From the Kitchen Table: The Duffys - The Politics Of Taylor Swift & King Charles' Eco Colonialism

Episode Date: December 8, 2023

Time Magazine revealed its choice for Person of the Year, naming Taylor Swift to the pedestal. Sean and Rachel are joined by their daughter and writer at The Federalist Evita Duffy-Alfonso as they weigh in on Taylor Swift's political influence, how her music impacts young women, and who they would pick for Person of the Year. Later, they discuss why they believe King Charles is using his climate change activism to distract from royal scandals involving Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.  Follow Sean & Rachel on Twitter: @SeanDuffyWI & @RCamposDuffy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM, a sportsbook worth a slam dunk and authorized gaming partner of the NBA.

BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating kitchen table i'm sean duffy along with my co-host for the podcast my partner in life and my wife rachel campos duffy sean it's great to be back by the

way i love when you wear your Fox business trucker hat. That's right. You should promote them and sell them and we should get a cut. Fox won't let us do that. Just a side note, there's no free swag at Fox Business. I pay for this hat.

When they bring the swag out for us to promote, they take it back so they can promote it on another show. We don't get to keep it. So, OK, so anyway, it's good to be back. Great. We have two awesome topics like this is like my pop culture segments are like killing it on Fox and Friends weekend.

People do need a break from all the crazy news. And pop culture is providing that and also intersecting with politics in such an interesting way. And I love when pop culture intersects with politics. It's sort of that sweet spot for my level of interest. And I think a lot of people who listen to our podcast and we have two really great topics. We're going to talk about King Charles, who's like the Wokey climate cultist priest who went to Dubai and all the hypocrisy surrounding that and his trip on the private plane, et cetera, et cetera. But also he's using this to cover up these explosive revelation that he turns out to be, along with

Princess Kate, the two people who talked about what color the baby might be, Harry and Meghan's baby. So we're going to talk about that and how he's using climate and indigenous climate practices to cover up his sins among the wokey racialist and race obsessed people on the left. So we're going to get to that. But before we do that, we're going to get to Taylor Swift. And we brought in our daughter, Evita. Evita, welcome. We brought you in to talk about both topics. You've written about both. You've talked about both. You haven't done it at the kitchen table and we're obsessed. Hold on a second. So why are we talking about Taylor Swift? Because Time Magazine, which is just a dirty little rag now that, you know, used to be a big thing now.

Lost its luster, right? Lost its luster. But the thing is, when they do the Time person of the year, people actually talk about it. It's the only thing they talk about Time these days. Exactly. And so as the world burns, as there's war in Ukraine and Israel, and as our borders are open and there's inflation and crime on the streets. Fentanyl. Yeah, fentanyl coming in, child labor, child sex trafficking. I mean, there's a huge amount of problems, not just in this country, but around the world.

Time magazine decides to name Taylor Swift as their person of the year. And so, Ibiza, you're an expert on Taylor Swift. You've written on Taylor Swift. You've analyzed her music and her career and her politics, which is why we have you here today. Tell us what you think about. Can I read the byline on her article and then have her launch from there? So she writes about Taylor Swift being like the most, she says the most, the title of the article on the Federalist, the Federalist is obsessed with Taylor Swift, by the way. The Federalist talks about Taylor Swift, you, Mark Hemingway, they're obsessed.

The title of your article is The Most Insufferable Woman in America Wins Times Person of the Year. The byline is Taylor Swift isn't a thought leader or an artistic genius. She's a girl boss cat lady whose narcissism has made her a toxic romantic partner. This Evita will get all the Swifty. I mean, you're dead. You're dead to the Swifties right now.

So Evita, explain. So yeah, the Swifties, you're a hundred percent right. They go, they go after anybody who's even remotely critical of Taylor Swift and says that, oh, it's you're critical of her because you're a sexist. And even Taylor Swift will go after people who are critical of her and say, oh, you're a misogynist.

It's her go to criticism. And actually, the last article of The Federalist came out with about Taylor Swift that Mark Hemingway wrote, who you guys had on the podcast. There were multiple articles accusing him of misogyny just because he didn't like her music. So in this article, I kind of break down why it doesn't make a lot of sense that she's the Times Person of the Year at face value, right? I mean, she's an amazing musician, a pianist actually, who's a popular music YouTuber, actually studied her music and found that over 20 of her songs have uh the same chord progression in them so it's it's it's very repetitive her music all kind of sounds the same and then her lyrics are all very similar right she's constantly complaining about somebody that she formerly dated um and i i think that there's a reason taylor swift is being pushed on us i think that

she it could be because it's not for her music right i think it um it has to do with sorry no it's okay it was sorry your your sister's calling me in the middle of the podcast and i have to shut her down it's very i feel like i'm you know my grandma yeah you know what let me stop you for a second because inside of your inside of your article you link to one of my favorite TikTok videos which is this guy who basically is listening to what Taylor Swift sounds like to most people but but I think okay so she's not an artistic genius right I mean this is a this is great and I'll say as a young person taylor swift has a lot of nostalgia for me uh as as with a lot

