Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Jul 30 2025

Economic Growth!

a stronger-than-expected 3% GDP growth rate in Q2 2025, which they credit to President Trump’s economic policies, including tariffs and trade negotiations. They argue this growth defies mainstream economic predictions and underscores the failure of so-called “experts” and consensus-driven analysis. The conversation critiques the Federal Reserve’s reluctance to lower interest rates, suggesting that doing so could further ignite economic momentum.

In a broader critique of institutional thinking, Clay and Buck explore how Trump’s business acumen and risk-taking mindset have outperformed elite academic economists. They also highlight how high mortgage rates and unchecked illegal immigration are straining the housing market and driving up the cost of living, reinforcing the need for strong immigration enforcement.

Misleading Gaza Narrative

The hour takes a sharp turn into media accountability, focusing on a New York Times front-page story that used a misleading photo of a malnourished child in Gaza. The child was later revealed to have preexisting health conditions, not starvation. The hosts accuse the Times of intentional propaganda aimed at vilifying Israel and manipulating global opinion. They call out the lack of transparency in the correction and draw parallels to past media failures, including the Russia collusion narrative and historical cover-ups.  Listeners are reminded of the importance of media skepticism, especially in high-stakes geopolitical conflicts. The segment ends with a passionate defense of Israel, a call for journalistic integrity, and a warning about the dangers of misinformation.

UT Senator Mike Lee

Utah Senator Mike Lee of Utah addresses the growing Senate confirmation backlog under President Trump. Lee criticizes the procedural delays that have stalled over 150 judicial and U.S. attorney nominations, attributing the obstruction to Senate Democrats and entrenched deep state bureaucrats. He calls for aggressive action, including exhausting the Senate into compliance and reconsidering the use of recess appointments, which have been blocked by pro forma sessions.

The conversation transitions to the controversial blue slip rule, a Senate tradition allowing home-state senators to block judicial nominees. Senator Lee argues that Democrats are abusing this custom and warns that continued obstruction could lead to the loss of their blue slip privileges. He also comments on the explosive revelations from FBI Director Kash Patel, who uncovered hidden documents related to the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. Lee describes this as potentially the most significant political scandal in U.S. history and stresses the need for transparency and accountability.

Breaking economic news is also covered, with the Federal Reserve opting not to cut interest rates despite internal dissent. The hosts analyze the implications for inflation, mortgage rates, and the broader Trump economy.

Tomi Lahren is Not a Nazi

Tomi Lahren dissects the media backlash to a new American Eagle ad featuring actress Sydney Sweeney. They argue that the outrage—led by what they describe as “liberal white women”—reflects a broader cultural war in which traditional beauty and normalcy are under attack. Lahren asserts that the left has lost the culture war and is now lashing out, while Clay and Buck highlight how younger Americans are rejecting woke ideology in favor of common sense, health, and attractiveness.

The segment also explores the intersection of masculinity and politics, with the hosts humorously suggesting a correlation between low testosterone levels and left-wing political views. They critique the rise of “male feminists” and argue that modern liberalism alienates average American men. The discussion includes a viral ESPN controversy and a Good Morning America segment that allegedly equated traditional beauty standards with coded extremism.

 

Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8

 

For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/

 

Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton: 

X -

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome it, everybody to the Wednesday edition of the Clay
Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Much to discuss with all
of you across this great land of ours.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Thanks for being here.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
It is steamy down here in South Florida, I can
tell you that much. I'm hearing other places too, feel
in the heat. Feeling the heat good time.

Speaker 3 (00:20):
It's hot in the summer. Every year they seem to
decide that, oh, my goodness, this is the impact of
global warming and everything else. But I can impress upon
you that it has been hot for a long time.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
This is the kind of a student analysis we bring
to you on Clay and Buck. Reminder, it gets hot
in the middle of summer in much of this country
of ours. So yes, indeed, true story. And if you
have the chance, this is a great time to get
into some shade, preferably despite what the Europeans think, indoors
with air conditioning, because air conditioning is one of the

(00:52):
greatest inventions of the last one hundred years or so.
And keep back, relax, listen to some Clay and Buck.
That is the way to beat the heat, my friends,
best way to do it. So we've got some very
good news. We're to dive into on the economy, and
then we have some distressing but not surprising news about

(01:12):
the flagship propaganda newspaper of the Democrats of the New
York Times, that we will dive into, as well as
some follow up to stories from yesterday. Donald Trump also
a whole bunch of commentary on Gaza on the Wall
Street Journal suits that he now has the deep state

(01:34):
and more. So, we've got a lot to dive in.
Let's start though, with this because I think it is
one of those times where even the people who clay
pretty much spend all day thinking about how to bash Trump,
undermine him, say he's terrible, doesn't know what he's doing,
they're having to step back and say, you know what,

(01:55):
it's pretty good.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
What's going on with this economy.

Speaker 1 (01:57):
Actually, I wasn't right when those people weren't right when
they said tariffs, we're gonna ruin everything. Let's start with
this Q two quarter two growth rate, CNBC's Rick Santelli
laying it out for you, play one.

Speaker 4 (02:12):
We are expecting a number round two and a half percent,
and they're out of three percent, up three percent better
than expected. That would be the highest level since the
third quarter of twenty four, when it was up three
point one percent on the consumption side, up one point four,
very close to estimates. Up one point four would be

(02:33):
the best since the last quarter of twenty four.

Speaker 1 (02:38):
Clay, it's a surprise to people who thought Trump was
going to tank the economy. But I'm just going to say,
we're gonna I think we're gonna have to ride along
on Trump's victory lap here for a moment. We told
everybody he's earned the right to the trade negotiations the
way that he wants to. He has earned a space

(02:58):
for everyone to take a beat. You said, don't sell.
By the way, that was very good advice. We're not
a financial show, but better advice here than you get
on a lot of other financial shows. Don't sell. Trump
knows what he's doing. Three percent growth, and just real quickly,
before we die, here's the NBC's Joe Kernin and Rick
Santelli just having a laugh at all the Trump haters

(03:19):
on the economy because that is richuly deserved.

Speaker 2 (03:21):
Right now, Play two.

Speaker 5 (03:22):
The left and people that don't like the president and
don't want things to work, and you know, like Center
Elizabeth Wore will come on and say.

Speaker 2 (03:30):
Inflation's out of controling.

Speaker 5 (03:31):
The economy is getting killed by what's happening by these tariffs.
This three percent with the market at new highs, and
really we haven't seen inflation, you know, go up back
to three for maybe it will this week, maybe we'll
see it. But none of these horrible things have happened.
But they still talk like it's happening.

Speaker 2 (03:49):
It's amazing.

Speaker 4 (03:50):
The Democrats, of course, as you pointed out, really don't
want to see the current administration have some success. But
there's no doubt that this is some success. We're seeing
more war's power, we're seeing better equities, inflation, Inflation really
hasn't changed much in the last.

Speaker 2 (04:05):
Year or so.

