In this episode, Lisa and Josh Hammer, author of the new book "Israel and Civilization," discuss the legal and political conflicts involving the Trump administration and the judiciary. They focus on the unprecedented number of judicial injunctions against Trump, which Hammer describes as "judicial insurrection." They also explore the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, specifically in the Mahmoud Khalil case, and the broader implications for Western civilization. Hammer emphasizes the importance of U.S.-Israel relations and advocates for a return to biblical values to counter contemporary threats. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Check out Josh Hammer's NEW Book HERE
Follow Josh on X HERE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So today we're unpacking this seismic clash between the Trump administration,
the judiciary, and the broader stakes for Western civilization. We're
going to do that with my friend Josh Hammer. He's
the host of The Josh Hammer Show and America on
Trial and is the author of the new book Israel
and Civilization, The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the
(00:20):
Destiny of the West. He is also a lawyer, so
we're going to ask him about the federal courts that
have issued over twenty injunctions already. Is this judicial pushback unprecedented?
And what does it say about the court's rule. Today
we'll dig into the Alien Enemies Act of seventeen ninety eight,
dusted off for only the fourth time in history. We'll
ask Josh about the Mackmoud Khalil case. His team is
(00:44):
saying it's free speech, the government says it's a national
security issue. Who's right? Plus, with a conservative Supreme Court looming,
will these lower court blocks hold or are we barreling
toward a defining showdown? All of that with Josh Hammer,
And lastly, we're going to discuss his new book, where
he argues that the fate of the West Hinges on
(01:05):
Israel security and a realist US foreign policy. Stay tuned
for my friend Josh Hammer. Well, Josh Hammer, it's great
to have you on the show, my friend. I feel
like you've had an epic a couple of years here,
you got married, you had a little girl, baby girl,
(01:25):
and then now your book is crushing it and already
sold out on Amazon. So it's been a pretty pretty
epic couple of years for you, Lisa.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Praise to the big guy upstairs. That's really all I
can say. But life light, life is pretty good, my friend,
and it's certainly always good to join you as well.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Well, you're a great guy, and so I'm very happy
for you, and I'm looking forward to getting in the book.
But first we'll get into well, I mean, I guess
it may make sense, right, I mean, the left is
try to stop Trump in pretty much every aspect, whether
it be impeachments or trying to kick him off the ballot,
or trying to rome in jail, or trying to assassinate them.
(02:02):
And now they're trying to stop them in the courts.
You know, I guess how unusual is it for federal
courts to issue over twenty injunctions this early in administration,
and kind of what does that say about the judiciari's
rule right now?
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Okay, So it does often seem that there are two
sets of rules as a so it's gonna sound confusing,
but as a general rule, there are there. There are
now two sets of rules. There is one set of
rules that applies to Donald Trump, and there's one set
of rules that applies to everyone else. So, for instance,
when Donald Trump was president the first time around to Lisa,
from twenty seventeen to twenty twenty one, by my count,
(02:38):
there were somewhere between sixty five and seventy so called
nationwide injunctions, these district court judges purporting to apply their
rulings in various cases, not just as it applied to
the parties to the suit or frankly, not even just
as it applied to their specific geographical district their jurisdiction,
but to the entire country. So again that numbers between
(03:00):
sixty five and seventy. The first forty four presidents combined,
literally combined, did not have that many so called nation
wind in junctions applied against them. So right off the bats,
some things just stand out that again, Donald Trump is
a unique figure, and he is uniquely reviled by lower
court judicial activists. Frankly, Lisa, I have actually used the
(03:21):
term myself judicial insurrection. I think that is more accurate
to describe what we have seen here since January twenty is,
since Donald Trump got into power, and these judges, whether
they're calling it a so called temporary restraining order, whether
they're calling it a so called preliminary injunction, in a
nationwide junction, or universal injunction, the language changes, but the
upshot is the same, which is that you are seeing
(03:43):
lower court political activists who happened to be wearing judicial robes,
who are just trying to shut down as much of
the trumpdministration as they possibly can. That is exactly what
is going on here, and it's one of the reasons
why Lisa, from my own platform and in my own capacity,
been shouting from the rooftops, yelling as hard as I
can that what has to happen here. Above all, there
(04:06):
are a lot of important cases that scotas Is gonna
have to hear. Birthright citizenship is an important case. There's
a lot going on, But the number one most important
case that Scotis really has to fast track, and the
Trump is Slister General's office and the dj really ought
to help them do it. Is Scotas is going to
have to rule asap that these so called nationwide injunctions
(04:26):
are totally unconstitutional because they are way beyond the scope
of the judicial power of which Article three of the
Constitutions speaks.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
So it is unusual what we are watching.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
It does continue a broader post World War two trend,
if you want to go back that far. There was
an obscure case in nineteen fifty eight. Not to nerd
out too much, but there wasn't an obscure case ninety
fifty eight called Cooper versus Aaron, which was the first
time that the US Supreme Court ever said that we
are the final law of the land. Prior to that,
that's not how it worked. All three branches would interpret
(05:01):
the Constitution for themselves. So this gives rise to modern
quote unquote judicial supremacy. So that's been going on since
nineteen fifty eight, but these so called nationwide junctions are
even more recent than that. Frankly, and all this is
completely contrary to the way the Constitution is supposed to work,
and it really has to come to an end asap.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
And so what do you think? Well, first of all,
feel free to nerd out on here. If you can't
do it here, where can you do it? And I
guess where do you? So? I guess what would that
ruling look like from the Supreme Court? And what do
you think that would allow President Trump to do? Because
you know right now between you know, sort of seeing
(05:39):
the bureaucracy and action under President Trump in the last term,
and then you know the deep state, and then with
these judges, it's like what powers does the presidency even
still have? Right like like they're they've neutered him or
they're trying to neuter him. So I guess, you know
where where does this all go?
Speaker 2 (05:57):
The acting Slster General in the United States is a
very sharp lawyer the name of Sarah Harris. The incoming
full time Slesster General, god willing he'll be confirmed soon
because he's a fantastic lawyer, is John Souer, the former
Slister General of the Great State of Missouri. And they
are the ones who can do a lot of work
here and directly teeing up this question that I'm getting
(06:19):
at here, which is to rule on the constitutionality of
all these so called nation wine junctions. Clarence Thomas actually presciently,
we might say, actually alluded to this in his concurring
opinion back in the very important twenty eighteen case Trump
versus Hawaii. So Trump versus Hawaii was the so called
travel ban case. You know, frankly, at Lisa, I'm not
(06:40):
in love with the term travel ban, but that's what
the media used, so I guess let's just roll with
it for now. So the so called travel ban case
basically goes to the Supreme Court and the question is
does the President of the United States have the authority
to declare that essentially whatever classes of aliens that he
wants to choose to say that cannot end to the country.
Can he do that? And the answer by a five
(07:01):
four majority of the court is yes.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
It.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Frankly, it's astonishing them that it wasn't nine to zero
because the law is extraordinarily clear under the Immigration Nationality Act.
But regardless, in a concurring in Pani and Clarence Thomas
says again quite pressially, that what we really have to
do here is get to the issue of these so
called nationwide in junctions, because if we just kick the
can down the road on this, then these lower court
judges are going to keep on doing this and doing
(07:24):
this and doing this, and eventually our hand is going
to be forced. And here we are seven years later
and Scotus has not ruled, so they just it's going
to end up as being a straightforward constitutional interpretation as
to what the judicial power in Article three, Section one,
Clause one of the Constitution says. It says that the
juditial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and
(07:46):
as many lower courts as Congress may from time to
time established. So it's actually only it's interesting, it's only
the Supreme Court that is actually constitutionally required. Every other
lower court simply exists at the pure discretion of Congress.
They can actually abolish any other lower court they want
to at any time. And that's actually another interesting point
here that I think is worth making is that ideally,
(08:08):
if our separation of powers is working.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
The way it should, we wouldn't even have to wait
for the.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Supreme Court to rule, because Congress could actually just legislate
in this area. If Congress wanted to abolish so called
Nation one injunctions tomorrow, they could totally do that. The
House Jeshary Committee and j just Share Committee. They could
they could get working on that legislation asap. Congress has
the ability to define what remedies federal courts can and
cannot use. So again, that's assuming a healthy Congress, a
(08:33):
healthy separation of power, something that we have not had
at least since the rise of the administrative state a
century ago. But the Court would be well positioned, nonetheless,
to rule here, and frankly, it's just very it's very
overdue to do so. And if they did so, then
that would have the effect of saying that these lower
court district court judges, they have to limit their rulings
(08:54):
to the parties to the suit. They can't pretend to
shut down an entire program, they can't pretend to direct
that all that all possible grants from us AI D
and the State Department, for instance, have to go out. No,
your ruling would only apply to whatever left wing NGO,
for instance, happened to bring suit at that time. I'm
(09:15):
holding aside here, obviously, the the substantive question as to
whether any particular suit is correct. I'm just talking about
the scope of the ruling to whom it would apply to.
But that's that's how it would play out in theory.
And I also I applaud Donald Trump. I applaud him
for what he did to Judge Boseburg in Washington, d C.
In this Alien Enemies Acts case with Trend Dierra Agua,
(09:37):
because it's it's it's taken the so called nation Wine
and Johnson thing.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
And then going even further than that, what.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Judge Boseberg did is he said, Okay, my ruling is
not just going to apply to the name party to
this suit. My ruling is not just going to apply
to the entire United States, the entire country when it
comes to enforcing the Alien Enemies Act. Heck, now I'm
going to do this throughout the war because those planes
were literally over international waters. I mean, this is nuts,
(10:04):
This is absolutely nuts. And at some point you kind
of have to say enough is enough. And I'm really, really,
really pleased that Donald Trump said enough is enough in
that particular instance and kept the planes going to Naibu,
Kelly and El Salvador. But at this point, Lisa, at
this point, the judges are acting like bullies. They are
(10:25):
acting like a bunch of bullies in a school yard playground.
And the way to deal with the bully is not
to cower in the corner and to just get beat
up mercilessly. At some point you got to stand up.