of millennial and gen z women right her songs were played constantly for us growing up and so um there's there's definitely value in that and i'm not going to say i've never jammed out they're catchy it'd be that they're catchy they're fun they sweet. And I'm going to say one one thing about it is that there are way worse, like totally gross, like Cardi B, WAP stuff that's nasty. And for the most part, Taylor Swift's music, while you as while you make a point that it's not like creative genius here, it is at least wholesome pop culture candy, right? So some of it's wholesome. I'd say her older stuff can be more wholesome, right? I mean, it was nice, cute love songs. Most of her love songs or breakup songs are pretty vengeful. And I think that she represents a lifestyle for a lot of women, right? One where we're like, I don't need a man. I've been hurt by all these men. I'm kind of going to be a girl boss and do it on my own. She's dating Travis Kelsey now, but none of her relationships actually ever last that long. She's dated. Now this Travis Kelsey is the 13th person that she's dated that we know of. All of her relationships

have gone up in flames. And at what point i think do we as as listeners or as whereas fans who are supposed to like her say i wonder if maybe taylor swift is the problem in all these relationships and maybe it means she's not such a great role model and this come on people can have bad people can have bad love lives and still be good cultural pop icons talk about her politics i think that's the interesting thing that i found in the article which is you you're saying her politics are why she's being elevated she's a useful idiot if you will well yeah because taylor swift is not is not somebody who's very politically savvy right she's i don't think she even really thinks that deeply

about politics ever there are some i don't think she wanted to get into politics, to be honest. She was kind of pushed into it. Yeah, she didn't. I think there was a lot of pressure. And it's it's hard to know exactly where it could be. Just, you know, the public, it could be the media, it could be her label. But for whatever reason, she felt a lot of pressure during the Trump era to now suddenly become very political. And it was obvious from the commentary that she was making that she wasn't very informed. She was sort of feeling her way around trying to say the right thing.

Right. So she was like, oh, Trump is creating the BLM riots, which is which is a silly Democrat talking point. Right. Because the Democrats put their covid tyranny on hold to fuel the riots. Republicans were the ones who were saying, hey, let's not burn down American cities. She's not very well informed when it comes to politics. And I think that that's what Democrats really like about her, that she falls in line. If they need Taylor Swift to say something or to endorse someone, Taylor Swift will do it. No questions asked. She's not a true believer in anything, really, which makes her very malleable and very useful to Democrats. And I think that's why they're pushing her on us, because the the big the big endorsement that's probably going to come again in 2024, like it did in 2020, is going to be Taylor Swift shilling for Joe Biden, trying to get those young leftists who already don't like Joe Biden to come out and vote for him. But talk about the voting bloc, because Taylor Swift represents a voting bloc that is traditionally a very reliable voting bloc for

Democrats. Very reliable. So so young single women vote over 70 percent for Democrats. They are extremely reliable. And Taylor Swift, I think that not only is she part of that demographic, but she also encourages that demographic of women, right? All of her songs are very angry, are very, I'm going to do it myself. If you listen to her in interviews, right? It is a, I don't need a man, girl boss, fourth wave feminism. That is what Taylor Swift represents. And that's partly why I don't like a lot of her new music, right? It's pretty nihilist. Her older stuff used to be a little more fun, a little sweeter.

She's gotten really bitter as she's gotten older and her relationships have disintegrated. And I think that is reflected in a lot of young people. The difference, unfortunately, is that Taylor Swift is a multimillionaire. So Taylor Swift's unhappy, right, in her relationships, but she gets to go home to her mansion and her cats. Most young women who try to girl boss it into the single lifestyle, they're living in really expensive cities by themselves in apartments and they're really unhappy. And it's not. They go home to a shoebox.

She goes home to a mansion. They go home to a shoebox. She goes home to a shoebox. I loved how in the Time magazine, when they named her, they had different, they must have done it, you know, they did a big photo shoot with her and they have different covers. So, you know, different articles about her being Time Person of the Year have different pictures. And one of them was her, and she has her cat around her shoulders. And I thought, wow, this is amazing. Like totally glamorizing

the whole cat lady in an apartment thing. But I think it's interesting. Yes, women who marry and have children tend to become more conservative. Women who remain single tend to remain uh to become or or be remain liberal and so um what do you get what so that that's an interesting dynamic if you're a democrat you definitely want to discourage women from getting married and having kids and getting more more it does it does a couple things one um it celebrates victimhood right if taylor swift can be a victim as a multimillionaire in mansions with cats, with relationships that when they go bad, you can attack the person that you just broke up with, and you have a massive megaphone to do it. And I mean, listen, again, it was your generation loved Taylor Swift, but now the younger kids in our family, Evita, they like her as well,

and their friends like her. And I hear them talk about how they think she's a victim, which is unbelievable that if Taylor Swift can be a victim, anybody can be a victim. So it's a power of victimhood, number one. But number two, it does, going back to this point of politics, it celebrates single womanhood. And to your point, Rachel, if we have more single women in America, you have a growing, more reliable block of voters for Democrats, which may be why, Evita, as we come into the 2024 election, it was so powerful for time to elevate Taylor Swift, who's, this is just the start. She's going to come full circle and have a bigger role in 2024. And this is just a little extra pop to bring her into the cultural relevance outside of music into Americans' minds because she's going to endorse and drive all these artists to go by in 2024. Could it be that Taylor Swift, Sean, is the updated version, the updated, more glamorized version of the life of Julia?