Speaker 3 (04:08):
I think what you should start to contemplate, and I
tweeted this out after the numbers came out, is if
the so called experts are consistently proven wrong time after time,
what do they actually know? And I know we've talked
about this before, but there's a great write up and

(04:30):
I wish I could remember the book that dives into
expertise and experts are almost always wrong because what.

Speaker 2 (04:41):
They find is there is a huge.

Speaker 3 (04:45):
Sort of cluster effect on experts because especially in the
modern era, people are afraid of being wrong, and so
a consensus settles in and nobody really is outside of
the consensus, because if you're wrong and outside of the consensus,
the fear is of being ostracized and everything else. And

(05:07):
the people who end up being the most right are
actually I think it was a really deep dive on hedgehogs.
That's people who don't go super deep on necessarily everything,
but have a wide variety of perspectives. They tend to
be better at forecasts than people who are so called
experts in one field. And what we're seeing with economics
is we were told if there are tariffs put in place,

(05:31):
we're going to have a great depression style economic reality.
And you saw everybody flood the market collapse in April,
the likes of which, frankly, we hadn't really seen since COVID,
and we said on this show, as you pointed out,
hey just stay calm. If you happen to have added resources,
now is a good time to buy. Stocks are up

(05:53):
nearly thirty percent just since April. If you bought the dip,
if you just stayed in, you're do and fine. If
you just didn't pay attention to day to day, and
so I think there's this obsession with believing that experts
are going to be right, and then almost every time
I look. They were wrong on inflation, they were wrong
on tariffs, They've been wrong economically on everything.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
They were wrong on COVID, across the board.

Speaker 2 (06:21):
Yeah, you know, with the very few exceptions.

Speaker 1 (06:23):
I saw our friend doctor McCarry on Fox this morning
just talking about all the amazing things. That's why we
had him on recently to talk about the FDA and
how streamlining that could mean cures for people a lot faster,
could save could save lives and also add quality of life. Right,
there's there's cures, there's also effective treatment which can be

(06:43):
a game changer for people with a whole range of
really debilitating diseases. And he's an expert who said the
right things and Trump during COVID, and Trump has shown
him what happens when you're right, which is you should
be elevated. What you see the expert class in general, though,
Clay is they all fall prey to consensus thinking, the

(07:04):
echo chamber effect. This was even a problem back when
I was in the CIA as an analyst there. You
mentioned the hedgehogs, people that are that have depth on
things versus a little bit on a lot of different things.
People who had been, in my experience, the people who
had been covering an issue for a very long time
were the worst at predicting what the next thing was

(07:25):
that was going to happen. The people who had a
very good skill set to understand what matters right now,
what's likely to happen next, were far better at predictive analysis.
Because once you've been doing something for a long time,
you tend to think that whatever everybody else thinks doing
that same thing is the answer, right, that that's the

(07:46):
way it's going to be. Certainly that is the case
the case in the economy. And why do we all
care about this, Well, because it affects the price of
everything that you were buying, the gas you were putting
in your car, your ability to pay your mortgage, all
of this the piece of this that is missing right now.
And this is what's remarkable, and I think this is
why Trump's frustration has boiled over on the FED issue.

(08:07):
And there were some very funny memes from when he
went and visited the FED.

Speaker 2 (08:11):
Yes, redo of the building that they.

Speaker 1 (08:14):
Were, but the fact that rates haven't even dropped yet.
That would be the kind of rocket fuel you'd add
to the economy if things were stalled out.

Speaker 2 (08:22):
A little bit.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
This economy is already humming, and they've.

Speaker 2 (08:27):
Kept the rates artificially high.

Speaker 3 (08:29):
Here's my concern now, buck, and I haven't heard anybody
say this yet. I'm wondering if the Fed's going to
say the economy's growing too fast and we can't cut
rates now because we can't add the accelerant. In other words,
they're going to go from hey, I just that's my
concern now that we've hit three percent growth, and look,

(08:50):
we need to get the economy really roaring. We need
to get four percent growth, three and a half percent growth.
That would be transformative. It would actually give us a
chance if you start to run the math of really
kind of knocking out some of these major budget deficits.

Speaker 2 (09:05):
Growth cures everything. Right.

Speaker 3 (09:07):
If you've ever worked in a business, I remember I
had a buddy and he's I said, how'd you do?
And he ended up selling his company for over one
hundred million dollars. This is about fifteen years ago. I
said how'd you do? He said, Man, I screwed up everything.
I so you know that's interesting. I went back and
I looked at it, and we had to make a
decision so rapidly. But he said the company was growing

(09:30):
so fast that I didn't have to be perfect. I
just had to steer in the right direction. And for
those of you out there that have ever been at
a company that's growing rapidly, you're not all going to
make the right decisions because you're having to the analogy
I've used before, it's like trying to change a tire
while you're driving a car. It's going to be really
sometimes messy. Right, But if you get that growth rate going,

(09:53):
if we can start really humming economically, we don't have
to be perfect on everything. Four percent growth in the
NAW national economy would cure a lot of the ills
that are out there.

Speaker 2 (10:04):
Well.

Speaker 1 (10:04):
You also have, I think, with Trump, in many ways
the epitome of the guy who does versus the guy
who conceptualizes right, a guy who has negotiated deals, and look,
Trump's has negotiated deals that haven't gone his way when
he was in business. Obviously, there have been successes and failures,
but to your point, every great success in business, every

(10:28):
person who has been a great success in business has
had many failures along the way, because that is how
you learn. That is a form of expertise that should
be far more valued when you're thinking about who to
put in charge of big decisions for the country instead
of I have some advanced degree from some economics program.
Wasn't it to President Bartlett from the fantasyland of the

(10:50):
West Wing. Wasn't here like a PhD from Harvard or
something in economics? And that's what all the Libs think
would solve all of our problems. Most of the PhDs
in economics from most from all of the Ivy League
schools in this country would stink at managing this economy.
Compared to Trump, it wouldn't even be close well, And
that's why I think there. Look, I love it.

Speaker 3 (11:10):
I mean, I'm a history nerd, but history professors are
good at telling you why something happened one hundred years
after it happened. We've seen some of these historians that
go on. Remember Michael Beschlow said, if Trump wins, they're
just going to line you up and shoot you, you know,
and you're like, what are you talking about?

Speaker 2 (11:28):
I don't even know if.

Speaker 1 (11:29):
We're still He actually said that, Yes, that's not even
he actually said that.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
He actually said that, and he is I think a
good historian at looking at things that are one hundred
years old. Economists are very good at telling you why
something happened after it's already happened. They are very bad
as a group at predicting for you where we are headed.
And I think it's just worth contemplating. Challenging conventional wisdom

(11:55):
is usually how you win. I don't know how many
people out there really study things, but if you do
the same thing that everybody else does, it's going to
be very difficult for you to get ahead. You sometimes
have to take risk.

Speaker 2 (12:07):
Trump.

