You're listening to a podcast from News talkst B. Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio. It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all the information, all the debates of us, now the Leighton Smith Podcast powered by News Talks B.
Welcome to podcast two hundred and forty nine for July thirty one, twenty twenty four. Patrick Masham returns after an extended but unintended absence I think about ten months. Patrick founded the Democracy Institute in Washington, d C. And London and his organization does regular polling for the London Daily Express and more, and his polling method has proven pretty
accurate to date. And part two of the eighty minute interview that we did with Ramesh thecur on important matters such as the dangers of a cash free society, and there are plenty diversity in equity and inclusion, etc. And we also cover Julian Massage the rights and wrongs as we see it, and we have a bit of variation,
and there are other matters as well. Now, something that I'm adverse to doing is predicting the next week's content of a podcast, because things tend to happen but the announcement today by in New Zealand regarding the company's green agenda has well, I've got to say it's amused me. Reading comments this morning also frustrated me. So there are issues to address, but they will have to wait in
a moment. Patrick Basham Patrick Bajem is well known to the majority of listeners to this podcast because he has appeared on numerous occasions over a number of years. In fact, we first met I think it was twenty thirteen when he was actually in New Zealand. He is the founding director of the Democracy Institute, which is based in Washington and London. It's a research organization and Patrick does a lot of research. In fact, you are doing a great
deal of research at the moment. Patrick, It's great to have you back on the podcast. The Laily Express is exploiting your work.
Yes, indeed, high lighton. Wonderful to be back with you and with your final audience. Alwas appreciating the invitation, the opportunity to have a conversation with you about important things. Yes, we do a lot of public and private polling, and most of our public polling in terms of American politics is for The Daily Express Family of newspapers out of the UK, and so we always do at least a monthly poll for them, but we also do more real time timely polls when news merits, and there's been a
lot of that lately. So we continue to pump out the numbers. They continue to please some and irritate others, but that probably means that we're maybe getting it close to the mark.
Indeed, is it difficult to keep up at the moment.
It is.
One of the things that's always difficult with polling is is to figure out just what it is that people are focused on. You know, you're always asking what most important issue is that type of question that your audience will be very familiar with, and where in the normal course of events that ebbs and flows. But there are only occasional events that and it sort of interventions that really can in the short, medium or long term really sort of upset those particular apple carts or really sort
of change the nature of the public debate. But in the US context, of course, over the last several weeks, you know, we had the first we don't have with the last to the last Biden Trump debate, Then we had the assassination attempt on Trump. Then we had the Republican Convention, Then we had Biden quitting the race. Now
we have you know, Harris against Trump. Apparently, So all of this happened within a number of weeks, and most of it within there's a couple of weeks at the outside, and you're pulling all the time during that and trying to catch trying to catch people's while they're paying attention to this.
This new issue.
Figure out how much change that is creating in voters' minds and consequently perhaps their decision making itself and their actual voting. But then something else comes along, either while you're pulling, right after you've pulled, that doesn't blow it up, but just throws up potentially throws a lot of sparing of the works in the sense of how do you
disentangle it all and figure out, Okay, what's happened. The change we're seeing is mostly because the assassination attemptor it's mostly because Trump's convention speech, where it's mostly because Biden got out of the race, it's mostly because of Harris, right, and so all of us on the polling side, if you know, if we're honest with ourselves and with others, you know, it's it's an art. It's art more than science when it comes to this stuff, and often people
say the same. The things to do is just sort of let let it all out and just let time pass and things will become more obvious with the passage of time.
That's a huge of.
Course, that we don't have any more of these unexpected events happening over the next few weeks and months.
I've got to I've got to mention my favorite question in one of the two polls you've done in the last couple of weeks. See if you can guess what it is? Yeah, the the so we've got a yes, no, and don't know what answers. Thirteen is my lucky number, and yes is thirteen.
Oh it's the Is it the hunt of Biden?
You got it? Sure, good hunter Biden seek Democratic presidential nomination. And it just stunned me that there were actually thirteen percent of respondents who said yes. Do you think they had any idea what they were talking about? What the question was?
I think so? Would you see?
That means that about a third a third of Democratic voters are saying yes to that, and they are the folks who think that Joe Biden is just a wonderful father. His son has just had some bad luck and has been maligned by the media and the Republicans. And what Hunter has been doing, it was doing, you know, well, arguably it's still doing, but certainly was doing up to Joe Biden's departure from the presidential race, was counseling his father, being a good son, trying to run the country as
best he could in his father's literal absence. And they just, you know, they think that thing critical is a lie, and they will say they will support anything that Biden did or does. They will support anything that anything the Hunter does or says.
You know, it's it's a reflexive default position.
And but apart from those folks, those find people, everybody else pretty much understands that you wouldn't you know, you wouldn't want to hunt Biden though within within striking distance of running.
A fish and chip shop, let alone the presidency.
Well at least you'd have access to his supply.
The the no figure was absolutely you, yes, there was a madness to there was a method to his madness.
Perhaps, yes, So the no vote was eighty four percent and don't know, three percent you can forgive that. Don't know it's because there's always a bunch of them. But the pulling that you've done throughout some throughout numbers and attitudes, and for instance, let me go back to the very basics,
should Biden resign the presidency. So this is out of date, but the yes vote was sixty three percent, twenty eight and don't know nine, So that is now that has now happened, and we transit to missus Harris, and she's doing pretty well at the moment. How would how would I don't think you've done anything on her just yet, but how would she be performing now in your polling? Do you think?
Well, we actually did our most recent poll that came out over last week, just a few days ago. It's the first poll that we have had her up against Trump as the presumptive nominee. We've been polling Trump against Harris for quite some time as a possibility if if
Biden jumped or was pushed. But so we do have one since she since Biden left the president that the election scene, and since she jumped in and was anointed by all the important people in the Democratic Party, we do have one one poll on this and so I would say in answering, in answering your question about what do we think is also pushing back a little against your sort of introduction to this, in that I would say that Harris isn't doing particularly well, and that the
narrative that in the last several days everything has changed and this is now an uber competitive race where Harris is really sort of neck and neck with Trump is to this point sort of without foundation, and I can I can risk boring you in your audience.
By sort of fletting that out a little. If you'd like it, go for it.
Well, Okay, So first of all, this the context of the media narrative in America pre debate with Biden was that is a very competitive close race, right, and the criticisms of Biden from the Republicans weren't sticking because they were so manufactured and the things in the country were pretty good. Just that Biden wasn't getting enough credit. So therefore it was a competitive race, otherwise he would have
won it to be winning easily. Then the debate comes along and everybody sees what the other side has been saying for years, which is Biden can't do the job. Everybody pretty much agrees, and then Biden started to lose support apparently, which was true. He lost more support. Then the assassination attempt comes on Trump, build sympathy for Trump. Then the Republican invention happens, good, you know, positive vibes
for Trump and the Republicans. So at the end of that process, everyone's agreeing that Trump is a shoe in to win. But what I would argue is that for a year Trump was in a very strong position. Weren't guaranteed to win, but pre debate he was a heavy favorite. Everything that happened, the debate, the assassination attempt, the convention made it going from quite probable to almost guarantee.
So I sail this because the media.
