The David Pakman Show - 6/30/23: Trump demanded documents back, Fox host off script on Biden crimes

Episode Date: June 30, 2023

-- On the Show: -- The Supreme Court rejects race-based affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional -- A new report reveals that failed former President Donald Trump demanded "my documents" back despite being warned by lawyers that he would be indicted -- Fox News host Steve Doocy briefly interjects logic and reason, explaining that there is no actual evidence at this time that President Joe Biden committed any crimes -- Caller discusses Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s presidential run -- Caller outlines how the US could become fascist -- Caller discusses gun control -- Caller talks about the culture war and whether it's winnable -- Caller reveals what it's like to be a teacher dealing with MAGA parents -- Caller discusses Robert F. Kenedy Jr.'s coalition of voters -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: Supreme Court election ruling, Trump's latest appeal to black voters, and much more... 👂 MDHearing: Just $149.99 each + free charging case. Use code PAKMAN at https://mdhearing.com ✅ Parcil Safety: Get 25% off with code PAKMAN at https://davidpakman.com/safety -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 In another major decision from this current Supreme Court, the decision has been made that affirmative action at colleges is unconstitutional. This is a huge, huge story. Key points from CNBC's Dan Mangan, who really sums this up. The Supreme Court ruled that the affirmative action admission policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which gave weight to a would be students race are unconstitutional. The ruling is a massive blow to decades old efforts to boost enrollment of racial minorities

at American universities. The court's majority opinion said the school's affirmative action programs, quote, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping and lack meaningful end points. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent quote. Today this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. There are those on the right who were never in favor of such a policy. There are those on the right and left who were at one point in favor of such a policy,

but believe it is no longer necessary. And there are those mostly on the left who continue to believe that such race based affirmative action policies are still necessary based on current circumstances. You know, as I think about this, I don't believe that this is the right decision right now today. But I do believe that the right direction for such policies would eventually be an off ramp. Now, the off ramp should be at a time when we can point and say, here is the panorama. Here is the situation in which we can now say affirmative action should be class based. It should potentially be geography based in some ways which relates to class, etc. But maybe enough has been done where the race based component need not be a part anymore.

And I want to be really clear. I don't think we are quite there yet, but the time was coming. Colleges knew that it was coming. Activists on the left that we've interviewed have in many cases felt that this is a matter of when, not if. And I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to figure out where do we go next in ensuring equitable access to higher education? Because I do believe it was an inevitability that this was coming, and that is not a defense of this Supreme Court making this decision right now. Clarence Thomas wrote two discriminatory wrongs cannot make a right, saying that, yes, there

were at one point racist admission policies, but that then now using this kind of race based affirmative action is just an additional wrong. You're not writing a wrong with another wrong. That's a right wing view for sure. Sonia Sotomayor calling the ruling profoundly wrong and devastating and saying that the majority holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in colleges admissions. I do think despite what I just told you about the fact that this was inevitable at some point and it was more a matter of when, not if I do think it's important that we not even

for a second fall for. The claims that are often made by right wingers about how this work, and this is often the case when, for example, Joe Biden said, I think I would like to put a black woman on the Supreme Court and all of these right wingers go, why would you put an unqualified person on the court merely because she's a black woman, of course, speaking about Judge Jackson. And we all who understood what was going on rightly said, it's not that you're going to put an unqualified person. You're not lowering the standards. You're simply saying we have so many qualified people in the United States, white men, black

women, et cetera, that what Joe Biden is saying is I am going to choose from the well qualified black women because we have an extraordinarily notable lack of that sort of representation on the Supreme Court. And similarly, it is not that colleges have been going around finding, quote, unworthy or unqualified minorities to admit. It's that when you have equally qualified candidates, some colleges have opted in the direction of considering race and historical inequality in making their decisions. You can be for or against it, but let's be honest about what it was.

However, it's 2023. This is the decision that the Supreme Court has made. Colleges have long been preparing for years. We've talked about it on the bonus show. David Pakman membership costs six bucks a month. Yeah, we've talked about it on the bonus show, how colleges have been preparing for what this will look like. This was a matter of time.

This was only a matter of time. And while I don't know that now was the exact right time, this is going to be the reality and we will see how colleges deal with it and we will see if there are unforeseen repercussions as a result. We have yet another little kernel of the insanity that has been taking place behind the scenes with regards to the Donald Trump bathroom dump of documents. An exclusive Rolling Stone article now reports that Trump demanded, quote, my documents back even after his lawyers told him he would be indicted. This is just an unbelievable. It reminds us of the disconnect from reality that this guy lives in. Look at this. Last month, Donald Trump's lawyers told him he was on the cusp of a federal indictment

in the classified documents case. But the former president still wanted, quote, my documents and quote, my boxes back, asking some of his lawyers if he could get them from the federal government, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter. And two other people briefed Trump in the middle of being told you're about to get arrested, was saying, can I get my my documents back? I want to put him back in the bathroom. Maybe he didn't say that. Going back to the article, it's one of many such conversations Trump has had over the past few months. In these conversations, Trump also claimed it was, quote, illegal that he could no longer have the documents that were seized. Those materials, Trump insisted, belonged to, quote, me.