Oh. could it be that? So life of Julia was during Barack Obama. They had this sort of it was like an animated woman and they went through Julian and they made a video out of it and they thought, this is great. This is really going to get people. And they had this woman. And from the day she was born, they showed all the stages of her life and how she intersected with government at all these different stages, whether it was, you know, going to a public school, getting her her her, you know, government funded student loan. a government, you know, nursing home. I mean, like it went all the way through her life. And it really either just she had a kid, but it's not wasn't really clear whether there was a husband involved or not. It was a really strange scenario. And actually, it backfired on them in many ways, because a lot of normal women looked at this and were like, this is Julia's life is

very sad. And it became a point of mockery, at least on the right. I think the left thought this was great because this is what they want. They want you totally dependent on the state, totally dependent on government and not in families and not dependent on your own little family tribe. It's called communism. It's called communism. That's right. But it's interesting. That's not so glamorous. seeing that's not so that's not so glamorous but you could put forward somebody like taylor swift who's beautiful and talented and you know has cats and lives in a much nicer apartment than you do

she lives in a mansion um and and has this girl boss thing and yet she can kind of you know if you criticize her knows how to to wield the the victim yeah the victimhood thing and and her mob against the her critics uh she is essentially the perfect person to put forward an endorsement as you say in 2024 and so it is it is incumbent on the powers of culture to elevate her and interestingly avida some black artists female artists have been a little bit like, huh, why is she getting all this attention? Many of them more talented than her, some could argue. But I think that's the situation where I think they understand Taylor is the best point. I think you make such a great point in this. Yeah, I think she's much more subversive than

any. And that's why people will say, oh, you're being a conspiracy theorist, right? When I say that the media is intentionally promoting Taylor Swift. that it's not interesting. I think there's some truth to that, but we cannot deny all of the fawning articles. How many TV segments have we done talking about her and how great she is and not in an interesting way

like we are utilizing her. The TV segments and the articles have been overwhelmingly and nauseatingly positive in a way that makes somebody pause and say, okay, why are they doing this? I think there's something interesting about social media too.

And there's a few interesting YouTube videos on this, but music has changed in the era of TikTok and Instagram reels. Musicians and labels purposely want their songs to be able to go viral on the platforms so they shorten the refrain and they make them sort of something that people want to repeat right that they want to that they can add to their videos that sort of catchy right in an instagrammable tiktok kind of way if that makes sense um and there's something very uniform about that that we're all sort of listening to the same music hearing the same song um regional sounds and creativity that used to sort of exist back in you guys's area era right like you had especially i'm thinking of like the 70s and rock and roll there was so much creativity um now that's kind of died with the era of, to be honest, social media. And then you have theity in young people that lends itself to communism

and socialism and everything that the left kind of wants. But that's social media doing that. I mean, Taylor Swift's participating in this social media phenomenon, but social media in general, because it becomes so ubiquitous, it ends up sort of making everything the same, right? It staples creativity, right? I think it works in conjunction. It staples creativity. And I would argue that oftentimes social media is just a wing of the government, right?

And you start to see everything in East Germany and throughout the whole Soviet Union was bland in color. It wasn't creative. It was drab. We'll have more of this conversation after this. Breaking news happens anywhere, anytime. Police have warned the protesters repeatedly get back. CBC News brings the story to you as it happens. Hundreds of wildfires are burning. Be the first to know what's going on and what that means for you and for Canadians. This situation has changed very quickly. Helping make sense of the world when it matters most.

Stay in the know. CBC News. But I want to move to something else because I do think that this idea of what Taylor Swift represents for young women, you would think that your government and that people in positions of power, elites that control maybe magazines that are failing, but still have some power, like Time magazine, would try to promote things that make people happy. They give them fulfillment in their lives. And single cat ladies don't, I think, at the end of life find fulfillment. They don't find the kind of happiness that one would find in a marriage. If they can navigate that, and unbalanced, I mean, there's one for everybody, but unbalanced, you're going to be happier

married, and you're going to be more fulfilled married and and hopefully with children again you're you're blessed and they want to promote something that doesn't offer happiness and fulfillment but gives them political power which is i think um so horrible on their part you know sean it's you when you were just saying reminded me of something that peachy keenan um she's a a social critic and and a really interesting lady and sort of the anti-feminist out in LA. She tweeted recently about the conditions in nursing homes and the kind of people that will be, that are right now and will be filling the positions of care in those facilities. of care in those facilities. She was talking about it in terms of many young people now that hate Jewish people. That was sort of the context of this anti-Semitism. But you could see it in all kinds of other forms as well. But basically, she said, think ahead to where you will be when you're in your 80s and in your 90s. She said, I know I'm going to take care of my mother in my own home,

and I'm having lots of kids to make sure that somebody is taking care of me in my home. I don't want to be put in the hands of strangers in a facility like that. And this life- They might not like you because of the color of your skin or your religion or your political beliefs. Exactly. Exactly, Sean. Exactly. And we are creating this kind of, you know, divisions in our culture based on race, based on religion, based on politics. And, you know, you could just be, they find, I'm in a nursing home and I'm a Trump supporter. Well, I might, you know, wow, I'm in trouble. You don't get your bedpan changed. Your zipper doesn't get changed all day. Right. And so I don't, if you don't want to be at the whim of some young, indoctrinated, little Marxist, you know, person who's hired to be an aide, because let's face it, you're not

being cared for by nurses unless there's a problem. They are aides and these are very low paying jobs and there are some that are very good. But as we create these kinds of little, you know, divisions that are big divisions in our culture, you're at the whim of somebody like that. You want to have a family. You want to create those family bonds, that sense of duty and love that ensures that you're taking care of it. And by the way, a lot when she wrote that, a lot of people wrote back and they were like, oh, so you're saying to have kids so you have someone, you know, to take care of. I always say it's like Mexican Social Security. I don't care what people think if I say that. It's true. This is not a new thing

since the beginning. It's not. People have relied on their children to care for them in their old ages, the cycle of life. You take care of the baby and then eventually the baby ends up taking care of you. You change the baby's diapers. I think it was Plato or Aristotle said it. And then eventually they're changing your diapers. That's not my plan. I don't plan on doing it that way. Rachel needs the kids to take care of her. I plan on going before Rachel.

