Episode 1181: The Judicial Deep State

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):
Okay, here we are Charles Moscowitz, Welcome to the program.
Michael D. Shaw is here, as is our habit on
Thursdays at seven pm. Mike, how you doing. Hey?

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Just fine, just fine?

Speaker 1 (00:17):
You know, yeah, there you go. I mean, I I
started thinking about this morning, this business of the judicial
deep state, judicial tyranny, after I heard the news that
some dinky judge somewhere decided that Trump can't place tariffs. Yeah,

(00:38):
and something that obviously is unconstitutional. It's unprecedented. Tariffs have
been placed by presidents going all the way back to Washington,
even before Washington. But yeah, and and later, just before
going on the air, I looked at my I looked

(00:58):
at the Gateway Pundit, and apparently it's been overturned, fortunately,
or at least stayed until they do some more research.
But the point is that this seems to be the
strategy of the deep state, the liberal Democrats and their

(01:18):
Republican allies, the uniparty. You know what Michael Glennon called
the double government to stop Trump. It's that simple. They
can't stop him. He's growing in popularity. Rasmussen did a
poll recently which indicates for the first time since they've

(01:40):
been in business that you have more people, more than
fifty percent of the American population believes that the country
is going in the right direction. You've got already economic
fruits from Trump's efforts, which include tariffs which have result
outed already in billions of dollars going into the treasury,

(02:05):
and which have also protected American industry and American labor.
You have all the screaming about how this would tank
the start the stock market and Wall Street. That hasn't happened.
How it's going to destroy the value with the dollar
hasn't happened. How it's going to cause inflation, hasn't happened.

(02:26):
Now you have the big, beautiful bill, which, while not
perfect by any means, and which compromises to an extent,
is going to fulfill not only many a President Trump's
promises like no tax on tips, uh, you know, no
tax on Social Security benefits, I believe, you know, no

(02:48):
tax on I think it's you know, over time pay,
several other measures which are going to put more money
in the pockets of working people and which is going
to stem the economy. It's they used to do a
stimulus by spending, you know, by borrowing a trillion dollars.
Now they're doing it by leaving the money in the

(03:08):
pockets of people who earn it and then can either
consume it or say that which results in the same effect,
except without debt and with the strengthening of the dollar.
Well there's a yeah, no, no, no, please, Okay, there's.

Speaker 2 (03:23):
There's a few things going on here. The Trump derangement
syndrome has completely taken over because there's really nothing in
reality that the Democrats should hate in the big beautiful bill,
in that it's a huge tax cut for their supposed clientele,

(03:45):
which is the working guy. And yet what essentially every
Democrat voted against.

Speaker 1 (03:51):
It, every single one. And this this is a fulfillment,
or at least the beginning of a fulfillment of everything
that they been talking about since I can remember, right,
you know, not you know, saving up, not taxing working people,
and not to mention that there are taxes in there
for the rich, which of course, people like some of

(04:13):
the libertarians don't like, in the form of closing loopholes
on hedge fund billionaires and other factors. It's everything that
the left has always talked about, except it's Trump doing it.
And the reason you now have these judicial tyrants stepping
forward is because this is the last stitch effort to
try to stop what they see happening, which is going

(04:36):
to be a big economic improvement. It's going to be
the fruits of a positive Policies on economy are going
to make Trump more popular, more invincible, going to result
in more Republicans coming on board and running for office,
and they could be knocked back into the back burner

(04:58):
for a generation. They're going to lose big time. And
the fact that they're all goose stepping along in terms
of opposing this thing, they're going to have to explain
that next year when they were.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
They're very scared. But consider how long this has been
building up. I mean, you know, let's maybe oversimplify here
a little bit. There's been very few readers like Trump
that have actually tried to solve problems. If you go
back one hundred years, basically the only thing the government

(05:32):
did was get into wars. There wasn't a whole lot
of affirmative stuff that actually worked. And I'm not saying
wars work that what I'm saying is there was nothing
constructive that ever happened in terms of your judicial deep state.
That rot started occurring in earnest in the nineteen sixties,

(05:57):
and they didn't do anything about it.

Speaker 1 (05:59):
So the Warren Court. Yeah, oh yeah.

Speaker 2 (06:02):
So so here's the thing. You know, it's very easy
to have a sinecure job being a politician and just
kicking the can down the road. So God forbid, Trump
comes along and he's actually trying to solve the problems.
And the biggest irony here is the big beautiful Bill is,

(06:24):
as you said, essentially everything the Democrats wanted, only now
the wrong guy's doing it.

Speaker 1 (06:31):
Right exactly, and it's they're they're falling all over themselves.
But I think that again they lost ditch defense. The
final you know, line in the sand as they withdraw
and as they're losing the war, is these judicial tyrants.
They're going to come in and me you know, whatever
Trump does, they're going to declare it illegal. You know,

(06:53):
they've declared deputting up illegal aliens illegal. Even though putting
aside the fact that Tom Holman I saw I am
interviewed recently, he pointed out that that Obama and Clinton
were deporting people. He was there. He's been working for
that department since Reagan, I mean, and he said, look,
they deported a lot of people. There wasn't so called

(07:16):
due process. They just put him on a train and
you know, sent him off and we're talking millions of people.
But nothing was said at the time because it was
them now all of a sudden, and he said, by
the way, Biden didn't do Diddley Squad. I mean they
literally swung over the border or whoever was running that in.

Speaker 2 (07:32):
I think Tom Holman's being generous. Yeah, I'd never did
anything in his entire career except in rich himself.