Speaker 3 (12:08):
You can criticize him on a lot. The guy understands negotiations,
He understands leverage. He certainly understands interest rates, which are
the foundation of any real estate investment deal basically that
is done anywhere. And I hope that they're going to
start to reduce rates because they are too high. And look,

(12:29):
here is the number one issue in the economy today.
Number one issue. Housing is out of sorts because we
went from two and a half percent mortgage to over
seven percent in record time. And if you were lucky
enough to get a two and a half. You're frozen
in place there and if you were unfortunate enough to
get a seven, you haven't been able to refy yet
and unlock the entire housing market.

Speaker 1 (12:50):
That is true, but I think you also have to
pile on top of that, Clay, ten million people came
into the country illegally in four years. Ten certainly help
the cost of living for anyone in any city. There
are people run running all kinds of scams where they
have illegals that are, you know, in a home that's
meant for four people max. They got thirty illegals living.

(13:12):
They're all paying them, you know, two hundred and fifty
bucks a month or something. This is all over the
country as we and this is another part of why
the immigration enforcement that Trump is undergoing right now is
one of the best things that could happen.

Speaker 2 (13:25):
For people who work for a living.

Speaker 1 (13:27):
It will help their wages, it'll help the cost of housing.
What you're saying is obviously also true, which is the
rate issue that should start to be ameliorated.

Speaker 2 (13:36):
That's the word of the day. There you go. It's
a nice word, right, thank you well, that one.

Speaker 1 (13:40):
Out that could be certainly done in the months ahead,
and I hope it will be. I have a plan
for this weekend. We'll tell you all about I get
excited about this. You know, this maybe tells you about
what a wild and crazy guy I am. But you know,
I got a wife, I got a baby, I got
a puppy. I got a lot of things going on.
I am going to be defrosting some bone in ribbis
from Good Ranchers.

Speaker 6 (14:01):
Now.

Speaker 1 (14:01):
The ribbi is a particularly decadent cut of meat. It's fantastic.
And this for me on steak night, courtesy of Good Ranchers,
is something I get really excited about.

Speaker 2 (14:11):
I've got my.

Speaker 1 (14:11):
Cast iron seared ready to go. I mean, it is
so hot when I do that. Sere oh Man, Good Ranchers.
This is absolutely the best meat you're gonna get delivered anywhere.
But they've also got salmon, chicken, steak burgers. It is fantastic.
We love steak over here. So does Clay. In fact, Clay,
we're gonna have to bring back a steak bet at
some point because I need a chance at the title here,

(14:33):
all right, you need it just brought up recently, didn't
you have a steak dinner with Clay that got millions
of views. I said, yeah, we got to do another
one of those Good Ranchers, my friends. That is the
steak of choice. You gotta go check this out. Subscribe
to any Good Ranchers box, get your pick a free
meat for life that's wag you burgers, hot dogs, bacon
or chicken wings in every box for the lifetime for
a subscription. I get a box every month, and Carrie

(14:53):
can tell you I get excited. I go, Yes, the
Good Ranchers box is here. I rip it open, I
look at the different cuts of meat I have. Get
an extra four forty dollars off your first box when
you use my name Buck as your promo code at
checkout Good Ranchers dot Com.

Speaker 2 (15:05):
Use promo code Buck.

Speaker 1 (15:06):
Get your free meat for life plus forty dollars off
Good Ranchers dot Com promo code Buck.

Speaker 7 (15:12):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton mic drops that never sounded
so good. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 1 (15:22):
And we've got a story that we absolutely need to
discuss here with all of you. And it's because this
is getting a lot of attention, and even I think
some people out there who are generally or overall supportive
of Israel in its fight against Hamas have started to

(15:45):
waiver a little bit for the for a reason that
would be understandable at least with the specific goal of
trying to pressure the IDF to get more food to
the children of Gaza. That's the basic narrative. That's the
storyline that's out there. Trump has been talking about it,
others have been talking about it. In fact, here we

(16:07):
can get President Trump on Gaza. This has cut ten
This is the latest thing that he had to say
about it.

Speaker 2 (16:15):
Play it.

Speaker 8 (16:15):
I think everybody lists they're pretty cold hearted or of
course to that nuts.

Speaker 9 (16:22):
And there's nothing you can say other than it's Sarah.

Speaker 8 (16:24):
But when you see the kids and those that kids
into whether they talk starvation or not, those are kids
that are starving. That's I mean, they are starving and
you see the mothers.

Speaker 9 (16:37):
They love them so much, and this is nothing they
seem to be able to do. They got to get
them food.

Speaker 1 (16:42):
And we're going to get a food player. As we
have been discussing here on the program, a couple of things.
First off, it strikes a lot of us as contrary
to what we would think the Israeli government and the
IDF would do, based on all their actions up to
the point that they would willfully let children starve if
there was a way to prevent that.

Speaker 2 (17:04):
I don't believe it.

Speaker 1 (17:05):
And I'm not saying that there aren't civilian casualties that
have happened. I'm not saying there is not malnutrition going
on inside of Gaza. I'm just saying I don't believe
that it's a policy of the IDF two or the
Israeli government the Israeli people to starve out. And you
hear this term genocide being used now by people who
are very critical of Israel, and even some who aren't

(17:26):
always that critical of Israel. I've been looking at this
and thinking to myself, hold on a second, what.

Speaker 2 (17:33):
Is really going on here?

Speaker 1 (17:35):
This is very important what is actually happening in Gaza.
First of all, as we know, the narrative is now
starting to come out more than it is in fact
hamas that is preventing the distribution of food and seizing
food that is being provided to Gaza for the civilian
population there. That's point one. But point two, Clay this

(17:57):
New York Times story that on the on it was
a main story for the New York Times.

Speaker 3 (18:02):
They had a page newspaper for those of us old
people like me who still read the newspaper. Literally, the
front page story the one that they considered the most
important to tell to their readers on that day.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
It was just a few days ago, and there was
a story where they had a photo of a I mean,
it was a horrible looking photo in terms of just
emotionally devastating. You see a child who is very skeletal,
if you will, I mean, looks extremely malnourished, in the

(18:35):
hands of a woman. And the whole point of the
story based on this photo, and they chose this photo.
The whole point of the story is that the children
of Gaza are starving to death. Look at this because
it looked like somebody who would be starving to death,
something horrible beyond words, something that no moral person could countenance,

(18:56):
could sit by and allow to happen. And so it
obviously got a lot of attention all over the world.
The problem with the story is that the photo is
not an accurate representation of what is going on. Here
is The New York Times appending an editor's note an
editor's note to a story about Mohammed Zacharia al much

(19:18):
Mutawak a child in Gaza who's diagnosed with severe malnutrition.
After publication, This is from the New York Times PR department.
After publication, the Times learned that he had pre existing
health conditions. Please read more below.

Speaker 2 (19:32):
They give more of.

Speaker 1 (19:32):
This Clay, this individual has this child. It's still very
sad story. Hassistic fibrosis and that's actually and also other
pre existing health conditions. It's not a starvation story. They're
showing a child who's starving, who's not actually starving, but
has other pre existing health conditions, which they have now offered.