So Rachel's going to take care of me. I will. I will. What do you say about that? Do you think young? First of all, before we move to the next topic. Well, I'm not done with this topic yet. Okay.

What is the main appeal that young people have with Taylor Swift? And do you think young women your age, is what we're talking about just too far in advance? Like, you know, what's going to happen to you when you retire and you're, you know, too sick to take care of yourself? Are Sean and I crazy? Like, young people just don't think that far ahead. Yeah, I don't think that they think that far ahead at all. There's a there's a new it's an acronym. I think it's called DINK. Have you guys ever heard of that? It's like dual dual income. It's like, oh, yeah,

they're called DINKs, dual income, no kids. Yes, yes. Yeah, we did a whole podcast on DINKs. kids yes yes um yeah we we did a whole podcast on dinks okay okay so they're so explain what it is so it's dual income no no kids and they do these viral videos of like they do these little videos on tiktok showing how relaxing their saturdays are compared to me and sean right right yeah so they're bragging about their lifestyle um and there's i think that a lot of i think that's very attractive to a lot of young people um yeah and we also we also can't discount that it's attractive to me too we can't also discount that we live in you know in in biodynamics and people are struggling and so the idea of of having a lot of kids can seem very daunting and people's you know

say i'd i'd rather have my dual income income and have a good life the best that I can under the circumstances. There's that, but you can justify it by saying, oh, and I'm saving the environment. Right. But I also think that we're a country, a civilization that doesn't really value life anymore, right? We kill unborn babies all the time. We assisted suicide a bunch of old people. So it's not an ethos that we have. The ethos is the Taylor Swift lifestyle. The ethos is I'm going to worry about me and my mental health and my happiness, and that's going to fulfill me. And the truth is that the biological reality is that people's fulfillment come from their families and from that support system. The Democrats, it's advantageous for them to have people who are reliant on the government and not

have the familial ties that people were always meant to have. So the Taylor Swift lifestyle is entirely advantageous for Democrats and the world that they want to create in America. And unfortunately, it's attractive to a lot of young people because we don't have the same values that we used to. And that's a sign of a dying civilization. It always has been. When you lose the familial ties that bond you together, then you lose your purpose in life. And we become a civilization that's just sort of floundering purposelessly. And that leads to even greater problems.

We are on our last breath. And also a sign of societal decline is your newspaper, your paper Time that'll name Taylor Swift the person of the year. And on that point, we should probably talk about, because the bar is low. I mean, they pick Taylor Swift, so we can go with anybody. Who do we think should be Times Person of the Year? And as you think a bit, Evita and Rachel, I'll go first. I thought it should be Joe Rogan. And the reason I get, again, the bar is low with Taylor Swift, so I'm going to pick Rogan because here you have a guy who has been willing to say things that the mainstream curators of what we should hear about, they don't approve of the things and topics that he puts on a show. And I think, you know, someone who will speak freely, consequences be standard. I don't agree with everything he says, but again, that he'll say it.

I applaud that. We need more Joe Rogans that'll say more of what they believe. And he has a huge audience, a lot of young men, but men and women who listen to what he's saying, and they're getting an alternative point of view than that which is fed to them by left-wing media and the curators of information. I think that was a good choice. I think he is a huge threat to the establishment, to the globalists, to people who just want us to get in line. And the perfect sort of foil to why Evita says that Taylor Swift represents the perfect controllable woman, you know, mask wearing, check, feminist, check, Democrat, check, you know, I don't need a man, check. I don't need kids, check. I think all of that is very interesting.

And Rogan sort of represents this, you know, you can't control them and they're trying, but they can't. Yeah. So do you have a personal viewer? Do you have a pack? I don't know. I'm going to tell you who, I did this topic last night on the bottom line. 6 p.m. Fox Business. No, but I think Joe Rogan is the perfect choice. But I will say that Time Magazine is never going to pick someone like Joe Rogan. They are the establishment. They have also picked Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin as persons of the year. So the bar is low for time.

So on my show last night, Dagan McTowson, you know, I picked Dolly Parton, who's been nonpolitical. She did the pregame show down in Texas. Looks great. Has Dolly World, an alternative to Disney. And looking fabulous at, what, like 78 years old? Who could wear a Dallas Cowboys earlier outfit at 70? I felt like I thought it was great.

And at the other end of it, I also thought, God, that's so much pressure. That's when I just don't want to have to care. I don't need that pressure at 70. Well, Jimmy Fallon was on the show as well with us. And Jimmy, as always, delivers. He's like, this is easy. Like, you guys have it all wrong.

George Santos should be the man of the year. He invented the internet. He cured COVID. Like, you guys have it all wrong. George Santos should be the man of the year. He invented the internet. He cured COVID. Like, he's Christian and Jewish. And they came up with this whole list on George Santos. I don't care what anyone says about George Santos. I thought that he brought a lot of Congress. I loved him.

