Speaker 1: The Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship has produced a
Speaker 1: national crisis, but not for the reason that most people think.
Speaker 1: The crisis is not whether the Supreme Court, including its
Speaker 1: Republican appointees, has been captured by the left. Nor is
Speaker 1: it over whether illegals who have children in this country
Speaker 1: can thereby confer citizenship on them.
Speaker 2: Neither of those things, as I'll explain, is really the
Speaker 2: core problem.
Speaker 1: First of all, the Republican appointees on the Court are
Speaker 1: not exactly rhinos or secret Democrats. Consider Amy Cony Barrett.
Speaker 1: She voted to get rid of Robi Wade, she gave
Speaker 1: Trump immunity from prosecution. She voted to end affirmative action,
Speaker 1: She expanded gun rights, She ended special black and minority
Speaker 1: voting districts in just a few days ago, voted against
Speaker 1: the right of biological males to compete in women's sports. Now,
Speaker 1: Barrett is, as Trump knew before he appointed her, a
Speaker 1: political and cultural conservative. Even so, I see on social
Speaker 1: media that Barrett voted the way she did because she's
Speaker 1: a woman and women don't have the capacity to govern,
Speaker 1: or she's a DEI appointed to the Court, or her
Speaker 1: decision is based on the fact that she and her
Speaker 1: husband adopted Haitian children. Now I'm dubious about all this.
Speaker 1: Let's take up my second point. There are illegals who
Speaker 1: have been in this country for twenty or even thirty years.
Speaker 1: I am not happy about this because they two broke
Speaker 1: the law. Even so, no one, not even Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 1: challenges the fact that their children in this country have
Speaker 1: a constitutional right to be US citizens. Why because the
Speaker 1: relevant constitutional phrase is quote subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Speaker 1: It means subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
Speaker 1: and quite obviously a family living here for decades is
Speaker 1: subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn't owe its loyalty to
Speaker 1: any other country. Moreover, one cannot pragmatically send these children
Speaker 1: back to countries to which they have no ties and
Speaker 1: whose language they very often do not speak. Thomas alludes
Speaker 1: to this in his dissenting opinion. So what are we
Speaker 1: talking about here. We're talking about birth tourism, which is
Speaker 1: to say, about people who come to this country in
Speaker 1: order to have children so that their children can automatically
Speaker 1: become US citizens.
Speaker 2: That's the core issue.
Speaker 1: Does the Constitution a firm births tourism as a right,
Speaker 1: and what, if anything, do we do about it. Let's
Speaker 1: begin by noting that there's no good argument for birth tourism. Recently,
Speaker 1: The New York Times had a long profile of a
Speaker 1: Honduran woman who was deported from the country and then
Speaker 1: travels seventeen hundred miles to sneak back in so her
Speaker 1: child could be born in a Mayora. The profile was
Speaker 1: intended to garner sympathy, and to some extent it does,
Speaker 1: But even here it's quite obvious that birthright citizenship birth
Speaker 1: tourism in this way should not be allowed. People should
Speaker 1: not be able to go around our immigration laws and
Speaker 1: do this, regardless of their long term aspirations for their children. Then,
Speaker 1: on the darker side, investigative journalist Peter Schweitzer my friend Peter,
Speaker 1: who has been profiled in more than one of my films,
Speaker 1: reveals that the Chinese are running a sophisticated birthright scam
Speaker 1: on the United States. Over the past ten years, Chinese
Speaker 1: men have dispatched roughly one million Chinese women to come
Speaker 1: and have kids in this country. The kids then go
Speaker 1: back to China, but they are now dual citizens. They
Speaker 1: can vote in US elections, and over time their kids
Speaker 1: would also be US citizens, and this way the Chinese
Speaker 1: gain important leverage in controlling the outcome of close US elections.
Speaker 1: Think about that, Given that we cannot give even a
Speaker 1: single case in which birth tourism is disease, we can't
Speaker 1: even imagine when it would be a good idea. It
Speaker 1: is surpassingly strange that the Constitution seems to say that
Speaker 1: there is an unqualified right for children born in this
Speaker 1: country to be US citizens. It is even odder that
Speaker 1: this practice has continued in this country for a century
Speaker 1: and a half, and now an ideologically diverse majority on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, three liberals and at least two conservatives
Speaker 1: have affirmed that constitutional reading and that historical precedent. Sure,
Speaker 1: we can scream about the decision, we make outrageous demands. Recently,
Speaker 1: I saw a social media post that we should nullify
Speaker 1: the court ruling, we should require sterilization of foreign visitors
Speaker 1: prior to entry, we should dissolve the union itself. This
Speaker 1: is irresponsible rhetoric because it makes no sense and it's
Speaker 1: never going to happen. We cannot solve this problem without
Speaker 1: recognizing what the problem exactly is. So what is the problem?
Speaker 1: Whenever we deal with issue of justice or jurisprudence. We
Speaker 1: can resolve it in one of two ways. We can
Speaker 1: look for a principle that governs the matter, or we
Speaker 1: can look at the consequences of what we decide. If
Speaker 1: we go with the principle or rule, we tend to
Speaker 1: downplay or ignore the consequences. If we go with consequences,
Speaker 1: then we're willing to bend the principle or rule in
Speaker 1: order to accommodate the outcome we want. This is such
Speaker 1: a crucial distinction. I want to illustrate it with a
Speaker 1: real life example. Consider a nerdy college student who makes
Speaker 1: awkward sexual remarks to get noticed by girls.
Speaker 2: He goes up to girls and talks to him about
Speaker 2: porn or about his cat being in heat.
Speaker 1: Now, if this were to happen at an elite college
Speaker 1: in say nineteen fifty, the dean would haul in the
Speaker 1: kid and say, listen, weirdo, cut out that nonsense. I'm
Speaker 1: giving you a warning, but if you do this again,
Speaker 1: I'm going to have you pack your bags and go
Speaker 1: home for the semester. Now, this is justice by consequence.
Speaker 1: There are no rules. The dean basically looks at the
Speaker 1: the kid's actions of cause and since the harm is
Speaker 1: not so great, he makes a decision that keeps the
Speaker 1: kid in school, but seeks to avoid a repetition of
Speaker 1: the offending conduct. But today, that same college probably has
Speaker 1: sexual harassment rules. Let's say the rule says that if
Speaker 1: you sexually harass a girl, you'll be suspended for a
Speaker 1: year or expelled. Now the dean has no discretion. You
Speaker 1: violated the rule, and so he must send you home.
Speaker 1: This is justice by principle and rule. There is some discretion,
Speaker 1: ranging from suspension to expulsion, but only within the parameters
Speaker 1: set by the rule. Now here's my point. There is
Speaker 1: no room for consequences for consequential reasoning in our constitutional law.
Speaker 1: There is room for such reasoning and other types of law.
Speaker 1: For instance, in the British common law, it's routine for
Speaker 1: judges to ask, what are you asking me to do?