You have to get in your tippy toes, stare down
the bully in the face and start throwing some punches
and bloody up some noses. So that can be done legislatively,
it can be done via executive executive action. But there's
(10:45):
all sorts of tools that Congress and the executive branch
can do. And I look forward to seeing that all
play up.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
You know, I guess a lot of us are wondering,
you know what that back and forth will end up
looking like. You know, who is the authority and that fight?
You know what tools do judges have to try to
enforce their You know what does the executive branch do
in response? You know, I guess kind of play that
fight out for us.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Sure, so the judicial branch a Article three has extremely
limited tools at its discretion to enforce its own rulings.
In fact, this is actually a direct line from one
of the most famous Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton, writing in
Federalist number seventy eight, he says that the juiciary is
the least dangerous branch because it has neither force nor will,
(11:29):
but merely judgment and depends upon the efficacy of the
executive branch even for the enforcement of its own rulings.
So he's literally saying, I mean, you guys do not
have the ability even to enforce your own judgments. I mean,
I mean, let's think literally if we want to actually
go there, like, who literally is responsible for enforcing federal
courts judgments? The answer is that it's the US Marshals.
(11:51):
But who do the US Marshals actually work for?
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Are they?
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Are they cabin within Article three? Is their paycheck cut
from the United States Judiciary? No, the US Marshals are
actually part of the Department of Justice. They're actually part
of Article two. So that's kind of what Hamilton's getting
at in Federalist number seventy eight there. Now, look, I'm
not saying that willy nilly people should just simply be
defying court orders. On the contrary, I do think that
(12:17):
where there is a legitimate lawsuit, if there's a legitimate
litigation and there is standing and all that, and there's
a plaintiff and there's a defendant, then in that case,
a court's judgment ought to bind the plaintiff and the defendant.
What I'm saying is that beyond that, for any other
similarly situated person, it's not strictly speaking binding. It should
(12:39):
only be thought of as persuasive authority.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
That's kind. That's actually why a judicial.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
Opinion is called an opinion in the first place, because
it's supposed to have persuasive heft. You're supposed to be
persuading your fellow citizens, your fellow judges, your fellow litigants,
that the opinion ought to be followed in similar like
mind data cases. As far as a tool is, Congress has,
for instance, when it comes to dealing with and out
of control fedle juiciary.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
There there's really no shortage of tools.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Certainly, judicial impeachment is one that's that's getting a lot
of attention over this past week, and rightfully so, I've
been yelling about about those.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Two thirds in Yeah, so you need two thirds in
Congress sent in the center rather which yeah, you're not
going to That would be very.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Tough, correct, I mean, realistically speaking, is not going to happen,
but it could be a good shot across the bow. Nonetheless,
just to get a majority in the House and get
this impeachment trials started in the Senate. But you're not
literally going to get impeached, It's true, unless something miraculous happens.
But I'm not holding out my hope for that. Other
things that you could do, You could nact legislation to
(13:46):
strip certain federal judges of jurisdiction. You could say you
are not allowed to hear a case that involves this
type of law or this type of case. There You
frankly could abolish an entire court. I mean, Congress create
all the lower courts, going back to the Judiciary Act
of seventeen eighty nine, one of the first statutes Congress
ever passed, so that which can be created by Congress
(14:07):
can necessarily be destroyed by Congress.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
So you can do that if you want too.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
You also can do all sorts of kind of fun
really like symbolic but punitive stuff if you really want
to kind of stick the knife in and twist it,
so to speak. So I mean, one example of that
would be, I mean, Congress could mandate that federal judges
no longer used taxpayer dollars to dry clean their robes,
(14:32):
which sounds like a very stupid and silly thing to say,
But it's like a symbolic fu if you get what
I'm saying there. If you really want to take this
to its logical conclusion and go all the way up
to the United States Supreme Court, you know, the Supreme
Court was actually housed in the basement of the US
Capitol for most of American history. They didn't get their
own building across the street from the Capitol until one
(14:54):
hundred years or less ago. I think it was even
less than a hundred years ago in the early twentieth
century when they finally got their own building. But there's
something symbolic to be said for that. I mean, these
guys were literally in the basement of the Capitol because
they're the least dangerous branch. So if Congress really wanted
to get creative here and send a message in this
case the Chief Justice John Roberts, who frankly seems like
he needs a bit of a message, you literally could
(15:17):
pass legislation turning the current U A Supreme Court into
a museum or something like that, whatever you want to
use it to, and then reconvert the basement of the
US Capital into the functional courtroom for the US Supreme Court.
I'm not saying that they should do that. I'm just
saying that if you really want to go there, you
frankly could.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
And how does that play out in public perception? You know?
Does this you know? I mean because some seed judges
as sort of guardians of the law. Obviously, others are
looking at it as overreaching.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
You know.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
The President Trump's critics argue he's a dictator. I guess,
you know, how does this all play out politically for him? Then?
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Well, I think the way it plays out politically is
in line with the un are lying substance of the issues.
What I mean by that is, let's take this Boseberg
standoff involving Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to
deport trendiar Agua, rapist murderers, gang bangers, mean, the worst
of the worst.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
These people who took over.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
The condominium in All Colorado just awful, awful, awful people.
I mean, basically the Western Hemisphere version of Hamas and Hesbala.
I mean, just just awful, awful, awful people.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
There.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
The American people support deporting trendyar Agua. Okay, the American
people are not with They are not with the Democratic Party.
They are not with the left, they are not with
Judge Boseburger or any of them when it comes to
the underlying substantive issue there. So you know, I think
these procedural things matter. I'm a lawyer. I think that
(16:48):
they matter. But I think the American people ultimately care
properly as they should about the underlying substance of the matter.
So where they see Donald Trump fighting on the correct
side of an eighty twenty issue, and you know, whether
we should deport people like Machoun Khalil and Trendy or
Agua is probably a ninety five to five issue, or
at least a ninety ten issue. I mean, it's definitely
(17:08):
more than agy twenty. I think when you get that there,
and Trump is basically making various moves to enforce that agenda,
I think it pretty much only has political upside, very
little in the way of downside.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Yeah, well, I mean, you know, if they have the
perception of defending you know, venezuela and gangs, that might
not be the best look. You could argue, We've got
more with Josh. But first, when a woman experiences an
unplanned pregnancy, she often feels alone and afraid. So many times,
her first response is to seek out an abortion, but
(17:41):
because of the generosity of listeners like you, that search
me leader to a Preborn Network clinic where she'll choose life,
not just for her baby, but for herself. Preborn offers
God's love and compassion to hurting women and then provides
a free ultra sound to introduce them to the life
growing inside of them. This combination brings is the ultimate
miracle of life to life, which is why Preborn sees
(18:04):
an average of two hundred baby saved every day. Now
meet some courageous woman who chose life. Mattie was in
a tough situation as she wasn't sure who the father was,
But after receiving counseling, prayer, and a free ultrasound at
Preborn Network Clinic, everything changed. Mattie discovered she had twins
and found the strength she needed to choose life. Her
(18:25):
sorrows turned to joy. Your tax deductible donation of twenty
eight dollars sponsors one ultrasound. How many babies can you save?
Please donate your best gift today. Just style pound two
fifty and say the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty baby.
Or go to preborn dot com slash booth. That's preborn
dot com slash booth boo tchg sponsored by Preborn. You
(18:51):
had mentioned the Khalil case, obviously, his team says that
his speech has protected. The government says that it's a
security issue. I guess where's the legal line between free
expression and also deportable conduct.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Immigration law and constitutional law makes a real heavy distinction,
a heavy distinction between citizen and non citizen, frankly, even
as it applies to the Bill of Rights. And it's
confusing because the way that every Bill of right is
enforced versus non citizens is not the same, and the
First Amendment is indeed slightly different. But I mean, let's
(19:27):
just take the Second Amendment to use a very clear
and obvious example. If you are a US citizen, you
can walk into Walmart or wherever you get your wherever
you get your firearms tomorrow, and you can you can
purchase basically whatever you want as long as you pass
background check and do all those other nice teas. That's
that's not the way it works if you are an alien,
if you are here on a student visa. Frankly, if
(19:48):
if you're even a legal permanent resident on a so
called green card, you can't just walk in to a
gun store. If you are an alien, legal or obviously illegal,
you can just walk into a gun store and purchase
a five. So there are very clear distinctions between citizen nonsenisen.
Another clear distinction is also when it comes to due process.
So I was talking about the Streme Court. One of
(20:10):
the great Supreme Court justices of the past century is
made by the name of Justice Robert Jackson. He was
the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, which was the
prosecution of the Nazi war criminals. He also was nicknamed
in his time the Great Dissenter because of, among other things,
his dissenting opinion in the Kooramatsu case, that was the
(20:31):
Japanese internment case during the FDR presidency, when as an
act during wartime in World War Two, FDR basically sends
all the Japanese Americans to these internment camps. It's considered
to be one of the worst opinions in US Supreme
Court history. And just as Robert Jackson dissented on due
process clause grounds. Well, I say all that for context,
because was Robert Jackson nine years after the Kormatsu case,
(20:54):
in a case called shaughnessy that he said that due
process does not give any alien ad the right to
immigrate to this country, and once you are here, it
does not give you any due process rights to be
free from deportation against the will of the sovereign.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Which means we the people, because we the people are
sovereign in the country.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
So what that means is that you have no due
process right if you are an alien. Okay, anything that
Congress chooses to enact into law, any statutory protections that
they put into place in the Immigration Nationality Act and
that gets us into the immigration courts, all of that
is simply done out of Congress's own generosity, of their
own beneficence. You might say, they're not required to do so,
(21:37):
you have no fundamental due process right against deportation. So
makmu Khalil, I think the case against him on deportation
grounds is fairly straightforward, which is that we mistakenly let
in him, this clear and obvious jihad sympathizer, This guy
who belongs to a group. He's a spokesman for a
group calling for not just the killing of the Jews,
but also just the annihilation of Western civilization. A guy
(21:59):
who clearly should not ever been let into this country
on any visa, and we the people have said enough,
we're pulling your card. There, there's also a statutory hook,
because even the Immigration Nationality Act explicitly says above and
beyond what I just said, it says that if you
are a supporter of a US recognized FTO, a foreign
terrorist organization, then you cannot get a visa. And if
(22:20):
it turns out that you lied on your visa paperwork
by saying that you're not a supporter checking that box,
and then it turns out that you are actually a supporter,
then your visa can and should be revoked. So that's
that's pretty clearly what happened here as well. So I
view the case against Khalil as legally speaking, pretty straightforward.
