staying a
couple of nights in Dubai a number of years ago,
and at the breakfast, at the breakfast feast in the hotel,

(01:15:50):
they had cinnamon donuts or rolls or something cinnamon swirls,
cinnamon swils. I think it was. I think you're wrong,
and my tongue latched onto it and wouldn't let go.
And so I've been eating cinnamon on my cereal or
whatever else ever since. And the cinnamon tea. This is
my first taste. Is beautiful because it goes beautifully with

(01:16:12):
the cake. I can tell you it will do in
in ten minutes time.

Speaker 5 (01:16:16):
You have a big slab of cake. So Raymond, thank
you so much, my love. What a lovely thing that
you do for us every year. And I certainly couldn't
make cake like that, that's for sure. Leyden, I'll start,
Murray says, welcome back from your holiday abroad. Sorry to
hear about the horrendous accident your son in law went through,
including yourself and missus Producer. It did sound like a
nice location, though it was, if only we could have

(01:16:38):
enjoyed it. Murray, I did enjoy your interview with Dr
Oliver Hartwich on podcast three hundred an intelligent man, and
congratulations on your podcast achievement. The discussion around economics and
doctor Hartwich's reference to Leonardo da Vinci was compelling. Recently,
a prominent American family advocate and Christian psychologist passed away

(01:17:01):
in August. Doctor James Dobson continually strived to support the
family institution and emphasize its vital importance to the core
of any successful society. The family unit being a mum
and a dad committed to each other in marriage and
providing the necessary nurture to their offspring to raise a
healthy and vigorous future generation. The family unit has never

(01:17:24):
been under more attack than it is today, and the
consequences are increasingly evident. I just wonder if we had
the best economic climate possible and yet lack the stability
and integrity of the family nucleus, would we really see
the desperate improvement needed in our world today? Just a thought,
says Murray.

Speaker 2 (01:17:43):
Murray, very good, Thank you from NOLL. Listen to this now.
This was written on the seventh of September. Welcome back
later in the Missus producer Oliver Wow. I had already
realized that he was intelligent and thoughtful about relevant issues.
But wow, we're just so fortunate to have him based

(01:18:05):
here in New Zealand. Regards NOL. That was yesterday today
the following, can I please just ever so slightly modify
my praise of Oliver please, Leyton, I have just read
his article in Today's Australian. I think he's being rather disingenuous,
describing last year's tax band adjustments as simply a tax

(01:18:26):
cut to help urban workers in reality, that was just
a long overdue adjustment of the tax bands to recognize
the impact mainly government created the impact of inflation over
the last few years. I feel calling it a tax
cut is quite annoying, especially from someone so much more
intelligent and capable than me. One of my greatest fears

(01:18:49):
if the Greens ever gain enough power Heaven forbid, is
that they'd realize, based on what labour did last time,
causing slash, creating more inflation significantly increases the tax take
without having to upset the citizens by increasing tax rates.
That's because the inflation they create will push more workers
into the higher tax brackets as they get pay increases

(01:19:12):
to enable them to cope with inflationary cost increases. Oliver,
you should know that a worker on the minimum wage
could have ended up paying thirty percent on part of
their income if they worked on stat holidays or did
enough overtime before the tax bans were adjusted. Talk about
robbing the poor regards nol I might send your email

(01:19:35):
to Oliver and give him the opportunity to respond.

Speaker 5 (01:19:39):
Jin says, thanks for informing me about Oliver Hartwitch's speech
on Leonardo da Vinci. I'm amazed at how he managed
to give a forty minute speech about Leo without any notes.
Then again, he's a prolific orator who's given a fair
number of weighty speeches. I couldn't agree more. When he
opined that the problem with New Zealand and Germany is
down to MMP and moral posturing, he must be quite

(01:20:02):
frustrated to see the two countries he loves being torn
apart by leaders like our Durnham Merkel, who both preferred
virtual signaling over doing good for their country. Almost ten
years ago, Oliver Hartwich gave a speech titled a Human
Tsunami where he warned of the effects of open borders
having an unmitigated wave of migrants from North Africa and

(01:20:25):
the Middle East into Europe, in particular Germany. He ended
a speech by saying Merkele's refugee policy was a big mistake.
It is a policy that costs the lives of thousands
of Syrians, it has politically destabilized Germany and Europe, and
will cost hundreds of billions, and yet it has done
nothing to solve the source of the Syrian conflict. Moralistic

(01:20:48):
posturing is not a substitute for good policy. There is
a difference between meaning well and doing good. Maybe Merkle
meant well, but that is the best you can say
about her refugee policy. And Jin says this world needs
more leaders who create and fewer leaders who virtue signal.