Speaker 1 (07:41):
Well, I mean, and plus there's obviously a huge scandal
in terms of his capacity, which everybody knew and which
now according to I think that James O'Keefe did a
little sleuth into you know, recording of that guy Hog,
David Hog. Yeah, and he basically spilled the beans in

(08:04):
noting that Jill Biden's chief of staff, I don't know
his name, but very shady looking character. He was basically
the president. He was probably the hand behind the autopen
and you know, so you don't even know who was
running the show. But the point is that they this
is a huge scandal that is still growing and bad

(08:27):
news for them, and they have at the same time Trump,
they're decisively leading, doing real reforms, trying to bring about
peace and world conflicts which we have no skin in
the game on those. And it's working and people know it,
and they're terrified. They know that it's working. They know
that he came in with very clear ideas about what

(08:52):
to do domestically with the economy, and he's doing it
and it's working.

Speaker 2 (08:57):
And that's right, and much to the discredit of all
these Democrats. In my latest piece, I go into some
political history and you can see the formation of the
Democrat Republican parties. People had some integrity in that they
were leaving the wings to form the the Republicans and

(09:19):
so on and so forth. But these stiffs are staying
with the Titanic as it's going down. I don't understand it,
but somehow you have a collection of a bunch of
losers that would rather suck up as much as they
can before the inevitable crash.

Speaker 1 (09:39):
It's the fact, it's going to be interesting to see
how they I mean, already there are some who are
kind of distancing themselves, like Chesapeake Bay crabs. You know,
they're like moving this way to get claim that they're independent.
But they're not the party, true. I mean its how like,
you know, desperate they are, and you've got up this

(10:00):
buffoonish presentation by Jake Tapper talking about Oh, all of
a sudden, I'm posting the debate and I realized that
Biden is not functioning very well. Gee, you know, like
this is suddenly new. It's such bs. Everyone knows it.
They knew all along, and they were running interference.

Speaker 2 (10:20):
Well, you almost and I underline almost feel sorry for
a guy like Jake Tapper. So I think part of
him believes that there's an element of the public that
probably is a small component that believes everything he's media
idiots saying. But for him to proceed in that matter, oh,

(10:42):
I've been involved with the White House for thirty years,
and somehow I didn't notice that this guy was non
compost mans. No one's going to believe it. But somehow
if I say it on TV, and I thought Megan
Kelly was was pretty soft with him. That's why I

(11:02):
could never do that sort of interview at that point.
The obvious question is why should anyone believe a word
you say for the rest of your life. I mean,
she was having a lot of fun insulting him, but
at the end of the day she gave him too
much respect, and then as what's the Yiddish word? And

(11:26):
then what he tries to sell a book afterwards.

Speaker 1 (11:32):
Oh, it's just great. Yeah, it's just loathsome. I mean,
and I mean, at least Joe Scarborough or Morning Joe
was honest. He said, look, we had to stop Trump.
What about Trump? He says, and he's just stuttering in
an interview. What about Trump? I mean, that's that's actually
a well.

Speaker 2 (11:50):
That would be a more credible excuse if you could
articulate what's wrong with.

Speaker 1 (11:56):
Trum Well, they can't and they never could, and it's
always trumps arrangement is completely irrational. It's just it is.
And when you ask them directly, I mean I remember
this going back in the first term, they fall into
a ball of incoherent jelly. I mean they just blah

(12:17):
blah bh. I mean, they can't there's nothing they can say.
I mean, it's it's absurd, and it's it is a syndrome,
and it's you know, I think that Michael Savage once
said that, you know, the liberals it's a mental disease.
I mean, you know, he wasn't wrong. But you know

(12:39):
the only thing. I mean, things are moving very well
in this country right now, and it's directly related to
significant decisions made by the Trump administration. In spite of
judicial tyranny. It's not working for them, and that Trump
and his people have planned this. It didn't just happen

(12:59):
the other day. I mean, Trump spent the four years
of exile developing these plans, meeting with people, putting it
all in place, and it's it's amazing. I mean, the
guy is like driven. I don't think he ever takes
a break. It's it's an incredible thing to see. And uh,
and they just I mean, I hate to think of

(13:21):
what they might try to do next. I mean, you know,
these bad judges ultimately are going to be overturned. I mean,
they may be able to throw a stick in the
mud a little bit and slow things down. But I
mean everything Trump does is unconstitutional. Firing his own people

(13:43):
on in his own departments unconstitutional, you know, to you know,
not saying you're not deporting illegal aliens unconstitutional, you know,
now tariffs unconstitutional. I mean, I'm surprised they didn't go
after RFKG, you know who. By the way, is doing
some amazing things.

Speaker 2 (14:02):
Hey on that subject, Yeah, make America healthy again. Yes,
just released a wonderful report that you download. I'll send
the link you put on your website, and it is
they did a hell of a job on this thing,
their recommendations and so on. It's a seventy sething page

(14:26):
report with plenty of detail. So I think that the
reason Trump's approval is going up is it's been a
very long time since we've had a government that's actually
done anything. Really, I mean, I challenge you to list
positive accomplishments that have improved America. You can go as

(14:51):
far back as you want. You know, Calvin Coolidge is
basically knowing for not increasing the the activity of the government.
But can you name even Reagan moving in such a
positive direction the way Troup is now.