Trump has also asked if there are any other possible legal maneuvers or court filings they could try to accomplish this that they hadn't thought of yet. You have to remember, these are not Trump's documents. These are, in a sense, our documents. They're classified. Most of us don't actually have a right to see them, but they are the government's documents, the government's documents. And the article addresses that Trump has incorrectly insisted that the government's documents, the government's documents. And the article addresses that Trump

has incorrectly insisted that the highly classified documents he was hoarding were, quote, mine, mine. Trump has also mentioned he'll get the documents back in 2025 because he predicts he'll be pleasant president again and will then get unfettered access to the most sensitive secrets of the government. This is a reminder that this is not a character that Trump is playing. Trump really is the bottomless narcissist that he is portrayed to be by many who know him and many in the media. Trump really doesn't understand the things that he has reported not to understand. When Trump asked about can we nuke a hurricane? When Trump asked about why can't

we consider new nuking Europe? Would a flu vaccine work on covid when Trump asked these things and his defenders go? He didn't ask it. And if he asked it, it was clearly a joke because he knows everything. He clearly doesn't. He still believes that these are his documents, even though they, of course, are not. And it's a very interesting sort of peek into the psyche of Trump. And remember, Trump keeps insisting that there's nothing criminal related to what he did. These 37 felony counts, he says it's all governed by the Presidential Records Act. It is not. It doesn't even seem he knows what that means, but it is not governed by the Presidential Records Act. We are talking here about his actions as a former president. We are talking about his refusal to give the documents back when asked. We are talking about his direction of lawyers and others to lie

and obfuscate and hide and refuse to give back. We're talking about all of those different things. And he keeps insisting it's merely an issue of the Presidential Records Act. It's not. He doesn't get it. At this point, it's time to just admit he doesn't get it. He keeps talking about the Clinton sock drawer tapes as if there's any equivalency there. Bill Clinton recorded his thoughts while he was in office on audio tapes. He was granted permission to keep them after a review to use them in order to I don't remember if it was to write a book or what it was. It's not an even remotely similar situation. Trump is talking about how, oh, the espionage is it's never been used like this. The espionage was used in this way six times while Trump was president of the United

States. It is not that rare. You can be against how it's written. You can be against certain provisions or whatever. It is not unique to Trump. Speaker 1 And yet again, completely disconnected from reality. Fox, Fox host Steve Doocy went off script and admitted. There really isn't any evidence that Joe Biden or Hunter Biden committed any financial crimes of which they are accused accused bribery, all these different things. Steve Doocy has done this a bunch of times now, and when he does it, his co-hosts Brian Kilmeade and Ainsley Earhart, they look a little bit uncomfortable. They look a little bit like Chris Christie did that day when he stood behind Trump in 2016 and endorsed him like maybe he had some bad oysters the night before.

But Steve Doocy continues to every once in a while go off script. Decoding Fox News has the clip for us. This is good stuff. It is unclear what the joint venture is or was. And if it was just for Biden corruption, then why did they have other entities like they had? They mentioned Hudson and some other partners as well. If it was just to influence a former vice president, which I don't know if that's illegal. Why exactly were there so many other moving parts?

And what the Republicans don't do here yet is they don't say if any laws were broken and if anything was illegal. Well, what they are saying. Yeah, that's exactly right. You know, they claim that they have Biden bribery tapes. And then when you actually ask them, do you know that these tapes exist? Actually we don't. Do you know that they're legitimate? Actually we don't. Okay, well the whistleblower who claims to have these tapes, I'm sure you're in touch

with him, right? James Comer says, actually, no one's spoken to the alleged whistleblower in three years. I'm sorry. We just we haven't spoken to him. Steve Doocy is actually saying here we don't have evidence. We just don't have evidence that Joe Biden committed any financial crimes. Now I want to remind everybody I was away the week that Hunter Biden struck this plea deal.

The plea deal that Hunter Biden struck was related to his ownership of a gun, possession of a gun when he wasn't supposed to have one and some back taxes that he didn't pay. As I've always said, investigate everybody, investigate Joe Hunter, Hillary, Barack Obama, investigate all of them. I don't care if there's evidence of criminality, just treat everybody the same. But it's very important to understand that a lot of these right wingers who are saying we finally got Hunter on the bribery and the corruption and all these different things. No, you didn't. You didn't. The things that Hunter Biden has entered into a plea agreement relate to his personal taxes and his possession of a gun.

They have nothing to do with alleged Joe Biden bribery. They have nothing to do with any of these things. It doesn't mean those things didn't happen. It's like when people said Ivermectin. And I said, listen, we don't currently have evidence that Ivermectin treats covid. I didn't say we will never have that evidence. Merely, we don't have it at this time. And similarly, is it possible Joe Biden was involved in some kind of crazy bribery corruption scheme? Sure. Is it possible Trump was involved in one? Sure. Is it possible Nikki Haley was involved? Sure. Do we have evidence that Joe Biden was involved in such a scheme at this time? No.

And every single alleged evidence element that they keep talking about evaporates or doesn't materialize. That's where we are right now. Let's take a quick break. We will be back. It's such a packed program for you today. It's actually it's almost making me tear up as a big, strong guy. How strong of a program we have for you today.