Speaker 2 (01:21:08):
How spare us the virtue signalers one at all? Anyway,
Larry says, thanks as always for a great weekly podcast,
this time with the erudite Oliver Hartwitch. I listen with
interest to the discussion, particularly on the topic of productivity.
My ears pricked up with the mention of capital intensity
and TFP, which stands for total factor productivity. I write

(01:21:33):
regularly on the topic of energy in the New Zealand context,
and recently published a piece on New Zealand's productivity problem.
I suspect this may be of interest to both yourself
and Oliver, as it frames the issue of productivity specifically,
specifically TFP as being largely attributable to the energy applied

(01:21:55):
to both capital and labor. I hope you find it's
insightful somewhere. I've got the address. I'll see if I
can lay my eyes on it.

Speaker 5 (01:22:07):
Laydon Paul's There's Having grown up and worked in the
UK during the latter Thatcher years, living here since ninety
eight and employing numerous staff. I believe the only way
to improve New Zealand productivity is to break the unions,
just as Maggie did with the miners, although it could
easily have been the nursing or engineering unions. As Oliver said,

(01:22:27):
education is the starting point and what a job Erica
is doing, only to be thwarted by the ridiculous idea
that all the teachers, no matter their skill, should be
paid the same. What example is this setting to their pupils.
Don't bother trying to be any more than average springs
to mind the greatest issue that affects our planet as
the human population. Fewer people simply equals fewer resources needed

(01:22:52):
or used. Yet this is a taboo subject, putting the
paradox of NZ me to one side. Our left wing
media and its owners don't understand that pandering to the
left and their keyboard warriors will only end in failure,
as it's mainly the right who strive to get better
educated and thus own firms rather than work for them.
I have owned multiple businesses in New Zealand, all successful,

(01:23:15):
and would never employ anyone again as it's easier to
use subcontractors. If you try to improve productivity within your
direct workforce, all the hands come out to see how
much extra they will be paid. No long term views
about growing the business, more secure employment, job prospects, etc.
If there is no immediate income increase, you are accused

(01:23:36):
of racism, agism, sexism, and whatever ism is in vogue
on TikTok that week. Unfortunately, our MMP system doesn't work.
The idea is good, but when there are so many
people having their say, nothing ever gets done. Also, we
should have the number of MPs and councils. I'll save
the next rant for another time. Keep up the excellent

(01:23:57):
interviews and opinion pieces. Even though I don't always agree,
I do always enjoy listening and learning.

Speaker 2 (01:24:03):
That's from Paul all very good and I appreciate it.
The reference she made to MMP I can't agree with.
I don't think MP was any good right from the start,
and I still don't think it's any good. And you
may have. I hope you enjoyed anyway, the commentary where
Jim Allen touched on that. Today now from Sean, I

(01:24:25):
very much enjoyed your interview with Oliver Hartwich. I couldn't
agree more with most of what he said. However, I
couldn't agree less with his compliments on Erica. There is
no doubt she did a great job saving Vanguard from
Labour's attempts to shut it down. If you've ever met
a student from that school, you'll know that they are
some of the most upstanding young people you could hope

(01:24:47):
to meet. But her success ends there. I work in education,
and I assure you that the rarification of everything has
not slowed. If anything, it's accelerated. Many now seem to
measure their virtue by how many mari words they can
use that nobody else understands. My daughter has just had
to write multiple s on why global warming is a

(01:25:10):
bad thing. It's clear that dissent from that narrative is
not allowed. Erica has done little to challenge this in
our schools. In fact, she has entrenched it. In a
sane world, anyone who encouraged kids to break the law
so they could play Greta Thunberg for a day and
march about climate change would never be allowed near the

(01:25:31):
education system. But not Erica. Unfortunately, her capability seems confined
to aligning with whatever the current thing happens to be.
And no doubt the next thing too. When she isn't
doing that, she's parading herself down the main street in
a pink tutu, waving to the crowd like a Tier
one celebrity, though I'd guess ninety percent of people wouldn't