Speaker 1 (15:12):
Yeah, I mean, Reagan is probably the last president to
do some active things, but it was not at this pace.
I mean Reagan he stood up to the Soviet Union
and that collapsed, and he did reduce the size of government.
Even Clinton, by the way, reduce the size of government
for a while, but then he kind of I think
he kind of stepped down from it because he was

(15:34):
being criticized he didn't, you know, he didn't want to
do anything to hurt his popularity. I mean that's usually
what they do, right. Clinton would wake up I heard
once someone say he'd wake up in the morning and
he'd call his pollster Greenberg, whatever the hell's name is,
and say, who am I today? Right? What if we want?
And whatever they wanted is what he would say. He

(15:57):
would make a lot of virtual sigling. So you know, yeah,
I mean they all got their trophies, as you say,
their shelves are groaning under the weight of trophies, whereas
Trump is not going to get anything like that ever.
And he's I mean, can you imagine they haven't put
Malania Trump on the cover of a fashion magazine. I mean,
it's just nothing. They It's like they'll do everything they

(16:19):
can to pretend that they don't exist. But he continues
the soldier on, I mean, it's amazing, you know, and
he doesn't care. I heard Jeff Coooner this morning, who's
a talk show host here in Boston on w r KO,
say that his people, who knows people close to Trump,

(16:42):
he knows Trump. He says that it has a lot
to do with Trump. The assassination attempt. That it was
so close that he was he usually they said, and
by the way, ironically, maybe ironically, I'm not going to
put a tin hat on here. But the big media
ignored all those incredible rallies except one, and that was

(17:06):
the Butler Pennsylvania rally. They were there for that one.
It has to you know, you just notice these things.
But you know, Trump usually point, you know, his routine
was to point to this map at the end, toward
the end of his presentation. For whatever reason, he pointed

(17:27):
to it in the middle on that day, and it
was that move that he made that saved his life
and people around him and Trump himself seemed to believe
that there was some kind of a divine intervention. It
was so close like that that you know, it was
almost the Kennedy situation, you know, where he could have

(17:49):
got his brains blown up. And so that is what
kind of is driving him now. He doesn't barely sleep.
He just cranks every day. He's like in it and
he's involved, and he's going around the world and he's
you know, he's doing he's on like a he's driven,

(18:10):
he's doing he has a mission because he believes that
this was an act of God, that he actually was
able to just avoid that by seconds. And I think
there's a lot of truth to that. I think that
seems to be what makes him take Now.

Speaker 2 (18:28):
Yeah, I would I would agree.

Speaker 1 (18:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:31):
And as far as the judicial deep state, that's gonna
that's going to collapse a lot. You know how I
feel about this. Anything that hurts the reputation the judiciary
is fine with me. You know, they've been out of
control for way too long. A lot of that stuff

(18:52):
that came down in the sixties, I supposed conservative Earl Warren.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
Right, sure, and well that was the beginning of the
activist court, and you know, he y, you know, now
they have put in place various rulings that have furthered
their power, unelected power. By the way, they don't represent anyone,
they're just little you know, they're supposed to interpret the

(19:22):
law and not make it, and they're now pulling all
of the stops. They're really, oh well, according to this ruling,
which by the way, was probably highly questionable, we can
now stop Trump from doing that. And you know, as
you say, it's backfiring, it's not working. I think people

(19:44):
see it and can tell this one with the tariffs
is so obvious and so egregious.

Speaker 2 (19:51):
He mentioned a couple of times, and maybe too many
times on this show. I unfortunately had some dealing with
the federal court a number of years ago in an
international litigation. And the problem is that these guys were

(20:13):
not smart. They were uniformly lazy beyond belief. They didn't
they were stupid. They didn't want to understand anything that
was going on, and it was it was disappointing to
me in a sense that the case I was involved

(20:35):
with went up to uh the appeals court in the
ninth District, and I thought, well, maybe that would be better,
and it really wasn't. I and from that I started
following what was going on in federal court and it's
just not the best and brightest, sorry folks, but I

(21:00):
was involved way too much, very expensive lawsuit and it
was not impressed.

Speaker 1 (21:09):
No, we don't have the best in terms of legal minds,
but there's still enough of them out there, and you know, eventually,
I mean it's probably going to take a long time,
even a generation. Certainly, whoever follows President Trump, we hope
will be of the same ilk or at least close

(21:30):
to it. I don't know if it'll never be possible
to get another man like Trump. That's the way it is.
But the point is, if we have enough good people
holding office over the next twelve years, fifteen years, those
people are going to gradually be removed by attrition and
we're going to get some honest judges in there who

(21:52):
actually understand that their job is to read the Constitution,
not make laws. And I think there are some out
there who are good. I mean I think of Arlene Cannon,
for example, who put a stop to a lot of
the yeah, the COVID stuff. You know. She was like, no,
you can't force people to Well.

Speaker 2 (22:12):
Remember this, chuck, that most of what goes on, at
least in the district courts is not constitutional issues. These
are disputes that cross state lives, sometimes international inspirits. So
you tend to see this constitutional stuff more as it

(22:32):
gets into the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court. But again,
there's good They're going to figure out a way to
get people who are better and try to make it
just a little less political. I mean, what in the
world are you supposed to think when they bring in
this DEI woman and then ask her what a woman

(22:55):
is and she doesn't answer and she gets confirmed.

Speaker 1 (23:00):
Right, Yeah, and she's really, I mean, due respect, she's
a complete ding bad Oh yeah, her decisions. I mean,
we talked about this. She wrote the descending decision on
I think it was an affirmative action case, which, by
the way, Harvard is completely violating how you know, all
of a sudden at court system. But the decision, her

(23:22):
writing was so bad. It was like a bad college
essay assignment that even the left, you think that they
would have held that thing up like it was the
Margna carta even they turned it back to it. I mean,
it was just embarrassing.

Speaker 2 (23:38):
So yeah, I said in La you know, yeah, the
mayor's lesbian and the fire chief was okay, great, why
not at least get a qualified.

Speaker 1 (23:50):
Yeah right, why not put in somebody, somebody who actually
knows something about fire management? You know? So yeah, you
have he's mediocre to bad people who happen to, as
you say, they check off a certain number of boxes.
And meanwhile you have a grat You know, there's a

(24:11):
lot of fear from what I understand in Washington right now,
both some Republicans too, and I hope they don't do
this until after the big, the big, beautiful bill passes.
Then you know, once that's in the can, then open
and being like the Boston Globe, wait till they after
the election, and then we'll open the door, you know. But

(24:33):
you know, so fine, open the door after after that
is passed, god willing, because that's going to affect our lives.
And then take a look at some of this corruption
that they're involved in. I mean, the you know, there's
rumors about the amount the multi billions of dollar is
sent to Ukraine working its way back into people's pockets

(24:55):
on Capitol Hill. You have people like Elizabeth Warren for example,
and there's some Republicans too, and Congress Worth I think
it was maybe two or three million dollars. Now she's
worthwhile like fifty million, forty million. How did she get
that money? I mean, this is why they hated the

(25:17):
Elon Musk so much. He was his people were looking
into that, I mean, exactly what's going on there. I mean,
she didn't get it from royalties, although that is one
way they pay off people in the establishment, but even that,
I mean.