Policy speaking, I think it's clearly obviously the correct thing
(22:42):
to do. Frankly, I hope to see a lot more
of it as well.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Well. I do think the initial reaction to the Brown
professor who was sent back to Lebanon was hilarious and
then they're like, oh, yeah, well, you know, she attended
the funeral of Hesbala leader, Like exactly, what the hell
have someone like this in America attending the funeral of
terror leaders. And I want to move on to your book,
(23:08):
but real quick before you do so, you had mentioned
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, you know, weighing in
and that statement from him about you know, more than
two centuries it has been established that impeachment is not
appropriate response to do disagreement, Wait, response to disagree. Promise
they can read an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a
(23:31):
judicial decision. Why did he weigh in and is that appropriate?
Speaker 3 (23:39):
It's beyond then appropriate.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Roberts is completely and utterly out of line here. Unfortunately,
I'm not surprised because he's done this before. So back
during Donald Trump's first administration, Trump made some offhand comment,
I can't remember the context, to be honest with you,
about how there are Republican judges and Democrat judges, and
then Roberts issued a statement saying, oh, no, he's an
It's not true. We're all non part is in there.
(24:02):
And I mean literally, I guess he's right because judges
don't run for office wearing an R or a D banner.
But I mean, in practice, we all know that what
Don Trump was saying was obviously correct. So he's done
this before, and this time it's actually even worse because
he's not correcting what he perceives to be a misperception.
(24:26):
He's actually just wrong. I mean, he's literally wrong in
this case. As to what impeachment in this case, judicial
impeachment is and what it is not. Judicial impeachment is
not a far fetched, crazy thing. In fact, the Constitution
explicitly countenances it. It explicitly holds it out as a possibility.
The language and Article three says that judges shall sit
(24:49):
during good behavior, which means that they have life tenure
as long as they demonstrate good behavior. And what is
good behavior, Well, we actually know from some other legal
scholarship and the work of lawyers and historians that that
phrase has basically the same meaning as high crimes and misdemeanors,
which is the presidential Article two impeachment criteria. And then
(25:12):
you go back and say, okay, well, what is high
crimes and misdemeanors? Well, thankfully, we actually pretty much know
the answer to that as well. Alexander Hamilton has his
Federalist paper in Federalist number sixty five where he defines
high crimes misdemeanors as referring to an abuse of the
public trust. So by syllogism here, then we can say
(25:32):
that the criteria for both presidential and judicial impeachment is
an abuse of the public trust. That's not a legal standard, okay,
That is a political standard. That is a standard that
requires prudence and statesmanship and the various things that politicians do.
It's been that way literally since the origins of the Republic.
(25:53):
One of the first acts of digital impeachment was the
impeachment of his Preme Court justice by the name of
Samuel Chase. Most of the story think that that was
a partisan act. It was part of the partisan ranker
in the nation's first party system between the Federalist Party
of John Adams and John Jay and Alexander Hamilton on
the one hand, versus the Jeffersonian Madisonian Party the Democratic Republicans,
(26:14):
And maybe it was nat to Parsonship. The point is
that it is a political exercise. So for John Roberts
to come in here and criticize politicians talking about what
is quintessentially a political act is absurd. And the grand
irony of Elisa is that, ironically, in saying what he
has said, one could plausibly argue if you were trying
(26:35):
to be a little too clever by half, that Roberts
has himself actually done an impeachable offense.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
All right, well, let's ship to well, I mean, it's
this is all going to be fascinating to continue to
watch with all this back and forth, and then hopefully
it doesn't impact President Trump from getting some big things
done in a short period of time that he's got.
But I want to talk about your book, which is
killing it. I mean, it's already out on Amazon, right.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Yeah, we actually sold that on publication Data itself, which
is not so although it's being rapidly replenished. So don't
hesitate to order on Amazon if your own Clinton.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
But that is amazing, so tell me. Okay, So the
book is Israel and Civilization, the Fate of the Jewish
Nation and the Destiny of the West. And you argue
that the fate of Western civilization is dependent upon the
security and thriving of the Jewish people and the Jewish
state of Israel. Walk us through that, and walk us
(27:31):
through your thesis.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Sure so, as you correctly note, the important thing to
know about the title of the book, Israel and Civilization
is that Israel in the title has a double meaning.
It's referring, yes, for sure, to the capital s state
of Israel, the modern post nineteen forty eight state, but
it's very much, arguably even more so, referring to the
(27:54):
nation of Israel, the children of Israel, in other words,
the Jewish people. And the argument in Lisa is essentially
as follows. You know, we talk a lot about Western civilization,
and we say that the West is at a crossroads.
We can go one direction or the other direction there.
But as we just discussed, you know, for twenty five
minutes or whatnot. I'm a lawyer and I like to
(28:15):
define terms. So what is this West? What is this
Western civilization that we're speaking of? Well, I argue in
the book that Western civilization is largely synonymous with the
Biblical tradition, with the Bible, and with the Jeo Christian tradition.
That I stretch all the way back, at least as
far back as God's first revelation of his word to
(28:36):
Moses and the Israelites at Mount Sinai, and in some
of the earlier chapters of this book, I painstakingly attempt
to demonstrate that everything from the English common law, to
the US Constitution, to the American Founding, and really just
so much of the everyday norms and ethical considerations that
we take for grant him all ultimately go back to
(28:56):
the Hebrew Bible. So the relevant question that then, Lisa,
is if you if you care about the West, and
if the West is as I argue, largely synonymous with
with the biblical tradition there, I mean, I mean, how
can the West possibly survive if you're just going to
forsake the origin of it all? I mean, I mean,
you're basically just sawing off the tree. You're you're, you're
(29:18):
you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. Incidentally,
this is something that the American Founders. You know, we
talked a lot about the Federals papers and in this
in this show, so that you know, the the American
Founders understood this completely to a t. So, just to
give a couple of examples, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin,
they actually wanted the National Seal of the United States
to be Moses parting the Red Sea. Abraham Lincoln fast forwarding,
(29:41):
you know, five six decades later, when not there, Abraham
Lincoln famously spoke of Americans as an almost chosen people
using this covenantal language found found in the Hebrew Bible,
and just on and on and on. You see this
play out to me, I mean, Alexander Hamilton actually has
this incredible, incredible quote where he says, quote, the state
(30:03):
and progress of the Jews from their earliest history to
the present time has been so entirely out of the
ordinary course of human affairs. Is it not then a
fair conclusion that the cause also is an extraordinary one,
In other words, that it is the effect of some
great providential plan. He's basically saying that one of his
reasons to know that God exists is that the Jewish
(30:24):
people are still alive, unlike every other nation that existed
when they were first formed back in Biblical times. There
so this idea that America has forged on Biblical precepts,
that the original people of the book have a real
role to play here. It is deeply, deeply ingrained in
who we are. Just one final example, it's literally there
(30:44):
on the liberty bell in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It's a quote
from the Book of Leviticus on the outside, THO shall
proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof.
So you know, people who oppose the West more broadly
understand this too, So it actually cuts in both directions.
So you know, anti Semites throughout history, they've never actually
(31:05):
truly been interested in the Jews. They're always interested in
something much greater and more profound than that. So Karl
Marx is actually one of my favorite examples here. I mean,
Carl Marx is typically associated with communism, and rightfully so.
But a few years before he wrote the Communist Manifesto,
he had this infamously anti Semitic essay called on the
Jewish Question, where he made very clear his dripping disdain
(31:27):
for the Jews. But that's not actually what Karl Marx wanted,
deep in his very dark heart to achieve, right, I mean,
what Carl Marx wanted to achieve was nothing less than
the entire overthrowing of Western capitalism and Western Christendom, western
Christian civilization. So whether you're trying to defend the West
against the barbarians, you have to understand that it's the
(31:48):
Saturday people first, the Jews first, and then the Sunday
people the Christians next, And then if you're trying to
destroy Western civilization. It's the same thing in reverse. You
start with the Saturday people, then you go to the
Sunday people in that. You know, this is a reason,
for instance, why the transnational institutions like the Nine Nations,
they all start with the Jewish State of Israel.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
But they're not going to stop there, Lisa.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
They obviously ultimately want to go after the nation state
as a concept and whole, including but hardly limited to
the United States itself.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Well, and we've seeing this play out on college campuses
and universities across the country of You know, yes, of
course they hate the Jews, but you know, they also
just hate America and everything we stand for. I guess,
what does it mean about where we are as a
society today that you feel the need to defend the
fate of the Jewish people and defend why it's important
(32:38):
to have a secure and thriving Jewish people and Jewish
State of Israel.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
Great question, and it says nothing good about where we're at.
Frankly that I felt the need to write this book, Lisa,
if I'm being very honest with you, this was not
the original book that I was planning on writing. Actually,
so back in. You know, I've been a writer for years.
I read a weekly sits.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
So you're beautiful. Yeah, you're very talented.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
I appreciate that, thank you. So.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
But I've written god knows about the op eds columns,
law review articles. I've done basically anything everything other than
writing a book. So at some point I finally said, Okay,
it's time to write a book, and I started drafting
the outline for a totally totally different book that had
nothing to do necessarily with the Jews, Israel, foreign policy,
any of this stuff. And then October seventh happens, and
(33:24):
I didn't necessarily write the book in response to October seventh. Rather,
I wrote it in response to the reaction to October seventh.
So that's actually a lot of the first chapter of
the book, as I kind of talk about the just
disgusting things, like utterly disgusting things that have been said
and done, including within seemingly hours minutes of October seventh itself.
