Crom Carmichael: Defining Infrastructure and the Systemic Crushing of the Middle Class

Crom Carmichael: Defining Infrastructure and the Systemic Crushing of the Middle Class

 

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to discuss the changing definition of infrastructure and the intended destruction of the middle class.

(Joe Manchin clips plays)

Leahy: (Sighs) Joe Manchin, the Democrat Senator from West Virginia. Now, that clip to me, Crom, sounds like he’s cheerleading for this 2,700-page bill. The ‘infrastructure bill’ that was just released late last night by Chuck Schumer. Forced to release it, by the way, because Breitbart got an unauthorized leak of the bill that they released about an hour before.

That’s why it got released. It’s filled with all sorts of special deals and money going to special interest groups. And yet Manchin is presenting it as everybody’s bill. What’s your reaction to that?

Carmichael: Now we’re talking specifically about the so-called physical infrastructure bill, not the human infrastructure bill. We’re talking about the one that’s the $1.2 trillion dollar bill correct?

Leahy: (Chuckles) Well Crom, it says it’s physical infrastructure.

Carmichael: I’m just talking about the other one is ridiculous.

Leahy: This one is equally ridiculous.

Carmichael: I know, but is this the one that actually includes some money for roads and bridges?

Leahy: There is some money for roads and bridges. Some.

Carmichael: Manchin is incorrect when he says a D or an R because the people from New York and the people from California are getting the lion’s share of this money. It’s – not much is coming to the people of Tennessee or any city or state in the South, including West Virginia.

West Virginia will get a little bit. And I suppose Manchin thinks that if he brings home $100 million dollars worth of bacon for West Virginia out of $1.2 trillion, then the people of West Virginia will reward him.

Leahy: He may be thinking that – yes.

Carmichael: So this is the problem, by the way. Another thing I did over the weekend, Michael, was I carefully researched every road and bridge in the continental United States and Hawaii and Alaska.

Leahy: You were busy.

Carmichael: Is actually in one of our states.

Leahy: Amazing.

Carmichael: Except for Washington, D.C., except for that little tiny area. We have a great legislature, let me say that. But even back when Democrats were in charge, even back then, there’s no way that Democrats in the Tennessee legislature could have passed a Tennessee ‘infrastructure bill’ on the backs of the taxpayers of just Tennessee, that included this type of ridiculous stuff that’s in a federal infrastructure program.

This is why historically – and I only have to go back to the 1950s when our interstate highway system was passed with a defense appropriation – our Congress did not believe that under the Constitution it had the right to actually spend money on roads or bridges. Didn’t think it even had that right.

Leahy: Had to kind of invent a right.

Carmichael: They had to invent a right by claiming that in a case of a war, we need to be able to move troops and equipment quickly around the country so we needed to have an interstate highway system to move military equipment.

Leahy: That was clever and true, but a very small part of what it’s used for. You do occasionally see some troops going through.

Carmichael: Occasionally you do. But the point is, is that once that happened, then the dam broke, and then anything goes. Now you’ve got the Democrats claiming that infrastructure is infrastructure.

Leahy: Healthcare is infrastructure.

Carmichael: Everything is infrastructure.

Leahy: When everything is infrastructure, Crom, nothing is infrastructure.

Carmichael: That’s right. There’s nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to spend money on infrastructure. It all started where Congress did have the authority to spend money on the military. This is what happens when you start changing the definitions.

And then you get into this three-point-five or five-point-five or seven-point-five, and nobody really, really knows how much this so-called human infrastructure thing will amount to because it is an entitlement.

Leahy: That is exactly right. It’s not an infrastructure hard asset. It’s entitlement to a special privileged group.

Carmichael: No, it’s not. The group is so large that it will become impossible to sustain. Now, I want to be clear about this, because when Medicare was passed in 1960, that was an entitlement.

And they estimated that Medicare by 1988 would cost $8 billion dollars. By 1988, it was $80 billion dollars. It didn’t change the fact on whether or not it passed and whether or not it was there.

Leahy: Let me just interject you for a moment. We’re now in 2021. There are three particular things that happened between 1955 and 1965 that, in essence, have helped destroy the budget.

Number one, the highway spending bill that you just referenced under the Eisenhower administration. Number two, when John F. Kennedy allowed federal government employees to unionize,

Carmichael: He didn’t just allow it, he signed an executive order. And then, then, well, then it became legal. He legalized it with the executive order. And then Congress then passed a bill.

Leahy: And you had the Medicare. This all happened 1955 to 1965.

Carmichael: Well, 1968, because Medicare and Medicaid was great society stuff.

Leahy: No one at the time realized the import of all this.

Carmichael: That’s right. That’s right.

Leahy: And look what happened.

Carmichael: Now here’s what’s interesting. I’ll be very quick about this – in Britain, just on health care, they’re going to increase the payroll tax from 12 percent of employee pay to 13 percent of employee pay. The employer part, this is just for healthcare, is now 13.8 percent. I want to talk about the implications.

Leahy: More regulation, more crushing of small business.

Carmichael: And more taxes on the middle class.

Leahy: There you go. Crushing the middle class.

Listen to the full second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Crom Carmichael” by Crom Carmichael.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grant Henry and Mayor Ogles Weigh in on the ‘Inherently Self-Refuting’ Spending of Democrats

Grant Henry and Mayor Ogles Weigh in on the ‘Inherently Self-Refuting’ Spending of Democrats

 

Live from Music Row Tuesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed Grassroots Engagement Director of Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee Grant Henry and Maury County Mayor Andy Ogles in studio to discuss the irresponsible and cyclical spending of Democrats in Washington.

(Joe Biden clip plays)

Leahy: We hear that from Sleepy Joe, the legal but not legitimate current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We are here with Grant Henry of the Americans from Prosperity-Tennessee and Maury County Mayor Andy Ogles.

Andy, I saw the eyebrows raised just a bit (Ogles chuckles) on that claim by the somnambulant Joe Biden that, oh yeah, this was expected and temporary. Really?

Ogles:  As an economist, I’ll tell you that he’s full of … Do you have a bleep button?

Leahy: He’s full of bleep! Scooter is now saying, oh, no, we can’t do that. (Laughs)

Ogles: You tell me that these home builders that pre-sold lumber packages a year ago who are now building homes at a loss – it was anticipated?

You tell me that these car manufacturers who now have tens of thousands of cars sitting on the lot without chips, that that was expected?

And again, just go through all your commodities, and your base commodities that go into everything else are more expensive today. And to say that it was expected or predictable, it’s almost criminal. I’ll be honest with you.

Leahy: It’s so dishonest. Grant Henry, we were talking a little bit about Fiat economies. Fiat standards. in other words, where there is no actual valuable item for which currency can be converted.

The gold standard, long gone. There were – for many years conservatives were railing about the budget deficit and the increasing debt.

And that’s not been as much on the forefront of late because there have been other battles. But the reality is, if the government just prints money, what is inevitably going to happen is inflation.

Henry: Yes.

Leahy: That’s the bottom line, right?

Henry: I don’t think you need a degree in economics to understand that either. I think even a baseline understanding, I mean, look at what’s happening in world history any time that any country prints money, especially to the extent that we are right now, you see a coupling inflation rate.

Look what our Founding Fathers told us, too. To preserve their independence, we must not let our rules load us with perpetual debt. One of the worst things we can do for future generations is shackle them to the debt of the current generations.

Leahy: It’s reckless and irresponsible. But that is exactly what Chuck Schumer and the Democrats are doing. And, Andy Ogles, not a lot of Republicans have been what you might call budget responsible in Washington.

Ogles: I think you look back to what set up a situation or an environment where someone like Obama could get elected. That was because you had reckless spending. From the “right,” the Republicans, as they controlled three branches of government.

And so the pendulum shifted. And hopefully, there’s a lesson learned.

We’ve got to get this debt and our spending under control because there is a point of no return.

And we’ve labored and we’ve toiled and we’ve done these things and created all this spending with this assumption that, well, our currency is the supreme currency for the world. But that could change and it could change quickly.

Leahy: China wants to change as soon as possible.

Ogles: That’s right. Absolutely.

Leahy: They’re undermining us at every level. Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer has a bill that has no content in it yet. And we’ll come up with all sorts of crazy spending ideas and reckless spending.

That – really that’s all the Democrats can do is spend, spend, spend. There’s no indication that they have any desire to cut the national federal debt. Grant Henry?

Henry: Here’s a headline from Reason, by the way. Magical Thinking of Bounds in New Budget Deal Proposal. Here is the quote from the article:

“Democrats insist that whatever that spending is about, it will be paid for in full.”

That’s dubious at best. The big idea is that the spending itself will generate economic activity which can then be taxed to pay for the already spent or budgeted programs.

Do you understand how circular this logic is? And it’s inherently self-refuting, right?

Leahy: Inherently self-refuting. That’s a great phrase Grant.

Henry: I bring the best here.

Leahy: That’s a very good phrase. We appreciate clever and accurate phrasing. Andy Ogles, so when I’m listening to what Grant says about the fantastic concepts, shall we say, these anti factual ideas of economics from the Democratic political leaders, I think of the exact opposite of this, which is Art Laffer and the Laffer curve and his ideas.

If we were to have him in here how would he respond to these things? Because, you know, you used to work for him.

Ogles: Yeah, I can’t speak for Doctor Laffer. But I think there’s this. If you have a certain rate of growth, you can sustain greater levels of spending or borrowing and spending.

But the flip side of that or how the only way that can be successful is you have policies that are stimulating business growth and stimulating an economy.

Now, I’m not for exuberant spending. But that being said, so you now have Democrats kind of acting under that same premise.

However, they’re anti-business and they’re doing things that restrict business.

Leahy: Here’s my view on that. I think they’re in particular, anti-small business. When you say anti-business, there’s a business that they like and businesses that work with them.

Like, I don’t know, Facebook and Google and that crowd that is the high Fortune 500 companies that have big lobbyists and they have all these compliance of people, and they follow the rules and regulations. They set the rules and regulations.

Ogles: And those large businesses, and because they are so big, because they have so many resources, they can skirt most taxation.

Leahy: Absolutely.

Listen to the third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crom Carmichael: ‘If It Walks Like a Marxist, If It Governs Like a Marxist, If It Talks Like a Marxist, It’s a Marxist’

Crom Carmichael: ‘If It Walks Like a Marxist, If It Governs Like a Marxist, If It Talks Like a Marxist, It’s a Marxist’

 

Live from Music Row Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to discuss Joe Biden’s right to rule as a Marxist with hopes that Republicans will exert their power once the tables are turned in 2024.

Leahy: We are joined in studio by the original all-star panelist, Crom Carmichael. Good morning, Crom.

Carmichael: Good morning, Michael. Yesterday afternoon, the legal but not legitimate current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Joe Biden, gave what I thought was one of the most divisive and ignorant, dishonest speeches by a modern American president in some time. I don’t know if you saw it all. Did you see it?

Carmichael: I saw sound bites.

Leahy: He claimed that January 6 rioters are worse than slave-owning Confederates in the Civil War because they breached the U.S. Capitol.

He also said that basically everybody who supports Donald Trump is an awful person because they actually want to have election integrity laws that make it easy to vote, but hard to cheat. It was extraordinarily divisive and mean.

Carmichael: Let me just ask, Michael. Of the sound bites I saw, not one of them surprised me. Are you actually surprised?

Leahy: Well, not that he believes this crime, but that it is his overt strategy to be so dishonest and divisive at a time when supposedly can’t we all get together.

Carmichael: But he’s always been like that.

Leahy: I agree. He has.

Carmichael: I think it’s instructive. And actually, I take a little bit different position than you do. I agree that it was reprehensible what he said, but the American people need to have a choice.

And Joe Biden, if you want the biggest, most oppressive, most regulatory, high-taxing government, perhaps since FDR – and let’s remember when FDR left office, the top marginal tax rate was 94 percent – and Biden wants to be what he considers to be greater than FDR.

I suppose in Biden’s perfect world, we’d be a Marxist state, that Washington, D.C. would control all the means of production. I have some friends who were anti-Trumpers, and they wouldn’t discuss the possibility of a Marxist Democrat party.

They wouldn’t discuss it because if they discussed it, they had to agree that Trump was better than that. And it’s a really interesting thing when you discuss things with people.

If they are uncomfortable talking about the alternative, then they’re not willing to think through the choices that we have.

And what Biden is doing both by what he says in this case – not all of the things, a lot of things he says are distractions – but his deeds calling for a whole-of-government approach.

Now, we’re going to talk a little bit later in the show.

In fact, we could talk about it right now. There was a guy that Trump appointed to be head of the Social Security system. That’s no big deal except that you’re appointed for a term.

Leahy: Right.

Carmichael: Biden has fired him.

Leahy: I didn’t know that. On what grounds?

Carmichael: Because he can. And I’m okay with that. Let me say why. When Trump was president, the media believed that he didn’t have the authority to fire people.

I hope that the next president, assuming that when Republicans take charge again and have control of the executive branch, it’s my hope that the next president takes Biden’s approach where he will use the whole of government, he or she, to rein in the government and to fire people who do not carry out in the executive branch.

Every employee in the executive branch is under the chief executive. There are people who disagree with that. There are people who say that the union contracts say that the President cannot fire somebody who’s a civil servant.

And my argument is I don’t think that’s been constitutionally tested if somebody will not carry out the policies of the administration and whether or not they can be fired.

Leahy: The whole point of having an election and having a president to head the executive department is the people are saying we support the policies of this president. And he should be able to fire people who don’t implement his policy.

Carmichael: Right.

Leahy: I agree with you on that principle.

Carmichael: And so what Biden is saying and making it clear to everybody, that he wants Washington to be the end-all and the be-all of government.

He doesn’t want people in Tennessee to have the right to live the way people and, under the laws, that the people of Tennessee want to live.

That’s what he is saying. I’m glad he is saying that because it shows there’s no obfuscation at all. My word of the day. Obfuscation.

There’s no obfuscation at all as to what the Democrat Party stands for. I have said over and over again, the Democrat Party is the party of government.

Leahy: Absolutely. And, in fact, Crom, if I could just add to that point, Mark Levin has a new book out called American Marxist.

Carmichael: I have ordered it. I don’t think it’s in print yet. Maybe it is.

Leahy: Here is what we ought to do, because we know Mark Levin and Mark Levin is a friend of ours. I’m going to invite them to come to Nashville.

And maybe the three of us could have, like, an evening that – with Mark Levin. An evening with Mark Levin, Crom Carmichael, and Michael Patrick Leahy.

And we’ll talk about American Marxism. Because let us be honest about the administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It is American Marxism.

Carmichael: Yes.

Leahy: That is exactly what it is. And Mark Levin is totally on point.

Carmichael: Let me say this. You’ve heard the old expression. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and whatever else it is, it’s probably a duck. It’s a duck.

And so just because Democrats claim that they are not Marxists doesn’t mean that they’re not Marxists. If it walks like a Marxist, if it governs like a Marxist, if it talks like a Marxist, it’s a Marxist.

Leahy: Now, that’s very good, Crom. That’s very good.

Carmichael: Thank you. You’re having low standards today.

Leahy: No, no, no. I don’t think anybody’s quite taken that twist on it. But it’s good.

Carmichael: Well, thank you. What Biden is doing, the question is, is whether or not it is legal and whether or not the president has a right to place people in positions of power to carry out their policies and to remove people who resist their policies.

And I believe that the President of the United States has that authority. You also have Neil Gorsuch who talks about how we need to be very concerned about the bureaucratic state.

Well, under Biden, the bureaucratic state will control everything including elections, by the way.

Leahy: Oh, yeah. The national bureaucratic state.

Carmichael: Yes. He would like to control everything. And when you look at the industries that the FTC is now trying to regulate.

In fact, I would challenge somebody to name a large industry that Biden doesn’t want to regulate from Washington. I would challenge them to pick a single large industry.

Not a company, but a large industry that Biden does not want to regulate. And so we’re seeing what Biden wants and what the Democrats want.

Therefore, when Republicans retake power and if the Democrats are unsuccessful at changing the election process and making it so that there’s a permanent party.

Leahy: The permanent cheat. Because, that’s what the Democrats – that’s what they want to do. They want to codify cheating for Democrats.

Carmichael: So if they’re unable to do that…

Leahy: We hope they are unable to do that.

Carmichael: I said if they’re unable to do that, Republicans retake the House in 2022 and control the Senate and the presidency after the 2024 election, then it’s my great hope that the next president – be it Trump or some other Republicans –  uses the power of the executive state to shrink government.

Another thing Biden has done is the Congress appropriated and Trump signed a bill that allocated two billion dollars to complete the wall. Biden chose not to spend that money.

Leahy: He’s violating the law.

Carmichael: No, he chose not to spend that money. If he were violating the law, he would be impeached, or there would be a lawsuit or something.

There would be criminal activity, which shows you that if Biden has the right as president to not spend money appropriated by Congress, then that means that a Republican president would have that same right.

And so I think it’s a fascinating thing to think about all the different things that Biden is doing. And then the next president can simply say: Biden did it. I didn’t think that what he did was right, but I think he had the right to do it. Therefore, I’m doing it my way.

Leahy: A very interesting point.

Listen to the second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crom Carmichael Historically Compares Taiwan Versus China and the Capitulation of Communist Pope Francis

Crom Carmichael Historically Compares Taiwan Versus China and the Capitulation of Communist Pope Francis

 

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to discuss Taiwan’s historical progress versus China in the 80s and the capitulation of Pope Francis.

Leahy: Crom, lots of stuff going on. What else is on your agenda? By the way, it is the first day of summer. And it felt like the first day of summer. I got to drive in this morning at 4:25 in the morning, 80 degrees out.

Carmichael: Well, it felt like the first day of summer a couple of weeks ago when I got up close to 100 degrees. So that happens this time of year?

Leahy: Yes. Tennessee. Yeah, that’s right.

Carmichael: There are three or four articles all about China that I find that I find very interesting. But there is one that isn’t explicitly about China and it really helps understand some of what’s going on in terms of the foreign policy.

Leahy: Now Crom, I will tell you you have piqued my curiosity. I like the way you set that up. Well, now I’m thinking this is clever Crom seeing the influence China somewhere, and I’m sure it’s there. I wonder where you seeing it.

Carmichael: Here’s a headline. So anybody who read this headline could see it. This is in the business section of The Wall Street Journal. The World Relies On One Chip Maker in Taiwan, Leaving Everyone Vulnerable.

So that gives us an idea that one of the reasons why China is so insistent that they take over Taiwan. And we now know what China will do once they take over an area even if they promise to do something different because of what they did in Hong Kong.

Leahy: They promised one thing, and they did exactly the opposite.

Carmichael: They did not leave the people in Hong Kong free. They’re now under the subjugation of the Communist Chinese Party, just like everybody else.

Leahy: Let me just stop for a moment on that. When the United Kingdom signed the agreement to give Hong Kong back because their 99-year lease expired everybody knew this would happen.

Carmichael: I would assume so. But I’m not sure what the alternative was, because as you point out, there was a 99-year deal. And the 99-year deal was going to be coming up soon.

And I don’t think the Communist Party of China was in any mood at all to extend the terms of the deal, as they had been before. So it’s kind of like if your lease is running out in a building and you don’t have a right to renew, guess what?

Leahy: You’re out.

Carmichael: You’re either out of are you going to agree to the landlords’ terms. Now you have a choice of getting out. In the case of Taiwan, though, that’s not the case.

Leahy: That’s right. In the case of Taiwan, you had Chiang Kai-shek and a number of Chinese who fled the Communist Party back in the late 40s to the island of Taiwan which had virtually nothing on it. And Taiwan is now one of the wealthiest per-capita communities.

Leahy: It is booming from what I hear.

Carmichael: In the world. It’s only been there for 70 years.

Leahy: I guess 20 some odd million people live on the island, but it is a hub of entrepreneurial activities. And it’s a garden spot, I hear.

Carmichael: Well, I was in Taiwan quite some time ago.

Leahy: You were? What was it like?

Carmichael: Well, this is back in the late 80s and so it’s not fair. We were in China at the same time. And Taiwan was a bustling community and a huge city with lots of cars and lots of beautiful buildings.

In other words, it was a first-world country whereas in China at the time, we were one of the very, very, very few cars on the streets. And when we were on the streets, the driver would drive at about 10 to 15 miles an hour and beep his horn like a heartbeat because there were tens of thousands of bicycles.

And the bicycles had to just kind of move out of the way for the car to pass and move right back in the path. It was just quite extraordinary to see that. But China was very, very poor in the late 80s?

The tallest building in Shanghai was 40 stories and shared a hotel. And now Shanghai is a huge metropolis, just a huge, bustling city. But Taiwan was that before. And Taiwan is also a very, very technologically advanced society.

So there’s lots of technology that’s been developed. Apple phones and a lot of Apple equipment are made in Taiwan. But this one chipmaker is the largest chipmaker in the world by far and many of the chips that they make are very sophisticated.

And so this actually has national security implications in regard to that. What’s also interesting in regard to China is the House Republicans in Washington are targeting the Chinese Communist Party for covering up the origins of the Coronavirus and have introduced legislation to allow people to sue China.

The Democrats are completely opposed to that. So we now kind of see which side the Democrat party is on.

Leahy: They’re on the side of the Chinese Communist Party.

Carmichael: Yes. That’s really quite interesting. Apparently, nobody’s asked Anthony Fauci that question. If they have I’ve not seen it. So if one of our listeners has actually seen Anthony Fauci opine on whether or not the Communist Chinese Party should be held responsible now that he’s admitted that the virus likely came from the lab.

But he’s not admitting that very hard. And then there’s another interesting story where Pope Francis did something that no Pope has done in centuries and that is he capitulated to the Communist Chinese Party. The Communist Chinese Party gets to pick the priests.

Leahy: Yeah, that doesn’t happen. It’s never happened anywhere that I know of in the Catholic Church.

Carmichael: This is something that he agreed to. So now a Communist priest, somehow those two words just don’t seem to go together.

Leahy: It’s an oxymoron.

Carmichael: Yeah. Thank you. You can look that word up.

Leahy: It’s pernicious.

Carmichael: Pernicious. (Laughter) Very good. And then the last little item here is this in Yahoo. News of all places. And the headline is ominous.

Leahy: Not pernicous but ominous.

Carmichael: The U.S.-China relationship going down the path of a great confrontation, analyst says. I’ve read the story and I believe it’s true.

Leahy: Well, when you’re weak, the strong party will take advantage.

Carmichael: Yes.

Listen to the full second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alex Marlow: Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and Author of ‘Breaking the News’ Joins Host Leahy to Discuss His New Bestseller

Alex Marlow: Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and Author of ‘Breaking the News’ Joins Host Leahy to Discuss His New Bestseller

 

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed Breitbart editor-in-chief and author of Breaking the News, Alex Marlow on the newsmakers line to discuss his new bestseller and the motivation behind it.

Leahy: Joined now on our newsmaker line by a good friend, colleague, and boss Breitbart News editor-in-chief and author of the best selling new book, Breaking the News: Exposing the Establishments Media’s, Hidden Deals and Secret Corruption. Alex Marlow! Good morning, Alex!

Marlow: Alex, great to be on with you! It’s my pleasure to be on in Tennessee.

Leahy: Well, that’s great. This is a little bit of reversal of roles because I’ve been a guest on your morning show on Sirius XM Breitbart News Daily several times. Now you have written this fabulous book. I bought it over the weekend, by the way. And so next time we meet in D.C. or L.A. at a company meeting, please sign it if you would.

Marlow: I will do that. And that will be in lieu of a Christmas bonus this year.

Leahy: (Laughs) Now, Alex, so I have gone through your book with a fine-tooth comb. It’s a bestseller, by the way. Page two. I want to talk to you about this. We’ve known each other for over a decade, and I’ve been writing at Breitbart since I guess 2009 full-time on staff since 2012.

I didn’t know this about you. Let me read this from page two. ‘When no division one baseball offers came in and I got accepted to the University of California Berkeley, I knew I needed to take this social experiment to a logical next step.

I was going to live in the heart of the left, the epicenter of the free speech movement.’ I didn’t know you were a big baseball guy. Did you play baseball in high school?

Marlow: I did. I was an obsessive, to be honest. I worked in a batting cage, which was really a rundown warehouse but it was one of the most special places of my childhood. And I was a total gym rat in that way.

And I was constantly thinking about baseball and coaching kids and playing with every single team I could possibly imagine. And I was quite good. I was never going to go all the way, but I didn’t think I was going to play division one and it didn’t work out.

And the other thing is, I didn’t think I was going to get into a school academically as rigorous as Berkeley. I was a good student, but, you know, I was playing baseball and doing debate clubs and I was playing music.

I didn’t have perfect grades. And so I didn’t think I would necessarily get into a school at that level. And that was a scenario that happened. I got into this top-tier school for academics, and I did not get into a top-tier baseball school.

It was one of the hardest decisions of my life. I decided you know what? I’m going to go to Berkeley, and I’m going to go learn. But I’m also going to do the social experiment where I, a guy who is already leaning conservative libertarian, I’m going to go and I’m going to go see what it’s like to live in the belly of the beast, the home of the free speech movement.

It was an unbelievable thing because it’s fun to write about, and I know it’ll pop off the page to people like you, Michael, who may have had a similar experience or some things in common.

But it really was the biggest decision of my life, in all honesty, because that was what set me on the path that I was on to be an integral part of Breitbart.

Leahy: What position did you play in baseball?

Marlow: I was a home run hitter, so I played outfield.

Leahy: (Laughs) Home run hitter. I am envious.

Marlow: Not an official position. So I had to stand in the outfield as I was waiting to hit home runs.

Leahy: Did you ever read Charlie Lau’s book on hitting, by the way – or Ted Williams?

Marlow: I didn’t. I had a lot of instruction, and I was really focused on hitting mechanically. But I read a few books. I read the Ted Williams book. I don’t know. Is there a trick I missed that maybe kept me from going all the way?

Leahy: I don’t know, of course, that Ted Williams booked the famous chart right where he had the color chart from Sports Illustrated, where you could see where the best pitches to hit were.

I was a lifetime high school 240 hitter. So I am envious of you. Infielder. Good field no-hit. Well, I didn’t know that about you, Alex. And I’ve already learned something very significant.

Now, here’s another thing I wanted to talk to you about very important to me about the new George Soros. Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Steve Jobs. This is what I found interesting.

She went to Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania. Got an MBA from Stanford. She worked for Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs. And now she’s founded this thing called the Emerson Collective, which is, I guess, the least transparent philanthropy organization in the country. Tell us a little bit about what Laurene Powell Jobs has been up to in the past decade.

Marlow: Yeah, this is one of the most significant revelations of the book. And I was looking into the funding and the business structure and how some of these newsrooms operate because most of them don’t make money at this point.

Most of them are mostly a place for influence or information gathering or both. And often at the whims of billionaires, et cetera. And I was interested in looking at Laurene Powell Jobs, who is framed as a woman in tech and a philanthropist.

A group called Inside Philanthropy, which is no friend of the right, had called her the world’s least transparent. Mega giver. Always interesting when someone is giving a lot, Michael, but they’re not telling you exactly why or who’s getting it.

We just know they’re giving. Very interesting, particularly when you’re worth about $20,000,000,000. which is what she’s worth. It’s all inherited wealth. She frames herself as an activist and as someone who is a contributor in the tech world.

I have no evidence she does anything in tech other than that she married Steve Jobs, who passed away when he was young. And the Emerson Collective funds all sorts of left-wing media outlets from prestigious ones you’ve heard of, like The Atlantic, also Axios, which is big in D.C.

But then things like Mother Jones and ProPublica and now this, which are more activist. But then she funds this thing through something called an acronym called the Courier Newsroom, which is literally fake news.

It’s really repulsive. What it does is it launders Democrat talking points into local news stories. So you might be on Facebook thinking of reading something that’s a local news story and it’s really something from the Courier Newsroom, which is fake news designed to deceive you on behalf of Democrats.

She funds all this stuff and no one knows her name. And all of them point you towards the same villains and the same heroes, meaning Stacey Abrams good. The Bad Orange man Donald Trump is bad. All that stuff happens it seems at the same time. It’s pretty remarkable.

(Commercial break)

Leahy: Alex, one of the things thing that’s so great about your editing and you’re writing is you get right to the point. On page 56, you talk about media tricks to fix the news. I’ll just read this.

‘Reading The New York Times, as well as any other establishment media publication, requires something like a secret decoder ring. What is written on the page is not always literal. And here are a couple of examples. ‘Anything that can be politicized will be politicized.

Good news on a preferred narrative typically appears on the front page. Bad news about a preferred narrative appears deep within the paper or not at all. I see this every day, everywhere, but particularly in The New York Times.’

Marlow: I’m thrilled to talk about this section. This is something where I’ve made my entire life in the news business. I’m 35. Andrew hired me as the first employee of Breitbart when I was 21.

And so all of this stuff is sort of old hat to me because I’ve had to do this full time. But I realized and I talked to people who are just observers of the news and are really struggling to figure out who to trust and who not to trust.

This is very helpful to them. And I think that they should actually if you pick up the book, you can take a photo of this with your phone and you could refer back to it. And you’ll see these patterns in your local paper, but in particular in these major national papers that are actually owned by these left-wing globalist billionaires.

And all of them are written in the same way. And there are lots of things like bad news on a narrative that the paper is trying to push. You’re not going to get that on the front page. And if you’re going to get on the front page, it’s only because you’re going to put this stuff that they don’t want deep within the article.

So hopefully you miss it. These types of things are very important because you realize you’re not crazy. Your favorite people, if you’re on the right, are always going to get a villainous photo.

If they get a photo at all. Your people who you might not like as much, they’re going to get a heroic photo where they look very grand and a champion. All this stuff is good to point out. And people have fun with this section, I think.

Leahy: I think so. It’s interesting because this I idea of, ‘objective news’, if there ever was any objective news, there certainly isn’t any today. One of the things I really like is you point out there are heroes and articles by the mainstream media and villains.

A hero, anyone who advances the causes of globalism, wokeness, and skepticism of America. A villain, basically, anybody who advances the cause of nationalism, conservatism, or traditional American values. Breitbart News is portrayed by the left in the mainstream media as a villain. And yet, Breitbart, we just report the facts.

Marlow: Exactly. And this is why someone like you or me, even if we achieve something positive in our lives, we’re not going to get a profile. Our equivalent on the leftwing outlet, of course, we get a profile that would be very flattering.

And if they did write us up, they would always write us up in a way as if, you know, LeahyI know you’re extremely educated. I’m a highly educated person. They would write about it as if it was like a big disappointment.

As if we had some sort of a fall from grace at some point. That’s how they would frame it. And all these things I lay out all these tricks so you see the pattern about what’s happening. And I also get into the hero points, which can be added based on your race or sex or sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.

So if you’re a white person, you’re definitely not going to get that. But maybe if you’re a gay person, you can get some points for that. And then if you’re a woman, of course, that scores you points.

And all these things add up. And this is how they cobble together and how high to place a person within the hierarchy of their paper hero.

Leahy: In your book, Alex, you talk about a mainstream media figure who now lives in Nashville, Tennessee. We make fun of him a lot on The Tennessee Star Report. We’ve invited him to come in, by the way, he’s never shown up. His name is Jon Meacham. He’s a historian.

Here’s what you write about him. In November of 2020, just after the election, Jon Meacham went on MSNBC as a paid contributor and authority on the presidency to praise a speech by Joe Biden. A speech Meacham himself helped write. Meacham didn’t disclose that on-air, and he was touting the magnificence of his own ideas.

Marlow: Yeah, you have a great eye. I have to tell you, Michael, my favorite part of the book, I must say, and I spent a year researching this, is that I was able to uncover lots of original news stories.

For example, the Laurene Powell Jobs story that no one’s caught. And that’s what I’m most proud of. And I’ve even gotten a huge reaction not just from stars to talk radio, but from lawmakers, from Senators Ernst, Blackburn, Cotton, and Devin Nunes.

And all of these people who are real big-time players have reacted strongly to the book. But my favorite sections to write, some of them were things like this. This is something that people knew.

But I had a blast just going through and giving a hard time to some of these people, like Jon Meacham, who presents himself, as this incredibly irradiate important figure on cable news. And he’s really just the same orange man bad type of left-wing pundit that we’ve all gotten so bored of over the years during the Trump era.

That’s who this guy is. And he got busted stone-cold opining on his own speech. A speech he wrote that Joe Biden delivered. But the funniest part of all in this story is that he did end up getting removed from MSNBC over it.

I go through dozens and dozens of improprieties and fake news pushed by MSNBC in the book. But this is the only example I could find if someone actually getting fired.

Leahy: Well, somebody who can’t get fired because he owns a company is Michael Bloomberg, the former Mayor of New York City and the erstwhile presidential candidate. He gave an interview on the campaign trail to PBS Firing Line, Margaret Hoover, and in the interview, Bloomberg praised China’s handling of environmental issues and defended their authoritarian system of government. What’s going on here with that?

Marlow: This one is the most unbelievable thing in the book, I would say, by a nearer margin. But Bloomberg connections to China are just insane. We all saw him awkwardly praise China and say that China is doing a good job on pollution, and they’re not.

That Xi Jin Ping is not a dictator. Of course, he is. And over the years, he has gone over to places like Singapore and praised the Chinese at an insane level. And we also know that Bloomberg L.P. has incredible amounts of access to the Chinese market.

Bloomberg’s business is gigantic. It’s bigger than the AP. It’s bigger than CNN. It’s bigger than The New York Times. He’s got a near-monopoly in financial news. And, of course, the money he makes largely from the Chinese he donates the Democratic candidates.

So it’s very nefarious. But when you go to see the level he’s willing to go, it is very disturbing. Year after year, either Bloomberg himself or top people in his company fly to Beijing and quite literally, Michael, meet with the ministers are propaganda.

The people who are responsible for the Communist regimes, talking points, who are also responsible for the licenses that Bloomberg depends on to get access to China for his business. And they talk about collaboration between the two nations.

This guy almost became President. It wasn’t that close, but he wanted to be. And he got a fair number of votes in the process when he ran last time around. Disturbing stuff and stuff, I think should be deeply investigated.

Leahy: Another question, Alex. This is the book that gosh, I wish I’d written it. It’s so good. It’s such a great book. It’s a bestseller. You do three hours a day on the radio. You’re the editor in chief at Breitbart News.

I mean, there are dozens and dozens of stories every day you review and sign off on and edit. How did you have time to write this deeply sourced book?

Marlow: Thank you so much for that question. I mean, it’s the highest compliment you could offer. And I love talking about this because I didn’t know I could do it, but I wanted to do it.

And I’ll tell you, it was this simple. I set a goal for myself every day of trying to write about 500 or 600 words, something reasonable. And before you know it, if you start doing that and you’re diligent, you can keep two at five or six days a week, maybe seven if you’re really in the zone.

Then before you know it, you have a draft. The first draft might not be that great, but then you’ll probably have enough to be motivated to edit the draft. And then when you edit it, it might be pretty good when you’re done with that. That was the process.

And I did have a couple of guys help you with research which was really helpful on loan to me from Peter Schweizer’s amazing shop that he has. So it was an incredible process. Incredibly difficult, but worthwhile. And I think your audience will love it.

Leahy: Alex, I’ve read it. It’s a great book. I recommend it highly. Breaking the News: Exposing the Establishment Media’s Hidden Deals and Secret Corruption by my friend colleague boss editor in chief at Breitbart News Alex Marlow. Alex, thanks so much for joining us today.

Marlow: Michael, my pleasure. Let’s do it again.

Listen to the full first hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Alex Marlow” by Gage Skidmore CC2.0.