The Eric Metaxas Show - Newt Gingrich

Episode Date: September 21, 2020

Newt Gingrich shares insights and strategies associated with putting forth a Supreme Court judge to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg and getting that judge approved before the election.

Welcome to the Eric Mataxis show. Please keep your arms of legs inside the car at all times. This is your final warning. Now here's your host, Mr. Thrill Ride himself. Eric Mataxis. Folks, welcome to the Eric Mataxis show. Yes, it's Monday. Yes, we have had a raft of news in the last few days.

And whenever that happens, I think, you know, what could we do? Could we possibly get somebody like Speaker Newt Gingrich? I know he's in Rome. It's impossible to get him. But you know what? We pray. fast. Anything is possible. Here he is, Speaker Newt Gingrich. Welcome to the program. It's good to be with you.

Bonjourno. Let me just say that I have to start with the least important of all things. I want to talk to you about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing and, of course, about your book in the election. But there was a just tremendously odd, awkward moment the other day on outnumbered on Fox News, where you brought up something I think most people already know. You know more details, but you mentioned George Soros, and everyone seemed to be instantly pixelated. It was very weird as though someone had told everyone, whatever you do, don't mention George Soros, like in the faulty towers,

whatever you do, don't mention the war. Do not mention the war. you had to be aware how strange that was. Well, I know that it looked very strange on television. I think part of it was caused because we were all remote. And so we weren't on the couch, which is the normal pattern for our number. And I think, look, one of the members, Marie Harf, was actually John Kerry's press person. So her visceral reaction made perfect sense.

If you're a left-wing Democrat, you know that if the country learns how much George Soros is doing to undermine and destroy America, that it is a huge and indefensible position. And so they're desperate to not allow you to talk about it. I think that in the case of Harris Faulkner, I think she actually wasn't quite sure what was going on because we were physical. physically separated. And the next day she came back to her credit. And she apologized and said, look, we love having new dawn and this was all the mistake. We checked back channel. There is no Fox pressure against mentioning George Soros. And I think people need to realize that this is a billionaire who actively works every day to undermine the American system and who has spent millions of dollars. electing district attorneys who are anti-police and pro-criminal.

And it's a major part of why, for example, in New York, had a 177% increase in shootings in August over last year because the system is just breaking down. He is as close to a Gotham City villain as any actual person could be based on many things and based on what you just said, the very idea that someone is using his nearly infinite supply of money to get DAs in place who will allow criminals back on the street to commit violent crimes. The reason I thought that there was a Fox shutdown with regard to Soros was that I did a number of books. I know that you and your wife, Callista, have done a number of children's books. I've done a number of children's books in a humorous vein called Donald. It's a Donald the Caveman series.

first one is called Donald drains the swamp. And at the center of the swamp, all the swamp creatures is a scary creature called the George Osoros. And the George Osoros, he kind of funds the swamp. And the reason I bring it up is that Fox, even though I'm very friendly with everybody over there, they haven't allowed me to talk about these books on the air. And when you were in the middle of that awkward moment, I thought, have we finally discovered why they won't let me talk about the Donald the caveman books because George Soros is the ultimate swamp creature. Is that it? The point is, we will never know. Thank you for enduring my commercial. I appreciate it. Look, I really want to talk to you about so many other things. You have a book out called Trump and the American Future solving the great

problems of our time. Isn't that what's extraordinary about this president? Mark Levine just last night was was commenting on how Trump's not an ideologue principally, although common sense in its way is an ideology, which I think favors conservatism. But he really is a problem solver in a way that I simply don't think we've seen in any of our lifetimes. I'm fascinated how he looks at different problems and simply tries to figure out how to solve them. And that, of course, is in the title of your book. Well, in many ways, Trump is an example of what William James called the only original American contribution to philosophy. And that's the concept of pragmatism. And pragmatism basically says you look at the facts and you try, if something works, it works.

If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. And then you try to build your philosophy around the facts rather than reshaping the facts to fit your philosophy. I tell people, Trump is not in any classical sense of conservative. He didn't sit around reading National Review. He didn't memorize Bill Buckley. But he is the most effective anti-liberal in modern times. And if you think of him as an anti-liberal, whether it's deregulation, tax cuts, 300 plus new judges. Again and again, he turns around the willingness to take on the,

16-19 project and announced an entire American history project. I mean, in a lot of ways, he's doing things, which I think require his reelection to become permanent. But I think that he has had an enormous impact already on the culture and on creating an understanding of a very different, excuse me, a very different policy system than you would have gotten from a traditional Republican Republican. Well, which is a little frightening, isn't it? In other words, like, so many of us were thinking that, you know, a standard conservative, whether Jeb Bush or whoever, you know, would be the best we can do, would be spectacular. And then somehow Trump comes into the picture and you think, my goodness, we had forgotten that it might be possible to accomplish these kinds of

things and to be as bold as he's been. He's been really a bracing, refreshing figure in public life, not least for conservatives. Sure. Look, I mean, you know, I told people in trying to explain the election in 16, I said, you have to remember that in the spring of 2015, about 63% of the Republicans had decided that they disliked their Washington leadership. And so people would apply and say, you know, I've been governor of Ohio for X number of years, or I've served in the U.S. Senate. And every time they explained who they were, the very fact of the credentials alienated them from the people who were really mad about anybody who had credentials. And the way I described that, I said, people really wanted somebody to kick over the table.

They were just sick and tired of being told that they had to put up with the stuff. And the person who came closest was Ted Cruz, because Cruz was a brilliant debater at Princeton, brilliant law student at Harvard, knew how to make a great case. And so Ted would have this terrific speech on the theory of kicking over the table. And halfway through his speech, Trump would get up on the stage, kicked the table over, look at the audience shrug and walk off again. And so people go, wait a second, he just kicked over the table. I want him.

Right. I think up through the decisions he's made in the last two days that he's going to go for it in terms of filling the Senate, I mean the Supreme Court position was a perfectly Trump-like decision. I mean, given a choice, he's not going to back down. he's not going to become reasonable. You know, he's going to continue to gamble and push and try to change things. Well, his kind of crazy manner reminds me a little bit of the first cover of the weekly standard in 1992 with you swinging on a vine. I want to come back to that when we return.

Folks, I'm talking to Speaker Newt Gingrich. He's in Rome. We're not. Stick around. Folks, welcome back. I'm talking to speaker Newt Gingrich. Is it okay to say speaker, Newt Gingrich? I know you're the former speaker, but I never know quite how one does it.

It seems to me... You can also just say Newt. I can also say Newt, can I? Yeah, just say Newt. All right, Newt. I will do that. Thank you. And feel free to call me Mr. Metaxus.

No, I'm Eric, obviously. But I just want to joke around with you all the time because I remember being introduced to you when I got my first copy of the Weekly Standard in 1992. and you were swinging on a vine. And you were, we didn't know it then, but a Trumpian kind of figure. You were someone who had a broad vision, was willing to shake things up.

I think many of us are disappointed that all these years later, we need Donald Trump to come in. We had hoped that more could have been done. But why do you suppose career politicians get stuck the way that they do? I mean, the worst example of it, is the current Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, 47 years.

It's simply staggering. Is it not that someone like that could be a member of the establishment in absolute contravention of the idea of Cincinnati and his plow? I mean, it's wild we've come to this point. Well, I mean, I think it is where we are. And, you know, I think that there's a cycle which began in a way with Goldwater. and then reached its first big successful conclusion with Reagan, and then had a comeback with the contract with America in 94,

and then reemerged with Trump. And in between that, you had a normal, traditional Republican Party, which thought that its job was to be the junior partner in running the system with the news media as mediator and validator, and with the Democrats as vaguely in partnership. And so all of us, whether it was Goldwater, Reagan, Trump, or myself, all of us are outsiders. I mean, all of us have no interest in being accepted by the establishment. The establishment is what we're trying to break.

And I think that normally there are very few people who do that. I think if you think about just as normal human beings, it's much easier. to go along with an existing power structure than it is to take it on. So the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC News, I mean, all of these are institutions of validation. And you find a substantial number of politicians who rise by operating within a system that is externally validated. And then you have occasionally somebody who comes along who's internally validated. Reagan was in a way that was amazing. Goldwater was because he actually didn't care.

And he was just going to be Barry Goldwater. And I'm really in a sense, I guess, an accolade of Reagan. And then Trump came along and by his entire life experience, he'd always been an outsider. And he was a rich outsider and a famous outsider, but he was never accepted. And he knew he wasn't going to be accepted. You know, you can't do the apprentice. and think that the New York establishment is going to embrace you. Right.

Well, I still find it funny. And thanks for correcting me. It was 94, of course, that you came in. And the Weekly Standard was launched with that cover. But it's interesting that they were willing then to accept, you know, your level of wildness. And now Bill Crystal, who was, of course, one of the three founders of that magazine, has been bitterly anti-Trump. I don't know what's become of the others in terms of their thinking.

But it's so strange to me to think that so many whom we thought of as died in the wool, conservatives have taken this kind of stand against the president. Well, look, I think there are a couple things going on. And Bill's a good example. Bill's very, very smart. Trump is smarter. And the fairy fact, as a Harvard graduate student that worked for Bill Bennett, I think it drives Crystal crazy because Crystal knows that he is a superior person to Trump.

And that, you know, Trump's job in life was to invite in the Bill Crystals of the world to educate him and help. And this is why in the early days you went through these rounds of people coming in and going back out again, because they thought their job was to educate Trump, whereas Trump actually thought that, having become a multi-billionaire beaten 15 Republicans and Hillary Clinton and the national media, maybe he knew something. That's funny.

But what he knew and what he had known since the 80s, because you can go back and you can pull up articles and interviews and even full-page ads he took out, he knew he disagreed on free trade, thought it was a total rip-off, He knew that 18 years in the Middle East without winning was not a good deal. He knew that the system was too cumbersome and that selling out on American history and allowing the left to create this new culture was ultimately going to be the death of the country. Well, all of those are repudiation of the bill crystals of the world.

So they were faced with having their life's work repudiated. being shrunk so that instead of being this very important person who knows all these very important things, they became fossils. I mean, think of Bill Crystal as a fossil, a relic from an earlier era. And he finds that very infuriating. Well, I mean, it's a pity, though, and I don't think it needs to be that way. I'm just very sorry that he and his ilk have dug their heels in in this way. It seems strange to me. I also think that the bottom line is. is that Trump, unlike any of them, being outside of the Beltway, he has had his ear to the ground.

He knows what the working class construction workers and so on are saying and thinking. And that, to me, is his main line into the heart of America that has enabled him to communicate with us. We have to go to the subject of the death of justice, Ruth Bays, Ginsburg. I'm always astounded at how gracious her ideological opponents are, as they should be, as we should be, but compared to the way that the people on the left treated the death of Scalia. It's remarkable to me. And of course, Trump and the majority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, said immediately, we are going to replace her in short order driving the left really crazy to the point of threatening violence. Where do you see this going? Well, I mean, first of all,

what the president's doing is exactly right. Every vacancy since the beginning of the Republic has been filled, or at least the debate has had a nominee. And the ground rules are pretty straightforward. If the same party has the House and the, I'm sorry, if the same party has the White House and the Senate, the odds are very high that the nominee gets confirmed. If the White House and the Senate are in different parties, it's almost impossible to get confirmed. But even then, presidents have routinely nominated somebody. So, and in fact, Marshall, for example, was the great chief justice, came in through this kind of process. So Trump was elected.

He does have the authority under the Constitution to nominate someone. We did run a campaign in 18, and while the House lost ground, the fact is that four Democrats were defeated in 2018 for the Senate. So I think the Republicans looked at the way the Kavanaugh, hearings blew up. And Republicans think that they have some reasonable grounds for moving forward. And I think it depends in part on who they pick. And in part, that becomes, I think, an enormous test for the Democrats. Trump's clearly going to pick a woman. It is very likely he's going to pick a woman who is a mother. Of nine.

Well, if it's Barador 3, I think, if it's Lagoa. He is clearly going to pick somebody who is educationally remarkable. I mean, there will be no question this person is capable of being a Supreme Court justice. And it's not totally clear. I mean, if you and I are right about who the two most likely are, then it will almost certainly be a Catholic. So you now end up with the Democrats who have in Kamala Harris, the most anti-Catholic bigot to be nominated for a major party since the late 19th century. Somebody who said that belonging to the Knights of Columbus might make it inappropriate for you to be a federal judge. And for those who are not Catholic, the Knights of Columbus is the largest volunteer organization in the Catholic Church.

First of all, I can't believe that I don't remember that. That is a staggering statement for someone who is in the Senate. I mean, it's absolutely mind-blowing to me. And what Feinstein said to Barrett was equally offensive and ignorant of our most fundamental freedom, religious liberty. We're going to be right back, folks. I'm talking to Speaker Newt Gingrich. The book is Trump and the American Future. We'll be right back.

Folks, I'm talking to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich coming all the way from Rome. As I said earlier, bonjourno. Of course, by now it's much later there. I want to keep talking to you about what Trump is doing or is going to do with regard to replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ginsburg herself was confirmed within 40-something days. That's about as many days as we have between now and the election. There's nothing odd about that. Trump said he wouldn't announce anyone.

I think this morning he said he wouldn't announce anybody until Saturday or something like that. I was wondering why you think he would wait that long. Well, I think he's going to wait until after the funeral. I think that's part one. And I think that knowing Trump, it'll either be Friday or Saturday, but it will be in time for the Sunday talk shows. and it will be in time to start preparation for hearings next week. He has learned a lot, and I think he and McConnell are going to be joined at the hip on this,

and he's going to understand, he understands thoroughly, that McConnell is the only person who could get this nomination through. And I suspect McConnell is canvassing every Republican to find out, does it make a difference who he nominates? there's some feeling that Barrett, who's everybody agrees as an amazing jurist, would be a remarkable member of the court and was, I believe, a clerk for Scalia. But she's also the most open to a hardline attack on abortion and abortion rights. On the other hand, Lagoia is very, very attractive, politically, equally good in terms. terms of her educational background, not as well seasoned as a judge at this stage, but would be

very formidable. And I think that they're probably wavering back and forth. I think there's a general consensus that Barrett would be better. But I think part of it will be consulting the senators, because this is going to come down to, can you find 50 senators who will vote yes? I mean, if you can, then Pence can break and break the tie, and that person will be a U.S. Supreme Court justice. And I think Trump wants it to happen before the election because he does not want to go into a potential lawsuit about the election with a court that only has eight members and therefore is susceptible to a four-four tie, particularly given how totally unreliable and unpredictable the current. and chief justices. Well, I guess I'm concerned. I think most Americans are concerned about the threats of violence.

In other words, the left seems to have forgotten that we have a constitution that were a nation of laws. And they seem to think that if they don't get their way on a number of things right now, that they have every right to break windows and steal things and burn things, if that happens in the next few weeks, which I'm afraid it might. What do you suppose this president might do? Because that's tricky to me in terms of, do you call out the National Guard? What is his responsibility, do you think?

Well, I tweeted yesterday that under current law, it is a felony to threaten either a federal official or their family. with sentences of five to ten years. And my point was that the Attorney General should give a speech now reminding everybody in the country that this is the law, and if you show up outside the U.S. Senator's home, you may well get arrested. If you show up at a restaurant, you may well get arrested. if you end up trying to intimidate or block somebody, you may get arrested.

You may remember the two women, I think it was during the Kavanaugh hearing, who literally trapped a Republican senator in an elevator. Well, that would be an arrestable offense. That was Senator Flake, was it not? Yeah, yes. But the problem is that he did exactly what? what they hope people will do. He effectively caved to their pressure.

That's to me what is so, if that's my wife, Anud, I'm not here. I basically am stunned to think that he caved to their pressure. And I think that they know that there are people who can be picked off in that way, which is why they do this kind of thing. And I guess maybe I'm less worried about. The answer to it is to lock them up. Look, you're not going to stop violence until you get the people, who are violent off the street.

And everybody who might be violent looks around and goes, you know, that doesn't pay anymore. Well, shutting down the George Washington Bridge is not threatening a federal official. And it strikes me that this is the kind of thing. But shutting down the George Washington Bridge without a permit is a crime. Are crimes being prosecuted or laws being enforced in New York? See, I think that's the question a lot of Americans. enforced by the federal government. That's why you have this entire Operation Legend, which is arrested over 2,000 people. Yeah. I guess I'd forgotten about that. Thank you for reminding me because that is not a small, that is not a small thing. I really think that the level of frustration on the left and their inability to comprehend that, you know, we are meant to have a peaceful transition of power. We have this thing called the will of the people. We the people are, in fact, the government. I think the left has forgotten that. They're being very, very nasty about it and it's going to be an issue. It's always a pleasure to speak with you.

Speaker Newt Gingerts, congratulations on the book, Trump and the American Future. We look forward to seeing you again. Thanks again so much. Great to be with you. Thank you. Take care. Bye bye. Hi, folks.

These uncertain times can cause uncertain gut slowdown. Worrying fear can wreak havoc on our digestion, making it hard to feel optimum. Blooding, less energy, and occasional constipation can slow you down in your daily activity. Try life change tea to get the tea. Life Change Tea can help get things moving so you can get that boost of energy you need. Life Change Tea helps protect and defend your health from intruders. It's a weird time right now with all the uncertainty, so gear up and defend your health. Where do you go to purchase?

Log on to gettet.com. That's get the ttea.com. The specials are on the front page and we have numerous supplements to help combat intruders. It's time to take charge of our health and to feel better in life. It's time to live. Again, get the t.com. That's get the t.com. Get the t.com.

It is so worth it. Get the t, tea.com. Folks, I got some embarrassing news to share with you. But you know what? This is just the kind of a show where I don't care. I'm willing to lay my heart, you know, on the line. Here's the issue. Mike Lindell with my pillow, you may notice that I have a Bible

hello head of him near me. He's here to remind all of us that when you go to mypillow.com, you get whopping discounts if you use the code Eric. Okay. Now, there are a lot of people who haven't done that and we have your names here. And Chris Heim's Ann Albin pointed out to me that there's like three pages of you whose first name is Eric. You yourself.

I mean, that's humiliating for me that even though you're. name is Eric, you're still not willing to use the code Eric. I mean, if you don't want to use it because it's my name, use it because it's your name. The point is that I see who you are, and I just feel humiliated by this. Please go to mypillar.com. It's okay, Mike. It's going to be okay. Go to mypillar.com. Use the code Eric. You're going to get whopping savings and really high quality products. Did I mention that? Thank you. Hey, folks, we go from the frying pan into the five. That's right. On the Eric Metax's show, we bring you former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and he think, how do you top that? And I go, that's easy. Can we get John's Merak? And the answer happened to be yes. And here he is standing in front of a mural of the destruction of Sodom and Gamora. What could be more appropriate? My friend, John, welcome on the program.

Thank you, Eric. And I'm flattered to follow the great speaker. I was once in the same green room with him at CPAC. I had to speak after him then, too. And he's a tough act to follow up. Yeah, he's pretty sharp. It's not like they say. Okay, so look, you wrote an article about the big news, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing. What do you say in the article? The article is at stream.org.

What are your thoughts, sir? Yeah, so somewhat cheeky title, did Ruth Bader Ginsburg die for our sins? And there actually is a point concealed in that. This election was looking a little grim until this weekend because the Democrats have successfully marketed this virus as a campaign issue. The Democrats who first were blowing it off, ignoring it, trying to impeach President Trump while Trump was scrambling around trying to deal with the virus,

trying to make it look like xenophobia, saying that his travel ban with China was xenophobic. Nancy Pelosi was playing around in Chinatown saying, everyone comes to Lunar New Year. Bill de Blasio was the last man sweating at any gym in New York. Andrew Cuomo was boasting. New York, of course, we'll get a lot more cases because we're so welcoming of immigrants. Yes. Then, it's like somebody in the Chinese Communist Party sent them a fax on their creaky old fax machine with a scroll paper.

Remember, you had to cut it with a razor blade. They said, oh, no, this virus is real. We send it worldwide. Then the Chinese locked down all travel. By the way, was that Cantonese or Mandarin? Because it was very effective what you just said. Okay, please continue. Please continue.

That was Chinatown waiter dialect. Okay, good. Then they locked down travel in China, but continued to send Chinese all around the world. So just conveniently, the virus went everywhere. so China didn't suffer itself. And at that point, the Democrats got the memo, wait a minute, we can use this to lock down the economy,

to grab the psychologically powerful tool of contamination phobia. There's a great of political scientist Jonathan Haidt, and he said that the fear of contamination of being tainted by things that are bad, Traditionally, it is operative on the political right. We worry about communists infiltrating our churches because they do. We worry about Islamists infiltrating our government and blowing up buildings because they do.

But in our churches, we worry about false beliefs. So the fear of contamination tends to be something that cuts to the political right. Here the left got to grab it. They got to tell you your neighbor might give you a dead. deadly disease, your church, your business, you must shut down. You must become dependent on checks from the government, close down churches, close down private business, and just wait for your instructions from the government. Meanwhile, destroying Trump's economy, which is one of the greatest achievements of any president in history. That's right. And taking the focus off of a number of other

spectacular accomplishments of his. So how does that the Democrats? The Democrats have been running basically vote for us or you will die hideously of the virus. Yeah. That has been the Democrats' platform. Or, and if you don't die of the virus, our rioters might kill you, might burn down your city. That's the secondary threat. And Michelle Obama said this at the Democratic Convention that the riots won't stop, the violence won't stop unless you vote in Joe Biden.

So vote as if your life depended on it. That's a quote. It's as if she said, nice country you've got there. Be a real shame. Is something happened to it? Yeah, that's exactly correct. It's very hard to believe that someone who is not really stupid would publicly make a statement like that. It's very, very, it's amazing to me that an Ivy League graduate who has been in the world of politics for so long would on a stage make a statement like that, which sounds like a naked threat.

But how does this tie in to the notorious RBG's passing? When she died, when God called her home after a long and painful illness, and I don't think as someone who's both of my parents died slowly of cancer, you don't want to wish more months of that anguish on anybody. Okay. That's not something you say, oh, you should have hung on until after the election, Ruth. You know, just take a little more morphine. Cancer's horrible.

I'm not looking forward to it. I'm likely to get it. When someone dies of cancer, it's often a mercy. And there are liberals running around screaming at the sky. Why couldn't she stay on? Why didn't she hang on a few more months? Last year you had liberals saying, would you be willing to give up a month of your life

to extend Ruth Bader Ginsburg's life? It was like they were trying to make some sort of deal with the dark side. Her passing suddenly focuses this election on the social issues. Do we want abortion legal up through birth? Do we want the taxpayer to pay for infanticide? Do we want churches to be second-class organizations

treated like gambling casinos or Nevada brothels? Do we want the American idea that you and I have rights, inalienable rights given us by the Creator, because we are images of God? Do we want to throw that out and replace it with this ugly post-Darwinian materialism? Let's remember why Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted abortion to be legal. She cited the argument from Simone de Beauvoir's book The Second Sex. It said, men have always been able to walk away from the fruits of sexuality,

to walk away from children they father. In order to make women equal, we have to give women the same power through abortion. And do you know who came up with that idea? The Marquis de Sade. The Marquis de Sade was the first pro-choice philosopher in history, and that was his argument. Simone de Beauvoir picked it up, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg helped insert it into our Constitution. I just want to say, in case anybody is inclined to read the Marquis de Sade, I have never in my life seen anything so demonic and sick. He writes about fathers raping their sons.

he writes about things most of us actually don't have the imagination to think of things as evil as what he wrote. And because most people don't read what he wrote, we don't really, we're not aware of the profound satanic wickedness of a lot that he wrote.

So it's very interesting that we get abortion from him. We'll be right back talking to John Smirak. Folks, welcome back. I'm talking to John Smirak. John, you just said that Simone de Beauvoir. De Beauvoir in her book, The Second Sex,

talks about abortion being necessary for women to be equal because men have been able to walk away from the fruit of their sexuality. It's another word for human beings and babies. And it's interesting because my friend John Rankin has said many, many times,

that when you talk to women, to feminists, about this, they're angry at men. In other words, instead of letting abortion, you know, become the law of the land, what we ought to do is we ought to go after the men and we ought to live in a culture where men aren't allowed to do things like that. They shouldn't be allowed to do things like that. But of course, we've said, hey, sexuality, it's the ultimate good, the sumum bonum, and we're not going to do anything to get in the way of that. And that's why we have abortion.

That's right. Instead of stopping men from victimizing women, they shifted the victim from the woman to the child. And that's something Susan B. Anthony and other first-wave feminists warned against. They said abortion is the ultimate male exploitation of women, turning women against their own children, against their own bodies. And that's not something we as feminists want. Well, the second-wave feminists, Samandabobaring those people, coming from a decristinized culture, they said, no, yes, we do want that. And the sexual revolution was dependent on that. The first national magazine to advocate for legalizing abortion was Playboy magazine.

The single largest donor to pro-abortion organizations in the 60s was Playboy magazine. Because if women are toys, a pregnant woman is a broken toy and the abortionist is the toymaker who fixes her so you get to play with her again. Well, that's about right. As bleak and horrible as that sounds, that is, in fact, it is as bleak and horrible as that. And it needs to be said that it is irresponsible men, selfish men, who have brought this about and women have exceeded to this super dark view of the world and have embraced abortion. Now, that is at the heart of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's legacy. It is at the heart of the opposition to replacing her before Trump, before the election. That's right. And I hope and pray that God called her home in order to wake up Americans to the stakes that this election is about. It's not about the Democrats are going to save you from dying of the virus. I mean, if anything, you should be afraid of the Democrat coming towards you.

Look at Andrew Cuomo, who intentionally killed tens of things. thousands of veterans and grandmas and grandpas in the nursing homes in New York State. But the Democrats did the same thing in Pennsylvania, in California, in Connecticut. It has been the standard Democrat policy is to dump virus patients in nursing homes and kill off the weakest and the most vulnerable Americans. That seems to be the unifying principle of the Democratic Party is that billionaires get together with street thugs to target the most vulnerable. So you have unborn children, old people in nursing homes, small business owners

in dangerous neighborhoods, women and children and old people in crime-ridden neighborhoods. Because when they say abolish the police, you know, that's not going to hurt Jeff Bezos if there are no cops in Compton. It's not going to hurt the staff of the Washington Post if public housing projects in the Washington, D.C. area. are run by street gangs and thugs. So again and again, we see the Democrats using the vulnerable and the weak

as human shields, as vote-getting mechanisms, but actually throwing them under the bus and not caring about their lives, their safety, their economic success, much less recognizing them as fellow human beings, creatures of God. Folks, I'm talking to John Zmirak.

earlier we spoke with Speaker Newt Gingrich. We will continue to speak with John Smirak in hour two, don't go away. If you don't get this on your radio station, you need to pick up the phone

and raise heck with those people or you can just go to our website Metaxistalk.com. More with John Smirak and Kevin McCullough, aka Votes for Domit.