(33:48):
I mean, I remember when there were thirty two or
thirty three Harvard student groups that immediately ganged up to
jointly sign a letter within hours of Jewish women Holocaustterviyers
being slaughtered Jewish babies being butchered. The Harvard students from
their dorm rooms in Cambridge, Massachusetts said, oh no, it's
actually Israel that's to blame for their own beheadings, for
(34:10):
their own babies being.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
Cooked in ovens.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
There.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
It's actually the Jews who are to blame there. And
we saw this on and on and on. There was
a Hesbalah banner unveiled at Princeton University, the number one
ranked university in the country. There we saw Jews forcibly
excluded from campuses in UCLA. Columbia is beyond accesspool. It's
otherworldly in terms of how bad it is there. So
it was really in response to that that I said, Okay,
(34:36):
you know, this whole thing really is starting to go
off the rails, and it is time that the Jewish people,
and frankly just Judaism itself needs a defense.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
But it's not. This book is not just the defense
of the Jewish people. These I want to be very
clear about that.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
The book is really fundamentally calling for a Biblical restoration.
Speaker 3 (34:57):
That is above all the core message of the book.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
It's calling it's calling on Jews and Christians alike to
actually fall in love with the Bible and with scripture again,
and because we face the exact same threats. So in
this book, I identify at least three hegemonic threats that
seek to destroy all of us. I call them Wokism, Islamism,
and global neoliberalism. The latter is is globalism. I mean
(35:23):
it's the UN and it's the World Economic Forum. It's this,
it's this homogenizing imperative to stamp out all of our
differences and to basically turn us into one big blob.
So I think Jews and Christians oppose all of these forces.
We face the exact same enemies. We have a dramatically
shared inheritance. We are the two religions of the Bible.
And the point is, if you want to be fortified,
(35:43):
if you want to have the courage, the fortitude, and
the and and just the spine, frankly, to actually ward
off these three threats and ultimately launch a counter offensive,
to to really kind of turn back the tide, and
and and and and to and to prevail in this
grand clash, then you have to stand for something. I mean,
value neutrality is never an option. You got to put
(36:05):
a forward, an actual vision. You have you got to
stand for something. So my argument is that that's something
is the Bible itself is our biblical inheritance.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
We've got to take a quick break. More With Josh
on the other side, it seemed like for a while,
at least after the first Trump administration, that you know,
this radical Islamic terrorism was on the run, and that
we had conquered it, and that you know, we had won.
And then you know, we saw it under the Biden administration.
(36:35):
Give rise is weakness. What do you think kind of
having a new sheriff in the town will mean for
the Middle East? Israel? And then also, you know, reconquering
this radical Islamic extremism that has seemed to reared its
head again.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
Well, I think it's first worth noting that this resurgent
Islamism is not limited to the Middle I mean, we
obviously see it all throughout Europe. It seems like every
other day there is a driver of Syrian or Algerian
or some other type of origin like that in Germany
who's plowing himself into pedestrians. You know, it's funny least
(37:13):
to how these cars just drive themselves into people, right,
I mean, as if there's no human involved there. I
mean literally, these media headlines these days, it's like car
plows over citizens. Okay, well, I mean who's driving the
car anyway. Europe is just a total cesspoo when it
comes to this. But even here in the US, I
mean people, I mean, when's last time you've heard anyone
mention the fact that on New Year's Day morning, at
(37:36):
three am on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, Louisiana, what
fourteen fifteen people were slaughtered and there were dozens more injured.
I mean, I haven't heard that story mentioned in at
least two months. I mean, people just totally forgot about it.
But that was a radical Muslim who was radicalized at
a radical mosque in Houston, Texas. So you know, unfortunately,
(37:58):
this is not an actual tract issue. Anyone who pays
attention to what the imams are saying in places like Dearborn, Michigan.
These these people are openly praising hesbala that they are
talking about, how Hassana's Rawa, that decades long head of
of Hesbala is A is a grand martyr. I mean
it's here like like we are surrounded in some ways
(38:20):
by monsters. We and we we tragically have done this
of our own volition. So that's that's part of it.
That that's that's that's part of it for sure. But
part of it also is understanding that the tip of
the sphere of all this is is indeed the Jewish
State of Israel. I mean, they are, they are the
actual ones who are there on the ground in a
way that you know that we in in Florida, for instance,
(38:43):
aren't necessarily on the ground there when it comes to
trying to turn back the tide against these horrific actors.
And one thing that that that I do in the
Booklese is I have a whole chapter making the case
for US Israel relations on explicitly Maga America first foreign
policy wheel esques. Because I genuinely am a foreign policy realist,
I view every foreign policy decision through the lens of
(39:05):
the US national interest. And among the things that I
argue in that chapter is I explain how a lot
of people ask, oh, my god, the uscives Israel so
much money, what does the US get out of it?
And there are some very obvious answers here. So for instance,
last summer, over the course of a few months, Israel
went on this call three or four month Grand Michael
(39:28):
Corleoni and the Godfather as killing spree where they kind
of just mowed down a lot of their enemies, and
the Hassan Asrawa assassination was one of the culminations of that,
when he was cowardly hiding in his bunker in Beyroot, Lebanon.
But prior to that, Israel, the Ideaf took out two
very high ranking hesbology Haatis by the name of Fuad
Shakor and Ibraheim Akhiel. And who are Shakor and Akhiel? Well,
(39:51):
they are the men responsible for, respectively, the nineteen eighty
three US Marine barrack bombing in Baby Rout, Lebanon, that
slaughter over twenty forty US Marines, and then Akiel was
one who was responsible for the US embassy bombing in
Beirut that same year, which killed sixty to seventy. The
USA Department has actually had five and seven million dollars
(40:12):
bounties on those two terrors head for over four decades
and nothing happened until Israel literally just took them out
last summer. So again we have the exact same enemies
here and one way that America's interest in the region
can be enhanced while simultaneously allowing us to focus on
our own biggest threat, this entry, which is pretty clearly.
Speaker 3 (40:31):
In my opinion, in China.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
The way to do that is you embolden your allies
in the ground who share your interests to patrol and
secure the region in a way there were downs to
both of your interests. Donald Trump totally gets this. It's
this precise logic that led to the Abraham Accords peace
deal the first time around, and I think it's the
exact same logic that we're seeing play out in his
early second term as well.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
I also think the way that Israel has sort of
prosecuted this campaign against Hamas in such an effective way
a sort of you know, I guess, makes people a
little bit more willing to like give aid and to
help out, you know, because they're winning, and you know,
they're they're the you know, the end goal seems to
be in sight, right, you know. Whereas if you compare
(41:15):
that to what's going on in Ukraine, it's, you know,
just we're just sort of like endlessly giving them money
with no en insight and no clear object you know.
So so I think sort of just the sort of
the nature of the fight is obviously a lot different.
You know, how how much does it matter to have
(41:35):
a president because we've got President Trump now, and you know,
obviously he's taking Columbia University to task for you know,
their role in anti Semitism and allowing it to foster
on campus and just the way they've handled everything and
some of these people they've employed, and just you know,
all of it right, and so you've got a guy saying, look,
anti Semitism is wrong, we don't want terrorists in the country.
(41:57):
If you're here on a green carter a visa and
you hate him America, like you're out, you know. And
then you compare that to what we saw under the
Biden administration, where like he was so desperate to win
over Muslim voters that like he was so tepid and
his response to everything, it didn't really go out and
condemn what was happening. And how much does it matter
just to have like the guy taught being like, these
(42:18):
are our values as a country and this is what
the United States stands on. Now.
Speaker 2 (42:23):
Oh, I think it makes a world of difference. I
think it makes an absolutely massive difference. Look, I mean,
in today's day and age, the president is really the
tribune of the people. I mean that the president is
the one who is the single indispensable figure in the
federal government. And we can debate whether or not that's
the way that it was supposed to be. And you know,
(42:44):
this debate was actually had at the founding Frankly, I
mean you had the Jeffersonians, who are more favorable towards
congressional power. Then you had the Hamiltonians, who are more
pro executive power. So that's a very old debate. But
regardless of the debate, the empirical obvious reality is that
the president is the single most important figure and.
Speaker 3 (43:02):
He sets a tone.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
I mean he sets a tone both substantively and rhetorically.
So when you have a president of the United States
who's out there speaking of hamas has baalah Aran, who
ths just the radical Islamic cancer, the way that Donald
Trump is talking about him, then I mean that that
goes a really really, really really long way. So for instance,
(43:26):
right now, when it comes to Gaza, I think the
ball is very clearly in Benjamin Nintennah Who's court, because
Donald Truv has all but said to Prime Minister Natanya
who dude, go in and finish the job. I mean,
he hasn't said it literally that explicitly, but he's all
but said it. He's talked about how the gates of
hell are going to open, there will be hell to pay.
(43:46):
I mean, he's used very, very fiery rhetoric here. And
the thing from Nta Yahuo's perspective that I hope, indeed
I pray that he understands is that Donald Trump is
a leader who abhorrors weakness and respects strength. So when
he tells you to do something you really ought to
do it or else, you're gonna start looking very weak
in his eyes. And that that weakness, in turn is
(44:09):
what we'll we'll we'll cause Donald Trump to to to
make him lose respect for you. Actually, so I I
I hope Lisa, that that this time is finally the
time that Israel finishes the job. I'm cautiously optimistic that
it will be. As far as the time frame on
that that, I just have no idea. Now, it's worth
pointing out that regardless of what the resolution ends up
(44:32):
being in Gaza, and again, I hope and pray that
it ends with Moss fully being eradicated. There's not going
to be full scale stability in the Middle East anytime soon.
I wish, I wish that there were, that there would be,
but the the reality is that as long as the
Iranian regime that is currently there is in power, there's
(44:53):
going to be instability in the region because that that
that is a cancerous regime, that that funds all sorts
of of jihad, not just throughout the region when it
comes to the Houthis, when it comes to hasbalah Hamas
and over and over again, but frankly, Iran funds a
lot of this all throughout the world as well. So
at some point that regime is going to have to go.
I'm not saying that the United States should get involved militarily.
(45:15):
I've never said that, because it's not my stance. I
do think that the Trump campaign had it basically correct
the first time when it comes to this maximum pressure
campaign when it comes to crippling sanctions and just trying
to kind of choke them off and kind of get
the people to topple their own regime there. That seems
to be basically the game plan this time around as well,
and I'm certainly hardened by that.
Speaker 1 (45:33):
And then before we go. What do you hope people
take away from.