And the Democrats publicly at least refused to acknowledge the fact that Trump was in such a strong position. They've always they've argued the problem was Biden has simply become too old and appeared not up to the job anymore more physically than anything. So they've switched out Biden for Harris, and they're saying, so there we are, We're right, right, we were right. It wasn't about the policies or how
people felt about the country. About Biden's as a president, it was simply, you know, he was too snow seen as too old. No, we've got this young, energetic vice president and she's going to do really well.
And look at these polls showing that she's doing really well.
What those polls The reason those polls are showing that Trump's lead has shrunk or you know, might even be neck and neck with Harris, is that what those polls are doing is they are I don't know if it's intentional, but certainly the outcome is that they are over sampling Democrats. They're including too many Democrats disproportionate number of Democrats, then
their size of the electorate. And that means that if you have five to ten percent too many Democrats almost whom all of whom are going to vote for the Democratic candidate, then you get it. Instead of trumping up by six, he's up by two, or Istred, of being up by four, it's now a tie, or Harris is up by one, this kind of thing. If you are more careful about these things, as I hope we are and some others are, then what you see is what we see, which is we see almost no change. So,
for example, after the convention and the assassination attempt. Our second most recent poll, we had Trump up nine against Biden. Our first poll, almost recent poll Trump against Harris, Trump is up eight and.
Trump's numbers aren't down significantly.
What it is is that Democrats were so depressed and disenchanted with Biden by the time he dropped out. The fact they now have a living, breathing candidate, they are relieved, They are at least temporarily energized. And some of them who were not going to vote, and some of them who are going to vote for Robert Kennedy Junior as a sort of sort of protest, I've sort of come back.
So Harris is the margin between Harris and Trump is one point in our polling, different less different than what it was, smaller than what it was between Trump and Biden. And if you look at, you know, all the demographic breakdown, all of those numbers that were looking so good for Trump and so bad for Biden among blacks and Hispanics, even amongst women, the white working class in the PA, and they're all those numbers haven't shifted.
Those numbers are still the same. Now this is the.
First poll, you know, we'll be doing lots of polls between now and November five. Yep, but there's no Well, my point is that we've been told as a search that everything's changed now, and what I'm suggesting to your audience is that there is no us there's no rigorous empirical evidence to support that.
I'm looking at the the figures that you mentioned. I only had to spool down two pages and I found it and realized that I was in era. But I did wonder. I had wondered that poll was done. I'm looking at the demographic subgroups just at the moment, and then there's the main one forty eight to forty to Harris above it. That was done after after Joe stood down and she was declared the runner, or prior to that.
Yeah, it was afterwards, because he stood down on the Sunday, and then in the next forty eight to seventy two hours, I mean, she declared her.
It was immediately she was endorsed by Bob.
The only thing that hadn't happened by the time we took the poll is Obama hadn't endorsed her, but everyone had come together. They'd announced that there weren't going to be any other candidates allowed at the convention, et cetera, et cetera. So at that point, the only shooter drop was and I thought this might be possible that Obama
because he didn't want Harris. But it turns out he's been out maneuvered by her and her cabal, that he was holding back an endorsement because he had another candidate in mind and he was going to jump He's going to throw in at the convention. And I thought that might be you know that if it was a silver bullet for the Democrats, that would be it. Obama being a very savvy operator in these in these regards, but he saw the writing on the wall. He wasn't able
to wouldn't be able to get Harris out. So subsequent to that poll, he's endorsed. Obviously, he's endorsed Harris.
I'm interested also in who convinced Biden to leave in people's opinion, and that runs from thirty six percent thinks Obama, and surprisingly who convinced Biden to leave on four percent was Jill Biden.
Yes, yes, well people recognize, I mean it's you know, it's not exactly a secret that Joe Biden didn't want to go. But there was a there was a window of persuadability there. But Jill Biden everybody knew she had. She was gripping on to the furniture in the Oval office. She was not going to give up her presidency. I mean, I'm sorry, her position is first Lady without a fight, right literally, I mean, there are strong rooms. I don't know if they're true, but I suspect they may be that.
For the past two years, Joe Biden was okay with leaving as long as he left was able to leave with his head held high, but Jill.
Biden refused to go along with it.
And more recently, of course, Joe Biden wasn't going and didn't go with his head held high.
And that was his problem.
He just couldn't bear the thought of being ousted and what that would mean for his legacy.
And of course, it turns out they.
Were able to get him out because Obama and Harris were able to tell him, you know, look, you either go now or we're going to, you know, in vote the twenty fifth Amendment and we'll get the votes and they'll kick you out because you're incapacitated.
And how that going to look on your legacy?
So you know, the Letter of two evils as far as by Joe Biden was concerned, but I'm sure Jill Biden probably had to be medicated in order to get her literally out of the building.
Well, come time for the changeover, I think they should have armguards on the on the White House, indeed, especially the furniture rooms. Let me just ask you for your personal opinion on how this will turn out. I mean, I know it's a long call still, but how do you think it will end up?
Strictly the election itself.
Yeah, with the obvious but necessary caveat that anything can happen with ninety nine days out of the time I'm speaking with you, Layton, so with less than one hundred days, there's plenty of time for something major to happen. And obviously the last several weeks tell us that major things can happen, some predictable, some not.
So with that caveat out of.
The way, I would say it is highly improbable that Harris can pull this off. And just to sort of hopefully the audience ske sort of Pracie my rationale. If you're looking at this, you take the names away, take Harris away, and all the pros and the connotations that go with that name, and Trump away and the connotations
that go with his name. You look at the state of the country economically, socially, in terms of foreign policy, place in the world, all of that, and you look not just at the raw numbers, but you look at what people what most people, what their quality of life is, what their what their fears, frustrations are, their anger, how they see the direction of the country, how see their own they see their own futures.
You see.
You look at how young people are viewing things quite differently than they.
Were when Obama was president.
You look at how Hispanics are looking at uh looking heavily towards the Republicans in a way they happened since George W.
Bush. You look at how arguably a fifth to a quarter.
Of black voters seriously thinking of voting in a way that they ever voted before. And then you say, you have a president, if a former president running whose presidency, whilst almost would argue it was demonstrably far superior to the one that followed it, the current one. The important point is that if you ask, if you ask Americans what they think of Trump's presidency, was it a success or a failure. Was it better or worse than what's come?
Since they have always been surprisingly positive about Trump's presidency, will they be passing month of the Biden presidency, they become more favorable. So now the retrospective for you on Trump the fore and president is more positive than negative, much more. And then you have a vice president attempted to succeed the president who.
Has never run for national office.
Well, she's run for her party's nomination once, but did so poorly. She had to get out before any votes were cast because it was going to be a disaster. Who who throughout her Korea has never won a competitive race, you know, just hasn't it hasn't had that opportunity or.
Or has failed when she's when she's attempted it.
And who has historically low favorability ratings, and is ranked ranked by the public, not by historians, but it's ranked by the public as of the worst vice president anyone can remember. You pull that together, and it's hard to see how it adds up literally or figuratively in favor of Harris. It just, you know, it's just the trends
aren't there, The signs aren't there. It doesn't you know, It just doesn't seem plausible that a race that was Trump's almost guarantee to win ten days ago is going to be a close run thing because they swapped out a very unpopular president for an even more unpopular candidate.
