Speaker 1: I'm Josh Hammer and this is the Josh Hammer Show.
Speaker 1: Coming up later on the program, James Lindsay joins us
Speaker 1: to continue the conversation about what the heck is happening
Speaker 1: to certain individuals on the so called rights who have
Speaker 1: lost their everlasting minds, and frankly, what is their goal here?
Speaker 1: Is there really to supplant and replace MAGA, to replace
Speaker 1: America first, replace the Republican Party in the conservative movement
Speaker 1: as we know it. Frankly, it seems to me that
Speaker 1: that is exactly the goal. We will get into that
Speaker 1: and much more with James Lindsay later in the show,
Speaker 1: but for now, here's today's big headline. The big headline
Speaker 1: is the mayhem, the anarchy, the twenty twenty esque photos
Speaker 1: that are now pouring over all of our social media
Speaker 1: feeds and over our cable news and internet livestreams. I talk,
Speaker 1: of course about Minneapolis, Minnesota, after the death last week
Speaker 1: of Renee Good, the shooting by Jonathan Ross, the ice agent.
Speaker 1: Minneapolis at first looked like it was going to be content.
Speaker 1: There were still protesters, but in the first few days
Speaker 1: following the shooting of Good by the ice officer Jonathan Ross,
Speaker 1: it looked like federal law enforcement was able to contain
Speaker 1: the mayhem. Unfortunately, over the past thirty six to forty
Speaker 1: eight hours or so, that story has started to change,
Speaker 1: because just yesterday, on Wednesday, January fourteenth, we had yet
Speaker 1: another altercation, another altercation between ICE agents, the roughly two
Speaker 1: thousand ICE agents who Christy Noam admirably correctly is saying
Speaker 1: that she is not going to pull out of the
Speaker 1: Twin Cities. There was another altercation between an ICE agent
Speaker 1: and a so called protester, not really a protester in
Speaker 1: this case, it was actually an illegal alien and his
Speaker 1: aiders and betters when it came to trying to ultimately
Speaker 1: enforce a deportation operation. So what happened, According to a
Speaker 1: statement from the Christi Noam led Department of Home mad Security,
Speaker 1: apparently there were federal law enforcement officers who stopped a
Speaker 1: driver from Venezuela who in the US illegally and just
Speaker 1: to go back to immigration law one oh one, folks,
Speaker 1: we've unpacked this in the show already, but I am
Speaker 1: sick beyond belief at this notion that you hear from
Speaker 1: so many on the left that you have to commit
Speaker 1: a crime, you have to be a criminal alien. I
Speaker 1: mean even that term criminal alien. And the point that
Speaker 1: I make over and over and over again is you
Speaker 1: are a criminal alien if you are here illegally. It
Speaker 1: is a crime. If you come here and you can
Speaker 1: make crime on top of that. Okay, maybe you're a
Speaker 1: double criminal alien or a triple quadruple, quintuple whatever, criminal alien.
Speaker 1: But by sheer dint of being here illegally, by crossing
Speaker 1: the Rio Grande or whatever the case would be, to
Speaker 1: overstay a visa, if you are here illegally, you're a
Speaker 1: criminal alien. Okay, So let's glad that stipulated. So in
Speaker 1: any events, so DHS statement says that the officer yesterday
Speaker 1: in Minneapolis was enforcing an operation against a Venezuelan legal alien.
Speaker 1: So the person the ven is one question, drove off
Speaker 1: after ICE tried to apprehends us back drove off and
Speaker 1: then crashed his car into another parked car and then
Speaker 1: got up to flee on foot. Is all, according again
Speaker 1: to the Department of fullmand Security. The officers, the ICE
Speaker 1: officers eventually caught up and then two other people. So
Speaker 1: these are probably the folks involved with organizations like ice Wash,
Speaker 1: the anarchic organization that Renee Good was a part of.
Speaker 1: So then two of the people show up and they
Speaker 1: make common cause, not with Ice, not with the federal
Speaker 1: law enforce officers, but with the ven as well in
Speaker 1: illegal lands. Then the two other people or three other
Speaker 1: people actually then start attacking the officer with shovels. They
Speaker 1: think shoveling, just start wanding him and again Dhsaman, they said.
Speaker 1: Fearing for his life and safety as he was being
Speaker 1: ambushed by three individuals, the officer fired a defensive shot
Speaker 1: to defend his life, and it, based on all we
Speaker 1: can tell, indeed was a defensive shot. This defensive shot
Speaker 1: has led to the individual being being hospitalized. But he's fine.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not going to be a life
Speaker 1: threatening injury. Very similar situation in some ways to Renee
Speaker 1: Good insofar as it was an act of self defense.
Speaker 1: Recall that after the Renee Good video started going viral,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of folks saying, oh my god,
Speaker 1: she didn't even hit the ICE officer in question. There
Speaker 1: she was trying to get away from the officer. The
Speaker 1: New York Times at the time, the Great Lady all
Speaker 1: the news that fit the print. The New York Times
Speaker 1: did a deep dive where they purported to show that
Speaker 1: Rene Goods vehicle didn't hit Jonathan Ross the ice agents
Speaker 1: well courtesy of Alpha News. Earlier this week, we actually
Speaker 1: saw then a new angle on the Renee Good Jonathan
Speaker 1: Ross altercation in Minneapolis last week. We now know that
Speaker 1: Rena Goods vehicle actually did hit Jonathan Ross. How do
Speaker 1: we know one because we saw it on video two,
Speaker 1: Because it's been confirmed is been confirms that Jonathan Ross
Speaker 1: had to go to the hospital for internal bleeding. The
Speaker 1: leftly narrative on the whole Rene Good situation last week,
Speaker 1: which we bemoan, we don't celebrate at all. It's a
Speaker 1: tragedy that someone was radicalized by the propaganda, ended up
Speaker 1: paying for with their life, the total tragedy. But their
Speaker 1: narrative just dies even more day in and day out
Speaker 1: because the officer, just like the officer last night, was
Speaker 1: indeed fearing for his life. Now the response to that,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act in
Speaker 1: response to all this, these these terrible images, the fire,
Speaker 1: the mayhem there, and also in response we probably should
Speaker 1: add to Governor Tim Walls himself. Government Governor Tim Walls
Speaker 1: took to his YouTube feed on Wednesday night to tell
Speaker 1: Minnesotans to start creating a database of all the various
Speaker 1: atrocities committed by ICE in the Twin Cities. Absolutely appalling stuff.
