Speaker 1: I'm Josh Hammer and this is the Josh Hammer Show.
Speaker 1: It's transgender argument day at the United States Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Plenty of other massive news to get to. Some huge,
Speaker 1: huge cultural decisions will be decided by the nine justices
Speaker 1: based on how this or argument in today's hearing went.
Speaker 1: But the big story that the international community and most
Speaker 1: Americans are really fixated that are paying attention to right
Speaker 1: now and how can we not address it at the
Speaker 1: top of the show, that is the roiling situation in Iran.
Speaker 1: So it is reaching rapidly something of a boiling point.
Speaker 1: Earlier today, Donald Trump getting in briefed with his latest
Speaker 1: assessment as to what the possible options are as to
Speaker 1: what to do at this particular time when it comes
Speaker 1: to the horrific regime crackdown, regime crackdown on the innocent
Speaker 1: civilians who are rising up, who are risking their lives,
Speaker 1: their fortune, and their sacred honor. Yes, that is the
Speaker 1: analogy draw here. They are risking it much as the
Speaker 1: patriots of seventeen seventy six risk it in order to
Speaker 1: try to topple this terrible regime. As of yesterday, we
Speaker 1: were discussing on the show that the inside the Inside
Speaker 1: Baseball scoop that I heard from various sources was potentially
Speaker 1: upwards of two thousand Iranian civilians who have been slaughtered.
Speaker 1: I'm still hearing it's in the thousands. For what it's worth,
Speaker 1: I'm now hearing from some folks over at CBS News.
Speaker 1: It's very, very difficult to get precise numbers on this stuff,
Speaker 1: and partially because of the Internet blackout parts, because the
Speaker 1: foam blackout parts are because this part of the world
Speaker 1: is just infamously difficult to get accurate numbers, see for instance,
Speaker 1: the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is run by Hamas.
Speaker 1: But for whatever it's worth, folks over at CBS and
Speaker 1: least those who I've been in touch with are are
Speaker 1: estimating potentially potentially as many as twenty thousand. Potentially take
Speaker 1: take them with a grain of salt, Okay, a big
Speaker 1: grin of sault, potentially, but we could be looking at
Speaker 1: upwards of twenty thousand innocent to runians. Billions mowed down
Speaker 1: by this regime. Again, all sorts of anecdotal stuff. Images
Speaker 1: popping up over social media of just body bags upon
Speaker 1: body bags upon body bags at the hospital, at the Morgue.
Speaker 1: It's a horrible, horrible situation. Well over million millions now
Speaker 1: of Iranians who have been taken to the streets in
Speaker 1: protests of this regime. This particular protest, as discussed previously
Speaker 1: on this show, have happened because of the plumbing real
Speaker 1: of the Iranian currency, because of food scarcity, of the droughts.
Speaker 1: That people just want the regime to focus on themselves
Speaker 1: as opposed to funding all of their terrorist proxies and
Speaker 1: all of the sheited insuluments, propaganda overseas and so forth.
Speaker 1: By the way, as an aside, I have to say,
Speaker 1: putting on my pop culture lens here just for a
Speaker 1: secondifem I actually just started season three of Tehran, which
Speaker 1: is the show on Apple TV, strongly encouraged at the
Speaker 1: timing really could not be more incredible. But we just
Speaker 1: started that in season three is off to a good start.
Speaker 1: So I was watching that last night. It's like, oh
Speaker 1: my god, this is really happening in real life. So
Speaker 1: that is million dollar question though, is is it happening
Speaker 1: in real life? Because we see now what's going on
Speaker 1: over in Iran, and it's it's bad. But where's auth
Speaker 1: these going to go from here? Moreover, is the Trump
Speaker 1: administration speaking clearly and with one voice on this issue.
Speaker 1: This has been one of the most difficult, thorniest evergreen
Speaker 1: topics whenever various issues for the Trump ministration come up,
Speaker 1: but perhaps especially those pertending to foreign policy. Does the
Speaker 1: administration actually speak with one voice? Does Donald Trump speak
Speaker 1: on behalf of everyone? From Marc Rubio on the more
Speaker 1: hawkish end of the spectrum, Pete Hegseth, who is perhaps
Speaker 1: somewhere in the middle, all the way over to his
Speaker 1: own Vice President Jade Vance and the d and I,
Speaker 1: Tulca Gabber and others who have more isolation sympathies. It's
Speaker 1: pretty well known that there's a lot disagreements within the
Speaker 1: White House, within the administration when it comes to all
Speaker 1: of these issues. So it's been somewhat of the talk
Speaker 1: of the town now for a few days that Trump's
Speaker 1: instincts are indeed to dramatically escalate in in bombing military
Speaker 1: fashion against the Iranian regime. And he is now the leading,
Speaker 1: one of the leading proponents, if you are paying attention
Speaker 1: to the tea leaves, he's one of the leading proponents
Speaker 1: of increasingly aggressive military action to try to topple this regime.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, you have the Vice President JD. Vance,
Speaker 1: who is leading the alternative caucus, who is leading the
Speaker 1: caucus of those who are trying now to preach diplomacy
Speaker 1: and various other means for what it's worth, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: not exactly interested in diplomacy. Donald Trump putting out on
Speaker 1: truth social this morning quote Irode and patriots keep protesting,
Speaker 1: take over your institutions. Save the names of the killers
Speaker 1: and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have
Speaker 1: canceled all meetings with the Roddian officials until the senseless
Speaker 1: killing of protesters stops. Help is on its way migas
Speaker 1: in make Iran great again. So he's canceled all meetings
Speaker 1: with officials until the killing stops. So it seems to
Speaker 1: me the Vance led push for diplomacy, whatever the merits
Speaker 1: of that of that may or may not be, simply
Speaker 1: are at this point falling on deaf years for President Trump,
Speaker 1: and by the way, that's his own entire can of worms.