(19:55):
They ran a photo that is effectively a fake in
terms of the story, which is what they were telling
on the front page of the New York Times to
tell everybody that the Israelis are starving the children of Gaza.

Speaker 3 (20:07):
Yeah, and our friend Carol Markowitz, who's in our podcast network,
been on the show a lot. She tweeted this as well.
The brother of this individual was all who is healthy
and has evidently no issues, was also cropped out of
the picture. And she says, and I think she's right,
this should be published on the front page of the paper.

(20:29):
The correction, not some side x account and she said,
if you fell for the hoax, this is very important.

Speaker 2 (20:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (20:37):
They didn't share the correction on the official New York
Times account with millions and millions of followers. They shared
it from the PR Department's tiny account that nobody is
going to see or pay any attention to. And Clay,
you already pointed this out too. They had in the
same photo they cropped out a child who looks well

(20:59):
fed and healthy.

Speaker 3 (21:00):
You should have raised issues in the mind of any
editor that saw this. Right, Wait a minute, one kid
is healthy and the other one is starving. How often
do you think that actually happens in the same family.

Speaker 2 (21:14):
Never. I mean, I've got multiple kids.

Speaker 3 (21:17):
I can't imagine a scenario where one of my kids
looks healthy and the other one is starving, and I'm saying, well,
it's because the whole family is unable to eat. I mean,
I think you probably would be trying to feed your
family equally there. So it should have raised a lot
of issues. And I would say this quick, yeah, go ahead,
go ahead. Now, remember when they got the Jason Blair story.

(21:39):
I mean that's probably been twenty some od.

Speaker 1 (21:40):
He was just he was a serial fabricator, but he
was a young black reporter, and they were desperate to
tell stories of how diverse their new newsroom was.

Speaker 3 (21:47):
And you know, yeah, but they put a huge front
page story out saying this was all fabricated, we got
this wrong. To Carol's point, I would argue this is
far more significant because the things that he was making up,
by and large were just kind of like stories about
wife in West Virginia or whatever it was. And look,

(22:07):
you don't want to make that stuff up. But this
actually alters the terrain of geopolitical negotiation and is intended
to send the message of Israel as intentionally starving young children,
and they use this image for that reason.

Speaker 1 (22:24):
It is wildly inflammatory, yes, against Israel and against Jews worldwide,
and that was the purpose of the story, to make
them Israel, the Jews, to make them look like the
bad guys after they suffered their own nine to eleven

(22:45):
on October seventh, after they had the most horrific terrorist
attack since nine to eleven perpetrated against them, and with
a level of sadism the from Hamas that is shocking
to the conscience. Honestly, even for those of us who
did things in the GWATT and saw how evil al

(23:05):
Qaeda was and what they would do shocking to the conscience.
But this reminds me Clay of really is this is
on brand in a sense for the New York Times.
The New York Times is the paper that published Walter Duranti,
who on behalf of communism, lied about mass starvation in

(23:26):
the Soviet Union. Right, this is one of the most
infamous episodes of twentieth century journalism. Should have told you
all you need to know about the lib mindset and journals.
But Walter Duranti lied to cover up mass starvation in
the Soviet Union back in the nineteen early nineteen thirties,
and he actually got a Pulitzer Prize for it. Clay,

(23:49):
doesn't this all ring a bell? Just like the fake
Russia collusion stories. Those people got pulletzers. They still have them.
The purpose is not the truth. The purpose is manipulation
of the masses of the minds of the readers. And
the purpose here was very clearly now is the chance

(24:10):
after we saw how horrific Hamas was, and they took
two hundred plus hostages, and they raped women, and they
murdered babies, and they did all these horrible things intentionally
and on behalf of the people planning October seventh. I mean,
this was their plan. This wasn't some secondary thing that
just happened after all that now is the chance to

(24:31):
try to seize the moral high ground for the pro
Palestinian pro Hamas lunatics, and we're supposed to think it's
just an error play that The New York Times runs
a story that is essentially a fake story on when
you use a photo and say it is a thing
or represents a thing and it does not, which is

(24:52):
starvation of a child. That is not starvation that caused
that child to look that way, as anybody who knows
anything about the diseases that he had pre existing knows.
And then they cut out the photo of the healthy
looking little boy in.

Speaker 2 (25:03):
The same photo.

Speaker 3 (25:05):
It should began over again on the front page. I
would also point this out, and I think it's very
significant all of their errors have been in favor of Gaza.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
Do you remember soon after.

Speaker 3 (25:19):
October seventh, when Israel started to respond after the October
seventh attack, and all of these major news outlets, I
believe it was, they said that Israel had struck a
hospital and killed tons of people.

Speaker 2 (25:31):
Do you remember that story.

Speaker 3 (25:32):
It was on the front page everywhere, and it later
came out that it was a misfired rocket from Gaza
that actually from that is from Hamas, that actually hit
the hospital in Gaza, and so they allowed the story
to be Oh, Israel's intentionally targeting hospitals and killing innocent people.
Put it on the front page of the newspaper. If

(25:53):
your errors look, reporting is hard, right, Let's be honest.
Trying to tell the truth is a hard job when
they're lots of people trying to manipulate you all the time.
So I will say that, but if your errors always
run the same direction, it is a flaw of your
reporting that should be addressed because it is a sign.

Speaker 2 (26:12):
Well, I don't think it's a flaw.

Speaker 1 (26:14):
I think that gives them too much Creditally, I think
that the mission, the mission is the propaganda. Actually, I
don't think that this is a mistake. I think that
they know that this is what they are supposed to do.
They are playing for their team with this. And what
does it say if the starvation and the New York
Times is still saying, oh, there's mass starvation in Gaza,

(26:35):
what are the chances that there are children and this
is a horrific thing to even think about, but that
there are children who are starving to death in massive
numbers in Gaza. There are skeletal looking children who are
clinging to life all over Gaza. This is what we
are being told by the New York Times. But they
happen to pick a photo of somebody that is not starving,

(26:57):
a young child who is not starving. Very sad story,
assistic fibrosis, but he's not starving, and that's the photo
they put on the front page of the newspaper. You're
supposed to think that this is an error made in
good faith. Absolutely not, absolutely not. And the fact that
they won't really correct it in a way that will
change the perception of the people who read the original

(27:19):
story all over Clay. It was picked up all over
the world. It's not just New York Times readers. It's
all over the internet. It's everywhere. What do you think
it looks like, you know, in the Middle East newspapers
and websites, to the degree that those things really exist, Well,
what do you think it looks like there now?

Speaker 2 (27:36):
After that photo? What do their readers think? It is reckless?

Speaker 1 (27:40):
Beyond wards, The New York Times is a disgrace. It
is not an honest entity. It is not a good
faith journalistic operation. They are pure left wing anti civilization propagandists,
and everyone needs to read their articles with that in mind.

Speaker 2 (27:59):
That's how I feel better. At least so I.