If you or one of your parents is starting to lose your hearing, you're not alone. About 48 million Americans have hearing loss and only one in five people who would benefit from using a hearing aid are actually using one. Our sponsors, MD Hearing, create FDA registered rechargeable hearing aids that cost a fraction of what you typically pay. For example, MD Hearings new Neo model costs less than 10 percent of what those marked up hearing aids are being sold for at most hearing clinics. And the NEO is MD hearings, smallest hearing aid ever. No one will even know that it's there. I have a close family friend who uses MD hearing and loves it. She said it performs better than any hearing aid that she's used. And it's far

less noticeable. MD hearing even offers a 45 day risk free trial with a 100 percent money back guarantee so you can buy with confidence and they have a special deal for my audience. When you buy a pair of hearing aids, you'll get them for just one forty nine ninety nine each. Plus, they'll include a free extra charging case. Go to MD hearing dot com and use the code Pacman. You can find the link in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show continues to be a community supported program. You can get yourself

a membership at join Pacman dot com, which is an absolutely great thing to do. You can use the coupon code indicted again if you want to get a discount and you'll get the bonus show, which Alex Jones hates and Howard Stern refuses to pay for. That's just one of the great member benefits. Join Pacman dot com is the place. Let's hear from the people in the audience. These are the most important people. We missed live calls last week because of my absence, a very timely absence. I would say we do live calls via discord. You can join the discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. And we are going to start today with George from Virginia. George from Virginia. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today, sir?

Hey, David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Speaker 1 Oh, excellent. Excellent. So I wanted to bring up something with RFK that I think a lot of people are kind of glossing over to focus on the vaccine stuff. Speaker 1 OK, you're talking about Bobby Kennedy Jr., Democratic presidential candidate. Speaker 4 Yes, that is correct. Good. So he said, I don't know if you saw he was had two interviews on breaking points. No, I didn't see that. I didn't see that. Oh, OK. Well, I would

I would recommend you go check him out because he reveals a lot of information about what he wants to do in certain areas. OK. And in the first one, he said something that was really troubling. He said that when it comes to climate change, he believes that the solution is having a truly free energy market. Right. And when I hear that, I get very nervous because I think of Texas. Right. And and Texas has I don't know if, you know, your viewers know this, but Texas has a deregulated energy market where it's supposed to drive down costs and lower pollution. But I look this up. Texas is actually one of the top 10 most polluted states in the country. And not only that, they've had these issues where because their electrical system is not

connected to the greater grid, when they had the winter storms, when they had the summer heat waves and power outages, they were they were basically screwed, for lack of a better term, because they didn't have neighboring resources they could pull from. It's been a disaster in Texas. No, listen, I'm aware of what you're saying with Bobby Kennedy, Jr. And I know that he favors a very sort of like pro corporate, in a sense, situation when it comes to energy. And I just don't believe that there's evidence that that actually will work. There are all sorts of different reasons that we could look at, including the fact that really to get us out of the status quo in a way where we will move in

the direction of truly renewable energy. There is this interim period during which we actually almost certainly, I believe, certainly will need government involvement through both regulation and subsidies. We're going to need regulation and subsidies in order to start making some really important transitions. I believe that if it's left to the free market, sure, they might happen decades later than they otherwise would. And in a way that will be dramatically damaging to the planet. So I just told and it sounds like you agree with me on this, George. I disagree with Bobby Kennedy Jr. that that's the way to fix climate change.

Yeah, and I think a lot of people misunderstand the fact that he as a lawyer can fight for for justice when it comes to environmental things. But his solution as a policymaker can be bad. Absolutely. Absolutely. So very eloquently said, George. Thank you. So, yeah, that was all I had. And I appreciate it, David. Speaker 1 All right. George from Virginia making some excellent points. Let's go to Andrew from California. Andrew from California. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Speaker 4 Yeah.

Speaker 5 Hey, I was just wondering if you I don't remember who the journalist was, but she posted a link to like the National Archives about a 1945 memo that the War Department posted defining fascism and how it could happen in the United States. Yeah. Is this a big bill? No. Let me see if I could find it here.

You don't remember the name of the journalist? No, I don't. Yeah. I mean, listen, I don't. Yeah. I mean, listen, I'll, I'll look for it. We've interviewed experts on this more recently. You don't have to go back to 1945 in order to get a sort of story of how we could go in the direction of fascism in the United States. Uh, I believe it's Thomas Homer Dixon was the guy's name, Canadian

professor who we interviewed about that. There is absolutely a path into it. But but so I mean, let's let's imagine we agree that that it's possible. Was it what did you have a particular question building on that memo? Yeah, I agree with you that like, you know, there have been more recent things. The reason why I thought that this memo was so like pertinent is because it was, it's, it was from the United States government, like at a time period, very close to fascism. Right. And like in the, in the memo, it, um, it says a lot of things that like, I would say that the Republican Party do like they pretty much clean the. I found it. I mean, I found it. So this is the army talk orientation fact sheet on fascism from nineteen forty five. When you read it, it's stunning because it describes a lot of how MAGA works. Here's what it what it says. If people become so dissatisfied with democracy that they're willing

to give up rights and freedoms for false promises of security and prosperity, fascism could happen in the United States. That's quite literally MAGA, false promises of security and prosperity, which have convinced some people to say, I don't know that we really need all the freedoms we take for granted. And it goes on to say people become so indifferent to public affairs, they let a small group of ambitious and unscrupulous politicians take over the government. People become frightened by threats that they support leaders who claim to be super patriots, but really are traitors to democracy. It's stunning.