Now I'm going to count to you because she has won something where she was voted in.
Did you know that which will voted into to which position?
Well, let me quote you and declare from the current Spectator Australia. James Allen, Who's Jim Allen, who is a Canadian law professor who works in Well, he was in New Zealand for a number of years and now in Queensland. I will to quote you a diversity pick in the oval office. Carl Harris does have one political victory. It's the only democratically chosen office that saw her run required actual voters to pick the winner, and she won. That was back in twenty ten when Miss Arras ran for
the office of Attorney General of California. In that election, Jerry Brown won the governorship against the Republican by thirteen points. Barbara Boxer defeated her Republican opponent for the California Senate seat race that year by ten points, and Kamala Harris defeated the Republican candidate in twenty ten by wait for it, zero point eight percent. Yes, yes, and that's in California. Let me remind you exactly.
She has the unique status of being the only Democrat in California to turn and an uncompetitive state wide race into a competitive one.
Yeah, and that you.
Know, this is this is who they're hanging their hopes upon, right and we see, I mean, just we know all how wonderful it's going for her.
We've been told the last few days. But if you see what.
What they're doing, how they're campaigning, it tells us a lot. Because the Kamal Harris campaign, they started advertising and they started their messaging, and she is to this point clearly running as the woke candidate. It's all it's all pride stuff, it's all transgender. There's not a white man in sightly, it's not a white, straight white man. I mean, it's
the identity politics to the max. They are obviously believing that the California electurer is the national electurer, or that there are all these hidden woke voters who no one else has discovered yet, who are going to come out none of the hills, but you know, come out of their their wine bars and their suburban mansions and vote for her. Whereas at the same time, the Trump campaign in the Swing States are running attack ads against Harris on crime and immigration and running their own ads pro
Trump ads on immigration in the economy. I mean, just what they're focusing on and how they're focusing on it gives a strong signal as to which side, regardless of whose right or wrong policy wise, but which side gets it in terms of where the electorate is, you know.
So it's I just don't see the magic yet.
Maybe it's all going to pop up soon at the convention or afterwards or during a debate, But that seems highly unlikely, doesn't it.
It does seem highly unlikely. I based my prediction in twenty sixteen that Trump would win on the fact that I could not believe and would not believe that the majority, well the collective IQ of Americans, was so stupid as to elect the other party who deserves and I mentioned, uh, and I'm and I'm basing my prediction for this one on exactly the same reasoning. Now, I want to I want to transfer a little bit because the title of that James Allen article a diversity pick in the Oval Office.
Alex Berenson, the journalist and author. Have you ever read any of his his spy type books.
I haven't.
I'm more familiar with him during the COVID and post COVID period with his critiques.
Of yeah in that regard, Yeah, yeah, he wrote some. He wrote a series. You know, there were a number of series of books starring in each series from different authors of you know, one particular hero, and he had one, and I've got a collection of them. I just thought i'd tell you he's written a piece that's about another piece. If I'm making sense, and his is headed read this and weak and then it brackets and be outraged. Heather McDonald's been writing about the war on men for a while.
Today in City Journal she turned her attention to the Boy Scouts, who are no longer the boy Scouts at all, but Scouting America. Now. This is all about DEI and associated woke matters. And when you read, and you can, if you go to a Cityjournal dot org Cityjournal dot org, you'll find the full piece written by Heather McDonald, and it's worthy of attention. The Boy Scouts of America has a Chief Diversity Officer and Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion.
The organization requires all Eagle Scouts to earn a badge in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. And I can't go on because I'll throw up. I wonder if well you tell me, you tell us is wokeness and DEI on the way? Is it under threat or is it still raging?
It is all of the Abovely, it is still raging because those who advocate for it, and more specifically, those in positions either positions created to advocate for it, usually paid for by the taxpayer or paid for courtesy of big business. Those folks are true believers, and of course they want the cottage industry to continue to continue to grow.
So that is not going to stop until they are stopped, until, for example, you know, Coca Cola and McDonald's and you name the big multinational, until they eliminate these positions, until the government eliminates these positions, until the academy ellict eliminates these positions, these folks will continue making their often high
six figure salaries and pouring out more of this nonsense. However, as more and more regular folk come to understand what is going on, what has been going on, and what the plans are for the future. The normal, the regular folk. The regular person's response is that they too are horrified. They're baffled. At first, people don't believe it's true because it is so bizarre, so surreal, so ridiculous, so farcical.
And then they discover.
Because they started looking at their kids' textbooks, or they talk to people they work with and their experience in the service, that they watch Disney films and programs. But this is actually true, and most people think the world's gone mad. There's not much they can do about it.
But some people, particularly when it comes to education. Parents, a lot of parents are trying to take back control, which is something that not just the woosters what the liberal elites who govern education in most Western countries are very resistant to allow to give that control back, not just in a power sense, but ideologically.
They actually think the parents shouldn't have control.
The government should have control of your kid's education, obviously, and so public opinion, which didn't really consider these things until fairly recently, is massively overwhelmingly against all of this madness. And those politicians who are brave enough to step out in front of that public opinion and sort of tend to walk walk in front of it, lead it as
best they can, you know, tend to do well. But most politicians are still scared because they don't want to be labeled racist and homophobic and all the rest of it.
And just in terms of public opinion itself, just as this.
Either be real, I mean, may or may not be reassuring to your audience, but just as overwhelmingly voters are against these transgender policies or you you know, the critical race theory or d I and all of that, these are not racist, homophobic, misogynistic people.
They recognize there's a great deal. Look, there's all the limbs in the.
World between treating everyone equally regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation and treating some groups discriminating in favor of certain groups because they are the minority.
Uh.
And so the people get it now, more and more politicians get it. But we're still a long way from getting rid of it. Because as obviously, the the woosters, the woke industry has you know, established pretty strong roots in some places, and every you know, every Olympics opening ceremony to bacle helps you know, helps thots.
Well, it's just got a great big boost. Yes Watching television yesterday, there was a sequence of commentaries by Kamala Harris of her talking about equity, equity, equity, equity, equity everywhere, and he just went on and on and on different speeches and in equity, repeating herself. And if the if the American public realizing that voted for her and she became the president, I think of Mary, I think you'd move out.
Oh, it's yeah, it's it's pretty unimaginable because, you know, when people were voting for Biden, here's somebody who's demonstrably.
Corrupt on Earth the call and challenged in various ways.
But he's someone who always, at least within his own party, just went with the flow.
Right.
He was pro segregation at the beginning.
He ended up being on the woke side because that's just way the way the music was playing, and he just you know, tried to go with that and very successfully throughout you know, forty to fifty year career. Well, Kamala Harris, she has to leaves this stuff, right. I mean, she she is someone who is I mean, she's not very bright. That's one problem, and she's rather unethical, that's another problem. But she actually is a true believer. I mean,
she can't do anything more than spout talking points. She can't debate it, she can't defend it, but she actually likes it. You know, she wants more of it. And you know, her problem is not that Trump's wall wasn't finished, that it was started in the first place.
I mean, that's why you know JD. Vass is debating her.
