Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is vertical Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you
Speaker 2: and center. I hate it when I mean, we have
Speaker 2: to admit so often that we were just absolutely right
Speaker 2: in predicting something. And sure enough, now the White House
Speaker 2: is hunkered down going through long lists of pardons and
Speaker 2: letting the American people know you should expect more pardons
Speaker 2: before we leave office.
Speaker 3: Well, this week we were struck with the stunning news
Speaker 3: that the White House has announced verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 3: Wednesday pod was exactly entirely, one hundred percent accurate that
Speaker 3: every word we said. And by the way, if you
Speaker 3: didn't listen to Wednesday's pod, you should listen to Wednesday's
Speaker 3: pod because we predicted. We said that the left wing
Speaker 3: media and Democrats were pressing Joe Biden to issue a
Speaker 3: ton more pardons, to pardon the rest of his family,
Speaker 3: to pardon members of his administration and now, and we said, look,
Speaker 3: that's the direction they're going. And seemingly in response to
Speaker 3: our podcast, the White House immediately came out and said
Speaker 3: expect more pardons, and we're seeing a list of people
Speaker 3: now that they are contemplating pardoning. In addition, we had
Speaker 3: a major Supreme Court case argued this week a challenge
Speaker 3: to Tennessee's law that prohibits sex transition treatments for children,
Speaker 3: and the ACLU has challenged this, arguing that it violates
Speaker 3: the Constitution, that the Constitution requires that you be able
Speaker 3: to mutilate and sterilize children. That argument played out in
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court this week. We're going to lay out
Speaker 3: how it went.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's truly shocking what they were saying in quitting
Speaker 2: some of the Supreme Court justices, and we have the
Speaker 2: audio from those arguments that will, I think shock most
Speaker 2: parents out there. I want to tell you real quick
Speaker 2: about a cool opportunity for you, a chance to win
Speaker 2: seventeen hundred hours to buy any self defense gear that
Speaker 2: you need before it's two eight.
Speaker 1: Now, how do you win? Right now?
Speaker 2: You can text the word America to eight seven two
Speaker 2: two two. Right now, that's sexy word America to eight
Speaker 2: seven two two two. Now, who's giving it away? Well,
Speaker 2: the USCCA, and the USCCA is doing incredible work to
Speaker 2: help protect people just like you when it comes to you,
Speaker 2: uh exercising your Second Amendment rights. Look, I've had to
Speaker 2: use a firearm to protect and save my own life.
Speaker 2: I had to pull the trigger, and I wish I
Speaker 2: would have been a member and even known back then
Speaker 2: about the USCCA, because with activist das around the country
Speaker 2: right now, you never know what's going to happen, even
Speaker 2: if you're in the right. Many das don't like law
Speaker 2: abiding citizens carrying firearms and protecting yourself and your family
Speaker 2: is so important now, not only when you become a
Speaker 2: member of the USCCA, and they have over eight hundred
Speaker 2: thousand Americans right now that are already members. Why because
Speaker 2: they understand how important it is to get access to
Speaker 2: their Protector Academy where you learn vital skills like precision
Speaker 2: shooting and how to fortify your home against criminals. You
Speaker 2: also get access when you remember to the twenty four
Speaker 2: to seven Critical Response Team. That is the most important thing,
Speaker 2: and it includes the benefits of self defense liability insurance
Speaker 2: to make sure that you and your family are prepared
Speaker 2: for anything. Now, for a limited time, you text the
Speaker 2: word America to eight seven two two two, and you're
Speaker 2: going to get the usc CAA's free Life Saving Conceiled
Speaker 2: Carying Defense Family Defense Guide and that chance to win
Speaker 2: seventeen hundred dollars to buy any self defense care that
Speaker 2: you need before it's too late. So text the word
Speaker 2: America to eight seven to to two right now. So
Speaker 2: we talked about this two days ago, and as you said,
Speaker 2: I'll say it again. Go back if you missed that
Speaker 2: podcast and listen to it, because we talked about this
Speaker 2: idea that was really coming out of the White House
Speaker 2: that they wanted to expand the list to people that
Speaker 2: would be given pardons that could also include the President
Speaker 2: in theory, pardoning himself. What we are now is the
Speaker 2: White House has saying, yeah, it's coming, and you should
Speaker 2: prepare for a lot of people to quite possibly be pardoned.
Speaker 1: So just get used to it.
Speaker 2: Your instant reaction in the White House now confirming this story.
Speaker 3: Well, we put out the podcast Wednesday morning as the
Speaker 3: sun was coming up, and several hours later, Politico issued
Speaker 3: a report entitled Biden White House is discussing preemptive pardons
Speaker 3: for those in Trump's crosshairs. It was written by Jonathan Martin,
Speaker 3: who's a longtime Washington reporter, and what he reports is
Speaker 3: that White House officials are debating issuing blanket pardons to
Speaker 3: multiple people, which is exactly what we predicted. And here's
Speaker 3: what Politico reports, quote Those who could face exposure include
Speaker 3: such members of Congress's January sixth committee as Adams Schiff.