Speaker 1: What will be the effects of me ruling this way
Speaker 1: versus that way? Who will be affected by my ruling
Speaker 1: and how? This is consequential reasoning, which considers rules and precedents,
Speaker 1: but it also considers the results of the decision itself.
Speaker 1: Notice that of the various opinions delivered by the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court on the birthright citizenship issue. Not a single one
Speaker 1: openly employed consequential reasoning or reasoning by consequences. Every single
Speaker 1: one purported to affirm some sort of constitutional principle. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm going to ignore the liberals here because their reasoning
Speaker 1: is mostly gobbledegook.
Speaker 2: I'm going to focus only on.
Speaker 1: The Republicans because that's how today's Supreme Court decisions are decided. Now,
Speaker 1: the Conservatives broke into two camps, the majority camp with
Speaker 1: the decision written by Chief Justice Roberts joined by Barrett,
Speaker 1: and a dissident or minority camp with strong dissent by
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justice Kavanaugh took a middle position,
Speaker 1: basically siding with birthright citizenship but offering a narrow legislative
Speaker 1: pathway to limit certain types of it. Now, let's look
Speaker 1: at the majority's reasoning, which is reasoning from principle. The
Speaker 1: majority says, the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment affirms
Speaker 1: birthright citizenship, and that of course would necessarily include birthright tourism.
Speaker 1: Anyone born here is automatically eligible for citizenship. Sure, there
Speaker 1: is that textual qualification, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But
Speaker 1: the majority says that merely means that people who are
Speaker 1: in America a subject to the jurisdiction of America and
Speaker 1: the laws of America. Even a foreign tourist or ambassador
Speaker 1: who's merely coming here residing here is at least to
Speaker 1: some extent.
Speaker 2: Subject to our laws.
Speaker 1: Moreover, the majority camp of conservatives notes that birthright citizenship
Speaker 1: has been the operating constitutional principle for one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty years since the end of the Civil War, when
Speaker 1: the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. Precedent in law gives support
Speaker 1: and corroboration to constitutional principle. Something is more likely to
Speaker 1: be rightly decided when courts for more than a century
Speaker 1: have read it that way. Frankly, this is a pretty
Speaker 1: strong principled case for birthright citizenship and yet justice as
Speaker 1: Thomas and Alito take it on. Thomas and Alito basically
Speaker 1: make two key points, both of which focus on the
Speaker 1: intentions of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the
Speaker 1: framers intended through this amendment to give citizenship to the
Speaker 1: former slaves and to their children born in this country.
Speaker 1: This was their clear purpose in enacting the constitutional change.
Speaker 2: The slaves were brought here against their will.
Speaker 1: They had no place else to go, no allegiance to
Speaker 1: any foreign power. America was their only home, and they
Speaker 1: were given citizenship for their children based on that second
Speaker 1: a related point, the Framers did not intend to give
Speaker 1: citizenship to the children of foreigners with no allegiance to
Speaker 1: this country. That's why those who proposed the law made
Speaker 1: it clear. The children of foreign ambassadors were excluded. The
Speaker 1: children of others foreign diplomats didn't qualify. Obviously, the children
Speaker 1: of an invading army wouldn't get citizenship by virtue of
Speaker 1: being born here. Significantly, the children of American Indians didn't
Speaker 1: qualify either. Why not because the Indian tribes were considered
Speaker 1: foreign nations. In other words, their allegiance was to their
Speaker 1: nation within a nation, not to the United States. Thomas
Speaker 1: and Alito therefore interpret the phrase subject to the jurisdiction
Speaker 1: thereof as referring not merely to geographical presence in America,
Speaker 1: but rather to fundamental allegiance to the United States as
Speaker 1: opposed to some other nation. Now notice that both camps
Speaker 1: here are arguing in terms of principle. The majority camp
Speaker 1: is emphasizing the seemingly plain language of the rule, while
Speaker 1: the dissident camp is emphasizing the underlying motive or intention
Speaker 1: of the framers of the rule. The two sides are
Speaker 1: disagreeing on what the principle is, not on whether a
Speaker 1: principle should decide the issue. Yet, the outrage over birthright
Speaker 1: citizenship and specifically birth tourism has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: any of this. It does not derive at all from
Speaker 1: outrage over the underlying motives of the framers.
Speaker 2: To see this, let's do a thought experiment.
Speaker 1: Let's imagine that the founders did intend to make birthright.
Speaker 2: Citizenship a constitutional right.
Speaker 1: Let's assume that in the nineteenth century, when the country
Speaker 1: had lots of empty space, the framers of the fourteen
Speaker 1: Amendment felt, Hey, it's a big country. We don't mind
Speaker 1: if anyone who comes here for any reason and has
Speaker 1: a kid, that kid should be a US citizen. Now,
Speaker 1: with this diminished today in the least our profound conviction
Speaker 1: that birthright citizenship and birth tourism are a menace and
Speaker 1: must be stopped, would it make us go, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: now that we know what those guys really meant, we're
Speaker 1: going to just go along with it.
Speaker 2: Of course not.
Speaker 1: Our point is that the circumstances have changed. The country
Speaker 1: is now full. The people who are coming here have
Speaker 1: very different goals and motives and the people who came
Speaker 1: in the past. We're facing a national security threat from
Speaker 1: countries like China that exploit our laws in this way.
Speaker 1: In short, our opposition derives entirely from the consequences of birthrights, citizenship,
Speaker 1: and birth tourism. I'm sure that dissenters like Alito and
Speaker 1: Thomas are quite aware of the deleterious consequences, yet remarkably
Speaker 1: they are prevented from openly stating these consequences in their opinions.
Speaker 2: Why is this, Well, it's.
Speaker 1: Because of fifty years of conservative jurisprudence we have taught them.
Speaker 1: We conservatives have collectively affirmed that it is not the
Speaker 1: job of a judge to consider consequences. It is the
Speaker 1: sole responsibility of judges to determine what the Constitution says,
Speaker 1: illuminated in ambiguous cases by figuring out the intentions of
Speaker 1: the framers.
Speaker 2: Once the judge has done that, his job is done.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that if you pressed a Chief Justice Robert
Speaker 1: so Amy Coney Barrett with horror stories about birth tourism,
Speaker 1: they would nod their heads and sympathy and say, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: but it's not our job to worry about outcomes. Our
Speaker 1: job is to figure out and apply what the Constitution
Speaker 1: says and what it means. Our task is one of ascertaining, meaning,
Speaker 1: not deciphering, how the world will turn out if we
Speaker 1: rule this way or that way. So that's what we
Speaker 1: did here, And of course the dissenters who have been
Speaker 1: raised in the same tradition must pretend that that is
Speaker 1: also what they are doing. They must pretend that they're
Speaker 1: concerned with birthright citizenship and birth tourism is not Honduran
Speaker 1: women who sneak into the country with dubious motives, or
Speaker 1: Chinese billionaires who are trying to change the electoral landscape,
Speaker 1: but rather with the correct way to parse the phrases
Speaker 1: in the text, either by consulting their dictionary meaning or
Speaker 1: by excavating the motives.
