Episode 1178: Judicial Insurrection

CALL IN: 508-637-5596
GUEST: Science blogger Michael D. Shaw
MICHAEL SHAW SUBSTACK: https://mdspov.substack.com

Charles Moscowitz LIVE
Website: https://charlesmoscowitz.com
Moscowitz Author Page:
https://www.amazon.com/stores/Charles-Moscowitz/author/B00BFLX7S0
Buy Me a Coffee, Join me for Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/moscowitz

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
All right, Charles Moskowitz here, Welcome to the program. Michael D.
Shaw is here, of course on our Thursday edition. And
first day of spring, first day of in the Golden.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Is it the first spring day? Though in doing.

Speaker 1 (00:21):
I don't know how you describe it, but it's still
it's still pretty cold here. The judicial insurrection, as it were,
it seems like the last stand for the elites, and
I would expect them to do something. You know, they're

(00:44):
not going to just sit down and and accept this
dawning of a new era, which is what we're looking
at right now, really taking on of these people. The
whole election was predicated on our assumption that here. I
actually have a great quote here Moses quite Tyler, late

(01:06):
nineteenth century American historian. He wrote a book called The
Literary History of the American Revolution where he notes that
the American patriots during the American Revolution they harnessed Enlightenment ideas,
not in reaction to injustice, because they were pretty prosperous,
but in anticipation of British tyranny. And I think that

(01:27):
describes the Trump era and the Trump victory. We are
anticipating and we are witnessing the encroachments on liberty that
have been going on from probably certainly the last couple
of decades, if not going back to Wilson. And it's
not that we're like, you know, we're not oppressed, but

(01:49):
we're concerned enough to try to seize the control of
our ability to govern ourselves through our elections and to
then take measures to reassert our sovereign rights under God.
That's what I think this election.

Speaker 2 (02:05):
Well, that's actually right.

Speaker 3 (02:07):
And the what you're calling the judicial insurrection, you're sort
of their last stee I mean, agreed, it was no doubt.
I don't know how many hundreds of federal judges there are,
I think seven hundred, and they know we're each in.
Every liberal stooge is and they've.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
The filing cases by the minute, and it's very pre
it's very preyea, it's very preordained. I mean, this is
you have radical groups like the A C. L U
and others, and George Soros's groups basically finding people shopping
for the right judges. They tried it here in Boston,
by the way, and they failed because Boston's judiciary is

(02:56):
pretty good, even if they're liberal. And then they bring
these crazy cases that basically are trying to usurp the
constitutional power of the executive branch. Now, I saw an
interesting article by Professor John Yu from University of California
at Berkeley, of all places, and he noted that as

(03:17):
a reaction to Watergate, there was a serious encroachment and
redefinition of the executive branch and of the presidency. There
was an overreaction. Don't forget at that time Liberal Democrats
took over both houses of Congress. There was this is
when they stabbed South Vietnam in the back by pulling

(03:39):
all aid out and then helped the North Vietnamese come
in and coloquer the country. And they were doing other things,
and it was headed up by Ted Kennedy and by
Leahy over in Vermont, and by the new Senator from Delaware,
Joe Biden, and yeah, I mean, and a bunch of
other people. And what they did was a hamstrung the presidency.

(04:01):
He makes this point because he's an expert on presidential history.
By turning the various departments of the executive into almost
semi sovereign entities, like, for example, the Department of Justice
would operate separate from the president, and that the president
couldn't actually go in and get the attorney general to

(04:21):
do anything. It would all be sort of quasi independent,
sort of like the way the Federal Reserve works. And
that they also created this rule by bureaucracy. They enhanced
these departments to the point where they could make rules
and laws actually they call them other things, without either

(04:42):
accountability to the executive or to Congress. That they actually
became somewhat sovereign, and that the result is that the
presidency was seriously compromised in terms of the actual presidential
powers because the founding fathers envisioned a strong president, you know,
they wanted to have a strong executive, and that was

(05:04):
kind of undone. And now Trump is reasserting those constitutional
powers that reside in the executive. He is you know,
they couldn't you know, after after Watergate, the president couldn't
fire people. They couldn't. All these people would get some
kind of immunity. They would have quasi civil service status,

(05:26):
you know, So because a civil service, which was created
in the eighteen eighties, it's difficult to fire those people,
but they weren't high level. It basically expanded that that
entity to cover, you know, people at all levels of
these these agencies and that the president would have the
power to appoint people, but once they were appointed, they

(05:47):
had their own deal and they could do their own thing.
And you know, it kind of goes hand in glove
with what Michael Lennon talks about with the the the
the you know, the double government, the national security state.
So what Trump is doing is he's reasserting constitutional prerogatives
for the president. It's that sensity.

Speaker 3 (06:06):
And the trouble is that ever since Nixon this hasn't
been the case. And it causes me and probably you
to wonder how much you Watergate was orchestrated in that, Uh,
nobody really cared about breaking into the stupid DNC office.

Speaker 2 (06:28):
If somebody didn't know about it.

Speaker 3 (06:31):
Yeah, bringing down Nixon, and you know, we always say
glimply it was payback for Alger Hiss, but it was
more than that. But this was a way of undermining
the presidency, and it's just starting to come back.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
It seems exactly it was. It was an agenda to
redefine the presidency, and it was a further step in
the direction of what Wilson envisioned, which was government by bureaucracy,
government by what Steve Bannon accurately calls the administrative state
unelected appointed, faithless bureaucrats making laws and basically ruling in

(07:14):
the way a similar way that King George the Third ruled.
You know, this is what the American Revolution was about,
stopping this encroachment on the sovereign rights of the citizen
by this distant power that had no accountability, no legitimacy. Frankly,
and the other historian I saw an interest in comment
and he's been a guest on my show is Larry Schweikert,

(07:36):
the author of The Patriot History of the United States,
a great counterpart to Howard Zinn's Treasonous People History of
the United States. And by the way, how late Howard
zim was a guest on my show years ago. I
want to know that. Oh this was before the internet,
so I don't have a tape of it. But what
an arrogant had all the classic leftists affectations, the ticks

(08:02):
and the moves and the sneers. Anyway, Sweikert has noted
that when these rogue federal judges are coming in and saying,
you can't fire the people at the USAI D, you
can't fire the people you know from the You know
that lee z Elden can't fire all these hacks. You

(08:25):
know this kind of thing. It's a double edged sword
because what these decisions are saying, if you look at them,
they're not saying you can't fire these people. They're saying
you can't get rid of these positions. So what's happening
is that President Trump is playing a bit of a
long game here in that he is firing these people,
but he's replacing them since they can't yet abolish the position.