It's from 1945 and it sounds like it's describing MAGA. Yeah. Two more things that I thought were really interesting from that is like fascism's prime goal is to promote like nationalism, but at the same time question the common sense of the common man. So it was like, like we're a country that's so great that we can't govern ourselves because there's too like there's too many like trans sports athletes. We need to like start intervening in and civil liberties. But besides that, we're the greatest country on Earth and have the best people and stuff

like that. Like I thought that that contradiction is very interesting. Oh, there's many of those. There's many of those. We have we should have no regulation because businesses know what to do, except we need to tell them exactly whether or not they can require masks, vaccines, except they're not gay customers. We need to I mean, listen, we could we could go on all day with those examples. But very interesting. Andrew, thanks for telling me about this memo. Yeah, no problem. All right. There goes Andrew from California. Very exciting stuff.

Let's go next to Elias from Texas. What's on your mind today? Hello. Elias from Texas, please unmute. Am I coming through? OK. Yes. Am I am I coming through OK? OK. Yes. This has to do with the writer's strike. What do you think? Which laws do you think the government will have to pass in order to adapt to like AI and stuff like that? Like the new technologies coming out? I have absolutely no idea what laws the government will have to pass. I mean, some of the ideas that have been floated have been that if large

corporations, you would usually say this doesn't apply to a company with 10 people. But if larger corporations. Openly, I mean, and it's so hard because it's like companies could do this quietly, you know, but if large corporations start replacing workers, human workers with AI technologies or whatever, then they would pay significantly higher taxes than what would be payroll taxes on a human employee. I mean, I don't know. These are some of the ideas that have been floated. I don't know. I don't know what what's going to happen.

Yeah, I think it's just it's so new that we don't really know the full extent of of how it's going to change our society. Yeah, I mean, I think the other thing to remember is this is already happening and there have been no laws really passed. I mean, manufacturing has significantly shifted over to robotics. Many fast food places now are having ordering happen on screens. You don't need as many cashier employees. We're already seeing it and it doesn't seem like there's been any big legal infrastructure put in place at this time. Speaker 4 Yeah, it really needs to happen. Well, thank you so much, David. Thank

you for calling on me. Have a good day. There goes Elias from Texas. And by the way, I don't know that it's a foregone conclusion that those are the types of laws that we, quote, need. I mean, I think inevitably this is going to happen and it's going to be more of a societal adjustment that's going to have to take place. But I'm keeping an open mind about it. All right. Let's go next to Adrian from San Francisco, where I just returned from. Adrian from San Francisco. Welcome. What's on your mind today? Good morning, David. How are you? I'm doing well. David, I wanted to ask you about Gavin Newsom's proposal for a constitutional amendment for gun control. And I wanted to talk specifically about the third point, which is he wanted to ban assault weapons. Okay.

I was curious what your general perception of a proposal like that would be. Number one, in terms of policy, but two, just in terms of public sentiment. OK, so the third let's see, I'm looking at the list here of so raise the federal minimum age for firearms from 18 to 21. Mandate universal background checks, institute a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases. And I think this is the one you're talking about, barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. You're talking about that last one, right?

That's right. Thanks for the correction. So listen, he doesn't include that. I can see in this proposal the exact weapons that would be part of that. Now, this is often a sticking point for the for the right wing gun people. They go, you know, these Democrats want to ban assault weapons. They can't even define it. They don't know what it is. I can I can modify a gun so that it technically is legal, but then I make it function in the same way. Ba ba ba ba ba. I think that sort of misses the forest for the trees.

First the question is, can the government legally limit the choices people have when it comes to arms? And I believe everyone says the answer is yes. When you go to shoulder mounted RPGs, nuclear weapons, grenades, all these different things, almost everyone goes, well, no. Yeah. OK, so the government can do some limits once you've conceded that. Then it's a matter of where you draw the line and people can disagree about where to draw the line. But there's a lot of places you could draw the line that wouldn't violate the Second Amendment in any way.

You then get to, OK, well, is this particular gun an assault weapon or not? That can be figured out. And for me, it's not the main sticking point. For me, the big picture is there are some firearms that truly serve no purpose other than to kill a ton of people as possible in a short amount of time. And it's totally reasonable and logical to decide as a society, you can have a second amendment, you have the right to own guns, you can buy guns, et cetera, but not any gun. Here are some guns we are going to put on a list. I think that that's fine. And you don't have to know every gun that would be on the list for it to be a valid position. Yeah, David, I think that's fair. I mean,

total agreement that when Republicans want to get finicky on the ontology of what classifies as an assault weapon, it's totally just to obfuscate. That's entirely their goal, right? But I guess, you know, from my very peripheral understanding, like the vast majority of mass shootings are caused by pistols or handguns. So things that we would not typically nominate or denominate as assault weapons or AR-15s or things like that. So I guess from a public policy perspective, it seems almost like, and I don't want to accuse Gavin of something he's not doing, but it seems a little bit like a publicity stunt or giving into sort of public fears and perceptions of which types of guns are scary, as opposed to the type of guns which are actually most commonly used.