I'd like him, for example, to ask her, which of your Marxist economist father's beliefs did you do you agree with? And which do you disagree with? You know, I mean it's you know, it's in the DNA. I mean, I think he was a thousand times smarter than her. It's wrong on everything. She's wrong on everything and not very smart. So it's it's even more alarming and probably even more dangerous than if she if she was actually a smart Marxist or a dim opportunist like Biden.
Well, if he answered that sort of question, she'd probably answer along the lines of what's gone before?
Yeah, exactly exactly.
And I mean the next spicacle of the press question, of course, is to ask her what the reparations she's cutting, giving her family slaveholding history in the Caribbean. But she's she's she's there's so much low hanging fruit with a candidate like her right in California. It's more difficult because California is California. But in terms of what she has to do to win, you know, she doesn't have to
convert people in Manhattan or even people in Florida. She has to convert white blue collar men in the rust belt, right.
She has to. She doesn't mean she doesn't like white men. She doesn't like white people bring much at all, and she has to convert them.
And they're worried about illegal immigration and inflation and the lack of manufacturing jobs and crime.
It's a heavy lift for a candidate like her.
Indeed, just finally want to quote you somebody named Matthew Garrett. To my colleagues at Bakersfield College and nationwide, I say, keep the faith. We are winning the battle one case at a time. Is a conservative professor who got disciplined for criticizing DEI and has won two point four million dollars to settle the lawsuit against the college. Isn't that great news? Headlines?
It is great, and there are things happening in the last let's say, twelve months that weren't happening twenty four, thirty six, forty eight months ago, and this is very encouraging. There were occasional victories, now the victories are starting to pile up. Right, Are we at a currical mass? We are in terms of we are in a critical mass in terms of public opinion. But are we at a critical mass in terms of policy, legislation, the law, in terms of those who are those who are making decisions in
politics or in the corporate world, in academia. No, we're not, but we appear to be closer, much closer than we were.
And how this election goes in November, not just presidentially, but at the congressional level as well, is going to tell us a lot about whether that momentum, positive momentum, continues and we can kind of see the promised land somewhere, maybe far in the distance, but at least it's there, or whether we sort of look at each other and say, my god, you know it's time to run for the.
Hills lot as there's caves in the hills. I will take this opportunity to say, well, actually, to ask you how often, how frequently are you going to be running the pulling?
At least at least monthly, but it's probably going to be twice a month the way things are looking now.
All right, So I will utilize your figures and whenever it is appropriate we shall talk. If you accept my invitation.
Absolutely, whenever you think I can be helpful, I will endeavor to do so.
It is great talking to you again, Thank.
You, Thank you late, and pleasure in honors Mine.
Layton Smith.
There are essential fat nutrients that we need in our diets as the body can't manufacture them. These are Omega three and Amiga six fatty acids. Equisine is a combination of fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil, a formula that provides an excellent source of Amiga three and Amiga six fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios. The Omega six from evening primrose oil assists the Omega three fish
oil to be more effective. Equisine is a high quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil that works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Sourced from the deep sea sardines, Anchovisa magril provide essential Omega three fatty acids in their purest form without any internal organs or toxins. Every batch is tested for its purity before it's allowed to be sold. Equisine supports cells to be flexible, so important to support
healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health. Equisine can support mood, balance and mental clarity and focus in children, all the way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus, brain health and healthy eyes as we get older. Equisine is a premium high grade fish and evening primrose oil to be taken in addition to a healthy diet and is only available from pharmacies and health stores. Always read the label and users directed and if symptoms persist, seeing your healthcare professional.
Farmer Broker Auckland. Part two of the eighty minute interview that we did with Ramesh the khur So, bringing it back to the to the to the present and another matter. We all agreed that speech, free speech is very important. You can't have democracy without free speech, It's not possible. So there was somebody who was in a crossover consistency.
I suppose there was somebody who spent a long time either either penned up or in jail, who has very recently been released, of course, and that is Julian Assange. And you wrote on you called the column defending Assange. I started out, if I may. I started out years ago thinking he was guilty and deserved what he got. But as time went by and I found out more, in the end came to a to a different conclusion.
Now I have I have family members who have been US military people in the States, and so if I said this even today, I'd get my head torn off because because they haven't changed their minds. But my final word to people who say, well, why do you think so, is because he has been He has spent his time being behind bars and inhibited from from doing anything outside of four walls for a long long time, so he's paid the price. Anyway.
You say, well again, I'm in via at the same page in story now you and I. But we obviously began differently because from the start I didn't think he should have been interested if for another reasons. Firstly, he's an Australian citizen. If you and I break an American law, they can arrest us if you're in the United States. I don't see why their law should apply extraterritorially twelves here.
So that's the first thing to remember, and of course that makes it worse when they start talking about treason, Well, your country. You can't be guilty of treason against another country. It has to be your country. So I think second, this convention of releasing information that you have that may cause embarrassment discomfort to governments, if you do it.
Responsibly as media.
And withhold information rather than publish it that, in your judgment, is going to endanger lives, then that has a long and distinguished history, which as far as press freedom is concerned, I don't have any problem with the media cooperating with authorities not to put lives at risk. And so in that article I did say, if in fact the disclosures did lead to jeopardizing the lives of soldiers, then identify that and prosecute those individually rather than a blanket back.
And what he was doing was he was publishing information that showed illegal and possibly criminal activities by our own governments, and that should never be punishable under our us if you've got it to the rule of law and the.
Freedom of the press.
I think that is exactly what visual protection laws are needed for and have evolved over time because we recognize that. So the comparison to the Pentagon papers, I think is very direct. And that example I gave of Australia's agencies snooping on the East timor ease is after well, we condemned these actions and when the Chinese and the Russians and the Iranians do it, and I think we should condemn the persecution of people on those lines as well.
So yes, if Asciance disclosed anything that led to identifiable threats against people, far by all means prosecute them.
For that is.
No, I am not aware of a single case where it has actually put someone's laugh at risk. Now and for my point of is the single best example of why I think I have been supporting me is that video that I refert. Have you seen that video from Baghdad in around two thousand and four where a helicopter gunship.
Kills some people? Yes, yes I did.
Because I gave the link to that that's still up on the leg because I used to show that in my lecture on human rights. In my classes, I would show that slip and says, you know, this is why the rest of the world reacts so cynically to the rhetoric of Western countries. They have no credibility in saying
they're committed to human rights. You're talking to the US military as I was living next to a serving US Air Force kernel when I was in Tokyo, and after the pictures of our grave and things like that came out, he just came home and there and says, for the first time in his life he feels the shame wearing the uniform for the American military. So I think you know the same argument we use about the police. If you close ranks and you the one bad apple, you
condemn the whole barrel of apples. If you're going to protect the honor and reputation of the military as you should, then I think you have to call out the UK bad person and punish them. Bring in mind that they make difficult choices in the fog before, that's one thing. But if they make deliberate choices to engage in activities that under own laws are prohibited and a criminal may be criminal.
It goes back to.
How do you accept gain of function research being funded and then overseas jurisdiction because it's banned in your own country. I think it's just as bad.
