Speaker 1: Center. Nice to be with you.
Speaker 2: Happy fourth in July for everyone that's watching A day afterwards,
Speaker 2: and there were some really big victories in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I think we should take.
Speaker 2: A moment to celebrate it also to tell people what
Speaker 2: is in these victories and what it means for precedence
Speaker 2: moving forward.
Speaker 1: And then there's politics dealing with us as well.
Speaker 2: We'll deal with that in a moment, with Democrats really
Speaker 2: trying to undermine the Court. But I go back to
Speaker 2: a saying that is said so many times by Conservats
Speaker 2: when they're running for office. Elections have consequences, and we
Speaker 2: have had some elections that made a solid conservative Supreme.
Speaker 1: Court, and now we're reaping the benefits of that.
Speaker 3: Well, let me say happy Birthday to the United States
Speaker 3: of America. July fourth. We celebrated our incredible nation. We
Speaker 3: celebrated our freedom. We celebrated the founding of this nation.
Speaker 3: We celebrated the signing of the Declaration of Independence. We
Speaker 3: hold these truths to be self evident, that all men
Speaker 3: are created equal, that they are in by their creator
Speaker 3: with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
Speaker 3: in the pursuit of happiness. Those were extraordinary words, and
Speaker 3: I got to say those words were vindicated. Last week,
Speaker 3: we had some blockbuster Supreme Court decisions. We discussed several
Speaker 3: of them in an earlier pod last week. We're going
Speaker 3: to discuss two more today, two big, big decisions, the
Speaker 3: student loan decisions and the free speech religious liberty decision
Speaker 3: coming out of Colorado. Let's start with student loans. In
Speaker 3: Biden versus Nebraska, the Supreme Court, by a vote of
Speaker 3: six to three, struck down Joe Biden's blatantly illegal attempt
Speaker 3: to forgive student loans. It was an attempt right before
Speaker 3: the last election to buy a whole lot of votes.
Speaker 3: Joe Biden knew that it was lawless, He knew that
Speaker 3: he had no legal authority to do it. He knew
Speaker 3: that his lawyers almost certainly advised him this is contrary
Speaker 3: to federal statute. And he made the decision, screw it.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna do it anyway, buy and votes because we
Speaker 3: got an election coming up, and we're going to buy votes.
Speaker 3: I'm going to tell people they're going to get their
Speaker 3: loans forgiven, even though, and I would wager dollar to
Speaker 3: donuts his lawyers told him we're gonna get sued we're
Speaker 3: going to go to court.
Speaker 4: We're gonna lose.
Speaker 3: And I do want to point out as we talk
Speaker 3: about this, when Biden issued this illegal student loan forgiveness plan,
Speaker 3: the next podcast we did, we did a deep analysis
Speaker 3: on the law and why it was illegal. Then that
Speaker 3: walks through the law and makes clear then what the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court has now ruled now, which is that we
Speaker 3: are a nation of laws and the president cannot act
Speaker 3: contrary to federal law. Now, the amazing thing is, you
Speaker 3: know who used to know.
Speaker 2: That, A lot of liberals, one of them that I
Speaker 2: know that you don't usually agree with Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know that we've ever teed up
Speaker 3: Nancy Pelosi in a positive sense. There is Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 3: doing something you've never seen or heard before, speaking the truth.
Speaker 5: People think that the President of the United States has
Speaker 5: the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone,
Speaker 5: he can delay, but he does not have that power.
Speaker 5: That would has to be an Act of Congress. And
Speaker 5: I don't even like to call it forgiveness because that
Speaker 5: implies a transgression. It's not to be forgiven to get
Speaker 5: just bring people from those obligations so the question of
Speaker 5: who gets forgiven, whether to use the term of art
Speaker 5: that is out there is a debate. Do we use
Speaker 5: whatever money there is for the broadest base of support
Speaker 5: of those with more people with even less debt or
Speaker 5: fewer people with more debt. That a policy discussion, but
Speaker 5: the difference between the president president can't do it, So
Speaker 5: that's not even a discussion that not everybody realizes that.
Speaker 5: But the president can only postpone delay but not forgive.
Speaker 2: I've never enjoyed listening Nancy Pelosi more in my entire
Speaker 2: life than that clip right there.
Speaker 3: It truly is shocking. Every word she said was true. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and she said that beforehand.
Speaker 4: It was obvious.
Speaker 3: Look, everyone knew this that you couldn't just that the
Speaker 3: president's not a king, that he doesn't get to waive
Speaker 3: a scepter and forgive massive amounts of student loans. And look,
Speaker 3: there policy issues, and there are legal issues on the
Speaker 3: policy issues. What Joe Biden the Democrats did is is
Speaker 3: they purported to forgive ten thousand or in some cases,
Speaker 3: twenty thousand dollars of student loans from individuals making one
Speaker 3: hundred and twenty five thousand or lesser from couples making
Speaker 3: two hundred and fifty thousand or less. They did it
Speaker 3: because they thought, Okay, a bunch of young people, we
Speaker 3: can buy their votes, we can get a to go
Speaker 3: vote Democrat. And this was designed to be a massive
Speaker 3: wealth transfer. And so who were they hurting. They were
Speaker 3: hurting every person in this country that didn't get a
Speaker 3: college degree. They were hurting truck drivers, they were hurting
Speaker 3: steel workers, they were hurting blue collar workers. They were
Speaker 3: hurting union members. They were hurting also everyone who did
Speaker 3: get a college degree, who actually saved up and paid
Speaker 3: for their college degree. They're hurting everyone who did what
Speaker 3: I did, took loans. Look look when I went to college,
Speaker 3: a lot of them. When I went to college. When
Speaker 3: I went to grad school, my parents had just declared bankruptcy.
Speaker 3: They were in the oil and gas business. They had
Speaker 3: a small business. It was the mid eighties. Oil cratered
Speaker 3: and we lost everything. We lost our business, we lost
Speaker 3: our home. They were in bankruptcy. So I showed up
Speaker 3: in college and they had no money at all. I
Speaker 3: was seventeen and was on my own financially, and so
Speaker 3: I took a ton of student life in college and
Speaker 3: in law school, I came out of grad school with
Speaker 3: about one hundred grand in student loans.
Speaker 1: And this is back, I mean in today's dollars, that's
Speaker 1: a lot.
Speaker 3: That's a lot. This is twenty plus years ago, significant
Speaker 3: amount of cash. It was nineteen ninety five. I owed
Speaker 3: over one hundred grand, so that almost thirty years ago.
Speaker 3: And you know, I joked that I had a mortgage.
Speaker 3: I just didn't have a house. Yeah, And I paid
Speaker 3: off those student loans for almost two decades. I paid
Speaker 3: them all off eventually, but I made payments every month,
Speaker 3: every month. And when I had a job, I sent
Speaker 3: a check, and I sent a check, and I sent
Speaker 3: a check. And that's the way you're doing it. Well,
Speaker 3: you know what the Democrats said. You know, you and
Speaker 3: I are chumps. If you paid off your student loan,
Speaker 3: you're a fool. The responsible ones, Nope, what they want
Speaker 3: to do, and it's a reverse robinhood. They're literally taking
Speaker 3: it from guys out digging ditches. They're taking their money
Speaker 3: and they're giving it to young lawyers and young doctors
Speaker 3: and young university professors. And really that's who the Democrat
Speaker 3: Party is, which is the party of the wealthy intelligentsia.