Speaker 2: Of their drafters.
Speaker 1: I hope you can see here that I'm trying to
Speaker 1: identify not merely the defects of this particular ruling, which
Speaker 1: flies in the face of all sound reasoning and common sense,
Speaker 1: but also to highlight a defect in our constitutional jurisprudence itself.
Speaker 1: What am I saying. I'm saying it's time to put
Speaker 1: thirty years of conservative jurisprudence on trial. Why, because we
Speaker 1: have talked our way into a box. We have elevated
Speaker 1: original meaning and original intent jurisprudence into our highest constitutional principle,
Speaker 1: and in doing so, our Supreme Court conservatives are forced
Speaker 1: to make decisions entirely within this framework. And as we
Speaker 1: can see from this single but crucially important case, the
Speaker 1: framework is inadequate. In fact, the framework almost by itself
Speaker 1: dictates the outcome. And if we keep the framework, we
Speaker 1: risk the very destruction of the country. If we say, yeah,
Speaker 1: but what else can we do, we're basically saying that
Speaker 1: in order to keep our jurisprudential principle, we are willing
Speaker 1: to give up the country itself. Consequences be damned, No,
Speaker 1: this is ridiculous. Consequences must be taken into account, and
Speaker 1: within our jurisprudence itself. We need a maga jurisprudence that
Speaker 1: is not a rejection of Reaganized jurisprudence, but one that
Speaker 1: updates so modifies the Reagan approach to the new situation
Speaker 1: in which we find ourselves today. Doesn't this in a
Speaker 1: way describe the whole MAGA movement. Policy solutions are not sufficient.
Speaker 1: It's not enough to say, Okay, well let's stop pregnant
Speaker 1: people from coming to this country. Okay, well let's stop
Speaker 1: all immigration. Okay, let's prosecute criminal birth tourism schemes. Basically,
Speaker 1: this approach is a way of saying, we're stuck in
Speaker 1: this terrible box. So let's think of creative, even if
Speaker 1: somewhat bizarre, ways to find some small holes in the box.
Speaker 1: But the best way to get out of the box
Speaker 1: is to open the box and step out. How do
Speaker 1: we do this, My answer is really simple. We have
Speaker 1: to reintroduce consequential reasoning into our constitutional jurisprudence. Now, this
Speaker 1: consequential reasoning doesn't mean you can't have principles, but it
Speaker 1: does mean that principles must give way to reasonable exceptions
Speaker 1: when the consequences are bad. Stop applying the principle In short,
Speaker 1: create exceptions. By the way, we do this now with
Speaker 1: some of our fundamental constitutional principles, consider the First Amendment,
Speaker 1: protection of free speech. Quote Congress shall make no law
Speaker 1: restricting freedom of speech end quote. Or really, we have
Speaker 1: all kinds of laws that restrict speech.
Speaker 2: Here are a few.
Speaker 1: You can't shout fire in a crowded theater if there's
Speaker 1: no fire. You can't use free speech to offer to
Speaker 1: bribe a public official. You can't conspire through speech to
Speaker 1: commit crimes. You can't threaten the life of the president.
Speaker 1: You can't even go into a neighborhood with a big
Speaker 1: bullhorn and shout slogans all day.
Speaker 2: But why not.
Speaker 1: Doesn't the Constitution say? Well, yes, it does say, but no.
Speaker 1: One wants to live in a society where speech is
Speaker 1: used in these deleterious ways. The consequences in these important
Speaker 1: cases override the principles. So we have a yes, but application. Yes,
Speaker 1: we believe in free speech in most cases, but not
Speaker 1: in this one, and not in that one, and not.
Speaker 2: In these other cases either.
Speaker 1: I think we need to convince our conservatives on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and conservatives around the country that our previous
Speaker 1: approach to jurisprudence is inadequate, not wrong, but incomplete. We
Speaker 1: need to make room for reasonable exceptions based on an
Speaker 1: evaluation of the consequences. This might require a new test case,
Speaker 1: perhaps one involving Chinese birthright tourism, to get before the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So the Court can rethink, can modify the
Speaker 1: current ruling, but this requires Roberts and Barrett to alter
Speaker 1: their jurisprudence to accept the cogency of the arguments presented here.
Speaker 1: When consequences are taken into account, courts might decide that
Speaker 1: certain types of birthright citizenships, such as a children whose
Speaker 1: parents have been in the country a long while, should
Speaker 1: be permitted, while others, such as tourists who are coming
Speaker 1: here merely to give birth and thereby create US citizens,
Speaker 1: should not. Actions and other words have real world consequences,
Speaker 1: and it's about time the jurisprudence of our highest court
Speaker 1: reflected this reality. And that's the way I see it.
Speaker 1: If you're sixty four or older, here's an inflation report
Speaker 1: you don't hear about, but should. This year, your Medicare
Speaker 1: premiums went up nearly ten percent. Your cost of living
Speaker 1: race under three. Think about that. You can't control premiums,
Speaker 1: but you can control your plan. Millions of seniors are
Speaker 1: on the wrong one, overpaying without even knowing it. They
Speaker 1: are real savings to be had, but most people never
Speaker 1: look chapter does. They're independent. The only Medicare advisors that
Speaker 1: compare every plan nationwide.
Speaker 2: They look at your doctors, your prescriptions.
Speaker 1: What matters to you, and find the plan that protects
Speaker 1: you and your wallet.
Speaker 2: They've helped thousands in my audience.
Speaker 1: Myself included navigate the Medicare maze. Just last year, those
Speaker 1: who found you plans with Chapters saved an average of
Speaker 1: eleven hundred dollars on healthcare. Some of you told me
Speaker 1: you saved as much as four thousand or five thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: all from one twenty minute call call Chapter. Today, they're
Speaker 1: a free resource for my audience. Seven oh six two
Speaker 1: six two four seven seven four. Again that's seven oh
Speaker 1: six two six two four seven seven four. Stop paying
Speaker 1: more than you should. Here's the thing about crypto, it's
Speaker 1: here to stay.
Speaker 2: That argument is over. But think about it.
Speaker 1: If this is a market that never sleeps, it's moving
Speaker 1: at midnight, it's two am, three am, and while you're asleep,
Speaker 1: who's watching. Because here's what nobody tells you. Most crypto
Speaker 1: platforms give you a log in, wish you luck and call.
Speaker 2: It a day. That's not investing.
Speaker 1: That's gambling with your retirement and hoping for the best.