Here's my shot on this, Adrian, and you're making a lot of really good points. I believe that when we talk about gun violence in the United States, we have three problems. We have suicide. We have what we might call. It's so it's so tough because mass shooting, I believe, is defined as three people killed or injured. So like if one person is killed and two are injured, that's technically a mass shooting. And then you have like these sort of nationally newsworthy mass shootings, the ones with eight victims, 12 victims, etc. You are correct that statistically a much larger share of even what we call mass shootings are committed with handguns and not the assault weapons. But from what I recall, it's still

around 20 or 25 percent of mass shootings where there is an assault with what we might call an assault weapon, a semiautomatic rifle assault weapon type type gun involved. We can fact check it. OK, but let's put that aside for a second. I think there's a couple of different things going on. Number one, no single provision will solve the gun violence problem. So the waiting period might do more for the handgun violence, the limiting the weapons

that are available or requiring a different type of background check or whatever. Each of these is going to touch to different degrees, different types of shootings. And I still think we need to take an all of the above approach. You can always say this one provision would only deal with 12 percent of shootings. OK, if you've got 10 or 12 provisions, each of which will deal with some percentage of shootings, you're still making a lot of headway. But let me say one other thing, Adrian, and then I'll get your thoughts. There is also a reality that the environment in the United States, because of gun culture, which includes the school

shootings, the mall shootings, the theater shootings, all this different stuff contributes to a really disgusting and negative environment. And I would argue that on that basis, even if the semi-automatic rifles are only 19 or 22 percent of the mass shootings, they generate such terror that it is still worth doing what we can to focus on them while we also deal with the handguns and the other stuff. Speaker 3 David, I certainly appreciate you. You're very utilitarian line of thinking. I think that's the most that's the de rigueur for public policy. I guess one sort of point I wonder is, you know, every time there's a media hustle bustle about banning AR-15s or assault weapons, I think a lot of people go out and buy

them. And so do you think that in doing some sort of publicity stunt, because let's be honest, there's no way something like this will ever reach a constitutional amendment. Yeah. Do you think sort of this sort of publicity statement, you know, actually encourages more people to purchase these weapons? Yeah, I think it does. But there's sort of a there's a double edged sword to that.

If there aren't a lot of shootings, then the gun industry and the gun people go, it's thanks to all the people that bought guns. You should go out and buy guns. And if there are a lot of shootings, then the gun people go, hey, it's really dangerous out there. You should go and buy guns. Either way, there's a large contingent of the gun people that are going to say buying guns and more guns is the solution.

So I don't know that we necessarily want to guide ourselves by that. Yeah, that's fair. I can't I can't disagree that we necessarily want to guide ourselves by that. Yeah, that's fair. I can't I can't disagree with that. Well, thank you, David. I really appreciate the conversation. All right. Adrian from San Francisco with a great series of questions. Let's take a very quick break and then we'll come right back and speak to more people. If you're waiting to talk to me, don't go anywhere because we'll be right back. Whether you're a carpenter, painter or just want to be prepared for emergencies, if you need a gas mask or respirator, go to our sponsor, Parcel Safety. As many of you know, I'm into emergency preparedness, not crazy prepping, but I want to have some food stored, some supplies. I've talked about water

and multiple respirators are part of that because it's just a staple of being prepared. Respirator sales have been way up in recent years. Natural disasters, wildfires, polluted air, chemical plant accidents, unrest of different kinds, militarized police, all sorts of different reasons. You never know when a respirator or a gas mask from parcel safety might come in handy, and it could be when you least expect it. Parcel safety respirators are also perfect for professionals, contractors, painters, people doing DIY projects at home. All of parcel safety's respirators come with a one year manufacturer's warranty. Every respirator or gas mask comes with a filter, competitive prices, large discounts for organizations and outstanding customer service. To be totally honest, I've said before,

I'm using these for changing baby diapers. People think I'm kidding and then they come visit me and I really am not. It actually is very useful to other parents out there. I do recommend it. Go to David Pakman dot com slash safety. Use the code Pacman for 25 percent off your first order. That's David Pakman dot com slash safety code. Pacman saves you 25 percent. The info is in the All right. Let's go back to discord and hear from more people. You can find the David Pakman show discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. Let's go to the node from India. The node from India.

Welcome to the David Pakman show. Hello, David. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. How are you? I'm doing well, thank you. OK, so I wanted to ask about, you know, the recent state visit by Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi to the US.

Joe Biden invited him. The interesting thing that I noticed is some of the members of Congress boycotted his address to Congress, right? Yes. So one of them was Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, I guess. So my question is, she met with, like, the thing is, she told that, you know, the Muslims are discriminated in India. And, you know, their rights are not respected and such reasons.

So, she boycotted it. But my question is, she went to, you know, Turkey and met with the Oregon and she went to Pakistan and met with Imran Khan and other such people. I mean, those people are not exactly known for, you know, respecting human rights and religious freedom. Right. Yeah. So this is the hypocrisy that I'm seeing from some progressive members of Congress. Well, I want to hear your thoughts on it. Yeah. So listen, I'm going to take your word for it on what Ilhan Omar said about anti-Muslim discrimination in India.

Let's assume you're accurately representing it. I'm unaware of what she said. I think that this is it would not be unique to Ilhan Omar to play a little soft with some of the authoritarian leaning folks that you're talking about, including Erdogan in Turkey, while levying criticisms in similar circumstances about other leaders. This wouldn't be unique to Ilhan Omar. There are there is a contingent of the left that does this sort of thing. Somehow they end up always going soft on,

you know, whether it's Erdogan or Putin or Maduro or Castro or whatever the case may be. It's not it's not new. I don't have anything in particular to add about it. Often it's rooted in wanting to apply, not wanting to. It often applies a different standard to the United States and allies versus other countries. And I don't know that I have too much more to say about. I know that there are people in my audience who every time I mention the name Ilhan Omar want me canceled. But to be totally fair, Vinod, I didn't hear her make the comments that you're talking about. But the double standard you're bringing up does not come as a shock to me.