So should doctor Faci be in in he should be in the dock. I was thinking beyond the dock. He he No, he isn't titled to the dew process. Oh sure, I'm but sure, But I didn't mean I didn't. Yeah, that would escape procedure. But I want procedure to take Well, that's what I mean.
He should be in the dog. He should be charged, and he should be made to answer for that. And he's and he's all alone.
Either. Look, if I may, If I may, there's a couple of other a couple of other areas that I would like to touch with you.
Last last let me just let me just turn the back on you. So if if, if Fauci is approving that, but the money comes from Defense Department because they're engaged in the effort to develop defensive defenses against use of biological weapons, do we say someone who releases that then is a criminal and should be charged.
I mean it's the same arguments. Some stage.
If activities are being done that are illegal, and they're burning done by our side, then we do need mechanisms to find out about that. And I don't think we should persecute in this case, people release that information.
Well, i'd agree with that. Whistleblowers generally serve, serve well, doing public service generally.
Yeah, but I do I do maintain that other thing. If in fact some of that information did cause identifiable harm to individuals, then go after him.
That's fine, I have no problem that good. The events that took place place last Friday, in the middle of all the other stuff with this global outage, the crowd strike global outage, Yeah, I think the anti virus software company say that again, the anti virus software company, Ah, it shows the dangers of centralized reliance on technology. Well, that's exactly my point. It was the first thing that I said to to this producer, to my wife that
there's an there's there's a prime example. It's the best one I've seen for a long time, prime example of why cash should be maintained forever. H well, certainly for the foreseeable future. And the replacement of cash, the withdrawal of cash. And my understanding tell me if I'm wrong, because if somebody only told me this a couple of days ago from from Sydney, is that they've announced the government's announced that cash will be gone in two years
in Australia, I haven't seen that. Yeah, well I've got I've got I've got a feeling this particular person's got it mixed up just slightly, but they're certainly heading everywhere. Not necessarily if you're heading that fare.
And I'm in the past couple of years, I've constantly begun to use cash more and more. Well, I think you're just putting ourselves at risk of complete social credit system and government control.
That's the collusion with a big tech that's that's the that's the name of the game exactly.
So so I am actually using cash a lot more now, right, drawing cash and using it so obviously for a lot of things you can't but central bank and on that Frida, by the way, that's when I came back.
I was lucky to escape that. I have traveled, I have I have a friend who will be listening to this at some stage who was caught caught in Los Angeles with his son, young son, and I'm yet to get the picture, but I believe he's got a good
story to tell. So the danger of centralized digital wealth, central bank digital currencies is there, is there the possibility in your mind that they could exist in conjunction with the current system, or do you think that the introduction of cbdc's will just provide leverage for for removing cash.
We've seen two things. One is governments of different political persuasions have discovered that the share of common interest in gaining hold over technology that allows them to exit more and more control over their own citizens.
And so.
Justin Todau in Canada had no compunction in the banking and the financializing people associated with the Freedom Convoy of truckers, and that included people who were giving ten dollars twenty dollars more donations as well and.
Freezing their assets.
Now mister Mody looks at that and he says, what a good idea. And weeks before the Indian election, the opposition Congress party has its assets frozen under some alleged violation of some laws or the He sees the weaponization of the justice system and jailing of opponents in the United States and he says, well, if the world's most powerful democracy can do that, so it can be. And I think there were three incumbent chief ministers at state level who were put in jail. The head of the
General election and their ability to campaign was impeded. So that's one side that governments have a shared interest in expanding their power to control their citizens' activities and monitor the citizens' citizens financial transactions, and they're moving in that direction. So there's that site. The second thing is the elements of the private sector discovering they have a shared interest with governments and being able to monitor and surveil what we are doing in terms.
Of what by very by, and being able.
To nudge our preferences towards particular products or to towards particular ideologies and political parties. So that double centralization is all at the expense of our liberties and freedom of action and freedom from being monitored and put on the surveillance, whether it's for our commercial activities purchasing history, or whether
it's for our political leanings and tendencies. So yes, it goes back into that broader theme that varies me more and more that we are moving into a world of big Brother, in which big Brother is a combined national
and global behemoth. And you see that with the legacy media in terms of news God and this and that and then garm whatever the thing calls for, Where where they're trying to remove from the plug is public sphere, essentially people whose values or opinions they disagree with m and that's happening more and more so it does worry me.
Well it is happening in Australia.
Yes, we have the Safety Commissioner who's goes after the opinions of people. And do you remember this. She's an American important and she took on a fight with your own mosque on some things, so there you know.
This was this.
She asked for a couple of things. One was the famous one where she wanted footage of the stabbing of the archbishop. Yes, taken off not just in Australia but globally. So the e Safety Commissioner, one individual with her staff, asserted the right to decide what other people from in other countries can and cannot watch. And it wasn't the case of misinformation because this was an actual event that had happened and she was saying, well, this may not
be wasted. At the same time, other things that were worse from a physical violence point of view was still available.
So there's that.
But there's something else in respect of gender ideology that she was trying the same thing in Australia. But this is a phenomenon that that bureaucrats and technocrats decide what we should think, what we should say, what we should believe in, what we should buy, who should produce what
under what ours. So it's that assertion of government control over all aspects of our daily activities that we witnessed under COVID now being now the effort is being yet to institutionalize and embed that as a permanent feature, which is exactly what we were saying at the time that if you comply. Now, don't be surprised you start to expand and repeat this in other sectors.
Yes, and there's still still much to be said about about the COVID era. Yeah, but it's the same.
You know, why why should the government decide that we have to switch to electric vehicles.
I'll just save the planet. Yeah sure, but surely you know that.
But you know, when when different forms of transport come along and they have obvious benefits and cons and advantages, people switch. Well, I think it's starting for government's picking winners with regard to you know, you you have to use renewables, you have to do electric vehicles, and again the calculations that they don't They don't add up when you actually go through it as well. So governments are
no better at picking winners today. In fact, they might be worse than they have historically been.
Well you've got you've got media companies still refusing to entertain any alternative viewpoint when it comes to matters climate and serving the planet, et cetera. And we've got them. We've got them here, and they are disgrace because of it. But I'm hoping that sooner or later something will happen. There's one other thing I wanted to mention with regard with regard to privacy, and that it is directly linked
to CBDCs et cetera. Privacy. We have people in positions of influence, including one retired Prime minister in this country, who have said, anytime that something comes up about privacy and people not knowing what you're doing, etc. Has said, well, have you got nothing to hide? You've got nothing to fear.
Now.
I know how old that that's saying is, and I have the excital contempt for it. But the question is why are they I've had nobody can explain this to me yet, Why are there intelligent people that simply can't see the light.
Well, that's a deep philosophical question. I think the short answer. My short answer would be that the share of the population, so you're not talking to absolute numbers, but the proportion of the population that habitually engages in independent critical thinking has declined quite dramatically and reflects the switch from education to indoctrination from early childhood all the way through school
and university and spread into all sectors of society. Who would have thought thirty forty years ago the big corporates would think they have any business telling us what we should think, or what values we should adopt, or what positions on controversial social and or contested not controversial, necessarily contested social, political, economic, and even scientific issues, that they have some comparative advantage in knowing what the quote unquote
truth is, the truth is, and telling us their views and we should do what they tell us.