Speaker 1: That's why I've partnered with block trust IRA. Block trust
Speaker 1: Ira is cryptoio built for Americans who refuse to be
Speaker 1: on the losing side of that equation. Their award winning
Speaker 1: AI engine navigates the notoriously volatile crypto markets around the clock,
Speaker 1: automatically rebalancing your portfolio to protect your gains and limit
Speaker 1: your exposure when markets swing. No panic, no emotion, no
Speaker 1: missleep At three am. Your savings sit inside a two
Speaker 1: hundred million dollar institutional grade insurance shield, managed intelligently and
Speaker 1: secured from day one.
Speaker 2: Their AI never sleeps.
Speaker 1: It's rebalancing your portfolio around the clock, managing risk, responding
Speaker 1: to volatility, protecting what you've built, automatically, intelligently, without panic.
Speaker 1: Voted Bitcoin Magazine number one Technology platform, and that doesn't
Speaker 1: surprise me one bit. Open your CRYPTOIRA today and block trust.
Speaker 1: IRA will give you up to a twenty five hundred
Speaker 1: dollars inflation shield bonus.
Speaker 2: It's right into your account.
Speaker 1: Go to dneshcrypto dot com and sign up today. They
Speaker 1: can print dollars, but they cannot print crypto. That's dneshcrypto
Speaker 1: dot com. Ken it seems that there's a project underway,
Speaker 1: led by a bunch of activists to islamlify the state
Speaker 1: of Texas, to bring Islam to Texas and to increase
Speaker 1: the influence of Islam in Texas. Just something that worries.
Speaker 1: He was just a good thing or a bad thing.
Speaker 3: So look, I've always been a First Amendment I believe
Speaker 3: with the constitition, with the Founders put in place in
Speaker 3: the First Amendment of free speech, free expression of religion.
Speaker 3: I think it's been fundamental to our country to have
Speaker 3: that freedom. But we when we look at what's going
Speaker 3: on in Europe and countries being taken over and allowing
Speaker 3: Sharia law and the influence of Shria law to take
Speaker 3: over the legal system. That's where I start having difficulties
Speaker 3: because those law laws are in conflict with our constitution
Speaker 3: and sometimes in conflict with federal and state laws. And
Speaker 3: when that's occurring, that is a concern to me because
Speaker 3: we will lose our constitutional republic and our freedoms if
Speaker 3: we do not protect those laws.
Speaker 1: Some people say that the issue is Islamic radicalism or extremism,
Speaker 1: and we heard that kind of vocabulary going back to
Speaker 1: nine to eleven. Other people think that it is Islam itself.
Speaker 2: Which do you think it is?
Speaker 4: So I don't know.
Speaker 3: All I know is that As a lawyer, the thing
Speaker 3: that I can address is the law. I can't address
Speaker 3: whether somebody in their heart has bad intentions. I can
Speaker 3: only address what they actually do in their behavior. So
Speaker 3: if they are violating state law or they are violating
Speaker 3: the Constitution, that we can try to address that, and
Speaker 3: we have. We've sued different entities that have tried to
Speaker 3: promote either Shari law or they have tried to promote
Speaker 3: violation of our state and state and federal laws. And
Speaker 3: that's where I come in. Whether they have bad intent
Speaker 3: I don't know. I just I know that we don't
Speaker 3: have problems with people that are peace loving and that
Speaker 3: are willing to follow our laws. I can't really address
Speaker 3: that because the Constitution created an environment where that's possible.
Speaker 3: You just can't be violent, you can't promote terrorism, you
Speaker 3: can't promote different laws in our country. And that's the
Speaker 3: defining to me, Those are the defining issues.
Speaker 1: Over the centuries, we've had many people come to America
Speaker 1: from the outside, and initially it was the Irish, the Italians,
Speaker 1: the Jews. Later you have people coming from outside of
Speaker 1: Western civilization, and by and large, it seems that the
Speaker 1: structures of the Constitution were quite adequate to deal with that. Right,
Speaker 1: If you are Hindu and you want to practice Hinduism,
Speaker 1: no problem, however, just don't break the law. The trick
Speaker 1: that I want to raise with you, you have with
Speaker 1: Islam a religion that is also a worldview and a
Speaker 1: jurisprudence and an educational system, so that the mosque functions
Speaker 1: a little differently in Islam than say a Hindu temple
Speaker 1: or a church. And so do you think that the
Speaker 1: Constitution by itself adequately deals with the issues raised by Islam?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think it does.
Speaker 3: What maybe we haven't focused on is state and federal
Speaker 3: law addressing the problems that come about when they follow
Speaker 3: Sharer law as oppose following our laws. So I don't
Speaker 3: think we've fully contemplated how to address that from state legislature,
Speaker 3: from the federal government, and the legislature in Washington, d C.
Speaker 3: But the Constitution, I think is pretty open to just
Speaker 3: free expression.
Speaker 4: I don't have to agree with you.
Speaker 3: As long as you are following our laws, you're not violent,
Speaker 3: you're not promoting harmed the people, and you're just freely worshiped.
Speaker 3: I can completely disagree with you, and that's all fine,
Speaker 3: and we can still have a society that I think
Speaker 3: functions the way that the founders intenda which with complete freedom.
Speaker 4: And by the way, you have.
Speaker 3: The opportunity to express your views and try to convince
Speaker 3: me that you're right. And I had the right to
Speaker 3: express my view and try to convince you that possibly
Speaker 3: I'm right.
Speaker 1: Let's say that I'm coming at this from the Islamic perspective,
Speaker 1: and I have the idea that here I am in America,
Speaker 1: and we have all these freedoms, and I'm going to
Speaker 1: use these freedoms but to get me to a destination
Speaker 1: where I'm strong enough to start extinguishing them one by one. So,
Speaker 1: for example, I'm going to run my guys for school board.
Speaker 1: I'm going to run them for city council. I'm going
Speaker 1: to try to expand the number of Muslims and the Congress,
Speaker 1: for example.
Speaker 4: And our goal is.
Speaker 1: Shari a law, but not surely a law. Now, Shari
Speaker 1: a law when we're strong enough to insist upon it.
Speaker 1: And again when we insist upon it, we won't insist
Speaker 1: upon it like Sharia for the whole country.
Speaker 2: It'll be well.
Speaker 1: Listen, we need to have these no go zones where
Speaker 1: keep the cops out keep the laws we'll have, sure
Speaker 1: we form Muslims in those areas, and then you expand
Speaker 1: outward from there.
Speaker 4: In other words, what I'm.
Speaker 1: Getting at is using the passport of our liberties to
Speaker 1: take us to a destination that would crush those liberties.
Speaker 4: Yeah, look, I would be completely opposing that.
Speaker 3: Obviously, these are what most people come here to live under,
Speaker 3: which is the freedom that we have versus other countries.
Speaker 3: So if there are groups, if there are Muslim groups
Speaker 3: trying to do that, I think we have to oppose them.