Speaker 3: Liz Cheney also mentioned Anthony Fauci and other as well.
Speaker 3: And so that's the initial list, Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney,
Speaker 3: Anthony Fauci. That's who they are discussing. And what is
Speaker 3: striking is there are now multiple elected Democrats explicitly urging this. So,
Speaker 3: for example, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey said in a press
Speaker 3: interview quote, if it's clear by January nineteenth it revenges
Speaker 3: his intention, then I would recommend to President Biden that
Speaker 3: he provide those preemptive pardons to people, because that's really
Speaker 3: what our country is going to need next year. Another Democrat,
Speaker 3: Congressman Brendan Boyle from Pennsylvania, likewise called for blanket pardons.
Speaker 3: He said, quote, this is no hypothetical threat. The time
Speaker 3: for cautious restraint is over. We must act with urgency
Speaker 3: to push back against these threats and prevent Trump from
Speaker 3: abusing his power. I will say to I guess some
Speaker 3: modicum of his credit. One person pushing on the other
Speaker 3: side is Adam shift. Now, to be clear, they're talking
Speaker 3: about giving him a pardon, and Shift was quoted as saying, quote,
Speaker 3: I would urge the president not to do that. I
Speaker 3: think it would seem defensive and unnecessary. Well, I got
Speaker 3: to say, it is stunning, and you're right. The White
Speaker 3: House is now publicly saying expect more pardons here we come.
Speaker 3: And it's a question of just how much they're going
Speaker 3: to abuse power, because it really is at this point
Speaker 3: stunning and apparently that everyone who may have committed wrongdoing
Speaker 3: is panicking that there may be some accountability, and so
Speaker 3: they want to pardon everybody for whatever crimes they might
Speaker 3: have committed.
Speaker 2: And you talk about Adam Shift, Let's remind people back
Speaker 2: in twenty eighteen what Adam Schiff did. Adam Shift introduced
Speaker 2: a bill to keep Trump from quote abusing pardon powers
Speaker 2: for his family. This was on CNN on Don Lemon's
Speaker 2: show back in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 4: So the president's pardon a Scooter Libby congressman has inspired
Speaker 4: you to propose new legislation, what exactly would it do.
Speaker 5: What it would do is say that in the event
Speaker 5: the president pardons anyone in an investigation in which the
Speaker 5: president is a witness, a subject, or the target, those
Speaker 5: investigative files will all be turned over to the Congress.
Speaker 5: The Congress ought to know whether the president is using
Speaker 5: the pardon power to obstruct justice. The American people have
Speaker 5: a right to know. I think it is clearly constitutional.
Speaker 5: It doesn't prohibit him from granting a pardon, even a
Speaker 5: pardon he shouldn't grant, But it does say that we
Speaker 5: will be able to at least find out whether the
Speaker 5: president is using this power to shield himself from liability.
Speaker 6: It offers transparency at the very least.
Speaker 1: Wow, I mean, what a great idea.
Speaker 2: Now, Adam shiff why aren't you introducing this legislation all
Speaker 2: over again so we can know all of the peace
Speaker 2: that are going to be pardon, why they're being pardon,
Speaker 2: in all the files that show what the information is
Speaker 2: behind it. I'm waiting for this Adam shift of eighteen
Speaker 2: to appear again.
Speaker 3: Senator Well, and I got to say, under that reasoning,
Speaker 3: that would have the Department of Justice forwarding the investigatory
Speaker 3: files of Hunter Biden to Congress to the Republican majorities
Speaker 3: in both Congresses. Under his reasoning, he just argued for that,
Speaker 3: I'll be curious to see if he thinks it should
Speaker 3: apply in those circumstances, you know. Spoiler alert, I would
Speaker 3: not bet on it. No, I wouldn't either.
Speaker 2: Let's also talk about Politico's Jonathan mart and what he
Speaker 2: said on TV about this pardon list. This was after
Speaker 2: the writing in Politico. Take a listen to how he
Speaker 2: described it earlier.
Speaker 4: Go titled Biden Whitehouse is discussing preemptive pardons for those
Speaker 4: in Trump's crosshairs. In it, you write this quote, President
Speaker 4: Joe Biden's senior aides are conducting a vigorous internal debate
Speaker 4: of whether he is shoot preemptive pardons to a range
Speaker 4: of current and former public officials who could be targeted
Speaker 4: with President elect Donald Trump's return to the White House.
Speaker 4: It's according to senior Democrats familiar with the discussions, the
Speaker 4: deliberations touch on pardoning those currently in office, elected and appointed,
Speaker 4: as well as former officials who've angered Trump and his loyalists.
Speaker 6: Those who could face exposure.
Speaker 4: Include such members of Congress's January sixth Committee as Senator
Speaker 4: elect Adam Schiff and former GOP Representative Liz Cheney. Also
Speaker 4: mentioned by Biden's aids for a pardon, Anthony Fauci, the
Speaker 4: former head of the National Institute of allergy and infectious diseases,
Speaker 4: who became a lightning rod for criticism from the right
Speaker 4: during the COVID nineteen pandemic. The President himself, Jonathan continues,
Speaker 4: who was intensely focused on his son's pardon, has not
Speaker 4: been brought into the broader pardon discussions yet, according to
Speaker 4: people familiar with deliberations. So, Jonathan, what does this look like.