I did, too. And it was interesting to me because through you, because I said that on Fox and Friends and Will and Pete were like mortified that I said I thought he was so. But and then you told me there's this whole like you thing about him. Even young leftists actually love George Santos. And they were kind of he was just girl bossing. Why'd they do that to him? Like he's unironically the only man that I trust in Congress. And he is the greatest liar.

He's really bridged the gap. Democrat and conservative young people. We all love George Santos. I have to say, I was equally fascinated and loved him. And he will be greatly missed. And I thought it was interesting that Fetterman,

Senator Fetterman, came to his debates in a lot of ways and became his first Cameo customer. Well, by the way, George Santos did not know. If you didn't see the video, it's fantastic. And it's a Cameo. You know what Cameo is, Evita? Oh, yeah, I know what Cameo is. So Cameo is, for those who don't know, Cameo is you can pay money to a celebrity or somebody famous cd class well wait there's some really big names that you can yeah oh absolutely you got to pay big money for it so there's a scale of you know you if you're going to pay a lot if you're going to get an a list or if you're going to get a b c d list or the price goes down but basically you pay them to say a message a birthday

message a graduation congratulations message a happy anniversary, a graduation, congratulations message, a happy anniversary to a loved one. And it's a great gift. So if you if you love Bon Jovi and you can get Bon Jovi to say happy birthday to that person that loves Bon Jovi, then you're like, you know, that's a great gift. So anyway, George Santos got on Cameo. And guess who his first Cameo purchase was? Fetterman. So Fetterman. Senator Fetterman. But Santos didn't know that it was Fetterman. And Santos gave a message about Bob Menendez. He was talking about Bob and I left Congress, Bob, and you should get out too. And this whole message. Then later, we found out that it was actually from Fetterman about Bob Menendez. He took it in great stride.

He laughed about it. Isn't this great? And I mean, he's, Congress is gonna be a lot less fun with George Santos. And by the way, a lot more difficult for Republicans to get things done because George Santos was a reliable vote for Republicans. Now Kevin McCarthy is gonna be leaving as well. And so they're gonna have a two seat majority.

Someone gets sick. Someone has a baby. Someone dies. And you can see Hakeem Jeffries actually be the speaker of the House in the middle of the term because Republicans have lost all these votes. It's outrageous. Way, way, way down. By the way, why wouldn't McCarthy stay in just because of that? No, listen, McCarthy actually stayed on longer than anyone would have anticipated.

If you get kicked out of the speakership, you got kicked out. You're going to leave. When Eric Cantor lost his, this is back in the, what, 2004, when he lost his primary, he left within a week. Paul Ryan left very quickly after the speakership. The one that stayed around is Nancy Pelosi, but Nancy didn't lose the seat. She gave it up and then she stayed for another term.

But Kevin McCarthy stayed to make sure that things were working, that Speaker Johnson was able to get acclimated and he could help him out. And now he's going to leave as time has been served. I'm going to miss George Santos. I'm going to miss George Santos. And by the way, good move for Fetterman. Not because I think he's being sincere in his outrage over Bob Menendez. Maybe he is. I doubt it.

He's in Pennsylvania. That is a swing state. This is an easy one for him to pretend to be an independent voice by attacking Bob Menendez. All the Democrats have circled around and in many ways protected. And so there you go. May I ask why did Republicans even allow the vote to come to the floor? And why did so many of them vote to expel him? I'm sincerely baffled by it. It doesn't make any sense to me if they actually cared about winning for the American people.

I don't understand. So it was a privileged resolution that came to to the floor so it had to come up uh the the speaker or the leader could not keep it off the floor why the way the rules work what's that privilege how could i make something a privileged revolution so you had over 50 of the people that wanted it so democrats joined in and uh so too too, did New York Republicans specifically. The New York Republicans hated him and they hated getting asked about him in town halls of EDA. Well, it's a tough, tough, tough districts. The left wing media made him an issue, a topic of conversation often. And I've said this before.

George Santos was not going to get anyone a vote in the general election or cost anyone a vote, but they kicked him out all the same. And by the way, I don't think George is going to go away quietly. He's got a trial coming up in February. He very well may be convicted. The Congress should have waited for that conviction and had him removed. That's not what they did. And again, it's even a tougher majority now so okay so go ahead last thought on that i wish that we had representatives that didn't care about getting re-elected and they wanted to do it was best for the country which would have been to keep uh george santos in office but yeah that'd be nice that would have been nice i have proposed to have george santos um on my pop culture roundup as my

guest next weekend i'm pushing i don't know if they will approve it um but i hope then send tweets and comments to get them to have george santos on for the pop it would be it would be a lot of fun we'll have more of this conversation after this taylor swift got time magazine person of the year but the runner up to get it was going to be King Charles, the climate fanatic. And, you know, I've always found him to be a very unlikable person. I think he knows that he's always struggled with, you know, not being beloved by the British public because, you know, Princess Diana had the heart of the people. And then when she died in that way, you know, it was sort of like she was immortalized through death. And this is kind of like Donald Trump is loved like Diana and Ron DeSantis.