Yeah, I mean, hearing from, you know, the discourse in the US, it seems like if someone is not knowledgeable of India and what's going on here, someone who hears the rhetoric that these people espouse, they think that some sort of genocide is going on, like some sort of Muslim genocide is going on here, which is ridiculous. I mean, I'm not pro-BJP or pro-Modi or anything. I mean, it's fine to criticize him. That's OK. But, you know, I see the bad a bad one here because Ilhan Omar, you know, sometimes criticizes

Israel also. So, you know, sometimes it is I feel like it is anti-Semitic. So I think it is I can see the battle between here and there. Well, listen, let we we should really take these all individually. I do think there is evidence of anti-Muslim discrimination in India. It would be wrong of me to characterize it exactly because it's it's something I've read about a little bit. And there are a number of different studies.

There's a Reuters report. NBC News has written about it, about concerns about Muslim rights in India. I think it's perfectly fair and correct to have a concern about that. You seem to be going more to the hypocrisy or double standard. And I think that's fair. Speaker 4 Yeah, yeah, I agree with you. Thanks, David. Thanks for taking. Speaker 1 There is Vinod from India. Great to hear from you. Why don't we go next to how about Bobby from Southern California?

Bobby from Southern California. Welcome to the show. Hey, David, how are you doing? Well, good. So I have a question for you. How do we get back to talking about policies and things that matter to Americans such as affordable health care, education, and housing. How do we shift focus towards these major issues instead of manufactured issues related to caravans, CRT, LGBTQ+, asylum seekers, indoctrination, etc.?

My take is that it just feels like moderates and right-wingers are focusing on the wrong problems that don't actually impact them on a day- day basis or create better outcomes for their own livelihoods. My perception is that Americans are willing to fight the wrong battles, focus on the wrong priorities and continue to vote for politicians who often vote against their best interests because they get grifted to fight ideological battles. So they complain to possible answers. There's two paths, Bobby, and we've talked about this before. The question is, how can the left force policy back into the national discussion as the primary

issue, despite the right's insistence on ignoring policy, doing culture, war issues and that sort of thing? Two answers. OK, one answer is the left needs to stop engaging on every single one of these cultural issues and just talk about policy only. And eventually the people of the country will realize, wow, that's quite a contrast. They will stop paying attention to the culture war issues and they will pay attention to the policy discussions of the left.

Sounds a little pie in the sky. OK, on the other side, there's the argument the left actually just needs to defeat the right on all of these culture issues instead of sort of playing a little coy with the culture issues and saying these are contrived and overblown. Make the landscape one where you actually fight the right on those issues. And then once we beat the right on those issues, then we can go back to policy. I think the problem is the more engagement the right gets on these issues, the more they will push. And it's not actually going to be so simple to say we've done away with the culture stuff. Now we can get back to policy. I actually think that our guest earlier this week,

Joe Berkowitz, made maybe the best point on this. The way to do it is expose how stupid these culture issues are and in the same breath, in the same conversations, get back to those important policy issues. I don't believe it's a perfect solution. I believe that to some degree the right is going to I mean, the culture issues, they get headlines, they sound interesting, they sound titillating in different ways. But I like that idea, which is to say, hey, guys, listen, every time you want to talk about this, this school stuff, you just lie. These things aren't going on. It's a waste of time. There's no cat litter boxes for students who identify as cats. Librarians and teachers know what books kids should read. OK, now let's get back to figuring out how to make food more affordable and health

care more accessible. I think that some kind of in-between approach is probably the best. And do you believe that since 2016, when Trump was elected, that Americans are more leaning towards listening to the other side of the aisle? Or do we still have a lot of work to get there? Speaker 1 A lot of work to get there. A lot of work to get there. Yeah. Speaker 3 Bobby from SoCal, thank you for the call.

Speaker 4 Thank you. Speaker 1 All right. Kind of a sad reality, but it is what it is. You know, let's go to Chris from Iowa. Chris, welcome to the program. What is on your mind today? Chris from Iowa, please. Can you hear me OK?

Yes. Wonderful. OK, so speaking of culture issues, I think the profession that has been affected the most has been the teaching profession and education in general. And so my question is, how do people who are in the profession combat that without getting in trouble or going against the grain? I mean, it seems like there are times when teachers just do not have a voice in what's going on. So in some sense, it sounds like what you're saying is teaching has become unbearable for teachers because you've got all these kooks saying, I want to decide what books and material

you're teaching. I want to decide how you're teaching it. I want to decide about masks. I want to decide about books and material you're teaching. I want to decide how you're teaching it. I want to decide about masks. I want to decide about vaccines. I don't want this. I don't want that. Is that that's why the teaching has become so difficult. Yeah, it's a lot of outside pressure and noise. And it also it becomes difficult because it feels like we don't have any really any power to do anything about it other than keep just keeping our heads down and doing our best. You're breaking up a little bit, Chris. But here's here's the thing, and I hate that this is the reality.