Speaker 4: What are you pardoning Anthony Fauci for? What are you
Speaker 4: pardoning Liz Cheney for who've not been charged or victive crimes?
Speaker 6: That goes to the heart of this deliberation.
Speaker 7: William, why this is so delicate because the White House
Speaker 7: Counsel and a handful of senior White House aides, including
Speaker 7: Jeff Zionce, the Chief of Staff, are having this debate
Speaker 7: right now in the West Wing, which is, do we
Speaker 7: leave these folks out in the cold and potentially expose
Speaker 7: them to Cash Patel's FBI and Donald Trump's White House
Speaker 7: for any number of charges or of some kind of
Speaker 7: you know, the show trial to get a measure of
Speaker 7: revenge and at the very least make them pay six
Speaker 7: figures in.
Speaker 6: Legal bills to avoid such a case.
Speaker 7: Or do we offer preemptively pardons to people there's no
Speaker 7: proof they've done anything wrong whatsoever, and really may not
Speaker 7: want to pardon in the first place. That's a real
Speaker 7: tough call, because if you don't do it, and Patel
Speaker 7: and company come after some of these people and you
Speaker 7: had the chance to give them an oculation.
Speaker 6: Legally, that's a hell of a thing to regret.
Speaker 7: At the same time, do you want to pardon somebody
Speaker 7: like Liz Cheney or Anthony Faalsciet and suggest any kind
Speaker 7: of impropriety that could only add fuel to the Trump
Speaker 7: aggressors in the first place.
Speaker 6: It's a real tough nut.
Speaker 2: I love the way he describes it the ed. He's like,
Speaker 2: it's a real tough nut, Like this is a hard one,
Speaker 2: you know. Should we just admit we broke a hell
Speaker 2: of a bunch of laws and just hand out the
Speaker 2: pardons or do we act like we didn't break laws
Speaker 2: and hope they don't come after all of us.
Speaker 3: Well, and I will say, even the way he's reporting it,
Speaker 3: the Trump aggressors look the idea that anyone in and
Speaker 3: around Joe Biden would be held responsible for laws they
Speaker 3: have been broken is treated as a pearl clutching horror
Speaker 3: for the media and for the Democrats, and listen my view,
Speaker 3: and we've talked about this at length.
Speaker 8: I don't want to.
Speaker 3: See a Republican Department of Justice. I don't want to
Speaker 3: see a republican FBI. I don't want to see a
Speaker 3: Democrat Department of Justice. I don't want to see a
Speaker 3: Democrat FBI. I want a Department of Justice and an
Speaker 3: FBI that enforces the law regardless of party. And that
Speaker 3: apparently is a terrifying thing to individuals who who previously
Speaker 3: consider themselves unaccountable and not bound by the ordinary constraints
Speaker 3: of law.
Speaker 2: Well, and even look at Bill Clinton, for example. Bill
Speaker 2: Clinton is now coming out saying he wants to stop
Speaker 2: the cycle of criminalizing politics. That's pretty rich from the Democrats,
Speaker 2: after that's all they've done the last four years. Here
Speaker 2: is Bill Clinton at the Deal Book summit. It's a
Speaker 2: New York Times event.
Speaker 6: Listen, you think Biden should be.
Speaker 7: Pardoning pardoning Trump, And by the way, some people think
Speaker 7: that Trump should be pardoning Biden.
Speaker 9: Well, I do think we should stop trying to them
Speaker 9: in law's politics.
Speaker 6: But on the other I think we should both.
Speaker 9: Of them because because obviously and the people don't like it,
Speaker 9: and they're not going along with it from right to left.
Speaker 9: On the other hand, you have to ask yourself, if
Speaker 9: you do this blanket thing, is there anything a president
Speaker 9: could do that he would or she someday would get
Speaker 9: in trouble for.
Speaker 1: I mean, Senator.
Speaker 2: They weaponized the FBI, the DOJ, the entire apparatus of
Speaker 2: the White House Executive branch to go after their political
Speaker 2: enemies for four years, and now all of a sudden
Speaker 2: they're like, hey, we should not have Republicans doing that.
Speaker 1: Republicans never did that. The Democrats are the ones that
Speaker 1: have done it.
Speaker 3: I'm curious. Did did Bill Clinton say that the first
Speaker 3: time Trump was indicted? Did he say that the second
Speaker 3: time Trump was indicted?
Speaker 9: No?
Speaker 3: Did he say that the third time Trump was indicted Nope?
Speaker 3: Did he say that the fourth time Trump was indicted?
Speaker 9: No?
Speaker 1: And he didn't say it when they were rating mar
Speaker 1: Lago either.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, it is amazing. And by the way, Bill
Speaker 3: Clinton also didn't say that when the Trump DOJ was
Speaker 3: prosecuting people for peaceful protest on January sixth, when they
Speaker 3: were using the violent acts of a limited number of
Speaker 3: people as an excuse to engage in political persecution. Bill
Speaker 3: Clinton didn't speak out when the Biden Department of Justice
Speaker 3: was targeting parents for going to school board meetings and
Speaker 3: speaking out, sending the FBI to intimidate moms and dads
Speaker 3: who are exercising their constitutional rights at school board meetings.