Just he's awkward and just really can't connect with the people. This is I think that's not a good analogy. This is a great analogy. No, it's totally different. And no, she was beloved worldwide. She was loved. She was beloved. And she actually was authentically a victim. You know, she was, you know, she really was. She was brought in as a young, you know, bride thinking that she was marrying into a family and into a relationship where he

genuinely wanted her and wanted to have a family with her and loved her. And it turned out the whole time he had this mistress Kamala. And so he's always struggled with his reputation because Diana fought back through the press, as we famously know. And of course, he struggled with his reputation when she died. As I said, she was immortalized, but he knew he was the heir to become the king. And he wanted his mistress, who he never stopped loving, his mother figure mistress, Kamala Parker, he wanted her to be accepted. And so this has been his quest. Part of what he's been able to sort of virtue signal among the lefties is through climate change, through the environmentalism. And Evita, you wrote a great piece sort of breaking down how he has used environmentalism to bolster his image and make him seem like he's he's not the colonialist or the adulterer that we know he is.

And, and also how he has used it to deflect from the very scandalous revelation on, in a new book by OB, what's his name? Evita OB. I always get his name wrong. OB Scobie or whatever, you know,

you know, the friend of, of Megan and Harry, who just wrote a book. And in one edition of the book in a different language, I think it was in Norwegian. The names it was in was it was in Dutch. Sorry. In the Dutch edition, the names of the royals, if you recall, during the Oprah interview, Megan said somebody in the royal family asked what

shade the baby might be and of course she said this was an indication that the royals were racist and but nobody knew who the name was and there was a lot of speculation who could it be some people thought it was princess anne a lot of people thought it was kamala uh uh, Camila, soon to be Queen Camila. And so, uh, people didn't know. Then this book comes out, the Dutch version names King Charles and Princess Kate are the ones. And Evita, your article kind of starts there. Right. So, so King Charles has always used environmentalism, like you said, as sort of a crutch. Right. He has all this bad press. He's not very well liked. He's probably one of the least liked royals in recent British history.

Right. His mom was one of the most beloved. It's a really hard person to follow. So he this news breaks that he's allegedly the racist one who was questioning the skin tone of the baby. I don't actually believe that that necessarily is a racist comment. He could have just been saying, you know, oh, I wonder because this is like one of the first mixed children in our family or probably the first mixed child in the royal family. I wonder what skin tone he'll be like. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a racist statement and in fact he's actually tried to amend what megan said and made it seem like it wasn't racist so probably it wasn't but the left nonetheless has been saying oh well this is a sign now that king charles is the racist one and so in the wake of all this he's he's now going to cop 28

where he gave this opening speech which cop 28 28 is the UN climate summit that they have every year, where all of the rich CEOs and politicians of the world fly in on private jets to a conference to talk about climate change and how they can subjugate the rest of us with dystopian climate policies. King Charles gives his opening speech. He has all these meetings, and he purposely makes this point of saying, I'm going to meet with the indigenous peoples of the world because they are going to be the most affected by climate change, which seems a little bit purposeful as people are accusing King Charles of racism at the same time. And this is what King Charles does all the time, right? He uses the climate change movement to deflect from his own unpopularity. And ironically, it is the climate change movement that is impoverishing and hurting not just black and brown people across the world, but his own subjects. You know, I look at part of the article as well, Avita, and I thought a great point that you made on talking about indigenous people, talking about minorities, talking about Africa.

Climate change will do more to keep people impoverished, keep them tied down in squalor and in poverty. lives in a castle, flies around on private aircraft, has access to fossil fuels and fossil fuel use, all the while telling everyone who's poor in the world, you have to stay poor because of climate change. Now, your leaders, we might pay them off and give them money so they actually keep you impoverished because you don't have access to fossil fuels. But again, the likes of Bill Gates and John Kerry and Prince Charles, they all fly in private aircraft. They all eat meat. They all have the finest that the world has to offer. And again, this idea of trying to mask what he thinks, he's getting blowback because people think this was a racist comment. would agree with you it wasn't um but he feels the pressure and his answer is i know what i'm gonna do i'm gonna use climate change to keep the people that i'm accused of

being racist i guess i'm gonna keep them poor yeah imagine the climate footprint in the of the castle so oh it's huge what's the fossil yeah nasa i'm sure it's huge something that we i should have sent this to you guys beforehand but it's really interesting i don't know if you guys saw the news that kamala harris announced the united states is giving three billion dollars to the u.s green climate fund the green climate fund is this like un so obviously king charles is in support of this this fund as well right it? It's this UN fund where they promote climate change policies in third world countries. What's really interesting, and I had a conversation with Mark Morano, who I know mom's interviewed a few times, not sure if you

guys have him on the podcast, but he actually wrote a book where he talked about how the Green Climate Fund is part of green colonialism or eco-imperialism, right? It's this new form of rich Western countries subjugating African, Asian, and South American countries who are really impoverished. So really what an African country needs, right, if they have no electricity and no running water, which, by the way, directly correlates to infant mortality, life expectancy, quality of life, all these things are tied to fossil fuels. They actually say, no, you guys aren't allowed to have fossil fuels because we don't want you to make the same mistakes that we did. And if you all had fossil fuels like we do, the world might implode. So we're going to actually promote politicians in your country who are going to keep you in poverty by promoting green energy projects like solar and wind power which we know is incapable of actually

scaling um and being as affordable as fossil fuels so what happens is you have these countries who are trying to do better and you're purposely keeping them down it is eco-imperialism not only that but the u.n actually has all of these uh western countries promising to not fund any international fossil fuel projects which means that these countries even if they had the ability even if their politicians would allow them to start uh fossil fuel projects the rich nations who they need to invest in it refuse to do that because of the u.n it is keeping people down, most of them black and brown, in the name of the environment. And ironically, it is extremely racist. But do you want to know who will actually invest in those projects? If the West won't invest,

COP28 won't invest, there is one country that will invest. They're called China. Yes. China will invest in those projects, and they'll control those projects, and they'll control those countries and reap the benefits of it. As we say, no, no, no, climate change. We can't let American companies invest in these resources that will lift these places out of property. By the way, the model, though, is very China. country to the Biden, you know, corrupt family business is they'll identify little princeling members of the elite establishment, pay them off to get them to do the bidding of China.