Speaker 1: Is what is the current nature of the president vice
Speaker 1: president relationship. Recalled that Vice President Vance was actually not
Speaker 1: there at mar Lago during the Maduro operation. We saw
Speaker 1: all these images of Donald Trump flanked by people like
Speaker 1: Marco Rubiel. Well, where is the vice president? Well, his
Speaker 1: office put out a statement explaining why he was not there.
Speaker 1: They said that it was a possible security concern and
Speaker 1: op SEC concern, operational security. I'm not entirely sure that
Speaker 1: makes a whole lot of sense to make, to be
Speaker 1: honest with you, there's a lot of problement people there.
Speaker 1: They all had their own large motor cads. But is
Speaker 1: this another issue from Venezuela and now to Iran where
Speaker 1: there is this emerging delta, there's this emerging gap between
Speaker 1: President Trump and Vice President Vance. I actually, you know,
Speaker 1: putting on our domestic politics had for a minute here,
Speaker 1: I was just looking at an article a pull from
Speaker 1: rass Mussen ras Musen, which is one of the more
Speaker 1: conservative Republican leading major poulters out there. Ras Muson had
Speaker 1: a big piece just yesterday talking about how jad Vance's
Speaker 1: favorability numbers have been plumbing recently. So is this going
Speaker 1: to help his recovery where he's yet again being seen,
Speaker 1: perhaps probably accurately, seen as being on the other side
Speaker 1: of President Tromp on a major foreign policy issue. I
Speaker 1: have to suspect that is not going to help JD.
Speaker 1: Vans when it comes to twenty twenty eight, when it
Speaker 1: comes potentially to Donald Trump's endorsement. Frankly of Jdvan's come
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight, But we will cross that bridge when
Speaker 1: it gets to it. For now, the possible escalation of
Speaker 1: military activities from the United States there looks at this
Speaker 1: point to be pretty much imminence. B fifty two bombers
Speaker 1: moving all the way into the Eastern Mediterranean, a lot
Speaker 1: of assets moving into places like Turkey. It seems like
Speaker 1: this thing is really going to potentially hit the fan asap. Now,
Speaker 1: you don't have to necessarily go in guns fully blazing.
Speaker 1: There are alternatives to There are things such as cyber
Speaker 1: attacks and things of that nature. But even if this
Speaker 1: thing does really militarily escalade and there start being lots
Speaker 1: of bombs and fireworks and all of that, it's important
Speaker 1: to note a couple of things. One is that no
Speaker 1: one here is talking about boots on the ground. I mean,
Speaker 1: how many times do we hear this slogan of boots
Speaker 1: on the ground. It's becomes something of a line that
Speaker 1: a lot of the Tucker Curlson Ron Paul types push
Speaker 1: to try to persuade people not to take any military
Speaker 1: action whatsoever. But it's obviously a false choice because there's
Speaker 1: approximately a million or two million different things that can
Speaker 1: happen between boots on the ground and between it doing
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing. Last I checked, there is virtually no one.
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure if Lindsey Graham himself is pushing
Speaker 1: for literal boots on the ground, the literal one hundred
Speaker 1: first airborne parachuting into Tehran to topple the Iyatola. No,
Speaker 1: that's not what's happening. What is happening is that the
Speaker 1: Iranian people, who have been brutally, brutally repressed for four
Speaker 1: and a half decades from the world's number one state
Speaker 1: sponsor of jihad, are risky at all to go to
Speaker 1: the streets to fight back against this regime. That's what's happening.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I saw some folks on social media earlier today who
Speaker 1: were promoting this clip of Charlie Kirk before he was
Speaker 1: trying to be assassinated. This was back in June, during
Speaker 1: the whole debate over whether to Bambaran's nuclear sytes, and
Speaker 1: this clip that I saw being circulated was Charlie Kirk
Speaker 1: saying beware of taking out the Ayatola, Well, guess what
Speaker 1: was not happening back then? The Iranian people were not uprising.
Speaker 1: Charlie Stance on this for what it's worth, Charlie Stance
Speaker 1: was very clear. He said that it's worth supporting the
Speaker 1: Iranian people if slash, when they rise up against this regime.
Speaker 1: What's not necessarily worth doing is going in guns fully blazing,
Speaker 1: absent the running people's support. Totally separate conversation for what it's worth,
Speaker 1: if Donald Trump does decide to significantly increase the military
Speaker 1: threat in the United States visa vise the iotolin As
Speaker 1: moll as they're in, or it looks like he can
Speaker 1: count on at least some byparises a poorer at least some,
Speaker 1: which is fascinating. For instance, here was John Fetterman and
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania speaking on CNN.
Speaker 3: Sure, absolutely, and now if it continues to make more sense. Absolutely.
Speaker 3: I think I was the only Democrat that fully supported
Speaker 3: our strike of their Irenian nuclear facilities last year, and
Speaker 3: now by then, without those kinds of strikes, Iran could
Speaker 3: have acquired a nuclear bomb. I think I hope we
Speaker 3: can all agree that Iran should have never acquired a
Speaker 3: nuclear bomb. And Iran is one of the world's top
Speaker 3: terrorist unrid and now you have that poisonous regime now
Speaker 3: in spiral. So why wouldn't we want to support that
Speaker 3: and those brave protesters they've killed probably more than six
Speaker 3: hundred by now. So now why would we want to
Speaker 3: have the kinds of targeted, kinds of action that could
Speaker 3: break that regime?
Speaker 1: Dal Trump has a unique opportunity to go down here
Speaker 1: in the history books. Already, in one fell swoop, in
Speaker 1: one astonishing breath taking operation in Caracas, he has extracted
Speaker 1: the illegitimate narco terrorist leader of Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro. Could
Speaker 1: he also be the president who presides over the end
Speaker 1: of four and a half plus decades of tyranny in
Speaker 1: Iran and by extension, frankly, for the whole world. Given
Speaker 1: how much jihad across the entire world that regime has sewed,
Speaker 1: how much American blood, how much European blood, how much
Speaker 1: Christian bloo Jewish blood, how much blood is on this
Speaker 1: theocratic isthmus regime's hands. It's not necessarily the job of
Speaker 1: the United States to go in there, with the aircraft
Speaker 1: carriers and the overwhelming ground, air and sea power. That's
Speaker 1: not what's being floated right now. What is being floated
Speaker 1: is support of the Iranian people. The details that will
Speaker 1: be defined by the president. But make no mistake about it,
Speaker 1: donald Trump's red line has been crossed. And yesterday's show
Speaker 1: we explained why we're not necessarily the biggest fans of
Speaker 1: red lines. I prefer the more foreign policy be done
Speaker 1: in secretive, clandestine fashion. Why give the enemy and he
Speaker 1: heads up, what's whatever, it's what your next move might
Speaker 1: actually be. But he said a redline. He said, if
Speaker 1: the regime starts massacring dissidents, he will take action. Over
Speaker 1: the weekend. On Sunday, it was reported that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: was emitting that perhaps his redline has been crossed. Here
Speaker 1: on Tuesday, we can now definitively say it has been crossed,
Speaker 1: stomped on, and torn to shreds. It's in your court,
Speaker 1: mister president, exactly where you take it from here. But
Speaker 1: you have a unique opportunity to go down history for
Speaker 1: providing moral sooker. And yes, military support is necessary to
Speaker 1: the running people. We'll be right back. I'm Josh Hammer
Speaker 1: and welcome back very much. Monitoring situation in Iraan. But
Speaker 1: as mentioned at the beginning, of our show. There's other
Speaker 1: stuff going on as well. One of the largest cases
Speaker 1: is actually technically two consolidated cases. One of the largest
Speaker 1: oral argument days at the Usupreme Court occurred earlier today.
Speaker 1: I listened to large swaths of the oral argument. So
Speaker 1: these are two technically combined cases. One is out of
Speaker 1: the states of Idaho. One is out of the state
Speaker 1: of West Virginia. The state out of Idaho is Little
Speaker 1: versus Hcock's West Virginia, and is West Virginia versus BPJ.
Speaker 1: They are basically dealing with the same fat pattern, which
Speaker 1: is whether or not a statute a law in Idaho
Speaker 1: or West Virginia that bans that bans biological males from
Speaker 1: competing against biological females when it comes to high school
Speaker 1: athletic competition, Whether or not these laws are constitutionally principal,
Speaker 1: perhaps if there's a fourteen mement angle, or perhaps whether
Speaker 1: they run a foul of Title nine. Title nine being
Speaker 1: the amendments to the Civil Rights Act, which was passed
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy two that prohibits set discrimination in all
Speaker 1: educational programs and for all those universities institutions that receive
Speaker 1: federal funding. More generally. So, as I mentioned, I watched
Speaker 1: and listen to a lot of this or argument this morning.
Speaker 1: The first thing that ought to be said is there
Speaker 1: actually was a lot of jarring language from some of
Speaker 1: the right of center justices. You know, those of you
Speaker 1: who've known me for a long time, who are not
Speaker 1: silly new to the show, you know that one of
Speaker 1: my longest pet peeves I've mean being this drum basically
Speaker 1: my entire adult life, is the utter and complete debacle
Speaker 1: the failure of Republican judicial nominations. Why in the world
Speaker 1: can Republican presidents just not get their judges right? To
Speaker 1: be clear, they do sometimes. Most of the Trump Lower
Speaker 1: court judital picks, for the most part, are really good.
Speaker 1: I know that firsthand. I actually clerked for one. I
Speaker 1: was one of the very first four law clerks for
Speaker 1: the Honorable James C. Hoe of the US corp Appeals
Speaker 1: for the Fifth Circuit back in twenty eighteen. Judge Hoe
Speaker 1: is a phenomenal jurist, and god willing will be our
Speaker 1: next Supreme Court justice. But all three of Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: first term Supreme Court nominees performed, shall we say, in
Speaker 1: less than stellar fashion at the oral argument earlier today,
Speaker 1: you had both Bret Cavanaugh, both Brett Cavanaugh and Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett, literally both of them who at times referred
Speaker 1: to boys who subjectively identify as girls as so called
Speaker 1: trans girls. Yes, Amy Coney Barrett, the one who's basically
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court, because Dianne Feinstein, the late Diane Finestelin,
Speaker 1: said that the dogmall lives likely within you. Ye, Amy
Speaker 1: Cony Barrett couldn't even bring herself to describe biological males
Speaker 1: as biological males. Brek Kavanaugh, for Wordsworth did essentially the
Speaker 1: same thing. Neil Gorsich for Wordsworth. Gorsich is a particularly
Speaker 1: frustrating one. So Neil Gorsich asked about whether a prohibition
Speaker 1: on on cross sex dressing would amount to discrimination kind
Speaker 1: of this notion that transgenderism can entail subjective notions such
Speaker 1: as changing the clothes that you wear there and he
Speaker 1: actually even asked some of the lawyers for the transgender
Speaker 1: athletes why they were not trying to press the issue
Speaker 1: as to whether transgender's constitutes what in constitutional law are
Speaker 1: known as discrete and insular minorities, which is really kind
Speaker 1: of legalize language. Goes back to a nineteen thirties opinion
Speaker 1: from the New Deal called Caroline Products. An infamous footnote
Speaker 1: in that case called footnote for basically it's not worth
Speaker 1: explaining the details. Basically what this means is gorse is
Speaker 1: trying to tee up for the transgender plaintiff layers a
Speaker 1: possible way of trying to litigate this case in a
Speaker 1: way that it would be seen as complete and utter
Speaker 1: abominable discrimination. Gorstich is the justice who in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: also gave us a case called Bostak was a case
Speaker 1: not on Title nine but on Title seven, which involves
Speaker 1: employment decisions whether you can, for instance, hire or fire
Speaker 1: on the basis of sex. And in the Bostock case,
Speaker 1: the court held six to three where you had John
Speaker 1: Roberts annual, Gorstitch joined the liberals Gorsi's rule for the court.
Speaker 1: At that time, Gorsich held that discrimination on the base
Speaker 1: of sex essentially amounts to discrimination on the basis of
Speaker 1: sex orientation and gender identity. And right now Gorsich today
Speaker 1: seemed to be again advanced the argument that transgenderism should
Speaker 1: be seen as a protected class. And my reading the
Speaker 1: tea les is that Grosich could potentially be a vote
Speaker 1: here to extend his same logic and rationale in the
Speaker 1: Bostock case. That's a Title seven case to now this
Speaker 1: Title nine case when it comes to these two transgender
Speaker 1: at the cases. For what it's worth, John Roberts, who
Speaker 1: is as squishy as of all of the Republican nomination
Speaker 1: jurors on the court there, John Roberts actually came across
Speaker 1: probably as the most sober of all the centrists, which
Speaker 1: is not necessarily the most encouraging thing. Having said that,
Speaker 1: not trying to overly blackpill you guys, I still, despite that,
Speaker 1: find it really really hard to believe that Idaho and
Speaker 1: West Virginia and also the DOJ. The DOJ swooped in
Speaker 1: here as an intervener, they had an oral advocate at
Speaker 1: the courts as well, argue in defense of the Idaho
Speaker 1: and West Virginia laws, or arguing defense of biological reality,
Speaker 1: or arguing defense of sexual dimorphism, arguing defense of the
Speaker 1: integrity of biological females not be subjected to athletic competition
Speaker 1: for biological males. So I have to think that there
Speaker 1: is enough that there is enough ammunition even if someone
Speaker 1: like Neil Gorstich were to go wildly. Admittedly, though, you're
Speaker 1: starting to play with fire, because if Gorstich does indeed
Speaker 1: vote to extend his principle from Bostock, and he tries
Speaker 1: to conceive of transgenderism as a so called protective class,
Speaker 1: and he ends up holding on these laws are illegal
Speaker 1: under Title nine, then you're down to a one vote margin.
Speaker 1: You can't afford to lose capital Roberts or Barrett's. So
Speaker 1: it's just so frustrating. I mean, this is such an
Speaker 1: easy case. This is so easy, or at least it
Speaker 1: should be. You know, for all the legal leads we're
Speaker 1: talking here about carolling products footnote four, We're talking about
Speaker 1: discreet insummonorities, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, all these tears of scrutiny,
Speaker 1: which by the way, are all made up. How about
Speaker 1: he cut to the chase. How about the law just
Speaker 1: reflect the truth? Is that not The purpose of law
Speaker 1: in the first place is to be a reflection of
Speaker 1: the truth, to be a reflection of God's plan for mankind,
Speaker 1: of human anthropology, of human teleology. What we are here
Speaker 1: to do? What is our purpose? The law should express this,
Speaker 1: and when it doesn't, that's how you know that a
Speaker 1: law is flawed or is unjust, and when there is
Speaker 1: an ambiguous statue, not that any of these statues are
Speaker 1: ambiguous is incumbent upon judges in this case us to
Speaker 1: read these statutes when in doubt. When an ambiguous cases,
Speaker 1: which again this is not, but you should read it
Speaker 1: to err on the side of things like biological truth
Speaker 1: and moral truth, substantive justice, things like this. I didn't
Speaker 1: hear a lot of that, frankly at the oral argument
Speaker 1: at the court earlier today. If this does go the
Speaker 1: wrong way, if Idah, how West Virginia lose this, and
Speaker 1: if the court says that biological males can compete against
Speaker 1: biological females, that is something of a yet another five
Speaker 1: alarm fire for the conservative legal movement. If God forbid,
Speaker 1: two of the three of Kavanaugh Baron Gorsis go the
Speaker 1: wrong way, that is a really, really, really big deal. Again,
Speaker 1: if I had to make a guess, it really seems
Speaker 1: like Gorsis could go the wrong way. I still think
Speaker 1: that you look in a five to four victory for
Speaker 1: Idaho and West Virginia, but it really really really should
Speaker 1: not be this close, really really really should not be
Speaker 1: this close at all because when a legal regime is
Speaker 1: not ultimately tethered to the truth, is appropriate to start
Speaker 1: questioning the legitimacy of that regime in the first place.
Speaker 1: And it's not just that Bostock is the only recent
Speaker 1: pressant for this. Yes, Gorstitz wobbled and boss Stock and
Speaker 1: Roberts actually, for what it's worth, also had the wrong
Speaker 1: opinion in this Title seven case. But just last year
Speaker 1: it was actually even more recent present. It was a
Speaker 1: case at a Tennessee called Scrimetti. In the Scrimmetti case
Speaker 1: out of Tennessee, the court said that is well within
Speaker 1: the police powers of the states in this case Tennessee
Speaker 1: the volunteer state to severely ban or outright proscribe the
Speaker 1: use of hormones, of chemical castrain drugs, general mutilation, all
Speaker 1: this stuff when it comes to so called transgender adolescents prepubessence.
Speaker 1: That was a sixth three decision that the more recent
Speaker 1: case in the Bostock case, that should hold. That absolutely
Speaker 1: should hold. But the fundamental point is this against about
Speaker 1: the truth. What is transgenderism. Transgenderism is a lie, of course,
Speaker 1: gender dyspory is not a lie. It's a mental condition.
Speaker 1: But the notion of a distinct class of transgenderism doesn't
Speaker 1: make any more sense than a distinct class of drug
Speaker 1: addicts or alcoholics. We should have immense compassion, but in
Speaker 1: no way whatsoever should the law, ever, ever, ever deviate
Speaker 1: from the truth in order to accommodate what is in
Speaker 1: this case a mental illness. God willing, Idaho and West
Speaker 1: Virginia will prevail. We'll be right back. We're also still
Speaker 1: tracking the ice situation in Minneapolis. It's pretty good for
Speaker 1: the most part. Notably my article three project. Colleague Will Chamberlain,
Speaker 1: in an excellent incisive post yesterday, noted how this is
Speaker 1: looking at a lot different than the summer of twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Right now, you see a generally emboldened US law enforcement presidents.
Speaker 1: When it comes to ice, when it comes to DHS,
Speaker 1: when it comes to National Guard, but even when it
Speaker 1: comes to the local police that are choosing to work
Speaker 1: with defence, they're generally doing a pretty good job of
Speaker 1: tamping down and putting down the incipient mayhem they are
Speaker 1: in Minneapolis, but more generally speaking, getting us outside of
Speaker 1: the Minneapolis Renee Good ice situation, there continues to be
Speaker 1: a concerted effort on the left to paint illegal aliens
Speaker 1: as the victims of unjust laws. We were talking before
Speaker 1: the break about these transgend or athlete cases and the
Speaker 1: notion of trying to make sure that your law is
Speaker 1: tethered to truth and to reality. Well, folks, one of
Speaker 1: the most real and truthful things we can ever say
Speaker 1: about the law is that the law exists for a
Speaker 1: particular nation state. There's also this thing as global law,
Speaker 1: other than the law of God, God all My to himself,
Speaker 1: the Bibles close as we come to global law. Other
Speaker 1: than that, the entire notion of a body of law
Speaker 1: is implicitly dependent on there being an entity for whom
Speaker 1: that law combined. That means the nation state. And if
Speaker 1: you have a nation state, that means you have borders. Now,
Speaker 1: we've had so many Democrats who are pulling their hair
Speaker 1: on saying, oh my God, Ice is deporting a lot
Speaker 1: of these aliens who didn't even commit a crime. They
Speaker 1: didn't commit a homicide or a rape or this or that. There,
Speaker 1: They're just undocumented workers, to which I say, the crime
Speaker 1: they committed was when they walked here in the first place.
Speaker 1: But don't just take it from me. I was watching
Speaker 1: this wonderful Cliff and a certain gentleman made a certain
Speaker 1: radio address in the year nineteen ninety five on this
Speaker 1: very topic, and he said this, He said, it does
Speaker 1: not matter if they have committed crimes while here. They
Speaker 1: came here legally. That's a crime. They have to go.
Speaker 1: Who do I speak of? I speak of Bill Clinton?
Speaker 1: Where is that sentiment today? It was totally common sensible
Speaker 1: back in the mid nineties. Let's go ahead, actually and
Speaker 1: watch this clip of Bill Clinton speaking in his State
Speaker 1: of the union'sdress the very same year of nine ninety five.
Speaker 2: In the budget I will present to you, we will
Speaker 2: try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal
Speaker 2: aliens who a arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal
Speaker 2: aliens in the workface, as recommended by the commission headed
Speaker 2: by a former.
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.
Speaker 2: We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also
Speaker 2: a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self
Speaker 2: defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind
Speaker 2: of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in
Speaker 2: recent years, and we must do more to stop.
Speaker 1: Now he's saying that we're a Nesian of immigrants. I
Speaker 1: take issue with that particular framing America is not a
Speaker 1: nation of immigrants. We are a nation of Americans. We
Speaker 1: are a nation of those who are native born, and yes,
Speaker 1: those who came here who have subsumed to have been
Speaker 1: subsumed into Americanism. So I don't agree with the framing
Speaker 1: that we are a nation of immigrants. I actually really
Speaker 1: hate that phrase. Certainly, there are very few people here
Speaker 1: who are direct a sentence of the Mayflower in sixteen twenty.
Speaker 1: That's something of a tangential non starter point though, because
Speaker 1: at various points over our family histories, our genealogies, someone
Speaker 1: came here and someone decided to assimilarly, to learn to
Speaker 1: learn English, to subscribe to cultural Americanism, to subscribe to
Speaker 1: the broader Protestant work ethic, ethos that has defined this
Speaker 1: country for hundreds of years, to do things like understand
Speaker 1: American civics and constitutionalism and this and that. So we're
Speaker 1: a nation of Americans, both the native born and the umorents.
Speaker 1: That's a better way to phrase it. But the point
Speaker 1: is that even slick Willy, even slick Willy Clinton in
Speaker 1: the nineteen nineties compelled to say that we are a
Speaker 1: nation of laws. Of course, nowadays nowadays, if you support Ice,
Speaker 1: if you support a Christy Noman DHS Tom Holman, the
Speaker 1: borders are and all the Ice men and women, if
Speaker 1: you support them enforcing this nation's im immigration laws, then
Speaker 1: you will get invariably tarn feathered as a fascist. They'll
Speaker 1: call it hate speech. They'll say, oh, man, what are
Speaker 1: they doing in rounding up and getting getting this guy?
Speaker 1: Who is he? He's just laying around here. He's not
Speaker 1: committing any crimes. Yes he did. His crime was cries
Speaker 1: on the border illegally. His first act on our soil
Speaker 1: was to be here illegally. When you don't enforce the
Speaker 1: rule of law, respect for the rule of law dies.
Speaker 1: Without the rule of law, you are nothing. You are
Speaker 1: nothing whatsoever.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: We were talking a few minutes ago about these these cases,
Speaker 1: Theupreme Corps, the Trenchender athlete case, and these distinctions between
Speaker 1: biological male or biological female, or transgender or non transgender.
Speaker 1: The law is full of distinctions. It is replete with
Speaker 1: attempts to draw lines and to try to say that
Speaker 1: this is an attempt to devise a policy scheme or
Speaker 1: legal scheme that work for this group or that group,
Speaker 1: but not the other way around. The most important distinction
Speaker 1: in all of the rule of law, at least for
Speaker 1: the United States of America, is that between Americans and
Speaker 1: non Americans. It's deeply relevant when it comes to which
Speaker 1: provisions of the Constitution apply and which provisions of all
Speaker 1: many other statutes in our legal code apply as well.
Speaker 1: The Democrats today have lost their everlasting minds when it
Speaker 1: comes to the topic of immigration. They say that you
Speaker 1: are trying to go back to nineteen thirties era Germany,
Speaker 1: that Ice is the gestape. How offensive, how utterly appallingly
Speaker 1: offensive is this look. If you have an issue with
Speaker 1: how this ministration is enforcing its immigration laws, maybe, just
Speaker 1: maybe you should have forced their hand by letting in
Speaker 1: millions and millions millions of unvetted illegal aliens during the
Speaker 1: four years of the Biden Harris regime. Maybe that was
Speaker 1: a good idea. Who would have thought of that. I'm
Speaker 1: just so sick of this notion that we hear and
Speaker 1: over over and over again that you have to have
Speaker 1: committed a crime in order to justify Ice supporting you.
Speaker 1: First of all, Ike doesn't give a you know what
Speaker 1: about your own subjective approval or lack thereof. They couldn't
Speaker 1: care less, But they don't need anything more than identifying
Speaker 1: an illegal alien and saying, guess what you're out of here.
Speaker 1: That's the way that it ought to work. Immigration abortion
Speaker 1: Maybe the two issues really more generally with Democrats have
Speaker 1: more the leftist the quickest in the decades since the
Speaker 1: Clinton administration in the nineteen nineties, Bill Clinton was the
Speaker 1: era of safe, legal and rare on the issue of abortion. Nowadays,
Speaker 1: abortion is touted as the left's foremost pagan sacrament, as
Speaker 1: a moloch like altar to the pagan non god goddesses
Speaker 1: that they all too frequently worship in favor or in
Speaker 1: lieu of the One True God. As for immigration, well,
Speaker 1: their immigration priorities other than some occasional votes of relatives
Speaker 1: any people like Eric Adams in New York City, people
Speaker 1: like John Fetterman in Pennsylvania, with very rare exceptions loan
Speaker 1: of voice and wilderness. Their take on immigration seems to
Speaker 1: me that it is dictated by, on the one hand,
Speaker 1: possibly corporate needs, that's the corporate chilling time Democrat, but
Speaker 1: more generally and more often by multiculturalism and intersectionality. You know,
Speaker 1: they say that the so called great replacement theory is
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theory, it's not. There is a lot of
Speaker 1: intentional attempts to dilute America's historical inheritance going on there
Speaker 1: as well. A lot of it also is just cynical
Speaker 1: attempts to gain more voters. Really quite simple. But ultimately,
Speaker 1: you are undermining and desecrating the rule of law. By
Speaker 1: promoting a scheme of legal immigration, by encouraging those to
Speaker 1: come here illegally, and by refusing to deport those who
Speaker 1: are already here illegally, you are ruining support and respect
Speaker 1: for the rule of law. You are ruining support for
Speaker 1: the only edifice that prevents us from descending into tyranny
Speaker 1: and anarchy. The rule of law is the bedrock of
Speaker 1: any society. Is one of Donald Trump's fortes. We are
Speaker 1: blessed to have him in power right now. He's doing
Speaker 1: a bank up job at Frankly, when it comes to crime,
Speaker 1: when it comes to illegal immigration, keep it up, mister
Speaker 1: President Bill Clinton. Ninth nineties, frankly would have agreed with you.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Welcome back. Last we checked in
Speaker 1: on Megan Kelly, it wasn't pretty. Unfortunately, it's only gone
Speaker 1: significantly worse since then trust me, I don't like to
Speaker 1: talk about the fact that Megan Kelly has ascended into
Speaker 1: hyperconspiratorial lunacy. I would much prefer it to be the
Speaker 1: case that Megan Kelly were still a voice for civilizational stunning.
Speaker 1: But when you look at Megan Kelly's career, it's really
Speaker 1: only about meg Kelly feels in a given moment, is
Speaker 1: better to boost herself or to better acculturate herself to
Speaker 1: her audience or her cliqts more accurately at a given time.
Speaker 1: You see what's one time back on Fox News, me
Speaker 1: and Kelly really made her bones. She advanced up the
Speaker 1: corporate ladder there at News Corp. As a no nonsense,
Speaker 1: vaguely centrist ish kind of lawyerly proseput style interviewer who
Speaker 1: can forget her every very very difficult grilling, probably over
Speaker 1: the top offensive grilling of Donald Trump back in that
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen President of primary debate. Fox News didn't like
Speaker 1: that very much. She ended up going to NBC News,
Speaker 1: where she tried to appease her left wing bosses. At
Speaker 1: thirty Rock, she took a very hard left stance on issues,
Speaker 1: where today she now ironically claims to be pretty hardcore
Speaker 1: issues like transgenderism. There was this infamous segment on Making
Speaker 1: Kelly's Show, her very short lived show in NBC years ago,
Speaker 1: where she brought on a group a group of teenagers
Speaker 1: and was lauding them for their courage for transitioning from
Speaker 1: girls to boys or boys to girls. Now, Megan or
Speaker 1: Grandma Groper as we prefer to call her, Grandma Draper,
Speaker 1: says that she's had something of a change of heart
Speaker 1: on the issue of transgenderism for teenie, but really, does
Speaker 1: any religious person, does any religious Jew or Christian have
Speaker 1: to evolve or have a change of heart on the
Speaker 1: notion of male female sexual dimorphism. It's only right there
Speaker 1: in the twenty seventh verse of the entire Bible, in
Speaker 1: Genesis one twenty seven, the notion that God made man
Speaker 1: his image male and female had created them. Eventually, after
Speaker 1: being fired by NBC News, Main Kelly reservices with her
Speaker 1: current show being and Kelly Show, and for a while
Speaker 1: it was going just fine. Indeed, after the horrific hamas
Speaker 1: Pegram the Simhatora massacre of October seven, twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: Megan had yours truly on as I guessed fairly frequently,
Speaker 1: including one appearance where I was on for an hour
Speaker 1: or more. It was a really deep dive and all
Speaker 1: the various angles and facets of the then all too
Speaker 1: fresh slaughter and the war that was to come. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: mein Kelly over the past we'll go back potentially as
Speaker 1: far as year ish, but really really really accelerating over
Speaker 1: the past half year and going into hyperdrive after Charlie
Speaker 1: Kirks assassination. At this point Me and Kelly has made
Speaker 1: her bed with the enemies of Western civilization. She has
Speaker 1: repeatedly made her loyalty to individuals like Candae Owens at
Speaker 1: Tuger Carlson. No, that would be Candace Owens, who is
Speaker 1: a literal nineteen thirties Germany esque Jew hater, who is
Speaker 1: an avowid enemy of Western civilization for that matter, who
Speaker 1: I know from people who attended her wedding. She had
Speaker 1: a drink called Pudence Punch because of her russophilia and
Speaker 1: love for the Kremlin in Russia. Canis Owens, who implicated
Speaker 1: Erica Kirk, who Megan pretends to defend Kansas has implicated
Speaker 1: Erica Kirk in her own husband's assassination. Literally a conspiracy
Speaker 1: theorist so dripping in utter madness that even Alex Jones
Speaker 1: think felt compelled recently to say, stop, you're making us
Speaker 1: look bad. Really he did that, check the record. And
Speaker 1: Megan also has made her undying loyalty known to Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 1: the single leading provocateur of the anti American, anti Semitic,
Speaker 1: anti Western quote unquote right, someone whose daily show is
Speaker 1: filled with myriad apologia for Russia, China, Oran Venezuela. He
Speaker 1: literally defended Maduro and Venezuela is a daily dose of
Speaker 1: how to make the American people stupider. That's what Megan
Speaker 1: Kelly is what I signed up for. Well, just last week,
Speaker 1: less than a mom that though she called me a
Speaker 1: snake on her show, Megan who is the quintessential coward
Speaker 1: because she refuses to actually go with the courage of
Speaker 1: her admittedly kind of only half baits convictions. She refuses
Speaker 1: to do anything whatsoever to call out the lunacy from
Speaker 1: her friends, refuses, categoric refuses to say, can't just stop, Tucker, stop,
Speaker 1: what are you doing? It's pure cowardice. So she gratuitously
Speaker 1: dunked on me about a month ago, for no reason,
Speaker 1: called me a snake for having done it nothing whatsoever
Speaker 1: ovent to retweet one or two vaguely critical tweets. And
Speaker 1: now last week, Megan went on her best friend Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson the Doha Shill, because Tucker is, if nothing, if
Speaker 1: nothing else, he is certainly a shill for the regime
Speaker 1: and Katar. So Megan Grandma grayper Kelly went on Tucker
Speaker 1: the Dohah Shill Carlson Show last week, and boy was
Speaker 1: it a doozy. They were celebrating who else but Tucker's
Speaker 1: most controversial recent guest, otherwise known as the lifelong arch
Speaker 1: foe of their purported friend Charlie Kirk. Nick Fuentes, our
Speaker 1: dear friend Dave Ruben put together quite a montage of this.
Speaker 1: Go ahead and watch. This is Joseph Stalin's birthday. I'm
Speaker 1: a family. You're a fan of Stalins as an admirer.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, but he actually has a lot of things
Speaker 4: he talks about that you're like, huh, is it not
Speaker 4: a bad point about our country? So we'll be going
Speaker 4: out telling people vote for a protest candidate, vote for
Speaker 4: the Democrat, vote for a third party, don't vote vote
Speaker 4: for anyone else, Do not give the anchor baby your vote.
Speaker 4: Disgusting and that's a message for Vance in twenty.
Speaker 1: Eight There is value to be derived from that guy's messaging.
Speaker 4: Why do we say Hitler's cool and make jokes about
Speaker 4: this because we are destroying the secular religion of liberalism
Speaker 4: and the Holocaust, which go hand in glove.
Speaker 1: That's why he asked.
Speaker 4: Me about the six million. To tell you the truth.
Speaker 4: I don't know how many Jews died during the Holocaust.
Speaker 4: Don't care.
Speaker 1: He's very interesting. Congratulations, Grandma, you officially made your bed. Look,
Speaker 1: we all see what's going on here. Nay Kelly, who
Speaker 1: clearly is not happy being consigned to the digit ghetto.
Speaker 1: A woman who thinks she should be on cable news
Speaker 1: or maybe even daytime television as she used to be
Speaker 1: with NBC, now desperate to get in with the cool kids,
Speaker 1: to try to appeal to the youth in the twilight
Speaker 1: years of her career. Ditto Tucker Carlson, by the way,
Speaker 1: also formerly of cable News, also consigned to the digital
Speaker 1: ghetto now. Tucker is a slightly different situation because he
Speaker 1: really does seem to have some genuine animus and hatred,
Speaker 1: not just for Jews, but also for many Christians, frankly,
Speaker 1: and also for Western civilization more generally. But Grandma Grouper
Speaker 1: is making a purely cynical play here to fall over
Speaker 1: hel to trip over herself, to apologize for the gutter, trash, filth,
Speaker 1: the utter verman, as Charlie Kirk called him of Nick Flentes.
Speaker 1: Is this how you treat your friend? I mean, these
Speaker 1: two call Charlie Kirk their friend. Fuentess was the lifelong
Speaker 1: arch foe of Charlie Curry. Disgusting, absolutely disgusting, And it's
Speaker 1: all this desperate play for clicks. You know, when I
Speaker 1: decided to leave my law firm trajectory, when I left
Speaker 1: the law firm years ago now and I finished my
Speaker 1: clerkship for my federal judge, and I said, though I
Speaker 1: was going to embark on a different kind of career,
Speaker 1: the kind of career that I'm doing right now speaking
Speaker 1: into this microphone, producing audio video content, writing columns, writing books, essays.
Speaker 1: When I said I was going to leave the legal
Speaker 1: career and do all of this, I made a promise
Speaker 1: myself that I would never sell out. I'm in this
Speaker 1: for the truth. I'm in this because America matters, Because
Speaker 1: ideas matter, because Western civilization matters, because the Biblical inheritance matters.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm in this business. When you were deciding
Speaker 1: who to get your information from, who to be a
Speaker 1: consumer of, when it comes to the media, when it
Speaker 1: comes to information, you should ask yourself, is this person
Speaker 1: in it because he or she cares about values and
Speaker 1: the truth or in it just to be a clickhore. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: Grandma Grouper has established herself as the foremost clickhore of
Speaker 1: the current online zeitgeist. It's a really sad, entredded descent
Speaker 1: to watch, but unfortunately there's really no one to blame
Speaker 1: for it other than Grandma Groper, Megan Kelly herself. She's
Speaker 1: made her bed, she will lie with it. It's a
Speaker 1: bold strategy, and frankly, I don't think it's going to
Speaker 1: pay off for her. I'm Josh hammer having good EATA
Speaker 2: The Josh Hamber Show is a member of the Trust Project.