Speaker 3 (45:36):
Your book, Lisa, I want, above all.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
Multiple things, I would say, on a very short term,
kind of practical political level, I want a lot of
younger people, younger conservatives, maybe above all, younger Christians who
might be kind of tempted to go the way of
Candice Owans and various other online provideurs. I hope that
(46:02):
they remember that there's nothing that's quote unquote neocon or
quote unquote Bush administration about the Israel issue. I hear
a lot of young people these days just just dismissing
US Israel relations out of him because they say, it's
like your grandfather's issue. It's a Bush administration issue, it's
a Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld issue. And again that's just
(46:23):
simply not true. I mean, Donald Trump is the most
pro Israel president of American history, and he's not a Neocon.
He is a hard headed Jacksonian realist because he understands
that the realist case for USS relations is overwhelming. Frankly,
it's actually a much stronger case than making the same
case on explicitly moralistic neocon terms. So it's probably honestly strong,
but in both cases, but the real's case is honestly
(46:45):
even stronger. So I hope that that message resonates. I
have a whole chapter on it. It's chapter seven in
the book. The broader, kind of more abstract philosophical message
is I really, really hope that Jews and Christians alike
are are inspired by my strong, repeated urge to re
engage with scripture and to basically just try to fall
(47:08):
in love with our biblical inheritance again, because this country, America,
really was founded as an ecumenical, biblical country. It was
founded on biblical precepts. Many of the great men in
our country's history understood this, just as Joseph's story, he
was one of the greatest conservative justice on the on
screen court in the nineteenth century, famously said that America
(47:30):
adapted the English common law at our founding.
Speaker 3 (47:35):
We adopted it.
Speaker 2 (47:36):
And then he also said that Christianity itself was actually
part of the English common law. So the great jurists,
the great statesmen have understood that the Bible and the
two Biblical religions are are inextricable from what this country is.
So I'm really hoping, I mean my ideal hope of hopes.
Lisa I'm not saying that one book can possibly accomplish this,
but my ideal hope of hopes is to possibly try
(47:57):
to spark some sort of biblical restoration. I I think back,
you know, I was very lucky. My first TV hit
on this book was with Mark Levin this past Sunday
on his Fox News show. And what Mark said in
talking about the book, because Mark wrote an extraordinarily generous,
generous blurb for this book, but what he said on
air on his Fox show is that if enough people
read this book, then there's going to be a renaissance
(48:19):
in this country.
Speaker 3 (48:20):
And that's very kind of Mark.
Speaker 2 (48:21):
Obviously, but that really is my heart of hearts, you
know that that's my dream come true, is that enough
Jews and Christians alike here and that we actually have
a biblical restoration, a biblical renaissance there that, truly, Lisa,
I think would actually, genuinely, honest to God, make America
and by extension, the entire West great again.
Speaker 1 (48:40):
Well, I am proud of my friend Israel and civilization.
The fate of the Jewish nation and the destiny of
the West is out everywhere you can go get books,
and Amazon's replenishing so you can buy it there too.
But very proud of my friend and I'm so glad
that this is a success, and i hope that that
success just continues to grow.
Speaker 3 (48:58):
Thanks so much, Lisa, is so great to chat with you.
Speaker 1 (49:00):
That was Josh Hammer, author of Israel and Civilization, The
Fate of the Jewish Nation, and the Destiny of the West.
We appreciate him taking the time to come on the show.
Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday,
but you can listen throughout the week until next time.
So today we're unpacking this seismic clash between the Trump administration,
the judiciary, and the broader stakes for Western civilization. We're
going to do that with my friend Josh Hammer. He's
the host of The Josh Hammer Show and America on
Trial and is the author of the new book Israel
and Civilization, The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the
(00:20):
Destiny of the West. He is also a lawyer, so
we're going to ask him about the federal courts that
have issued over twenty injunctions already. Is this judicial pushback unprecedented?
And what does it say about the court's rule. Today
we'll dig into the Alien Enemies Act of seventeen ninety eight,
dusted off for only the fourth time in history. We'll
ask Josh about the Mackmoud Khalil case. His team is
(00:44):
saying it's free speech, the government says it's a national
security issue. Who's right? Plus, with a conservative Supreme Court looming,
will these lower court blocks hold or are we barreling
toward a defining showdown? All of that with Josh Hammer,
And lastly, we're going to discuss his new book, where
he argues that the fate of the West Hinges on
(01:05):
Israel security and a realist US foreign policy. Stay tuned
for my friend Josh Hammer. Well, Josh Hammer, it's great
to have you on the show, my friend. I feel
like you've had an epic a couple of years here,
you got married, you had a little girl, baby girl,
(01:25):
and then now your book is crushing it and already
sold out on Amazon. So it's been a pretty pretty
epic couple of years for you, Lisa.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Praise to the big guy upstairs. That's really all I
can say. But life light, life is pretty good, my friend,
and it's certainly always good to join you as well.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Well, you're a great guy, and so I'm very happy
for you, and I'm looking forward to getting in the book.
But first we'll get into well, I mean, I guess
it may make sense, right, I mean, the left is
try to stop Trump in pretty much every aspect, whether
it be impeachments or trying to kick him off the ballot,
or trying to rome in jail, or trying to assassinate them.
(02:02):
And now they're trying to stop them in the courts.
You know, I guess how unusual is it for federal
courts to issue over twenty injunctions this early in administration,
and kind of what does that say about the judiciari's
rule right now?
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Okay, So it does often seem that there are two
sets of rules as a so it's gonna sound confusing,
but as a general rule, there are there. There are
now two sets of rules. There is one set of
rules that applies to Donald Trump, and there's one set
of rules that applies to everyone else. So, for instance,
when Donald Trump was president the first time around to Lisa,
from twenty seventeen to twenty twenty one, by my count,
(02:38):
there were somewhere between sixty five and seventy so called
nationwide injunctions, these district court judges purporting to apply their
rulings in various cases, not just as it applied to
the parties to the suit or frankly, not even just
as it applied to their specific geographical district their jurisdiction,
but to the entire country. So again that numbers between
(03:00):
sixty five and seventy. The first forty four presidents combined,
literally combined, did not have that many so called nation
wind in junctions applied against them. So right off the bats,
some things just stand out that again, Donald Trump is
a unique figure, and he is uniquely reviled by lower
court judicial activists. Frankly, Lisa, I have actually used the
(03:21):
term myself judicial insurrection. I think that is more accurate
to describe what we have seen here since January twenty is,
since Donald Trump got into power, and these judges, whether
they're calling it a so called temporary restraining order, whether
they're calling it a so called preliminary injunction, in a
nationwide junction, or universal injunction, the language changes, but the
upshot is the same, which is that you are seeing
(03:43):
lower court political activists who happened to be wearing judicial robes,
who are just trying to shut down as much of
the trumpdministration as they possibly can. That is exactly what
is going on here, and it's one of the reasons
why Lisa, from my own platform and in my own capacity,
been shouting from the rooftops, yelling as hard as I
can that what has to happen here. Above all, there
(04:06):
are a lot of important cases that scotas Is gonna
have to hear. Birthright citizenship is an important case. There's
a lot going on, But the number one most important
case that Scotis really has to fast track, and the
Trump is Slister General's office and the dj really ought
to help them do it. Is Scotas is going to
have to rule asap that these so called nationwide injunctions
(04:26):
are totally unconstitutional because they are way beyond the scope
of the judicial power of which Article three of the
Constitutions speaks.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
So it is unusual what we are watching.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
It does continue a broader post World War two trend,
if you want to go back that far. There was
an obscure case in nineteen fifty eight. Not to nerd
out too much, but there wasn't an obscure case ninety
fifty eight called Cooper versus Aaron, which was the first
time that the US Supreme Court ever said that we
are the final law of the land. Prior to that,
that's not how it worked. All three branches would interpret
(05:01):
the Constitution for themselves. So this gives rise to modern
quote unquote judicial supremacy. So that's been going on since
nineteen fifty eight, but these so called nationwide junctions are
even more recent than that. Frankly, and all this is
completely contrary to the way the Constitution is supposed to work,
and it really has to come to an end asap.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
And so what do you think? Well, first of all,
feel free to nerd out on here. If you can't
do it here, where can you do it? And I
guess where do you? So? I guess what would that
ruling look like from the Supreme Court? And what do
you think that would allow President Trump to do? Because
you know right now between you know, sort of seeing
(05:39):
the bureaucracy and action under President Trump in the last term,
and then you know the deep state, and then with
these judges, it's like what powers does the presidency even
still have? Right like like they're they've neutered him or
they're trying to neuter him. So I guess, you know
where where does this all go?
Speaker 2 (05:57):
The acting Slster General in the United States is a
very sharp lawyer the name of Sarah Harris. The incoming
full time Slesster General, god willing he'll be confirmed soon
because he's a fantastic lawyer, is John Souer, the former
Slister General of the Great State of Missouri. And they
are the ones who can do a lot of work
here and directly teeing up this question that I'm getting
(06:19):
at here, which is to rule on the constitutionality of
all these so called nation wine junctions. Clarence Thomas actually presciently,
we might say, actually alluded to this in his concurring
opinion back in the very important twenty eighteen case Trump
versus Hawaii. So Trump versus Hawaii was the so called
travel ban case. You know, frankly, at Lisa, I'm not
(06:40):
in love with the term travel ban, but that's what
the media used, so I guess let's just roll with
it for now. So the so called travel ban case
basically goes to the Supreme Court and the question is
does the President of the United States have the authority
to declare that essentially whatever classes of aliens that he
wants to choose to say that cannot end to the country.
Can he do that? And the answer by a five
(07:01):
four majority of the court is yes.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
It.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Frankly, it's astonishing them that it wasn't nine to zero
because the law is extraordinarily clear under the Immigration Nationality Act.
But regardless, in a concurring in Pani and Clarence Thomas
says again quite pressially, that what we really have to
do here is get to the issue of these so
called nationwide in junctions, because if we just kick the
can down the road on this, then these lower court
judges are going to keep on doing this and doing
(07:24):
this and doing this, and eventually our hand is going
to be forced. And here we are seven years later
and Scotus has not ruled, so they just it's going
to end up as being a straightforward constitutional interpretation as
to what the judicial power in Article three, Section one,
Clause one of the Constitution says. It says that the
juditial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and
(07:46):
as many lower courts as Congress may from time to
time established. So it's actually only it's interesting, it's only
the Supreme Court that is actually constitutionally required. Every other
lower court simply exists at the pure discretion of Congress.