Speaker 2 (25:30):
Oh, there's a double hatred there. Okay. One, they were
afraid that he was going to expose that their corrupt.
But the other hatred is they're useless leaders, that people
are just scanning the money, unlike Musk who actually developed
things and legitimately earn money.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
Of course, and they use a particular tactic. Harvard is
doing this now. And I think that agencies who have
people salted in those bureaucracies, who have been there forever
and who are part of the what we uphemistically called
the deep state, when they are told that they're cutting
the budget, when they're told we found corruption and we're

(26:10):
going to cut this thing by a percentage, even if
it's even a small percentage, what they do is they
start cutting aspects of the budget that people actually want
and need and admire, you know, like in Harvard, they'll
start cutting particular programs that actually might have some benefit

(26:30):
while leaving themselves. And they're fat friends all in office
doing nothing. They're used to a culture where they just
they're sitting on their laurels. They expect increases every year
where they bring in more people of like mind, and
they think that they're important while they just sit around

(26:52):
all day looking at porn. I don't know what they do.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
But I mean, you could hardly blame them because it's
been going on for so long. Yeah, but obviously you're
you live out there. The Harvard or one hundred years
ago is in today's Harvard, right.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
Well, Harvard is just a tip of the spear, I
mean the I mean I'm saying I can even speak
to this in my own college right now. I mean,
I'm taking classes online at Arizona State University, and you know,
I've just read a paper. I'm it's like a gold
mine for my book. It's it's unbelievable. Yeah, I mean,

(27:31):
it's part of it, but it gives me an insight
into sociology. This professor says, look sociology. The problem with
sociology is that we're focusing on the students are more
concerned with their careers heaven forbid, and you know, trying
to learn skills like how to write better and how
to do research, when in fact, they should be learning

(27:54):
how to become revolutionaries. They should be involved in what
they call humanistic sociology in other words, you know, promoting humanism,
which is a euphemism for communism, and that they're you know,
they need to become activists and they need to learn
of it. And then The article goes into all these

(28:14):
techniques of how to overthrow the system. I mean it
sounds like something right out of Marx, how to transform
these people?

Speaker 2 (28:22):
Does this professor actually believe that he's producing something or
does he is at least acknowledge to himself that he's
just getting paid for now they're true believers.

Speaker 1 (28:39):
I mean this is a cult. And you know, actually,
I mean another article that I'm using for my book,
it's literally written by Marx. Marx is the main you
know figure in sociology, and they will tell you that,
and it's about, you know, the relationship between labor and
production and surplus labor and and you know, other elements

(29:02):
of the economy. And when you read this thing, I
can appreciate why one reason why Marx has endured. I mean,
in a way similar to why Martin Luther has endured.
These guys were brilliant, biting literary people. I mean, they
knew how to write. I mean, when you read this stuff,

(29:22):
it goes right to your gut. You know, it's like, wow,
this is incredible. It may be completely cracked, and it is.
It's it's utterly twisted, but you read it and you
feel empowered it's compelling. Wow, this is incredible. And if
you look at how they write, and Marx in particular,
it's very sarcastic. It's it's caustic. It's filled with emotion

(29:49):
and rage, and it draws you in. It's fantastic in
a way.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
Well, Marx is that you can never manage your factory,
you can never bal It's his old checkbook boy, he
knew how to create an economics system.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
Well he never even I mean he refused to go
out and see a factory. He didn't want to know.
It's like even Angeles was like who was his partner
and who ran a factory? He's like, you need to
come out and check. No, I don't want to see it.
It's like the way, well, not to use a parallel example,
but Adolf Hitler refused to visit the concentration camps. I

(30:27):
don't want to see this. I mean, I don't even
want to hear too much about it. This is your job,
it's over there, you know. It's like they don't want
to actually know. It's all this sort of theoretical, gauzy
world of you know, utopian world. But when I read

(30:48):
this stuff, I realize that these people do believe it
because it's convincing. I mean, Marx is very he's a
great salesman.

Speaker 2 (30:56):
I mean it's very convincing if you stay out of
the real world.

Speaker 1 (31:01):
But they are out of the real world, and you know,
you have to wonder who is it that hired Marx.
It's called this shadowy group called the League of the Just,
which changed its name to the Communist League. Not to
put on a tin hat here, but I would suggest
that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that that was an
offspring of the Adam Weishaup's illuminati that hired Marx in

(31:29):
to write the Communist Manifesto in other works, because they
could see that he knew how to sell something to
average people and that it would be something that was
the exact opposite of what he was. You know what
people think it is. You know that you're supposed to
give up ideas that Marx denigrates, like private property, ownership, religion.

(31:52):
He points out this concept of alienation is being fooled
and being tricked into following into believing in the right
of private property and religion, the right of believing in
God that these things and the reason that he says

(32:14):
that is alienating is because if you believe in these things,
you don't become yourself anymore. You're colonized by something outside
of you that takes over and that you no longer
are a self actualized person. So to be a self
actualized person, according to Marx, you have to give up

(32:36):
these what he calls false consciousness, things like property ownership,
and become like a something that he never really specifically says,
but you're liberated. You're free of these false ideas. And
you know, he's appealing to a time in the mid

(32:58):
nineteenth century Europe that when you had massive industrialization and
there were problems with that. People were disoriented, they were
giving up their previous life. There were massive changes. So
he's saying, you have been captured by this, and we
are offering you something better, when in fact, what they

(33:20):
were doing is they were perpetrating the misery by telling them, no,
you can't have property because that's bad. You can't believe
in God. You have to believe in the state. And
you know, and he sells it and people still buy it.
I mean, this is the religion, the faith of these elites.

