Speaker 1: Good Monday morning.
Speaker 2: Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you as always, and Senator We've got
Speaker 1: a lot to talk about it today's show, including nationwide
Speaker 1: injunctions against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Well, this is the latest evolution of law fair and
Speaker 2: the plan from the radical left, the plan from Democrat
Speaker 2: state attorneys general, the plan from left wing activist groups
Speaker 2: is sue, sue, sue, and go to left wing activist judges,
Speaker 2: particularly the ones that Joe Biden and Barack Obama put
Speaker 2: on the courts, and use them to try to shut
Speaker 2: down the entirety of the Trump agenda. It's not going
Speaker 2: to succeed, and it is unprecedented. We're going to do
Speaker 2: deep dive and explain what's going on and how it
Speaker 2: is so far out of step from what any other
Speaker 2: president has faced. We're also going to talk about the
Speaker 2: fact that yet another anti American, anti Israel radical has
Speaker 2: had his student visa revoke the Trump administration. President Trump
Speaker 2: is serious that if you are an enemy of America,
Speaker 2: they are going to remove you from this country. You
Speaker 2: do not have an entitlement to have a student visa
Speaker 2: and to be here, and to threaten other students to
Speaker 2: threaten violence. We're going to break that down as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it really is shocking. We're going to dive into
Speaker 1: all that in just a moment. I want to talk
Speaker 1: to you real quick though, about the International Fellowship of
Speaker 1: Christians and Jews and the work that they're doing and
Speaker 1: the help that is needed for the people in Israel.
Speaker 1: After more than a year of war, tear and pain
Speaker 1: in Israel, the need for security essentials and support for
Speaker 1: the first responders is still critical. Even in times of ceasefire.
Speaker 1: Israel must be prepared for the next attack wherever it
Speaker 1: may come from. As Israel is surrounded by enemies on
Speaker 1: all sides.
Speaker 2: That is where you.
Speaker 1: Come in, and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
Speaker 1: is working on the ground to continue to support those
Speaker 1: that are in need the people of Israel with life
Speaker 1: saving security essentials are so important right now, and your
Speaker 1: gift will help save lives by providing bomb shelters, armored
Speaker 1: security vehicles and armored ambulances, firefighting equipment, flag jackets and
Speaker 1: bulletproof vests, and so much more. Your generous donation today
Speaker 1: will help ensure the people of Visrael are safe and
Speaker 1: secure in the days to come. So give a gift
Speaker 1: to bless Israel. Enter people by visiting support IFCJ dot org.
Speaker 1: That's one word support IFCJ dot org or call to
Speaker 1: donate now eight at eight four eight eight IFCJ that's
Speaker 1: eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ eight at eight
Speaker 1: four eight eight four three two five are SUPPORTIFCJ dot
Speaker 1: org center. So let's remind people of how we got
Speaker 1: to the point where this is like the new phase
Speaker 1: of law fare. Democrats weaponize our government and the court
Speaker 1: system and the DOJ when they were in charge, when
Speaker 1: they were in the White House to go after Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: even raiding his home in mar Lago. But now that
Speaker 1: he's the president again, the tactic has changed, but the
Speaker 1: outcome they're hoping is still going to be, in essence
Speaker 1: the same, which is to stop Donald Trump at all costs.
Speaker 2: Well, the left is willing to abuse the legal system
Speaker 2: to try to subvert democracy. Understand, the four times Trump
Speaker 2: was indicted, that was all about stopping democracy. This is
Speaker 2: while Democrats were strutting around like peacocks claiming to be
Speaker 2: defending democracy. But the reason they brought those indictments is
Speaker 2: they were terrified the voters were going to do what
Speaker 2: they in fact did, which was reelect Donald Trump, and
Speaker 2: Democrats wanted to stop the voters from being able to
Speaker 2: do that. Right now, the voters have voted for President Trump,
Speaker 2: the voters have voted for a Republican Senate, for a
Speaker 2: Republican House, and the left they don't care. They're angry.