(08:48):
He's replacing them with maga people, which is something he
wants to do anyway, and so it's a win win
for Trump. This is what Larry Schwikert notes. He says,
on the one hand, if they if they're able to
keep these positions in place, we're going to have all
maga people and they're going to do the agenda the
President Trump is elected to do, or eventually, if you

(09:12):
have the Supreme Court and there's no guarantees there. As
we know, looking at the Constitution and realizing that it's
settled law Marbury versus Madison eighteen oh three, the president
can fire whoever he wants, and he does fire them,
then he wins that way. Either way, it's moving in
the right direction. I mean, you know, they might have

(09:33):
these little skirmish victories, they're putting some Biden hack in
a certain spot, you know, and it's aggravating, but in
the bigger picture, they're not going to get away with it.
And I think that, in my opinion, I think they
jump the shark with this boat build that, you know,
the one when he wants the planes to stop mid

(09:54):
air and return the Agua game. That to me is
I mean the fact. And now you have to have
Democrats defending this, you know, it's like it's it's actually
quite rich. It's quite ironic because you know, he's calling
for Julie Kelly is doing a great job as a reporter.

(10:14):
She's been on this since the j six and she
knows the score. She says that the reason Bowsburg now
is trying to get like these minute facts like the
you know, the logs of when the planes took off
and how many people were there and who was there
and who knew about it is because they're trying to

(10:36):
set up a trap. They're trying to do, like, you know,
show that there was a defying of the court because
they knew that this decision had come out, even though
he did it at Saturday night, you know, and that
therefore they are in contempt of court. And she was
interviewed by Steve Bannon, and let's not for ag aint
Steve Bannon. They put him in prison for four months

(10:57):
for a lot less than that, so that might jaundice
his opinion. But he's like, they're going to start putting
people in prison over this. That's why they want that
information because once they have that and they can show
that there was an inconce right and they're going to

(11:21):
get the court and they're going to use that to
imprison people. I don't know about that, but what is
happening is that Attorney General Pam Bondi is telling them
to go, you know, go pump sand She's not releasing
that information, and she's doing it under the guise that
this is national security, this is foreign policy. This is

(11:42):
stuff that's none of the business of the courts. This
is the function of the government and that Furthermore, there
was a ruling years ago that the Alien Enemies Act
is the standing law of the country and that the
courts are not allow to interfere with that. So there's

(12:04):
going to be a hearing on this, I think on Monday,
and that is what's going to be presented. So they're
going to have to rule on whether or not the
Alien Enemies Act is law, and she predicts that there's
no way they can do anything but throw it out. Plus,
this Bosburg guy is a radical whose wife was working

(12:25):
for George Sorows. His daughter was working for a radical
group trying to free violent prisoners and abolish prisons. We're
talking real commy stuff. So he's seriously compromised in a way.
It's very much like that judge who was presiding over
the Stormy Daniels business with the daughter pulling in millions

(12:46):
of dollars from left wing Democrats because she's, oh, my
father is going to put Trump in jail. Send money.
And by the way, Bondi's looking into that, and so
isn't the FBI.

Speaker 3 (13:01):
Now I think this is all going to fail, which
is one of the reasons why my head nearly exploded
earlier today, because I, you know, behind on running these columns,
and the thing that occurred to me is that if
you combine all this crap, the Tesla terrorism, no, yeah,

(13:23):
it is just it's despicable that the Left has been
unmasked out is nothing more than a group of terrorist
thugs they have.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
When's the last time the Left did anything positive? Seriously?

Speaker 1 (13:38):
I know, really, can you imagine that they're they're they're
torching the best electric car ever made. I thought they
liked electric cars and here you have them. Oh, Elon
Musk is not he's vilifying him, and they try to
bankrupt him. And you've got former vice presidential candidate Walls.
Is he making a speech about how wonderful it is

(14:00):
that his stock is tanking? Stocks are tanking? Ah? Ha?

Speaker 2 (14:04):
I mean what was funny and infuriating?

Speaker 3 (14:07):
Whether TILB was a First of all, the guy comes
across like a total goofball, you know, he comes across
like your eccentric uncle or something, the one we always
make fun of at the family gatherings.

Speaker 2 (14:23):
Why in the world is this.

Speaker 3 (14:24):
Moron celebrating an American company's stock going down, who employs
thousands of American workers.

Speaker 2 (14:36):
What the world is wrong with this guy?

Speaker 1 (14:38):
And not to mention the fact that I think that
about a half a billion dollars of stock is held
by the Minnesota Retirement boyd YES and the the Minnesota
Pension Fund, where he's governor, so he's going to celebrate that,
I mean, the whole thing. And this is what they have.
I mean, it's like we're supposed to hate Elon Musk
why because he he's trying to cut the size of government.

(15:02):
He's trying to get rid of waste and fraud, and
he's finding these things that are unbelievable. I mean in
terms of like trying to sneak billions of dollars out
the door. Not just by Biden, it goes way back,
but I mean, particularly with Biden, it's unprecedented, and he's
exposing it, and he's cutting their funds off. He's so

(15:24):
I don't you know, I don't expect them to roll over.
It's going to be ugly. They're not gonna, you know,
take this long.

Speaker 2 (15:30):
Realize they're on the wrong side.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
Oh I think they do.

Speaker 3 (15:34):
And I think what comes out of the first of all,
you look at walls. Never mind that this imbecile was
a candidate to be vice president. This guy is a
governor of a medium sized state. Who the hell elected
this imbecile?

Speaker 1 (15:56):
I know it's that's the head of the party. Now
that and Kamala guzzling her three or four vodkas before
she gets up to speak. But I mean, it's really crashing.
So that's why they're looking to these these radical judges,
and they're they're they're making a hero out of certain

(16:18):
people being deported and having their visas revoked because they're
involved in non American activities, something that is not only
is that absolutely the prerogative of the Secretary of State,
but the Supreme Court recently like as in like later
last year had an anonymous decision written by Catanji Brown

(16:42):
saying that the Secretary of State has the absolute authority
to revoke visas for any reason. So and yet there
they are. You know, they're making this guy into some
kind of a martyr. He's like another He's like Luigi
man Geou. You know, there's Oh look at him, He's
like so cute. Right, we want to support him, Now,
could you put him in prison? I mean, that's what

(17:03):
they're about, That's what they have.

Speaker 3 (17:07):
But you know, other than this show, how many people
come to the obvious conclusion that the Left stands for
nothing but destruction?