Speaker 3: He didn't speak out when the Biden administration was firing
Speaker 3: people for declining to take the COVID vaccine. He didn't
Speaker 3: speak out when the Biden administration was coercing private businesses
Speaker 3: to fire people for declining to take the COVID vaccine.
Speaker 3: He didn't speak out when the Biden administration sent over
Speaker 3: a dozen FBI agents with drawn machine guns to arrest
Speaker 3: a pro life protester at dawn in front of his children.
Speaker 3: By the way, that case, the jury threw it out
Speaker 3: when they tried to put him in jail, and the
Speaker 3: jury said this is ridiculous and threw it out incredibly quickly.
Speaker 3: The absolute and brazen hypocrisy of the Democrats that they've
Speaker 3: suddenly discovered, uh oh, don't use the legal process against us.
Speaker 3: And I want to be clear, I do not believe
Speaker 3: the Trump administration should persecute democrats. I do believe they
Speaker 3: should follow the law and if individuals have violated the law,
Speaker 3: they should enforce the law. That is very different from
Speaker 3: targeting and weaponizing DJ You know, I sat down this
Speaker 3: week with Pam Bondi, the nominee to be Attorney General,
Speaker 3: and the entire discussion I had with her was about
Speaker 3: restoring boring integrity to the Department of Justice, not about
Speaker 3: turning it into a tool just to be used to
Speaker 3: target the other side, but bringing it back to what
Speaker 3: it is supposed to be, which is having fidelity to
Speaker 3: the rule of law.
Speaker 1: You talk about the fidelity and the rule of law here.
Speaker 2: So the question now becomes if the President decides to
Speaker 2: walk out there and say, I'm going to preemptively pardon
Speaker 2: everyone Fauci Schiff, Liz Cheney, and people all around my family,
Speaker 2: all of maybe the business associates, for example, around Hunter Biden.
Speaker 2: Is there anything that Congress will be able to do
Speaker 2: to stop this or to rein it in. I go
Speaker 2: back to Adam Shiff when he was like, well, what
Speaker 2: we should be doing, is ushe have centered all the
Speaker 2: documents or is this pretty much like he's in charge,
Speaker 2: he's leaving, he can do whatever the hell he wants.
Speaker 1: It's the power of the presidency.
Speaker 2: And even if he wants to abuse a pardon power,
Speaker 2: he has a right to do it. What mindset should
Speaker 2: everyone listening have on reality?
Speaker 3: Now, look under the Constitution, the pardon power is essentially
Speaker 3: an absolute power. And and so there there is not
Speaker 3: any limitation in the Constitution that Congress can enforce on
Speaker 3: the pardon power that is given to the president. The
Speaker 3: only limitation is is public pressure, public scrutiny.
Speaker 8: The only thing that constrains.
Speaker 3: Presidents is they don't want the world to know that
Speaker 3: they're utterly corrupt hacks. Now, I will say Biden's got
Speaker 3: a problem in that because he's already done the Hunter Biden.
Speaker 8: Pardon.
Speaker 3: And I'll read from from an article in Axios, which
Speaker 3: which often reports on sort of inside gossip in the
Speaker 3: White House and Capitol Hill, and and and the story
Speaker 3: is entitled behind the Curtain Biden's Haunting Twin Sins. Here's
Speaker 3: what Axios reports. President Biden's post presidency now looks bleak
Speaker 3: as is brutal final months. Some top Democrats tell us
Speaker 3: they're so furious about Biden's abrupt, clumsy pardon of his
Speaker 3: son Hunter that they're threatening to withhold donations from his
Speaker 3: future Presidential library.
Speaker 10: And his.
Speaker 3: Quote twin selfishness. What it says is why it matters.
Speaker 3: Biden eighty two will limp away from the limelight, widely
Speaker 3: disliked by the public and now loathed by many Democrats
Speaker 3: who blame him for twin sins of selfishness running again
Speaker 3: then pardoning Hunter after repeatedly saying he wouldn't. That's the
Speaker 3: real constraint, is just public shame and disgrace. And the
Speaker 3: question is are Democrats capable of of public shame anymore?
Speaker 3: Or is trump derangement syndrome so bad that their answer
Speaker 3: to everything is range Man bad.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a great point.
Speaker 2: I want to take a moment and say thank you
Speaker 2: to so many of you that have been involved with
Speaker 2: the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. They are wishing
Speaker 2: you a blessed beginning of the holiday season, and as
Speaker 2: you gather with your families, grateful for the blessing that
Speaker 2: God has given us all, let's also remember those who
Speaker 2: are facing unbelievable hardship, those in Israel that are in
Speaker 2: the need of food, fellowship, and just hope. That includes
Speaker 2: the people of Israel who are threatened daily by the
Speaker 2: attacks from enemies on all sides, and during these hard times,
Speaker 2: Israelis are thankful for the fellowship, for the food and
Speaker 2: the basic assistance that they are providing, truly life saving
Speaker 2: aid when the rest of the world seems to have
Speaker 2: turned their back on them.