Speaker 2: They're angry at the voters, and so they're going to
Speaker 2: the courts to try to prevent the President and the
Speaker 2: Congress from following through on the mandate from the voters. Now,
Speaker 2: let me lay out some numbers to give you just
Speaker 2: sort of a level of comparison in the entirety of
Speaker 2: the George W. Bush administration two terms, the Barack Obama
Speaker 2: administration two terms, and the Joe Biden administration. How many
Speaker 2: times do you think there have been nationwide injunctions issued
Speaker 2: since two thousand and one.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go like zero to one.
Speaker 2: No, No, there have been more than that. There have
Speaker 2: been thirty two, thirty two against Bush, Obama, and Biden. Now,
Speaker 2: how many nationwide injunctions do you think there have been
Speaker 2: in the first two months of the Trump presidency.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna not even try to guess, because I know
Speaker 1: I'm going to be wrong.
Speaker 2: Thirty seven.
Speaker 1: Wow, So we've already outnumbered all those other presidencies combined
Speaker 1: in essence.
Speaker 2: So two months we've had more nationwide injunctions than eight
Speaker 2: years of Bush, eight years of Barack Obama, and four
Speaker 2: years of Joe Biden. Now that in and of itself,
Speaker 2: both of those are a huge shift from what it's
Speaker 2: been historically. Now, in the entire twentieth century, how many
Speaker 2: nationwide injunctions do you think there were? No clue? Twenty
Speaker 2: seven wow. So in one hundred years there were twenty seven.
Speaker 2: Then in twenty years of Bush, Obama and Biden there
Speaker 2: were thirty two, and now in two months there have
Speaker 2: been thirty seven. This is a dramatic shift. And look,
Speaker 2: let's go back to the history before, before we had
Speaker 2: a constitution, before we had our legal system, we had
Speaker 2: the British the common law and in English equity, which
Speaker 2: is before we had the founding of the United States,
Speaker 2: you couldn't have injunctions against the crown. A judge could
Speaker 2: not enjoin the crown because the Chancellor was part of
Speaker 2: the crown. It was the same authority. And that continued
Speaker 2: for the first one hundred and fifty years of the
Speaker 2: United States. Now what happened. It used to be that
Speaker 2: there was an explosion of executive powers in the New Deal,
Speaker 2: and that led to a lot of injunctions. But those
Speaker 2: were injunctions that only restricted the government's actions with respect
Speaker 2: to the parties to the case. Now, all right, let
Speaker 2: me ask you something, Ben, one of the two of
Speaker 2: us has a law. Agree. Let me let me ask
Speaker 2: a simple question. What do you think an injunction is?
Speaker 1: An injunction is where a court steps and says you
Speaker 1: can't do that. We are stopping you from doing what
Speaker 1: you said you were going to do.
Speaker 2: So that's actually that is quite good. At injunction is
Speaker 2: ordering someone either to do something or not to do something.
Speaker 2: But it is an order from the court for someone
Speaker 2: to comply with its order. And and that is in
Speaker 2: distinction to an order for damages. So so you think
Speaker 2: about a civil suit. You know, if if if I
Speaker 2: run over your cat and you sue me, the court
Speaker 2: can say, all right, pay Ben one thousand dollars for
Speaker 2: his for his cat. That would be an award in damages.
Speaker 2: An injunction historically has been with respect to the parties
Speaker 2: of the case. So, for example, if if I keep
Speaker 2: running over your cats. If you have ten cats and
Speaker 2: I run over a cat a week, that's it.
Speaker 1: I have way too many one liners. Keep going, I
Speaker 1: don't want to You're a cat guy. I gotta be
Speaker 1: careful here.
Speaker 2: No, I'm a daughter guy. Let's be clear. So I
Speaker 2: do have three cats, but that's because I have two daughters,
Speaker 2: and in particular I have my eldest daughter, so she
Speaker 2: has three cats. And I love my daughters, and so
Speaker 2: we have three cats in our home. You're a boy, dad,
Speaker 2: and so cats are not a part of your life.
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you, and it's one of the best blessings
Speaker 1: I've ever had from them.