Speaker 1 (17:19):
Are the people are coming to their conclusion? And I
think that if you look at the I mean generally speaking,
I think since throughout the twentieth century, the left has
never garnered more than at most thirty percent of support.
Now they're down to, like, I don't know, eighteen percent

(17:40):
in the Lost Bowl. So American people are realizing it,
and they're really flailing. I mean, they're going to sit
and they're going to stand on these judicial decisions trying
to hamstring Trump. It's not going to work. Trump is
moving forward anyways. I hope that people around Trump understand
that and that it's going to get all thrown out

(18:02):
at some point, probably they say around them toward the
end of May early June, when these cases are going
to be decided by the Supreme Court. Now, I don't
trust the Supreme Court, certainly not Roberts. I mean, god,
that's like, that's scary. So you can't totally depend on that.
But you know, I still, I mean, I believe in

(18:24):
the Constitution it's going to work out just I mean,
I hope it doesn't take as long as rescinding Roe
versus Wade, but eventually these things do come around.

Speaker 2 (18:34):
Yeah, and then what do they have, all right?

Speaker 3 (18:39):
I mean, it's where is the adult in the room
on the where's the James go out? Carville a little
bit saying, you know, you got to get off.

Speaker 2 (18:49):
These weird positions.

Speaker 1 (18:51):
But you read.

Speaker 3 (18:53):
Formally responsible newspapers like the Washington Post whatever.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
I mean, even the La Times is backing off a
little bit.

Speaker 3 (19:04):
They'll spin stuff to the left, but they do not
advocate this advocate for murderers and rapists that would be reported.

Speaker 2 (19:15):
I just you know, it makes you wonder.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
Well, that's what that's because I want to say the
Venezuelan gang, bring them back to the United States. I mean,
that's what it comes down to. It's like, that's you know,
this is popular. They want that, and they want open borders,
and they want sex change for children. What else are
they into? I mean, I don't know what else they have.

Speaker 2 (19:37):
But how does that help?

Speaker 3 (19:39):
What's an ultimate progressive agenda about sex change for children?
How does that drive the bigger government and the big
communists plan to save the world.

Speaker 1 (19:52):
Well, it has. I think there are two factors going
on with that. Firstly, there's a lot of big money
behind that. I think we mention that Pritzky's brother who's
now his sister bearing the dress. We're talking you know, multi,
multi billions of dollars given to Democratic party Democratic causes,

(20:13):
and that's his thing. I mean, this is what he wants.
And I think Soros is probably a big promoter. You know,
it's a big insider thing. And the Democratic people, i
mean the candidates, they're afraid to oppose it even if
they do. You know, you have here in Massachusetts, Seth Moulten.
He made some mild statements against men in women's sports

(20:37):
because his daughters were on the soccer team and his
high at the high school. And he was absolutely people
like throwing crap at him as he went into his
office in Salem. You know, people protesting is ugly, and
so he backed down. I think he might again be
starting to talk about it again. So all the credit

(20:57):
to him, but I'm just saying, most.

Speaker 3 (20:58):
Of the why did he just change parties?

Speaker 1 (21:02):
How stupid is the guy because he wants to be
a big progressive liberal, but he's like, I, you know,
I'm not. I'm not on board with this. And I
think that you know, the people that supported are so
nasty looking. I mean they're firebombing Elon Musk's cars. I mean,

(21:23):
this is a lot.

Speaker 2 (21:26):
He's already nabbed three of them.

Speaker 1 (21:28):
Yes, And I think that she's going to really throw
the book at them. So maybe that that can help.

Speaker 2 (21:34):
But let's talk about this Seth Bulden guy for a minute.

Speaker 1 (21:38):
Sure, go back what.

Speaker 3 (21:42):
Forty plus years Casey of Pennsylvania was a good old
fashioned Democrat, progressive and that's when the abortion roller coaster
came in.

Speaker 2 (21:54):
Right, he's a principal staying at first.

Speaker 3 (21:59):
What he should have done, as the supposed Catholic that
he is is just switched parties.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
Okay, he caved, didn't he?

Speaker 2 (22:12):
Yeah, he caved, all right, and.

Speaker 1 (22:15):
He changed his position. Ray flynnon Formersad, Ambassador to the Vatican,
former Mayor of Boston. I knew, I know him. I
mean he used to show you come on right after
mine when I was on the Christian station in Quincy,
and he told me that the Democratic Party he was
pro life. The Democratic Party purged all pro life's candidates.

(22:38):
They were Basically he didn't change his party though, I
mean probably you're right. I mean he should have become
a Republican. He wouldn't. He just couldn't do that. But
they basically drove him out of public life. I mean
he was why Okay.

Speaker 2 (22:52):
I mean I mean think about what you just said.
He couldn't do that. So where was this? Yeah, I mean,
is this Catholic faith? All right?

Speaker 1 (23:03):
Yeah, I know exactly. Yeah. There he was assets of
the Vatican. He was very close to John Paul the Second,
you know, and a high visible spokesman for American Catholic Church.
And you know, and yet he couldn't he couldn't completely
walk away from.

Speaker 3 (23:22):
Idolatry at that point because he even had to admit
to himself that his wonderful Democratic Party was crap.

Speaker 1 (23:31):
No, he did admit it to me. And I'm not
looking at attorney because I think he was. I'm not
saying anything that he wasn't saying publicly. But you know,
he was really like just very angry and very despairing
over the whole course of his of what happened to him.
He was literally purged, and he said it happened all

(23:52):
over the country. The Democrats purged anyone who didn't lockstep
on that issue. And that's what they're doing with the
transgender surgeries. You disagree with that, you are persona non grata.
You become like a non person. It's like very Stalinistic,
you know. They take you know, the famous picture with
Stalin standing on the deck of a boat with four

(24:13):
other guys and then there's another one. There's only three there,
and then there's another, only two left, almost like a
twilight zone. You know, they're like, white it out. Well,
that's what happens. If you go against this agenda, You're
going to get whited out. And I don't know, maybe
that's what what I don't know if that was what

(24:34):
concerned Ray Flynn, but that's what Maybe that's why molten
is not is not going to just be a problem.

Speaker 3 (24:41):
I mean, the people have this desire that every belong
to something. Okay, because when when all this transgender sports
things started, and I think you and I talked about
this set at the time, right, I really don't get okay,
these girls in collegiate swimming, who cares there's no pro

(25:06):
swimming circuit, quit the team?

Speaker 2 (25:12):
Who cares?