Speaker 3: And today The Republican Party is a blue collar party.
Speaker 3: It's the party of working men and women. It's also
Speaker 3: a party of responsibility. Like you know, there's a funny
Speaker 3: meme online which is, you know, solving the student debt crisis,
Speaker 3: you borrowed it, you took a loan solution.
Speaker 4: Pay it back. Yeah, that was my solution.
Speaker 3: And look, it wasn't fun to spend almost twenty years
Speaker 3: paying it back. But I took the loan, I owed
Speaker 3: the money. And by the way, I also took the
Speaker 3: loan to get a degree to make money. That enabled
Speaker 3: me to get a good job to make the money
Speaker 3: to pay it back. This is an issue where on
Speaker 3: politics the Democrats have a confluence of number one sort
Speaker 3: of young, unemployed slacker smoking bonds. That's who they're appealing to.
Speaker 3: These are the same people who do during COVID they
Speaker 3: wanted to pay not to work. Well, you know, if
Speaker 3: you're not working, it's hard to pay your student loans.
Speaker 3: And suddenly Democrats have told a bunch of twenty three
Speaker 3: year olds, you don't got to work, man, that'd be
Speaker 3: mean to make you work.
Speaker 1: Or you don't have to pay off your loans for
Speaker 1: years now.
Speaker 4: Right like that?
Speaker 3: But there's a second group, which is the constituencies, which
Speaker 3: is the universities, and the universities have become entrenched pits
Speaker 3: of Marxism. But ironically they're Marxists who like to make
Speaker 3: the money, which is actually not that ironic. If you
Speaker 3: look at whether it's Putin, whether it's Fidel Castro, whether
Speaker 3: it's She. Marxists lived like billionaires. They're actually very good
Speaker 3: in using power for them to live well. So the
Speaker 3: universities are printing money.
Speaker 1: But they're can endowments. People don't talk about either.
Speaker 4: Multi multi billion dollar endowments.
Speaker 3: The professors live like kings and they can't get fired.
Speaker 3: They have life tenure, and they convince young people, hey,
Speaker 3: take one hundred thousand or two hundred thousand student loans
Speaker 3: to get a major in underwater basket weaving or in
Speaker 3: you know, transgender.
Speaker 4: Literature analysis.
Speaker 3: And then they find wait, I got a degree that
Speaker 3: no one wants to hire.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like there is.
Speaker 3: It used to be when you went to school and
Speaker 3: you're taking loans and you said, okay, I got to
Speaker 3: pay these loans back. You stopped and said, okay, at
Speaker 3: the end of this, I'd like to be able to
Speaker 3: get a job and So the Democrats are taking care
Speaker 3: of two constituencies, young people who they've convinced it's a
Speaker 3: good idea not to work and they don't have to
Speaker 3: pay their debts, and universities who are scamming young people,
Speaker 3: not teaching them life skills to get good jobs, but
Speaker 3: instead in doctrinating them with woke nonsense, which happens not
Speaker 3: to pay the bills at the end of the day.
Speaker 3: And here's what they're gambling. They're gambling that the truck
Speaker 3: drivers and steel workers will never know the difference, that
Speaker 3: the union workers won't understan stand they're getting sold a
Speaker 3: bill of goods. I'll tell you there's one fellow understood.
Speaker 3: A fellow came up and talked to Elizabeth Warren. So
Speaker 3: watch this exchange in twenty twenty on the campaign trail
Speaker 3: when she was offering the same sort of giveaway that
Speaker 3: Joe Biden tried to do.
Speaker 6: I just want to ask one question, because my daughter's
Speaker 6: getting out of school. I saved all my money. She
Speaker 6: doesn't have any scheming my conflict. Am I gonna get.
Speaker 7: Your money back?
Speaker 6: So it's not so you're gonna pay for people who
Speaker 6: didn't save any money. So, yeah, those of us who
Speaker 6: did the right thing get screamed.
Speaker 8: You know it's not even got scream.
Speaker 1: We said, of course we did.
Speaker 6: My buddy had fun, bought a car, went on vacations.
Speaker 6: I saved my money. He made more than idea. But
Speaker 6: I worked a double, ship, worked extra. My daughters works
Speaker 6: in his tent.
Speaker 1: So you're laughing.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing. We did the right
Speaker 6: thing and we get screamed.
Speaker 7: I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Sorry, there's a lot of people that feel like him.
Speaker 1: I remember the first check I ever got.
Speaker 2: I wrote a book right out of college, and I
Speaker 2: got that advance check and I paid off a large
Speaker 2: chunk of my student loans.
Speaker 1: I didn't want to.
Speaker 2: I wanted to go buy something fun like you was
Speaker 2: talking about his buddy a new car, and I said, no,
Speaker 2: I'm going to be responsible. I don't want to have debt.
Speaker 2: There are people that work two jobs and three jobs
Speaker 2: out of school to pay off those student loans. And
Speaker 2: he's right what he was saying here.
Speaker 4: But by the way, notice her response. Her first response.
Speaker 3: She laughs at him, yeah, and then she's like thank
Speaker 3: you and just walks off. She doesn't answer his question.
Speaker 3: He says, I got screwed my buddy. He went out,
Speaker 3: bought a new car, lived it out, and she has
Speaker 3: no substantive response. That is the modern Democrat response. They
Speaker 3: don't give a damn. They don't actually engage in debate
Speaker 3: with you, they don't actually have a discussion. They're like,
Speaker 3: you don't matter, I don't care about you, because they're
Speaker 3: gambling that other people like him won't realize they're getting screwed.
Speaker 4: And you know the magnitude of it.
Speaker 3: So look, the legal argument that Joe Biden put forward
Speaker 3: to how he claimed he had the thought to do
Speaker 3: that is something called the Heroes Act. So the Heroes
Speaker 3: Act was a bill that Congress passed following nine to eleven.
Speaker 3: So September eleventh, the Global War on Terror begins. Planes
Speaker 3: fly into the World Trade Center, fly into the Pentagon.
Speaker 3: Congress passed the Heroes Act, which gives the Secretary of
Speaker 3: Education the authority to quote, waiver modify any statutory regulatory
Speaker 3: provision applicable to the student financial Assistance programs under Title
Speaker 3: I of the Education Act, as the Secretary deems necessary
Speaker 3: in connection with a war or other military operation or
Speaker 3: national emergency. In other words, the Heroes Act was designed
Speaker 3: to there are a bunch of soldiers and sailors and
Speaker 3: airmen and marines that were off in Afghanistan, off fighting
Speaker 3: to defend America. And it was to say, we can
Speaker 3: give some debt relief to those young fighting men and
Speaker 3: women that are keeping us safe. And what Joe Biden
Speaker 3: said is, well, now, everybody, we're all soldiers now, yeah,
Speaker 3: And they hinge it all on national emergency. They said, well, okay,
Speaker 3: COVID's a national emergency.
Speaker 1: So therefore we'll stop all the payments.
Speaker 4: And then we'll just forgive it.
Speaker 3: And by the way, the magnitude of how much we're
Speaker 3: talking about, the initial estimates were five hundred billion. There
Speaker 3: were later estimates that this was over a trillion dollars.
Speaker 3: You could never get a firm estimate on how much
Speaker 3: it costs. And the argument of the Democrats was, with
Speaker 3: a stroke of the pen, Joe Biden could give away
Speaker 3: a trillion dollars because he wants to or to buy votes.
Speaker 3: In translation, and one of the fundamental protections of the
Speaker 3: Constitution is that Congress has the power of the purse.
Speaker 3: In other words, if you're going to spend money, the
Speaker 3: elected representatives in Congress have to sign off on it.
Speaker 3: This was an assault fundamentally on the limitations of the
Speaker 3: power of the president and the requirement that it be
Speaker 3: Congress that appropriates money. And yet here's Joe Biden reacting
Speaker 3: with disdain at anyone who would hold him too account.
Speaker 2: Before we get to that, I want to tell you
Speaker 2: about Augusta Precious Medals. If you are sick and tired
Speaker 2: of being stressed out about your retirement portfolio and you
Speaker 2: have had losses over the last couple of years, and
Speaker 2: you say, hey, I want to preserve my wealth, I
Speaker 2: am in retirement, I am close to retirement, then you
Speaker 2: need to check out what august of Precious Metals can
Speaker 2: do for you and your retirement account. They can help
Speaker 2: you navigate the crazy maze of the economy by protecting
Speaker 2: your hard earned assets with gold. They can help you
Speaker 2: switch to a gold IRA or four to one K.
Speaker 2: They will actually send you the free Investor's guide on
Speaker 2: gold and do a one on one web conference. This
Speaker 2: is like no other company out there because they sit
Speaker 2: down with you and they look at your life, your retirement,
Speaker 2: and your needs before any decisions are made on what
Speaker 2: you do next. Check out Augusta Precious Metals and see
Speaker 2: if a gold IRA is right for you to preserve
Speaker 2: your hard earned hours. You can call them eight seven
Speaker 2: seven the number four gold IR eight seven seven. The
Speaker 2: number four gold IRA used a promo code Verdict and
Speaker 2: you can get also the free Investor's Guide on gold
Speaker 2: Augusta Precious Metals dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot
Speaker 2: com eight seven seven the number four Gold IRA Center.
Speaker 1: Let's take a look at this.
Speaker 2: Is Joe Biden, in his own words, getting very upset
Speaker 2: that people are questioning his motive or was he just
Speaker 2: straight uplying to the American people.
Speaker 9: Mister president, why did you give millions of borrowers false hope?
Speaker 9: You've dated doubted your own authority here in the past.
Speaker 7: I didn't give any false hope. The question was whether
Speaker 7: or not if I would do even more than was requested.
Speaker 7: What I did I thought was appropriate and was able
Speaker 7: to be done and would get done. I didn't give
Speaker 7: bars false hope. But the Republicans snatched away the hope
Speaker 7: that they were given.
Speaker 2: And it's real, there was no hope ever from Republicans
Speaker 2: this would ever pass Number one and two. I really
Speaker 2: get to say this, what hell of a question from
Speaker 2: a reporter finally about him lying to the American people
Speaker 2: on purpose.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, he knew he was lying. His team knew
Speaker 3: he was lying, the media knew he was lying. Everyone
Speaker 3: knew that giving away a trillion dollars to every student
Speaker 3: borrower in America was not falling under the Heroes Act
Speaker 3: for Times of War taking care of soldiers and sailors. Yeah,
Speaker 3: like it was a ludicrous interpretation. His own Department of
Speaker 3: Justice had told him that, and then he flipped, had
Speaker 3: them flip their decision and wrote a very creative opinion
Speaker 3: to justify the lawlessness. And you know what, it was
Speaker 3: great political lawyering. In other words, it was putting politics
Speaker 3: ahead of law. It was obvious on this podcast more
Speaker 3: than a year ago. I said this will be struck down,
Speaker 3: and it will be struck down six ' to three.
Speaker 3: And the only challenge, I said, was standing. In other words,
Speaker 3: they were gamming that it was going to be hard
Speaker 3: to find a plaintiff who could challenge it. That was
Speaker 3: their one hope is the court couldn't get to the merits.
Speaker 3: I said, if he gets to the merits, it's a
Speaker 3: six ' to three easy decision. As it so happened,
Speaker 3: there were two lawsuits. One of them the Spring Court
Speaker 3: threw out and said you didn't have standing, but the
Speaker 3: other one, the Nebraska case, they concluded they did have
Speaker 3: standing and on the merits it was exactly what I said. Actually,
Speaker 3: Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, quoted Nancy
Speaker 3: Pelosi with what we just played and said, look, everyone
Speaker 3: knew you couldn't do this, and this was a political
Speaker 3: decision to.
Speaker 4: Ignore the law.
Speaker 3: And you know, it's interesting, Biden gets so angry when
Speaker 3: he's challenged. It is really happened. It so rarely happens,
Speaker 3: but his anger is is just palpable at it. And
Speaker 3: it's and by the way, we forced to vote in
Speaker 3: Congress to to rescind this legislatively, and the Democrats in
Speaker 3: a party line vote, they've decided blue collar voters don't
Speaker 3: matter to them. They think the Democrats think blue collar
Speaker 3: voters are too dumb to know they're getting screwed here,
Speaker 3: that this is this is the Democrat Party selling out
Speaker 3: steel workers.
Speaker 4: In order to buy favor with gender studies.
Speaker 2: Majors, We've seen big victories in the Supreme Court recently
Speaker 2: like we've never seen before, at least in my lifetime,
Speaker 2: and consistently. There's something that's happening here that I think
Speaker 2: is encouraging because we're seeing the rule of law being
Speaker 2: applied and they're not getting away.
Speaker 1: With these radical ideas.
Speaker 2: There's also those something that's happening that concerns me and
Speaker 2: I think many people that listen to this podcast and watch,
Speaker 2: and that is the delegitimizing and the undermining of the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court and what Democrats are trying to do.
Speaker 1: And it's happened. We saw this with Roe v. Wade.
Speaker 2: We've gone a great detail on that, the threats and
Speaker 2: the pressure, the leaking of that opinion, doxing the the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court justice where they live, putting their lives in danger.
Speaker 2: In other words, Democrats saying, if you don't give us
Speaker 2: what we want, we're going to burn the whole place down.
Speaker 2: We're gonna pack the court, We're gonna redo it the
Speaker 2: way we want it.
Speaker 1: How we even say term limits.
Speaker 2: In fact, you can see the media when they all
Speaker 2: got together in this montage doing exactly that when they
Speaker 2: didn't get their way on one issue.
Speaker 7: And honestly, at this point, I think we're all right
Speaker 7: to a question the legitimacy of the.
Speaker 5: Court like an anti version activist wrote it not a
Speaker 5: Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 6: These justices are acting like this is somehow something that
Speaker 6: they have the right to change.
Speaker 9: They do not have the right to.
Speaker 6: Change this and this Supreme Court.
Speaker 10: That's it.
Speaker 5: They don't care.
Speaker 9: They don't care about this women.
Speaker 5: What they care about is enclosing their extremest view all
Speaker 5: the rest of the country.
Speaker 2: Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of
Speaker 2: rights in the past fifty years.
Speaker 8: Part of the.
Speaker 1: Decision would be an abomination and abomination that's just on
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade.
Speaker 2: But they are now pushing this every time they don't
Speaker 2: get their way. Hey, we're going to de legitimize this court.
Speaker 2: We're gonna say that they're wrong. We saw Joe Biden
Speaker 2: say this court's not a normal court or something to
Speaker 2: that effect when he was walking out he took that
Speaker 2: last question.
Speaker 1: He was walking out the room of the White House.
Speaker 1: And that concerns me.
Speaker 2: And the Supreme Court does at least seem to be
Speaker 2: fighting back a little bit.
Speaker 3: The radical left has corrupted every major institution of government.
Speaker 3: We've seen under Joe Biden. We've seen the hard left,
Speaker 3: the cultural Marxists take over We've seen them politicize and
Speaker 3: weaponized the Department of Justice, politicize and weaponize the FBI,
Speaker 3: politicize and weaponized the IRS, politicize and weaponize the intelligence community.
Speaker 3: As you know, my last book, Justice Corrupted. The entire
Speaker 3: book is on the left seizing law enforcement and turning
Speaker 3: it into a political weapon to attack their opponents.
Speaker 4: We've also seen them do that in Congress.
Speaker 3: The absolute abuse of power we've seen from congressional Democrats
Speaker 3: in the Senate and in the House last year, the
Speaker 3: radical agenda they ram through the strict party line vote.
Speaker 3: There used to be such a thing as moderate Democrats
Speaker 3: in the Senate. In the House, they don't exist anymore.
Speaker 3: They have been driven out because the Democrats hate Trump
Speaker 3: so much that they've embraced Look Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Speaker 3: Sanders and AOC that is the heart of today's Democrat party.
Speaker 3: They're all socialists now. The one institution the Democrats have
Speaker 3: not managed to corrupt as the Supreme Court. So they've
Speaker 3: corrupted from within the executive branch, both the presidency but
Speaker 3: also the cabinet members, but also the career bureaucrats.
Speaker 4: Up and down the agencies.
Speaker 3: They've corrupted Congress, the Senate, in the House, they've corrupted
Speaker 3: the media, they've corrupted big tech. And the one outlier
Speaker 3: is the third branch of government, the judiciary that thank god,
Speaker 3: there are justices there who are actually following the law
Speaker 3: and the fury they have. Look this student loan decision.
Speaker 3: A few years ago, Nancy Pelosi said, it was obvious
Speaker 3: any lawyer who tells you like is actually speaking the truth,
Speaker 3: who is at a wild partisan would say this should
Speaker 3: have been nine to zero. This is obvious that you
Speaker 3: can't give away a trillion dollars under a statute meant
Speaker 3: to help soldiers at a time of war. You don't
Speaker 3: get to call everyone a soldier and just give away
Speaker 3: a trillion dollars that if you want to do that,
Speaker 3: if you think it's a good policy to give away
Speaker 3: a trillion dollars, you actually have to pass legislation through
Speaker 3: the House, through the Senate, and get it signed by
Speaker 3: the president.
Speaker 4: That's how you pass legislation. Everyone knows that.
Speaker 3: But today's left wing Democrats they want the result and
Speaker 3: the hell with what the lawyer is, and so their
Speaker 3: intention they are systematically trying to delegitimize the court, trying
Speaker 3: to attack the court. Well, look, listen to this one
Speaker 3: one left wing congressman talk about his plans for the court.
Speaker 10: A lot of lawmakers are calling for an expansion of
Speaker 10: the Supreme Court.
Speaker 5: Do you think the president should do that?
Speaker 4: Yes, expand a Supreme Court.
Speaker 10: We need Supreme Court ethics reform, and we need term limits.
Speaker 2: That's a completely different setup of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: So we don't get our way. We want term limits.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure why he's saying they want ethics reforms
Speaker 2: that they can blackmail them.
Speaker 4: Oh, no, no ethics reform.
Speaker 3: Look, we've seen the entire assault directed to Clarence Thomas
Speaker 3: from Pro Publica, funded by dark money left wing outfits,
Speaker 3: and we did a show on seeing bogus ethics complaints.
Speaker 3: We did a whole show on that, pointing out that
Speaker 3: the rules they're applying to Clarence Thomas, he followed the rules.
Speaker 3: His conduct is the same as the left wing justices,
Speaker 3: is the same as Steve Bryce, iiras Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Speaker 3: as Sonya saw to my as Atlanta Kagan. But the
Speaker 3: Democrats in the media are applying a completely double standard.
Speaker 3: They're faulting him for following the rules, and they're not
Speaker 3: looking at all on the conduct of the justices on
Speaker 3: the left.
Speaker 4: That's the quote.
Speaker 3: Ethics reform is part of the Democrats assault on the
Speaker 3: court to delegitimize it. Term limits and packing the court
Speaker 3: look FDR when he was trying to ram through the
Speaker 3: new Deal, wanted to pack the court, wanted to grow,
Speaker 3: and packing the court has a meaning. It means expanding
Speaker 3: the number of justices in the court so you can
Speaker 3: ram additional justices on there to control the outcome. In
Speaker 3: this case, what the Democrats want to do is grow
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court from nine justices to thirteen justices so
Speaker 3: they can immediately port a point four left wing justices
Speaker 3: to undermine the Constitution across the board. It is profoundly
Speaker 3: dangerous by the way leftists, as is their wont abuse
Speaker 3: the language. They accuse Republicans of packing the court. And
Speaker 3: here's a pro tip. Everything the left is doing they
Speaker 3: accuse the other side of doing. It's almost whatever the
Speaker 3: accusation is, you can be like, oh, that's what you're doing,
Speaker 3: so it is not packing the court to fill a
Speaker 3: vacancy with justices. It is true that Republican presidents have
Speaker 3: been elected, Republican senates have been elected, those Republican presidents
Speaker 3: have nominated constitutionalist justices, and those Republican Senates have confirmed
Speaker 3: constitutionalist justices. That is not quote packing the court, right,
Speaker 3: that's the ordinary operation of our constitutional system for nominating
Speaker 3: and confirming justices. What is packing the court is altering
Speaker 3: the number of justices in order to just ram your
Speaker 3: partisans on board. That's what the Democrats want to do,
Speaker 3: and it's profoundly dangerous.
Speaker 2: We're going to keep watching this becau it's going to
Speaker 2: be very important, but at least we're getting these And
Speaker 2: I also think there's one other encouraging aspect of this.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court justice seemed to be becoming much more
Speaker 2: outspoken on this and not taking as much crap.
Speaker 1: From the meeting.
Speaker 4: Well, they're democratics. They're just following the law, and that's.
Speaker 2: Good because they've been attacked and the undermining of the court.
Speaker 2: I think they understood how much damage was done with
Speaker 2: the Roe v. Weight undermining and the releasing of that
Speaker 2: document beforehand and the doxing of them. Like I think
Speaker 2: now they're saying we're going to stick to the rules,
Speaker 2: but I'm glad to see them say it publicly.
Speaker 3: So there's a reason the framers of the Constitution gave
Speaker 3: justicees life tenure. They're supposed to be immune or at
Speaker 3: least resistant to political pressure.
Speaker 4: And you may be right.
Speaker 3: You may see this majority now saying fine, if you're
Speaker 3: going to just assault this institution, we're going to keep
Speaker 3: our eyes on the law, and we're going to follow
Speaker 3: the law and follow the Constitution and let politics do
Speaker 3: what it may. Look you look at this other decision
Speaker 3: from last week, three or three creative lens that this
Speaker 3: is a very important decision. It's a religious liberty decision,
Speaker 3: it's a free speech decision. It was six ' three
Speaker 3: as well. Justice Gorsich wrote, wrote the opinion, and what
Speaker 3: happened Here is a woman named Laurie Smith. Laurie Smith
Speaker 3: is an artist. She's a website designer. So she designs websites.
Speaker 3: That's what she does. She's creative. She makes websites and
Speaker 3: does She wanted to do wedding websites. She thought it'd
Speaker 3: be fun to do. You know, Ben and An are
Speaker 3: getting married. Let's do a website. Let's celebrate their lives.
Speaker 3: Let's design something that tells their story. She's a storyteller. Well,
Speaker 3: the facts a legend The case is that two gay
Speaker 3: men wanted to hire her to create a website celebrating
Speaker 3: a gay marriage, a same sex marriage. She is a
Speaker 3: believing Christian and she did not want to tell that story.
Speaker 3: She did not want to say that she agreed with
Speaker 3: that because she doesn't agree with it. And Colorado has
Speaker 3: a very very strict law. They call it a non
Speaker 3: discrimination law, but it's design to really force and punish
Speaker 3: anyone who wants to exercise their own religious liberty. Now,
Speaker 3: she wasn't trying to stop their wedding. She wasn't speaking
Speaker 3: out against their wedding. She was saying, I don't want
Speaker 3: to use my voice to say something that my faith
Speaker 3: teaches me is wrong.
Speaker 4: Well, the Supreme Court six ' three ruled for her,
Speaker 4: and what's striking.
Speaker 3: So there's several things that are striking, and I should
Speaker 3: point out I led an amicust brief in this case
Speaker 3: along with Senator Mike Lee. We had a number of
Speaker 3: House members and senators who joined us, urging precisely this outcome.
Speaker 4: So this was I filed.
Speaker 3: A brief in this case, and the Supreme Court agreed
Speaker 3: with our brief and upheld her religious liberty rights. But
Speaker 3: let me start with this point, which is the corrupt
Speaker 3: corporate media deliberately and Democrats deliberately are wildly mischaracterizing this case.
Speaker 3: So I want to give an example of AXI, which
Speaker 3: is this fairly well respected media outlet who put out
Speaker 3: a tweet and a headline that was just objectively false.
Speaker 3: And so I responded on Twitter. So here is the
Speaker 3: tweet they put out. The tweet they put out is
Speaker 3: Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ plus customers.
Speaker 4: Now if you look at.
Speaker 3: That, that headline is objectively false, and you see what
Speaker 3: they wrote in their tweet breaking businesses can refuse to
Speaker 3: serve same sex couples if doing so would violate the
Speaker 3: owner's religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday. And
Speaker 3: so here's what I tweeted. I had a three part
Speaker 3: tweet threat.
Speaker 4: I said.
Speaker 3: First of all, if Axios were a first year law student,
Speaker 3: this answer would earn an f. It is either ignorance
Speaker 3: they don't know, or dishonesty they know in their line.
Speaker 4: I suspect the latter. I think they know in their line.
Speaker 3: If it's the former, if it's an honest mistake, then
Speaker 3: a real journalistic outlet with integrity would issue a correction. Now,
Speaker 3: why is it that they are wrong and they're either
Speaker 3: ignorant or lying. Well, let's look at the second tweet thread.
Speaker 3: Assuming that whoever wrote the headline didn't actually bother to
Speaker 3: read the opinion, which I think is a pretty good assumption.
Speaker 3: What the court did hold is that the First Amendment
Speaker 3: prohibits the State of Colorado from compelling a website designer
Speaker 3: to create expressive designs speaking messages with which she disagrees.
Speaker 3: This is a free speech case. This is about her
Speaker 3: right to speak and not be forced by the government
Speaker 3: to say things she disagrees with.
Speaker 4: Third tweet the tweet thread.
Speaker 3: So, for example, the government could not force Axios to
Speaker 3: tweet all journalists are morons or Donald Trump is awesome,
Speaker 3: two sentiments with which presumably Axios disagrees, Like, you can't
Speaker 3: force they can't go force Ben Ferguson to go say
Speaker 3: something I don't believe in online and say Memphis sucks.
Speaker 3: You're just not gonna.
Speaker 2: Say you like bleed Memphis hometown. That's just the way
Speaker 2: it is. But no, you're right, I should never be
Speaker 2: put in that situation. And if you have a venue
Speaker 2: hall where you rent it out to people, and someone
Speaker 2: says I'm gonna come have a Satanic ritual there, and
Speaker 2: you say I don't want that in my private venue.
Speaker 2: You shouldn't be, you know, sued or lose a court
Speaker 2: case over that for religious beliefs.
Speaker 3: So look, that's actually a different case. My point is
Speaker 3: this case is very different. This is about free speech.
Speaker 3: This is about expressive design. A website designer is writing.
Speaker 3: You were writing your own message. The point about this case,
Speaker 3: this really is the heart of it. It should the
Speaker 3: government force you to speak? So look, hosting a venue
Speaker 3: that's a different issue, and there's been litigation over that.
Speaker 3: But First Amendment speech, this would be about your radio host.
Speaker 3: Can the government force you to say things you disagree with? Now,
Speaker 3: I will tell you just how dishonest the media is. Well,
Speaker 3: I'm not going to tell you how dishonest the media is.
Speaker 3: I want to show you. So watch David Brooks from
Speaker 3: the New York Times.
Speaker 10: I'm not qualified to give it a legal opinion. I'm
Speaker 10: not a lawyer. So I look at it as a
Speaker 10: good or bad for society. And so in this case,
Speaker 10: you had the right for artistic expression against non discrimination,
Speaker 10: and it was a contest between those two, and the
Speaker 10: court chose free expression. That strikes me, just as someone
Speaker 10: who lives in American society, as doing great harm to
Speaker 10: American society. It seems to me the idea that we
Speaker 10: do not discriminate in our businesses is just that's much
Speaker 10: more serious thing to break that than to restrict someone
Speaker 10: who's really running a business, not just painting a painting,
Speaker 10: but is running a business, and in fact that person
Speaker 10: who is running a business is allowed to discriminate. It
Speaker 10: seems to me it's just a poison in our society.
Speaker 3: So I got to say, David Brooks, who I don't
Speaker 3: know very well. I've met him, but I don't really
Speaker 3: know him. He's paid by the New York Times to
Speaker 3: be their fake conservative. So he claims to be a
Speaker 3: sort of conservative who just happens to agree with the
Speaker 3: left on everything.
Speaker 4: And his whole job is to say.
Speaker 3: I'm a conservative, and I hate conservatives, I hate all
Speaker 3: the people who believe what I say I'm believing. And
Speaker 3: at some level you got to wonder, what's the what
Speaker 3: self respect does someone have? Because he literally he's surrounded
Speaker 3: by people who loathe conservatives, he pretends to be one
Speaker 3: he's obviously not. But his whole point is to be
Speaker 3: the whipping boy.
Speaker 4: You know, you know in the.
Speaker 3: Old well, you know in old monarchies where you'd have
Speaker 3: the king and the prince, and the prince would misbehave,
Speaker 3: Like the phrase whipping boy came from. They didn't want
Speaker 3: to spank the prince because he had a royal behind,
Speaker 3: so the whipping boy. When the prince misbehaved, they grabbed
Speaker 3: the whipping boy and whip the whipping boy. And the
Speaker 3: whole purpose of it was the royal drri era cannot
Speaker 3: be touched. Someone needs to be spanked because of the
Speaker 3: prince's mouth seasans, So let's whip the whipping boy. It's
Speaker 3: the person whose job it is to take the blows. Well,
Speaker 3: that's what David Brooks there says. So number one, he
Speaker 3: starts by saying, I'm not qualified to say anything about
Speaker 3: this because I'm not a lawyer. He's right, he's not
Speaker 3: qualified because he's not only not a lawyer, he hasn't
Speaker 3: read the opinion, he doesn't know what it's about, and
Speaker 3: he's not talking about the opinion. So it's not just
Speaker 3: that he doesn't have a law degree, it's that he
Speaker 3: hasn't done even the barest modicum of homework to know
Speaker 3: what the case is about. But he knows what he's
Speaker 3: supposed to say. He's supposed to say the left is
Speaker 3: right and the right is wrong, because that's what he
Speaker 3: says every time, usually in a very self righteous, moralistic way.
Speaker 3: In this instance, he says, this is a battle between
Speaker 3: discrimination and artistic expression. No, no, no, it's speech. Wh it
Speaker 3: is literally can you force let me ask you, can
Speaker 3: you force a Jewish rabbi to perform a Muslim wedding ceremony?
Speaker 1: Yeah, the answer should be no.
Speaker 3: Because you can't force someone to speak. All right, David
Speaker 3: Brooks said that you know clearly preventing discrimination is more
Speaker 3: important than free speech, mind you. Number one, the guy
Speaker 3: works for the New York Times, so the New York
Speaker 3: Times is on record saying free speech is less important.
Speaker 3: He's the fake Conservative, so he especially believes free speech
Speaker 3: is less important. All right, I'll tell you what I
Speaker 3: want to pass the law that every time David Brooks speaks,
Speaker 3: he must publicly say I'm a dishonest, lying, imbecile that
Speaker 3: works for the propaganda outlet called the New York Times,
Speaker 3: and he should be okay with that, because it's just
Speaker 3: his free speech, and it's perfectly his free speech. Doesn't
Speaker 3: matter he told us that, so the government can force
Speaker 3: him to say, I'm assuming, well, maybe he does believe
Speaker 3: that he's allying propagandist, but i mean, given the benefit
Speaker 3: of the doubt, and assume that he doesn't believe that,
Speaker 3: should the government be able to force him to say that.
Speaker 3: And the point listen, it is altogether different if you take,
Speaker 3: for example, look, there was a prior case, the Colorado
Speaker 3: baker case. It was the same Colorado state law, where
Speaker 3: again the press mischaracterized it and they said, this is
Speaker 3: a baker that didn't want to serve people who were gay. Well,
Speaker 3: the baker there said that's not the case at all,
Speaker 3: that he served people are gay every day, that when
Speaker 3: people came in they wanted to buy a cake, he'd
Speaker 3: sell him a cake. He didn't care if they were gay, transgender, whatever,
Speaker 3: like if you'd sell a cake. He was in a
Speaker 3: cake buy a business, cake selling business. This was not
Speaker 3: a case about refusing to do their business, refusing service
Speaker 3: to someone because of their sexual identity. Rather, what the
Speaker 3: Colorado baker said is you had a gay couple that
Speaker 3: wanted to come in and have him design a wedding
Speaker 3: cake celebrating their same sex wedding. He was an evangelical Christian,
Speaker 3: and he said, look, my faith teaches me that's wrong.
Speaker 3: You can go get married, but I don't wish to speak.
Speaker 3: And he said baking a cake was expressive. Now, I
Speaker 3: gotta admit, I'm not much of a cook or baker.
Speaker 3: I didn't really think of baking as all that expressive,
Speaker 3: but he said, for.
Speaker 4: Him, it is when he does.
Speaker 3: When he designed a cake, he was speaking, and you
Speaker 3: could get Look if you were a baker, and let's
Speaker 3: say you're you're a Jewish baker, and someone comes in
Speaker 3: and says, well, you bake a Nazi cake with a
Speaker 3: swastik on it, that you ought to be able to say, no,
Speaker 3: I'm not going to I don't wish to convey that message, but.
Speaker 2: Or a Klansman cake or anything that goes against your beliefs.
Speaker 3: But the point is the Colorado baker didn't refuse service
Speaker 3: to people on the basis of their actuality. People could
Speaker 3: come in and gay and buy any cake they wanted.
Speaker 3: He was not going to speak and offer his voice
Speaker 3: in this instance. This website creator there's no indication she'd
Speaker 3: ever turned down her services to someone who was gay.
Speaker 3: If you had a gay couple who said, hey, we
Speaker 3: want to design a website about you know, the Colorado
Speaker 3: Mountains and the prettiest mountains, and we want to do
Speaker 3: a website, sure, she presumably would have said, sure, happy
Speaker 3: to do that, like, Okay, you're hiring me to design
Speaker 3: a website. Let's do this mountains, this side of this mountains,
Speaker 3: this side, let's put up pictures. It wasn't that she
Speaker 3: was refusing to do business with people who were gay.
Speaker 3: She's more than happy to do business. They were asking her,
Speaker 3: we want you to use your voice to speak a
Speaker 3: message that you disagree with and that your faith teaches
Speaker 3: you is wrong.
Speaker 2: Yeah, your religious beliefs going against your religious police.
Speaker 1: That's the core.
Speaker 3: That is fundamental that government cannot force you to speak,
Speaker 3: Which is why I use the example and to see
Speaker 3: the fake conservative of the New York Times happily say
Speaker 3: free speech doesn't matter, because all my left wing buddies
Speaker 3: tell me it doesn't matter.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it really is, sad.
Speaker 1: It's an interesting point.
Speaker 2: I want to also get the CDC real quick, because
Speaker 2: I think this is really important.
Speaker 1: Before we do that.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you about Patriot Mobile, the only conservative
Speaker 2: Christian cell phone provider in the country. You've probably got
Speaker 2: a cell phone and if you were just like me,
Speaker 2: where you're just done with woke companies. You're sick and
Speaker 2: tired of give in your money to companies actually not
Speaker 2: only disagree with your values, but are fighting against your values.
Speaker 2: That is why you need to switch to Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 2: Big Mobile has actually been giving millions and millions of
Speaker 2: dollars to woke leftist causes, including Planned parenthood. If you
Speaker 2: don't want your money going there, switch to Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 10: Now.
Speaker 2: They have nationwide coverage on all three major network tower systems,
Speaker 2: so you don't have to worry about coverage. You can
Speaker 2: keep your same cell phone, your same cell phone number
Speaker 2: if you want to, and switching is easy with one
Speaker 2: hundred percent US based call center. They can also help
Speaker 2: you with your business or your small business line. Switching
Speaker 2: all of those over and many times actually save you
Speaker 2: money every month. Now, when you pay your bill, this
Speaker 2: is where the magic happens. They take a portion of
Speaker 2: that bill no extra cost to you, and they give
Speaker 2: it to conservative causes and organizations that you want to support.
Speaker 2: We're talking about the First and Second Amendment. We're talking
Speaker 2: about protecting unborn children. We're talking about our veterans, our
Speaker 2: wounded warriors. That's where your money is going. So check
Speaker 2: out Patriot Mobile eight seven eight Patriots their number, that's
Speaker 2: eight seven eight Patriot or Patriot mobile dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 2: That's Patriot mobile dot com slash vertict. He's a promo
Speaker 2: code vertict when you call them and you will get
Speaker 2: free activation the best deals of the year. Patriot mobile
Speaker 2: dot com slash verdict. There's something I want to bring up,
Speaker 2: and you and I were talking about this before the show.
Speaker 2: Center Biden has nominated a radical CDC director. You're trying
Speaker 2: to change how this nomination process works.
Speaker 1: Explain why.
Speaker 3: Well, look, we all learned during COVID that the head
Speaker 3: of CDC can have a massive impact on everyone's life
Speaker 3: in America. That it is an enormously important position. We
Speaker 3: saw CDC pushing for shutdowns and lockdowns all across the country,
Speaker 3: school shutdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, impacting life and liberty
Speaker 3: and health of every American. And it is a massively
Speaker 3: important position. That there is a basic proposition in our
Speaker 3: constitution that positions that are very important, that impact the
Speaker 3: American people very significantly, should be subject to Senate confirmation. Historically,
Speaker 3: the CDC director has not been subject to Senate confirmation.
Speaker 3: So it's just someone that the President can appoint, that
Speaker 3: the Secretary of HHS can appoint, and CDC did not
Speaker 3: require Senate confirmation after COVID. I think everyone recognizes, Okay,
Speaker 3: this is big enough, it requires it, And in fact,
Speaker 3: Congress has passed a law that going forward, the CDC
Speaker 3: director will require Senate confirmation starting in January of twenty
Speaker 3: twenty five.
Speaker 2: So why they wait so long? Out of curiosity? People
Speaker 2: don't understand this in laws? I mean, it's annoying. Why
Speaker 2: not twenty four?
Speaker 3: Whoever wrote it in just wrote it? I assume wait
Speaker 3: till after Biden's presidency got it. But what it means?
Speaker 3: So Biden has named a woman named Mandy Cohen to
Speaker 3: be head of the CDC. She presumably will be the
Speaker 3: last head of the CDC if nothing changes, whoever takes
Speaker 3: that position without Senate confirmation, The next one after January
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty five will require Senate confirmation. I have
Speaker 3: introduced legislation. It's very simple. It makes Senate confirmation. The
Speaker 3: requirement immediate. It just moves the date forward from January
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five to now. And it would make Mandy
Speaker 3: Cohen so object to Senate confirmation. Why is that? Because
Speaker 3: her record is terrible. So, she was the head of
Speaker 3: the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, and
Speaker 3: she was one of the leading advocates of shutdowns, of lockdowns.
Speaker 3: She was an advocate of shutting down small businesses. She
Speaker 3: was an advocate of shutting down schools. She was an
Speaker 3: advocate of mask mandates. She was a total acolyte of
Speaker 3: doctor Fauci. She went so far as wearing a mask
Speaker 3: with doctor Fauci's face on it. I mean she's a
Speaker 3: fangirl for Anthony Fauci, quite literally. She's also a Democrat partisan.
Speaker 3: She's been a Democrat partisan her entire life. She's been
Speaker 3: very active. For example, in two thousand and nine, she
Speaker 3: was the national outreach director for Doctors for Obama. So
Speaker 3: this is a partisan Democrat. She also participated in the
Speaker 3: quote white coat rally supporting Obamacare at these I remember that. Yeah,
Speaker 3: So she is a partisan Democrat. You know, the CDC
Speaker 3: historically has been a relatively a political position that you
Speaker 3: should be. You put a respected scientist. This woman is
Speaker 3: a partisan Democrat who she shut down churches in North
Speaker 3: Carolina with much stricter rules than other places. So she
Speaker 3: had the hostility of Democrats towards churches because she didn't
Speaker 3: like churches and religious belief and she put much tougher
Speaker 3: rules than for any any other organization. And you know,
Speaker 3: I got to say the degree to which she just
Speaker 3: abused her power.
Speaker 4: Well, look, I'm actually gonna let you watch her.
Speaker 2: Tell you I'm laughing because you sent this to me
Speaker 2: earlier this week and it's brilliant, So go ahead.
Speaker 3: So I want you to watch this interview with Mandy
Speaker 3: Cohen where she described vibes just how cavalierly she approaches
Speaker 3: her abusive power.
Speaker 8: So I would call probably the person I called most
Speaker 8: was the Secretary of Health and Human Services in Massachusetts.
Speaker 8: She worked for a Republican governor just to but you
Speaker 8: know when she was like, are you are you gonna
Speaker 8: let them have professional football? And I was like nope,
Speaker 8: and She's like, okay, neither away, neither we. So you know,
Speaker 8: it was like conversations like that, so or I'd be like, so,
Speaker 8: when are you gonna think about widening up a mass
Speaker 8: or it's like next Monday. I'm like, okay, next Monday.
Speaker 3: So look, she's telling you that she would call the
Speaker 3: head of HHS in Massachusetts. By the way, North Carolina.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that people are thrilled to know North Carolina
Speaker 3: is taking their cues for Massachusetts, one of the most
Speaker 3: liberal states.
Speaker 4: In the country.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and listen to what she just said. So are
Speaker 3: you going to allow them to play professional football?
Speaker 2: Which is insane that elected official can even decide that.
Speaker 4: No, neither am I ha. She just laughs. I mean it.
Speaker 3: She doesn't care at all the imperiousness with which I
Speaker 3: am going to ban football. Who you are too, isn't
Speaker 3: it fun?
Speaker 4: Ha?
Speaker 3: And she says, also, when are you gonna lessen your
Speaker 3: your mask mandates? Oh, Monday, okay, I'll do it on
Speaker 3: Monday too. It is an accuture. How arbitrary By the way,
Speaker 3: the mass mandate was, It's made up, right, it.
Speaker 2: Was totally made up. It was like, all right, well,
Speaker 2: i'll release it. When you release it, let's synchronize it.
Speaker 2: Totally different parts of the country, totally different stats and
Speaker 2: dat at that point, I'm sure, totally different hospitization written
Speaker 2: numbers at that moment, different, I see you numbers.
Speaker 3: But this was politics on science. Politics. It's not science.
Speaker 3: It's purely politics. And you look at that and you
Speaker 3: see the contempt she holds the American people in. She
Speaker 3: believes she's an unaccountable philosopher king she'll dictate. Look, when
Speaker 3: was the last time you saw someone say, are you
Speaker 3: going to allow professional football?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: And laugh about it, by the way, And it's why
Speaker 3: I say she needs to be subject to Senate confirmation.
Speaker 3: Let's make senators vote on her. Do you want that
Speaker 3: woman to have the power to ban football, which she's
Speaker 3: already done once and she laughs about it. And if
Speaker 3: you do, you know what, Joe Manchin, why don't you
Speaker 3: cast a vote and tell us you want to put
Speaker 3: her in charge of the next lockdown. You want to
Speaker 3: put her in charge of the next shutdown in schools
Speaker 3: that hurt school kids across the country. You want to
Speaker 3: put her in charge of illegal vaccine mandates. Let's put
Speaker 3: every senator on record.
Speaker 1: Great point.
Speaker 2: There's one more thing I want to play for everybody
Speaker 2: because you sent this and it's hilarious, and before we
Speaker 2: play it, because it deals with exactly this issue.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you about our friends of her Chalk.
Speaker 2: If you're a guy and your deal with a real
Speaker 2: problem that men are dealing with, and that is low testosterom,
Speaker 2: you need to check out Chalk choq dot com. Chalk
Speaker 2: has the Male Vitality Stack. Now, this is herbal supplements
Speaker 2: that can help boost your testoster mubbles up.
Speaker 1: To twenty percent in ninety days.
Speaker 2: So if you're filling lethargic, you're feeling like you're just
Speaker 2: kind of weak and you just don't want to get
Speaker 2: off the couch, You don't want to go do fun
Speaker 2: things like workout or play sports, any of those types
Speaker 2: of things. You just feel like you've lost that edge.
Speaker 2: Check out Chalk. Go to chalkchoq dot com use the
Speaker 2: promo code Ben. You're gonna get thirty five percent off
Speaker 2: your order for life. So if you haven't tried it
Speaker 2: and you're ready to get back to the way you
Speaker 2: used to fill, go to chalkchoq dot com, grab that
Speaker 2: Mail Vitality Stack promo code Ben thirty five percent off
Speaker 2: and you will not have to give in to that
Speaker 2: weakness that you're experiencing right now. Choq dot com. That
Speaker 2: Choq dot Com promo code ben for thirty five percent off. Lastly, Senator, Uh,
Speaker 2: this one is hilarious. I'll let you tee it up
Speaker 2: because you sent it to me and I was like,
Speaker 2: is this is pretty brilliant and people I think are
Speaker 2: gonna like it?
Speaker 3: All right, So this is a video I had my
Speaker 3: team put together and I talked about just how radical
Speaker 3: and extreme Mandy Cohen's record is. The corporate media doesn't
Speaker 3: want to cover, if they want to hide, if they
Speaker 3: want to bury it. It's also why they don't want
Speaker 3: to see her subject to Senate confirmation, because they want
Speaker 3: to put her in a position to be able to
Speaker 3: ban football and shut down schools and shut down your businesses.
Speaker 3: Once again, I don't want that to happen. So here
Speaker 3: is a lighthearted video that actually lays out what a
Speaker 3: real record is.
Speaker 9: See that don't make gussie.
Speaker 1: She is asking we.
Speaker 9: Lockdown's had a spirits love, didn't have a place to go,
Speaker 9: kids had down, so didn't learn a thing and felt
Speaker 9: she bought her keys.
Speaker 4: Many coming to a by.
Speaker 9: Drunk on Darren feeling.
Speaker 4: With another press Congress just follow the signe. She's gotta
Speaker 4: calls you best. And when she got the ship.
Speaker 9: She was the masking Queen was one of the coming of.
Speaker 5: Masking Queen.
Speaker 4: Feel the pain of man.
Speaker 1: Yeah it shap try loangasta. I can't see her. She's
Speaker 1: wearing a mask.
Speaker 9: She is.
Speaker 1: Dare I say I want more of these senator from
Speaker 1: the team.
Speaker 2: It is the perfect way of exposing who these people are,
Speaker 2: what they're all about, and using a little bit of
Speaker 2: humor to do it, because this is what people will
Speaker 2: send it around and go, Okay, I don't want this
Speaker 2: woman to be the CDC director, especially when she's crazy
Speaker 2: like this.
Speaker 3: That's her actual record, that's her with Fauci on the mask.
Speaker 3: She really is a fangirl to doctor Fauci. You saw
Speaker 3: the video over coming out to the press conference, She's
Speaker 3: not wearing her mask and then suddenly, like all good
Speaker 3: hypocretic Cara democrats, TV camera got to put a mask
Speaker 3: on for the TV camera. Has nothing to do with science,
Speaker 3: nothing to do with medicine, nothing to do with the virus,
Speaker 3: has everything to do with virtue signaling. And as she
Speaker 3: just lasts and shows you let's ban football because ha,
Speaker 3: I can every sense ought to vote my vote as hell. No,
Speaker 3: But there are a bunch of Democrat senators who are
Speaker 3: running in red states. I'd like to know what John
Speaker 3: Tester thinks in Montana. Does he want her to be
Speaker 3: able to shut down schools and ban football in Montana.
Speaker 3: I'd like to know what Joe Manchin thinks. I'd like
Speaker 3: to know what Shared Brown thinks. He always votes left
Speaker 3: wing anyway, but the people of Ohio happen to like
Speaker 3: some football.
Speaker 4: So let's have a vote on this.
Speaker 3: This ought to be easy, but let's see if Democrats
Speaker 3: actually support putting a radical in charge of shutdowns and
Speaker 3: lockdowns and shutting down our kids schools.
Speaker 2: Call your centers, Call your senators, Call your senators. Center
Speaker 2: is always a pleasure. Don't forget. We do this show
Speaker 2: three days a week. And if you are watching this,
Speaker 2: make sure you share this video on your timeline, if
Speaker 2: you're watching on Facebook or YouTube.
Speaker 1: If you're listening to this, there's that little forward button.
Speaker 2: You can share this on any social media platform you're
Speaker 2: on to help us reach more people with what's really
Speaker 2: happening in this country? Right us a five story review
Speaker 2: and hit that follow like or button if you're listening
Speaker 2: to this podcast, so you don't miss an episode, and
Speaker 2: we'll see you back here in a couple of days,