They can actually abolish any other lower court they want
to at any time. And that's actually another interesting point
here that I think is worth making is that ideally,
(08:08):
if our separation of powers is working.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
The way it should, we wouldn't even have to wait
for the.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Supreme Court to rule, because Congress could actually just legislate
in this area. If Congress wanted to abolish so called
Nation one injunctions tomorrow, they could totally do that. The
House Jeshary Committee and j just Share Committee. They could
they could get working on that legislation asap. Congress has
the ability to define what remedies federal courts can and
cannot use. So again, that's assuming a healthy Congress, a
(08:33):
healthy separation of power, something that we have not had
at least since the rise of the administrative state a
century ago. But the Court would be well positioned, nonetheless,
to rule here, and frankly, it's just very it's very
overdue to do so. And if they did so, then
that would have the effect of saying that these lower
court district court judges, they have to limit their rulings
(08:54):
to the parties to the suit. They can't pretend to
shut down an entire program, they can't pretend to direct
that all that all possible grants from us AI D
and the State Department, for instance, have to go out. No,
your ruling would only apply to whatever left wing NGO,
for instance, happened to bring suit at that time. I'm
(09:15):
holding aside here, obviously, the the substantive question as to
whether any particular suit is correct. I'm just talking about
the scope of the ruling to whom it would apply to.
But that's that's how it would play out in theory.
And I also I applaud Donald Trump. I applaud him
for what he did to Judge Boseburg in Washington, d C.
In this Alien Enemies Acts case with Trend Dierra Agua,
(09:37):
because it's it's it's taken the so called nation Wine
and Johnson thing.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
And then going even further than that, what.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Judge Boseberg did is he said, Okay, my ruling is
not just going to apply to the name party to
this suit. My ruling is not just going to apply
to the entire United States, the entire country when it
comes to enforcing the Alien Enemies Act. Heck, now I'm
going to do this throughout the war because those planes
were literally over international waters. I mean, this is nuts,
(10:04):
This is absolutely nuts. And at some point you kind
of have to say enough is enough. And I'm really, really,
really pleased that Donald Trump said enough is enough in
that particular instance and kept the planes going to Naibu,
Kelly and El Salvador. But at this point, Lisa, at
this point, the judges are acting like bullies. They are
(10:25):
acting like a bunch of bullies in a school yard playground.
And the way to deal with the bully is not
to cower in the corner and to just get beat
up mercilessly. At some point you got to stand up.
You have to get in your tippy toes, stare down
the bully in the face and start throwing some punches
and bloody up some noses. So that can be done legislatively,
it can be done via executive executive action. But there's
(10:45):
all sorts of tools that Congress and the executive branch
can do. And I look forward to seeing that all
play up.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
You know, I guess a lot of us are wondering,
you know what that back and forth will end up
looking like. You know, who is the authority and that fight?
You know what tools do judges have to try to
enforce their You know what does the executive branch do
in response? You know, I guess kind of play that
fight out for us.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Sure, so the judicial branch a Article three has extremely
limited tools at its discretion to enforce its own rulings.
In fact, this is actually a direct line from one
of the most famous Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton, writing in
Federalist number seventy eight, he says that the juiciary is
the least dangerous branch because it has neither force nor will,
(11:29):
but merely judgment and depends upon the efficacy of the
executive branch even for the enforcement of its own rulings.
So he's literally saying, I mean, you guys do not
have the ability even to enforce your own judgments. I mean,
I mean, let's think literally if we want to actually
go there, like, who literally is responsible for enforcing federal
courts judgments? The answer is that it's the US Marshals.
(11:51):
But who do the US Marshals actually work for?
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Are they?
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Are they cabin within Article three? Is their paycheck cut
from the United States Judiciary? No, the US Marshals are
actually part of the Department of Justice. They're actually part
of Article two. So that's kind of what Hamilton's getting
at in Federalist number seventy eight there. Now, look, I'm
not saying that willy nilly people should just simply be
defying court orders. On the contrary, I do think that
(12:17):
where there is a legitimate lawsuit, if there's a legitimate
litigation and there is standing and all that, and there's
a plaintiff and there's a defendant, then in that case,
a court's judgment ought to bind the plaintiff and the defendant.
What I'm saying is that beyond that, for any other
similarly situated person, it's not strictly speaking binding. It should
(12:39):
only be thought of as persuasive authority.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
That's kind. That's actually why a judicial.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
Opinion is called an opinion in the first place, because
it's supposed to have persuasive heft. You're supposed to be
persuading your fellow citizens, your fellow judges, your fellow litigants,
that the opinion ought to be followed in similar like
mind data cases. As far as a tool is, Congress has,
for instance, when it comes to dealing with and out
of control fedle juiciary.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
There there's really no shortage of tools.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Certainly, judicial impeachment is one that's that's getting a lot
of attention over this past week, and rightfully so, I've
been yelling about about those.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Two thirds in Yeah, so you need two thirds in
Congress sent in the center rather which yeah, you're not
going to That would be very.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Tough, correct, I mean, realistically speaking, is not going to happen,
but it could be a good shot across the bow. Nonetheless,
just to get a majority in the House and get
this impeachment trials started in the Senate. But you're not
literally going to get impeached, It's true, unless something miraculous happens.
But I'm not holding out my hope for that. Other
things that you could do, You could nact legislation to
(13:46):
strip certain federal judges of jurisdiction. You could say you
are not allowed to hear a case that involves this
type of law or this type of case. There You
frankly could abolish an entire court. I mean, Congress create
all the lower courts, going back to the Judiciary Act
of seventeen eighty nine, one of the first statutes Congress
ever passed, so that which can be created by Congress
(14:07):
can necessarily be destroyed by Congress.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
So you can do that if you want too.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
You also can do all sorts of kind of fun
really like symbolic but punitive stuff if you really want
to kind of stick the knife in and twist it,
so to speak. So I mean, one example of that
would be, I mean, Congress could mandate that federal judges
no longer used taxpayer dollars to dry clean their robes,
(14:32):
which sounds like a very stupid and silly thing to say,
But it's like a symbolic fu if you get what
I'm saying there. If you really want to take this
to its logical conclusion and go all the way up
to the United States Supreme Court, you know, the Supreme
Court was actually housed in the basement of the US
Capitol for most of American history. They didn't get their
own building across the street from the Capitol until one
(14:54):
hundred years or less ago. I think it was even
less than a hundred years ago in the early twentieth
century when they finally got their own building. But there's
something symbolic to be said for that. I mean, these
guys were literally in the basement of the Capitol because
they're the least dangerous branch. So if Congress really wanted
to get creative here and send a message in this
case the Chief Justice John Roberts, who frankly seems like
he needs a bit of a message, you literally could
(15:17):
pass legislation turning the current U A Supreme Court into
a museum or something like that, whatever you want to
use it to, and then reconvert the basement of the
US Capital into the functional courtroom for the US Supreme Court.
I'm not saying that they should do that. I'm just
saying that if you really want to go there, you
frankly could.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
And how does that play out in public perception? You know?
Does this you know? I mean because some seed judges
as sort of guardians of the law. Obviously, others are
looking at it as overreaching.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
You know.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
The President Trump's critics argue he's a dictator. I guess,
you know, how does this all play out politically for him? Then?
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Well, I think the way it plays out politically is
in line with the un are lying substance of the issues.
What I mean by that is, let's take this Boseberg
standoff involving Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to
deport trendiar Agua, rapist murderers, gang bangers, mean, the worst
of the worst.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
These people who took over.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
The condominium in All Colorado just awful, awful, awful people.
I mean, basically the Western Hemisphere version of Hamas and Hesbala.
I mean, just just awful, awful, awful people.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
There.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
The American people support deporting trendyar Agua. Okay, the American
people are not with They are not with the Democratic Party.
They are not with the left, they are not with
Judge Boseburger or any of them when it comes to
the underlying substantive issue there. So you know, I think
these procedural things matter. I'm a lawyer. I think that
(16:48):
they matter. But I think the American people ultimately care
properly as they should about the underlying substance of the matter.
So where they see Donald Trump fighting on the correct
side of an eighty twenty issue, and you know, whether
we should deport people like Machoun Khalil and Trendy or
Agua is probably a ninety five to five issue, or
at least a ninety ten issue. I mean, it's definitely
(17:08):
more than agy twenty. I think when you get that there,
and Trump is basically making various moves to enforce that agenda,
I think it pretty much only has political upside, very
little in the way of downside.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Yeah, well, I mean, you know, if they have the
perception of defending you know, venezuela and gangs, that might
not be the best look. You could argue, We've got
more with Josh. But first, when a woman experiences an
unplanned pregnancy, she often feels alone and afraid. So many times,
her first response is to seek out an abortion, but
(17:41):
because of the generosity of listeners like you, that search
me leader to a Preborn Network clinic where she'll choose life,
not just for her baby, but for herself. Preborn offers
God's love and compassion to hurting women and then provides
a free ultra sound to introduce them to the life
growing inside of them. This combination brings is the ultimate
miracle of life to life, which is why Preborn sees
(18:04):
an average of two hundred baby saved every day. Now
meet some courageous woman who chose life. Mattie was in
a tough situation as she wasn't sure who the father was,
But after receiving counseling, prayer, and a free ultrasound at
Preborn Network Clinic, everything changed. Mattie discovered she had twins
and found the strength she needed to choose life. Her
(18:25):
sorrows turned to joy. Your tax deductible donation of twenty
eight dollars sponsors one ultrasound. How many babies can you save?
Please donate your best gift today. Just style pound two
fifty and say the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty baby.