Speaker 1 (25:13):
Well, a lot of them have, I mean, especially with
the contact sports. I mean a lot of like it's
it's traffic. I mean this, I think the Olympics has
banned this. By the way, you had that girl who
she's going to be getting into a boxing ring with
one of these guys, I think one minute in and
she said, I'm out of here I quit. You know,

(25:35):
she'd work probably for years to get to that point.

Speaker 2 (25:39):
Well, why didn't more than do that?

Speaker 1 (25:40):
I could get my head bashed in here?

Speaker 2 (25:45):
So I just don't understand sometimes what motivates people.

Speaker 1 (25:51):
Well, the other factor besides the big money from Pritzka's
brother or sister is is the fact that, idiot logically,
this is the core idea of the left. It's the
core idea of the communist left that you can transform
and change human nature. What could be more of a

(26:13):
totem of this kind of fetish than literally transforming someone's sex.
It's like it's so exciting to them. You know that
you can be a male one day and a female
the next, and the whole bo bindery thing. You can
decide ten twenty times, one hundred times a day what
you are and what you're not, or you can be nothing,

(26:34):
you could be neither. I mean, it's it's it's just
the ultimate manifestation of their philosophical orientation. I mean, this
idea that you know, it's a snubbing your nose a God.
It's like, you know, God created men and women in
his image, and yet this is saying no, you know,

(26:54):
I mean there was there was somebody at my synagogue
I've mentioned this who are very learned. I mean, it
also happens to be a doctor. I don't want to
talk about this too much because I don't want to
you know, if anybody from Boston might know who I'm
talking about. But he's giving a sermon, He's been invited,
and it so happened that when you do a sermon

(27:15):
in the synagogue on the Sabbath, it correlates to the
portion of the Torah that is happening that week. Right,
I think that the Church works the same way. And
in fact, the Catholic Church actually created these portions, and
Judaism completely embraced it, and good and rightfully, he was
a brilliant redactation of the Torah. So this particular week

(27:39):
you had the story of Adam and Eve. God created
men and women in his image, so the Book of
Genesis says, and he threw in a few comments about that. Well,
we now know that that's really not what happened, of course,
because there really is no definition of men and women.
And you know, and he went into this, and that's

(28:02):
what the Left is about. They have to overthrow the Torah,
they have to overthrow the basic definitions that emanated from creation.
God created all these separations. He created light from darkness,
this defirmament, from the earth, the land from the sea,
the animals from you know, at every little species was

(28:24):
separated until you finally got to men and women, whom
he created in his image. That's what made them different
than all other beings on the on the earth, and
he gave them language and the ability to reason. So
they have wanted, they've resent. They resent that because they
want to be God. They want to decide reality. They

(28:46):
want to decide who is men and women and what
that means, or that there is no such thing. That's
why they can say, well, men can get pregnant. They
can say this in congressional testimony. You've probably seen this
that you've seen that professor from I think u Cal
San Diego, who was interviewed by Josh Holly. He's like,

(29:07):
it's not not so much of you know, what is
a woman, which of course you would not answer, but
that men can get pregnant. You know, that's the ultimate
expression of the left. You can decide reality, you can
make up. Whatever you say is true is true, whatever
you say is good is good, and it's man controlling.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
I mean.

Speaker 1 (29:31):
Whittaker Chambers talked about this in the introduction to his
book Witness. It's a fight between God and man. God
created the universe. God created all of the entities of
the world or the natural world, as a supernatural being,
whereas on the Communists, the second oldest religion, they want
to replace that with man's ability to create the world.

(29:54):
Man decides a clique of enlightened. How they get enlightened
is never described, but somehow they they have some kind
of cosmic consciousness that gives them the right to decide
what is true, what is real. That's why they need
to control all the means of communication, so they can
have that message go out in a pure way and
they cannot be confronted and cannot be it can be

(30:17):
no dissent.

Speaker 3 (30:19):
Well, right, I mean that's all correct, But are you
surprised how many people fell in line with this, the
movie industry, so many people at a democratic party. I mean,
you could make, for example, I suppose somewhat of an
intellectual argument for abortion, I guess, but it really is

(30:45):
pretty thin gruel.

Speaker 1 (30:49):
They control the high ground because I mean, there is
something exciting and intoxicating about this idea that you are
the king of the universe. You you know, these people
are out of touch with reality. They're gonna say, you know,
they have they're privileged, they've got wealth. They and they

(31:09):
feel like I'm now you know, every day when I
wake up, I then descend from the top of Mount
Sinai and share my great wisdom with all of man.
And that they feel a sense of rightness. It's like,
you listen to the way they talk, it's very syrapy, like, oh,
it's very kind of exalted. It's almost like they're in

(31:31):
some kind of a trance and that they can decide
what they and what they're doing is good. You know,
they can decide that they're going to improve the world
literally by using these powers that they've somehow been given
and that they've seized and that they're their clique has seized.
And then it's reinforced by the fact that you've got

(31:53):
as they say, they used to say, birds of a
feather flock together. They all they think alike. They commune
municate with their various codes and their buppa stickers, and
it's like when you intone those codes, you're welcomed into
this it's not like a secret society, but it's an
informal secret society, and that you become one of the

(32:15):
beautiful people. You become one of the elect you're serving
for the greater good, and that thus you become one
of these people that can reorder the universe, recreate man.
We're talking about this in my American Revolution history class.
All these American revolution historians who took a somewhat of
a communist view, and they start to reinvent American history

(32:37):
because they said, well, a real revolution is one like
the French Revolution, where they're going to reidentify and re
connoiter the entire society, redistribute all of the material goods,
redistribute reality in the eventual aspect. And the idea of
changing somebody's sex is a probably one of the ultimate

(33:00):
expressions of it. It could be, who knows what the
future holds, but as of now, I mean, that's pushing
the envelope about as far as it's ever been pushed.

Speaker 2 (33:14):
Well, but people fall for it somehow.

Speaker 1 (33:18):
Well, people all for it because they control the high
ground of communication, and they give out awards, you know,
they give their trophies and then and they give out
punishments if you don't fall for it. People internalize that
at an early age. These people are thugs. You know,
if you play ball, you're going to get all the goodies.

(33:39):
You're going to get invited to the cool parties. You're
going to get the good girlfriend. You're going to get,
you know, the trophies. I mean, their shelves are groaning
under the weight of all the trophies they give each other.
I mean, just a cultural example, if you watch any
of these awards ceremonies, whether it be the Academy Awards,

(34:00):
so the other the Emmys or the Gabby's or whatever
the hell they call them, they talk about how amazing
or these late shows like you know, like I don't
know not David Letiman, the newer Kimmel, and then the
main topic of conversation is how wonderful each of them

(34:20):
are and how they spoke with this person, and how
they're all if these people have some kind of magic.
I'm part of this world where I hung out with
so and so and this one and that one was
we are on a double date and with that one,
and you feel like, wow, gee, that's so interesting. I
would have liked to have been there. Here, I am

(34:42):
this kind of peon. I could never hang out with
those people. I couldn't afford to. But I'm not going to.