Speaker 1: Your gift of twenty five dollars.
Speaker 2: Will help provide a food box to an elderly Jew
Speaker 2: or a Jewish family who are suffering and in desperate need.
Speaker 2: A gift of one hundred dollars will help provide four
Speaker 2: of these life saving food boxes this holiday season. Please
Speaker 2: consider standing with Israel and the Jewish people.
Speaker 1: You can go to.
Speaker 2: Support IFCJ dot org to make a gift now port
Speaker 2: IFCJ dot org, or you can call them eight eight
Speaker 2: eight for eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight eight four
Speaker 2: eight eight four three two five and you can give
Speaker 2: right now. Senata, I want to move to this other case,
Speaker 2: and it is a case that has really been interesting
Speaker 2: to follow the Supreme Court hearing this case on gender
Speaker 2: transitions for minors.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: This has all come out of a case in Tennessee
Speaker 2: where Tennessee was arguing that that you must protect children
Speaker 2: from harm and body mutilation, especially at very young ages,
Speaker 2: and the left and the federal government saying, well, hold
Speaker 2: on a second, we are in favor of this transgender care,
Speaker 2: arguing that even those that are two, in three and
Speaker 2: four years old, they know that they're trands, so let
Speaker 2: them be sterilized and castrate themselves. That is what the
Speaker 2: eight THELU lawyer said in his own words while he
Speaker 2: was arguing this on TV on CNN. I want you
Speaker 2: to listen and get your reaction to that.
Speaker 11: I would say is nobody has to provide this medication
Speaker 11: to adolescents. These are not doctors being forced to provide
Speaker 11: this medication. These are doctors who are wanting to treat
Speaker 11: their patients in the best way that they know how,
Speaker 11: based on the best available evidence to us. And these
Speaker 11: are young people who may have known since they were
Speaker 11: two years old exactly who they are, who suffered for
Speaker 11: six seven years before they had any relief. And what's
Speaker 11: happening here, it's not the kids who are consenting to
Speaker 11: this treatment. It's the parents who are consenting to the treatment.
Speaker 11: And as a parent, I would say we when our
Speaker 11: children are suffering, we are suffering. And these are parents
Speaker 11: who love their children, who are listening to the advice
Speaker 11: of their doctors of the mainstream medical community and doing
Speaker 11: what's right for their kids in the state of Tennessee
Speaker 11: has displaced their judgment.
Speaker 2: Now you hear that argument, and that to me is
Speaker 2: just I'm sorry, child abuse if you're mutilating a child
Speaker 2: at two and three and four years old.
Speaker 1: And that's what Tennessee was saying.
Speaker 3: Well, Tennessee passed I think a very reasonable law that
Speaker 3: that prohibited puberty blockers and hormones and sterilizing children, sterilizing minors,
Speaker 3: and and we're seeing multiple state legislatures that are acting
Speaker 3: to protect children. I think that is a reasonable and
Speaker 3: common sense step. And and what happened is is, unsurprisingly
Speaker 3: that that the state got sued and the ACLU argued
Speaker 3: that that that making it illegal for a small child
Speaker 3: to be sterilized and made permanently unable to have children,
Speaker 3: or even to be mutilated, that that prohibiting that violated
Speaker 3: the fourteenth Amendment, the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Speaker 3: That that was the argument. And and this the Court
Speaker 3: of Appeals upheld the Tennessee law, and the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: took the case. And and so that that was the
Speaker 3: argument you heard right there. The ASLU lawyers arguing UH
Speaker 3: for for being able to sterilize eight year olds using
Speaker 3: the math the lawyer laid out. The lawyer talked about
Speaker 3: a child at the age of two might know that
Speaker 3: he or she is transgender, and they might have had
Speaker 3: to wait six years. Last I checked, two plus six
Speaker 3: is eight. And so the legal argument is that eight
Speaker 3: year old the parent should be able to sterilize that child.
Speaker 3: And you know what if that child decides that at
Speaker 3: eighteen he or she wants to be a dad or
Speaker 3: wants to be a mom, well, too late now, because
Speaker 3: when you were eight, we went ahead and sterilized you.
Speaker 3: So there's no going back. And this argument went back
Speaker 3: and forth. Right, I'm going to make a prediction. My prediction,
Speaker 3: I think the Supreme Court is going to uphold Tennessee's law,
Speaker 3: and I think we may see a breakdown that plays
Speaker 3: out along pretty familiar ideological lines.
Speaker 8: Now, it was pretty striking.
Speaker 3: The three liberal justices all were asking questions that I
Speaker 3: got to say, we're really extreme and showing the modern left.
Speaker 3: They are all in on mutilating and sterilizing children. This
Speaker 3: is not a fringe view on the left. Today's elected
Speaker 3: Democrats and sadly the left wing activists they put on
Speaker 3: the courts are absolutely committed to this extreme agenda. So
Speaker 3: I want you to listen to.
Speaker 1: This side of my org.
Speaker 2: Justice out of my org downplaying the risk of mutilation
Speaker 2: of miners in this back and forth, in these oral arguments.
Speaker 12: This is what she said, cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners.
Speaker 12: So it becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefits versus risk,
Speaker 12: and the question of how many miners have to have
Speaker 12: their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that
Speaker 12: is best left.
Speaker 13: I'm sorry, counselor. Every medical treatment has a risk, even
Speaker 13: taking astron There is always going to be a percentage
Speaker 13: of the population under any medical treatment that's going to
Speaker 13: suffer a harm. So the question in my mind is
Speaker 13: not do policy makers decide whether one person's life is
Speaker 13: more valuable than the millions of others who get relief
Speaker 13: from this treatment. The question is can you stop one
Speaker 13: sex from the other one?
Speaker 2: I mean, she's saying, this is not a big deal
Speaker 2: at all if you're mutilating a child, because even aspirin
Speaker 2: has risks and effects, So therefore, just put it under
Speaker 2: the category of everything goes.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 3: That sums up today's radical left. In their view, severing
Speaker 3: a child's genitals is comparable to taking aspirin. She also claimed,
Speaker 3: quote millions of people are getting relief from this. Now,
Speaker 3: thankfully we do not currently have millions of children being sterilized.
Speaker 3: But let's be clear, that's the left's worldview. Is that
Speaker 3: sterilizing little boys and little girls, mutilating them, making them
Speaker 3: permanently unable to have children, that should be happening on
Speaker 3: the scale of millions and millions of little boys and
Speaker 3: little girls. That is Justice Soda bay Or here to
Speaker 3: take a listen to Justice Justice k Katanji Brown Jackson.
Speaker 10: Drawn by the statute that was sort of like the
Speaker 10: starting point. The question was whether it was discriminatory because
Speaker 10: it applied to both races and it wasn't necessarily invidious
Speaker 10: or whatever. But you know, as I read the statute here,
Speaker 10: excuse me the case here. You know, the court starts
Speaker 10: off by saying that Virginia is now one of sixteen
Speaker 10: states which prohibit and punished marriages on the basis of
Speaker 10: racial classifications. And when you look at the structure of
Speaker 10: that law, it looks in terms of incontinuing you can't
Speaker 10: do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics.
Speaker 6: It's sort of the same thing.
Speaker 10: So it's interesting to me that we now have this
Speaker 10: different argument, and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten
Speaker 10: away with what they did here by just making a
Speaker 10: classification argument the way that Tennessee is in this case.
Speaker 6: Yes, I think that's exactly right.
Speaker 10: That there is absolutely a parallel between any law that
Speaker 10: says you can't act and consistent with a protected characteristic
Speaker 10: and all other contents.
Speaker 1: You hear it there.
Speaker 2: This is another example of just how extreme these and
Speaker 2: that's one of the elections, by the way, are so
Speaker 2: important center. I mean, this is why Donald Trump being
Speaker 2: elected was so important, because when he's not, when you
Speaker 2: don't have a conservative in the White House, you get
Speaker 2: these radical activists who are Supreme Court justices, and if
Speaker 2: they have the majority, this is what they want you
Speaker 2: to be able to do. This is what they want
Speaker 2: to happen to your children.
Speaker 3: Well, and let me break down what that exchange back
Speaker 3: and forth was. So Katanji Brown Jackson, who Joe Biden
Speaker 3: put on the Supreme Court, is comparing this Tennessee law
Speaker 3: to the law in Loving versus Virginia. Now, Loving versus
Speaker 3: Virginia's a Supreme Court case. It's a landmark case that
Speaker 3: struck down Virginia's ban decades ago, many many years ago
Speaker 3: on interracial marriage, on African Americans and Anglos choosing to
Speaker 3: get married. And she says, quote, it's sort of the
Speaker 3: same thing. Now, Virginia's law was an abomination. It was
Speaker 3: restricting adults making the decision to get married. It was
Speaker 3: deliberately doing so on the basis of race. Which, mind you,
Speaker 3: we fought a civil war in significant part to end
Speaker 3: slavery and to vindicate equal rights. And we passed and
Speaker 3: adopted the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth Amendments to end slavery,
Speaker 3: to protect equal protection, and to give African Americans the
Speaker 3: right to vote, to ensure that there's not racial discrimination.
Speaker 3: But in the less, not sterilizing an eight year old
Speaker 3: is the same thing. Like that is bizarre. And by
Speaker 3: the way, the person who responds to Justice Jackson is
Speaker 3: Joe Biden's Solicitor General, the top lawyer for the Biden
Speaker 3: administration before the United States Supreme Court. She say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 3: they're exactly the same thing. In our worldview, you ought
Speaker 3: to be able to mutilate children. It doesn't matter how young,
Speaker 3: the Constitution protects your right to mutilate your child. That
Speaker 3: is a bizarre view, That is an extreme view, and that,
Speaker 3: sadly is where where today's modern left is.
Speaker 2: You may be shopping for Christmas and one gift you
Speaker 2: can give that as incredible as the gift of helping
Speaker 2: someone be able to protect and defend themselves. And with
Speaker 2: increase crime and violence around our country, we need to
Speaker 2: remember that personal safety and security for you and your
Speaker 2: family is the most important thing in life. And that
Speaker 2: is exactly why I want you to know about the
Speaker 2: Berna less lethal pistol launcher. A Berna can save two lives.
Speaker 2: It is a great compliment to owning firearms, and if
Speaker 2: you or your family members in a situation where you
Speaker 2: feel threatened, then you can start with less lethal now
Speaker 2: Berna and this less launcher is legal in all fifty states.
Speaker 2: No permits or background checks are needed. I own one
Speaker 2: myself and I've given them to a lot of my
Speaker 2: family members because I have some family members that just
Speaker 2: don't feel comfortable carrying a firearm.
Speaker 1: Well burna is the answer there as well.
Speaker 2: It's also designed for easy use by all age groups
Speaker 2: eighteen or older. So if you have a child that's
Speaker 2: living an apartment or off campus, maybe they're not twenty one.
Speaker 2: The Burno launcher is what you need to give them.
Speaker 2: It has powerful deterrence like tear gas and kinetic rounds
Speaker 2: with a sixty foot range, meaning you can put serious
Speaker 2: distance between you and the attacker. One shot can incapacitate
Speaker 2: attackers for up to forty minutes. It's used by government
Speaker 2: agencies and law enforcement around the country. Now, I want
Speaker 2: you to see the videos of this in action, and
Speaker 2: you can see it by going to their website burna
Speaker 2: by RNA dot com slash verdict. And when you go there,
Speaker 2: you're also going to get ten percent off your purchase.
Speaker 1: So it's going to save you money.
Speaker 2: That's Burner by r in a dot com slash verdict
Speaker 2: for ten percent off. That's b Why r in a
Speaker 2: dot com slash verdict and give the gift of protection?
Speaker 2: This Christmas final question on this issue with this case
Speaker 2: coming out of the Supreme Court, and if you look
Speaker 2: at the way that this was being argued, and I
Speaker 2: think one of the other things that's just so unhinged
Speaker 2: about this the argument for medically mutilating minors. Is the
Speaker 2: fact that the issue really does seem to come down
Speaker 2: to money. The amount of money that people are now
Speaker 2: making off these surgeries that's saying it is it is
Speaker 2: an increase year over year of over fourteen point four
Speaker 2: percent on average, So the transgender surgery world and then
Speaker 2: the lifetime of care is expanding at a fourteen point
Speaker 2: four percent rate year over year. That's why so many
Speaker 2: medical areas, doctors and hospitals are advocating for this because
Speaker 2: they make money. Vanderbilt said very clearly to their doctors,
Speaker 2: either you get on board with this or you get out.
Speaker 2: We're not going to let you say no to this
Speaker 2: because there's too much money to be made in quote
Speaker 2: gender care.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there are vast amounts of money at stake, and
Speaker 3: it has become it really is a strange obsession of
Speaker 3: the radical left. It is it is a virtue signal.
Speaker 3: Remember we had on on verdict a couple of months ago.
Speaker 3: Seawan Theory. Shawn Theory was an African American Democratic state
Speaker 3: rep in Texas. She was an elected Democrat. She had
Speaker 3: been elected for four terms and on this issue, there
Speaker 3: was a bill in Texas to prohibit mutilating minors, and
Speaker 3: she ended up voting for it and the Democrat Party.
Speaker 3: She described on the podcast, if you didn't listen to
Speaker 3: that podcast, she ought to go back and listen to
Speaker 3: it because it's incredibly revealing. She described how her fellow Democrats,
Speaker 3: African Americans, and the Texas State Legislature would come to
Speaker 3: her and she said, did you have you study the
Speaker 3: damage this does to children? That if you give puberty
Speaker 3: blockers and you sterilize a child, that it does lifelong
Speaker 3: medical damage to him. It's horrible, And she said the
Speaker 3: many other Democrats she described said, oh, we know, we agree,
Speaker 3: it's terrible, but you cannot oppose this in our party.
Speaker 3: They will end you. Our party will end you.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 3: She ended up doing the courageous thing and voting for
Speaker 3: common sense and voting for kids, and the Democrats recruited
Speaker 3: a primary challenger to her and beat her in the primary,
Speaker 3: and they spent over one million dollars in a Democrat
Speaker 3: primary for a state house seat. That is how radical
Speaker 3: this issue is. So there is money, There is big
Speaker 3: money on the other side, and it is enforced.
Speaker 8: In the US Senate.
Speaker 3: Every single Democrat has voted in favor of mutilating minors.
Speaker 3: There is no dissension that is allowed on this. And
Speaker 3: I got to say, and Joe Biden is enthusiastically in
Speaker 3: favor of it, you know. I got to say, also,
Speaker 3: look this Supreme Court case. Part of the reason that
Speaker 3: there is is such focus on it is there was
Speaker 3: a previous Supreme Court decision called Bostock and Bostock is
Speaker 3: a decision that interpreted federal anti discrimination law on employment discrimination.
Speaker 3: And it is currently illegal under federal law to discribe
Speaker 3: and employment based on race and other characteristics, including sex.
Speaker 3: And in Bostock, the Supreme Court took a prohibition on
Speaker 3: discrimination based on sex and construed sex to mean also
Speaker 3: being transgender.
Speaker 8: And that decision that was a six to three decision.
Speaker 3: That decision was authored by Justice Gorsuch, and it was
Speaker 3: a fairly shocking decision. A lot of people were shocked
Speaker 3: that Justice Gorsuch wrote that opinion.
Speaker 8: It was joined by Chief Justice Roberts.
Speaker 3: In addition to what were then for liberals who were
Speaker 3: on the Court at the time, Justice Ginsburg was still
Speaker 3: on the court. It was before amy Cony Barrett had
Speaker 3: been nominated and before Justice Ginsburg obviously had passed away.
Speaker 8: So that was six ' to three.
Speaker 3: On the other side, I don't think we will see
Speaker 3: the same outcome. I will say at the oral argument,
Speaker 3: Justice Gorsuch did not say a word, not a word,
Speaker 3: so we do not have any indication from him as
Speaker 3: to how he will vote. But Justice Roberts was quite vocal,
Speaker 3: and what he laid out is actually the reason why
Speaker 3: I'm confident the Tennessee law will be upheld, which, as
Speaker 3: he laid out, the proposition that that the Court should
Speaker 3: be deferring to state legislatures and and particularly when you're
Speaker 3: dealing with contested medical evidence, that state legislatures are far
Speaker 3: better suited to assess contested medical evidence and make it
Speaker 3: a termination and make a policy decision. That that's that's
Speaker 3: how our democratic system works. And and and I think
Speaker 3: Chief Justice Roberts, reasoning that he articulated that the oral
Speaker 3: argument is going to lead him to vote to uphold
Speaker 3: the law, I think we will see.
Speaker 8: I think we will.
Speaker 3: Certainly see Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, and and Amy Cony,
Speaker 3: Barrett and Kavanaugh also their arguments at oral arguments suggested
Speaker 3: that they that they would defer to the Tennessee state
Speaker 3: legislature as well. I hope Justice Gorsach will as well.
Speaker 3: I think there's a very good chance that this will
Speaker 3: be a six three decision upholding the Tennessee law. But
Speaker 3: the fact that the Court decided Bostock the other way. Now,
Speaker 3: Bostock was a question of federal statute and interpreting the
Speaker 3: words Congress had adopted. It was not a constitutional case.
Speaker 3: It was not interpreting the equal protection clause of the
Speaker 3: Fourteenth Amendment. And I'll note, by the way, there is
Speaker 3: a third outcome. So what could the Supreme Court do here?
Speaker 3: They could do three things. They could do more than
Speaker 3: three things, but three key things. One they could affirm
Speaker 3: the Tennessee law. That's what I think they are likely
Speaker 3: to do. Two, they could strike down the Tennessee law.
Speaker 3: They could rule that this law violates the Constitution and
Speaker 3: therefore is null and void. I do not think they're
Speaker 3: likely to do that, but I think the three Liberals
Speaker 3: will vote to do exactly that. The third option they
Speaker 3: could do it is they could reverse the decision and
Speaker 3: conclude that this law is sex discrimination, and under the Constitution,
Speaker 3: sex discrimination is subject to what's called intermediate scrutiny. Now
Speaker 3: the toughest standard constitutionally for legal analysis is what's called
Speaker 3: strict scrutiny, and racial discrimination under the Constitution by government
Speaker 3: is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex discrimination is subject to
Speaker 3: intermediate scrutiny. So the middle ground they could do is
Speaker 3: they could vacate the decision below and send it back
Speaker 3: to the lower court to apply intermediate scrutiny. I hope
Speaker 3: they don't do that, and I don't think they will,
Speaker 3: but there is a non zero chance they might do that,
Speaker 3: which is what makes this case. Concerning all of that
Speaker 3: being said, my prediction is they're going to conclude correctly
Speaker 3: that the Tennessee law is constitutional, and that is a
Speaker 3: judgment for the state legislators to make.
Speaker 2: As I said before, this is why elections are so important.
Speaker 2: It's why it's so important that conservatives get elected, because
Speaker 2: these are the people that make unbelievable decisions, and it
Speaker 2: deals with kids' futures, and this is a perfect example
Speaker 2: of it. Don't forget We do this show Monday, Wednesday
Speaker 2: and Friday. Hit that subscribe or auto download button and
Speaker 2: the Senator and I will make sure if you see this,
Speaker 2: by the way, please share it on social media because
Speaker 2: that's how we reach new people write us a five
Speaker 2: story review if you would take a moment to do
Speaker 2: that as well. On those in between days, grab my
Speaker 2: podcast so Ben Ferguson Podcasts, and I'll keep you update
Speaker 2: on the latest breaking news there and we'll see you
Speaker 2: back here in a couple of days