(01:25:53):
even know who she was. She nearly set the bar
for cringe with that one, though, Sadly, Christopher Luxen still
owns that crown. So unless Oliver actually wants more Moraification
forced down our kids' throats, more rainbow fetishes squeezed into
their classrooms, and more global warming indoctrination, he might butt
a rethink his praise for Erica's contribution to our education

(01:26:17):
in brackets in doctrination system. And to top it off,
she proudly blocked property developments in o'cura, trashing property rights
in the process. On all fronts, she may as well
be sitting with Labor and the Greens. Sadly, the same
could be said for much of National's cabinet. I love
your show. I haven't missed a single episode. It's just

(01:26:39):
what I need at the end of each Wednesday for
my drive home. Regards Sean, now that's fairly aggressive. I
have a feeling miss as producer that might be time
to invite Erica onto the podcast.

Speaker 5 (01:26:54):
I think that's a great idea. Lake and Claire says,
welcome home. I'm so sorry about your son in law's
broken leg and the horrible care he received on the
small Greek island. It shows the necessity of comprehensive travel insurance.

Speaker 3 (01:27:06):
Yes, clear, it does, for sure.

Speaker 5 (01:27:09):
I hope he has learned the hard way not to
get on scooters of any kind again.

Speaker 2 (01:27:13):
Sadly, yes he has.

Speaker 5 (01:27:16):
Oliver's discussion of the importance of Leonardo d Evincually was superb.
He is always a pleasure to listen to.

Speaker 2 (01:27:22):
I've got more on that too, to be honest to me,
it was the highlight of the whole podcast. But if
you haven't heard it, then you really should go do so.
Late an excellent interview with your son, Christian writes Grant.
I met him in Luca at the villa with you
and missus producer six years ago. Then I thought he

(01:27:44):
was well rounded, worldly and smart. I'm delighted that he's
matured into the thinking man of today. The world needs
more of his ilk. Grant lovely to hear from your Grant.
You guys are well, I've just got toss up whether
I'm going to pass it on. Okay, I think that's it.

Speaker 3 (01:28:05):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:28:06):
We can depart and go separate ways. We can least
until until about five thirty. See you later. See you then.

(01:28:30):
And So to the story that I made mention of
at the beginning of the podcast, and I think if
you don't already know it, if you're not familiar with it,
you'll understand why both Jim and I were feeling a
little apprehensive about it at the time. But twenty four
hours after we recorded that interview, there's even more information
available on this particular incident. If I were telling you

(01:28:54):
the whole story, I'd start with the opening of the
train carriage doors and a young woman stepping through onto
the train. But let me quote you Athena Thorn from
PJ Media. It's headed the image that killed the Democrats
in twenty twenty six and beyond, And just like that,
it's over for the Dems in the twenty twenty six midterms,

(01:29:16):
maybe even the twenty eight general election. Maybe this is
even the final nail in their creaky, splintering, mentally ill
Marxist coffin. Right now, they're trying to ignore it, the
way they tried to pretend that Hunter Biden's laptop didn't
exist back in twenty twenty. They were successful enough that
time to push their vote machine over the finish line

(01:29:38):
in the Biden Harris favor. But that won't happen this time.
This story, this image is already out there still, they're
trying to ignore it, hoping it goes away.

Speaker 3 (01:29:49):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:29:50):
This is after a considerable period of time since this
incident took place, and there is a list that she
has mounted. Zero AP stories on this deadly attack. Zero
PBS stories on this deadly attack, Zero New York Times
stories on this deadly attack, zero NPR National Public Radio stories,

(01:30:14):
zero Wall Street Journal stories, zero BBC stories, zero CNN,
and zero WAPO stories on this Washington Post that is
on this particular incident, at which point somebody has put
in a little post. No one commits narrative crimes like

(01:30:35):
the New York Times. They are the best anyway. The
only explanation I've seen anywhere is she writes, oh, it
was never covered nationally because it was only a local story. Sure,
like George Floyd's overdose in police custody was only a
local story. Good luck with that, dodge Lefties. In all

(01:30:56):
fairness to Democrats, their policies have made this situation so
common that it may well have disappeared into the dim.
A violent lunatic with fourteen previous, fourteen previous arrests under
his belt, but who still freely roamed the streets randomly
and viciously stabbed a young woman on the train, killing her.