Speaker 2 (34:48):
Be really pathetic.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
Well, it's sort of a subtle message, and that they
this is their entire discussion is around how wonderful it
is that they know Meryl Streep or who they you know,
whatever it is, and what these people are so amazing,
and they they go on this world and that's all
they talk about is each other and how they know

(35:12):
each other, and how amazing it is that these people
are in the world. I mean, you know, I hung
out with de Niro or somebody. You know, Wow, oh
my god, you know, incredible, and you know, and how
great they are and how talented and how brilliant they are,
and when they give the awards, they go on and

(35:33):
on this person, oh and how much they loved this
person and how they did this and they went to
this event and I saw them here, and you know,
and it's all because they bow to this agenda, this
idolatrous agenda, whatever it may be. At any given time
they get all these awards. I mean I had a

(35:53):
conversation actually with a relative of mine who was a
far left wing guy who did very pretty well in
financially And I said, look, I mean, if you're such
a socialist as you self describe, why not redistribute your
own wealth. I mean, you're you're living above your means.

(36:15):
Whatever happened to from each according to his ability, to
each according to his means. And his answer was interesting
in that he said, well, this is my award for
being a good socialist. I get to do this.

Speaker 2 (36:30):
You know, think about that for a minute.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
Right, I mean, you know it's like, hey, I was
on the right side. I was advocating all the right
things to people all my life. So I'm titled that's all.

Speaker 2 (36:44):
He really believes it.

Speaker 1 (36:46):
Oh yeah, And this is I mean, if you take
a look at any of these communist dictators, whether it
be Castro or or Ho Chi Minh or you know,
Kim Il Sung, these people are so rich that any
they make the biggest capitalist blush with embarrassment by the
way they live. But they don't actually own anything. It's

(37:06):
all stuff that's been expropriated when their communist regime took over.
And they get these they're awarded. I mean montse Tongu,
I mean lavish lifestyle, you know anything he wanted he
had technically he owned nothing, but it didn't matter because
the whole philosophy was if you're on the right side

(37:27):
and you're doing the work of the revolution, and you're
a leftist, you're entitled to this. This is you know,
this is all what. In fact, we want to give
you more of everything because you're you know, you're you're
doing the right thing. So, I mean that's the mentality.

Speaker 2 (37:48):
And people on that side just don't see this well.

Speaker 1 (37:52):
I mean, it's also has a cult quality to it,
and it has a certain informal secrets society quality to it,
very much like what Michael Glennon talks about with his
double government. You know, they have power. It's a game
of power, and it's a game of material control, and

(38:13):
it's a and it's wrapped in this self righteous attitude
that I think they internalize and they believe in that
they have some kind of a mandate to do good.
Hitler believed that they were doing good by removing the
Jews from Europe. He didn't think it was a thoughts
are humane because it was like going to make this

(38:33):
utopian society and that the jew was the enemy of
the masses. Which could you could replace jew with any
other category and you can replace it with mega. Actually,
whatever the enemy is, they always have to have somebody
that is an obstacle to our great leap into the
sunlit future. And that they believed they were doing good

(38:57):
by conducting the Holocaust, I mean they did. So back
to the issue of judicial you know, insurrection.

Speaker 3 (39:08):
You think that that is going to come to a
screechy haul sometime in the late spring, Yes, where they've
exhausted all this crap, And I agree with you.

Speaker 2 (39:21):
So what what do they do next?

Speaker 1 (39:23):
Well, and also let me just say, even though it's
it's certainly depressing when they come up with these decisions
and they're you have to put back the USAID people
and that you know, no, but Stacy Abrams is going
to get her million billions of dollars that Biden was
basically throwing off the deck of the Titanic as he

(39:44):
was leaving with probably an auto pen. Putting that aside,
it's depressing, but it's not going to fly in the
long run. It's just, you know, it's it's not going
to help them. They're not going to just a couple
of dec and it's going to be over. They're just
not going to get that done. I can't believe it

(40:05):
that that's going to stand in this country. And you know,
it's any more than all of the lawfair stood against
Trump when he was out of office. This is just
a continuation of the lawfair except now instead of just
going after Trump and trying to have him killed and
put in prison, now they're trying to do it to
the entire country because they think it's going to hurt

(40:27):
the entire movement around Trump. And I would refer people,
if they want any evidence of this, to look at
Mark Elias's Twitter page. The subscribe to him, I comment
back to him. He knows who I am because he's
one of the architects of this, him and Weisman. But

(40:49):
you know, they are two buddies. I mean, you know,
they basically are, you know, working together. But he's a
truth teller. He brags about it. We're winning on this case.
We're winning on that case. I didn't even know they
were bringing this case. You know, you can learn, you know,
you can look at his page and know exactly what
they're doing and how you know they really are convinced

(41:11):
that they're going to do it, and goes and this
is just the beginning. The bowl is going in our way.
We're going to get one over here in California, and
we have one going up in Maine. And you know,
I mean he lays it all out.

Speaker 2 (41:24):
So Maine, what is the agenda there?

Speaker 1 (41:29):
You mean Janet Mills? Yeah, oh, I mean Maine has
really been taken over. If you go to Portland, you
can see it that the southern part of that state
has been taken over by really really demented, wacko leftists
and you know, the average man, well, the average manor

(41:54):
we're talking about a small Maine is I think it's
something like eighty eighty five percent of the population of
Maine is in that small triangle between Portland and Portsmouth,
New Hampshire. It's just that that southernmost part of the state.
The rest of the state is great. I mean, it's conservative,

(42:17):
it's you know, it's but but they're not. They don't
have any power. It's all in the hands of this
that they've built it up. Since the sixties. A lot
of hippies went up there, you know, a lot of
alternative types. It's where Bethel, Maine has this institute that
was set up by who was it Kurt Lewin or

(42:38):
something some Kurt Meisner who basically trains teachers to be
change agents. Yeah, I mean, and you know, it's you know,
it's it's a it's basically a factory for the left.
And they employ a lot of people up there, and
they all went up there and they just controlled that state.
It's too bad because it's a great state and it's

(43:00):
a beautiful place, but it's really I don't know if
it's completely gone. They put in the ranked voting so
they could just keep rigging, you know, you can keep
voting and voting and voting and voting until they get
who they want. And I don't know what's going to
come of that.