Or go to preborn dot com slash booth. That's preborn
dot com slash booth boo tchg sponsored by Preborn. You
(18:51):
had mentioned the Khalil case, obviously, his team says that
his speech has protected. The government says that it's a
security issue. I guess where's the legal line between free
expression and also deportable conduct.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Immigration law and constitutional law makes a real heavy distinction,
a heavy distinction between citizen and non citizen, frankly, even
as it applies to the Bill of Rights. And it's
confusing because the way that every Bill of right is
enforced versus non citizens is not the same, and the
First Amendment is indeed slightly different. But I mean, let's
(19:27):
just take the Second Amendment to use a very clear
and obvious example. If you are a US citizen, you
can walk into Walmart or wherever you get your wherever
you get your firearms tomorrow, and you can you can
purchase basically whatever you want as long as you pass
background check and do all those other nice teas. That's
that's not the way it works if you are an alien,
if you are here on a student visa. Frankly, if
(19:48):
if you're even a legal permanent resident on a so
called green card, you can't just walk in to a
gun store. If you are an alien, legal or obviously illegal,
you can just walk into a gun store and purchase
a five. So there are very clear distinctions between citizen nonsenisen.
Another clear distinction is also when it comes to due process.
So I was talking about the Streme Court. One of
(20:10):
the great Supreme Court justices of the past century is
made by the name of Justice Robert Jackson. He was
the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, which was the
prosecution of the Nazi war criminals. He also was nicknamed
in his time the Great Dissenter because of, among other things,
his dissenting opinion in the Kooramatsu case, that was the
(20:31):
Japanese internment case during the FDR presidency, when as an
act during wartime in World War Two, FDR basically sends
all the Japanese Americans to these internment camps. It's considered
to be one of the worst opinions in US Supreme
Court history. And just as Robert Jackson dissented on due
process clause grounds. Well, I say all that for context,
because was Robert Jackson nine years after the Kormatsu case,
(20:54):
in a case called shaughnessy that he said that due
process does not give any alien ad the right to
immigrate to this country, and once you are here, it
does not give you any due process rights to be
free from deportation against the will of the sovereign.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Which means we the people, because we the people are
sovereign in the country.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
So what that means is that you have no due
process right if you are an alien. Okay, anything that
Congress chooses to enact into law, any statutory protections that
they put into place in the Immigration Nationality Act and
that gets us into the immigration courts, all of that
is simply done out of Congress's own generosity, of their
own beneficence. You might say, they're not required to do so,
(21:37):
you have no fundamental due process right against deportation. So
makmu Khalil, I think the case against him on deportation
grounds is fairly straightforward, which is that we mistakenly let
in him, this clear and obvious jihad sympathizer, This guy
who belongs to a group. He's a spokesman for a
group calling for not just the killing of the Jews,
but also just the annihilation of Western civilization. A guy
(21:59):
who clearly should not ever been let into this country
on any visa, and we the people have said enough,
we're pulling your card. There, there's also a statutory hook,
because even the Immigration Nationality Act explicitly says above and
beyond what I just said, it says that if you
are a supporter of a US recognized FTO, a foreign
terrorist organization, then you cannot get a visa. And if
(22:20):
it turns out that you lied on your visa paperwork
by saying that you're not a supporter checking that box,
and then it turns out that you are actually a supporter,
then your visa can and should be revoked. So that's
that's pretty clearly what happened here as well. So I
view the case against Khalil as legally speaking, pretty straightforward.
Policy speaking, I think it's clearly obviously the correct thing
(22:42):
to do. Frankly, I hope to see a lot more
of it as well.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Well. I do think the initial reaction to the Brown
professor who was sent back to Lebanon was hilarious and
then they're like, oh, yeah, well, you know, she attended
the funeral of Hesbala leader, Like exactly, what the hell
have someone like this in America attending the funeral of
terror leaders. And I want to move on to your book,
(23:08):
but real quick before you do so, you had mentioned
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, you know, weighing in
and that statement from him about you know, more than
two centuries it has been established that impeachment is not
appropriate response to do disagreement, Wait, response to disagree. Promise
they can read an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a
(23:31):
judicial decision. Why did he weigh in and is that appropriate?
Speaker 3 (23:39):
It's beyond then appropriate.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Roberts is completely and utterly out of line here. Unfortunately,
I'm not surprised because he's done this before. So back
during Donald Trump's first administration, Trump made some offhand comment,
I can't remember the context, to be honest with you,
about how there are Republican judges and Democrat judges, and
then Roberts issued a statement saying, oh, no, he's an
It's not true. We're all non part is in there.
(24:02):
And I mean literally, I guess he's right because judges
don't run for office wearing an R or a D banner.
But I mean, in practice, we all know that what
Don Trump was saying was obviously correct. So he's done
this before, and this time it's actually even worse because
he's not correcting what he perceives to be a misperception.
(24:26):
He's actually just wrong. I mean, he's literally wrong in
this case. As to what impeachment in this case, judicial
impeachment is and what it is not. Judicial impeachment is
not a far fetched, crazy thing. In fact, the Constitution
explicitly countenances it. It explicitly holds it out as a possibility.
The language and Article three says that judges shall sit
(24:49):
during good behavior, which means that they have life tenure
as long as they demonstrate good behavior. And what is
good behavior, Well, we actually know from some other legal
scholarship and the work of lawyers and historians that that
phrase has basically the same meaning as high crimes and misdemeanors,
which is the presidential Article two impeachment criteria. And then
(25:12):
you go back and say, okay, well, what is high
crimes and misdemeanors? Well, thankfully, we actually pretty much know
the answer to that as well. Alexander Hamilton has his
Federalist paper in Federalist number sixty five where he defines
high crimes misdemeanors as referring to an abuse of the
public trust. So by syllogism here, then we can say
(25:32):
that the criteria for both presidential and judicial impeachment is
an abuse of the public trust. That's not a legal standard, okay,
That is a political standard. That is a standard that
requires prudence and statesmanship and the various things that politicians do.
It's been that way literally since the origins of the Republic.
(25:53):
One of the first acts of digital impeachment was the
impeachment of his Preme Court justice by the name of
Samuel Chase. Most of the story think that that was
a partisan act. It was part of the partisan ranker
in the nation's first party system between the Federalist Party
of John Adams and John Jay and Alexander Hamilton on
the one hand, versus the Jeffersonian Madisonian Party the Democratic Republicans,
(26:14):
And maybe it was nat to Parsonship. The point is
that it is a political exercise. So for John Roberts
to come in here and criticize politicians talking about what
is quintessentially a political act is absurd. And the grand
irony of Elisa is that, ironically, in saying what he
has said, one could plausibly argue if you were trying
(26:35):
to be a little too clever by half, that Roberts
has himself actually done an impeachable offense.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
All right, well, let's ship to well, I mean, it's
this is all going to be fascinating to continue to
watch with all this back and forth, and then hopefully
it doesn't impact President Trump from getting some big things
done in a short period of time that he's got.
But I want to talk about your book, which is
killing it. I mean, it's already out on Amazon, right.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Yeah, we actually sold that on publication Data itself, which
is not so although it's being rapidly replenished. So don't
hesitate to order on Amazon if your own Clinton.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
But that is amazing, so tell me. Okay, So the
book is Israel and Civilization, the Fate of the Jewish
Nation and the Destiny of the West. And you argue
that the fate of Western civilization is dependent upon the
security and thriving of the Jewish people and the Jewish
state of Israel. Walk us through that, and walk us
(27:31):
through your thesis.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Sure so, as you correctly note, the important thing to
know about the title of the book, Israel and Civilization
is that Israel in the title has a double meaning.
It's referring, yes, for sure, to the capital s state
of Israel, the modern post nineteen forty eight state, but
it's very much, arguably even more so, referring to the
(27:54):
nation of Israel, the children of Israel, in other words,
the Jewish people. And the argument in Lisa is essentially
as follows. You know, we talk a lot about Western civilization,
and we say that the West is at a crossroads.
We can go one direction or the other direction there.
But as we just discussed, you know, for twenty five
minutes or whatnot. I'm a lawyer and I like to
(28:15):
define terms. So what is this West? What is this
Western civilization that we're speaking of? Well, I argue in
the book that Western civilization is largely synonymous with the
Biblical tradition, with the Bible, and with the Jeo Christian tradition.
That I stretch all the way back, at least as
far back as God's first revelation of his word to
(28:36):
Moses and the Israelites at Mount Sinai, and in some
of the earlier chapters of this book, I painstakingly attempt
to demonstrate that everything from the English common law, to
the US Constitution, to the American Founding, and really just
so much of the everyday norms and ethical considerations that
we take for grant him all ultimately go back to
(28:56):
the Hebrew Bible. So the relevant question that then, Lisa,
is if you if you care about the West, and
if the West is as I argue, largely synonymous with
with the biblical tradition there, I mean, I mean, how
can the West possibly survive if you're just going to
forsake the origin of it all? I mean, I mean,
you're basically just sawing off the tree. You're you're, you're
(29:18):
you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. Incidentally,
this is something that the American Founders. You know, we
talked a lot about the Federals papers and in this
in this show, so that you know, the the American
Founders understood this completely to a t. So, just to
give a couple of examples, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin,
they actually wanted the National Seal of the United States
to be Moses parting the Red Sea. Abraham Lincoln fast forwarding,
(29:41):
you know, five six decades later, when not there, Abraham
Lincoln famously spoke of Americans as an almost chosen people
using this covenantal language found found in the Hebrew Bible,
and just on and on and on. You see this
play out to me, I mean, Alexander Hamilton actually has
this incredible, incredible quote where he says, quote, the state
(30:03):
and progress of the Jews from their earliest history to
the present time has been so entirely out of the
ordinary course of human affairs. Is it not then a
fair conclusion that the cause also is an extraordinary one,
In other words, that it is the effect of some
great providential plan. He's basically saying that one of his
reasons to know that God exists is that the Jewish
(30:24):
people are still alive, unlike every other nation that existed
when they were first formed back in Biblical times. There
so this idea that America has forged on Biblical precepts,
that the original people of the book have a real
role to play here. It is deeply, deeply ingrained in
who we are. Just one final example, it's literally there
(30:44):
on the liberty bell in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It's a quote
from the Book of Leviticus on the outside, THO shall
proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof.
So you know, people who oppose the West more broadly
understand this too, So it actually cuts in both directions.
So you know, anti Semites throughout history, they've never actually
(31:05):
truly been interested in the Jews. They're always interested in
something much greater and more profound than that. So Karl
Marx is actually one of my favorite examples here. I mean,
Carl Marx is typically associated with communism, and rightfully so.