(01:31:16):
The murder occurred over two weeks ago, and they had
every reason to believe that the local crime story was
as dead as the beautiful young victim. But then the
video emerged. Its chilling and terrifying, the horror that every
urban female and plenty of males fears. The still image

(01:31:37):
of the moment the madman's knife begins its descent is
the most damning optic I've seen in years, and it
will now become the face of the modern Democrat party.
It gets worse for Democrats. The victim was not only young,
female and stunning. She was a refugee from Ukraine, one
of their fetish victims. She ran from war in Ukraine.

(01:31:59):
She came here for safety, and America failed her. Twenty
three year old Irna Zurutzka was butchered on a Charlotte
light rail her throat cut open by a violent repeat
offender who had been arrested fourteen times and was still free.
The New York Post is one outlet that covered the story.
Haunting new video revealed the terrifying moment a homeless ex

(01:32:23):
con allegedly fatally stabbed a twenty three year old Ukrainian
refugee in what police said was a random attack on
a Charlotte light rail train. I Earna Zarutzka, who fled
Wartorn Ukraine for a safer life in America, was on
the Blue Lynx line just before ten pm August twenty
second when she was ambushed, according to the Charlotte Mecklenburg

(01:32:46):
Police Department. The survadan's footage was released Friday by the
Charlotte Area Transit System, shows Zoritzka boarding the train in
her pizzeria uniform at nine forty six pm and sitting
looking at her phone, unaware of the danger behind her.
Just four minutes later, thirty four year old de Carlos
Brown Junior allegedly whips well, I guess they've still got

(01:33:09):
to cover themselves for some reason or other allegedly whips
out her folding knife and lunge's forward, stepping her three times,
at least once in the neck. Those eyes that brave
smile her courageous backstory fleeing war torn Ukraine for a
chance at safety and freedom in American taking a humble
job as a pizza clark in Charlotte, North Carolina, Lake

(01:33:31):
and Riley, a young nursing student murdered by one of
then President Joe Biden's illegal aliens, became a poster child
for stopping the invasion. The description of her murder was
shocking to the public consciousness, but still it was only words.
Robin Westman's murder and maiming of young Catholic school kids

(01:33:52):
at prayer was a shocking and tragic story. It was
powerful enough to finally spark the public debate about what
kind of medications are given to youth with gender dysphoria
and whether they are sane enough to own guns. But
still that story was only told in words. Here we
have the video of the savage act committed by another Democrat,

(01:34:14):
Sacred Cow, a black homeless man. You know, the kind
of sweet, innocent victim Those awful racist cops are always
trying to murder, even as Democrats surge in the streets
of Washington, d C. Protesting the president's crackdown on crime.
This chilling video, at its electrifying still image have hit
the Internet. The Left could not be caught further out

(01:34:36):
on the wrong side of the issue. They are exposed
as the heinous morons that they are. A confession from
the author, I do occasionally worry about Trump's over the
top retrick and willingness to push the bounds of executive
power even further than former President Barack Obama did. I
know he's doing the right things, but every time he

(01:34:58):
calls out the Guard or six the FBI on someone,
or blows up a boat of our enemies, I can
all too easily picture the next rabid Democrat president goring
my ox in the same way. But then I see
something like this, and I thank God for the man
in the White House who has climbed a thwart history
yelling stop. Because in the end, Democrats champion mental illness, crime,

(01:35:24):
and the breakdown of civil disorder. They champion evil Republicans
fight at period. It's over. Democrats be gone with him. Well,
while I agree with her sentiments, almost unquestionably, I didn't
intend to read that whole piece, but I just started
and I finished it. You can find it if you want,

(01:35:47):
but I don't recommend you watch the actual event itself.
The video that I saw stopped with his arm raised
in the air with the knife, and you knew what
was coming, and I think the following few seconds would
be sickening. I don't think anybody needs to see it anyway.
That was the story that has an increasing number of

(01:36:10):
people being aware of. They tried desperately to hide it.
They did. All those zeros through that list of top
end legacy media tell the story, and it'll be interesting
to see how they play it out from here on in.
But there's nothing left to say except if you would
like to write to us Latent at newstalksb dot co

(01:36:32):
dot nz or Carolyn at Newstalks AB dot co dot nz.
We shall return with three O two in a few days.
Until then, as always, thank you for listening and we'll
talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:36:53):
Thank you for more from News Talks ed B. Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #301 - September 10th 2025 - James Allan

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

.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 #301 - September 10th 2025 - James Allan