Speaker 3 (43:21):
Yeah, really what's going to come of this school thing?
Eventually Trump's going to prevail. So what is her point
in doing all this crap to prove for bona fides
or what she wants?

Speaker 1 (43:35):
She's that's the power base up there, and she thinks
it's she wants to be a national figure and she's
just a Yeah also I think a former hippie, you know,
just you know, they're trying to see if they can
put together some kind of a national leadership. Is either
that or this guy who was lost his passport who

(43:56):
was agitating against Jewish students at Columbia. That's a big
cause for them. They're just trying to latch onto some
kind of a leftist cause and see if they can
get any traction. I don't think they're going to I
don't think she's going anywhere outside that state. And I
think that main might even change, who knows.

Speaker 3 (44:16):
I mean, it's so pathetic because there's some poverty in
that state, there's industries that have left, there's positive things
that could be done, and for them to harp on
this garbage.

Speaker 1 (44:32):
It is I mean, look here in Boston, we just
had Mayor wu deliver her state of the City address,
which hasn't even been covered by the way, by the
Globe because it was so bad. Where she's talking about,
I mean, it's like no one even knew what happened.
She's talking about, we're going to defend all of our immigrants,

(44:56):
what she means is illegal aliens, right, And she spent
six hundred and fifty thousand dollars out of the out
of the taxpayer's coffers, so she could testify in Washington
about when home and when they called, when they called
her down to testify, and she very skillfully didn't answer
any questions about sanctuary city or anything like that. Instead,

(45:20):
it was all like, it's because of too many guns
and that's why there's crime, and we have such a
great record, and it's bad news. I don't know, you know,
I've heard rumblings that that she's not popular even among liberals.
You have. She has a real opponent in Josh Kraft

(45:41):
whose bobcraft Son, by the way, and who's liberal but
not crazy like her, who knows that.

Speaker 2 (45:50):
Could be an upset, never a dull moment with this ju.

Speaker 1 (45:57):
And and of course our governor more heale, she's back
to spending huge sums of money on migrant on so
called migrants, putting them up in hotels, signing a contract
with this local caterer so they get three meals a day.

Speaker 3 (46:13):
So but what does the typical blue collar guy in
Worcester think about this?

Speaker 2 (46:18):
I don't you know.

Speaker 1 (46:19):
I mean, I wonder where they are because Woolster just
became a sanctuary city for transgender so I mean, and
it's and anybody who talks about it, what criticizes it
is creating something that's less than a safe space. You know,
you're gonna people are gonna get violent, right and if

(46:40):
you you know, this is something that professor brought up
to Josh Rawley. You're naming about the transgender that creates.
Don't you know how many murders of transgender people is happening.
You're responsible for that by even questioning this this thing.
I mean, which, by the way, not to get into

(47:01):
a subject, but I have a feeling that a lot
of those deaths are due to suicide because it has
nothing to do with whether someone's criticized. It has to
do with what's going on, and I think it also
has to do with certain unsafe sexual practices, you know,
put someone in a position where they could have violence done.

(47:22):
So it's not you know, I mean, I say already,
I'm like they're gonna blaming the victim. I'm not blaming anybody.
I'm just I think if if an honest sociologist did
a little survey on this, which none of them will do,
they're going to find out what's going on with that anyway,
maybe they might say problem. I'd actually save some lives.

(47:43):
Which they don't care about.

Speaker 2 (47:45):
Is that academia is totally capitulated to this.

Speaker 1 (47:51):
I think that might change because I think that the
Trump administration is cutting back on funds to these leftist
academic institutions. They're actually apparently the not the PhD programs,
but a lot of these like leftists, you know, like
the studies groups. They were gouging the federal government by

(48:16):
inflating grant requests going way back because technically the grant
request get a fifteen percent markup and when you go
to private issuers of grants, and that's what it's supposed
to be, but they because it was the government, they
were asking for exorbitant fees and they were rolling in
dough and it was crossing a fortune. And now thanks

(48:38):
to Musk and thanks to Doge, they've uncovered this and
they're cutting it off. So the money spigot is being tightened.
And I think that these that, combined with the fact
that sociology at Boston University and at i think Florida State,

(48:59):
it's no longer our it is a degree. They're no
longer accepting students. Not because there's something wrong with sociology.
I'm studying sociology. It's a fantastic science if it's honest,
but because it's become so corrupted by the left. It's
such a lapdog for leftist causes and to try to
scientize those causes that people aren't applying for it anymore.

(49:22):
Students don't want it, they don't want to be part
of it. It's like a you know, it's just a
propaganda machine. And so it's going away. And this happened
before Trump. Trump is actually more of a symptom of this.
And so I think that they're starting to these colleges
and these leftist controlled entities. I think that's going to

(49:43):
start cracking in the next year or two. Yeah, because
I think that their monopoly is going to get shaky,
because the money is being cut off and because students
are walking away. But well, we'll see.

Speaker 3 (50:00):
Well I found out it confirms something that I had
heard rumors of for years.

Speaker 2 (50:07):
Try to some friends the other day. They have a
granddaughter who went to some.

Speaker 3 (50:14):
Private school and found out that the UC system discriminates
against you if you go to private school.

Speaker 2 (50:24):
And she had a very great average and sat so
it didn't matter, didn't get into any UC school.

Speaker 1 (50:33):
Well that's that, that's DEEI right.

Speaker 2 (50:36):
Yeah, Well they were both in play. Yeah, and if
I look back.

Speaker 3 (50:42):
Even when I went to UCLA, you could see stuff
like this going on, but obviously it got much worse
over the decades. So I always have these conversations with
my oldest son, which one of us hates academic Moore.

Speaker 2 (50:57):
Now where he goes.

Speaker 3 (50:58):
Off is on academic medicine because he's a doctor. Right,
if you get started on this, he'll just go nuts
for hours about how bad it is.

Speaker 1 (51:11):
So then even the medical school has been co opted
and infiltra co opted. You know, we thought that the
left cares about science, right.

Speaker 2 (51:22):
Well they care about it in perverting it.

Speaker 1 (51:24):
Yeah, that's what I mean. You know, It's one thing
to have critical theory in Harvard Law School, which is
it completely controls, but to get into Harvard Medical School, Yeah,
that's that's a that's a problem because then we're messing
around with life and death. That's no longer just a
bunch of income poops telling you.

Speaker 2 (51:44):
You know, remember Ethel Roseberg, Yeah, more important to die
for the cause.