Speaker 3 (28:01):
Think it's true. But I think at a bare minimum
the pressure. I think Carol Markowitz is right. You can't
have an error that egregious and just post from your
New York Times pr account, which a you know probably
what one in ten thousand people will actually see the correction.
You should have to put on the front page the
full picture that you edited and acknowledged that you told

(28:23):
something that was fundamentally untrue that impacted in a significant
way the discussion around how Israel in Gaza. Israel is
handling the situation in Gaza.

Speaker 2 (28:32):
You're completely right.

Speaker 1 (28:33):
I would just add to this, the people who picked
that photo did not do so in error. They picked
that photo because their fundamental role here is to try
to create at least moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas,
if not. The Palestinians are the good guys, Israel the

(28:53):
bad guys. That's their actual job in their minds. Also,
I will point out.

Speaker 3 (28:59):
Remember all those people out there that we're supposed to
be fact finding experts on misinformation and disinformation. This seems
like a pretty egregious example of that that should be
widely covered by other media outlets that care about the truth.
Are you seeing any of those articles, know any of
those media discussions. I'm not seeing it anywhere.

Speaker 1 (29:18):
The number of unborn babies at risk of abortion is
still so high in this country, but thank goodness that
there are Preborn clinics saving lives day after day. With
your help and support, they think they can reach this
number seventy thousand unborn children save this year. But it's
up to us, the pro life community, to take action
right now. The laws aren't all going to change. People's

(29:41):
minds aren't all going to change along with them. We
have to do what we can to help mothers in
crisis bring their tiny little babies into this world, saving
lives every step of the way. This is what Preborn does,
and they accomplish it with a twenty eight dollars expense
per ultrasound, because that ultrasound is the beginning. That's the
first thing, day one experience that Preborn gives these pregnant

(30:02):
women who come in these mothers to be They say,
let's let you meet your tiny baby with an ultrasound
and then we'll talk about options. This is saving so
many lives. They need your support. Twenty eight dollars would
provide for an ultrasound. Twenty eight dollars a month would
be twelve ultrasounds over the course of a year. It's
tax deductible, and it's saving lives. Please to donate securely,

(30:24):
dial pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's
pound two five zero say baby, or visit preborn dot
com slash buck that's preborn dot com, slash b U
c K.

Speaker 10 (30:37):
Want to be in the know when you're on the
go team forty seven podcasts Trump Highlights from the week
Sundays at noon Eastern in the clay In Bug podcast feed.
Find it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcasts.

Speaker 3 (30:52):
We'll get some of your calls. Eight hundred and two
eighty two two eight eight to two Scott in Indiana,
what you got for us?

Speaker 6 (31:00):
Hey, keep up the good work. I can't tell whether
Trump thinks Israel starving the people on purpose or not.
If he is, it would be ironic considering a couple
of weeks ago he chastised everybody for falling for the
Epstein hoax. So you think he's do you think.

Speaker 2 (31:20):
This is Scott?

Speaker 1 (31:21):
This is really important, This is really important. There is
widespread reporting that I think is reliable, that there is
that food is not getting to people insufficient you know,
insufficient quantity in Gaza, including children who are probably or
who rather are malnourished, not yet starving that, but malnourished
as a result of it. But Hamas is preventing the

(31:43):
food from getting to them, is the point. And so
then to make this an even more emotional issue, they
pick this photo and they say, oh, see this is
what Israel is deciding to do to people. So there's
the who's responsible for it, and then there's the degree
of how much is food not getting So Hamas is
preventing food from getting through in the numbers that it

(32:05):
should be getting or in the quantity it should be
getting through. And then the New York Times is picking
this story to make it seem like this is an
Israeli plot or Israeli decision.

Speaker 3 (32:14):
Also, if Israel wanted to kill everyone in Gaza, they
could have done it two years ago, they could have
carpet bombed everyone and legitimately killed everybody who lives in Gaza.
They have the wherewithal and the power and the ability
to do that. Look at the attempted tactical strikes. Look

(32:37):
at what happened in Iran. They pretty much only killed
They hit apartment building units that that Iranian nuclear scientists
were in and didn't touch anybody else. And why let's
just put this in the cold, hard reality, real polity
for a second. At this stage of the game, Israel
is going to intentionally starve children to death to turn

(32:57):
the whole world against it. Of course, not that's insane.
I'm not saying children aren't starving. I'm saying, look at
who's responsible for preventing the food from getting to them,
and look at how the New York Times is then
trying to lie about that culpability. We're joined by Senator
Mike Lee of the Great State of Senator Lee, thanks

(33:18):
for joining us on the fly, sir, appreciate.

Speaker 11 (33:20):
You, Thank you very much.

Speaker 1 (33:23):
Can we just dive into this, well, Clay, do we
want to do judges and US attorneys first?

Speaker 2 (33:28):
You want to do? We want to do the redistricting first.

Speaker 1 (33:31):
Because I got to ask you what is going on
here with the log jam on the judges and US
attorneys and what should we do about it.

Speaker 11 (33:40):
Look, we've got a confirmation backlog in the Senate. President
Trump has sent one hundreds of nominees over We currently
have a Senate confirmation backlog of about one hundred and
fifty people now just day be four. Yesterday that number
stood at one hundred and forty four. We're now approaching
one hundred and fifty. We're adding to that base every

(34:00):
day the Senate's in session. And if we leave for
August recess without meaningfully confronting this, then we're never going
to catch up. And the result of that is awful
because here's what happens. Remember, the deep state bureaucrats, the
career civil servant bureaucrats, are overwhelmingly leftist. They're overwhelmingly democratic.

(34:23):
So this is different than if the Democrats were in
power and Republicans were delying them. When that happens and
a Democrat nominee doesn't get through, well they still have
a Democrat liberal Democrat in most cases running to show
at whatever executive branch agency they're putting them in. Because
that's what the deep state bureaucrats are. But when it's Republicans,
we're surrendering to the other party. We can't let that happen.

(34:46):
Here's the thing. We've been blaming the dams in appropriately,
so they've been delaying. But we have to remember, this
is what minority parties have been doing in the Senate
more or less since Harry Renuuke's the executive Philip Busher
back in November of twenty thirteen. This is what they
do now. Democrats do it to a more severe degree.
We cooperate it more with them than they are with us.

(35:06):
But regardless, saying that they're doing it worse doesn't fix
the problem. There is only one thing that fixes this
problem in the modern summit, in the modern Senate, which
is the principle of exhaustion. We have to exhaust them
into compliance. We have to keep them here until such
some as we've cleared the backlog, and we have to
make them vote, including it inconvenient times and hours and weeks.

(35:28):
Wouldn't it much rather be somewhere else? That is the
only way to fix it. If we keep them here,
keep them voting, we end the backlog. If we don't,
we surrender to the deep date and therefore the Democrats.