Speaker 2: Go ahead and watch tonight.
Speaker 3: I want to share another way you can help witness,
Speaker 3: help us establish a record of exactly what's happening in
Speaker 3: our communities. You have an absolute right to peacefully film
Speaker 3: ICE agents as they conduct these activities. So carry your
Speaker 3: phone with you at all times, and if you see
Speaker 3: these ICE agents in your neighborhood, take out that phone
Speaker 3: and hit record. Help us create a database of the
Speaker 3: atrocities against Minnesotan's not just to establish a record for posterity,
Speaker 3: but to bank evidence for future prosecution atrocities.
Speaker 1: What a verbiage is this? After now multiple federal law
Speaker 1: enforcement officials have had to shoot defensive shots and fear
Speaker 1: for their life. It's appalling. Is Tim Walls trying to
Speaker 1: get ICE agents killed? Does he want more debt agents? Frankly,
Speaker 1: I'm afraid of the answer. So by chance you're watching this,
Speaker 1: Governor Waltz, don't answer. I don't even if I want
Speaker 1: to hear it. It's just so deeply offensive. And again,
Speaker 1: a response to this Donald Trump has taken too true
Speaker 1: social among other media and his threatenings a statue known
Speaker 1: as the Insurrection Act. So the Insurrection Act goes all
Speaker 1: the way back to eighteen oh seven. It is something
Speaker 1: that this is the Thomas Jefferson presidencies. A statute goes
Speaker 1: way back to the origins of the Republic, codified at
Speaker 1: ten US Code, Section two fifty four. The Insurrection Act
Speaker 1: was also discussed in twenty twenty. You might recall this
Speaker 1: somewhat infamous op ed that Tom Cotton, the Center of
Speaker 1: Arkansas wrote for The New York Times. It was in
Speaker 1: early June twenty twenty, right after the George Floyd riot
Speaker 1: started picking up gear and Tom Cotton's opbed was titled
Speaker 1: Sending the Troops. That was the opbed that infamously led
Speaker 1: to an editor's note of like five or six paragraphs.
Speaker 1: There's a whole New York Times staff walkout ultimately led
Speaker 1: to the resignation of Barry Weiss and many others from
Speaker 1: the Times as well. And Tom Cotton was calling then
Speaker 1: for the Insurrection Act as well. This is the parallel
Speaker 1: that we have been drawing here on the show for
Speaker 1: a week or so. Is this going to explode into
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. For a while, it looked like that was
Speaker 1: not going to be the case. Increasingly, I am less
Speaker 1: confident they're not stopping. They are being eight inebedded by wilful,
Speaker 1: idiot neo Confederates insurrections, politicians like the Coward in the
Speaker 1: Twin Cities Tim Walls, Keith Ellison, the Ittorney General, speaking
Speaker 1: of this ludicrous State's Right stance in their own lawsuit
Speaker 1: against DJs NICs. Did the Democratic Party stand for the
Speaker 1: abolition of ice? Do they actually want to abolish federal
Speaker 1: law enforcement when it comes to immigration? Do they believe
Speaker 1: in such thing as immigration law? The federal government the
Speaker 1: United States of America has a very long history when it
Speaker 1: comes to quashing state level rebellions. It was in the
Speaker 1: early seventeen nineties, seventeen ninety three, ninety four around then
Speaker 1: that George Washington himself literally George Washington. This is actually
Speaker 1: before the Insurrection Act was even passed under the Jefferson presidency.
Speaker 1: George Washington sent federal troops or the militia as it
Speaker 1: was probably the case back then, to western Pennsylvania to
Speaker 1: quash but at that time was known as the Whisky rebellion.
Speaker 1: There is a very long history, very long history in
Speaker 1: this country of in times of an arguing mayhem, using
Speaker 1: federal law enforcement, indeed even the National Guard and or
Speaker 1: of the act military to quash mayhem. It's true that
Speaker 1: there is a law from the Reconstruction Error of Making
Speaker 1: seventy eight known as the Possecommitatus Act. The Posse Coommitatus
Speaker 1: Act generally prohibits federal troops from being used for domestic
Speaker 1: law enforcement purposes. The clearest exception to the Possecommitatus Acts
Speaker 1: is the Insurrection Act of eighteen oh seven. It is
Speaker 1: the absolute statute to use in situations like this, where
Speaker 1: you federalize the National Guard, and then you use the
Speaker 1: federalized National Guard to go in and to restore order.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has already done this to various degrees, most
Speaker 1: prominently in Washington, d C. Which is a little different
Speaker 1: because the federal government has more direct oversights of Washingt
Speaker 1: d C. He's tried it in numerous other blue jurisdictions
Speaker 1: as well. The courts have generally stopped them. Most recently
Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court. The administration said that they were
Speaker 1: going to take their foot off the gas pedal when
Speaker 1: it comes to the National Guard into the Blue Cities.
Speaker 1: For now, I think that time pretty squarely at this
Speaker 1: point has passed because law and order must be restored.
Speaker 1: Immigration law is just as much a part of federal
Speaker 1: law as anything else. It is some of the most
Speaker 1: foundational laws we have in this very country. Immigration laws
Speaker 1: cut to the very essence of who we bring into
Speaker 1: the community. Who are we as a people? Who is
Speaker 1: this we the people that is spoken of in the
Speaker 1: preamble the Constitution. Who is part of the polity the Paulus,
Speaker 1: as Aristotle would have put it, Who are we? Illegal
Speaker 1: aliens are physically here, they're not legally here. We did
Speaker 1: not welcome that in Therefore they must go, whether not
Speaker 1: they are quote unquote criminal aliens or just good old
Speaker 1: fashioned illegal aliens who happened to be, as I just said,
Speaker 1: criminal aliens as well. At this point is clear that
Speaker 1: the neo Confederate John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis type, Minnesota officials,
Speaker 1: Tim Walls, Keith Ellison, Jacob Fry, the mayor, they're not
Speaker 1: gonna do anything when it comes to getting these bums
Speaker 1: off our street. On the contrary, they're fan the flames
Speaker 1: of anarcic Mayhem. This is the perfect instance for the
Speaker 1: Insurrection Act to be invoked. Mister President. I hope frankly,
Speaker 1: that you do exactly that, that you invote the Insurrection
Speaker 1: Act asap, because if this is not an instance of
Speaker 1: sending in federal law enforcement, just like Washington the Whiskey
Speaker 1: Rebellion all those many years ago, if this is not
Speaker 1: a clear case of doing exactly that, then I don't know, frankly,
Speaker 1: what the statue exists for what is happening insider on.
Speaker 1: It's been one of the big international stories now for
Speaker 1: multiple weeks. For a while, it looked like the United
Speaker 1: States under President Trump was really quite on the presspass
Speaker 1: of taking some sort of action, some sort of action.
Speaker 1: We don't know exactly what it would have been. Could
Speaker 1: have been still could be a cyber attack, Still could
Speaker 1: be some sort of actual kinetic military action target strikes
Speaker 1: against missile defense, the ISLAMA for Revolutionary Guard Corps, against
Speaker 1: the Mollahs and or of the Ayatollah Khamani himself. We
Speaker 1: don't know. The big question is at this point is
Speaker 1: Donald Trump backing off of his own red line. For
Speaker 1: much of the past week or so, Donald Trump has
Speaker 1: repeatedly said on truth social He has said, to the
Speaker 1: run and people stay out on the streets of Tehran,
Speaker 1: stay out in the streets all throughout this horrifically repressed country,
Speaker 1: the isonmic Republic of Ran. Trump encouraged the ir audience
Speaker 1: to take back their institutions, to fight against the thugs
Speaker 1: in the IRGC and the rest of the Islamist theocracy.
Speaker 1: It is not in doubt that any single Iranian who
Speaker 1: was out there, who was acting upon that advice, who
Speaker 1: is out there in the streets chanting for the overthrow
Speaker 1: of Kamene the Ayatola, who was chanting for the overthrowing
Speaker 1: of the Molus, who is clamoring, who was chanting for
Speaker 1: the restoration of the Shah Raizapalavi, they know that they
Speaker 1: are risking it all. They could be shot and killed
Speaker 1: at any given moment by the paramilitary or outred military
Speaker 1: thugs of this most cancerous and horrific of regimes. Indeed,
Speaker 1: the death toll for the past few weeks, we don't
Speaker 1: know the exact number, it's not estimated to be at
Speaker 1: least twelve to twenty thousand. That's a lot of people.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the Forur Minister of irong was
Speaker 1: actually on Fox News talking about this with Brett Baher
Speaker 1: earlier this week. Brett Bher in this interview, asked the
Speaker 1: Foreign Minister about these horrific executions, and the Foreign Minister, laughably,
Speaker 1: i'd be utterly, farcically said that it was not the
Speaker 1: Irani regime actually killing, actually killing. The dissonance that in
Speaker 1: fact he said it was is really massaud engage in
Speaker 1: a false flag operation. To it's which the obvious question is, well,
Speaker 1: first of all, that's absurd, But second of all, what
Speaker 1: does that say about your own country that you so
Speaker 1: don't have control of your own country that a foreign
Speaker 1: agent is allegedly slaughtering thousands. I mean, it's just so
Speaker 1: palpably insane. But make no mistake about it. In his
Speaker 1: various posts, Donald Trump said to keep up the fight
Speaker 1: because help is on the way. That's what he said.
Speaker 1: He said, help is on the way. He said, Miga
Speaker 1: and IgA make a run great again. As you know
Speaker 1: if you watch the show daily, I am not a
Speaker 1: fan of red lines in foreign policy. Foreign policy should
Speaker 1: be handled clandestinely, secretly among people meeting in the situation room,
Speaker 1: among conversations between the commander in chief and the Chairman
Speaker 1: of the Joint Chiefs, and all the various folks who
Speaker 1: have presumably different opinions, and allulimately the buck stops with
Speaker 1: the Commander in Chief. Alexander Hamilton, in the Federals number seventy,
Speaker 1: one of the Federals papers dedicated to explain the nature
Speaker 1: of Article II in the Executive Branch, famously says that
Speaker 1: the executive power must be vested in one individual, the
Speaker 1: President of the United States, because here he has secrecy
Speaker 1: and dispatch. So I, much like Hamilton, value secrecy when
Speaker 1: it comes to the presidency. Again, I'm no fan of
Speaker 1: red lines, but the simple question that I have now
Speaker 1: is if you issue a red line, which Donald Trump
Speaker 1: did not. Only did he say keep it up helps
Speaker 1: on the way, he also said earlier this week that
Speaker 1: if the regime keeps on slaughtering their own people, they're
Speaker 1: going to pay a heavy price. That's a threat, that
Speaker 1: is a direct threat. So why haven't we seen anything yet?
Speaker 1: Well on Wednesday, so yesterday, Donald Trump said while he
Speaker 1: was signing some executive orders in the Oval Office, he
Speaker 1: said that we've been told that the killing in Iran
Speaker 1: is stopping, and that stopped. He said that we've been
Speaker 1: told that on good authority. Well, that's that's a little weird.
Speaker 1: I mean, on whose authority have you heard that, mister President.
Speaker 1: Is it the Ayatolas, the Malls themselves, the same people
Speaker 1: that went on Brett Bayer to say that it was
Speaker 1: Masad slaughtering these Iranians? Are Are they the quote unquote
Speaker 1: authority who are announcing that the killing has stopped? Not
Speaker 1: sure that one makes a whole lot of sense, With
Speaker 1: all due respect, mister President. The latest as of this
Speaker 1: morning a senior Saudi official telling French media that Saudi Arabia, Katar,
Speaker 1: and Oman persuaded President Trump to give Iran a chance.
Speaker 1: Apparently those three countries, Saudi Arabia, Katar, and Oman, warns
Speaker 1: President Trump that striking Tehran would lead to quote unquote
Speaker 1: serious consequences. Now already, the United States had acted a
Speaker 1: couple of days ago by pulling back soldiers from all
Speaker 1: you Daid Airbase in Qatar, the largest American air base
Speaker 1: in the region, and various other military bases as well.
Speaker 1: We started to pair back our military assets. There have
Speaker 1: been lots of other assets that have been starting to
Speaker 1: make a b line to the region. B fifty two bombers.
Speaker 1: Also has to say there were reports that an aircraft
Speaker 1: carrier strike group that was currently positioned in the South
Speaker 1: China Sea was ordered to start heading towards the Persian
Speaker 1: Gulf towards the Middle East. So it's a little too
Speaker 1: early to write this off and to say that President
Speaker 1: Trump is officially backing down. I'm not quite ready to
Speaker 1: do that yet. He has already done some other things,
Speaker 1: for whatever it may or may not be worth. He
Speaker 1: announced that tariffs will be increased to at least twenty
Speaker 1: five percent. When it comes to Iran's trading partners, there's
Speaker 1: some economic leverage. Furthermore, earlier today, the Trump mistiration announced
Speaker 1: new sanctions targeting a new slew of senior Iranian officials,
Speaker 1: and he also designated a certain infamous prison called Fardis Prison.
Speaker 1: It's a facility where U officials say they have subjected
Speaker 1: female detainees above all to absolutely cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
Speaker 1: There are new sanctions slapped in this particular prison as well.
Speaker 1: So he's not doing nothing, and to be sure, something
Speaker 1: still could happen. Let's recall that last June there was
Speaker 1: this prolonged, extended debate as to whether or not Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is going to get involved in the twelve day
Speaker 1: war between Israel and Doron, and when President Trump finally
Speaker 1: did take military action in this remarkable thirty seven hour
Speaker 1: B two bomber run over for Dow and a couple
Speaker 1: of other Iranian nuke sites that happened over the weekend.
Speaker 1: Happened on Saturday, early evening US time, or the middle
Speaker 1: of the night over in Persia and Iran. So perhaps
Speaker 1: it will happen this weekend as well. But mister president,
Speaker 1: you were running out of time. I would not have
Speaker 1: advised to indiscriminately start dropping bombs or anything like that
Speaker 1: as recently as a few weeks ago. I'm not even
Speaker 1: sure it's stated that is exactly what is necessary. You
Speaker 1: have to be careful about how you're going to enforce
Speaker 1: red line. But the key point is that red line
Speaker 1: must be enforced. You can't make red line threats unless
Speaker 1: you're going to back it up. You can't say that
Speaker 1: the Iranian regime, if you keep on slaughtering your citizens,
Speaker 1: you're going to have hell to pay for it. And
Speaker 1: then when they keep on sldering, don't do anything. When
Speaker 1: President Trump first made that threat, the estimates were that
Speaker 1: the regime had killed a few hundred five six hundred runnings. Again,
Speaker 1: these are all rough estimates, very hard to get reliable
Speaker 1: information on this part of the world, and in the
Speaker 1: days that followed that number went from a few hundreds
Speaker 1: to twelve to twenty thousand rough estimate. Mister President, they
Speaker 1: crossed the red line. The red line has been crossed,
Speaker 1: stomped on, trampled over, torn to a million shreads, and
Speaker 1: sanctions is not going to cut it at this point. Trump,
Speaker 1: at this point unfortunately, runs the risk of looking a
Speaker 1: lot like Barack Obama. Barack Obama issued his infamous red
Speaker 1: line in the context of the Syrian Civil War around
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen twenty fourteen, when Bashar al Assade was using
Speaker 1: chemical weaponry to gas his own citizens. That red line
Speaker 1: was also crossed. The Barack obomb minstration did virtually nothing
Speaker 1: in response. They sent out Chuck Hagel to the Senate
Speaker 1: to announce in advance that there was going to be
Speaker 1: a symbolic quote unquote pinprick strike. A fat lot of
Speaker 1: good that does to enforce a red line, mister President.
Speaker 1: He just had a remarkable operation in Caracas, Venezuela, a stunning,
Speaker 1: stunning demonstration of American military might. Incredible stuff. What is
Speaker 1: up with the schizophrenia here? Again? I'm not have advised
Speaker 1: a red line. I don't like red lines. I'm a
Speaker 1: Hamiltonian in that sense. But the red line was issued,
Speaker 1: and the red line has been crossed and crossed and
Speaker 1: crossed again. If American deterrence is going to continue to
Speaker 1: mean anything, and we will stand up to our enemies,
Speaker 1: it is of vital importance to not make a Barack
Speaker 1: Obama failed mistake. Mister President, enforce that red line. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back on the other side with James Lindsay.
Speaker 1: One of the issues we've been covering for months now,
Speaker 1: and for better for us, we probably are not going
Speaker 1: to stop covering it anytime soon is the brain rot
Speaker 1: op as I call it, metastasizing in parts of the
Speaker 1: so called ride. Really emphasis, I would say on so
Speaker 1: called right. Earlier this week we discussed Grandma Grouper, which
Speaker 1: is what I and others are starting to call Megan Kelly,
Speaker 1: who was but the latest to fall down this particularly
Speaker 1: irksome rabbit holes. Really no one better to bring on
Speaker 1: to discuss this entire irksome feeded, stinking phenomenon than James Lindsay.
Speaker 1: James Lindsay is the founder and editor of New Discourses.
Speaker 1: You can follow him on x where he runs a
Speaker 1: very lively and active account at Conceptual James, James, Welcome
Speaker 1: to the Josh Hammer Show. You know, you and I
Speaker 1: have had some very minor squabbles in the past. I
Speaker 1: very much want this to be seen for the burying
Speaker 1: of the hatchet that it is, because you've really been
Speaker 1: a tremendous voice of clarity when it comes to calling
Speaker 1: out just really profound evil. I mean, evil's actually the
Speaker 1: word that comes to mind is the very first word
Speaker 1: that comes to mind when we see a lot was
Speaker 1: being spouted by the Tucker Carlson's of the world, the
Speaker 1: cannon Zones of the world, and increasingly and tragically these days, frankly,
Speaker 1: the Megan Kelly's of the world, to no small extent,
Speaker 1: not as bad as the other two, but it's it's
Speaker 1: getting pretty bad. So, James, I kind of want to
Speaker 1: just turn over to you. You you were on this
Speaker 1: pretty pretty quickly. I guess. The very first question is
Speaker 1: why is this happening? What is the incentive structure such
Speaker 1: that we are currently out of the situation that we're
Speaker 1: at right now.
Speaker 4: Well, I think the incentive structure is actually to seize
Speaker 4: control of the future direction of the Republican Party and
Speaker 4: conservative movement, and that means also to scatter to the
Speaker 4: winds the influence of the Trump doctrine that's broadly known
Speaker 4: as MAGA or Make America Great Again. And I'll just say,
Speaker 4: by the way, that where you said just a moment
Speaker 4: ago that you know that this is that we've had,
Speaker 4: you know, our differences in the past. Let me just
Speaker 4: bring that up. Our differences are, like I said to
Speaker 4: you in private message at one point a few a
Speaker 4: month or two of go, they're completely irrelevant compared to
Speaker 4: what we're talking about right now, because there's a difference
Speaker 4: between debates about policy and even like the full meaning
Speaker 4: of conservatism and all of those kinds of things versus
Speaker 4: like you just said, a moral issue this is this
Speaker 4: is a completely different thing. So, for example, when the
Speaker 4: Vice President came out in defensive Tucker Carlson and said,
Speaker 4: you know, well, I'm not going to throw my friends
Speaker 4: under the bus. I have lots of disagreements with different people.
Speaker 4: It's like there are different kinds of disagreements, right and
Speaker 4: This is, in my opinion, one of these points where
Speaker 4: we have to be very clear. Then we're not just
Speaker 4: talking about you know, ah, you know, should it be
Speaker 4: a thirty five percent tax rate or a thirty two
Speaker 4: percent tax right kind of a disagreement, or you know,
Speaker 4: should we go more nationalists a little bit, or should
Speaker 4: we go you know, more libertarian a little bit. This
Speaker 4: is a profound moral disagreement, and like I said, I
Speaker 4: think it is being injected into the Republican Party and
Speaker 4: conservative movement to create the conditions under which the coalition
Speaker 4: that Trump put together, the Maga energy, the mega phenomenon,
Speaker 4: can be scattered, broken apart, and then what can happen
Speaker 4: is that this radicalism, this you know, whether we call
Speaker 4: it postliberal or whether we call it neo Buchananite or
Speaker 4: whatever fancy term we want, can become a center of
Speaker 4: mass around which the conservative movement reforms out of necessity
Speaker 4: going forward after it's been bashed to pieces. So this
Speaker 4: is the bashed to pieces part. They bring in all
Speaker 4: of this crazy stuff, all of this morally objectionable stuff
Speaker 4: that true conservatives will just not get on with. They
Speaker 4: won't they won't do it, they won't go there and
Speaker 4: they let things fall apart, try to make themselves a
Speaker 4: center of mass, and then say, oh my god, we
Speaker 4: have to win an election.
Speaker 2: Come with us.
Speaker 1: James Lizay is the founder and editor of New Discourses.
Speaker 1: Check them out at new discourses dot Com. Follow him
Speaker 1: on x as well at Conceptual James. So, first of all,
Speaker 1: I could not agree with you more that the goal
Speaker 1: here is to tear apart MAGA, the really the American rights.
Speaker 1: More broadly, I mean, when you do, as Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: did in his interview with nig fund is, when you
Speaker 1: go after Christian Zionists and say that you hate them
Speaker 1: more than anyone on the face of the earth. You know,
Speaker 1: if we define Zionis as someone who simply agrees that
Speaker 1: the state of Israel should exist, which is the literal
Speaker 1: definition essentially of being a Zionist, then you're talking here
Speaker 1: about a plurality, perhaps even the outright majority of the
Speaker 1: Republican Party's current base. So I agree with you that
Speaker 1: the goal is to tear down the GOP mag of
Speaker 1: American rights. All the above, frankly as it currently exists.
Speaker 1: I think the million dollar question, James, is still is why.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, why this seething hatred for the
Speaker 1: current infrastructure as it current exists, and just as importantly,
Speaker 1: what is the actual goal beyond that? What do they
Speaker 1: hope to be the successor to the current vague manifestation? Again,
Speaker 1: the details can be filled in by lots of people,
Speaker 1: but the broader contours the American right, why do they
Speaker 1: hate it so freaking much that they want to tear
Speaker 1: all down and build something new?
Speaker 4: You know, it's a there's a degree of openness to
Speaker 4: this question. So I don't want to come in here
Speaker 4: and be the kind of pundit that's like, this is
Speaker 4: what it is, Josh, It's just simple. But I mean
Speaker 4: there are a lot of pieces to it too. The
Speaker 4: part that I just mentioned that, you know, there's this
Speaker 4: vision for a different kind of Republican Party post Obama
Speaker 4: that got dashed on the rocks by the success of
Speaker 4: Donald Trump and MAGA is one motivation. This so called
Speaker 4: paleo conservative movement as it's sometimes called, is trying to
Speaker 4: reassert itself into conservative politics, and Trump actually forestalled that
Speaker 4: and in fact, in some ways sort of stole their
Speaker 4: thunder a little bit. And I think there's a resentment
Speaker 4: there among a lot of the Gropers, for example, they
Speaker 4: see themselves as the real initial maga that's been stolen
Speaker 4: for this, you know, pro America thing instead. But then
Speaker 4: you have these other influences that can't be denied, that
Speaker 4: are very apparent but without hard proof of foreign influence.
Speaker 4: The conflict happening in or the issue happening in Iran,
Speaker 4: with the Iranians fighting for their liberation from the Islamic
Speaker 4: Republic right now is bringing that into stark relief. You
Speaker 4: see these same characters out talking not about the demand
Speaker 4: for liberation for Iran, as so many American conservatives, so
Speaker 4: many Israelis and so on are all kind of cheering for,
Speaker 4: as so many people in the world are cheering for,
Speaker 4: but instead counter signaling or saying, now, how's the time
Speaker 4: to make an allyship with Russia, as Tucker Carlson just
Speaker 4: came out of nowhere and said, So you have a
Speaker 4: open question that seems it's like there's a lot of smoke,
Speaker 4: even if we haven't seen the fire yet, that there
Speaker 4: are foreign influences coming in and kind of dictating in
Speaker 4: some degree what these people's angles are. So these people
Speaker 4: have the same kind of agendas to tear apart the
Speaker 4: Conservative movement to undermine America and its strength in the
Speaker 4: world to set up a multi polar world order. But
Speaker 4: they also have a strong incentive to undermine President Trump's
Speaker 4: second term and the success that it could have, and
Speaker 4: any continuation into a possible next conservative administration after him.
Speaker 1: James, just a couplement has left here before our next break.
Speaker 1: But at least one more question that comes immediately to mind,
Speaker 1: which is look personally, as observing jew, I find myself
Speaker 1: just deeply grateful when I see folks who are not
Speaker 1: themselves Jewish, who have the clarity to call out to
Speaker 1: Jew hatred unambiguously and vociferously. So for instance, we had
Speaker 1: Brandon Tatum on the show May a couple months ago,
Speaker 1: and I said the exact same thing to Brandon Sethen
Speaker 1: Babylon Bee, also a fairly recent guest. I said the
Speaker 1: same thing to him as well, there's there's there's no
Speaker 1: shortage of you guys. And I find myself just frankly,
Speaker 1: on a very personal level, but also just as an
Speaker 1: American for all the above reasons, I find myself frankly
Speaker 1: just very grateful. And I guess the question is why,
Speaker 1: you know, why do you find yourself so compelled to
Speaker 1: speak out in moments like this.
Speaker 4: You know, I feel it's very interesting because those other
Speaker 4: guys are Christian and I'm famously not, so you know,
Speaker 4: they have this other kind of religious motivation. The ties
Speaker 4: there are deep. Of course, I'm broadly culturally Christian and
Speaker 4: whatever that word means. I grew up in a Christian context,
Speaker 4: et cetera, et cetera. But I was raised with kind
Speaker 4: of a very plain spoken mother, just very you know,
Speaker 4: plain woman in a lot of regards, and she used
Speaker 4: to just say right is right and wrong is wrong.
Speaker 4: It's not much more complicated than that. Of course, we
Speaker 4: know morals and ow things are a lot more complicated
Speaker 4: than that. But for you know, a raising, that's a
Speaker 4: pretty good message. And it's very clear to me and
Speaker 4: has been clear to me my entire life. Not because
Speaker 4: of some mysterious you know, post war liberal order that's
Speaker 4: going to prevent the rise of the Nazis ever again,
Speaker 4: for you know, and through artificial means and power games,
Speaker 4: but just because I don't know, this sounds peculiar to
Speaker 4: have to say out loud, but Jews are people and
Speaker 4: persecuting people for something, you know, like this just doesn't
Speaker 4: make any sense. It's just wrong. It just files under
Speaker 4: completely wrong. Plus you know all the strategic things watching
Speaker 4: you know, this coalition that we built, this thing that
Speaker 4: had all its positive momentum that was growing, get dashed
Speaker 4: on the rocks as frustrating. But right is right and
Speaker 4: wrong is wrong at the end of the day, and
Speaker 4: the right thing to do is to stand up for
Speaker 4: the freedoms and liberties of people, aside from every strategic
Speaker 4: aspect you can think of. I mean, it's said that
Speaker 4: Jews are frequently in a society canaries in the coal mine,
Speaker 4: that if they are being threatened, everybody else is going
Speaker 4: to be threatened on the back end of that. But
Speaker 4: it's not even part of the consideration except kind of
Speaker 4: as an afterthought. Right is right, wrong as wrong. This
Speaker 4: is the right thing to do.
Speaker 2: Right is right.
Speaker 1: Wrong is wrong. It's really hard, I think, to get
Speaker 1: it any simpler than that, and it's profound, and it's
Speaker 1: exactly right, frankly, And you're also totally right that no
Speaker 1: society that has ever turned around the Jews has ever
Speaker 1: been better for it. Simply put this brand new essay
Speaker 1: actually up a tablet magazine by Mike Duram. We're going
Speaker 1: to bring a Mike on the show next week to
Speaker 1: kind of unpet that thesis at greater detail. But for now, James,
Speaker 1: it has been really nice to chat with you. Thank
Speaker 1: you genuinely from bamb my heart. Thank you for speaking
Speaker 1: up with the clarity that you do on these issues.
Speaker 1: I know that I'm not the only one who's grateful
Speaker 1: for you. Follow James on X folks at Conceptual James,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining the Josh Amicher, James, we really
Speaker 1: do appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Josh.
Speaker 1: Stay tuned through the break. We will be right back
Speaker 1: on the other side. Josh Holly Missouri going crazy on
Speaker 1: a doctor? What's up with that? Stay tuned, we'll unpack
Speaker 1: it for you. Welcome back. When discussed earlier this week,
Speaker 1: the huge transgender or argument Day at the U Supreme
Speaker 1: Court on Tuesday, where are these two consolidated cases out
Speaker 1: of Idaho and West Virginia essentially presented the exact same
Speaker 1: question to the nine justices, namely, does a state law
Speaker 1: that requires only biological women to compete against fellow biological
Speaker 1: women when it comes to athletic competition? Does that law
Speaker 1: the prohibition of biological males competing against biological females in sports,
Speaker 1: does that somehow violate the fourteenth Amendment of eighteen sixty
Speaker 1: eight in the Constitution, or Title nine, the statute that
Speaker 1: was mended to the Civil Rights Acts in nineteen seventy two.
Speaker 1: The obvious answer is no, And despite some admittedly somewhat
Speaker 1: uncomfortable questions asked by the writer Center Justice at the hearing,
Speaker 1: I continue to think that this ruling will come out
Speaker 1: ultimately the correct way. You will find out soon enough.
Speaker 1: But it's not just women's athletic competition that is currently
Speaker 1: being torn asunder by the transgender lobby. Unfortunately, it is
Speaker 1: also the medical profession itself. Yes, the medical profession, the
Speaker 1: profession that is most important, literally, of all the professions.
Speaker 1: Is there one that comes to mind that is more
Speaker 1: indispensibly necessary for understanding the biological distinction between male and female,
Speaker 1: between xx chromosome structure and x y, between certain types
Speaker 1: of genitalia and other types, between certain hormones and other hormones. Well,
Speaker 1: there was a stunning clip that's also going viral over
Speaker 1: in the US. Senate Josh Hawley of Missouri, one of
Speaker 1: the most authentic Christian social conservatives, in the Senate. I'm
Speaker 1: a longtime fan of centaer holies on a personal level
Speaker 1: as well. He's going viral because he had the following
Speaker 1: exchange with a doctor who couldn't answer whether or not
Speaker 1: men can get pregnants. Go ahead and watch this one.
Speaker 2: Do you think that men can get pregnant?
Speaker 5: I hesitated there because I wasn't sure where the conversation
Speaker 5: was going or what the goal was. I mean, I
Speaker 5: do take care of patients with different identities. I take
Speaker 5: care of many women. I take care of people with
Speaker 5: different identities, and so that's where I paused. I think, yeah,
Speaker 5: I wasn't sure where you were going with that.
Speaker 2: Well, the goal is is the truth? So can men
Speaker 2: get pregnant?
Speaker 5: Again? The reason I pause there is I'm not really
Speaker 5: sure what the goal of the question.
Speaker 2: Goal is to establish a biological reality.
Speaker 6: You just said a moment ago that science and evidence
Speaker 6: should control not politics.
Speaker 2: So let's just test that proposition. Can men get pregnant?
Speaker 5: I take care of people with many identities.
Speaker 2: But can men get pregnant?
Speaker 5: Many women that can get pregnant, I do take care
Speaker 5: of people that don't identify.
Speaker 2: As women that can Can men get pregnant?
Speaker 5: Again, as I'm saying, let me.
Speaker 6: Just remind you testified to a moment ago. Science and
Speaker 6: evidence should control not politics. So should can men get pregnant?
Speaker 5: You're a doctor at say, science and evident and should
Speaker 5: guide medicine.
Speaker 6: I do science that evidence tell us that men can
Speaker 6: get pregnant, Biological men, can they get pregnant?
Speaker 5: I also think yes, No questions like this are a
Speaker 5: political tool.
Speaker 2: No, yes, no, questions are about the truth. Doctor. Let's
Speaker 2: not make a mockery of this proceeding.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, first of all, I mean the sheer chutzpah,
Speaker 1: The temerity of this doctor to question Josh Holly, a
Speaker 1: former state Attorney General, former clerk on the U Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: as to what is or is not an appropriate question
Speaker 1: to ask a witness testifying is early remarkable. But doctor
Speaker 1: niche Verma is not just a doctor. She is an obgyn.
Speaker 1: This is someone who is tasked whose job is to
Speaker 1: care for women, mainly when they're pregnant, but also when
Speaker 1: they're healthy, for routine annual checkups and things like that.
Speaker 1: She is a women's doctor. And yet she cannot define
Speaker 1: what is the broader category of human beings who can
Speaker 1: get pregnant. This is very, very similar to that Q
Speaker 1: and A that we saw earlier this week between Justice
Speaker 1: sam Alito and Kathleen Hartnet, the lawyer for the ACLU,
Speaker 1: about what is a woman? The advocate for the ACLU
Speaker 1: couldn't answer what is woman? Or what is sex? What
Speaker 1: is the definition of sex? She basically just said there
Speaker 1: that we will defer to the underlying state statute, whoever
Speaker 1: they define it. She's neglecting to objectively answer what is sex?
Speaker 1: So too, here is doctor niez Verma, who is neglecting
Speaker 1: to answer Josh Hally's very reasonable question as to whether
Speaker 1: me being a pregnant. It's said enough that that is
Speaker 1: a reasonable question in the year twenty twenty six, not
Speaker 1: that long ago. Frankly ten years ago, fifteenth most we're
Speaker 1: really ten years ago. You could have asked a room
Speaker 1: of kindergarteners, a bunch of five year olds who are
Speaker 1: picking the nose of boogers, who are playing with the
Speaker 1: kindergarten class Bunny the rabbit, pick up their little bunnies,
Speaker 1: poop the little pebbles, and you could you could ask them, hey, Joey,
Speaker 1: hey Jane, can a man get pregnant? And they would
Speaker 1: literally answer, no, don't be silly, what are you talking about?
Speaker 1: And here's this obgyn, a a women's doctor who cannot
Speaker 1: answer as to whether men can get pregnant. Folks, we're
Speaker 1: just talking a few minutes ago with James Lindsay of
Speaker 1: new discourses about all the rot in certain parts of
Speaker 1: the so called rights, and we call it out wherever
Speaker 1: we see it, and we're not gonna stop, because it's
Speaker 1: really important. The reason that I care so much about
Speaker 1: calling out the rot on the right is because the
Speaker 1: real civilizational enemy is this the left, the folks who
Speaker 1: are trying to gaslight you and manipulate you into not
Speaker 1: understanding that men cannot get pregnant. It's not understanding that
Speaker 1: there are two sexes, not five, not twenty nine thousand,
Speaker 1: not three, not four two one two Xx's why that's it. Yes,
Speaker 1: there's a brain rot happening on the right. There is
Speaker 1: a common sense rot happening on the left and been
Speaker 1: happening now for a very very long time. The whole
Speaker 1: unborn baby is a clump of cells. Argument. Catherine Pollut,
Speaker 1: the pro abortion fanatic, wrote this book a little over
Speaker 1: a decade ago, Shout your abortion, Be Proud, of it. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's demonic. It's utterly satanic, demonic stuff. The notion that
Speaker 1: a pepubescent individual thinks that he or she is of
Speaker 1: the opposite sex and that he or she can consent
Speaker 1: with an ideologically minded parents, consent or non consent in
Speaker 1: order to engage in chest binders or puberty blockers, or
Speaker 1: hormonal therapy aka chemical castration, maybe even God for the
Speaker 1: general mutilation. This an attempt not just to trample on
Speaker 1: God's plan for the world, which it is, not just
Speaker 1: an attempt to trample on the truth which it is,
Speaker 1: is an attempt to make you lose your mind and
Speaker 1: to bring us back again to James Lindsay. This is
Speaker 1: why I care about calling out the bad actors trying
Speaker 1: to co opt and to make in their own dystopian
Speaker 1: image the right, Because only a rite that is viable,
Speaker 1: only a right that is healthy, only a right that
Speaker 1: knows what it stands for, and just as importantly, the
Speaker 1: corollary that which it does not stand for. Only that right,
Speaker 1: only that conservative movement can ever be equipped to take
Speaker 1: on these people. You think that you're gonna take on
Speaker 1: these utter lunatics, the people that can't answer whether menepregnant.
Speaker 1: You think that you're gonna take them on by welcoming
Speaker 1: neo nats. What they stand for lies. This is a
Speaker 1: woman who can't tell the truth, doctor niche Verma. She
Speaker 1: can't tell the truth to Josh Holly, Kathleen Hartnet, the
Speaker 1: ACLU lawyer. She could not tell the truth to Sam Alito.
Speaker 1: They're lying because their entire ideology and world depends upon it.
Speaker 1: That is why is of the utmost importance that we
Speaker 1: on Team Civilizational Satiny stand for the opposite of lies.
Speaker 1: We stand for the truth. The truth is downstream of
Speaker 1: the Biblical inheritance. God is part of the truth. The
Speaker 1: Bible is part of the truth. Revelation is part of
Speaker 1: the truth. That's what Western Civilization's about, isn't it. We
Speaker 1: are here to preserve this from one generation to the next.
Speaker 1: Only when we understand that will we be equipped to
Speaker 1: fight these real, real enemies of Western civilization, whether it's
Speaker 1: niche Verma, Kathleen Hartnett, or frankly even Katanjibroon Jackson, the
Speaker 1: Justice who could not answer the what is woman question
Speaker 1: at her own confirmation hearing four years ago. The right
Speaker 1: must be healthy to take on these lunatics on the left.
Speaker 1: The two are not opposite. They say, Josh, why do
Speaker 1: you call out this focus on that. You gotta do both.
Speaker 1: They completely come together, folks, It all fits together. We
Speaker 1: have to be positioned to take on the radical left.
Speaker 1: Only then will we prevail on the civilizational struggle. I'm
Speaker 1: Josh Hammer. Have a great evening. We'll be right back tomorrow.