Speaker 1 (51:52):
Well yeah, but probably I don't if they want to
die for the cause of good riddance, but I don't
want them to kill me when I go to the hospital.
So anyhow, but all I think is. I mean, I'm
very optimistic the way things are going. I think that
Trump is crushing it.

Speaker 2 (52:11):
I haven't seen your optimistic for so many weeks in
a row.

Speaker 1 (52:15):
Oh yeah, no, I mean I am, and I look
at the people around him. They're absolutely crushing it. Stephen
Miller is brilliant. I don't know if you w he
is absolutely an end up cash Btelle. You can't get
better than that. With Dan Bongino as his wingman. They're
going to clean house over there. They're already doing it.

(52:36):
I understand it's not an easy job, but they go.
It's going to completely transform the FBI and bring it
back to what it should be. I mean, there's so
many good signs. The only one that makes me a
little nervous is Pam Bondy. But whatever, I think she'll
be okay. I just wonder if she's a little weak.
Maybe that's because I have a bias against good looking women.

(52:56):
I don't know, but well, I mean it's not she's
It would have been better than Matt Gates, but that's
that's the way it goes. Too much baggage, though unfortunately
he had little too too many, you know, too little
rough around the Edges. But but somebody like that, I mean,

(53:17):
I don't know if she quite has that kind of capacity,
but she's okay. I mean it's I'm not complaining.

Speaker 2 (53:23):
Believe down from anything yet.

Speaker 1 (53:26):
No, so far, so good. And hag Seth, I think,
is cleaning house over at the Pentagon. You know, they're
howling with rage. But he's doing it and everyone, I mean,
they're all lee Zelden. He's absolutely you know, crushing it
in every sense. They're all good. I haven't seen one

(53:47):
bad run in the bunch. And I think that Trump
learned his lesson from last time about having snitches and
traders around him ain't happening. He got rid of them
and he's firing them all.

Speaker 3 (53:58):
Well, I really what Shelvin's do with the EPA, because,
as I've said on a couple of reforms, the main
problem with the EPA is that by nineteen eighty five
all the issues with pollution were sexually solved, so then
they had a branch out into extreme areas and it's

(54:21):
just got worse and worse and worse.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
Oh yeah, I mean problems. It's the same. They're doing
the same thing with race, right, That's what deuy is
all about I'm not saying there isn't racism, but I mean, really,
I mean, in this country today, being a black man
or a black woman's it's gold, you know, if you
want to get ahead. I mean, there's no longer this

(54:46):
kind of This isn't the Jim Crow era. And yet
they want to kind of codify that and make it
into a permanent structure and create an industry around it
where they can rape it, rake in you know, billions
of dollars and fatten their part. It ain't gonna happen.
It's being dismantled and everyone is going to benefit. And

(55:06):
that's one of the reasons why I think Trump is
ahead with black people in this country. They don't need this,
you know, it's a I mean you can look at
almost every sector. Now, this is a revolution economically. The
idea of having the tariffs. Yeah, there's going to be
some shorter, short term pain, but it's a reordering of
the entire economy. It's basically, you know, charging a fee

(55:31):
to do business in this country and at the same
time reducing the fee on working people. Trump has talked about.
I mean, that's a great team. Besn't and and and
Rush Russ Voight at at Office of Management and Budget.
I mean, and and what's his name, the one at
Commerce I forget his name, a Jewish name. Anyway, these

(55:56):
guys know what they're doing, uh anyway or something, Howard Lutnik.
They've been planning this for years while Trump was in exile.
This isn't something they just cooked up yesterday. And they're
reordering the entire economy so that we have labor and

(56:16):
industry domestically protected, you have oil and gas exploration and
rare earth exploration, and you have a reduction in taxes.
Trump has I think he's doing this. It's going to
be this talk about the dividend being that anyone earning
less than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year,

(56:37):
they won't have to pay income tax. That's what the
income tax was supposed to be about. Anyways, Even under Wilson,
when they've passed the third fourteenth Amendment of the fifteenth Amendment,
it was only supposed to be just very very high earners.
It wasn't supposed to be working people getting rid of
the taxes on social Security. That's going to put a

(57:00):
lot of money in the pockets of fixed income people.
That's money that was already taxed when they put it in.
It's a double tax. It's unfair, and it was put
in place in the nineties by the US Senate, headed
up by Senator Joe Biden. He's the one who authored that.

(57:20):
I remember I debated this issue with Bartie Frank when
I ran against him. It was one of my favorite
moments to that. Oh he was like mister Morse, he goes,
I'll tell you here, and I'm like, mister Frank, Congressman Frank,
I'll say this. It was just a pure debate. That's
when I before I changed my name to Moscowitz. So

(57:43):
that's another story. But anyways, economically, it's a major change
back to a system that basically supports working peoples. He
reduces regulation, supports small businesses, and basically tax do what
the left always claimed they wanted to do, taxing the rich. Oh,

(58:07):
they're going to complain bitterly and socially, we're moving away
from the radical left agenda. Politically, I think that we're
making grounds ground on all fronts. There's talk about reforming
and this is an issue that I hope is not forgotten.
Reforming the electoral system so that we have same day voting,

(58:31):
I voter, I D paper ballots, everything that Elizabeth Warren
claimed that she supported but then forgot about, you know,
getting rid of the machines. It's moving in that direction.
I mean, these are all things that are going to
ensure the future of one man, one vote and the
sacredness of the elections. So I feel optimistic.

Speaker 3 (58:57):
What do you think is the order of how the
institute you're going to fall or change? I have a
feeling that the media is going to be the last
to succumb.

Speaker 1 (59:10):
That's the I know, that's probably that's like the last
bastion and that's the waterloo. Yeah, they're all kind of
like in their hold up and they'll have to starve
them out.

Speaker 3 (59:21):
But you almost feel sorry for people like Caitlin Collins
that come in with this pre written talking points and
in every league gets shot down, bing bing bing, And
then the next dage she'll have another similar set of
these things.

Speaker 2 (59:41):
And and you know, you're arguing, find.

Speaker 3 (59:43):
She's getting X million dollars a year to do this,
so this is the game she's playing.

Speaker 1 (59:49):
But how do you think I'm rid of less to
Holt he's leaving. Yeah, I mean, I hope that they're
not going to pick somebody worse. But I don't think so.
I think he's leaving because they're they're morrhaging. Even the
New York Times. Now I was laying people off there,
you know, Washington Post, I mean is changing their editorial face.

(01:00:13):
Even Ben and Jerry's is changing. Did you see that?