And again on.
That there're certainly in Australia there has been a pushback and a recognition about the media boardrooms that maybe they should pull back from this because they've discovered that a majority of even their employees, shareholders, and certainly their consumers do not align with their views, and it actually affects the bottom line. And when I go into a supermarket, I want fresh produce and quality products at most affordable prices.
I have absolutely no interest in learning about what the view of their CEO might be in relation to any social or political issue. Same with celebrities. And yet they think that the echo chamber of the elites in the different sectors of life has an position of virtuous enlightenment that everyone else should be made to follow.
Well, you know you want to do that, Go ahead and do it. So the World Economic Forum is at what point of its existence and influence? Now? Uh?
Hopefully terminal? I might become a believer in God.
Yet ah, I read, I read what you had to say about religion. I was I was intrigued. But that could be true.
Well, I respect other people's religion, but yes you do, Yeah, and that's of all fits. But I have problems myself and that left religion a long time ago and no desire to go back.
Well, it's a free world, yeah, free will, fee will, So I think we can continue with the free society. Just one one other thing that I would like to include. Why I leave it out? It's your white guilt, not my white privilege. It's a headline from another of yours.
That's a problem. That's the that's a problem, that's right. Yeah, the problem is your white guilt, not my white privilege.
But white guilt and colonization two things that go hand and end at the moment and seem to be motoring along fairly powerfully, are they both in Australia and New Zealand and the USA and Canada. So what's the answer? Well, it's puzzled me obviously.
I mean, look, which major country, or which even middland country can you point out to me today whose borders do not reflect the use of force?
Perhaps repeatedly in his history.
It's been a part of history, and it's been a part of the natural world as well, and I suspect it will stay the case for a long time yet. So if you're going to go back to the equivalent of trying to trace the original sin, we're going to lead to the most massive upheaval we've ever known, and volatility and fighting all over again. So how do we reconcile existing borders with present day values? Well, we don't
do that by reversing history. One second. I think the net contribution of Western civilizations to global human welfare on prosperity and education and longevity has been greater than that of any other civilization and culture. And that's not such a hard thing to document. In terms of the aspirations that pretty much people's all over the world now have two emulating the lifestyles and the benefits, the material benefits
and the intellectual benefits of that. And even with respect to slavery, for example, the slave trade, again I think it's not that difficult to document that probably the biggest contribution to ending the slave trade, and some of the highest costs that were made that were paid in that effort, that came from Britain, and the biggest guilty parties in the origins and volume of the slave trade would include
the Arabs and the Africans. So why this focus on the sense of guilt And if that sense of guilt was real and I'm sure I've said this, if not to you, then to some other interview in New Zealand, if that centers of guilt was real, and if that sense of moral censure was real and genuine, authentic, then huge numbers of people from the non Western countries would not still be fighting to get into the West, and it seems to be a confected outrage at the historical
role that some Western countries have had to play.
Other other thing.
Anyone denies that, and all in favor of having an honest accounting in our history books. But the honest accounting goes both ways as well. I think there were benefits that were brought to millions of people around the world by Western civilization, and there were costs steps were brought and in some cases resulting in genocide or neo genocide
of indigenous populations. But that is part of history, and I think we should study history and learn from that, but not engaged in an endless self vagulation which is unmerited and self destructive. I think in one of the articles that they'd say it's like Western societies are bent on feeding their fuel into the fire that is consuming them, which I find very puzzling. So the net contribution of Western civilization I think has been positive rather than negative.
Other countries have also had stayed pasts, and we acknowledge that we don't necessarily condone that. We certainly don't want to have that nece society today, but I think we should just insist on treating everyone who's lawfully in our country and is a citizen the same, without distinction on grounds of race or religion or whatever else inherited treat So I don't understand the white guilt part, and if it does exist, I don't see why I, who have not been part of that, should be made to suffer
for that either. So it goes back to where we started off and the general attitude almost the overseas Indians as well, that what we want is to be left alone and given the same opportunities. Well maybe if we should an't that it's equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. So I still prefer the phrase equality of opportunity rather than equity because that tries to look at it in
terms of outcomes. And you've seen that, you know the decision from the US Supreme Court late last year whenever it was on the Harvard admissions case. Japanese, none of the Asian Americans who would have taken the case too in the court system.
But weren't there weren't there a lot of Japanese students who were involved in it. No, it was Chinese and Indians more than Japanese.
It's but the Asian Americans were amongst the highest academic scores and the lowest rates of admission. I think you needed to be for an Asian American, it's you needed to be in the ninetieth persentile, and your chances were still lower than a Black in the fortieth personile, a Hispanic in the sixtieth personyle, and a white in the eightieth personile. So the four groups, the Asian Americans had to be the most complet and in medical schools in
the different studies. Short this is from the American Enterprise Institute. I think for medical schools, you on the same score, a Black American had more than ten times a prospect of getting admitted to medical school compared to an Asian American. And again then it was the Hispanics the second most advantage and the words third, and the Asians were at the bottom. So that was what they had taken it.
It's very easy to demonstrate statistically. And finally the Supreme Court said racial criteri you were illegal.
So it goes back to the same thing.
You believe in merit, you believe in the quality of opportunity, and you believe in rewarding hard work. Then you get a different student profile in universities and med schools and stuff. Then if you start talking about equity and diversity. And by the way, we've seen, going back to the pushback argument, a lot of companies are now starting to dismantle the deer elements of their bureaucracy, and so they should yep,
And well you see that, you saw the results of that. Well, now there are allegations that that is partly to explain the security failures with regard to the assassination attempt on Trump.
Yes, with the Secret Service.
Being interested in these efforts more than in basic competence. And you'd think, well, it shouldn't affect universities, until suddenly it I mean the consequence of that agenda, until suddenly it did. When the three famous university presidents could not answer a basic question under congressional testimony as to where the calls to engage in ethnic expulsion of Jews or whatever genesida Jews was to be prohibited. You remember how they were completely unable to answer the simple moral question.
God yes comes back.
And all three happened to be women presidents, and the Harvard one was clearly a diversity higher clearly or what diversity higher I think for that phrase, that phrase has become a presorative term now and they're saying that the chief of the Secret Service is a diversity higher and you see the results.
Well, it was, there was, there was.
She may not survive tomorrow's hearing it in Congress on sorry, there was.
There was a similar similar lineup and they were all males, roughly around the same time. Asked us being asked in in the in the House inquiry how much? How much CO two was there in the atmosphere? Few of them, none of them knew, not one had no idea and it was hell. We started this long but excellent conversation with a quick mention of your book our enemy the government. Let's conclude on it.
Why the title, Well, if you have a commitment to human rights, you face attention. The worst breaches of human rights and violations of human rights occur in conditions of anarchy, and you need the machinery of government and the legislative, executive and judicial frameworks to enforce.
Human rights.
Laws and values, to legislate and enforce them. At the same time, if you do have stable, effective function government, then potentially the biggest threat to your human rights comes from governments, and these are the powerful entrance toutality in states with their government machinery, in countries like Nazi Germany, like communss China, like Communist Soviet Union. As it was, so that tension is an ongoing reality and we need
to navigate that. And parts many parts of what we've been talking about for the past hour or whatever it has been, has been in relation to the growing threats to our freedom and civil leuties that comes from over centralization and over expansion of the state into spheres of social and personal activity that hitherto were separate and considered sacrosanct and none of the state's business, like telling us which type of car we should buy, or which type
of car manufacturers should make and produce, and punishing dealers if they don't sell x percentage of a particular type of vehicle. Governments should stay out of these sources of actctivities. In that sense, our common enemy, just as governments have a common interest in expanding the power at the expense of citizens, see the people's share a common interest in limiting the powers of governments.
Hence our enemy the government. And it's a very good book, and I recommend it. One other thing that I want to recommend, Ramesh, is the transcript of the interview that you did with Epic TV or Epoch TV, whichever with someone from American Thought Leaders, and it runs eighteen pages and it's full of great information, great commentary, and I was actually sort of a bit envious when I read
it that I hadn't done it, But nevertheless it's superb. Yes, I didn't know how to pronounce his name, but it's it's You'll find it under the Romesha's name on the on the Brownstone site. You just have to. You just have to dig it at do a search the new biosecurity state, and you'll get even more from that than on top of what we've discussed in the last in the last eighteen minutes, so you see time flies when you're enjoying yourself.
I want to thank you. Add one thing so that don't leave a wrong impression. Going back to the secret servicing, when the assassination on Trump, sure, I think I would like to acknowledge that the courage of the individual members of the immediate protective Unit, including the women, was no less than that of the men when they all threw themselves and formed a protective shield around Trump. So that wasn't a comment on you know, I wasn't trying to
demonize or not technowledge contributions to individual members. But the factory means that the women members were not the size and height of the male members and therefore they could not completely form that human shield when he will come and he stood up again.
That's the point, and that's the point that has been made. And I have been in the same position that you have and had to had to say that it wasn't. It wasn't the fact that they were women, and you may you've maybe do something that I reached across and picked up a book and I bought this book for my one of one of the girls, and it's by an ex Secret Service agent whose name is Ivy Pomperess. Okay, and there's two things I would observe. When Carolyn saw
the picture of her, she said, Wow, she's beautiful. I couldn't say anything. But if I'd said that, you know, what, what do you think it'd be out of for she's a woman. The point being The book is called Becoming Bulletproof Life Lessons from a Secret Service Agent former former Protective Detail for three presidents and recipient of the of
the Medal of Valor Award. And I can't swear to this, but I'm pretty sure she's five foot two mm five foot two, which was probably shorter than those those women the other the other the other day. But she was patently very successful as a secret service agent. M And on that note, I want to thank you, very very very sincerely for a marathon effort. I'll leave you alone for a little while, but your opinions are valuable, worthwhile
and to be heard by as many as possible. Thanks lessen into the mail room for two hundred and forty nine, MISSUS producer.
Welcome lighton.
How are you very well?
Great?
It would be rude of me not to ask how are you?
I'm always good. Thank you so much.
I knew then I could have written the script anyway. Let me begin from Dawn, reinforced by your earlier interview of an authority on US international affairs. The name alludes me to the effect that the Moscow Beijing Iran clique is at pains to sustain the Biden Democrat regime. I warmed to the above. Peace Harris given to hysterical outbursts of laughter is an airhead. She watched her Biden brief to deal with the exponential invasion of refugees across the
Texas border, so damaging to USA society and infrastructure. To my mind, her present popular surge reflects mere public relief from a medically senile, long incompetent Biden, whose leadership is redolent of the adurn brand of progressive change early days. Yet a couple of things to comment on that, just briefly given to hysterical outbursts of laughter is an airhead. Oh, I think I could do better than that, to be honest, watched her Biden brief to deal with the exponential invasion
of refugees across the Texas border. I don't know that I can agree with that statement. And you'll understand why she was installed, so to speak, as the czar of the border or whatever. But that meant nothing because this has all been intentional. It was all. It was all just window dressing, because that was the intent as many as possible. And by the way, there are now appearing signs evidence in fact of the fact that they're signing them up to vote in this election.
Leighton Colin says the podcast with Ramashakur was very interesting, especially on Donald Trump.
One piece.
He said it is important for Trump to pick a person for the vice presidency that would be in tune with his ideas and understand him. That night, after I played the podcast, I tuned into an interview by Jesse Walters on Sky when he had Donald Trump and JD. Vance on so keeping in mind what Tha Kerr had said, I was really pleased with what I saw. The two guests were adding to each other's statements and bringing each other into the mix, even sometimes finishing each other's sentences.
It was an interview that showed a chemistry between the two men. The Republican Party needs to push this hard, as quite often the USA has had a presidency ticket that hasn't jelled at all. The Democrats we the woke diversity ticket of Biden and Harris has proven to be very weak and bad for US and for the world.
And Colin is quite correct and by the way, I think I might make more reference to that David Flint's article than Donald wrote about at the end of this podcast. Now, Claire writes this old quote from J. D. Vance has to be one of the funniest ever. Childless cat ladies. Do you find that amusing?
Well, not really, I do, of course you do. A man who won't let me have a cat?
No, no, but it's an old it's an old saying, and he's just he's just resurrected it. And to sort of indicate that she goes on. Derek Hunter, a conservative American with a daily podcast, says frequently quote don't spike the football on the five yard line. In other words, don't count on Trump winning. It ain't over till the fat lady sings on election day. The old fat lady's
getting a workout too. That's from Claire, who, by the way, responds to your question about does she live in America whatever a couple of weeks back, American expat living on the west coast of the South Island.
Lovely's beautiful.
I think I knew that.
Actually you know everything later, No, not quite.
Nick says, longtime fan who greatly appreciates what you do. Just wondering when or if you are getting Patrick Bashion back on the podcast. He was always fascinating to listen to and it would be great to hear his take on what is happening in the States.
Well, what do you reckon, Hey fix that one easily and thanks for the tip. A reference to the article in the New Zealand Herald on the twenty seventh of the seven which was last Saturdays by Stephen Joyce Health New Zealand overhaul sad yet predictable after merger missteps. This Herald piece should be compulsory reading for all its Gainsayers presumably can identify tangible health benefits from mister Little's reforms other than those of an aspirational or anticipatory nature given time.
If so, such benefits are far from obvious, either for Mary or non Mary. That more than a billion dollars of taxpayers money was spent on this ideological exercise is not justifiable, given that it did little more than raise an expectation that health services for Mary would significantly improve. No doubt those across the board languishing in pain on waiting lists for elective surgery would express the matter more vehemently.
Layton Jin says, the choice between Donald Trump's May America Great Again and Kamala Harris what can be unburdened by what has been is a choice between a man no, no, I have no idea what can be She doesn't know either, unburdened by what has been.
I got told her? Who told you that previously?
Oh?
Right?
Is a choice between a man knows what needs to be done because he's been there before, and a woman who merely spouts nonsensical limericks because she's never been able to make it. Karmala Harris is having a cinder o durn moment, thrust into leadership by accident, and totally ill
equipped to be a leader. As Jadie Vance said at last Saturday's campaign rally in Minnesota, if there's one thing we've learned about Kamala Harris, it's that she's had a hard time winning votes because she's too extreme even for the Democrats. Remember, in the twenty twenty primary, Harris dropped out months before they even cast the first vote. She was so unpopular she pulled in the low digit, in the low single digits among the Democrats the entire campaign.