Speaker 2: Keep going, Well, an injunction could be let's say, a
Speaker 2: court might order me to not drive my car within
Speaker 2: five hundred yards of your house. That would be an
Speaker 2: injunction against the parties of the case. Now what is different,
Speaker 2: and by the way, so for example, and you would
Speaker 2: have those injunctions against the government, but again they were
Speaker 2: limited to the party. So for example, there were sixteen
Speaker 2: hundred injunctions issued against the enforcement of one statutory provision,
Speaker 2: which was the processing tax in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
Speaker 2: But those were each dealing with individual parties. So you
Speaker 2: had a party who brought a lawsuit and said, imposing
Speaker 2: this statutory provision, this processing taxed on me is contrary
Speaker 2: to law. And sixteen hundred times judges agreed and ordered
Speaker 2: the government don't enforce the law with respect to ben.
Speaker 2: But just because you got an injunction saying don't enforce
Speaker 2: that law with respect to you, doesn't mean that I
Speaker 2: was protected by it. And if I wanted to fight it,
Speaker 2: I had to go to court too. So that used
Speaker 2: to be the way it would happen. And then there
Speaker 2: were judicial reforms in nineteen thirty seven that Congress took
Speaker 2: a unusual mechanism, which is a three judge district court.
Speaker 2: So ordinarily in the federal courts you have district judges,
Speaker 2: single district judges, then you have courts of appeals, then
Speaker 2: you have the U. S. Supreme Court. Well, Congress created
Speaker 2: this weird hybrid that was a three judge district court.
Speaker 2: So it was three different judges, but they were a
Speaker 2: district court, and if you were seeking injunctions against a
Speaker 2: federal statute, you had to go to a three judge
Speaker 2: district court, and then you had a direct appeal to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, so it's skipped, it skipped the courts
Speaker 2: of appeals altogether. However, that ended in nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 2: and that ended in significant part because the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: had their caseload was growing dramatically because of that. And
Speaker 2: so now just about every lawsuit starts in a federal
Speaker 2: district court, if you're in the federal system, then goes
Speaker 2: to a federal Court's of appeals, and then the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court has discretionary review. They don't have to hear it,
Speaker 2: they can that shift, that shift meant the mechanism of
Speaker 2: a three judge district court was no longer there to
Speaker 2: limit how often an injunction would be given. And then
Speaker 2: it has been really it's been the activist judges that
Speaker 2: Obama and Biden have put on the courts that has
Speaker 2: led to this explosion of nationwide injunctions. It's one thing
Speaker 2: to say, this party in front of me, I'm issuing
Speaker 2: an injunction concerning the government's conduct about ben. It's another
Speaker 2: thing to say, I'm enjoining the government. You can't do
Speaker 2: X against any person in the United States of America.
Speaker 2: That is a dramatic expansion in the authority claimed by
Speaker 2: one single judge.
Speaker 1: So you look at this expansion and it's very clear
Speaker 1: that this is now war, and it's war that's been
Speaker 1: declared by these judges. Then what is the remedy here.
Speaker 1: We've heard about the idea of impeachment of judges. We've
Speaker 1: heard that this is one of those moments where it's
Speaker 1: in essence unpressing the number of judges that are trying
Speaker 1: to have nationwide power instead of and really overstepping. What
Speaker 1: is this strategy here and what does that look like
Speaker 1: to fight because it's very frustrating. If you're a voter
Speaker 1: and you're voted for Donald Trump's agenda, he wins. The
Speaker 1: majority of Americans support the agenda, and now you see
Speaker 1: these judges who were in many cases elected by no one,
Speaker 1: who are now saying, no, no, we can trump Donald Trump
Speaker 1: in the entire country with one ruling.
Speaker 2: Well, to be clear that the judges were not, in
Speaker 2: many cases elected by no one, and they were in
Speaker 2: every single case elected by no one. The mechanism that
Speaker 2: every one of these judges became a judge is they
Speaker 2: were appointed by the president, whoever the president was at
Speaker 2: the time, and they were confirmed by the United States
Speaker 2: Senate and so no federal judges elected. There are a
Speaker 2: number of checks and balances on judges. One check and
Speaker 2: balance is impeachment. However, impeachment, unfortunately, is not going to
Speaker 2: be effective against this abuse of power. And I'll tell
Speaker 2: you why. Even if so impeachment would take it actually
Speaker 2: operates very much the same way as impeachment operates against
Speaker 2: the president or against an executive officer, which is the
Speaker 2: House impeaches, and it takes only a majority in the House.
Speaker 2: So conceivably, if all the Republicans joined together, they could
Speaker 2: impeach one of these judges. Now, impeaching, however, it is
Speaker 2: not removing the judge. It is the equivalent of bringing charges.
Speaker 2: It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts,
Speaker 2: which is to bring criminal charges against someone. Impeaching is
Speaker 2: the same thing. And a majority of the House can
Speaker 2: impeach any judge. If the House chose to do so,
Speaker 2: and every Republican stood together, they could impeach a judge.
Speaker 2: But the chances that any of these judges would be
Speaker 2: removed for issuing these nationwide injunctions are zero point zero
Speaker 2: zero percent. Now why is that? The reason is because
Speaker 2: for the remedy that under the Constitution, the impeachment trial
Speaker 2: occurs in the Senate, and in order to convict, whether
Speaker 2: it's the president or a cabinet member or a federal judge,
Speaker 2: you need two thirds of the Senate. Now, we do
Speaker 2: not have sixty seven Republicans in the Senate. We only
Speaker 2: have fifty three. That means we would need at least
Speaker 2: fourteen Democrats, and that's assuming every Republican stood together. The
Speaker 2: chances of fourteen Democrats voting to convict any of these
Speaker 2: radical left wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump
Speaker 2: are zero. And understand why the Democrats in the Senate
Speaker 2: hate Trump. These are the same people that sat there
Speaker 2: and refused to applaud for the President, refuse to applaud
Speaker 2: for the mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal
Speaker 2: immigrant criminals. These are the same Democrats that refuse to
Speaker 2: applaud for a thirteen year old kid fighting to overcome
Speaker 2: brain cancer. The Democrats are not going that they're cheering
Speaker 2: on these injunctions. They want more lawlessness, and so impeachment
Speaker 2: is not going to be effective now. Secondly, another remedy
Speaker 2: is that Congress can restrict the jury urisdiction of the
Speaker 2: federal courts, and Congress has brought authority to restrict the
Speaker 2: jurisdiction of the federal courts. Actually, Congress could abolish the
Speaker 2: district courts. There's nothing in the Constitution that creates district courts.
Speaker 2: The only court created in the Constitution is the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court of the United States. And Congress created the lower courts,
Speaker 2: the district courts, and the Courts of Appeals to process
Speaker 2: the volume of cases. But Congress has brought authority to
Speaker 2: limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But again, to
Speaker 2: exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to
Speaker 2: overcome the filibuster, which means you would need sixty votes.
Speaker 2: We have fifty three Republicans. The chances of any Senate
Speaker 2: Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges issued
Speaker 2: nationwide injunction, if it's not zero, it's damn close to zero.
Speaker 2: So those remedies are quite limited. What does that mean?
Speaker 2: The remedies are the remedies are number one, Sunshine drawing
Speaker 2: attention to it and listen. I am right. I am
Speaker 2: the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Federal Courts,
Speaker 2: Oversight Agency action and federal rights, and so I am
Speaker 2: going to be sharing hearings focusing on this, focusing on remedies,
Speaker 2: and one remedy to consider, should we return to a
Speaker 2: system where you have a three judge district court to
Speaker 2: consider challenges to the constitutionality of federal statutes. I think
Speaker 2: there's a lot to be said for returning to that now. Again,
Speaker 2: I expect Democrats to oppose that, but I think focusing
Speaker 2: on it, discussing it, shining a light on it is
Speaker 2: important to counteract law fair. And then I think the
Speaker 2: real remedy is nominating and confirming good principal judges to
Speaker 2: the federal courts, to the district courts, to the court's
Speaker 2: appeals to the Supreme Court, and then reversing these adjunctions
Speaker 2: on appeal the legal process. It's going to take the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court stepping up. I don't know if they're going
Speaker 2: to do so. There are opportunities right now, multiple opportunities
Speaker 2: right now. But the most likely mechanism to rein in
Speaker 2: this abuse is going to be a Pellet review because
Speaker 2: the Senate Democrats will oppose just about anything else.
Speaker 1: So when you look at this and there's just a
Speaker 1: frustration and the frustration is how are they getting away
Speaker 1: with this? And are is this going to be what
Speaker 1: it's going to be like for the next four years?
Speaker 1: And how do we make sure that this doesn't continue on?
Speaker 1: And why is it that they don't have to play
Speaker 1: by the same rules, like it seems like it's just
Speaker 1: law fair running back and every time the American people
Speaker 1: stand up. So there's a genuine frustration here, and I
Speaker 1: hear what you're saying, but for people that it was saying, well,
Speaker 1: is there any other option? Like how do we win
Speaker 1: and yet we still lose?
Speaker 2: Well, Look, there was a recent article in the Harvard
Speaker 2: Law Review by a professor named Samuel Bray, and he
Speaker 2: surveyed every nationwide and junk issued from nineteen sixty three
Speaker 2: to twenty twenty three, so sixty years. In that period,
Speaker 2: one hundred and twenty seven injunctions nationwide. Injunctions were issued.
Speaker 2: Just over half of them were issued against Donald Trump
Speaker 2: during his first term, And if you break it down,
Speaker 2: sixty four were issued against Trump, twelve were issued against Obama,
Speaker 2: fourteen were issued against Biden. So those are the numbers
Speaker 2: for the first term. And then, as I said, in
Speaker 2: the first two months we've already had thirty seven, so
Speaker 2: the numbers are are dramatic. Now here's an interesting stat
Speaker 2: from Professor Bray's article. Of the sixty four nationwide injunctions
Speaker 2: issued against Trump policies in the first term, how many
Speaker 2: of them do you think were issued by judges appointed
Speaker 2: by a Republican?
Speaker 1: Oh, gosh, I'm going to say not as many as
Speaker 1: the Democrats. But I could be wrong, because there's been
Speaker 1: some Republican judges that shocked all of us recently.
Speaker 2: Well that's true, But here the numbers are pretty encouraging.
Speaker 2: Of the sixty four nationwide injunctions issued against Trump policies,
Speaker 2: only five were issued by judges appointed by a Republican,
Speaker 2: Which means that ninety two zero point two percent of
Speaker 2: injunctions issued against President Trump in the first term against
Speaker 2: his policies were issued by judges put on the court
Speaker 2: by a Democrat ninety two percent. And the pattern is
Speaker 2: very simple. H they're going and they're forum shopping. They're
Speaker 2: going and they're looking for friendly judges. They're going and
Speaker 2: looking for radicals who will hate the president and who
Speaker 2: will issue injunctions trying to fight back. Now, the fact
Speaker 2: that they're forum shopping. It's frustrating, but there's a longer
Speaker 2: term remedy and a shorter term remedy. The longer term
Speaker 2: remedy is put more good judges on the courts, and
Speaker 2: the shorter term memory it is appeals and hopefully getting
Speaker 2: the Court of Appeals to reverse it. And for example,
Speaker 2: one case that's going on right now, it is a
Speaker 2: case called Trump versus CASA, and in January, President Trump
Speaker 2: issued an executive order revoking birth rights citizenship for illegal
Speaker 2: aliens and those in the country temporarily. Now, the legality
Speaker 2: of that order is contested. People disagree on that, and
Speaker 2: that is going to be litigated. Well, three different district
Speaker 2: courts issued preliminary injunctions and response, now, where were those courts?
Speaker 2: One was in Seattle, one was in Maryland, one was
Speaker 2: in Massachusetts. So there's a reason they're going to blue
Speaker 2: states and they're finding really left wing judges. The Supreme
Speaker 2: Court has a chance to address the issue of nationwide injunctions,
Speaker 2: and on March thirteenth, the Acting Solicitor General of the
Speaker 2: United States, Sarah Harris, asked the Supreme Court to partially
Speaker 2: stay the preliminary injunctions, and she argued the nationwide injunctions
Speaker 2: were overbroad. She asked for them to be limited to
Speaker 2: the plaintiffs in each case or at most the residents
Speaker 2: of the states challenging the orders. So it should not
Speaker 2: be nationwide, it should only apply to those litigating and
Speaker 2: Chief Justice Roberts asked for a response to the Solicitor
Speaker 2: General's request by April fourth, So this is being litigated
Speaker 2: right now. Now. It's possible the Supreme Court will decide
Speaker 2: it on its emergency docket, which is the docket where
Speaker 2: you get emergency appeals from injunctions, or it could wait
Speaker 2: for full merits briefing, and that could take months or
Speaker 2: even years. But these cases could provide a mechanism, and
Speaker 2: I hope they do provide a mechanism to limit and
Speaker 2: rein in these nationwide injunctions that are clearly being abused.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you one other question on this
Speaker 1: just layman terms here. If there is a loss by
Speaker 1: a judge who does with of these injunctions, does that
Speaker 1: then have precedent over other judges around the country, or
Speaker 1: can other judges then just say well, I'm going to
Speaker 1: take up the torch and buy more time and be
Speaker 1: an activist as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, it can definitely be the latter. And so
Speaker 2: now it depends. It depends where the loss occurs. So
Speaker 2: if a district judge issues an injunction and it gets
Speaker 2: appealed to the Court of Appeals and the Court of
Speaker 2: Appeals reverses that injunction, that reversal binds all the district
Speaker 2: judges in that circuit, so their circuit's all over the country.
Speaker 2: So for example, Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, and
Speaker 2: the Fifth Circuit governs only those states that are in
Speaker 2: the Fifth Circuit. On the other hand, if the case
Speaker 2: goes up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court issues
Speaker 2: are ruling that precedent binds federal judges across the country.
Speaker 2: So the real answer, hopefully is to get this to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court and get a good Supreme Court ruling
Speaker 2: limiting the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This
Speaker 2: is clearly something that is being abused and it is
Speaker 2: crying out for the Supreme Court to rein it in.
Speaker 1: So do you think that in the near future there's
Speaker 1: a what are the odds this can go to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and that this can at least have some
Speaker 1: sort of like present on the countries that the president
Speaker 1: can do his job.
Speaker 2: Look, it can go to the Supreme Court. It is
Speaker 2: at the Supreme Court right now. The question is are
Speaker 2: there five justices willing to rein it in? And we
Speaker 2: have seen in some of these early cases sometimes the
Speaker 2: answer is yes, sometimes the answer is no. And so
Speaker 2: it's going to come down to Chief Justice Roberts. It's
Speaker 2: going to come down to Justice Amy Cony, Barrett and
Speaker 2: Neil Gorsich and Brett Kavanon. We'll see how how they rule.
Speaker 2: I feel very confident that that that Clarence Thomas and
Speaker 2: Samuel Alito are are more than ready to rein in
Speaker 2: the abuse of nationwide injunctions. But I don't know if
Speaker 2: there are five justices or not.
Speaker 1: Senator I want to move to the other story that
Speaker 1: you mentioned earlier, and this goes in the category of
Speaker 1: promises made, promises cap for Donald Trump. Another pro Haamas
Speaker 1: protester is in serious trouble after his actions on a
Speaker 1: college campus. This is making liberal heads explode. But this
Speaker 1: is exactly what the President said he was going to do,
Speaker 1: and he's making good on that promise yet again.
Speaker 2: Well, and this is something we discussed in the podcast.
Speaker 2: You and I did at Seapack when we interviewed Pam
Speaker 2: Bondi and we talked about the fact that the Trump
Speaker 2: administration is going to go after these radical anti Semitic,
Speaker 2: anti American, anti Israel protesters. And if you threaten violence
Speaker 2: against fellow students or if you are attacking America, you
Speaker 2: have no entitlement to be allowed into this country. And
Speaker 2: it's interesting you're seeing Democrats who are suddenly discovered free speech.
Speaker 2: Mind you, when it comes to to Americans speaking, they
Speaker 2: don't give a damn about free speech. When it comes
Speaker 2: to big tech censoring you, they don't care about free speech.
Speaker 2: American citizens have no First Amendment rights, and the Democrats
Speaker 2: bizarre lexicon. But if you are a vicious anti Semite,
Speaker 2: if you hate America, if you hate Israel, and you're
Speaker 2: not an American, well then suddenly they think you're protected.
Speaker 2: And it is insane. So the latest radical who had
Speaker 2: his visa revoked is a student at Cornell and he's
Speaker 2: an individual named Mommodo Tal now Momodo Tal, according to
Speaker 2: the Washington Free Beacon, is a graduate student who has
Speaker 2: called for the destruction of the United States. Has celebrated
Speaker 2: the October seventh attacks by Hamas and has said that
Speaker 2: he takes his quote Q from the armed resistance in Palestine. Now,
Speaker 2: who is Mammado Tal? He is a British and gam
Speaker 2: being dual national, so he's not an American. And he
Speaker 2: began studying in Cornell twenty twenty two on an F
Speaker 2: one student visa. That student visa has been revoked. Good
Speaker 2: and Tall received an email from the Department of Justice
Speaker 2: that said ICE invites mister Tall and his counsel to
Speaker 2: appear in person at the HSI office in Syracuse at
Speaker 2: a mutually agreeable time for personal service of the notice
Speaker 2: to appear and for mister Tall to surrender to ICE custody.
Speaker 2: And of course what did Tall do? He engaged in
Speaker 2: law fair and wet and final lawsuits seeking to block it.
Speaker 2: Now what has Tall said? Tall has said, Number one,
Speaker 2: He's called on fellow student protesters to take their cues
Speaker 2: from the arm resistance in Palisine, armed by the way,
Speaker 2: not just resistance, armed resistance. He has also said, quote,
Speaker 2: we are in solidarity with the arm resistance in Palestine
Speaker 2: from the river to the sea. He also said just
Speaker 2: after October seventh, hours after he said quote, the dialect
Speaker 2: demands that wherever you have oppression, you will find those
Speaker 2: who are fighting against it. Glory to the resistance. Now
Speaker 2: the dialect, Look, this guy is a communist, he's a Marxist.
Speaker 2: We talked about how cultural Marxism they divide the world
Speaker 2: into oppressors and victims, and they actively cheer on the
Speaker 2: violent revolution of the so called victims against the so
Speaker 2: called oppressors. Now, this is ours after October seventh. This
Speaker 2: is as women and little girls are being raped, as
Speaker 2: twelve hundred civilians are being murdered. And here is what
Speaker 2: he's saying. The dialect demands that wherever you have oppression,
Speaker 2: you will find those who are fighting against it. Glory
Speaker 2: to the resistance. That's not all he said. When he
Speaker 2: applied for his student visa, he wrote quote, and this
Speaker 2: is on Twitter, the end of the US Empire in
Speaker 2: our lifetime in shallah. Months later, the idiots in the
Speaker 2: Biden administration gave him his student visa and he wrote,
Speaker 2: student visa issued. We are going to America, baby alham
Speaker 2: di lula. I don't know what that means, but I'm
Speaker 2: guessing it is not nice. Shortly thereafter, he tweeted my
Speaker 2: hatred of the US Empire knows no bound Walahai. Again,
Speaker 2: I don't know what that means, but I'm guessing again
Speaker 2: it is celebrating against America. One other thing he posted
Speaker 2: quote when the enemy is US imperialism, then absolutely anyone
Speaker 2: the US calls an enemy is my friend. Let me
Speaker 2: be clear, this anti American, anti Semitic radical who hates
Speaker 2: America needs to get the hell out of our country.
Speaker 2: He has no entitlement to be here, and we have
Speaker 2: no obligation. We have no legal obligation, We have no
Speaker 2: constitutional obligation, and we certainly have no moral obligation to say, hey,
Speaker 2: people who hate America, people who say quote anyone who
Speaker 2: calls the US an enemy is my friend. You know
Speaker 2: what if that's true, get your ass out of this country.
Speaker 2: We don't need you here threatening Americans.
Speaker 1: It really is about threatening Americans and threatening kids on
Speaker 1: college campuses. And we've seen anti semitism, for example, that
Speaker 1: is just skyrocket on college campuses, and a lot of
Speaker 1: this is well organized. We continue to see that a
Speaker 1: lot of these agitators and protesters are acting in groups
Speaker 1: and pre planning this around the country, and that has
Speaker 1: to be very concerning. I think not only for college students,
Speaker 1: but especially for students that are Jewish, but really concerning
Speaker 1: for I think everyday Americans understand that we've been allowing
Speaker 1: these people in and this is what they're doing.
Speaker 2: And understand the threats. Let me read you another tweet
Speaker 2: that he sent quote, we are actually living in an
Speaker 2: e fing alternative reality, although he did not abbreviate fing.
Speaker 2: Zionists living comfortably in the US and Zionist Jewish students
Speaker 2: at Ivy League institutions are claiming to be unsafe, scared,
Speaker 2: and somehow everyone is calling for their genocide, whilst in
Speaker 2: four K we are witnessing a genocide of the Palestinian people,
Speaker 2: and many of these same folks who claim to feel
Speaker 2: scared are cheering on the actions of the IOF BFFR.
Speaker 2: I don't know what that means. Every single Zionist is
Speaker 2: a sick, sick individual and there can be no path
Speaker 2: forward except for the complete eradication of Zionism materially and mentally.
Speaker 2: And then he tweets a little bit later, Zionists are
Speaker 2: indeed the chosen people chosen for Hell. Now understand one
Speaker 2: game that anti Semites play, which is many times they
Speaker 2: use the word Zionist when what they mean is jew
Speaker 2: and they just think it's It's like, oh, I'm pretending
Speaker 2: to be slightly less bigoted by calling it Zionists. Look,
Speaker 2: they consider an ani Actually, at one point says Zionist
Speaker 2: slash Jewish students, This is an anti Semite who hates
Speaker 2: Jews and who is calling for the complete eradication of Zionism,
Speaker 2: by which he means the complete eradication of Jews. And
Speaker 2: he says they are the chosen people, they are chosen
Speaker 2: for Hell. This is a bigot who hates America. And
Speaker 2: you know what was happening after the Trump administration moved
Speaker 2: to deport this radical leftists were protesting in support of him.
Speaker 2: And by the way, have you heard a single Democrat
Speaker 2: in the Senate speak out in favor of revoking his visa. No,
Speaker 2: you had left wing activists on Cornell protesting his deportation
Speaker 2: on Thursday and they were chanting hands off MoMA do,
Speaker 2: waving signs opposing mass deportation. Listen, any reporter, every reporter
Speaker 2: ought to ask the Democrats do you believe we have
Speaker 2: to give student visas to people who say they're enemies
Speaker 2: of America and hate America. It's there's no legal basis
Speaker 2: for that. And I have yet to see a Democrat
Speaker 2: explain why they cheer on pro hamas radicals. But I
Speaker 2: got to say, let's say you're a moderate Democrat but
Speaker 2: not swept up the in the sort of Trump derangement syndrome. Anger.
Speaker 2: You gotta ask why Washington Democrats when they look at
Speaker 2: October seventh, when they look at the radicals on campuses,
Speaker 2: why the Democrats say we stand with Amas and we
Speaker 2: stand with the PROPOMAUS protesters. That's got to make you
Speaker 2: wonder what the heck has happened to the Democrat party.
Speaker 1: All right, don't forget. We do this show on Monday,
Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday. So hit that subscriber, that auto download
Speaker 1: button wherever you're listening, And if you'll help us grow
Speaker 1: by sharing this podcast anywhere you're on social media. A
Speaker 1: lot of you been doing that. We want to say
Speaker 1: thank you. So if you're on Facebook or x or Instagram,
Speaker 1: wherever you are true social share this this episode behind
Speaker 1: that will Ford Arrow and it'll show up and help
Speaker 1: reach new people in the center. And I will see
Speaker 1: you back here on Wednesday morning.