Speaker 2 (01:00:16):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
No, the Ben and Jerry's, those two old rotten hippies,
you know, those two dirty you know guy. I mean
they sold out a long time ago to Corporate America.
But by selling Ben and Jerry's to Unilever, well, the
Unilever now has come in and they're they're firing the
new guy because he's too tired of his progressive tweets.

(01:00:40):
They're like, this isn't helpful. So that's big. I mean,
that's like that was one of the major ellige bins.

Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
I didn't know that. But that doesn't stop Ben and
Jerry themselves.

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
No, But I mean they already rolled out a long
time ago. They talk about the two biggest phonies. I
remember when they when they took the thirty million dollars
and put it in their fat pockets. They're like, oh,
this is such a such a crisis for us poor babies, right,
such a crisis. Oh, we should all suffer from that

(01:01:11):
kind of crisis. Anyways. Just such a bunch of hypocrites
and phonies and Vermont I don't know, but I mean whatever,
they're just a bunch of fakers. So I think that
even those people are starting to shake away. You know.
It's it's just it's not it's this is a as

(01:01:32):
I started with, I mean, this is a revolution. This
is like I don't know, I mean, in American history,
it's like the Jacksonian democracy. Andrew Jackson came in and
he's changed everything. That's what's happening now, and it's going
to change things for the next generation and beyond. I
don't think that the Democratic Party, and I don't think

(01:01:54):
the Left is going to come back from this. They
don't know it yet, but they are on the losing
side of history, and they keep doubly down.

Speaker 3 (01:02:02):
I mean, look at Disney with what the absolute wreck
of Snow White is, and.

Speaker 1 (01:02:11):
They pulled away some of the marketing dollars for that.

Speaker 2 (01:02:15):
They're not have premiers as such.

Speaker 1 (01:02:18):
Yeah, but they're not wasting they were. They were going
to do this huge, multi multi million dollar they're not
doing that because they're tired of throwing good money after bad.
You know, ultimately there is a there is a dollar sign.
I mean, they don't want to end up like Enron.
You know, it's like after a while of the thing,
the thing is gonna snowball and they'll wake up one

(01:02:40):
day and it'll be like, sorry, we spent all your pensions.
We're going out, you know. So I mean they're just
not It's it's diminishing. I think for them. They're not
they're not doing that for that movie because it is
so bad.

Speaker 2 (01:02:57):
But they had every chance to do the right thing
and they didn't.

Speaker 3 (01:03:02):
I mean, that's what was so astounding to me that
when they were talking about this two or three years
ago and they were getting one negative feedback on every
single thing they were doing, and they just plowed ahead
and plow ahead. And then the ultimate mistake was they

(01:03:22):
couldn't keep Rachel Zegler quiet. So of course she gets
into an argument with well, the whole thing that was
bad about that. First of all, I don't know where
the hell they got that broad. She's nothing more than
a talented high school drama girl. I've seen a million
of mind La they're all over the place. What she

(01:03:46):
should have done is kept her mouth shut, but she
never could.

Speaker 1 (01:03:51):
She is who she is. I mean, it's all, it
all comes out. It's all exposed in the end.

Speaker 3 (01:03:57):
And meanwhile, Galgado is Ray and you know, Zegla keeps
talking about the Palestinians. So they have to now separate
the two stars of the movie. And by the way,
neither of those women can act. I mean that's the
other problem, right, So who the hell thought it was

(01:04:19):
a good idea? And instead of having real dwarfs, you
have cgi monstrosities. I mean, think about this, three hundred
and fifty million dollars in this movie, and who is
in charge?

Speaker 2 (01:04:36):
Where's the adult supervision?

Speaker 1 (01:04:38):
Yeah, I mean they couldn't hire dwarfs because that would
be politically incorrect, right, I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:04:46):
Four factors that are like the job.

Speaker 1 (01:04:50):
It's kind of like. I mean, maybe this is a
metaphor for this, but in the late nineteen sixties it
became unfashionable to have like the freak shows of the
side shows, and the result was that a lot of
people who were making a very good living, like the
man with the lobster hands and lobster Boy and bearded

(01:05:10):
lady and you know, the one who could stick you know,
nails in his They all lost their jobs and they
ended up settling in this community in Florida Lake, Florida.
You know about this, and they resented it. It was
bad because they were you know, it's like, oh no,
we can't have them because it's you know, that politically correct.

(01:05:35):
And I think that it's maybe that same mentality that's
stripping away any kind of realness to to these things.

Speaker 3 (01:05:46):
Well, yeah, they're they're trying to protect them from themselves.

Speaker 2 (01:05:51):
At least they were able to be employed.

Speaker 1 (01:05:54):
You know, and then they're still pushing a radical agenda. Michael,
sexual agenda. I don't know. I mean, my wife and
I watching this show White Lotus. Have you seen it
part Yeah, I mean we're watching it and they're put
that's an agenda. They're pushing some really dark sexual stuff

(01:06:18):
on that show, stuff that has in society has been
and rightfully looked at as bad, going back to you know,
the Bible Times. I mean we're talking like incest. Yeah yeah,
and they're making it look fun and glamorous and they're

(01:06:38):
doing this on the show. Talk about agendas, and look,
that show is seen by millions of people. Those things
have an impact on society. I mean, it's basically mainstreaming pedophilia,
mainstreaming incest and a bunch of other things by just
showing it in a trying to make it look like
it's it's interesting and normal. And yeah, so they're still

(01:07:02):
doing this. They're still trying to pull this crap. You know,
they're still doing the you know, it's basically doing porn frankly,
and I don't know. I mean, I don't think it's
going to work for them because I think that the
minute somebody touches a child, they're going to end up
in the can for life, I hope.

Speaker 2 (01:07:24):
Yeah. But meanwhile, we watch it all unfold.

Speaker 1 (01:07:31):
Indeed, so what's coming up on the sub stack, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:07:35):
All the stuff that I haven't finished.

Speaker 3 (01:07:36):
But I just can't get over this notion of doubling down,
tripling down on stuff that isn't working. I just have
to wrap my head around that because it's so counterintuitive.

Speaker 1 (01:07:53):
It's a fact. We've been talking about this for a while.
It's fascinating to what It's almost like a it's like
a double reality or is Michael Glennon talked about a
double government all right, so Mike listen, talk to you
next week, as already you have a good one. You too,
you too, and upward indeed. Okay, take care.

Speaker 2 (01:08:18):
And I hope spring comes to Boston quickly.

Speaker 1 (01:08:21):
Thanks me too,