I think that teachers can't do it on their own. I think teachers are going to need the support at minimum, at minimum of the teachers unions and the principals and the superintendents and probably of local elected officials as well in order to be able to establish we're not going to be bullied by parents. If you show up and act out at a school board meeting or whatever, you're not going to be bullied by parents. If you show up and act out at a school board meeting or whatever, you're not going to get your way. That's not the way to actually have your voice heard. I believe that teachers need to be supported by all of these different elements. It can't just be teachers going, hey, I'm going to teach what I'm going to teach, because the truth is, particularly in states that have passed laws about these things, they'll just get fired. They'll

just get fired. And then that's not going to help anybody, particularly not the students. So I think it's going to take a team effort. OK, well, that helps a lot. Oh, boy. Chris's connection is a mess. So, Chris, from Iowa, we're going to let you go. Do appreciate hearing from you. Super important issue. Let's go to Ryan from New Hampshire. Ryan, welcome to the program. What is on your mind today? Speaker 3 Hey, can you hear me, David? Yes, I can. Speaker 1 Awesome. So I just had a quick question, kind of a theory almost. So with RFK Jr. more appealing

to like anti vaccine voters and like moderators who are sorry, moderates who are less happy with Democrats. Yeah. Do you see him to be like kind of trying to do what Trump did, where he appeals to like more fringe right wing views and also more moderate people? I don't know that that's necessarily what Trump tried to do. I think I mean, listen, let me tell you what I do think about the Bobby Kennedy. Like, what is his constituency? Who who is it that would consider voting for him? And I do think you're on to something which is it's slivers

of both sides, which isn't a good or bad thing. You could say, hey, let me give you a hypothetical. Imagine you had a candidate that was able to unite the part of the left that is more progressive on economic issues, et cetera, and the part of the right that is more into like a Chris Christie or John McCain who realizes that MAGA is wrong. I would go. That's great. That's a great alliance of left and right. I think the issue with Bobby Kennedy is that he's putting together a constituency that's not exactly the best of right and left. It's arguably close to the worst. It's the people on the left who refuse to even consider that Joe Biden has done some

good things and potentially are anti vaccine or conspiracy theorists on COVID or whatever the case may be, as well as some of the right wing people who are essentially MAGA people, but they just don't know that Trump's the right vehicle for their views. So he is, in a sense, uniting some people from left and right. But it's not people that I'm super impressed with as a constituency. Yeah, that's what was my concern was that the voters that he would get together, I don't know how much they would agree with voting with each other based on their views. Speaker 1 Yeah, 100 percent, 100 percent. And listen, we'll see the guys got 12 or so percent on average. If

you look at this like that is something that is definitely something and we'll see what he does with it. Speaker 4 Yeah, it's just interesting for me to see how he plans on going up against Joe Biden if he gets there. It's just very interesting to me. Speaker 1 on going up against Joe Biden if he gets there. It's just very interesting to me. That will be interesting to see. All right, Ryan, thank you so much. Thank you very much, David.

All right. Thank you, everybody who called in. We're going to take a break. We will take calls again. I can never get to everybody, so please don't hate me for it. I get emails. David, you didn't get to me. I apologize, but let's take a break and then the program will continue. so dating back a really long time and plenty of other awesome membership perks. Go to join

Pacman dot com. Join Pacman dot com. All right. After missing Friday feedback last week because I was gone, we have a lot to catch up on. Let's get right into it. Remember that you can email into the show info at David Pacman dot com if you so please. But sometimes we will feature a Facebook message or comment or a YouTube comment or a Reddit post or tick tocks or whatever else it may be. We are going to start today with some criticism. It's not exactly the most substantive, but it does tell us a lot about the mindset, I guess you would say, of some of the people who don't like me. A woman wrote in. I'm not giving out her name just to protect her for whatever reason and says your messages are satanic. Children are being indoctrinated to be

gay or transgender instead of letting them grow up and shown that God's word is the only true way. Interesting message, because, number one, I still you know, I know lots of LGBT people. All of them, when they explain their sort of story of how they came to know themselves and know that they were trans or they were gay or whatever, it never, ever, ever, ever, ever involves anybody planting the idea in their minds. It never involves indoctrination. It never involves any of that. And by the way, there are religious people who are gay or trans. I have a gay friend who is Catholic, for example, quite religious, actually multiple now that I think three. I have three gay friends who are different degrees of religious and Catholic. I have a couple of lesbian friends who are

quite orthodox in terms of Judaism, not like Hasidic, but they are relatively orthodox. Anyway, the idea that religiosity and LGBT identification are also two separate things. Very much wrong. Very much wrong is, I think, the place where I would leave it. OK. Couple other messages. Candor's spot posted on our YouTube channel. We need Christianity in the schools, in the government, in the media, and yes, back into the churches.

Well, listen, I have no problem with Christianity in the churches. As long as no laws are being broken, churches are the right spot for Christianity, Christianity in the schools. If it's a private religious school, sure. Keep Christianity out of charter schools that are publicly funded and absolutely keep Christianity out of public schools. Christianity in government. No, we we have separation of church and state. We should have zero, zero religious involvement or influence on civil government. You can, of course, be privately religious and be an elected official.

How would I ever do? It would be against the Constitution for me to say only atheists or agnostics in government. Of course not. But the influence of that religion on government as a functioning civil government should be zero in the media. I mean, sure. Yeah, there's religious people and there's religious media sort of like have at it. I'm not going to get get too involved with that.