And in this case, that's what this climate fund will do. They will take a U.S. tax dollars, six billion of it or three billion of it. I can't what it was. It was it three or six billion. And that's on top of the two billion we've already sent to the fund. That's so it goes to the u.n fund i'm sure the u.n skins it off yeah which the u.n skins it off to do all the stupid work they do they don't do much good um at least in terms of for america oh go ahead they supposedly send it to these you know the elites who run these african countries and it's basically a payoff you're paying off the elites in these poor african country to not do projects that would actually lift their share population out of they use the money to build monuments for themselves and to

create these you know uh government buildings for themselves and it's it and and then fund their own re-election efforts and corruption efforts and this is super corrupt way of western countries um controlling what poorer countries do and and keeping them uh in in poverty which which is i love that green colonialism eco-imperial imperialism so can I tell you who's fault this is? Because I know you might go, this is radical leftism at its worst, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and Democrats. But the truth is, Republicans control the purse strings. And again, we spend so much money that the Congress can't delineate how every dollar is spent. So they will send, with some direction, money to all these different agencies that they fund, to the military, to the White House. And then they have a wide amount of discretion on how that money is spent, right? But what you can do is put a rider,

it's called a rider on the appropriations process that would say, we're sending you this money. We're not going to tell you how it all has to be spent, but we will tell you that none of the money can be spent for this. You can't send any money or you can't even work on anything to do with the green fund. So why would they do that? Say you can't use our money to send to the UN for green projects. Because they're not willing to get into a fight with Democrats on this issue. But would there be a fight? Yeah. Republicans won't fight Democrats on the border because there's a fight right now with, you

know, whether Joe Biden wants $106 billion for Ukraine and Israel funding. He wants it bad. And Republicans said, okay, well, let's just have a conversation about then how we secure the border, how we change policies in the border to stop this massive inflow. And mark my words, I think Republicans are going to care. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm sure that they will. This is the same thing here. You could cut off every dollar to the EPA that is going to fund their EPA missions. That's going to get rid of the internet. I can say at least internationally, like, okay, you want to destroy our country with your green climate policies.

You're not going to use US tax dollars to fund, you know, green imperialism in the third world. And I'm sorry, but that would be a popular proposition. That's why I say, OK, the American people would love that. They would love for you not to send their money over to the U.N. Why wouldn't they do it, Sean? That would be popular. Well, listen, it also popular to to secure the border. Seventy five percent of Americans, Democrats, independents and Republicans want the border secure, but their ideology is different than where the American people are, which is why they keep the border

open. Same thing here. Their ideology is driving them to send this money out. So just to be clear. No, no, I think you're missing my point. What I'm saying is if the Republicans fought on not allowing U.S. tax dollars to go to a U.N. slush fund to keep third world countries in green policies and keep their people down, green colonialism. And if they framed it in that way, which is exactly precisely what it is, I think that would be a popular fight that people would like them to not use their tax dollars overseas in that way. And so that might be a fight worth fighting for. So I'm answering your question. And I'm saying, yes, that sounds like it'd be a great fight worth having. I agree with that. But Democrats will

fight Republicans on it. And I'm sure Republicans won't stand up. And I'm using a comparison to the border. I don't know the stats on how many Americans think we should send money to a green fund at the U.N. I do know that 75% of Americans think the border is out of control, that they want it more secure. And Republicans, I don't think, are going to fight Democrats who are fighting tooth and nail to keep the border open. It's a winner for Republicans because that's what the American people want. But Joe Biden doesn't want that. Kamala Harris doesn't want that.

Alejandro Mayorkas doesn't want that. Senators and House members don't want that. The American people are with Republicans. Will they stand up and fight? I don't have a lot of faith. So the only way on the border that they can fight is to say, we won't fund your wars. Which is what they're setting out. If you, but the truth is, that's a different fight, Sean, because the truth is there's

a lot of Republicans that do want to fund that war. In this case with the climate thing, it's different. You just say, you put the writer in. Okay. So you get some Democrats complaining. So you have the majority. Well, they won't pass. The House bill goes to the Senate. The Senate passes a different bill. And then you have the majority. Well, they won't pass the Republican. The House bill goes to the Senate.

The Senate passes a different bill and then you have to negotiate. And the more things you can get in those bills, the more opportunity you have to cut more stupid funding like this. So it gets to be far in the weeds on how this process works. But just know that Republicans have a lot more power than they're letting on with regard to the power of the purse. And it's also why a lot of Republicans have said, we want to go through the appropriations process. When you go, there's 12 appropriations bills. When you actually have, you know, the appropriators work through and debate and then pass bills, that's where you can put these riders in. If there's just one big,

massive spending bill, it's not an opportunity to slice and dice funding to make sure it doesn't go to these horrible things like $3 billion to the Climate Fund. Evita, is the king going to be able to get past these accusations of racism and, you know, having been named as the person who asked what shade? By the way, Sean, you would be in big trouble. named as the person who asked what shade. By the way, Sean, you would be in big trouble. I mean, when we had our babies, we wondered, will they look more Irish or a little more Hispanic? A little more Mexican.