Speaker 3 (35:39):
By the way, let me mention this, the Fed, as
we told you was likely going to be the case,
has declined to lower interest rates, although there are dissenters
from inside of the FED saying, hey, we should be
cutting rates. So just fyi, they have left interest rates unchanged.
But that is the That is the literally breaking news

(36:03):
as we start the third hour of the program here. Okay, sender,
thanks for coming on. What is in your mind the solution?
Because I was asking about how recess appointments might be applied.
President Trump has not used the recess appointment opportunity. What
are the disadvantages associated with doing that in a way

(36:23):
that people like me can understand without going into all
of the just sort of the labyrinth of all of
the different Senate parliamentarian aspects.

Speaker 11 (36:35):
Yep, all right, So the biggest single disadvantage is that
a recess appointment can't stay indefinitely the Constitution. The recess
appointee can remain in there in essence on the current
interpretations of that clause, they can stay in there. If
they are recess appointed now, they could stay in there
till the end of next year. Till the end of

(36:55):
twenty twenty six. It's the biggest disadvantage. But the other
reason why President Trump hasn't used that is that more
or less for the last decade plus, since at least
around twenty thirteen, it started a big Before then, the
Senate typically has been holding what are called pro forma
sessions even while for puting to go into recess I
mean reconvening every three days one member comes in, gabbles in,

(37:19):
gabbles out, in order to avoid the technicality of going
into recess for constitutional purposes. In other words, these pro
forma sessions basically serve one purpose, which is to prevent
the President of the United States from making recess appointments.
So that's the biggest disadvantage. Bears that we haven't made
it possible, and that's why I've been saying the best

(37:39):
thing for us to do, the only way I believe
we're going to end the lodge Ham and the impass,
is for us to make the Democrats and Republicans stay
here and cast votes even when, especially when it's difficult
or inconvenient, or members would rather be somewhere else. It's
the only surefire way to end this now, sure that
if the Senate unwikely decides to recess anyway, and for

(38:00):
the love of Pete, we should actually recess and stop
holding these pro forma sessions that have as their principal
function preventing the President of the United States from exercising
the recess appointment power under the Constitution.

Speaker 1 (38:12):
And it feels like there's a lot of games going
on here, Senator Lee, within these rules, and yet the blue.

Speaker 2 (38:18):
Slip rule is sacred.

Speaker 1 (38:21):
Can you give me a little more on this one,
because Trump obviously thinks that enough is enough with the
blue slip nonsense.

Speaker 11 (38:28):
Yeah, I think that's right now to bring your audience
up to speak. The blue slip in the Senate basically
does the following for correlated The way it works is
that for a federal district judge, a federal trial court
level judge, for a US attorney or US marshal in
somebody state, the Senate Judiciary Committee has long refused to

(38:49):
process a presidential nominee in lesser until such time as
the two home state senators have signed a document that
is historically written out on blue paper. That's what we
call it, the blue slips. I'm okay with these nominees. Now,
the blue slip has around been around for many decades.
It is not mandated by statute, it's not imposed by rule.
It is a custom. It is moreover, not something that's

(39:12):
been carved into stone tablets. It is not an xurable command,
and it has been modified in practice over many years,
meaning when one side of the aisle abuses it consistently,
it often morphs in order to accommodate them. Now, we've
always had the understanding that if you push it too far,

(39:34):
like any other privilege, it'll be taken away. I had
the understanding and the last administration, for example, when dealing
with the Obama administration, I knew that I had to
make recommendations to them on district judges, US attorneys, US marshals,
and so forth. I had to make my blue slip
recommendations to them realistically, and that I wasn't necessarily going

(39:58):
to get it away with recommending people who were lifelong,
well known, staunch, openly conservative textualist originalists for example. We
just understood that the nominees might be a little bit
different than what we would pick, what would prefer the
president pick during a republican administration. If the Democrats can't

(40:22):
accept that, and they consistently refuse to accommodate what are
Trump's reasonable minimum expectations in their states. Then I suspect
that they can, should, and probably will lose their blue
slip privileges in many instances.

Speaker 3 (40:38):
We're talking to Senator Mike Lee of Utah new revelations potentially,
according to Fox News, about documents involving Russia collusion that
have been found by cash Pttel inside of FBI offices
that were supposed to have been destroyed that were not you,
I think were one of the top contenders to be

(41:00):
Attorney General. So you are very very well versed in
the Department of Justice. You have served, I believe as
a judge in your past life experience, you're a guy
who's been involved in a lot of these things. What
should happen as it pertains to Russia collusion based on
the evidence you have seen, not only what should what

(41:20):
do you think will what should our audience expect to see,
and what should they see?

Speaker 2 (41:25):
In your mind, but.

Speaker 11 (41:26):
Most importantly, the facts, the information will need to continue
to come out. Remember, for the last eight nine years,
we've been told a consistent lie. We've been told that
by the Democratic apparatus. We've been told that by the
mainstream media, also known as the communications arm of the

(41:47):
Democratic Party. We've been told lies about Russian collusion. Now,
as Jonathan Turtley noted on Fox News the other day,
there was in fact a collusive scandal at the close
of twenty sixteen related to Russia. But it just wasn't
at all what we were told. There was a scandal,
there was collusion there. But remember what happened here was

(42:10):
that President Obama, according to these recent revelations, went in
after the November twenty sixteen election, after Prisident Trump had
been elected President of the United States, and directed the
United States government officials in the room with him to
go out and show to find evidence, develop evidence, manufacture evidence,

(42:33):
manipulate evidence, however you want to put it, to demonstrate
not if not whether, but how Russia impacted the outcome
of the election and did so in Donald Trump's favor.
That simply wasn't true, and in fact, they were messing
with evidence. This is a horrific scandal, and based on
what we've learned about this already, this is arguably the

(42:56):
most significant political scandal in US history. And I'm not
even sure what the outcome will be. We don't have
anything else to compare it to. But the most important
part of it. There are all kinds of considerations, from
statutes of limitations to whatever it takes to get more
information out of this that will have to be taken
into account to know exactly who may be charged. But

(43:20):
the most important thing is that the American people learn
about it, and then we get to the bottom of
who knew what and when and hold on accountable for that.

Speaker 3 (43:28):
Centerarly, we know you have to get out on the
floor and get to work. We appreciate you fitness in
to answer these questions we were talking about today. Keep
up the good work and shoot me at text when
you want to come on again.

Speaker 2 (43:38):
Need to talk to the audience.

Speaker 11 (43:40):
Well due, Thanks so much.

Speaker 3 (43:42):
Center Mike Lee, great Twitter account at base Mike Lee,
I believe is the one that is the best to
follow out of Utah and you can go find him there.
We appreciate him squeezing us in. Look, if you don't
want to have Joe Biden level energy, if you'd like
to have Donald Trump level energy, our sponsor Chalk can

(44:03):
make that popular. The male Vitality stack that will replenish
diminis testosterone levels in a few months time, twenty percent
distant difference. Buck has seen it in his own life.
You've also seen it in your mother in law's life.
You've got a three month old baby. Probably having energy
maybe more important now than ever before.

Speaker 1 (44:23):
You hit some chalk, and all of a sudden, it's
like the house has cleaned itself.

Speaker 2 (44:26):
My friend.

Speaker 1 (44:27):
All of the boxes that have to be moved in
the garage Clay like magic.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
They're moved because you.

Speaker 1 (44:32):
Have so much energy, ferocity and drive.

Speaker 3 (44:35):
There you go chalk dot com our buddy Seaton, great
company out of Texas, American based. Go check it out
right now, use my name Clay. You get a massive
discount on any subscription for life, big time discount. Go
to cchoq dot com my name Clay for a massive discount.
You can cancel anytime, no penalties. So why not try

(44:56):
it out? Why not put some energy back in your life?
When I put some testosterone back in your life, be
like Trump, not like Biden. Have some energy at chalk
dot com, code Clay.

Speaker 10 (45:06):
You know them as conservative radio hosts, now just get
to know them as guys on This Sunday Hang podcast
with Clay and Fuck. Find it in their podcast feed
on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcast's.

Speaker 1 (45:20):
Got Tommy Laren with us Now of Fox News and
OutKick and Tommy, let's just get right to it. Are
you surprised or is this right in line with expectations
to see the absolute freak out across the media when
it comes to a new ad with Sydney Sweeney for
eight for jenes or for a clothing company American Eagle.

Speaker 12 (45:44):
I'm not surprised at all at the outrage in the backlash.
This is what the left does when they know they've lost,
all right, They've lost the culture war. Woke is dead,
and they are lashing out, and the charge is being
led by objectively mediocre to less attract it liberal white women.
And that usually seems to be the case for all
the things that they complain about. It's led by liberal

(46:06):
white women. But especially when you have a hot girl
in an ad that really brings out the sayings, that
brings out the clause. I'm not surprised at all.

Speaker 3 (46:15):
Okay, I am stunned, honestly, Like I get because we
hear so much about Democrats recognizing that they have lost men.
I would say that overwhelmingly, the one thing that unites
men is an appreciation for pretty girls heterosexual men anyway,
which I understand there may not be very many in
the Democrat Party already. But if you're trying to just

(46:38):
be normal and just be saying, complaining that an attractive
person is used to sell clothes and trying to say
it's like being a Nazi is next level crazy even
for them. So you expected that when you saw this
Sydney sweeneyad, you were like, oh, left wingers are going
to lose their mind.

Speaker 2 (46:57):
Tommy.

Speaker 3 (46:58):
The Atlantic has an article saying liking boobs is now conservative.
This is a legitimate article that is up in that magazine.

Speaker 12 (47:08):
We may never lose an election again at this rate,
which is fine if they want to freak out over it.
But no, I'm not surprised at all. Because the left
of the Democrat Party has been completely captured by the
activists and the woke class. They won't give any of
these things up. They still go hard for kil mar
Abrego Garcia. They go hard for men and women's sports.

(47:28):
There is not a dumb hill that they will not
continue to die on. They love this kind of stuff.
I don't know who they're listening to. They're not listening
to you guys. They're not listening to young men or
even attractive young women. They're completely captured by the green
hairs with gauges and septum piercings. That's who they think
makes up the majority of this country, and they want

(47:48):
to make them happy at all costs.

Speaker 2 (47:51):
Tommy.

Speaker 1 (47:51):
You know, whenever I do a live event, if a
woman under thirty five approaches to take a photo or
to say hi or something, generally she says do you know, Tommy,
and gets very excited when I say yes, So you
certainly you certainly have your figure on the pulse of
the conservative youth in this country. And I'm wondering the
vibe shift, as they would say, in the culture. Where

(48:13):
are the biggest places you are seeing it? Like, what
are the things that you're seeing now that give you
hope that the opposite of what we see with the
Sydney Sweeney phenomenon is really taking root, that essentially that
insanity is fading and culture is coming back in a
way that we can all be proud of.

Speaker 12 (48:32):
Well, normalcy is coming back. People have realized, especially young people,
they've realized that no, they do want to be attractive,
and they do want to be healthy, and they want
to be normal and they want to interact with people.
Things go in cycles, of course, and it's not just
fashion and style. But I will say the fashion in
the style right now is kind of going back to
the early two thousands. That's what's popular with gen Z.

(48:54):
They're resurrecting all the old clothes that I wore when
I was in the fifth grade, and they think that's new.
Fine with me, because so has the normalcy. It's like, yes, no,
we want to look good. No, we want to be normal.
We want to talk to people. We don't want to
have the color of hair of a green poison frog.
We just want to be normal. So I think that
you're still going to have the minority that's very loud

(49:16):
out there, and then of course on TikTok and voting
for socialists. But those people live in deep blue cities
like New York City or Los Angeles. They don't live
in Tennessee, they don't live in Miami. There are normal
people in those normal places, and I think they're taking over.

Speaker 3 (49:31):
Okay, A secondary part of this is the idea, and
I know you saw the Good Morning America report, So
this is not some crazy left wing report in theory. Right,
You're sitting most people eating their cereal watching Good Morning
America today show. Good Morning America has on a report
that this is code for Nazism because you have a

(49:54):
blonde hair, blue eyed woman that is in this ad.
How do we and I do think this is significant
because I think you kind of have hammered this. How
do we get back to treating all races equally and
not being able to just say basically, white people are evil,
which is the code of calling anything white related Nazi

(50:16):
in relation?

Speaker 2 (50:18):
Right, what's going on here?

Speaker 12 (50:20):
Well, first of all, you need to stop apologizing for
being white. And so the more that people say, hey, listen,
I'm not going to apologize to you because of the
color of my skin. I don't expect you to do that.
I'm not going to do that, then we go back
to some level of normalcy.

Speaker 11 (50:33):
Hair.

Speaker 12 (50:34):
But that Good Morning America clip they had on an expert,
of course, a professor, and I know you saw it,
klay Case, you tweeted it out. But the professor that
they had on, ironically was a white woman who had
blonde hair. But there was an X factor. She was
also objective, objectively not attractive. So there you have it.
That is what who that is who is driving this primarily,

(50:55):
and then all the other people who maybe are not
white liberal women that are upset, they were told to
be upset by ugly white liberal women, and that who
is who is leading this And it comes from a
place of jealousy. It comes from a place of deep
insecurity that they have to project and then they have
to call it like academics or the study of history.

(51:17):
But really it's self loathing. That's what it is.

Speaker 2 (51:20):
Tommy.

Speaker 1 (51:20):
Everybody can find you on Fox News. You're on all
the time. But digital side, where can they go to
see your show?

Speaker 12 (51:27):
Oukick dot com Live Monday through Friday, one pm Eastern.
And in a few minutes here I'm going to pop
on the story on Fox News. We're going to talk
about Mom Donnie. So never at the moment, Thank you guys.

Speaker 2 (51:38):
For having Tommy.

Speaker 1 (51:39):
Yeah, of course, thanks Tommy, the commie mom Donnie trying
to ruin my hometown. Thanks Tommy. You know, Clay, it
is it is remarkable that at this stage of the game,
the corrective mechanisms that I thought were rusty, uh, maybe malfunctioning,
but still somewhat present within the Democrat machinery that they

(52:02):
don't seem it's not working. They're going crazier in areas
where it's costing them politically. That's the Usually what they
do is they're insane, but they hide it and they
pretend and they prevaricate, and they do this halfway thing.
Right That was Joe Biden's whole game. I'm good old Joe,
the true true writing, you know, you can trust me,

(52:23):
and then he would just let far left wing governance,
you know, the auto pen everything else.

Speaker 2 (52:28):
Democrats are doing crazy stuff right now.

Speaker 1 (52:31):
Like a normal, well adjusted person sees how they're responding
to the Sydney sweeneyad and thinks Democrats are neither normal
nor well adjusted.

Speaker 3 (52:40):
Well, and I think this is the challenge. And Tommy
kind of hit on this in general. But if you
are trying to appeal to men, and this is I understand,
some of you are super in the weeds on policy
related issues, and we have some of those conversations. We
just had Senator Mike Leon to talk about why there's
a logjam in the Senate with one hundred and thirty

(53:02):
five different nominees going forward. Most people have no idea
that's going on right. Most people don't understand how Senate
confirmation works. They don't understand how a judge gets appointed.
They're just normal. And that's why I think that Good
Morning America segment is important because you're, you know, mom
and dad trying to get the kid ready for camp

(53:23):
or kid ready for school or whatever it is. PLoP
them down in front of it. You're eating cereal, you're
rushing through the morning, and suddenly you see a pretty
girl in an ad for a Jens company, and you
have an expert on saying it it is coding Nazism.
I mean, we've got a story up at out kick
right now. One of ESPN's employees said, and I want
to make sure I get this quote right because I

(53:45):
couldn't quite believe that this was even real. This is
somebody who talks about sports for a living. Buck, an
ESPN writer said, the New Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad
left him mortified. You work in sports and you go
on social media and say because a girl, attractive girl

(54:07):
in jeans left you mortified. The Atlantic says that Americans
liking boobs is now trending.

Speaker 1 (54:18):
Conservative people are going to think I'm kidding. I'm not kidding, Okay.
I think if you did a macro level study of
male politics in America, you would find it's not this is,
you know, a generalization, this is about the average. I
think you would find that men of deficient and medically

(54:38):
low testosterone overwhelmingly are far left wing in their politics.
I think you've seen. I think it is absolutely, I
think it is real. I think somebody should do the study.
I'm not kidding. I think if you're you know, it
depends on what your age level is, right, But if
you're a guy in your in your like thirties forties,
and then you can get into like nanogram per deca
leader and all this stuff. You know, if your number

(54:59):
is like below three hundred, you're voting Democrat. You're absolutely
voting Democrat.

Speaker 3 (55:05):
And look, I mean age can factor in because obviously
if you're listening to us and you're eighty, naturally you're
test different. But I'm saying, if you're a guy thirty
to fifty you have a medically deficient or close to
a testosterone level and left wing politics, there's a very
clear correlation.

Speaker 1 (55:20):
I think you'd find well.

Speaker 2 (55:21):
And this is where for what I do.

Speaker 3 (55:23):
I feel like I can sit down and talk to
any guy in America and they may not agree with
me on tax policy, they may not agree with me
on judicial nominees. But we can connect on sports. We
can connect on having an appreciation for attractive women, sometimes
enjoying it, enjoying an adult beverage. Democrats have lost the

(55:44):
ability to talk to these people. And I don't know
if you saw this Eric Swalwell, you know he put
up the video. They're trying to do gem ads and
show themselves doing things. He challenged Greg Guttfeld to a
bench press contest and said if Guttfeld beats him that
he will withdraw from Congress. I just took the bet.
I said, I will no longer do Fox News. If

(56:07):
Eric Swalwell can out bench press me, I will stop
doing Fox News, hits an alternative. If I out bench
press him, he has to drop out of Congress. Do
you think he will take my bet? I bet not.
But I think this is a cultural issue, and again
the politics being downstream from cultures one hundred percent.

Speaker 2 (56:30):
Right. Guys now use being.

Speaker 3 (56:32):
A Democrat as an insult. They basically say, oh, you're
you're a Democrat. You voted for Kamala. Younger men, that
is one of the top insults you could be. When
we were at that game between Georgia and Alabama last
year at the Alabama frat houses, they had banners hanging
outside saying Georgia fans vote for Kamala, Like this is

(56:53):
how much of an insult for young men even being
a Democrat is.

Speaker 1 (56:58):
This reminds me of when I was when I was
single in New York City and would come across women
who worked in the performing arts. Dancers, not that kind
of dancer clay, but you know, they would do things
like Broadway and they're Broadway is maybe the most left
wing thing in existence. I mean Broadway is They're more
left wing than the Marxist professors at like Berkeley.

Speaker 2 (57:21):
I mean, it's just crazy town.

Speaker 1 (57:23):
But they would sometimes these women that I would come across,
maybe on dates, would complain about men in the city.
And it's because they were searching for men who basically
act like women. And then they wonder why they're so
unhappy the the you know, the so called male feminist
you know who announces this on the first date that's
actually not that this goes against our biology as a

(57:45):
human species. It doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 3 (57:48):
And also women, women just know this is true. If
a man claims to be a feminist, run from him
in the opposite direction as fast as you can. First
of all, they almost never believe it. Secondly, they think
the only way they can get you is by claiming
to be male feminists. I'm telling you run in the

(58:09):
opposite direction from these people. You cannot trust them. I
think a lot of women out there know exactly what
I'm talking about. That is, if that is one of
your leads. When you go to a date, guy sits
down like, oh, I'm a male feminist, just be like
check police and leave it with him and get up
and leave. He probably doesn't have the money to pay
for it. By the way, it's hard for us to
imagine living in places where bomb shelters are as common

(58:31):
as gas stations or coffee shops. That's what it's like
in Israel. I was over there in December. I saw
the importance of these shelters and of how much difference
just having a bomb shelter can make. And that is
what the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews does they
build bomb shelters, they build protective devices on cars for

(58:52):
first responders. They help to take care of people that
otherwise can't take care of themselves in a time of
perpetual war. As we talked about it earlier New York Times,
spreading lies with a picture of a kid that wasn't
actually being malnourished and trying to blame Israel for the
situation in Gaza. You need and can help to make

(59:12):
a difference in the Holy Land by reaching out and
making a gift. You can call eight eight eight four
eight eight IFCJ. That's eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ.
You can also go online at IFCJ dot org. That's
IFCJ dot org.

Speaker 10 (59:32):
Cheep up with the biggest political comeback in world history
on the Team forty seven podcast, playin Book, Highlight Trump
Free plays from the.

Speaker 2 (59:40):
Week Sunday's at noon Eastern.

Speaker 7 (59:42):
Find it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcasts.