The Joyce Kaufman Show 6/29/26 - Jillian Michaels leaving the Democratic party, Memorandum of Understanding, PRIDE month, Socialist taking over the Democratic party

This is the Joyce Kaufman podcast, honest, straight, and unapologelic with your host, Joyce Kaufman. Oh, it's Monday. And for those of you who makes no difference what day of the week it is, it must be nice. But for me, you know, I have this two-edged sword. I look forward to Monday because I have all this pent-up stuff I want to talk about. And then I dread Monday. because I have all this pent up stuff I want to talk about. But I read some interesting things over the weekend, so I'm kind of going to be going backwards. It seems pointless to try and stay in today's news because there's not a big change from day to day in so many of the areas that I would talk about. So I really am looking for more nichey, neat, you know, just discussions and arguments when I read. And I saw a great one, I think it was on like Friday of last week, by Jillian Michaels. She had written a piece for, I want to say it was Fox Digital, but I don't remember because I copied and pasted and I didn't bother to do that part. I didn't take the heading. But she's the fitness star. who I really like. I used to do her fitness tapes all the time. She'd do 20 minute workouts that were good. They would like kick your butt and you would get results. If you did them for a couple of weeks, you would see changes. And she was on the biggest loser or whatever that show was where people were trying to lose a ton of weight. And I always kind of liked her sense of humor, liked her style. And then she turned out to be a conservative and bucked. All the traditional people came out and, you know, she's gay and she's conservative, you know, all these, like, interesting, quirky things. And she's super bright, you know. And she wrote a piece, I want to say it was for Fox Digital, but it might not have been. It might have been some other place. But she was asked about her political views and how. It was for her to leave the left and embrace a more conservative ideology. And when it was that she realized that she had been ingesting what she called a lie. She said, honestly, it felt a bit like Neo in the Matrix at first, because I really did think that, you know, when you're on the left, you're the empathetic one, you're the good guy, you're the one that cares about people. Oh, I know she was on the Rubin report. That's what it was. And so Dave Rubin was asking her, well, let's start with you because you and Dave Rubin and me and many others have, you know, have the same story. I came around a lot longer ago than they did, but there was a time when I was left of center for sure back in the 80s, 70s, maybe not so much the 80s, but definitely in the 70s.

She said a lot of people like her had a huge wake up around COVID because, you know, and she moved to Florida right around then, as did many other people because they wanted to be free and live in the free state of Florida as the governor referred to it. So she was talking about, yeah, you know, you think you're Neo. And then. Something happened. She said, I happened to marry a conservative who let me know that it wasn't the left that was empathetic. And she said in the early stages of our relationship, there's a whole lot of fighting. And then I started to watch the world invert. And all of a sudden, you know, up was down, right was left literally. And, you know, being obese became beautiful and healthy. And then COVID happened. And she said, that was another crazy moment for me. I started learning that all the news I had been ingesting was a lie. COVID did not come from a bat in a wet market. And Russia, Russia, Russia, all that stuff wasn't real. And then she talked about how liberals believe that the right is evil and what influences, you know, the thinking patterns. All the news they watch. tells them that everything they read everything they see says we're fascists the right is racist they're Nazis oh you want voter ID because you're a racist and she noted that what she believes finally moves a person on the left is when it comes for them and it comes for everyone And then hopefully it's not too late. And that was the same sense I had. Ronald Reagan had originally said that he didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left him. And I felt exactly the same way. And it's the same with conservative and liberal philosophies. The liberal philosophy changed so dramatically that I could no longer embrace it. I didn't even want to pretend. You know, I knew it wasn't empathetic. I knew it was actually stifling and leading people into weird thought patterns. You know, for people to suddenly say, after all the years, people like Julian Michaels and I fought for equal rights for women in many different arenas. And I do not believe that men and women are the same, but I think they should have access to education. I think that there are some women who are well suited for the military. And I just felt everyone should have equal access, not equal results, but equal access. And, you know, that's when the shift happens for most people.

It was when they realized that, in fact, they are much more like people on the right than they knew or than they were willing to admit. And I get it. I know exactly, you know, what she's talking about. And then you look at the geopolitical situation, and you see that the left is literally on the wrong side. of geopolitics like 100% of the time, not even 95. It's like 100% of the time, hates Israel. You know, when did that start being okay? It's not okay for me. I don't think it's okay for most. So you do. You make this sort of transition and you find that you feel entirely welcomed. by conservatives. And they don't even care if you have different opinions about certain subjects. They are much more likely to have a discussion about it, maybe try to convince you, than the left is in the other direction. They just are intolerant. Don't want to give the people on the right even a chance to make their argument, just not interested in hearing your argument. And that tells me that they really don't believe a lot of what they say. They don't have an argument, is the problem. What they have is feelings. They have a lot of feelings. And feelings are not facts. So it's very hard to operate in that vein. You know, if you're not going to talk about factual things with me, but instead you're going to accuse me of having the wrong feeling about a subject, there's not a debate happening. There's no discussion going to be possible. And I'm not interested. I can't waste my time. And that's, I think, you know, probably what Julian Michaels and David Rubin and, yeah, I don't know, the list is pretty long. Mammitt, the writer, Peterson. I don't know what's going on with Jim Jordan Peterson. Apparently some sort of health issue, mental health issue. I don't know, but he falls in and out of the news again, and I'm not really quite sure what's going on. because you don't get, you don't get big answers, that's for sure. People are so guarded, and you can't blame them. They don't want to tell you too much because they don't know how that information is going to be used and where you're going to see it come up. And trust me, you will see it come up, particularly if you have any presence on the social media platforms of any type. And I have to because of what I do for a living. It's amazing. You know, I never thought the day would come where I couldn't have discussions with people who I loved deeply and cared deeply about and who I thought loved me deeply and cared deeply about me, who wrote me off over Trump like it was immediate. They didn't even hesitate. Literally, people I've been friends with for 50, 60 years. It was just too far for them.

Couldn't handle it. It's insane. You know, that's the one thing that I'm sure Jillian Michaels and many others, Dave Rubin, when your close friends are intolerant of you having different opinions, you start to think you may need to change who you call your close friends. You know, there's no point in having a whole boatload of people you call your friends who don't even want to hear your opinions. It's crazy. But that's what was happening. Anyway, don't forget to download that 850 WFTL app. You can put it on your laptop, your cell phone, your whatever, your Chromebook. You get breaking news that way. You also get to participate in our contest. And you can listen to podcasts from whatever. device you're using that it's downloaded on and it's very convenient it's on your phone i have people all the time tell me please put the 850 app on my phone for me older people who you know struggle with uh downloading apps apparently and i put it on and they go oh this is so convenient because they want to hear the show or they want to hear the uap the unidentified alien podcast that that uh stephen diner does and now they can do it all from that app Pretty awesome. And we don't solicit you and bother you. There's not a barrage of email or anything like that. So do it. Let me take a quick break. Please, you stay right where you are. I'll be right back. So I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been watching all of this 250th birthday discussion that's going on. And it's so different on the right or the left, right? I mean, we started the celebration a little bit early. You know, President Trump had the motorcycles, the UFC fight on the South lawn, all these bald eagles flying around. It's kind of awesome. And the left held a resistance concert where Robert De Niro compared loving America to loving an abusive spouse. And Bent Midler sang a song about fascism. That's so sad to me. And there's a reason why 90% of Republicans told NBC this week that they are proud to be American, but only 29% of Democrats said the same thing. The Obama's celebrated America with a bunch of Democratic glitterati. You know, talking about the good old days and lecturing about unity in front of a presidential library that looks like an actual trash can. And Zohran Mamdani, you know, co-splayed as a Knicks fan at the championship parade, but at least he told the truth when he, unironically, quoted a 20th century Marxist to describe his vision for America in 2028. But the big story, of course, was the MOA, MOU, rather, the memorandum of understanding with Iran. You can tell the deal is going really well when the MOU is in a mess after only two days. Turns out there was no understanding.

inside this memorandum of understanding there was no agreement on even the most basic terms of the deal. But if and when the entire thing falls apart, the people who promoted the deal the most will blame Israel. You know, Ben Shapiro's notes are right on the money in this case. The whole thing is politically short-sighted in the most extreme terms. The problem is not people in America who are unenthusiastic about a bad MOU, or Israel defending itself, or even Israelis who are unenthusiastic about it. The problem is that when you negotiate with a terrorist regime, the terrorists will lie to you. Maybe the administration manages to pull a rabbit out of a hat, or maybe this goes precisely the way Ben Shapiro and I and my friend Perry, the way I think most people who have studied the Middle East for any period of time think it's likely to go. Not well. Not well at all. And that doesn't make me happy. You know, the left celebrates that. And I am distressed by it. You know, Iran is out there claiming victory because of the whole situation in Lebanon. And who could blame them? I mean, they're not just talking to the Iranian people. I hate when the pundits, particularly the ones on Fox, who wouldn't disagree with the president if the terrorists who had their children kidnapped. I mean, it's enough already. But it's just, it's hard to understand why people would continue to defend this deal. It's not a deal and it's not working. It was never going to work. And it's not just people who don't like Trump who say that. It's those of us who do, who genuinely. who were big supporters, big fans, thought that of all the people that we'd ever seen in leadership, this was the one guy who seemed committed to making the world sit up and take notice who the bad guys are and who the good guys are. Apparently, Not, you know, just not going the way people thought it would be going. And I get it. You know, I'm disappointed. I look at things, stories that should be much bigger. and aren't getting talked about at all. You know, the pride parade, first of all, I hate the whole concept of the pride month and the pride this and the pride that, well, pride. You know, I'm not proud to be a heterosexual. Why would you say you're proud to be gay? I mean, it's not a matter of pride. If you believe it's intrinsic, right?

But so all these guys who, you know, pay homage to the whole pride movement, these political guys, they're getting their comeuppance. You have Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, going to a New York City pride parade, and he gets booed. You know, he's waving a flag and yelling, happy pride, through a bullhorn. But the people in the crowd were very, they weren't down with his being there at all. They were not, forget not enthusiastic. They were intolerant. There are a bunch of videos that I saw online that showed the people's reaction to Chuck Schumer's appearance, and more than half of them were booing him. He said, I was the first senator to march in this parade, and I'm not the last. What does that mean? As he's waving his pride flag, you know. And, you know, he's pathetic. It's one thing. to violate your conscience in as many ways as he has. You know, a Jewish guy who was always pro-Israel, who's now pro-Palestinian, you know, and he's making this big deal about being pro-pride, and he gets booed. He's pathetic. What's he going to do now? He's going to pretend he's a communist. So that the real communists, the ones that are winning primaries, will like him? They're not going to like him. You know, he keeps talking about what an honor it is to be part of the pride parade. It's one of my favorite annual traditions. Really? Does anybody believe that? Even the people he's trying to convince of that? They don't believe that. That's why he got booed. Oh, it's amazing, he said, to see all the progress that we've made on LGBTQ plus equality. It's amazing, he said, to see all the progress that we've made on LGBTQ plus equality since I first marched in this parade. And then, of course, launches into an attack against President Trump. But with the Trump administration in the White House, we must do everything in our power to protect that progress. Really? I don't know. Looks to me as though the Trump administration... doesn't dislike gay people. Scott Bessent is probably his main man these days, the Treasury Secretary. Last time I checked, he's married to a man and raising two kids. So what is the danger to the gay community from Trump?

It doesn't even make sense when you see how radicalized the Democratic Party is with all these, you know, socialists winning in the primaries. This is a senator who hasn't even announced whether he's going to run for re-election in 2028. But if he was using or gauging the people's desire for him on the parade this weekend, He better find another, you know, something else to do. Why not retire? This guy's in his late 70s. He's pandering. But I got news for you. If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decides to run against you in a primary, she'll win. And this is what the Democrats get. This is what they get. They're suffering the consequences of trying to appease the crazies, the far left. You know, somebody on social media had posted in one of the videos where Chuck Schumer is being booed and not just casually booed, like out and out booed. They said, surprised he could even walk without a backbone. And that's what everybody thinks of these people. They don't believe that you are suddenly all about them, the LGBTQ community. Come on, man. Stand up. And, you know, the whole socialist wave in New York, people keep thinking it was... You know, the fact that Zohran Mamdani endorsed these people in the primary. But that's not it. The reason these socialist candidates breezed through these elections in New York is not good for the Democrat Party. One of the reasons is because of anti-Semitism. Yeah. can't win an election in New York City because you support Israel, then, you know, you've got to face the fact. You probably don't want to live in New York City anymore. You know, I happen to be flying into New York this weekend. But I plan on spending literally a few hours there. Take my brother out to lunch and then I'm heading to, you know, another state nearby. Because New York is not friendly towards first and foremost conservatives. And really the most outrageous thing to me is it's anti-Semitic. The whole city has become anti-Semitic. It's crazy. You know, the guys who supported it, like Espaile and Dan Goldman, they got beat by these crazy activists who came out and said, you know, oh, Palestine. Israel is a genocidal maniac. Yeah. That's what the primary turned on. You know, the ADL is trying.

to ignore it, but they can't. Because the left that won those primaries, the Democratic Socialists of America, they built their platform in these primaries on anti-Semitic rhetoric. And they won. Yeah? A movement built on anti-Semitic rhetoric won three congressional primers in New York City. And at the DSA victory party, they were chanting from the river to the sea. That slogan calls for the elimination of the Jewish state. And they were celebrating it. The mayor was there and he was celebrating it. So for many Jewish New Yorkers, that should be a pretty chilling message. Your witnessing candidates succeed not in spite of their demonizing rhetoric against Jews, but because of it. When leaders cheer slogans that dehumanize Jews, that's not a victory party. That's dangerous, particularly dangerous for Jewish families and children. About time the ADL wakes up to that, they said, oh, we'll continue to speak out against anti-Semitism. Stop supporting Democrats. Maybe that's something you should consider. my friends at the ADL, I don't have any friends at the Anti-Defamation League, never did. Anyway, let me take a quick break. Please, don't touch that dial. I'll be right back. I'll tell you, sometimes you, I have a good memory. So a lot of terrible things that have played out over the last couple of years politically, I don't forget. Apparently, a lot of people do forget. And that's, they shouldn't be in this business. You know, the Supreme Court has really been affected by the political disharmony, whatever you want to call it. I mean, the House appropriated $30 million in additional funding for the Supreme Court. They need to beef up security for the justices who are facing a massive increase in threats and violent rhetoric. They had an interesting take in Politico. Political can't seem to understand why they afforded more money to this. It said, the Supreme Court, this is right out of political, the Supreme Court is spending millions to beef up security, along with restricting the justices' personal freedoms, the move threatens to further cocoon them in ideological bubbles as they decide controversial cases. They're spending millions to beef up security. Well, wait a second. The Supreme Court has no army. So the fact that their police force has been growing for years, they had less than 200 officers, but now they want to double that number. But you know why? Politico doesn't seem to know why. The idea.

that we the readers, and I read political because you need to know what the enemy is thinking, do they not remember that an assassin was arrested approaching Brett Kavanaugh's home? So are they suggesting a political that we should just allow them to be sitting ducks for the lunatic fringe? If the Democrat socialists of American left weren't hell-bent on intimidating and even harming, even killing the justices, this wouldn't be necessary now, would it? Why didn't political write an article about that? Maybe violent liberals should stop directing violence at the justices. The justices have a right to be safe. And what does that mean? The move threatens to further cocoon them in their ideological bubbles. You think that's clever? The only justices that are being threatened are the conservatives. You don't hear any threats against Sotomayor or any of the other liberal ladies, Ketanji Brown Jackson. You know, it's only the right. And it's amazing, but what they should be writing articles about is how security is required to protect justices from Democrat assassins. But they won't ever say that. And that's why you can't take them seriously. Another brilliant warning shot fired by Justice Clarence Thomas. that he made the, well, it was a landmark decision back in 1964. It was the New York Times versus Dan Sullivan. And Clarence Thomas and Justice Gorsuch said that they really need to revisit that. Because that decision established the actual malice standard, which makes it very difficult for defamation cases to be brought against public figures and against media companies. This means a defendant has to be able to prove that a defamatory statement was made with reckless disregard of the truth or with actual knowledge of the statement's false nature. Okay. Well, this statement by Clarence Thomas that we should revisit it. was made after Alan Dershowitz attempted to renew his case against CNN, where he went after the network's coverage of President Donald Trump's first impeachment. In 2020, he sued the Times over allegations that it twisted his comments made on the Senate floor as he defended the president. And the Supreme Court?

declined to consider overruling and therefore, you know, they will not allow Dershowitz to proceed. And that's really a shame because the New York Times knew the truth. And while the Supreme Court ultimately rejected the case anyway, the justices said in their dissent that they would have heard the case in the interest of making it easier to bring claims of defamation against public figures. Instead, the founding generation believed that, if anything, public figures had stronger claims for damages when they were defamed. A lower court had found that Dershowitz didn't prove actual malice on the part of CNN. So basically, they sided with the outlet. And the standard is just too high. Clarence Thomas and Justice Gorsuch are right. And it should be looked at and reconsidered. But they kind of have their hands full. It's too bad, though, because, you know, it is time. for media to be held accountable. And I'm really surprised that Brett Kavanaugh didn't join with Thomas and Gorsuch. Because why are public figures any different? Isn't that violating their own free speech too? And what purpose does it actually serve? I don't know. But thank goodness that some of these justices are speaking out. And, you know, this big tent that they keep talking about, you hear the Democrats, they don't know how to defend the craziness that's coming out of these three candidates in New York, right? So you had Chris Murphy, the senator, welcoming one of these socialists. into the big tent, the Democrats' big tent. This is the person who obviously has forgotten that Darylisa Chevalier during an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. They asked Chris Murphy, do you think that the fact that she called former President Joe Biden a rapist? was untoward, how big a tent are you going to build? Does that include someone who called a former Democratic president of the United States a rapist? And so Murphy said, well, I'm not super familiar with that race. What are you talking about? If you're not familiar, then why are you discussing these candidates? He said, well, all I'm saying is that this party has to have a real contest of ideas. And I just don't think that our defense of incrementalism has worked. Oh, really? So he dismissed all the controversial posts and instead said, no, the biggest threat to America is Donald Trump. You know what?

You can't reason with these people because they don't have any facts on their side. They're not arguing facts. They're arguing feelings. I can't win an argument with someone who's arguing their feelings because their feelings are their feelings. They're not facts. There's no argument anyway. Just another crazy story. Don't forget. Coming up after me will be the one and only, Guy Benson, followed by Will Kane, then it's Joe Pags, Lars Larson, the overnight guys, until 6 a.m. when Jennifer Ross and Stephen Deiner will be back with the South Florida morning show. At 9 o'clock, it'll be Brian Kilmeade at noon. It's Eric Erickson, and then I get to come back at 3 o'clock. But I still have a segment left in today's show. So don't touch that dial. Well, the Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito did warn today that the court's ruling on mail-in ballots is definitely going to open the floodgates for all kinds of voter fraud. It was a 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The court ruled that federal law allows states to continue counting non-military mail-in ballots that arrive after election day. So Samuel Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion that that decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud. And it's not like we already haven't lost a lot of faith in the integrity of our elections. Let's make it worse. It's not just Donald Trump who thinks that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud. In 2005, a committee that was chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, they found that absentee voting was the single largest source of potential voter fraud in American elections. And the conservative justices also talked about a case from 2008 in which the late Justice John Paul Stevens recognized the risk of voter fraud perpetrated using absentee balance is real and could affect the outcome of a close election. So they basically opened up a Pandora's box. What they ruled, in this 5-4 ruling, they wrote that federal Election Day statutes do not preempt Mississippi's law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to count if received up to five days later. And, of course, she was joined by three liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts. That's cowardly, in my opinion. As Amy Coney Barrett-Russia, as we have said before, the federal Election Day statutes simply regulate the time of the election. By setting the day...

even people who are not as involved in this discussion, we're not going to trust it. If you have nothing more to look at than the phrase election day, I think that's the day in which everything is supposed to take place. You know, there's only one Memorial Day. There's only one Labor Day, and there should be only one election day. But apparently... That was not the prevailing attitude at the Supreme Court. So I thank you for your time, this time until next time. I've got a plan, and that plan is to be back here tomorrow at 3 p.m. if it be his will and he delays his coming. Remember that what lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us. So wherever you are, just be yourself. Everybody else is taken. May God bless you. May God bless Israel, and may God bless the United States of America. See you tomorrow. This has been the Joyce Kaufman podcast. Available everywhere you get your podcasts.