Speaker 2 (33:39):
It does tend to appeal to people that are not
in the real world, whether there's students, entertainment industry. I mean,
if you're living outside reality, then you have nothing to
compare it to. Right, And you know, it's easy to
be a Marxist if you're a gazillionaire movie star, right,

(34:04):
the problems in the world.

Speaker 1 (34:05):
That's right. Well, it gives you a feeling like you
can do something that you convince yourself is actually improving
the world without actually doing anything. Yeah, it's you know
where they today's the lingo they call it virtue signaling
that somehow original.

Speaker 2 (34:24):
Virtue signaling with which people have tended to forget. The
very original virtue signaling was remember when people wearing all
those stupid ribbons was breast cancer ribbon was whatever it was. Yeah,
I did an article on that long time ago, and
I had to look up when the color of these

(34:45):
ribbons met. But at the end of the day, what
the hell is that doing?

Speaker 1 (34:49):
Yeah, right, exactly, they're like, it's a you know, it's
it's well, they their entire lingo. I mean, everything that
they say is all this kind of like we're part
of the good club and we say this and that
makes us If you just say it, it means it happens.
I mean, I have a relative who passed away since
who was a self avowed Marxist and socialist. And he

(35:13):
was a pretty successful guy. I mean, had a lot
of assets, lived very comfortably. He never had a problem.
And I remember I asked him about that. I'm like,
if you are such a convinced Marxist, why aren't you
redistributing your own wealth. Why aren't you living based upon
your needs not on your ability? As the famous communist

(35:33):
slogan was right from each according to his ability, to
reach according to his needs. And his answer was quite revealing.
He was like, well, I don't have to do that,
because I've been advocating for socialism all my life, and
therefore this is my Yeah, this is my reward for
doing that, for living this life of And meanwhile, he

(35:57):
probably turned a lot of poor poisons a lot of
the minds. Is this is a vault with students, I
mean of young people, the way Howard Zinn poisoned the
minds of a whole generation of Americans while living very
high and that it's this It shows that this is
a cult. I mean, they read this stuff. Cal Marks

(36:17):
himself was all about that, you know, and they become
part of this I don't know, this holographic virtual world.
It's it's really.

Speaker 2 (36:29):
Seeing ever sufficiently discredited after he died.

Speaker 1 (36:35):
I don't think so. I mean, look, I actually interviewed
Howard's inn. I wish I had. Wow, this is before
the internet, this is like in the you know, I
was just starting in radio. I also did a whole
series with Noam Chromsky, who was actually a nice guy actually,
you know, but Zin was not a nice guy, and

(36:56):
he had all the affectations of a communist, you know,
with the Turette syndrome and this twitching and the the
sneers and the permanent look of smugness and righteousness, and
anyone who questioned him, I mean he bristling with, oh
how could you. It's like it didn't even enter the picture.

Speaker 2 (37:18):
Well, you know, one thing I was going to ask
you is that, notwithstanding his leftist bad did he even
know American history?

Speaker 1 (37:29):
Well what he did was I mean, I haven't read
the whole book, which is such a classic, and I
mean my daughter actually had it assigned to her when
she was in history, and she told me it was
a lot of crap. But he takes some of these
I mean in my American history class, they do this.
They develop theory. They'll they'll pull a few nuggets out

(37:50):
of context and they'll plug it into a theory and
they'll weave this this narrative. I mean, look, Michael Jones
does this in a certain way. Mike, I don't know
what there we go. Something's going on. You keep flatting

(38:12):
out on me, Mike. Okay, here you are where they
they basically have become so ideological that they become so
ideological that they they they'll they'll put everything into a
sieve that fits and and reinforces some set principles, and

(38:34):
they'll they'll kind of winnow out anything that goes against it.

Speaker 2 (38:38):
Well, right, So, so I guess that was my question.
That was it part because I only read small excerpts. Right,
But if you were able to somehow filter ound all
this left his crap? Did he understand history? And I
was glad to believe you really didn't.

Speaker 1 (38:59):
I mean, he was as courteous. He talks about things
that are real, like slavery and like the trail of
tears with American Indians. Those are real things and those
are not happy packages of American history. Nobody you know,
to apply to anyone thinks otherwise is absurd, but he

(39:19):
will then focus on them as a way to really
I mean, I guess you could say it's like looking
at history as a glass half empty, as opposed to
the glass half full. You know, we could talk about
slavery in the horrors of it, and it was a
terrible institution, but we could also look at the fact
that it was the United States and abolished it at
considerable sacrifice in a civil war, that it was Massachusetts,

(39:43):
my own home state, that was the first government I
think in history to abolish slavery. And this was even
like right around the time of independence. These are great
developments because slavery at that time, unfortunately, was a worldwide institution.
It just existed on the ground. I mean, you can't.

(40:03):
You have to judge these things in the context of
their times.

Speaker 2 (40:07):
And I mean, one thing that was weird about slavery
as an institution that I suppose you compare to abortion
is there were a lot of people who really were
personally opposed to slavery. Stephen Douglas is a classic example.

(40:29):
He was personally opposed to slavery, but he didn't want
to force his morality so to speak on others, and
that's where he went down that rabbit hole of the
Kids in Nebraska Act and so on. I believe that

(40:53):
outside of sub plantation owners, I don't think there were
people that were really really loved slavery.

Speaker 1 (41:02):
No, I mean it was actually something that you know,
it was it was these the states that had were
upholding it, had become very authoritarian that they were very
you know, in a way, the modern Democrats. I mean
they were like, you know, they were democrats. Yeah, I mean,
they had their own militias. They were ruling with an
iron fist. I mean much of the South, particularly in

(41:24):
the Appalachian region, were anti slavery. I mean the word
hillbilly comes from the word billy was slang for northern
eth you know, the Billies, and they were in the
hills of Appalachia. They were anti slavery, and they they
were basically a sponge for people who were escaping from slavery.
But you know, the way they portray it was America

(41:48):
is all racist, and it's he portrays it in a
way that you know, you could draw technical things that
are true, but it's such a poisonous negative view and
it's so unhelpful in terms of actually discussing these issues
which are real and maybe looking render you know, coming

(42:09):
to some judgments and rendering it in a truthful way. Instead,
he uses it, like the left does not like critical
race theory does, as a way to demonize the United
States generally, or people that they don't like specifically by
putting them into a set category and then kind of like,
look in a way, it's classic collectivism. You know, this

(42:32):
is what critical race theory is. You're taking in school,
if they teach it. You're taking a young person and
you're putting them into a category and they may relate
to that category or not. It's kind of personal. But
once you put them in there, you then pit them
against other categories which there may be some conflict, but

(42:53):
you exacerbate it, you exaggerate it, and you get to
people to think collectively, and then of course us in
the United States, critical race theory means that there's a
dominant group and everybody else is oppressed, and that dominant
group is firstly straight white men and secondly straight white women,

(43:14):
and everybody else goes on a pecking order down the
list of being controlled, and it's a terrible injustice to
both sides, because first of all, that's not really who
people are the way they're described. They're using the worst
kind of negative stereotypes. And secondly, these straight white men,
you know, the people that are supposed to be exploiting

(43:37):
everyone and the power. You're taught to feel guilty. You're
taught that your accomplishments are not your own. You've been
handed them because you ripped someone else off, and you're
taught to as a result, you're supposed to downplay your accomplishments,
play dumb, dumb yourself down. And then if you're part

(43:57):
of the oppressed, whatever the category that they cook up,
you have been ripped off by that other, that dominant person,
and you're filled with resentment and anger, and you're not
actually learning to do anything that might improve your life,
that might help you build up a certain amount of independence.

(44:20):
It doesn't give anyone anything real where they can actually
become a better person. It just divides people up into
these manufactured categories, and then it pits them against each other.
It's the dialectic that marks weaponized. He took the Hegelian dialectic,
and hegel by the way I mean that was a
real thing, and that's not false. There is dialectic in

(44:40):
the world. We do have differences that have some conflicts.
But he weaponized Marx weaponized it and applied it in
an authoritarian way to groups of people, putting everyone in
these baskets. And of course in his day, it was
all that economy marks, it was all about money, it
was all about class based on economy, you had the

(45:02):
the pougeoisie and the proletariats. But then more modern thinkers
like Franz von the author of Wretched of the Earth,
he put he put it into a race context and
then the critical race theory. They're doing every kind of
inventing more context for dialectics every day, you know, transgendered
versus straight, I mean whatever, I mean, they're just whatever

(45:23):
they're coming up with now, even sub sub dialectics, and
you know, multiple dialectics and people. Then you have the
you know, the they basically peer people up in intersectionalism.
So you can have, you know, a gay group supporting Hamas,
which throws gay people off the roof, because that's intersectionalism.

(45:44):
You also work together and it's all to overthrow this
dominant group. However they define that anyways, I'm getting off
in a tangent here, but you know, going back to
I mean, this is stuff I'm thinking about because I'm
studying it right now. We will talking about Harvard. Harvard

(46:05):
is only one of based on my own limited experience
as a student, as an adult who's actually going inside
a college, it's just one of most of them, if
not all of them. I don't think there's any that's exempt.
They all have been negatively impacted and touched by this

(46:26):
radical activist agenda which seeks to use students as the
future radicals and the future vanguard of revolution, and that
they're promised benefits because quietly they know they're going to
be a part of this new establishment that's even international

(46:46):
in nature, and that denigrates institutions that actually might help people.
So Trump is taking it on. He's taking it on
by taking on Harvard, and he's winning. Harvard is going
to They are losing their prestige.

Speaker 2 (47:03):
Yeah, they're the oldest university and the most prestigious still
despite all these hiccups that have occurred over the last
what thirty years, And it's you're a great target. I think,
Oh yeah, Buckle, because I mean, how couldn't they they're

(47:25):
getting billions of dollars from the federal government.

Speaker 1 (47:28):
Oh and I thought Trump made a brilliant suggestion when
he said, Hey, three billion dollars a year, why don't
we give it to trade schools where they actually can
you teach someone some skills, you know something you could
earn you know something that. And meanwhile, Harvard really stepped
in it when they appointed Claudine Gay as the chancellorship.
Obviously a dei appointment by any definition of terrible appointment,

(47:52):
shouldn't even still be there. The fact that it.

Speaker 2 (47:55):
Was stupid because it brought you know, unneeded.

Speaker 1 (47:59):
Attention to Okay, but it was what it was.

Speaker 3 (48:04):
Not possible to find a qualified black woman, right Gilding
to Lily. You had to fight someone who is a moron,
who was physically ugly, was a lesbian of mascarading as straight,
being married quote unquote to professor at Stanford.

Speaker 2 (48:26):
Now, how do you have a kid with somebody three
thousand miles away when you're on separate coast?

Speaker 1 (48:34):
You know, not to mention filed with that. Yeah. And
plus christ unexpectedly Christopher Rufo, a reporter with Free Republican
to get the magazine had completely blew her out of
the water by exposing not just plagiarism, but not only
would she copy completely whole paragraphs out of books of

(48:59):
people that were pretty pissed off when they found out,
but she would like change a word here and there
to make it fit something that they had no intention
of saying. Yeah, I mean it was so bad and
it was so hamhanded. Now they probably there's a lot
more of that going on than we even know. And
the excuse is, well, they have to produce so much work.

Speaker 2 (49:21):
That's nonsense.

Speaker 1 (49:22):
There's no excuse the fact that she's still there is
a real scandal because well.

Speaker 2 (49:27):
The fact that she's still there being paid the president's salary.

Speaker 1 (49:31):
Yeah, I mean this is any student would have been
expelled for like a tenth of that.

Speaker 2 (49:38):
I mean, in fairness, she wasn't the first. Okay, it
was George Could's Goodwin.

Speaker 1 (49:44):
Yes, I remember the one they.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
Playgiarized she was at Harvard on the faculty, and there
were students who were saying, and they got in trouble
for it that if a student pulled any of that crap,
they'd be kicked out.

Speaker 1 (49:59):
So what's the with this brawn they seem to have
watched that one over too. I mean, she survived that,
and that was out there. I mean the Globe even
reported on it, and she was there was about there
was some literary group that was about to give her
another reward and they withdrew it. So she was exposed.
But yet she continues to go on. I still see

(50:19):
her because she was in the group for too long.

Speaker 2 (50:24):
Yeah, and when I did a piece on her a
long time ago, she had a very bad history.

Speaker 1 (50:31):
All right. Yeah, besides close to Lyndon Johnson, as close
as the word for it.

Speaker 2 (50:37):
Performing horizontal favors. I mean, everybody knows that.

Speaker 1 (50:41):
And even she kind of admits it, you know, she
kind of snickers at the mention of that. But yeah,
that's like that's the casting coach, Like that's how Kamala
Harris got ahead. But putting that aside, the point is that, yeah,
she she's been able to move on from that and
she's back to being on NPR here in Boston, the

(51:05):
Jim Browdy and Marjorie Egan spouting Trump hatred and that's
her ticket now. Yeah, these bizarre anti Trump stuff which
she's making up the whole cloth, just like she made
up you know, most of this crap in her books,
and I mean the stuff about Franklin and eleanor Roosevelt.

(51:25):
I don't know. I mean, it's like it was really
hard to read anything that she ever says. I mean,
it's it's very agenda driven anyway. But anyway, going back
to Harvard, as you say, that was the beginning, but
they really have kind of I think I think they've
jumped the shark now and I think that even the Globe,

(51:47):
you know, as much as they hate it, I'm not
completely saying that Trump is wrong here. They just you know,
they have the radical activists that might professor at Arizona
State talks about that's what social sociology is supposed to be.
Now they're they're bearing the you know, the chicken as

(52:11):
as the as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright said with Obama,
the chickens have come home to roost. And that's what's
happening here. The chickens are coming home to roost on
Harvard and this whole rotten you know, academic establishment that
really has not worked.

Speaker 2 (52:29):
And did you notice with Harvard and Columbia all they
had to do to avoid this crap and to have
gone on being as corrupt and miserable as they always were. Well,
just get rid of this rabid anti semitism. And they

(52:50):
could have very discreetly removed a few people that would
have been there, but they couldn't help themselves, right, they
just had to support these people. And it's coming down
hard on them now and good for that. But they
didn't even know how to manage the crisis in the

(53:10):
first place.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
Right, No, they didn't. You know, I'm listening to this
podcast that it was actually recommended to be me by
my very liberal brother in law. It talks about the
history of the Ivy League Anti Semitism and it's put
out by a liberal Jewish group, the Tablet, and the
author is of the guy who hosts these interviews is

(53:33):
pretty liberal. And you know, they talk about Princeton. They
did a segment on Harvard, one on Yale, one on Columbia.
But one of the things, I mean, it's actually hilarious,
and I recommend it because if you listen to it
from a conservative perspective, you hear other things. But one
of the problems they had with Jews wasn't just because

(53:53):
they were antisemitic, which is truth also, but it's also
that these places were like Yankee Protestant finishing schools. They
had lost their academic cred probably sometime in the nineteenth century,
and they just wanted to have like a cultural experience.

(54:15):
They didn't want to have anybody come in, you know,
like a Jew come in who wants to actually get
good grades and they're working too hard. They're not joining
these you know, they're not carousing and drinking every night
and joining the choral society and singing funny songs and
playing rugby and doing all these rituals. They wanted to

(54:35):
keep like a kind of a wasp society. It was
like a finishing club. And both the male and female
schools like Wellesley also on the female side the same thing.
They'd have all these funny little rituals and they would
get together and have like these drinking parties, and they
everybody kind of was very bland, and it was very

(54:57):
kind of like a kind of a so experience where
you'd make friends and develop contacts and you become a
part of this kind of internationalist oriented a moral I
mean the person, the penultimate person I think of who
represents that is Algehiss, Oh yeah, exactly. I mean it's

(55:19):
there's no morality there. There's a general feeling like, you know,
we're all like friends and it's like a friend club.
And the Jews came along.

Speaker 2 (55:29):
And then on that subject, why did he go comedy?