And even within you kids, there were different shades. You turned out whiter than some of the others for some reason. By the way, I didn't care what shade they were going to be. This is like a mysterious conversation. It doesn't mean you're a racist. It doesn't mean you like Evita more than the others um although sometimes they say that a beat is your favorite some of the other kids but then the then others say it's others so who knows uh but there's a debate about that but i would say that that's not a racist thing but will the king be able to fight these racism accusation so i i actually think yes, in Britain, because

they're sick of the racism accusations from Harry and Meghan, because Harry and Meghan didn't just go after King Charles. They actually went after the British media and the British people in general. They said, all of you are racist. That's what Harry and Meghan were essentially alleging. And so they've gotten pretty indignant. The British people are like, you know what? We're done with all of all of the the the gaslighting and and the accusations. If you don't like it, if you don't want to be part of of Britain, leave, which is what they did. And I think a lot of them are standing by Charles because of their hatred toward Harry and Meghan. In America, it might not be so, it might not be the same. I think a lot of people in America are very sensitive to the race

issue. A lot of them are kind of on the side of Harry and Meghan, at least the American left is. So King Charles is still going to be called a racist by Americans, but that doesn't really matter to King Charles, right? He's trying to win over his own people. What bothers me about the British people is that they have, I've been talking about King Charles and the eco imperialism and and the way that that green agenda is actually hurting them right britain and most of europe went through uh an energy crisis last winter because of these these uh the war in ukraine um and not that that having an impediment on energy and then also then shutting down all of the fossil fuel production in Europe to meet 2030 or 2050 goals. So I don't know. I'm very frustrated.

That's because the British people love, they're all bought and sold on the climate agenda. What you say, but Sean, have you been amazed? There are a few years ahead of us on the indoctrination front. Yeah, agreed. Have you been amazed, Sean, at how Megan and Harry have been able to keep themselves in the news with just more and more grievances? So she first said this on a story that came out as well as prince harry goes back to the uk uh the the king has taken away his security detail right and he is he suing yeah he's suing he's suing to get his security detail back when he goes to he's saying i don't need it you don't have to adhere but you you you must if I go back for official stuff, you must provide me with security. And the question is why? You've removed yourself

from the royal family. Why are you then entitled to then have a security detail? Listen, he makes enough money himself. Fund your own. If you need security, fund it yourself. Take the millions that you've made shilling against the royal family and pay for your own security detail? Why should the British people pay for it? Why should the crown pay for it? Pay for yourself. You know, Sean, if only he made his money from hurting his family, which is bad enough, but he has also made money. I think he was on the Aspen Institute board for different word for like different formations so basically he's making money millions off of helping globalists censor all of us that's how he makes his money i think he actually said that he thought the first amendment was bonkers or something he's a yeah he said he didn't understand it at all it's like

i'm sorry sir if you don't understand the first amendment and you're gonna employ yourself at places that are actively trying to destroy our most sacred value here in the United States, we don't want you either. Go back to your grandma. Go to Canada. Well, I said the Federalist had the best quote. He said, you know, if he keeps talking like this, we're going to have to tar and feather him and send him back to Britain. Or Canada. It's much easier. It's cheaper. Just send him back to britain or canada it's much easier it's cheaper just send him to canada brits as you said don't want to send them up to trudeau um and these can hang together all the lefties can have a fascinating conversation two great pieces one on king charles um as well as

on taylor swift and i have one on the eco-imperialism too i have a whole article and then if anybody wants to know how how they they are subjugating poor black and brown countries, all these anti-racist pro-equity by that. Is that posted already? What is that posted already? Yeah, it's up. I talk about the Green Climate Fund and how it is a neocolcolonialist policy that is truly ridiculous for the equitable Biden administration to be sending money to. What's the title of that piece? Oh, OK. Hold on.

Let me let me look. Send it to me because I haven't seen it yet. I read the other two. If you want the Federalist, you can search for Abita Duffy Alfonso. You'll pull up all of her articles. They're fantastically done. Very insightful. Very well researched.

The title is Biden administration pledges $3 billion to the UN's neocolonialist Green Climate Fund. Yeah. Love it.

There you have it. Abita, thank you for joining us. Look forward to seeing you soon for Christmas. Yeah. Celebrating with you and Michael. We can't wait for that. The kids are all starting to come back to the nest as we prepare for Christmas. Yeah. Celebrating with you and Michael. We can't wait for that.

The kids are all starting to come back to the nest as we prepare for Christmas. We're preparing the nest. The next podcast, we should have a conversation about ice plunging and how we're doing it out here. Oh, yeah. In the cold. I'm all about that. You know what? Let's do a podcast next week with you, Evita, on cold plunging, something that Evita and Sean are both big fans of.

We'll talk about the pros, the cons, the different methods. Sean in his garage, Evita in the cold lakes of northern Wisconsin is doing her plunging. We'll talk about the pros and cons. Then we'll talk about my objections. This would literally be my form of help. I can't wait for that episode. Let's definitely do that next week. Listen ad-free with a Fox News Podcast Plus subscription on Apple Podcasts and Amazon Prime members can listen to the show ad-free on the Amazon Music app.

from the fox news podcasts network i'm ben dominech fox news contributor and editor of the transom.com daily newsletter and i'm inviting you to join a conversation every week it's the