She wasn't even the top three in her home state of California. And that's pretty embarrassing, ladies and gentlemen. That was Jodie Vance's commentary. Trump made a most excellent choice in selecting JD. Van as his vice president because, as Ramesh the curb brilliantly equipped Vance's trump Ism without the Trump character flaws.
And if you think about.
It, this American election is no longer a contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Rather, it is now a contest between JD. Vance and Kamala Harris. I only hope for the sake of the world that Americans have more clever voters than the stupid ones.
God help us either way.
Did I that the fact that Vance was going to debate her and now won't be, of course, because she will be the leader debating Trump is a bit disappointing for the simple reason that he wrote, Actually, I think he'd pack her up and put her on the shelf. Hmm. This is a little different, is personal. Late, after many years of looking at this bottle of Clevedon Hills Ports in the wine cupboard, we have finally opened it and sit in front of the fire here in Marpor enjoying
a delicious, tasty after dinner drink. It is truly very special. Thanks for the wonderful tipple from John and Lindall.
I just.
Have to say there was a bottle of the original, the original bottle, because we had about four or five different bottles with different releases. That was in the cupboard at the back of the cupboard where you couldn't see it, and I dug it out. This is a little while back now dug it out. It was years old and it only had about a a quarter of the bottle in it, so I tried itsolutely outstanding. So I've got about five bottles of the of the last edition of
the Layton Support from Cleveland Hills. What four bottles? I did not know that I have. I think it's five. And I've decided that everybody. There's so many people asking when are you going to do it again? Look, it was made by Enzo Bettio with some of his grapes and most mostly mine, but some of his, and he made it so well, and he's now off the scene. He's not making wine anymore, and it doesn't want to
know about it, which is which is a shame. So these five bottles, I've decided I'm prepared to sell three of them at five thousand dollars a bottle. So anybody who loved it so much and as a spare five, then give me an email.
That'll be the first financial thing that you that you ever do properly you comfort you okay later? This is from Salvatore.
You were right to say that this week's from Esh the Kurr interview was one of your best. His explanation of the politics of the United Nations and the broader un system was absolutely masterful. A fantastic education.
At an email that was decidedly insightful. So finally from Brenda, who wasn't writing to me but copied me in and I think you'll see why when she writes high there to the Reserve Bank. Hi, there, I see on your site there is a submission portal for a digital cash survey. I wouldn't have known about this if it were not for a friend emailing it to me. Can you please
tell me when this was uploaded. I'd like to establish how long you have given people to respond in relation to the complexity of the situation, given that digital currency has the potential to forever change the landscape of our financial system and the way people live. I would like to know what kind of advertising you have done to
let people know this survey is taking place. Most people do not understand what digital money is, let alone what they should or should not be in favor, whether or not they should or should not be in favor of it. I looked at the survey and found it too biased to fill out. The survey works on the premise that respondents agree with the CBDCs and then ask questions that are confusing and in one case contradictory. Despite these issues,
I have made a submission. I urge the Central Bank to extend the deadline of the submission date and make greater effort to inform the public about it. It is deeply concerning that I did not see this survey anywhere, and it should have been in my algorithmic footprint due to my interest in the subject. Additionally, it would be beneficial to reword the survey to allow those who are against cbdc's to express their views without being led by
the questions. Please respond urgently. I have posted this query at the NZ Center for Political Research to see if others were aware that this survey was available. Please advise Brenda. Brilliant approach you've taken, and I will wait to see whether you've got a reply with regard to that. This is producer.
Thank you, Thank you so much.
Later, I've got lots of editing to do.
You do the best bits won't be heard sarcastic bits.
I indicated that I might refer to David Flint's article that was referred to in a letter during the mail Room. At the end of the podcast, we are there and I shall fulfill my suggestion. David Plint has a long history of success in life. An interesting character is one way to describe him. But I want to concentrate on only what really matters as far as his professional identity is concerned. So under the heading of Korea. He was admitted as a lawyer in New South Wales and in
England and Wales. He is Australian. He practiced for a number of years, lecturing in several university business and law schools that included a wide range of subjects including business, tax, antitrust, comparative, constitutional and international law. Now the important part comes under the heading of honors. Flint was awarded World Outstanding Legal Scholar the World Jurists Association, Barcelona in October nineteen ninety one.
On twelve June nineteen ninety five, he was made a Member of the Order of Australia in recognition of service to the print media, particularly as chairman of the Australian Press Council and to international relations. He has written widely on matters and you can only say highly qualified to make comment on many things, but particularly with regard to well.
I think what I'm about to quote you A number of people don't understand my attachment to Donald Trump, and I'm getting weary of explaining, so I thought, so I thought i'd quote David Flint under the heading of a Trump victory is critical. And keep in mind that this is written by an Australian for an Australian audience. As far as I'm concerned, New Zealand is part of that audience,
and New Zealand is not part politically of Australia. But we don't have a closer relationship with any other country. So what he says I think is relevant to New Zealand as well as Australia. Donald Trump's election as the forty seventh president is crucial, and not only to the US.
Four more years of appeasement to the Beijing Moscow Tehran axis, uncontrolled immigration, and the prevalence of climate catastrophism and other alien ideologies risk such damage to the US and Western civilization of which we are part that it could be irreversible. If anybody can return America to the power, respect, and authority she once enjoyed, it is Donald Trump. Here's what
he suggests he will achieve. He'll close the borders to the uncontrolled massive migration that Biden imposed in reach of the law. As the forty seventh president, he will no doubt relieve America from the ideologies of the Long March through her institutions that have imposed themselves on the nation. He will require freeloaders to become true allies. He will return the Beijing, Moscow Tehran axis to the good behavior
that they prudently demonstrated during his first term. He will restore peace in the Middle East, as he did with the Abraham Accords. He has ensured his ideas will continue with his choice of JD. Vance as candidate to vice president, and whatever he does at home will be a lesson for the free world. We must therefore ignore the commentariat that scorned him, just as they scorned Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, John Howard, and Tony Abbotts. And he closes this three
page article with this short comment. Today, few will disagree that this year's election is extremely important as Trump himself says, it is the most important close quote. America is at the crossroads. Only Trump offers salvation. His election is crucial to America and to the free world, including Australia, and I'm adding New Zealand. Now if you disagree with that, I'm going to have a good reason why. Open to your open to your prognostications. And I'll leave it there.
But if you want to read that article, you can probably read it on the I can't guarantee it, but you can properly read it on the Spectator Australia website under the name of David Plint. Otherwise could pay you dues I suppose, and join up with Spectator Australia. This is not a paid ad. I've been saying it for a long time. That will take us out for podcasts. Two hundred and forty nine two fifty a quarter of
a thousand, No big deal, really, I suppose. But there is something else attached to it that I'll make mention of next week. So if you would like to write to us Latent at newstalksb dot co dot Nz or Carolyn at the same address newstalkszeb dot co dot Nz, we shall return shortly with two fifty. In the meantime, let me say, quite genuinely thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.
Thank you for more from News Talks at b Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio