All Episodes
Previous Next
March 3, 2023 - Sebastian Gorka
02:52:31
Bob Frantz LIVE: Free-for-all Friday
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Thank you for joining us on America First with today's very special guest host, Cleveland's own Bob France.
Well, Dr. G, thank you once again for entrusting the phenomenal America First program and the phenomenal America First audience nationwide three million strong to me.
It's a pleasure to be here on this Friday that, my friends, I like to call Free For All Friday.
I think almost every talk show host in the game has had some version of Open Lines, whether it's Ask Dr. G Anything, or it's Open Lines America, or in my case, I call it Free For All Friday.
But welcome to a Free For All Friday edition of America First as we come to you live from TheReliefFactor.com studios.
Here in Cleveland, Ohio with AM 1420 The Answer, I'm going to do my best to take advantage of this massive audience and try to actually promote some of the things that I do today, because I always miss that opportunity.
I'm always worried about other things, but I do want to make sure that you know.
Dr. G follows me.
You need to follow me, too, on Twitter at France Rance.
It's my last name, F-R-A-N-T-Z, followed by my last name without the F. R-A-N-T-Z.
France Rance.
That's how you can find me on Twitter.
And my program, Locally, out of Cleveland, airs from 9 until noon Eastern Time at WHKRadio.com, the best way to find it and listen to it, via the stream.
So that's each and every day, well weekdays, from 9 until noon.
I would love to have you aboard, because we talk on my program about the very same things.
It's not Cleveland-centric.
We do Cleveland local stories when they need to be done, but we talk about the very same America First policies, and the same first anti-woke stuff that we do on Dr. G's program, and that he does, and that, you know, Prager does and all the rest of them.
I do the same exact thing every day.
So I would love to have you be a part of that.
Now having said that, that's why I want to start this program completely unplanned, because I was just having a great conversation with Team Gorka.
I was talking to Eric and Jeff and to Alex and I think Guy was there.
I can't see all of their faces, but there's four or five people.
We were just all talking about conservatism in America.
And about how and why it is that we are being driven into the proverbial closet based on our ideology.
And that's a real thing.
I talked about this on my local show a couple of weeks ago, and I was just shocked.
I went to a mall, and I know shopping malls, they're going the way of the dinosaur.
Indoor shopping, there are a lot of outdoor shopping malls being built, particularly in more affluent areas.
Then there are strip malls, but the indoor shopping mall that used to be so popular as I was growing up as a kid in the 70s and 80s and stuff.
They're gone, but I went into one which is still actually thriving in Northeast Ohio and I was actually walking around the food court just looking for the restaurant.
I couldn't figure out where it was when I saw an older gentleman walking toward the movie theater in the mall and I looked and I did a double take because it's so rare to see in public.
He was wearing a red hat.
And not just over any red hat.
It wasn't a red hat with a communist Chinese Nike swoosh on it.
No, no, no, no, no.
It was a red hat that said, make America great again.
It was a Trump hat.
I kid you not.
I was this far from going up to the man and shaking his hand and say, God bless you for your courage.
Now he was an old guy, probably less courageous for him because nobody's going to hit an old guy.
But if a young Healthier guy?
You know, the typical quote, toxically masculine male wears a red Trump hat out?
He's probably asking for trouble.
Somebody's going to confront him.
Somebody's going to flip him off.
Somebody's going to maybe challenge him, point a finger and call him a racist or call him things like that.
And it just, it just hit me that we can't, Display what we are and what we believe despite what we are and what we believe being righteous.
And not just right, but righteous.
My program in Ohio that I was just telling you about is called Always Right Radio.
And it's got a double meaning.
Yeah, I believe I'm always right.
I wouldn't say things that I thought to be wrong.
I believe they're right.
Otherwise, I wouldn't say them.
They're also always right of center.
And I can't display that message.
I can't wear a Trump t-shirt or some... even my Let's Go Brandon gear.
My wife gets freaked out when I wear my Let's Go Brandon FJB sweatshirt.
I've got a hoodie and I've got two different t-shirts with that branding.
And she gets a little freaked out because she thinks somebody's going to say something to me.
It's going to start a confrontation.
Why?
I have never seen anybody in a Biden t-shirt and gone up to them and started crap with them.
Then again, I don't know if any Biden t-shirts exist because they don't take any pride in that man.
But there were certainly Obama t-shirts and hats.
And I never started trouble with anybody.
I may have shaken my head as I walked by just kind of in like, you know, there's a there's a very seriously intellectually and maybe morally challenged person if they're supporting somebody who is an open and avowed anti-capitalist and pro-socialist president.
Yeah, that's, you know, but that's it.
They're not afraid to be seen.
Do you know I won't put one Republican or conservative bumper sticker on my car or my truck?
Because I don't want my stuff to be keyed!
Vandalized!
I won't even put the sign on my front yard!
That's what they've done.
They've driven us into an ideological closet, and we're not allowed to come out.
We're not allowed to say what we believe in, because what we believe in, they have used between social media and traditional media, they have used all of the forms of influencing the rest of the population to brand anybody who has that ideological, ideology rather, as an ist or an ob.
A racist, a sexist, uh... or uh... uh... uh... uh... what's the other uh... xena and then we get into the folks transphobe homophobe xenophobe uh... misogynist there's another one of the yes all of these things are equated with the republican party because of the job they've done of branding us that way And we're sitting here afraid to push back on it because we don't want to lose our jobs.
We don't want to get suspended from school.
We don't want to be suspended from work.
We don't want to have something in our file.
Oh, you didn't call somebody by the right pronoun?
That's going in your file.
That's going to be a ding against you when it comes time for termination, for cause.
Because you're not calling people by the pronouns that they want, because you're not calling a woman who looks exactly like she did yesterday, Jane, because today she's telling you she's a guy and you're supposed to call her George.
No?
Not going to do it.
Well, you better do it or else you're going to end up having to face all of those things.
So, my point, this is again an unscripted and unplanned riff, and I apologize for this because it's a little bit all over the place.
But I'm going to tell you something.
If we don't find the courage to publicly declare our solidarity with the Constitution, the Declaration, and the conservative principles based upon those two glorious documents, and they're all
All conservative principles are based on those documents and on the accepted founding of our entire Western civilization, and that is the nuclear family.
A mother and a father being married.
Living in the same household, raising boys and girls, and maybe a dog or a cat too, but the boys and girls don't get to identify as such.
Only boys and only girls, and raising them with family values, belief in treating people right, belief in working hard to get your education, working hard to get a job, working hard to get a promotion, working hard to gain wealth, And then getting married, and then repeating the cycle for their children.
This has been what made this country the greatest force for good in the history of Western, and dare I say, all of human civilization.
And we're not allowed to say so out loud?
We're not allowed to say, God is great, without some freedom from religion foundation telling us to stop proselytizing?
But they're allowed to say, hey little boy, come over here, stick this dollar in the g-string of this hairy-ass grown man who says that he's a woman.
That's okay, but us saying God is great is causing problems for society.
I'm done, my friends.
I am done hiding in the closet with our conservative, righteous ideals.
We are gonna come out, we are gonna be loud, we are gonna be proud, and we're gonna take this culture back.
We didn't start this culture war.
It was started by the left.
But I'll tell you what, they're not gonna win it, not on our watch.
Bob Francin for Dr. G, we'll come back.
Thank you.
Bye.
I'm Seb Gawker.
Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
It is 20 minutes after the hour.
Thanks for being with us on America First.
Bob France sitting in for Dr. G.
We are live on what I like to call free for all Friday.
Any question you want to ask, any comment you want to make, any topic you want to touch, any subject you want to broach, it's all fair game on a free for all Friday.
Dial 83333 Gorka, 833-334-6752, and we will put you up and on national radio and talk about all these things.
Now having said that, I do want you to answer the question that I was just kind of discussing in the first segment, and that is, are you proud enough to be a conservative American of...
A believer in the constitutional republic that we are, capitalism, freedom and liberty, equality for all, but no guaranteed equitable outcomes.
It depends on how hard you work and what you try to do.
Are you afraid to admit that you are that?
Are you proud to be that?
Because they are really trying to chase us into a corner.
They are trying to chase us into a place where we're afraid to be what we are.
Even though our motives, our intentions, and yes, our outcomes are righteous.
We are the ones who right the wrongs.
I want to know how you feel about that.
Do you wear manga hats out?
Do you wear t-shirts showing your patriotism, showing your conservatism?
Do you do that?
Do you do it in public or do you kind of keep that stuff to yourself?
Do you put a sign, a Republican signer in your yard during an election season or are you afraid?
To have your house egged, or worse, vandalized in worse ways.
Because I'll tell you what, they are doing a very, very good job of trying to intimidate us into being publicly who we are.
And when there are fewer of us being shown, I mean, what do they say?
There's an old adage that says there's safety in numbers, right?
If you don't see the numbers, if you don't see a bunch of other conservatives out there waving their conservative flag, then you kind of feel like you're all alone.
And if you feel like you're all alone, what do you do?
You shrink back just a little bit.
You stay silent just a little bit longer.
You're just a little bit more quiet.
You're a little bit more intimidated or a little bit too intimidated.
Too intimidated to speak freely about this.
Now I'm going to give you an example of what I'm talking about here.
We were discussing this off the air as well before we started.
I want to posit a little kind of a theory for you here.
The slippery slope of the LGBTQ movement that was warned about a long, long, long time ago was bound to eventually slide us into a pool of, shall I say, well I'll just say into a pool because I don't want to describe the kind or else I'm going to be called a bigot here.
But I guess this is the point.
We're going to be called bigots anyway.
It started, if you recall, with gay rights, which are fine because everybody should have rights.
I don't care who you sleep with.
I don't care who you like.
I don't care who you're attracted to.
Whatever.
Do your thing.
Gay rights.
Just rights.
People's rights.
Human's rights.
That's the way it should be.
But it went from tolerance of that and tolerance of that lifestyle choice, or if you believe that you were born that way, tolerance of that.
Hey, don't hate anybody and don't discriminate against anybody because of who they are.
Make sure you tolerate their point of view.
And it was like, okay, I didn't see any problem with that.
I don't think very many people had any problems with that, to be quite frank.
But then it became tolerance had to become acceptance.
Acceptance of this sort of lifestyle, even if it infringes upon what I described before, the nuclear family building blocks of a healthy Western civilization like marriage, even if it intrudes upon that, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, accept that.
It doesn't affect you, right?
Two people want to be of the same sex, are in love, and they want to call themselves husband and husband, or wife and wife.
Accept that, people.
There it was.
And we pretty much had to do that.
Okay.
But then what came after tolerance and acceptance?
Conservatives had to now graduate from acceptance into celebration.
Celebrate.
Celebrate the LGBTQ community.
You wave that pride flag during June.
You take your children to those gay pride parades.
You take your kids to the all-ages drag shows.
You celebrate.
You call people by those pronouns.
You ignore biology and English grammar.
You celebrate it.
Now we've graduated from tolerating to accepting to celebrating.
What's the next and final stop?
What's the pool I was referencing a moment ago?
We slide down that slippery slope into a pool that says participation.
Now, you will participate in the LGBTQ movement.
You will participate in LBGTQ relationships.
You will participate in LGBTQ sex.
Or you are a bigot.
That was their threat every step of the way.
Tolerate or you're a bigot.
Accept or you're a bigot.
Celebrate or you're a bigot.
And now participate or you are a bigot.
You think I'm kidding?
There is a podcast that is called The Whatever Podcast.
I've never heard it before, but there is a clip from this past November, so what's that make it, about four months old, five months old, that is still flying around the internet that is viral.
It went viral, as a matter of fact, just a few days ago on February 27th, according to the story I'm reading from The Daily Caller.
And I did watch the clip, and I have to tell you, it is every bit of what I just described.
This is a podcast which is a group.
It's kind of an ensemble cast type of podcast is what we call it in the broadcast industry.
So there's a few girls and a few guys and they're talking about, well, there's the title of the podcast, whatever.
Well, the subject came up.
In the form of a question, in which one viewer asked one of the males in the podcast, and it looks like there's two, four, six, it looks like, well, I only see two guys in the picture, and I see about seven women, but whatever.
The question was to chase one of the guys, would you rather smash the hottest, and read into that what it is, would you rather have sex with, smash the hottest trans woman in the world, or the oldest woman in the world?
And Chase responded.
I can't play this for you, by the way, because it's filled with F-bombs and all kinds of other vulgarities.
So I'm just going to read it to you.
He said, honestly, bro, the oldest woman in the world, because then I wouldn't be gay.
And one of the women named Kiko just, what?
You really want me to just rip you a blanking new one?
I swear to God.
What the blank do you mean?
Yes, that was so unnecessary.
And he said, cause if I had sex with a trans woman, I'd be having sex with a biological man.
And I don't want to do that.
That's too far.
That's too blanking far.
She said before storming off the set.
Another one of the women responded after that, she's right.
I mean, that's really hateful, bro.
Did you hear that?
If you're straight, and you only want to have sexual relationships with women, because you're straight, and you won't have sex with a biological man, who happens to maybe be wearing a wig and makeup, you are hateful.
He replied, she's not.
That would technically be homosexual.
A trans woman is a biological man.
Sue me.
It's true.
If you guys want to respect gender identities, that's his though.
That's his sexuality.
Who knew that stating biological facts would make people walk off the show?
What that woman said as she exited that show, that it is hateful for you as a male to not want to have sex with another male.
That's hateful.
That is the equivalent of what?
Let's start the new slogan.
It's coming.
Straight equals hate.
That's what they're going to tell us next.
I am tired of having to hide who we are.
We'll be back.
Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
Boyer, we are off to a rousing start on this free-for-all Friday edition of America First.
Bob France in Cleveland, Ohio.
You know, I, like Dr. G, thank God every day that America is the freest nation on Earth.
We remain free because of our right to keep and bear arms, and no other company in America personifies that more than Carr Firearms Group.
Their story is the American dream, and their products are absolutely second to none.
The Carr Firearms Group is your source for high quality firearms.
Visit them at www.kahr.com.
I carry Carr, Dr. G carries Carr every single day and so should you.
All right, we're going to get to the phones here as I promised we would because there's a lot to get into right now.
That story, again, that I just told, I wasn't going to leave the show with, it just came out because, again, we were discussing the silencing, the censoring, the shaming, the intimidating, the subjugating of conservatives as being second-class citizens, as being less than, to the point where we're afraid to acknowledge who we are.
And it's gotten so bad that they are now equating being straight with being hateful.
It's no longer about tolerating in the LGBTQ agenda that is going on right now the mafia.
It's no longer about tolerating or accepting or even celebrating.
Now it's participate in gay sexual relations or you are hateful.
It's a legitimate thing in the LGBTQ community.
They scream trans women are real women and so therefore men you should be willing to date a trans woman.
She's a real woman.
Never mind the fact that Intimacy is going to be a bit of a problem when you find out what you find out.
And if you don't like what you find out there, you are hateful.
You are a bigot and that cannot be.
833-33-GORKA.
That's 833-334-6752.
We want to hear from you.
Let's go to Derek who's calling us from right here where I am in my hometown in Cleveland, Ohio.
Derek, welcome to America First.
Go right ahead.
Thank you, Bob.
You're absolutely right.
The left will never be appeased.
They will always demand more.
We have to celebrate with them and agree with them.
So I'm calling on your opening point.
So during the last campaign, I had Trump signs stolen, disappeared out of my yard.
I've had people blow down, cussing, you know, flank Trump as loud as they can while I'm out of my front yard with my family.
And I did.
I kept my flag outside my garage for months and months after the fraudulent election.
Now, every time I drive past and see a pro-America display, some sort of conservative display on somebody's property, I feel galvanized.
Especially at Christmas time when I see a nativity set out, it makes me realize, it makes me feel great.
I realize, look, there's another Christian who's not afraid to display their faith publicly.
And the point is that the left, they want to make us feel isolated.
Yes.
For the purpose of making us afraid to push back against them.
It's a vicious circle, my friend.
Thank you for the call.
I appreciate that, Derek.
It is a vicious circle.
You see somebody else with a sign or wearing a shirt or hat or something and you feel, as you said, galvanized, stronger, that there's other people who think like I do.
And that is exactly why the left pushes to make you feel the opposite, to feel miserable.
If you feel miserable, if you feel ashamed, if you feel like, I'm going to get into a fight or I'm going to be attacked or I'm going to be...
I'm going to be ostracized if I wear this shirt.
You won't wear it.
And then you won't be able to galvanize another.
You see what I mean?
You feel better when you see somebody else who's willing to say, yeah, I'm a capitalist.
I prefer a t-shirt with a face of Reagan on it to a t-shirt with a face of Che Guevara on it.
Right?
I prefer a shirt that says, Make America Great Again, which is a noble slogan no matter what you think of Donald Trump.
America should be great!
Should be great for everybody.
I'm going to choose that over a shirt that has the logo of the Chinese Communist Party.
And the left thinks that the Chinese Communist Party is okay!
And that the Make America Great shirt is the hateful one.
They will brand you a racist.
They will brand you a homophobe.
They will brand you a sexist.
They'll brand you as a misogynist if you display any of those things that are conservative related.
Knowing that you will then stop saying those things, stop making it known, stop wearing them, stop putting them in your yard, stop putting them on your vehicles.
They're going to stop you from doing it because they know full well if other people see it, they will be galvanized themselves by a movement that is growing.
So their mission is to quash the movement, one individual conservative at a time.
And you know what?
I hate to say it.
They're damn good at it.
They're doing it.
through the social media lens and the traditional legacy media lens, they're darn good at framing and branding us the way they want to.
That's why I'm telling you to fight back, and that's why I'm asking for your stories about this today.
Dial us up, 833-33-GORKA.
Bob France sitting in for Dr. G. Second Amendment Friday.
John Lott will join us next.
John Lott will join us next.
John Lott will join us next.
John Lott will join us next.
John Lott will join us next.
John Lott will join us next.
John Lott will join us next.
John Lott will join us next.
John Lott will join us next.
John Lott will join us next.
I'm Seb Gawker.
Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
Seventeen minutes before the top of the hour, thanks for being with us on America First.
Bob France sitting in the ReliefFactor.com studios here in Cleveland, Ohio.
Follow me on Twitter if you would at France Rantz, F-R-A-N-T-Z, R-A-N-T-Z.
You know, the greatness of America is at its core our freedom.
No other country is as free, and we remain free due to our right to keep and bear arms.
No other company in America personifies this.
more than Car Firearms Group.
Their story is the American dream and their products are absolutely second to none.
Car Firearms Group is your source for high-quality firearms.
Visit them at www.car.com.
That's K-A-H-R dot com.
And on this Second Amendment Friday on America First, we're pleased to welcome John Lott to the program.
He is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.
John, good to have you on the program on America First.
How are you, sir?
Doing great.
Good to talk to you again.
Good to talk to you.
So we've got a couple of things to talk about on Second Amendment Friday.
I'm going to talk about how a new way for the government and perhaps some of their partners to track Americans firearms to create almost a de facto registry, but just super quick.
I got a glimpse at some statistics from 2021.
The FBI crime statistics came out back actually back in October, but something drew me to it a couple of days ago.
And I happen to notice one of the charts, one of the graphs of murder victims, homicide victims by weapon.
Now we all know that every time there's a shooting in this country, the current President of the United States and his supporters want to come for assault weapons, assault rifles to be precise.
And I thought I was curious, and I thought I'd get your thoughts on this, that when you look at murder victims by weapon, you know where we find rifles of all kinds?
Not just quote-unquote assault rifles, or ARs, or semi-automatic rifles, as they like to refer to them.
That number falls right below on the chart, personal weapons such as hands, fists, and feet.
Well, I guess my most basic thought is, you know, people use lots of things to kill people.
then they are killed by all types of rifles every year.
And yet, for some reason, the gun control crowd wants to ban those particular rifles, assault rifles.
John, what are your thoughts?
Well, I guess my most basic thought is, you know, people use lots of things to kill people.
The question that you have to ask yourself is, what do they also use them for?
Can they use them for defending themselves?
What you find, for example, is that people use guns defensively to stop crime about five times more frequently each year than guns are used in the commission of crime.
The media rarely covers defensive gun uses.
We can talk about the biases that are there.
But, you know, I think just looking at the number of deaths by itself doesn't really tell you very much, though, as you say, it's interesting that if you add all rifles together, not just the ones that they define as assault weapons, which, by the way, even the Associated Press now has said is a loaded political term and not a very useful way that there's really no, you know, President Biden and other Democrats will refer to them as military
weapons of war, when in fact, even as the Associated Press says, there's no military around the world that uses these semi-automatic rifles like this.
It's, you know, it's just not a very useful, politically biased term that people use.
Yeah, you're exactly right.
And by the way, I love the fact that the Associated Press used the term loaded to describe it.
Subconsciously promoting firearm use, I think.
So I want to talk about this new story, John Lott from the Crime Prevention Research Center.
Another way to track us.
Now, I hadn't thought of this before, but let's talk about the fact that Discover Card has roughly 50 million users in America right now.
uh... which may not be a huge number when compared to some of the other uh... the other cards but fifty million people is still a lot of people and they have just announced they are now going to be uh... tracking uh... people who purchase firearms with their cards they're there according to the reports multiple payment processors have already joined a massive project to categorize gun shop sales
It's being seen as a victory for gun control advocates who argue that a separate categorization for gun store sales will help monitor suspicious activity that could lead to mass shootings.
To me, John, this sounds like gun registry.
Finding another way to essentially find out who's got guns and where they are based on their credit card purchases.
How dangerous is that, John?
Right.
Well, I mean, people may not know this, but the Biden administration has already been putting together a computerized registry of guns.
They've had the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
When gun dealers have gone out of business, they've turned over their list of purchases, the 4473 forms that they have.
And they've computerized those and turned it into a searchable computerized database.
The Biden administration says, well, we haven't broken any laws yet because we haven't actually used it to search for people.
But that's the only reason why you can think of why you would be putting that type of computerized list together.
They do have a lot of recent transactions.
They've been calling up dealers and saying, we want you to turn over your forms that you have.
Uh, now, even before you're out of business, but the point of going to the credit card companies and convincing them to turn over that data is to try to make their registry that they've already been putting together complete by getting information on current sales.
So the reason why they claim you need to have this type of registry is they say it's useful for solving crimes.
And you know, in theory, if you have licensing and registration, and you go and a crime gun is left at the crime scene, and it's registered to the person who committed the crime, then you can go and trace it back and catch the criminal there.
The problem is, is that virtually never happens.
One, crime guns are very rarely left at the scene.
A few times they are left at the scene.
You have instances where the criminal's either been killed or seriously wounded, so you're going to catch him anyway.
And a couple other times that they're left at the scene, they're not registered.
And the once or twice that they are registered, they're not registered to the person who committed the crime.
And so, you know, these things Take a lot of resources and money that could be used for other things.
Hawaii, some years ago, the Honolulu police chief testified before the state legislature.
They've had registration and licensing in Hawaii since 1960.
Wow.
And he was asked how many crimes had they been able to solve as a result of registration and licensing.
He said zero.
Wow.
And then they asked him, well, how much does it cost?
And he didn't have a dollar figure, but he estimated it took about 50,000 hours worth of police time each year to go and run the system.
And that's 50,000 hours wasted that could have been used, a police time, for things that we know worked.
That's a devastating figure.
John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, joining us on Second Amendment Friday here on America First.
We'll be back.
Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
Yeah, thank you so much for being with us six minutes before the top of the hour.
It's a free-for-all Friday on America First.
You know, the greatness of America is at its core our freedom.
I'll remind you again, no other country is as free and we remain that way due to our right to keep and bear arms.
No other company in America personifies that more than Carr Firearms Group.
Their story is the American dream.
Their products are absolutely second to none.
Carr Firearms Group, your source for high-quality firearms.
Visit them.
At www.car.com.
That's K-A-H-R dot com.
We appreciate them sponsoring Second Amendment Friday.
Great conversation with John Lott.
And I want to remind you, too, as we head into the weekend...
Well, everyone knows, we have to remember every year at this time, that we're going to turn to you for generous gifts to help the Christian non-profit group Food for the Poor.
This is so important.
Together, we are all helping to do very positive things to feed hungry children in Honduras.
But with 60% of Hondurans living below the poverty level, and the entire country still suffering in severe poverty, there are still many, many children who are in desperate need of your help.
Now, I just want you to listen to this.
This is Linda, who works with Food for the Poor in Honduras.
When you see the hunger, when you see the need, you go out on the field, even if they haven't eaten for one or two days.
It just makes us real, real sad.
The more we do, the more we see the need.
The more places we go, the more we find people starving.
The more we see children are eating the leaves from the trees.
That's why we partner with Food for the Poor, because no child should be eating leaves when life-saving food is ready to be rushed.
If only you will help.
Just go to SebGorka.com, click on the Give Food, Give Hope banner, or you can phone a donation to this special number, 855-330-4673.
That spells 855-330-HOPE.
855-330-4673.
That spells 855-330-HOPE.
$72 feeds two hungry children for an entire year and provides access to clean water for a lifetime.
$144 offers the same blessing to four kids for a year.
Of course, any amount will help, and you will be blessed by helping share the love of Christ with the poorest of the poor in Honduras.
If you like, you can text the keyword Gorka to 91999, and we'll send you a link, a direct link, where you can make your tax-deductible donation.
So please go to SebGorka.com and help us feed more hungry kids through our friends at Food for the Poor.
So we're taking calls, obviously, on what we've been discussing in terms of conservatism, conservative pride, conservatives being intimidated, conservatives being silenced.
But we're also talking, and we're going to be talking in the next hour, right after the top of the hour break, as a matter of fact, with a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights who has written a letter, I have a copy of it, He's written a letter to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan, challenging or asking him and the legislature to challenge President Biden's executive order on advancing racial equity for all of the wrong reasons.
So Peter Kershenow is going to explain this letter to Jim Jordan and a separate one he has written to Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
That conversation is worth our time.
It's coming up right here on America First.
Bob Branson for Dr. G.
We'll be back.
Thank you.
Thank you for joining us on America First with today's very special guest host, Cleveland's own Bob France.
Yes, indeed.
Five minutes past the hour.
Thanks for being with us.
Thank you, Dr. G, for the gracious introduction and the opportunity to sit with this phenomenal America First audience once again.
The home base is here in Cleveland, as you just heard.
The ReliefFactor.com studios of AM 1420, The Answer.
It's WHKRadio.com if you ever want to listen in to what we do in the mornings from 9 until noon Eastern time.
WHKRadio.com.
Save that and follow me on Twitter at France Rance.
F-R-A-N-T-Z-R-A-N-T-Z.
We're going to begin our two now with a special guest, somebody that I am very familiar with.
I've been interviewing him once a week, roughly, for about the last nine years.
He is the longest serving commissioner.
on the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
It's a pretty important position, and his name is Peter Kersnow.
He joins us here on America First.
Peter, good to have you, my friend.
How are you, sir?
I'm doing well, Bob.
Thanks for having me on.
So you spent a little bit of time at the keyboard yesterday, it would appear.
I've got a copy of a letter in front of me, dated March 2nd, addressed to Chairman Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Chairman Jordan is being asked, it would appear, and I'm going to let you tell us what you would like to see from him, to respond to what you call in your letter, Pete, the Trojan horse that is the, quote, executive order on further advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government, which, of course, is Biden's executive order, which is of great concern to a lot of people.
And you are obviously trying to alert Chairman Jordan about that.
What is it?
First of all, tell us why you call it Because if you look at its implications, the scale of this is breathtaking.
In my 40-plus years as a labor and employment lawyer and 20-plus years in the Civil Rights Commission, I haven't seen anything quite like this.
It seems somewhat innocuous to the uninitiated.
But to anybody who has been involved in civil rights for any period of time, especially if you're involved on the right, you know precisely what's going on here.
And for your listeners, what this does is it mandates equity throughout every single federal agency.
And that's just the beginning.
First of all, what is the definition of equity?
And that is problematic, and that's one of the reasons why I was hoping that Chairman Jordan, who seems to be going on the right track in other areas, would have a hearing on this, because this has profound implications.
Equity means equal outcomes, according to this particular executive order.
It is not equal opportunity.
We have a plethora of statutes and regulations dealing with equal opportunity.
That's the promise of America, equal opportunity.
Equity is equal outcomes, which means mandatory discrimination.
Now, they dress it up with flowery words, but the effect is rampant and massive discrimination in every federal agency.
And for your listeners also, Bob, they probably know already that when you're dealing with federal agencies, it's not simply limited to those agencies, even though the federal government is the largest employer in the country.
It will also affect federal contractors.
It will trickle down, in other words, and affect virtually everybody.
Because after it affects the federal contractors, those contracting companies will then implement that throughout their entire sphere of influence, throughout their own contractors and others.
And so this has significant implications for equal opportunity, for Title VII law, for a whole host of things, and it's frankly, it's Let me pause you there, Pete, to go deeper.
Yeah, let's go deeper on Section 7.
You quote in your letter, or actually you write in your letter, if the executive order were merely intended to ensure everyone has equal opportunity, which is what the Civil Rights Commission should be about, and the Civil Rights Act is about equal opportunity, equality for all, not equity, the definition would simply restate the existing language of Title 7.
Give me a paraphrase of what the language of Title 7 says, and why that would be better than this Section 10 in the EO.
Yeah, Bob.
Title VII makes it unlawful for any employer to discriminate on the basis of any immutable characteristic in addition to religion.
That's one that's not immutable.
You could change your religion, of course.
But you cannot discriminate in terms of hire, or fire, or terms and conditions of employment on the basis of race, sex, age, national origin, color, and religion.
That's just the opposite of what this executive order is required to do, as you indicated.
If it were simply about equality, we wouldn't need anything else.
We have got a host of civil rights statutes that take care of that.
This goes much further than that, and is going to require equal outcomes, so that you have to put a thumb on the scale And count by race, sex, and everything else.
And count only in a certain way, because it doesn't include, for example, white males, people of a certain age, minority religious.
It does include minority religious groups, but not majority religious groups.
Not majority, and not the able-bodied.
The disabled are covered, the abled are not.
Men and boys are not covered by this, but women and girls are.
Or at least women and girls who pretend, or those individuals who say that they're women or girls.
And that's a big part of this that you talk about here.
Pete, what I want to hit, though, real hard is the idea of what equity really means.
When you talk about equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
You know, I equate this, and a lot of people use this as a descriptor of, you know, socialism.
People will talk about how, you know, two students, one works their tail off and gets a hundred, somebody else is lazy and doesn't do anything and gets a fifty and fails.
Well, we're going to add their scores together and give them each an equitable outcome.
Here would be to divide those between the two and each of them gets a seventy-five.
Well, and a C. And that's not fair.
Is that what we're talking about that is in this EO?
No matter how hard you work or how, you know, how much you don't try, You get the same outcome as everybody else.
Is that what this says?
Yeah, it gives the bureaucrats way, way too much latitude to, as I said, put their thumbs on the scale to come up with a mandated outcome.
It is dispiriting in its essence because, as you indicated, those who, through their industry, through their determination, through their God-given gifts, Do a good job?
Well, you know what, that's very nice, but this guy over here that doesn't look like you, we're going to promote him instead for equity reasons.
Or even if it's not instead, Peter, even if it's not instead, what I think frustrates a lot of people is even if it's alongside.
In other words, if this white male, for example, who is not covered by this EO, Works his tail off, and really, really earns a promotion.
Well, now we've got one more white person in the supper management position than we do non-white, minority, or people of color, if you will.
So, equity demands we promote one from that group to be up there next to him, even if they didn't work as hard as he did for the promotion.
Keeping people at an even level, regardless of their effort, or of their talent, or of their achievements.
That's what's, I think, at issue here for a lot of people.
Yeah, and that's why I start out by saying this is a Trojan horse for socialism.
This gives complete and wide license to engage in the kind of social engineering that the Soviet commissars, you know, Soviet political officers would engage in.
And that is not an exaggeration.
You know, if you had told me 20 years ago, when I first came out to the Civil Rights Commission, more than 20 years ago, that I'd be addressing matters like this, I'd say, no way.
We've got all these statutes here that protect against these kinds of things, but nope.
That's the problem here, because I think what's alarming to me is that this came out a couple weeks ago, and I haven't heard too much about it except among a very small group, because we have what we call the broom closet, of people on the conservative side of the ledger who are involved in our expert in civil rights issues.
The Biden administration and others, I think, would like to keep this as quiet as possible until such time as it's a fait accompli, and there's not a whole lot we can do about it.
And that's why I call on Jim Jordan to hold hearings on this, because frankly, that's about all we can do at this point, is hold hearings and let the public know, and hope that public opprobrium would cause them to rescind this.
This is an eight-page letter, I believe, that you wrote to Chairman Jordan, and I certainly hope they do expose this and do hold hearings on this.
I want to highlight a portion of this that I think is important that you can explain to this wonderful America First audience.
They're trying, it looks, through the language of this EO, Biden and his team are trying to say, we're not doing this with any bias in mind.
In fact, we're not going to ask for people to choose how to advance this equity.
We are going to let science do it.
We're going to create algorithms.
And algorithmic, right?
This is what they're saying, that the computers will spit out what we need to do here that will be fair for everybody, therefore it's free of bias.
But that's not how these algorithms are inputted, is it?
No, and on top of that, there's a specific provision dealing with what they call algorithmic discrimination.
The bottom line for your audience is, this gives them the ability, for example, on the Civil Rights Commission, we took a look a couple of months, no, actually it was more than a year ago now, with respect to certain aspects of discrimination in policing, alleged discrimination in policing.
And in a lot of places, what they do is they put in algorithms to make sure that there is no discrimination in terms of policing.
But the problem there is that these algorithms are all race neutral, but the facts are that, for example, black males have a far greater propensity to have existing criminal records, I mean numerous criminal incidents, and for that reason you're going to get a disproportionate number of black males. and for that reason you're going to get a disproportionate Well, that screws up the entire algorithm.
Race is not even inputted into that, but because of that, pursuant to this executive order, they would throw out those race neutral types of algorithms that would assist in keeping communities safe and would also make sure that there's no true discrimination.
So the irony being, if they don't input race into the algorithm, they get racial preference anyway.
That's essentially what happens.
Racial preference is granted by ignoring the race aspect because of what you just described.
Pete, we'll take our time out here.
We'll come back.
You were a busy man yesterday.
You also wrote to the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, about Title IX.
We're going to talk about that next as we continue on
America First.
Thank you.
I'm Seb Gorka.
Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
All right, thank you, Dr. G. Twenty minutes after the hour, we'll continue now with our guest, Peter Kersenow.
He is the longest-serving member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights in that commission's history, and he's been very, very busy addressing a number of issues regarding to equality, not equity, and safety, including a letter that was written yesterday and delivered to the Honorable Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House of Representatives, this time talking about Title IX.
Peter, For 50 years, since 1972, Title IX has been granting girls and women athletes equal opportunity and access to compete, equal opportunity and access to facilities for their own selves on campuses and in schools, and it has done wonders for the growth of women and girls in sports and some of their achievements.
Why is the Biden administration trying to rock that boat?
Why on earth is he trying to essentially, I think you used the word, deform.
It's the deformation of Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972.
Why is he trying to deform something that has worked so effectively in advancing the cause of girls and women?
Because the transgender craze has now taken over the Democratic Party and has superseded the rights of women and girls to equal opportunity to participate on an equal basis with respect to facilities and resources and events related to sports and a whole host of other issues such as accommodations in schools and athletic facilities.
So what happens now is basically, and I'll just cut right to the chase, their interpretation, which has a number of different permutations to it, and the person who came up with this was a former civil rights commissioner, in fact, chair of the Civil Rights Commission, who is now the head of the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education in the Biden administration.
She is way to the left.
And she has these... I won't go into any kind of description.
She has certain ideas about the way that civil rights statutes should be implemented.
And the bottom line here is the implementation of this new rule would allow transgender athletes, you know, have the Leotana situation at University of Texas.
Biological males.
Right.
Right, exactly.
Compete against biological females and claims that that is the logical import of Title IX, but also it allows these males who are biological males who identify as females to have unfettered access to lock rooms, showers, but also it allows these males who are biological males who identify as females to have unfettered access to lock rooms, showers, and any other kind of facility that generally over the last And it would mandate that.
It would mandate that schools permit these individuals.
Now, right now, schools have discretion under the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court decision, as to whether or not they're going to do that.
And the vast majority of schools have either not done anything about it, they've been silent about it, because, among other things, they don't have to face the issue because they don't have any students identifying as such.
But others have been silent about it, haven't decided to take any kind of action about it, and figured we'll just let sleeping dogs lie, and if the situation arises, then we'll deal with it.
They have continued to mandate that if somebody, if a boy identifies as a girl, that he nonetheless uses a boy's locker room or they have a separate facility, they will find an accommodation so that girls are not subjected to competing against boys, girls are not subjected to biological males they will find an accommodation so that girls are not subjected to competing against boys, girls are not But that's never good enough, though.
That's never good enough, is it?
They never accept that third option or that separate accommodation because they're saying, no, we don't want to be excluded from the actual locker and shower rooms of the sex with which we identify.
We're not a third thing.
We're not a non-entity.
This is their argument.
A biological male who says he's a trans female says, I am female.
I must be given access to the female spaces and the female showers.
You cannot treat me like I'm something that doesn't exist, like some sort of a stranger.
Even though many of them actually use words that describe things that don't exist, but that's how they say it.
Yeah, but what this guidance would do is require schools to have transgender girls in girls' locker room.
In those rooms.
That's right.
It would require it not give the schools any discretion to implement their own policy based on their own norms within that jurisdiction.
This is completely contrary to Title IX.
It's completely contrary to the Bostock decision.
And so what we want to do, because this is the interpretation of an agency, is have Congress have hearings on this, weigh in on this, and get this straight.
Because the Biden administration has been extremely aggressive in promoting a very, Radical progressive agenda.
And it's being done under the radar.
As I've indicated, most people aren't watching this.
Even Congress isn't watching this.
You have these edicts coming out, these guidances, interpretations.
Sometimes they're actually regulations that are being promulgated, and no one's paying a whole lot of attention.
And that's one of the reasons why we have a problem with the quote-unquote deep state that a lot of people talk about, but the administrative state.
Which is wielding untold amounts of power, and is issuing regs like crazy, and guidances like crazy, and people can't keep up with it, and they're being enforced with the rule of law.
So we want to highlight this for both Representative Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well as Leader McCarthy, so that they will take action.
The most we can do at this point is hold hearings until there's a complete Republican majority.
But I think that the disinfectant of having everyone see this, shine the light on this, will cause people to say, what the heck is going on?
We don't really realize the radical steps that our federal government is taking to completely transform America.
And Bob, for a moment, if I could go back to the other one, which is the deal with respect to equity.
That is going to apply, not just to the federal government, but as I indicated before, to subcontractors and contractors, and it eventually seeps down to every business or employer in the United States.
But just as important is the fact that we're talking about huge sums of money at stake here.
And we're talking about extremely radical regulations that are going to transform the country in ways that we've never seen before.
So this is something I'm hopeful that more Americans will keep an eye on.
It's astonishing that this hasn't gotten as much press as it clearly should.
I just think that many conservatives are just unaware of it.
But the left is delighted.
They'd like to see this go under the radar screen.
Yeah, of course they are.
And you know, Peter, what I hope people who are listening to you right now understand is that they have a responsibility and they have an opportunity to try to stop some of this madness.
Now, they cannot necessarily go to their congressperson and say, I want you to craft a bill that will stop this federally, but what is happening is that there are
State legislatures that are taking up bills and legislation that would say, we are going to tell our member schools of, you know, for example, in the Ohio, in the state of Ohio, we're telling our member schools, if you do not adopt the federal government's new definition of Title IX, we will cut off federal funds being distributed to you.
So there are severe threats, and this was going on in the state of Ohio by Mike DeWine and the Ohio Board of Education as recently as late last year.
And there was a massive fight, and the people pushed back and got the Ohio Board of Education to change their language on this so that our school districts do not feel compelled to allow girls to be intruded upon in such ways.
So people can make a difference, they're just going to have to do it at their local levels with their local and state representatives before they can really, you know, talk about this on the federal level.
But that's what you're doing here by spotlighting this and sending that message to Kevin McCarthy.
I'm glad to have you doing it, Peter Kersenow, and thank you for sharing it with us.
Bob, take care.
Thank you, Peter.
That's Peter Kersenow, longest serving member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
He knows his stuff and he is spot on all over this.
Bob Franson for Dr. G on America First, we'll be back.
Thank you.
Thank you. .
I I'm Seb Gorka.
Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
Okay, 33 minutes past the hour.
We do continue now.
Thank you to Peter Kersenow.
Terrific discussion.
I mean, you know, what's really frustrating is reaching out to leaders of the new GOP-controlled House, including Kevin McCarthy, including Chairman Jordan, and the reality is that, and I said this the moment, you know, we saw what the Makeup of Congress is going to look like in the non-red wave of this past November.
It's going to be gridlock.
We're not going to get a whole lot done legislatively if the, you know, GOP-led House does manage to pull its very slim majority together and get something significant passed.
If it's going to be blocked by the Democrat-controlled Senate, we all know how this works.
So what we can do, though, is hope for, number one, investigation and holding accountable so many of the individuals that were responsible for So many crimes, quite frankly, that were committed on behalf of the Democrats over the course of the last two years and really in the four years of President Trump, including phony dossiers, including burying things like the Hunter Biden story and so on and so forth.
We can hope for investigation.
And the other thing is we can hope for is exploding The left's agenda with transparency that the left has no interest in.
And that means shining a white hot spotlight on every single one of these executive orders by Joe Biden through the use of the committees like the Judiciary Committee, like the Oversight Committee, and obviously he's reaching out to Kevin McCarthy to help at the larger level of the entire House.
So really important stuff that Peter Kirsten and I was doing there, and it's going to have an impact.
It's just going to be a bit.
Okay, let's go back to the phones.
It's a free-for-all Friday, so anything you want to ask or question or talk about, 833-33-GORKA is the number.
That's 833-334-6752.
I want to hear from you.
Let's go to California somewhere.
Mike, you are on America First.
Hey, Mike, welcome to the show.
Go right ahead.
Hi, thank you, Bob.
Yeah, Mike in El Segundo, California.
You had mentioned earlier that that it's gone from the Democrats' requirement that first you have to accept.
Tolerate first.
First it was tolerance.
Yeah, first it was tolerance, then acceptance of gay marriage and things of that nature.
Yep.
Go on.
I think accept and tolerate and embrace, then celebrate.
And you added a new one that I haven't heard before, but you're absolutely right.
I mean, I heard an example of it, but I didn't hear it put that way.
You added that you have to participate in same-sex relationships.
And activity and behavior.
And what I want to mention to you was that you've already been proven correct in saying that will happen because it already has happened.
And Dennis Traeger had mentioned probably a year or two ago that while he was, I think, traveling, he was either at a restaurant or an airport, he met a young woman, college student age, who was at the time a college student.
And in the course of normal conversations, because you know Dennis Traeger likes to strike up conversations with strangers he needs just to learn more about people.
And she had mentioned that she was having sexual relations with other women.
Dennis Prager asked a brilliant question that's really simple.
He asked, well, are you physically attracted to men or women?
She said, to men, not to women.
Then Dennis Prager asked her, well, why are you having sexual relations with other women?
And she responded, because our college professor taught our class that we do not have sexual relations with other people of our same sex and we are sexual bigots.
So, it's already happening, it's been happening, and you're absolutely correct in what you said, that they'll force you to participate, not just embrace and celebrate, but to participate in opposite sex relationships, or else you will be smeared as a bigot.
And all the other bad things will happen to you associated with being smeared as a bigot.
You've probably seen, as we all have, the bumper stickers and the t-shirts that say love wins with the equal sign, which is what they got with the gay marriage decision.
And I can already see the signs being printed.
I can already see the bumper stickers being printed.
And thank you for your call, Mike.
Straight equals hate.
That will be the new message.
If you're straight and you won't at least try it, try it the gay way.
You're full of hate.
And that's what was expressed literally right there on that podcast that I read to you before the text from or the what am I trying to transcript?
I read the transcript from that podcast where the one male was asked, would you rather have sex with the hottest trans woman in the world or the oldest woman in the world?
Now, you think about that, and that's not exactly something that's a wonderful choice, I would imagine, for most males.
But he said, well, the oldest woman in the world, of course, because I'm not gay.
And they flipped on him.
How dare you?
He said, well, a trans woman is a guy.
It's a guy.
No matter how much makeup she wears, no matter how bright blonde her wig might be, and even if he shaves his legs, he's a guy.
And I'm not gay, and I don't want to have sex with a guy.
And they flipped on him.
How dare you?
You are so hateful.
That's the message that the far left is on.
And I promise you, that professor you're talking about is not the only professor in America asking students, how do you know you're not gay if you haven't tried it yet?
You gotta give that a shot.
There are books about that that are also becoming available in young middle school classrooms and libraries.
How do I know if I'm gay?
If I haven't experienced it or tried it yet?
Participation is the end result.
So we'll be back.
Thank you.
Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
All right, 17 minutes before the hour.
Thank you, Dr. G. Once again, I am Bob France, and once again, I'm going to try to remember to promote myself in front of this massive audience.
I want you to follow me if you are a Twitter user.
I'm not great at Twitter, but I find what I can, and I share what I can.
Best of all, I like to reply and respond to good tweets about good issues.
Follow me there at France Rants, F-R-A-N-T-Z.
France Rants.
R-A-N-T-Z.
France Rants is the handle.
And before we go to more phone calls...
Let's talk once again about how we can help people as we head into the weekend.
Every year at this time, we are urging you and turning to you for generous gifts to help children and to help the Christian nonprofit Food for the Poor.
We have to do this.
We are doing very positive things to help feed hungry children all over the world, and particularly in the Western Hemisphere, and today we're focusing on Honduras.
With 60% of Hondurans living below the poverty level, the entire country suffering from severe poverty.
There are many, many children who are in desperate need of your help.
Linda works with Food for the Poor.
Listen to this story.
When you see the hunger, when you see the need, you go out on the field, even if they haven't eaten for one or two days.
It just makes us real, real sad.
The more we do, the more we see the need.
The more places we go, the more we find people starving.
The more we see children are eating the leaves from the trees.
Try getting that image out of your head.
You can't really.
That's why we partner with Food for the Poor.
No child should be eating leaves off of trees when life-saving food is ready to be rushed.
If only you can help, just go to sebgorka.com to help.
Click on the Give Food, Give Hope banner or phone a donation to this special number, 855-333-4673.
I'll read it again.
855-330-HOPE.
855-33-4673.
Excuse me, 330.
Beg your pardon, 4673.
I'll read it again.
855-330-HOPE.
Very easy to remember that way.
$72 will feed two hungry children for an entire year and provide access to clean water for a lifetime.
$144.00.
$144 offers the very same blessing to four kids for a year.
Any amount will help and you will be blessed by helping share the love of Christ with the poorest of the poor in Honduras.
And if you like, you can text the keyword GORKA.
to the short code 91999 and we'll send you a direct link where you can make your tax-deductible donation.
Again, please, go to SebGorka.com.
Help us feed more hungry kids through our friends at Food for the Poor.
Hey, here's a quickie before I go back to the phone calls, by the way.
This is the story I saw this morning and it just shaked my head at how people can get canceled for the most ridiculous things that you can even imagine.
There's a reporter for the Dallas Morning News.
Who apparently was fired for tweeting to the Dallas Mayor, Eric Johnson, with a word that is apparently inappropriate.
Did you know that this word was inappropriate?
It's not a profanity.
It's not a slur.
It's not racial.
I don't know why it's inappropriate, but apparently B-R-U-H, which spells bruh.
Which is short for bro, or another version of bro, which is short for brother.
And we use it everywhere!
My son and I!
My son and I!
Every tweet or text I should say we have with each other when he's at college is bruh!
He'd say hey bruh, and I'd say hey bruh, and it's a term of endearment is what it is, and it's just an innocuous way of saying hey, my friend, my brother.
So anyway, The mayor apparently tweeted something about, quote, as we've seen recently, if policing or crime stories don't feed into a particular narrative, the national media has zero interest in them.
If it doesn't feed into our worst tribal instincts or show a city devolving into violent, crime-ridden chaos, the media will not cover it.
And Megan Mangrum, an education journalist who joined the Dallas newspaper in August of last year, tweeted in response to that, quote, bruh, national news is always going to chase the trend.
Cultivate relationships with quality local news partnerships.
That's it.
End quote.
Bruh.
National news is always going to chase the trend.
Cultivate relationships with quality local news partnerships.
So obviously she's a journalist with the Dallas Morning News speaking to the Dallas Mayor saying, hey, come to us and we'll cover your stories.
Don't worry about the national side.
Come to us.
We're in Dallas together.
The Democratic Mayor shot back.
Bruh?
Have we met?
The chief of staff at the mayor's office, Tristan Hallman, notably a former editor and reporter for the Dallas Morning News, also took an indirect swipe at the reporter, saying, calling the mayor bruh is disrespectful.
Be a pro.
It's disrespectful?
Do you know how many people I bruh on Twitter every day?
Do you know how many people I bruh on text messages?
It's just another way of saying yo, or hey.
Apparently, Ms.
Mangrum was called in by Human Resources for a meeting on Monday, where she faced a grilling from the executive editor, and eventually, she was released.
So how about that?
Mangrum told the magazine, I would never tell a person of color, oh, it wasn't racist, you shouldn't feel that way, but I know my intent, and it was not at all about race.
I would expect so, because this white guy tells his white son, bruh, all the time.
Bruh is not a racial term, and it is not a slur, but that is the level to which cancel culture has risen.
It just gets worse and worse and worse, higher and higher and higher.
Or the bar gets lower and lower and lower.
No matter what you say, you can find yourself on the way out.
Depends on who got offended by it.
All right.
833-33-GORKA.
That's 833-46-752.
I want to hear from you.
Let's go to... How about Indiana?
Tracy is in Indiana.
And on line one, you're on America First.
Bob Frantz sitting in for Dr. G. Go ahead, Tracy.
Hello.
Okay.
Just a heads up.
This isn't going to be very ladylike.
Well, I've had it.
I've absolutely had it.
The demand that I or my children will celebrate or are to celebrate or participate in something like a trans drag show.
And if I'm told, you will comply or else, I will respond Go F yourself, you bastardizing, bigoted bullies.
Tracy, give me context.
Who would be demanding that you take your kids to these?
Who are you talking about here?
Okay, not demand, but that you accept it.
Okay, either way.
Are we talking about just in general, societal things, or are you talking about a school?
Who are you worried about demanding your acceptance?
Okay, if I do not accept, like, a transgender drag show, and if I say I don't accept that and I think it's wrong, I don't think it's right to sexualize children, I will be called a bigot.
Got it.
Okay.
So we're talking general, not specifically about like, you know, hey, a group of kids are being taken by their parents here from, you know, the school or something like that.
I won't participate.
And they are calling.
So we're just saying in general.
And you know what?
You're right to feel that way, Tracy.
This is what I was talking about at the top of the show.
I'm so angry about this.
I'm so angry about this.
And you know what?
What you have, Tracy, and this is extraordinarily important for you to realize, and I thank you for the phone call.
I'm going to be getting a timeout here in a second.
What you have, though, is an extraordinary opportunity to push back and to tell these people, you will not intimidate me into doing something that is the sexual grooming of my child.
Having grown men shaking their nearly naked asses in front of my children's faces while I give them dollars to put in is never going to happen on my watch because my child is going to be normal.
My child is not going to be groomed as a deviant.
You have that opportunity.
Tell them so.
So we'll be back.
We'll be back.
Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
You know, back to the point that the last caller just made, Tracy from Indiana, saying she's just so livid, she just wants to, you know, go off on these people who say, you know, it's okay to bring your children to these drag shows.
And I said, you have an opportunity, and I really mean this too, we all do, an opportunity to say that's where the line is drawn.
It's one thing to be pushing all of this overt LGBTQ agenda stuff in corporate places, even in schools, and even in the military, and in the government, and all these other things.
But where I draw the line is with my children, particularly my little children.
And I've always said this is my example.
If a grown man wearing lingerie, including the thong and stocking and all the other stuff that is frequently associated with drag performances, if a grown man in lingerie
Got out of his car, opened up his trench coat, and was dressed like that, and stood in front of a school playground, calling the children around to him, and dancing for them, twerking for them, spreading legs for them, shaking rear ends for them, and asking them for money?
To do it?
What would you do?
What would you do?
You'd call the police, wouldn't you?
You'd call the police because of this pervert shaking his near-naked self in front of kids and asking them for money for it.
But, if that same grown man says, you don't understand.
I think I'm a woman.
And therefore, this is a performance.
It's not perversion.
The American left would tell you, Applaud that man!
How inclusive!
How diverse!
What a wonderful thing to show our children!
Isn't he inclusive?
Isn't he diverse?
That's great.
So, if it's just a naked pervert dude we call the cops, if it's somebody who says, I'm trans, or I like to cross-dress the way drag stars do, then we call it art.
We call it art, we call it diversity, we call it inclusion.
And it's not perverting our children's minds at all!
No, it's just, it's teaching them the wonders of diversity.
Right?
But if that guy is just a regular old strange pervert...
Well, that's when we would call the cops.
Do you understand how ridiculous this is?
They're taking actions that should be and literally have been for the, I don't know, since forever, illegal.
Such as the performing of burlesque or cabaret-type strip shows, which have always been adult-only, are now being told, we're now being told, no, these are not adult-only, these are family-friendly!
And kids are welcome, and we're supposed to accept that.
No, Tracy, you're right to be angry, you're right to be outraged, and you're right to push back against this.
We all need to push back against this.
I think somebody used the word galvanize before, and I'll use it again now.
It'll galvanize the movement for the rest of us.
Top of the hour coming up.
Patrick Wood joins us next on America First.
Bob Franson for Dr. G. Bob Franson
for Dr. G. Bob
Franson for Dr.
G. Bob Franson for
Dr. G. Bob Franson
for Dr. G. Bob
Franson for Dr.
G. Bob Franson for Dr.
G. Bob Franson
for Dr. G. Bob
Franson for Dr.
G. Bob Franson
for Dr. G. Bob
Franson for Dr.
G. Bob Franson
for Dr. G. Bob
Franson for Dr.
G. Bob Franson
for Dr. G. Bob
Franson for Dr.
G. Bob Franson
for Dr. G. Bob Franson for Dr. G.
Third hour of America First already underway, five minutes past the top of the hour.
Thanks so much for being with us and thank you Dr. G for letting me sit in once again for you on America First, speaking to one of the best audiences in all of conservative talk radio.
Three million America First fans on average.
It's a pleasure and it's an honor.
I am in the ReliefFactor.com studios of Cleveland, Ohio, radio station WHK, which is AM 1420 The Answer.
If you're interested in what I do 9 to noon every day, you can tune in by logging in to WHKRadio.com, 9 to noon every weekday.
And we talk about, it's not local or Cleveland-centric specifically most of the time.
It's the same stuff we're talking about here on Dr. G's program.
So I welcome you.
uh... to tune in there you can also find me on twitter uh... social media i am on truth social actually at always right w h k that's trump's truth social and i'm on twitter now at france rants f-r-a-n-t-z r-a-n-t-z and i'm still trying to build that following back up to the forty thousand i have before i abruptly quit twitter uh... after being banned one too many times but now that it's being run in a more responsible way i'd love to to a communication with the communicate with you there france rants on Twitter.
I want to welcome our next guest to the program.
He is a good friend of mine and a partner in a manner of speaking.
One of his titles is as the executive director and the founder of a very important non-profit organization called Citizens for Free Speech.
As the executive director and founder, I co-host a podcast with him because I'm the national communications director of that very important organization.
Our podcast, which we encourage you to listen to, is called Stand and Deliver.
But Patrick Wood is best known, perhaps, for his decades-long work exposing the evils and the dangers of both technocracy And transhumanism.
I think the left would most certainly characterize Patrick and his work as being conspiratorial, in conspiracy theorist territory.
But of course, remember, just three years ago, they said everybody who thought that the virus came from a Wuhan laboratory, we were all conspiracy theorists too.
But look at what we're finding out right now.
So I think you need to listen to this man.
He is the foremost expert, I think, in America, maybe in the world, on the issue of technocracy.
His latest book is called The Evil Twins.
of technocracy and transhumanism.
Patrick Wood.
It's always good to talk to you, my friend.
Thank you for joining us on America First.
How are you?
Hey, Bob, doing great.
And thank you for having me on today.
This is something we need to talk about.
Everybody's got the buzz on around the country right now.
What you know, what the heck is this transhumanism stuff?
Yeah, they want to know.
They really want to know.
Well, they better be paying attention to it.
If they're not paying attention to A.I.
right now and the massive, massive expansion of the A.I.
universe, if you will, right now, then they're missing the boat here.
And what A.I.
leads to, of course, is, eventually, and you know, it's funny, I just praised Elon Musk, who bought Twitter and restored free speech to it for the most part.
He is also one of the leaders, the leading purveyors, if you will, of artificial intelligence and pushing towards transhumanism.
So it's kind of a You know, you get the good and the bad when you talk about some people like this.
But Patrick, I'm still working through your book.
I'm not finished yet.
I'm about two-thirds of the way through, but I've got enough that I want to bring you on here and talk about this.
And what I do is I want to start with the issue that you address about 60 pages in, and that is when transhumanism first met technocracy.
And, you know, you talk about that 1992 UN convention, kind of merging simultaneously with the Agenda 21 conference.
Tell us what you mean about that first confluence, if you will, between the two.
Well, the very day, probably somewhere in the 1980s, that genetic engineering actually became possible, where genetic codes could be manipulated.
It's gotten much, much easier since then, by the way.
When that realization hit the people who were kind of into transhumanism, that is, changing the human condition to ultimately achieve immortality, they grabbed onto that concept.
Big Pharma did, as well as the biotech industry.
They grabbed onto that.
And what happened when the United Nations brought all of this sustainable development stuff in in 1992, The big play at that convention that took place in Rio de Janeiro actually focused on the biotech industry as well as big pharma.
Most people absolutely missed this at the time because, of course, there was no context to understand it.
But looking back now, we see it.
And they laid the groundwork in the early 1990s for all the genetic engineering slash transhuman stuff we have today.
And the technocrat movement also uses the same technology that the transhuman movement does.
So they become very odd bedfellows, so to speak.
So, I think we need a working definition here, by the way, of technocracy.
Transhumanism is a little bit more self-describing, when we talk about the search for immortality and the attempted merging of humans and technology and so forth to make that happen.
But for those who don't have a working definition of technocracy, Patrick, hit that for us.
There's two parts to it to make it simple.
One is, they call it themselves, the science of social engineering.
Secondly, it's about the economic control of all resources on the planet.
And that is the distribution and allocation of those resources on the planet, rather than having private property, private industry, etc, etc.
The technocrats would like to run everything.
The great reset that's put out by the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab has two parts to it now, and they're very open about, vocal about this.
One part is the restructuring of society itself, which is technocracy, sustainable development, green economy, etc.
The other part is the restructuring of human beings themselves, that is, creating Humanity 2.0.
Um, from their mind, from their perspective, they're building a new, they want to build a new utopian society for the world system that economics and delivery of goods and services, et cetera.
But at the same time, they want to put new humans into this new society they're building.
And that's why they're promoting both of these at the same time.
It's a very dangerous, very, uh, let's say there's a bunch of my, it's a minefield.
Um, a lot of people are looking at this now saying, wait a minute, Klaus Schwab says they're reimagining the future.
No, you're not going to reimagine the future with transhumanism in mind, or a technocracy in mind.
We need to just take off in a different direction.
But these are the people right now that have the power in the world, and they're imposing their will across nations all around our planet.
Patrick, what would you say to somebody who said, what's the matter with you?
Why do you oppose the idea of immortality?
Wouldn't that be the greatest thing in the world?
If life is the greatest gift we've ever been given, to be able to expand that literally indefinitely?
Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Well, I'll tell you what, there's a lot of people today who are embracing this transhuman idea.
For just that very reason.
They're not really thinking it through very clearly, but, you know, there have been polls taken recently in the United States here that indicate that there's a large group of people in our country that aren't really associated with the scientific world, but they're looking at this thinking this might be good.
You know, they're kind of followers of the Elon Musk, you know, platform.
Right.
And, you know, you can't fault the people for feeling, you know, having some warm fuzzies about it.
But it's a very dangerous thing because what they're talking about is changing the genetic structure of humans.
And if you want somebody playing with your DNA or your body functions, if you think that's a good idea, then I guess go for it.
But personally, I don't.
I think that's probably the most dangerous thing that could happen to humanity is let somebody else play with your DNA, especially when they're the ones that are, quote unquote, reimagining the world.
All right.
You know, this will not turn out well because these people think they know what they're doing, but we already know that they, in many cases, they don't have a clue what they're doing and they mess things up just as much as they, you know, make any forward progress.
I think, Patrick Wood, that a lot of people who think about or talk about transhumanism might compare this to playing God, literally tinkering with DNA, as you say, and trying to meld and merge humanity, biological humanity, with artificial intelligence and all these other things that can literally make us, quote-unquote, immortal, but in a non-human form.
They would say that's playing God, so are we to understand that those who are pushing for this, the technocrats you talk about, are they atheistic?
Are they literally in the mindset that they are God, that there is no actual God that is our Creator?
There is a very distinct preponderance towards, I call it atheism, Maybe hard atheism, maybe soft atheism, but they throw out, completely throw out the God of the Bible, they throw out the Bible.
They're more following the doctrines of scientism than anything, where science is worshipped as God, and so God is put on the side as being irrelevant, and science now is elevated as being the source of truth in the universe.
And they believe, generally, if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist.
You just said a word, Patrick, I'm sorry, you just said a word that I've heard you use before and in fact I've talked about with you, but tell our audience what you mean by scientism.
Well, scientism is simply the worship of science.
In other words, science is the source of truth for the universe and the condition of man.
Doesn't it also have to do, though, with the bastardization of science and the twisting of science to meet goals and needs?
Because I feel like that's something that we experienced through the COVID pandemic.
Patrick, I've got a hard-out here, but stay with us.
this we have another segment coming with patrick wood author of the evil twins of technocracy and transhumanism and this conversation continues right after this you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm Seb Gorka.
Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
So just check in the Twitter feed during the break.
A lot of really great comments from people listening to the show today and a lot of new followers as well.
So thank you for that.
I'm very much trying to take advantage of this massive audience of Dr. G's to engage with more and more conservatives throughout this country.
Why?
As I think we said in the opening of the show today, if you were with us in that first hour, we need to band together.
There is strength in numbers and we need to galvanize our movement together.
So follow me at France Rants on Twitter.
F-R-A-N-T-Z.
R-A-N-T-Z, and we'll continue to communicate.
Right now we continue our conversation with noted author and activist on behalf of the First Amendment and free speech, Patrick Wood.
His latest book is The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism.
And this is a very important book because those are two very important issues that a whole lot of Americans don't know a whole lot about.
Now Patrick, we were talking about the worship of science as a deity, the deification if you will, and we talked about that as being
Referred to as scientism, but I had to cut you off there right before we the last segment ended Scientism means more than that because science used to be something that yearned to be challenged It did not fear other studies to to verify what you know results were gotten by certain scientific experiments and research They welcomed it to either prove their point or to dispute it so they can continue to search
Scientism is all about, we have an outcome that we predetermined and we will make sure that whatever research we do stops there, when we get what we want, and then we cancel everybody that challenges that.
And I think that's the only way that technocracy, quite frankly, can advance, and transhumanism as well, when real science is kicked to the curb in favor of, again, this version of scientism.
Well, that's exactly right.
The idea, you know, there may be some true science involved in, you know, things like viruses and, you know, genetics and so on.
But when that science is taken by a group of people that have another agenda, and it's twisted, and it's bastardized, and it's, you know, it's convoluted into something that is different, Then you have pseudoscience, and pseudoscience, in the end, has absolutely nothing to do with real science.
It shuts off dialogue, it shuts off debate, it says the science is settled, and you better obey.
If you don't obey us, then you're a denier, you know, and they start the whole cancel thing on you.
So that's what we saw during COVID, exactly.
You know, you can just picture Anthony Fauci getting up first behind Trump and then behind Biden.
He basically says, You have to follow the science, and if you attack me, you're not attacking me, you're attacking science.
It just shows you his God of science.
He's the messenger.
He's the high priest.
COVID is a great example.
Yeah, COVID is a great example, Patrick.
And the other one, of course, is climate change.
You know, again, they claim the science is settled, that mankind is responsible for the increase in carbon emissions, and that's leading to the warming of the planet, and blah, blah, blah.
And they've continued to, they've gone back and forth this about every three or four decades, they go back and forth between freezing and melting, a polar freeze, or a new ice age, rather, or global warming is gonna kill us all.
And again, when science bucks the, That's right.
That's exactly right.
and the narrative and new research is brought forth to say, no, this isn't happening that way.
Those people are discredited in the same way Fauci discredited anybody who challenged his research.
That's right.
That's exactly right.
And you cannot fight that kind of pseudoscience because they merely just shut off the discussion and you become irrelevant.
You could be the most eminent scientist in the world in a particular field, and if you stand up and refute their pseudoscience, you will be counseled right along with everybody else.
So it doesn't matter who comes up to criticize what they're doing.
They're simply just going to be thrown out of the discussion, and they will say, well, the science is settled.
We've heard this 10,000 times since COVID started.
Patrick, as I said, I'm not all the way through the book.
I'm about two-thirds of the way of reading it fully, but I have skimmed ahead, and I want to ask you two questions out of order.
One is in the conclusion in Chapter 13, and then going back to No.
9 for motive.
In the conclusion, you note that transhumanism seeks to transform humanity in the same manner that technocracy seeks to transform society.
They work as one, and neither can exist without the other.
So if you are a person like yourself who is studying this and trying to sound the alarm on this, is it safe to say that if we pool resources enough to stop one, we automatically stop both?
Yes, that would be absolutely true.
But it is a package deal on the other hand.
But no matter which way you come at it, it would still stop the other one.
I think most people are upset mostly about transhumanism right now, especially with the introduction of messenger RNA-based so-called vaccinations that people have taken all around the planet.
This, when you say messenger RNA, you're getting very close to DNA.
Genetic engineering is very near and dear to the transhumanist and technocrat's heart.
This is the beginning of the transformation of mankind in their mind.
Not in our mind, but in their mind, this is the beginning of the transformation of mankind into something that they were not previously.
Human beings too, as you referenced before, which is just an unbelievable thing to think about.
And again, I know people come at you and call you a conspiracy theorist, and they say to you things like, well, why would anybody do this?
Why would anybody want to create this 2.0 thing and try to achieve this altering of DNA and altering of humanity and so on and so forth?
And you covered this somewhat in Chapter 9, and I just want to get you to comment on this.
You know, uh, there are two things.
The primary driver is greed.
The secondary motive is a lust for power.
And you know, we all know the ad, you know, the old adage about, you know, absolute power corrupts.
Absolutely.
Is that all it is, is that we have power mad global elites who say we want to finger tent, you know, put our fingers at our hands on a finger tent and, and, and laugh like Dr. Evil and, uh, and just, and just destroy humanity.
Is that when we say power, I understand the greed aspect, but when we say the just absolute lust for power, what are we talking about?
Well, the power that the technocrats originally wanted as it created technocracy back in the 1930s, they wanted to remove the political layer of society altogether and simply create a system of technocrats from the top down that would just simply say what was going to happen in society.
In other words, they would create all of the economic structure and all of the societal structure that mankind would operate within.
They hated politicians.
Literally, they wanted to send Congress home altogether and all elected bodies home.
Well, this is something Americans have never dealt with before, this concept of no representative government at all.
This is far beyond a dictatorship.
You could call it a scientific dictatorship, perhaps.
But it's not what one person is going to be dictating.
It's the system in the end of it, the system of scientific control, that's going to control every conceivable facet of life.
And we see this encroaching on America almost every day, almost every week.
If people follow along with some of the articles that I post on technocracy.news from around the world, you'll get this sense immediately that the world is closing in on scientific dictatorship.
I'm glad you brought that up.
And by the way, I'll tell people to follow you on Twitter, as I mentioned myself, that way they can make sure they get apprised of new information you're putting on technocracy.news.
Follow Patrick at Stop Technocracy on Twitter.
Stop Technocracy.
Patrick, last thing, and I've only got about 45 seconds here.
In your appendix, there are several documents.
The Transhumanist Declaration, the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, even the Transhumanism Manifesto.
Who wrote these?
What are these?
These are written by the transhumanists themselves.
They have various organizations set up, and this is all their material.
This is what they said.
I want people to see what they say.
You read it, you read it, and you go, who wrote this?
Just like that.
So yep, it was written by the transhumanist movement itself.
So that lets you know what their agenda is.
Give them one thing.
Transhumans are transparent.
They are really up front in telling you what they are trying to accomplish.
And right now, it is something we all need to be concerned about.
Read the book, The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism, by Patrick M. Wood.
Patrick, thank you, and we'll be back on America First right after this.
Thank you.
minutes either way thank you for being here when you can We are live in the ReliefFactor.com studios in Cleveland, Ohio, my home base, WHK Radio, which is AM 1420.
If you are looking for it online, I'm there every day.
Weekdays, anyway, from 9 until noon at WHKRadio.com.
I'd love to have Dr. Gorka's tremendous audience follow me on the local show as well, because we talk about the same stuff.
I think it's very disgusting.
First of all, I'm a big Sebastian Gorka fan.
on this free-for-all Friday.
We've had a lot of guests to talk to in the last couple of segments, but we do want to welcome you back now.
833-33-GORCA.
Dial it up.
833-33-GORCA.
North Carolina.
Matt, thank you for waiting.
You're on America First now.
Bob France sitting in for Dr. G.
Go ahead, sir.
Hello, Mr. France.
Hello, Matt.
I think it's very disgusting.
First of all, I'm a big Sebastian Gorka fan.
He knows that.
And I'm a fan of yours also when you're throwing on his show because I can't get your station.
And I'm a fan of yours also when you fill in on his show because I can't get your space, or else I would.
Or else I would.
But anyway, don't you think, I mean, I want all the listeners to know how disgusting it is.
But anyway, don't you think, I mean, I want all the listeners to know how disgusting it is, and probably all do know, that Biden thinks it's funny that that woman's two sons died from fake Percocet pills that were laced with fentanyl.
Fentanyl, yeah.
Yeah, he chuckled.
He actually laughed when the issue was brought before him, and they're trying to cover his rear end by that, saying, no, he wasn't laughing about the death of the kids.
He was laughing at Marjorie Taylor Greene for trying to blame him for it.
Chuckling that way.
Let's listen to it.
Matt, stay there.
I don't want to hang up on you yet.
Stay there.
We'll react to this together.
Let's hear Cut 5.
She was very specific recently, saying that a mom, a poor mother who lost two kids to fentanyl, that I killed her sons.
Well, the interesting thing is that fentanyl they took came during the last administration.
So there was that little chuckle at the end as he again tried to pass the buck to the president that Matt, I'm sure you would understand and agree with this because it's a simple, easily provable fact.
President Trump tried to stop the fentanyl from being brought in by building a wall.
Yes sir, can I make two quick points?
Party, including he himself, that opposed that wall and that declared when he ran for president that he would not build one more foot of wall.
He opened the border and now is blaming the guy who tried to seal the border for the fentanyl that came in during the quote unquote last administration.
It's comical, but not in the way that Joe Biden thinks it is.
Yes, sir.
Can I make two quick points?
Please do so.