Couple others. The the some a faction of the right continues to obsess over the book bands acting like we are the bad guys. Seth Johnson says the fact that you want kids reading porn in school makes me think you should be investigated. Of course, I have never said that. I don't know anyone on the left who wants porn in school. What we want is the professionals, teachers, educators, librarians deciding what books should be in school libraries and subsequently deciding what books should be part of curricula for different aged students rather than parents who don't have any idea.

OK, last one, then we're going to get to some more substance of substantive stuff. I got this one on Facebook, which says you're a clown and a hack. Now, it's the wrong you're and then says you're blind to what a constitutional republic is. It's again the wrong you're. But I'll give you the message in sum total. You're a clown and a hack. You're blind to what a constitutional republic is, a talking head and a cheap suit for a party that's gone woke and satanic. Are you blind,

bias or just not smart? I'm not blind. I am biased in the sense that this is an opinion show and I give my opinion and I will leave smart out for others to decide. But I do take issue with the fact that I am wearing a cheap suit. I am not wearing any suit on the show. You know, it reminded me of the old days of the David Pakman show. It's interesting how things change. You know, things change so slowly that you often don't notice it. But when you go back and look years ago at the show, I would sometimes wear a suit where it was sort of more in vogue and conferred some air of

professionalism. And it's sort of like it's like Peter Jennings or Wolf Blitzer. You wear a suit as well to be taken seriously. Now, I actually think if I wore a suit on the show or a tie, it would actually hurt. Now I think people would see it and go, why are you wearing that? It doesn't make any sense that it's the wrong vibe. It doesn't go with the show. Anyway, I'm not wearing any suits on the show. So you can't possibly say that it's a cheap suit. All right. Elizabeth Sirati wrote in and said, being from New Jersey, I'm not a big fan of Chris Christie, but if he became president, I wouldn't be afraid of what might happen to us and this country. Yeah, I agree with this.

And you know, one of the things I don't like, one of the areas of disagreement with my audience often is when I say, hey, you know what? Here's a Republican. With whom I disagree on policy, but where essentially what Elizabeth is saying, I wouldn't be afraid for the country if they were president. And that's how I feel about Chris Christie. Might he put in place tax policy? I don't agree with. Sure. Yeah. Might he move health care in a direction that I think is counterproductive or negative? Yeah, sure. But do I worry about the foundations of

democracy and the destruction of our historical alliances with allies around the world if Chris Christie is president? No. And sometimes when I say that, people write in and they go, David, you're being too positive about Christie or you're looking at him through rose colored glasses or whatever. No, I think it's accurate to say it would be a policy disagreement the way I would have had with John McCain if the late John McCain would have been president. But it is not an existential threat to the United States. June Mulvaney wrote in about Trump's so called 24 hour plan to stop the Ukraine Russia war. And June says if he knows how to stop the war, how come he is not telling the government how to do it now? That would be patriotic. Of course, June, you know, sometimes the things

that people like Trump say are so obviously absurd that we look at it and say, of course, Trump doesn't know how to stop the war in 24 hours other than by giving Russia everything it wants. But there is this subsequent layer. If Trump really is the great patriot, if Trump really is concerned about all of the Ukrainians that are dying, as am I. Right. I share that concern.

Of course, if Trump really is concerned about that and you could stop it in 24 hours, why not tell Joe Biden how to do it right now? Why not say I want to be a special envoy and I will negotiate an end to this because it would be the patriotic and the humanistic thing to do. People are dying and Trump could end it in 24 hours and he's going to wait until he's president to do it. Not particularly patriotic. Anita McDougal writing in about Ron DeSantis referring to him as the fascist and says the fascist needs to explain how he will destroy leftism. Yeah, he said on a Fox interview a few weeks ago, if I become president, I will destroy leftism. Anita says, will he destroy the people who don't agree with him? Does he plan to reeducate them? What's the plan in detail? Have these techniques

been tried before? How did that work out? Anita is completely correct. And by the way. If a left wing candidate said I will destroy conservatism if I become president, it would be 24 seven. This candidate would be a dictator on Fox News and on right wing media. When DeSantis says it, Fox is happy. They grin and they nod. The point Anita is making is a really good one. In history, if you read history, 20th century history in particular, you will find that

when there is rapid change to the political makeup of a country, it usually is coming at the barrel of a gun at the end of a barrel of a gun or through authoritarian dictators. The Chinese Cultural Revolution is a great example of when there was rapid change in a country, the likes of which the Santa's is talking about. Destroy leftism, even though the left wing view is winning out on almost every issue in the United States. The cultural revolution was very, very ugly. And these folks who love to say we're going to do this, we're going to do that. It's going to be fast. We're going to get rid of leftism. They either don't know the history of how that change is achieved or they actually are the very authoritarians that we worry they

might be. Very good point from Anita. Write in if you have anything to say, thoughts, questions, criticisms, requests of different kinds, whatever. It is all welcome. But try to be polite. Try to be polite. We have a fantastic bonus show for you today. The bonus show where you want to make money. Yeah. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. We will be making money on the bonus show today. We will be making money on the bonus show on Monday, July 3. We will be off on the federal holiday Tuesday, July 4th, just as a heads up. We'll see you on the bonus show and then back here on Monday.