Speaker 1 (55:34):
It was never understand he was another one of these people,
and there was a lot of them who are just
true believers. That's their religion, you know. They these guys
that like he was I think he was Harvard or
he was Yale. They don't have any beliefs. They they
basically have had a life of dissimble, you know, dissipation,

(55:56):
and there's no direction. It's all kind of like everything
has been assumed, everything has been set for them. You know,
maybe there was something. In the case of algihezz he
had some tragedy in the past and then I think
his father could be suicide or there was some you know,
there was all covered up. Everything is normal and we're
not you know, we are just the good people and

(56:18):
nobody really deals with any actual problems. So they're attracted
to this idea because it gives them this sense of
validity that they're doing something outside of themselves, the very
thing that Marx claims, you know, believe in God, is
you're believing in something outside yourself. Well, that's what they
were doing, except it was something outside themselves that was

(56:40):
not good. There's something outside of themselves that was satanic frankly.
But they didn't want to have Jews come in because
they were too as they said in brown too or
in darkment, they were too kiki. They were willing to
have some Jews come in who fit. They didn't care
if they were Jews, if they fit a certain stereotype.
Had to be, you know, good athletes. They had to

(57:04):
be relatively handsome and big. They had to be, you know,
like kind of socially Yankee like they could go and
they didn't care if they were Jewish. The problem was
you had these you know, and they didn't like Catholics either,
by the way. They didn't like Italians because they were
too swarthy, and they didn't like the Irish because they
were too pugilistic and too uppity. You know. They wanted

(57:28):
to have everybody kind of like in this kind of
generic world that they created, and so they took these
amazing measures to keep people out. And it's actually I
recommend these podcasts. They're hilarious in a way. I mean
this one Jewish guy shows up at Dartmouth. His father
wanted him to go. He got in and he's like,

(57:50):
look at these people. They're hiking in the mountains. There's
nothing to do here. What do you mean hiking? My
people did that three thousand years ago. H you know,
I want to get to work here. I want to
you know. It's all like about I don't know, it's
like it's a cultural thing, and I think that that

(58:10):
kind of it never really left it, even though they
now do welcome in Jews and minorities and blacks and
everyone else. But even that, in that case, they want
to become this. They go in there because they want
to become Yankees, they want to become Wasps, you know,
if you know, it's like it's it's this kind of

(58:31):
conforming thing, and that conforming element is not based on
academic excellence. It's not based on getting a real career,
based upon accomplishment. It's all about getting together with the
other people who have already made it, like the Rockefellers,
I don't know, you know, and kind of getting a
nice job for the rest of your life and having

(58:53):
a nice family and just sort of being a part
of this generic world where nobody really has to do
too much deep think, nobody has to do too much
of anything. I mean FDR was a classic example of this.
Oh yeah, right, I mean you know, I know that
on a television you know, kind of like cultural example

(59:14):
would have been Thurston Howl of the Third from Gilligan's Island, right,
you know, with love a come in love here, you know,
I mean I talk like you know, they talk like
they have a mouth full of marbles. John Kerry is
an example. He's one of the last of them. But anyways,
we're talking about the ivy leagues here, So that's how

(59:34):
I've gotten onto this.

Speaker 2 (59:36):
Yeah, well, I think they're in for some culture shock.
Now there's pushback down from the pain aster.

Speaker 1 (59:46):
Oh well yeah. Ultimately they have to make a buck.
And you know, Trump is Trump doesn't just come in
and do a lot of talking. Trump does. He is
a man of action, and that is exactly the very
antithesis of what they're about. They can live an entire
life without ever taking any action on anything. That's what

(01:00:09):
the left is all about. They don't have to do anything.
All they have to do is say a few things,
and it's like a magic door opens for them. There's
nothing that they actually go out and do, most of them,
some of them do, but you know it's really something. Anyhow,
what do you have coming up, Mike on your substack.

Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
Well, we just posted yesterday the article the Democratic Party
is nothing more than a criminal gain and we cod
some history and talk about you know a lot of
stuff that has been contemporary.

Speaker 1 (01:00:46):
But that's it.

Speaker 2 (01:00:48):
I mean, you talk about virtue signaling. You look at
cities like Chicago that have been democrat for over eighty years, right,
and we keep coming back to at least Richard daly
knew how to do corruption, right.

Speaker 1 (01:01:06):
He at least got the tunnel built. Even if it
was a lot of mutt graft, you get a good tunnel.

Speaker 2 (01:01:11):
Yeah, yeah, I mean stuff gets done.

Speaker 1 (01:01:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:01:15):
And Daily was in office, the crime was relative under control,
but the city worked. He made a lot of graft
and that was great. And when his son and then
Jane Byrne came in, they didn't have the talent and
Jane byrd got nailed. If you remember when they had

(01:01:35):
that snowstorm and she couldn't figure out how to get
snowplows out right, So that was it. I mean, even
if you allow the corruption. The place has to work.
You know, he'd take all the marbles you got to
put Summerside to actually do something, and they've forgotten all that.

Speaker 1 (01:01:57):
Yeah. Man, I don't know if the latest thing with
this Brandon Johnson, the mayor, he said, no, we're not
going to celebrate Veterans Day, it's a memorial day. It's
going to be Africa Day. Did you see that? Yeah,
I mean what Africa Day? But maybe why I get
more specific, why not do the Zimbabwe Day. It's like,
what does that have to do with it? Anybody?

Speaker 2 (01:02:20):
Right? Is your electure a dead stupid that I could
put Mickey Mouse up on the Democratic ticket and they
go for him.

Speaker 1 (01:02:29):
It is really weird. And I saw a video of
him making this announcement, had this weird kind of smile.
I mean, it's just what is going on with that.

Speaker 2 (01:02:38):
It's like, oh, you know, they had it here and
they had Rob Emmanuel.

Speaker 1 (01:02:41):
Who I think is now running for president. Right, He's like,
never let a good crisis go to waste. Anyways, So, Mike,
but I linked to your sub stack on the Rumble station,
which is the primary station of the show. TikTok has
kept me on so I guess I'm okay. Since you're here, TikTok,

(01:03:04):
let me just say that please subscribe to my Getter
channel if I reach a certain number and Getter I
can live stream, but I have to get there so
it doesn't cost anything. Just go together and childs Moskowitz.
I'd appreciate a sub anyway, somebody as always, Thanks for joining.

Speaker 2 (01:03:20):
Me, all right, and we will see you next time.

Speaker 1 (01:03:23):
Yep. And I tell you Brady, you too. Take care
all right, Bye bye, God bless America.