Okay, well, number one, the national debt, I was told by a good authority, if we were stacked in a single stack of $100 bills, you know, our deficit debt, whatever you want to call it, would be 65 miles high, which is amazing.
And number two is, can you name one thing right from day one that Joe Biden did for this country?
Because I can't.
You know what's bizarre about that question, my friend, is literally just yesterday he did something that made me scratch my head because it was something that made some at least modicum of sense.
And that was when he agreed with the Republicans and disagreed with the Democrats and is not going to veto the bill that that overrides Muriel Bowser's soft on crime policies in Washington, D.C.
They passed, the Republicans in the House passed, and got some Democrat support as well to roll back those soft on crime policies, and it was believed, literally as recently as yesterday morning, Tim Scott, the senator from South Carolina, said he knows Biden's going to veto this because he's always going to side with said he knows Biden's going to veto this because he's always going to side with And instead, shockingly, yesterday afternoon, he said he's not going to veto that.
He'll sign it so that the crime, you know, in D.C.
can be, you know, can perhaps be abated just a little bit with some stronger charges and sentences.
So to be truthful, when you ask me, has he done anything right in two plus years?
I think maybe yesterday was the very first thing.
That's incredible, isn't it?
Thank you, Matt, for the call.
I'm going to let you loose here so we can get some other people on.
We've got a break coming anyway.
But listen, on day one, on literally his day of inauguration, he immediately started his attack on the American economy and on the American family.
He immediately started the increase in inflation by way of energy.
The first day, he promised he would do it, and give him credit for being true to his word.
He did what he said he was going to do, and that is a terrible thing.
He immediately signed the order to kill the construction of the Keystone Pipeline.
He immediately signed the order to ban or stop the fracking leases, to stop the fracking leases from being granted, and to stop drilling as well in Anwar and in the Gulf.
So he immediately did what he said he was going to do, and that is attack fossil fuels, and we have been paying the price ever since.
So literally on day one, he started the horrific policies, and right now, I don't see any end to it in sight.
site.
I'll be right back.
Thank you.
Yeah, kind of want to just groove a little bit here.
Welcome, 17 minutes before the top of the hour.
If you just turned on the radio, thank you for being here.
If you've been here for a while, we appreciate that, too.
I want to remind you one more time as we head into this weekend about how important it is to support this very important Christian non-profit group, Food for the Poor.
Every year at this time, we turn to you for this.
Look, we're trying to do everything we can, very positive things, to help feed hungry children in Honduras.
Do you know 60% of Hondurans live below the poverty level?
The entire country is still suffering from severe poverty.
And there are many, many children who are in desperate need of your help.
Just listen to this story from Linda who works with Food for the Poor in Honduras.
You see the hunger, when you see the need, you go out on the field, even if they haven't eaten for one or two days.
It just makes us real, real sad.
The more we do, the more we see the need.
The more places we go, the more we find people starving.
The more we see children are eating the leaves from the trees.
You know, when I hear that, I can't really get that image out of my head.
Kids picking leaves off of trees for food.
It doesn't have to be that way.
It should not be that way.
That's why we partnered with Food for the Poor.
Life-saving food can be rushed right to these kids if you will help.
Just go to SebGorka.com.
Click on the Give Food, Give Hope banner, or you can phone in a donation to the special number, 855-330-4673.
Spelled out, it's 855-330-HOPE.
$72, if you can spare that, will feed two hungry children for an entire year and provide access to clean water for a lifetime.
$144, if you can do it, offers the same blessing for four kids a year.
Of course, any amount will help, and you will be blessed by helping share the love of Christ with the poorest of the poor in Honduras.
If you like, you can also text the keyword GORCA to a short code 91999, and we'll send you a direct link on how you can make your tax-deductible donation.
Or just go to subgorka.com, the easy way.
Click on the Give Food, Give Hope banner and help us feed more hungry kids through our friends at Food for the Poor.
uh I want to go back to the phones, but before I do, I want to hit another story here that's just real quick.
You know, in that wonderful historical open that we have at the top of the Subgorka show every day, with terrific historic voices with some monumental speeches, and one of them is, of course, Martin Luther King, and you hear him talking about having a dream.
You know, I'm looking at the text of Martin Luther King's dream speech.
There's a reason I'm doing this.
Bear with me.
And in the crescendo of that speech, he speaks of, quote, I have a dream that one day on the Red Hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
And that is quite a dream indeed.
I want you to think about that while I tell you this story.
Now, this story is already very well known to Ohioans because I've been covering it and talking about it for some time.
Well, all of this week.
I shouldn't say for some time.
It's a relatively new story, but I don't know that it's gotten enough traction yet on the national stage.
And so I want to share this with America first.
Ohio police are now pursuing charges against black students at a Springfield, Ohio elementary school.
Let me say that again.
Elementary school.
These are little kids.
For a racial incident that comes after parents complained that little black kids were rounding up little white kids at the school, literally, in some cases, physically dragging them and then cornering them into a place and forcing them to kneel on the ground and repeat pledges to Black Lives Matter.
Several of the white students were then assaulted.
They were told they had to say Black Lives Matter, they were recorded on phones, and then they were assaulted.
And this was the allegation in the report that was being investigated just a few days ago.
Well, yesterday the game changed.
There's video.
Closed-circuit cameras caught exactly what I just described.
Exactly.
The police are investigating not only the students for this prospective hate crime, But they also are going to be investigating how and why these students would have acted the way they did.
I don't think we need to explain the answer, do we?
How little black kids can punch and kick and assault little white kids after making them get on their knees and subjugate themselves and telling them they must say, black lives matter or they're going to get beat up.
And then when they say it, they get beat up anyway.
What would prompt little kids to do such a thing?
And if you don't already know the answer, then you've got to step up your game in understanding where we are in this country right now, and where we are with our educational systems.
Because the answer, of course, is this is CRT in practice.
This is critical race theory, not in theory, but in practice.
Do you understand?
When we talk about the dangers of CRT being taught in classrooms, particularly little kids, and the left tells us, you're trying to deny history!
You're trying to deny teaching African American history!
Why are you not wanting to teach slavery?
And of course we're looking at these monsters on the left and telling them African-American history is American history.
Slavery is a part of the American history.
The Civil War and the end of slavery and the sacrifice of blood and treasure to make slavery a thing of the past is one of our greatest achievements.
It's one of our greatest, it's one of the most redemptive stories in world history.
Because slavery is still going on in a lot of countries around the world right now today.
But CRT is not about history, and it's not about slavery.
Critical theory is Marxist in nature.
Critical theory says we'll find some issue with which we can divide people, including the youngest people in a community or in a civilization.
In some countries, in China, they use critical theory by way of class.
In the United States we use critical theory in the way of race.
Critical race theory teaches that one race of people is straight up oppressive.
They are absolutely little DNA.
It's in their DNA.
They're hateful oppressors of other people.
People with another skin color are automatically the oppressed and they are the victims.
In American schools today, they are teaching little black kids that they're always going to be beaten up and oppressed by white kids, and they're teaching little white kids to be ashamed of what color they are because they're oppressors.
They teach little kids to hate each other based on skin color, and what does it result in?
The video I just described to you.
I'll be right back. I'll be right
back. I'll
be right back.
I'll be right
back. I'll
be right back.
I'll be right
back. I'll
be right back.
I'll be right back.
Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
You know, CPAC is going to reach its climax tomorrow evening when the former President of the United States, Donald John Trump, speaks and gives the keynote address at CPAC.
It's going to be a phenomenal event.
But if you can't wait to hear Donald Trump giving his speech tomorrow night, you can hear his interview with Dr. G.
Sebastian Gorka has returned to the YouTube channel, or to his YouTube channel, so go to YouTube.com and just search for Dr. Sebastian Gorka Official.
Dr. Sebastian Gorka Official, and you will find the channel in the very first video featured right there, front and center, is his interview from earlier this week with President Trump.
So I think you're going to enjoy that.
I'm going to take another call here before we get out, because Annabelle has been waiting in California for a long time, and I want to make sure that wait is rewarded.
Annabelle, thanks for being with us on America First.
Go right ahead.
Hi.
I'm going to change my subject that I originally was going to call.
I want to tell you something quickly.
1962, Christmas Eve, they gave an interview.
Martin Luther King gave an interview.
Sixty-two.
That's how long ago.
And at that time, in that interview, he said that he predicted that this is when they had Probably everything going on in Jim Crow and yet he still said that in 40 years, 40 years, he said It's likely.
Think of how startling this is.
We would have a president, a black president, and it wasn't that far off.
And you know why he said it, Bob?
Because he said it's because of the promise of America.
This is when they still had Jim Crow and everything going on, but he saw how decent America was, and he made that prediction, and he wasn't far off.
If he were alive today, they'd be calling him an Uncle Tom.
He wouldn't be invited on CNN or Amnesty or anywhere else.
So it is disgusting, the story you just told me.
They are willing to... It's all Marxism, who, by the way, is the biggest racist ever.
But it is... I'm sorry for getting upset, but it's just that I cry when I think about Martin Luther King must be turning over in his grave because this is not the envision he had at all.
And they are making it into something disgusting that has nothing to do with equal rights or anything like that.
They don't care about blacks.
They don't care about the blacks in the inner cities.
And it's a disgrace, and it breaks my heart.
If he's up in heaven and seeing this, he's not very happy.
So that's all I want to say.
Bobbin, you've been great, and I will listen to your podcast, because you've been superlative.
Thank you so much for that.
Annabelle, don't you dare be apologized for being upset.
You should be upset.
We should all be upset, and that is such a great story that you just told, and such a great reminder.
And you're right!
Dr. King would be just, he'd be appalled at what they're saying!
They're saying they don't believe in his dream, they don't want people to be judged by the content of character which he dreamt of, they want people to be judged by color of skin.
That's what critical race theory does.
And you judge people with light colored skin as oppressors, you judge people with dark colored skin as victims, and that's it.
And then you teach them to hate each other with all of these lessons in class, and then you send them outside to the playground to play together.
And what happens?
The little black kids, filled with rage and anger at the little oppressive white kids, get them back!
And they commit acts like the one that I just told you.
You're right to be outraged.
You're right to be upset.
Thank you, Annabelle, for that call.
Thank you also, as we wrap this up, to the wonderful Team Gorka, Jeff and Alex and Eric and Guy and John.
You guys are awesome.
You make this easy to do every time I'm asked to sit in for Dr. G. Thank you to Dr. G for letting me do it as well.
▲
Export Selection