Speaker 3: We have, and this is why elections matter. This is
Speaker 3: why people have to show up at elections if they're
Speaker 3: organizing better and they can try to influence policy towards
Speaker 3: that direction. I mean, if we're not fighting it, we
Speaker 3: can definitely lose our country from inside. And certainly that's
Speaker 3: not what I want and I would do everything I
Speaker 3: could to fight that and oppose that. But that's why
Speaker 3: Americans have to pay attention to what's going on, and
Speaker 3: they can't just believe everything that the media feeds them.
Speaker 3: They need to understand what's really going on.
Speaker 1: The reason I think the sort of theological aspect is relevant.
Speaker 1: And i'd like you as a lawyer to sort of
Speaker 1: take stock of this. Is America's based on we the people,
Speaker 1: and the fundamental idea is that the people are the
Speaker 1: source of the laws. Islam is based on the idea
Speaker 1: that the laws are handed down from on high. Allah
Speaker 1: makes the law that's the meaning of Shariah, so that
Speaker 1: the people have nothing to do with it. The people
Speaker 1: are merely the instruments of Allah in like carrying out
Speaker 1: those laws. And as I look at these two things,
Speaker 1: they are kind of radically opposed to each other. Not
Speaker 1: opposed on the edges, they're opposed fundamentally.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I do would disagree with that.
Speaker 3: I think that sharial law is in direct conflict with
Speaker 3: our constitution, with state law and some federal law. So
Speaker 3: I think, yes, if you are promoting a separate system
Speaker 3: of law that comes from Allah versus what comes from
Speaker 3: the people, the people who elect their representatives to make
Speaker 3: these laws, that's a real problem. And I consider that
Speaker 3: a real problem.
Speaker 1: Is it possible to say that Islam is the problem
Speaker 1: not necessarily Muslims, And by that I mean you could
Speaker 1: have a Muslim guy that is or is not in
Speaker 1: sort of full conformity with the kind of deep down
Speaker 1: doctrines of Islam. So the issue isn't the Muslim but
Speaker 1: it is the ideology, which, as I said, is not
Speaker 1: just a theology, but includes a philosophy and a jurisprudence
Speaker 1: and really a comprehensive doctrine of society.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So if you're following that doctrine that we all have
Speaker 3: to be under Sharia law, that somehow terrorism harming people
Speaker 3: is is is okay because we have a greater goal here.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's a real problem.
Speaker 3: And I think that if that is what is going
Speaker 3: on in certain segments of Islam, that does not work
Speaker 3: with our constitutional form of government. It does not even
Speaker 3: work with the idea that we're free, because that's controlled
Speaker 3: by a few people, not everybody.
Speaker 1: How do you handle the politics of this. You're campaigning
Speaker 1: for the Senate. There are Muslims in the state of Texas.
Speaker 1: I assume you want at least some of them, maybe
Speaker 1: a lot of them to vote for you. If the
Speaker 1: Muslim goes, hey, listen, I'm a Muslim, so I subscribe
Speaker 1: to the Quran, and whatever it says in the Quran,
Speaker 1: I may not know everything in there, but whatever it
Speaker 1: says I'm on board with. And you're telling me that
Speaker 1: there's something wrong with my religion. How would you answer that?
Speaker 4: First, I don't have to agree with anybody's religion. I don't.
Speaker 4: I mean, I have my own faith.
Speaker 3: It's different from many faith but that doesn't mean we
Speaker 3: can't agree that certain people are better representing us in
Speaker 3: the US Senate or in Congress. It's not based on
Speaker 3: necessarily do I agree with every tenet of every religion.
Speaker 4: I don't. I have known faith that is different than
Speaker 4: many faiths.
Speaker 3: But I have people from all kinds of faiths that
Speaker 3: are willing to support me because they like the agenda,
Speaker 3: the freedom agenda that we promote, one that is based
Speaker 3: on the Constitution, that's based on the power coming from
Speaker 3: the people and being accountable to them. And I would
Speaker 3: assume that there are some Muslims that actually want that.
Speaker 3: They came here for the freedom that we all experience,
Speaker 3: and if you want something different, my push to them
Speaker 3: would be, then go somewhere different.
Speaker 1: Here's a hypothetical which is not that far from from
Speaker 1: what's happening in Texas. So an Islamic group comes to you,
Speaker 1: you're in the Senate, and they say, hey, we want
Speaker 1: to buy five thousand acres of land in Texas. It's
Speaker 1: the free market. We're going to pay with our own money.
Speaker 1: We want to construct the largest mosque in Texas.
Speaker 2: We want to create.
Speaker 1: A madrasa school from Muslim boys. And yeah, we're going
Speaker 1: to be teaching the Koran and we're going to be
Speaker 1: teaching sure, real law. But you believe in free markets,
Speaker 1: you believe in free speech, you believe in freedom of religion.
Speaker 1: On what grounds would you oppose us? You should be
Speaker 1: supporting us, because this is a conservative thing that we're doing.
Speaker 1: What would you say.
Speaker 3: I would say, you have every right to express your
Speaker 3: religion however you want to. Whatch you don't have a
Speaker 3: right to do is impose those laws on a segment
Speaker 3: of the population that are different than the laws that
Speaker 3: the overall population of that state or of the United
Speaker 3: States has put in place. That you can't do that
Speaker 3: in the United States. So you can talk about any
Speaker 3: issue you want to. It can be very extreme, it
Speaker 3: can be very as long as you're not promoting harming people.
Speaker 3: You can have all the views you want that are
Speaker 3: different than anything that I might think is right. It's
Speaker 3: your right in this country to have different views, to
Speaker 3: express those views, to worship however you want to, but
Speaker 3: you cannot impose your own legal system that is separate
Speaker 3: and apart from the legal system that we have in
Speaker 3: this country.
Speaker 4: That is unconstitutional and is not acceptable.
Speaker 1: You just went through a bruising but ultimately highly successful
Speaker 1: campaign against Cornin. Now people sometimes call Cornin a rhino,
Speaker 1: but he wasn't a rhino in the sense that he
Speaker 1: wasn't one of these guys who was constantly subverting the
Speaker 1: Republican or the Trump or the MAGA agenda.
Speaker 2: He claimed.
Speaker 1: I think, with some justification, I'm mostly on board with Trump,
Speaker 1: and yet you were able to challenge him, expose him,
Speaker 1: and defeat him, and quite easily and decisively. How did
Speaker 1: you do that?
Speaker 3: I think just exposing his record that he did have
Speaker 3: certain issues, whether it was Second Amendment, whether it was
Speaker 3: the border, whether it's just being not in favor of
Speaker 3: Trunk being elected.
Speaker 4: Either time.
Speaker 3: It's one thing to talk about, it's another thing to
Speaker 3: show proof of that. And so I think, you know,
Speaker 3: I always tell people look at the record, not the rhetoric,
Speaker 3: and the record is oftentimes different than the rhetorican in
Speaker 3: this case, I think that proved to be true.
Speaker 4: So you know, we need to move on.
Speaker 3: I'm ready to move on and focus on the next round.
Speaker 3: We've got to unite all the Republicans, whether you've voted for.
Speaker 4: Me or not.
Speaker 3: We've got to defeat this guy, James tell Rico, who
Speaker 3: is I think the most radical politician that has ever
Speaker 3: run in Texas, and he's out in San Francisco right
Speaker 3: now raising money from the people that he actually agrees with.
Speaker 1: Making an important point here, I think, which is that
Speaker 1: you actually need the corn in voters to come over
Speaker 1: to your side, and you get them in part by
Speaker 1: exposing how bad taal Rico is right.
Speaker 3: And just because John and I had disagreements, they're not
Speaker 3: the same kind of disagreements that I have with James Tealerrico.
Speaker 3: Those are much Those are like as wide of a
Speaker 3: chasm as you can get. John and I had disagreements
Speaker 3: over certain issues, but it isn't like being I mean,
Speaker 3: he was a Republican and so we do have some similarities.
Speaker 3: And when you're in elections, you have to pick. You
Speaker 3: only have two choices in selection. You have to pick
Speaker 3: the one that you think is going to best represent you.
Speaker 3: And in this case, you couldn't have a more diverse choice.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to understand this tallaryical phenomenon, because if I
Speaker 1: were running the DNC or or the Democratic Party in Texas,
Speaker 1: I would say, look, it's really important to get some
Speaker 1: guy who is very centrist to run in Texas. It's
Speaker 1: a red state. How on earth are we going to
Speaker 1: beat a Paxton. We need a guy who's sort of
Speaker 1: a rancher. We need a guy who's kind of like
Speaker 1: a man's man. We need a guy who's sort of
Speaker 1: right leaning, at least on certain issues.
Speaker 2: They don't do that.
Speaker 1: They go find this Tallarico character who you know, he
Speaker 1: puts on a cowboy hat three times the size of
Speaker 1: his head, and he has a photo of him in
Speaker 1: a truck. But it seems to be a masquerade. And
Speaker 1: my question is, why are the Dems going for a masquerade?
Speaker 1: Why don't they try to find a real candidate.
Speaker 4: Maybe they can't. Maybe they can't. I think that may
Speaker 4: be the real problem.
Speaker 3: So they're going with They're going with the personality as
Speaker 3: opposed to real character that represents the values of Texas.
Speaker 3: They couldn't have picked anybody worse to represent the values
Speaker 3: of Texas.
Speaker 4: So what do they do?
Speaker 3: This is typical of them, they masquerade as somebody that
Speaker 3: is different than what they actually are. So if you
Speaker 3: look at James Talerico's actual views, he's running from all
Speaker 3: of them, all the ones that he ran on in
Speaker 3: the primary, all the ones that he supported in the
Speaker 3: Texas legislature. Now suddenly he's adopting not just a little
Speaker 3: different version, completely different version.
Speaker 4: I am not that guy. What did he say?
Speaker 3: I was taking his cringy comments and focusing on them.
Speaker 3: I know, I'm taking your real positions on issues that
Speaker 3: are very radical for Texas that would fit in San Francisco,
Speaker 3: because that's obviously why he's there, because he knows those
Speaker 3: people will write checks to him because they want him
Speaker 3: to represent Texas, and they're using their money to make
Speaker 3: that happen.
Speaker 1: Tall Rico has a very well, he would call it
Speaker 1: a progressive Christianity. It appears to be, at least for
Speaker 1: traditional Christians, a very strange doctrine because he'll talk about
Speaker 1: the fact that you know, Mary, in conceiving Jesus was
Speaker 1: actually exercising the pro choice position, or he'll talk about
Speaker 1: God being non binary. I mean, this is not normally
Speaker 1: the stuff of politics, because it's getting into the issues
Speaker 1: of theology. But how do you how do you respond
Speaker 1: to this kind of exotica.
Speaker 3: Say, it's it's he's deceptive, it's not the theology of Christianity,
Speaker 3: of any kind of historical Christianity that he holds, And
Speaker 3: it's it's dangerous because he's he's deceiving people about what
Speaker 3: these scriptures actually say. There's very few historical Christians that
Speaker 3: would agree with his view that that somehow abortion is
Speaker 3: approved by Mary and the range between marry and God,
Speaker 3: that God's non binary. You know that there are six genders.
Speaker 3: That is not historical Christianity. That is a something else.
Speaker 3: It's that I would consider antithetical to Christianity. It would
Speaker 3: be it would be views that were actually opposed by scripture,
Speaker 3: that are opposed by most Christians. So I think it's
Speaker 3: it's a little scary that he is promoting himself as
Speaker 3: a pastor and somebody that's an expert on the scriptures,
Speaker 3: when in reality he has in his head what he
Speaker 3: wants and he goes out and creates scriptural basis for
Speaker 3: making up his own Bible.
Speaker 1: And is your campaign strategy pretty simple, which is just
Speaker 1: take these positions, these extreme positions theological political highlight them
Speaker 1: kind of put it in people's faces, and they're going
Speaker 1: to the ordinary text and is going to go, I'm
Speaker 1: not on board with that. I mean, do you have
Speaker 1: to do anything more than that in this right now?
Speaker 4: That's it's pretty simple.
Speaker 3: The campaign is let people know, because you know, no
Speaker 3: one really knows James Seller here. What have he's been
Speaker 3: in the sex legislature. What are his accomplishments He has
Speaker 3: virtually none.
Speaker 4: So what we have is his.
Speaker 3: Promoting certain things, him voting against For instance, when they
Speaker 3: tried to ban transitioning children, he.
Speaker 4: Voted against him.
Speaker 3: But now he says he's not for transitioning kids. Well,
Speaker 3: then why did you vote that way? So it's really
Speaker 3: easy for him to come back off of these issues
Speaker 3: and say he's not.
Speaker 4: He doesn't believe those anymore.
Speaker 3: Those are just cringey issues that I took to use
Speaker 3: against them. No, these are the things you promoted while
Speaker 3: you were a representatives. You were doing interviews, promoting these views,
Speaker 3: and now suddenly you know you can't win in Texas. California, yes,
Speaker 3: San Francisco, yes, where you are now, but you cannot
Speaker 3: win in Texas holding the views that James Tallerica holds
Speaker 3: and So what does he do.
Speaker 4: He runs from all of them.
Speaker 3: Now, you know he was ahead of vegan campaign because
Speaker 3: you know we're harming the environment by eating meat.
Speaker 4: Now you see him doing videos eating meat.
Speaker 3: He claimed that the flag was a complicated, you know
Speaker 3: American symbol that you know has its issues.
Speaker 4: Well, now he's wearing a flag is his shirt. So
Speaker 4: he is.
Speaker 3: Running away from almost every single position that he knows
Speaker 3: Texans won't vote for him.
Speaker 4: Well, no, I don't believe those anymore. Vote for me anyway.
Speaker 3: We're going to put those back and say, wait a minute,
Speaker 3: how do you justify what you said and how you
Speaker 3: voted with what you're telling us now?
Speaker 4: Are you a liar?
Speaker 3: Or did you have a radical transformation when you won
Speaker 3: the Democratic primary and now you're in a general what happened?
Speaker 1: Well, seems to me he's in a trap because he
Speaker 1: could say I have really undergone a conversion, sort of
Speaker 1: like I used to be an atheist and now I'm
Speaker 1: a Christian. I used to be a vegan now. But
Speaker 1: usually people who have those transformations have got to give
Speaker 1: a sincere and believable account of how they got from
Speaker 1: here to there. I think the problem is that for
Speaker 1: him he's got to convince the liberal billionaires who give
Speaker 1: him money, no, I'm still with you. And at the
Speaker 1: same time he's got to convince the Texans I'm with you. Right.
Speaker 1: So isn't he forced to play this double game where
Speaker 1: he speaks, as they used to say, with four kid tongue.
Speaker 3: If he'd actually had a transformation, what he have spent
Speaker 3: several days in San Francisco raising money, he had a
Speaker 3: real transformation, he would be very vocal about that transformation.
Speaker 3: And those people in San Francisco who are trying to
Speaker 3: help him become the next US centator from Texas would
Speaker 3: not be supporting him. Would They would be running from
Speaker 3: him because if he was being honest then with them
Speaker 3: about those views, they wouldn't support him. So he's playing
Speaker 3: it both ways, right. He's raising money under the umbrella
Speaker 3: of who he really is. He's running publicly in Texas
Speaker 3: under the umbrella no, I'm not that guy, even though
Speaker 3: I raise all my money from those people and I
Speaker 3: tell them that I am that guy. Believe me, please,
Speaker 3: I don't believe any of those views. Now that I'm
Speaker 3: running for Texas senator, I'm out of the primary.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about this save Act because one of the
Speaker 1: actually I think master strokes of your campaign is you
Speaker 1: at one point even declared, Hey, if the Senate will
Speaker 1: pass the Save Act and if Cornyn and Thune will
Speaker 1: push this through, I'll get out of the race. They
Speaker 1: didn't do it, And my question is why didn't they
Speaker 1: do it? I mean, this is a voter ID has.
Speaker 2: Widespread public support. It's an eighty twenty issue.
Speaker 1: As some people like to say, why on earth would
Speaker 1: Republicans who know this and they can see the data
Speaker 1: as well as you and I can. What's going on
Speaker 1: with the Senate and with the sort of establishment that
Speaker 1: you've been to some degree running against.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so there apparently are Republican centers some who are
Speaker 3: leaving that don't believe that's a worthy bill, and I
Speaker 3: don't understand it. I don't think there is a more
Speaker 3: worthy bill up there, because we do not protect our
Speaker 3: elections with the photo ID, making sure that non citizens
Speaker 3: are not voting, making sure that our mail in ballots
Speaker 3: are not being used to defraud us, which they are
Speaker 3: all over the country and they tried to do it here.
Speaker 4: We none of our issues are going to matter.
Speaker 3: So oh, yeah, you can protect the filibuster all you want,
Speaker 3: but if we lose control of all of these states,
Speaker 3: we're not going to have a Republican majority anyway, because
Speaker 3: they're going to cheat in all these dates. They already
Speaker 3: doing in most of the Democratic states. It's why we
Speaker 3: can't win them. They why does it take? You know,
Speaker 3: however many days count ballots in California, it takes a
Speaker 3: little while to cheat.
Speaker 4: And they are absolutely with mail in ballots. We don't
Speaker 4: know who's voting. If you don't if you can mail
Speaker 4: up mail, abust.
Speaker 3: Everybody, and you have no idea through photo ID or
Speaker 3: through at least a signature verification, who's sending him back.
Speaker 3: One hundred percent, there is fraud going on at a
Speaker 3: massive level. And if we are not going to fix
Speaker 3: that as Republicans, and we will, we have something to
Speaker 3: count on in the future, which is a Democratic majority
Speaker 3: that we can never unsea because once they rig the
Speaker 3: elections in these states and we haven't fixed them in time,
Speaker 3: that when we've lost our majority, game over none of
Speaker 3: our issues matter anyway. So I don't know how you
Speaker 3: defend a filibuster, as valuable as that might be to
Speaker 3: stop bad legislation.
Speaker 4: I do not disagree with that.
Speaker 3: I like the filibuster from the standpoint being a minority,
Speaker 3: but we are at a crucial stage in our history
Speaker 3: that if we do not protect elections, the filibuster has
Speaker 3: no meaning.
Speaker 1: Do you think that the reason that that Thune is
Speaker 1: acting the way he is is he has thew you
Speaker 1: kind of the Marquis of Queensbury rules, which is, hey, listen,
Speaker 1: we need to protect the filibuster because we want to
Speaker 1: make sure that they don't get rid of the filibuster.
Speaker 1: But of course they the Democrats, if they were in
Speaker 1: our position, would have done it anyway. And second of all,
Speaker 1: they're getting ready to do it when they need to
Speaker 1: when they're in power. So we are our side is
Speaker 1: resting on a kind of gentleman's agreement, with no confidence
Speaker 1: that we're dealing with gentlemen in the first place.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I think part of it is, you know,
Speaker 3: if you look at the US Senate, he doesn't have
Speaker 3: the member.
Speaker 4: Votes to get it done. And that to me is
Speaker 4: a problem.
Speaker 3: That's a sad problem for the republic majority that cannot
Speaker 3: govern because we don't have the wisdom to see what's
Speaker 3: coming at us. And you know, they're going to hold
Speaker 3: onto their seats for a little while longer, but eventually
Speaker 3: they're not going to be able to maintain the majority
Speaker 3: because if the elections are not fair and free of
Speaker 3: most fraud, this idea that they're somehow protecting against being
Speaker 3: a minority is just you know, it's a pipe dream.
Speaker 3: It's not gonna work out.
Speaker 1: Taller Rico seems to me one of his weapons that
Speaker 1: he's already started like unfurling against you, is he says,
Speaker 1: I'm a straight lace guy. Ken has a very checker
Speaker 1: and he's been impeached. He's got this, he's got accusations
Speaker 1: of extramarrial affairs. Texans need to vote for the straight
Speaker 1: lace tallar Rico and not the dubious Ken Paxton.
Speaker 3: Well, first of all, you'll know that when you are
Speaker 3: fighting the fight, you know what happens. They come after you.
Speaker 3: It's what happened to Donald Trump. Matter of fact, I
Speaker 3: have a very similar history with him. I mean we've
Speaker 3: both been impeached. He's been impeached twice, I've been impeached once.
Speaker 3: We've both gone through indictments. He's had more indictments. But
Speaker 3: when you're in the middle of the fight with the
Speaker 3: left and even some of the establishment. They come after you,
Speaker 3: and look, why does it not matter that they have
Speaker 3: to prove what they actually are accusing you of, and
Speaker 3: yet they go on accusing you as if you've.
Speaker 4: Done it with no proof.
Speaker 3: So what I would say is, these are people that
Speaker 3: they don't want to talk about the issues.
Speaker 4: They want to talk about personal stuff. They don't want to.
Speaker 3: Talk about the issues because they know that if we're
Speaker 3: talking about James Talerico's positions on boys and girls sports,
Speaker 3: on transitioning children, on saying that you know he's running
Speaker 3: a vegan campaign, on saying that God's non binary, the
Speaker 3: list goes onto saying that you can't be Christian and
Speaker 3: spoil the you know, oil and gas industry. These are
Speaker 3: things that he doesn't want to talk about. So let's
Speaker 3: make it personal. Let's not talk about all my bad
Speaker 3: positions that will hurt the country.
Speaker 4: Let's try to make him look like he's a bad guy. Well,
Speaker 4: guess what.
Speaker 3: The voters of Texas have spoken many many times. They've
Speaker 3: been coming after me for over a decade. They came out,
Speaker 3: They've come after Trump Trump for over a decade, and
Speaker 3: the people of Texas will see through it.
Speaker 1: Ken, what are some things that you did as Attorney
Speaker 1: General to deal with the problem of the Islamification of Texas.
Speaker 4: So my focus is always in the law.
Speaker 3: I'm a lawyer, I represent the state, I represent all
Speaker 3: the agencies of governor or legislature. So one we've defended
Speaker 3: when the Muslim Brotherhood and Cares sued the governor when
Speaker 3: he eliminated certain practices. But also when we've seen examples
Speaker 3: of certain entities Islam related who are not following Texas law,
Speaker 3: we've sued him or we've investigated him. So we've shut
Speaker 3: down certain developments out in Coffin County. We've sued over
Speaker 3: the Epic City over a couple of different issues. One
Speaker 3: is violation of state security laws. We also think they
Speaker 3: violiated federal securities laws. And then we also.
Speaker 4: Think they did not appropriately manage the way.
Speaker 3: The process is supposed to be done with open meetings
Speaker 3: and the way those are supposed to be accomplished.
Speaker 4: So we suit them over that.
Speaker 3: So when you don't follow our laws, then we are going.
Speaker 4: To address that.
Speaker 3: As i SA said earlier, if you want to go worship,
Speaker 3: you go worship the way you want. If you want
Speaker 3: to exist in our society, you have to follow our state,
Speaker 3: our federal and our constitution. That's where I come in
Speaker 3: to try to focus on. If you're not doing that,
Speaker 3: we're going to stop you.
Speaker 1: Would it be fair to say that your position, even
Speaker 1: where broadly can be summarized like this, that if there
Speaker 1: are Islamic groups that are running a foul of the law,
Speaker 1: you can count on the authorities, or you should count
Speaker 1: on the authorities to be able to crack down on it.
Speaker 1: But if you have a larger problem, let's say, you know,
Speaker 1: you think that Islam is changing the cultural environment of Texas,
Speaker 1: or there are too many mosques in the suburbs, then
Speaker 1: guess what. It's your job as a voter to step
Speaker 1: forward and be as active as the Muslims apparently are
Speaker 1: in exercising your ballot and voting for the Texas that
Speaker 1: you want.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, this is fundamental to a free society. It's fundamental
Speaker 3: with the founder's envision was direct involvement of the people.
Speaker 3: Put the power in the hands of the people. And
Speaker 3: if you're not paying attention, if you're not paying attention
Speaker 3: to the issues around you, whether positive or negative, and
Speaker 3: you're not voting, then guess what. You can lose your
Speaker 3: state We've seen it happen. You can lose your country.
Speaker 3: We've seen other countries loss. We have a responsibility for
Speaker 3: our children, for ourselves and for our grandchild to step up,
Speaker 3: pay attention, vote and help the people that are doing
Speaker 3: the things that we want done.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, thank you.
Speaker 1: Big news coming out on silver right now. The US
Speaker 1: just added silver to the Critical Minerals List.
Speaker 2: What does this mean?
Speaker 1: This is an important list of minerals that are considered
Speaker 1: crucial for US security and economic viability. So when you
Speaker 1: buy silver to help protect your savings, you're also buying
Speaker 1: a critical mineral that's needed for the US and its
Speaker 1: economy to survive. That's why I want you to reach
Speaker 1: out to my partners over at gold Co. They're the
Speaker 1: number one gold and silver company in the country. They
Speaker 1: have all eight thousand and five star reviews, and they
Speaker 1: have the best gold and silver offer in the business.
Speaker 1: So don't put this off, don't ignore the facts. Get
Speaker 1: your free twenty twenty six gold and silver kit from
Speaker 1: gold Co while you still can, and get up to
Speaker 1: ten percent in bonus gold or silver while supplies last.
Speaker 1: Go to dinesh goold dot com. That's Dinesh Gold dot com.
Speaker 2: I'm now on substack.
Speaker 1: It's a platform for articles and videos, and I've just
Speaker 1: released a series of articles on the five key American Founders.
Speaker 1: This is in honor of America's two hundred and fiftieth
Speaker 1: anniversary and of course, in celebration of July fourth this week.
Speaker 2: So who are these founders?
Speaker 1: Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin.
Speaker 1: My idea is not to try and tell the life
Speaker 1: story of these men, but rather to identify the one
Speaker 1: big idea that each of them stood for their unique
Speaker 1: count tribution to the founding of America and to the
Speaker 1: America we live in now. I think you'll find my
Speaker 1: account's memorable, educational, inspiring. To read them, go to Dinesh
Speaker 1: Desuza No apostrophe, Denesh Deesuza dot substack dot com. Become
Speaker 1: a monthly subscriber. But I also have lots of free
Speaker 1: content on substack, and you're welcome to check it all
Speaker 1: out and then decide if you want to subscribe. Once again,
Speaker 1: go to Dinesh Desuza dot substack dot com. Guys, I
Speaker 1: want to announce I have a new book coming out
Speaker 1: in the Fall I'm very excited about. It's called The
Speaker 1: Stones cry Out subtitle Biblical Archaeology, Prophecy and the Last Days.
Speaker 1: The book outlines the greatest discoveries in Biblical archaeology that
Speaker 1: affirm the Bible, confirm the presence of the Jews and
Speaker 1: the Holy Land, and also support the twin foundations of
Speaker 1: Western civilization, which are Athens and Jerusalem. The Stones cry
Speaker 1: Out has rave review from archaeologists, from leading pastors, and
Speaker 1: from prominent commentators of the book, published by Charisma Books,
Speaker 1: is available now for pre orders on Amazon. So I'm
Speaker 1: calling a new early birds to order your copies now.
Speaker 1: You'll be the first to get it when it's out.