But a few years before he wrote the Communist Manifesto,
he had this infamously anti Semitic essay called on the
Jewish Question, where he made very clear his dripping disdain
(31:27):
for the Jews. But that's not actually what Karl Marx wanted,
deep in his very dark heart to achieve, right, I mean,
what Carl Marx wanted to achieve was nothing less than
the entire overthrowing of Western capitalism and Western Christendom, western
Christian civilization. So whether you're trying to defend the West
against the barbarians, you have to understand that it's the
(31:48):
Saturday people first, the Jews first, and then the Sunday
people the Christians next, And then if you're trying to
destroy Western civilization. It's the same thing in reverse. You
start with the Saturday people, then you go to the
Sunday people in that. You know, this is a reason,
for instance, why the transnational institutions like the Nine Nations,
they all start with the Jewish State of Israel.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
But they're not going to stop there, Lisa.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
They obviously ultimately want to go after the nation state
as a concept and whole, including but hardly limited to
the United States itself.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Well, and we've seeing this play out on college campuses
and universities across the country of You know, yes, of
course they hate the Jews, but you know, they also
just hate America and everything we stand for. I guess,
what does it mean about where we are as a
society today that you feel the need to defend the
fate of the Jewish people and defend why it's important
(32:38):
to have a secure and thriving Jewish people and Jewish
State of Israel.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
Great question, and it says nothing good about where we're at.
Frankly that I felt the need to write this book, Lisa,
if I'm being very honest with you, this was not
the original book that I was planning on writing. Actually,
so back in. You know, I've been a writer for years.
I read a weekly sits.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
So you're beautiful. Yeah, you're very talented.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
I appreciate that, thank you. So.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
But I've written god knows about the op eds columns,
law review articles. I've done basically anything everything other than
writing a book. So at some point I finally said, Okay,
it's time to write a book, and I started drafting
the outline for a totally totally different book that had
nothing to do necessarily with the Jews, Israel, foreign policy,
any of this stuff. And then October seventh happens, and
(33:24):
I didn't necessarily write the book in response to October seventh. Rather,
I wrote it in response to the reaction to October seventh.
So that's actually a lot of the first chapter of
the book, as I kind of talk about the just
disgusting things, like utterly disgusting things that have been said
and done, including within seemingly hours minutes of October seventh itself.
(33:48):
I mean, I remember when there were thirty two or
thirty three Harvard student groups that immediately ganged up to
jointly sign a letter within hours of Jewish women Holocaustterviyers
being slaughtered Jewish babies being butchered. The Harvard students from
their dorm rooms in Cambridge, Massachusetts said, oh no, it's
actually Israel that's to blame for their own beheadings, for
(34:10):
their own babies being.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
Cooked in ovens.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
There.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
It's actually the Jews who are to blame there. And
we saw this on and on and on. There was
a Hesbalah banner unveiled at Princeton University, the number one
ranked university in the country. There we saw Jews forcibly
excluded from campuses in UCLA. Columbia is beyond accesspool. It's
otherworldly in terms of how bad it is there. So
it was really in response to that that I said, Okay,
(34:36):
you know, this whole thing really is starting to go
off the rails, and it is time that the Jewish people,
and frankly just Judaism itself needs a defense.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
But it's not. This book is not just the defense
of the Jewish people. These I want to be very
clear about that.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
The book is really fundamentally calling for a Biblical restoration.
Speaker 3 (34:57):
That is above all the core message of the book.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
It's calling it's calling on Jews and Christians alike to
actually fall in love with the Bible and with scripture again,
and because we face the exact same threats. So in
this book, I identify at least three hegemonic threats that
seek to destroy all of us. I call them Wokism, Islamism,
and global neoliberalism. The latter is is globalism. I mean
(35:23):
it's the UN and it's the World Economic Forum. It's this,
it's this homogenizing imperative to stamp out all of our
differences and to basically turn us into one big blob.
So I think Jews and Christians oppose all of these forces.
We face the exact same enemies. We have a dramatically
shared inheritance. We are the two religions of the Bible.
And the point is, if you want to be fortified,
(35:43):
if you want to have the courage, the fortitude, and
the and and just the spine, frankly, to actually ward
off these three threats and ultimately launch a counter offensive,
to to really kind of turn back the tide, and
and and and and to and to prevail in this
grand clash, then you have to stand for something. I mean,
value neutrality is never an option. You got to put
(36:05):
a forward, an actual vision. You have you got to
stand for something. So my argument is that that's something
is the Bible itself is our biblical inheritance.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
We've got to take a quick break. More With Josh
on the other side, it seemed like for a while,
at least after the first Trump administration, that you know,
this radical Islamic terrorism was on the run, and that
we had conquered it, and that you know, we had won.
And then you know, we saw it under the Biden administration.
(36:35):
Give rise is weakness. What do you think kind of
having a new sheriff in the town will mean for
the Middle East? Israel? And then also, you know, reconquering
this radical Islamic extremism that has seemed to reared its
head again.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
Well, I think it's first worth noting that this resurgent
Islamism is not limited to the Middle I mean, we
obviously see it all throughout Europe. It seems like every
other day there is a driver of Syrian or Algerian
or some other type of origin like that in Germany
who's plowing himself into pedestrians. You know, it's funny least
(37:13):
to how these cars just drive themselves into people, right,
I mean, as if there's no human involved there. I
mean literally, these media headlines these days, it's like car
plows over citizens. Okay, well, I mean who's driving the
car anyway. Europe is just a total cesspoo when it
comes to this. But even here in the US, I
mean people, I mean, when's last time you've heard anyone
mention the fact that on New Year's Day morning, at
(37:36):
three am on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, Louisiana, what
fourteen fifteen people were slaughtered and there were dozens more injured.
I mean, I haven't heard that story mentioned in at
least two months. I mean, people just totally forgot about it.
But that was a radical Muslim who was radicalized at
a radical mosque in Houston, Texas. So you know, unfortunately,
(37:58):
this is not an actual tract issue. Anyone who pays
attention to what the imams are saying in places like Dearborn, Michigan.
These these people are openly praising hesbala that they are
talking about, how Hassana's Rawa, that decades long head of
of Hesbala is A is a grand martyr. I mean
it's here like like we are surrounded in some ways
(38:20):
by monsters. We and we we tragically have done this
of our own volition. So that's that's part of it.
That that's that's that's part of it for sure. But
part of it also is understanding that the tip of
the sphere of all this is is indeed the Jewish
State of Israel. I mean, they are, they are the
actual ones who are there on the ground in a
way that you know that we in in Florida, for instance,
(38:43):
aren't necessarily on the ground there when it comes to
trying to turn back the tide against these horrific actors.
And one thing that that that I do in the
Booklese is I have a whole chapter making the case
for US Israel relations on explicitly Maga America first foreign
policy wheel esques. Because I genuinely am a foreign policy realist,
I view every foreign policy decision through the lens of
(39:05):
the US national interest. And among the things that I
argue in that chapter is I explain how a lot
of people ask, oh, my god, the uscives Israel so
much money, what does the US get out of it?
And there are some very obvious answers here. So for instance,
last summer, over the course of a few months, Israel
went on this call three or four month Grand Michael
(39:28):
Corleoni and the Godfather as killing spree where they kind
of just mowed down a lot of their enemies, and
the Hassan Asrawa assassination was one of the culminations of that,
when he was cowardly hiding in his bunker in Beyroot, Lebanon.
But prior to that, Israel, the Ideaf took out two
very high ranking hesbology Haatis by the name of Fuad
Shakor and Ibraheim Akhiel. And who are Shakor and Akhiel? Well,
(39:51):
they are the men responsible for, respectively, the nineteen eighty
three US Marine barrack bombing in Baby Rout, Lebanon, that
slaughter over twenty forty US Marines, and then Akiel was
one who was responsible for the US embassy bombing in
Beirut that same year, which killed sixty to seventy. The
USA Department has actually had five and seven million dollars
(40:12):
bounties on those two terrors head for over four decades
and nothing happened until Israel literally just took them out
last summer. So again we have the exact same enemies
here and one way that America's interest in the region
can be enhanced while simultaneously allowing us to focus on
our own biggest threat, this entry, which is pretty clearly.
Speaker 3 (40:31):
In my opinion, in China.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
The way to do that is you embolden your allies
in the ground who share your interests to patrol and
secure the region in a way there were downs to
both of your interests. Donald Trump totally gets this. It's
this precise logic that led to the Abraham Accords peace
deal the first time around, and I think it's the
exact same logic that we're seeing play out in his
early second term as well.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
I also think the way that Israel has sort of
prosecuted this campaign against Hamas in such an effective way
a sort of you know, I guess, makes people a
little bit more willing to like give aid and to
help out, you know, because they're winning, and you know,
they're they're the you know, the end goal seems to
be in sight, right, you know. Whereas if you compare
(41:15):
that to what's going on in Ukraine, it's, you know,
just we're just sort of like endlessly giving them money
with no en insight and no clear object you know.
So so I think sort of just the sort of
the nature of the fight is obviously a lot different.
You know, how how much does it matter to have
(41:35):
a president because we've got President Trump now, and you know,
obviously he's taking Columbia University to task for you know,
their role in anti Semitism and allowing it to foster
on campus and just the way they've handled everything and
some of these people they've employed, and just you know,
all of it right, and so you've got a guy saying, look,
anti Semitism is wrong, we don't want terrorists in the country.
(41:57):
If you're here on a green carter a visa and
you hate him America, like you're out, you know. And
then you compare that to what we saw under the
Biden administration, where like he was so desperate to win
over Muslim voters that like he was so tepid and
his response to everything, it didn't really go out and
condemn what was happening. And how much does it matter
just to have like the guy taught being like, these
(42:18):
are our values as a country and this is what
the United States stands on. Now.
Speaker 2 (42:23):
Oh, I think it makes a world of difference. I
think it makes an absolutely massive difference. Look, I mean,
in today's day and age, the president is really the
tribune of the people. I mean that the president is
the one who is the single indispensable figure in the
federal government. And we can debate whether or not that's
the way that it was supposed to be. And you know,
(42:44):
this debate was actually had at the founding Frankly, I
mean you had the Jeffersonians, who are more favorable towards
congressional power. Then you had the Hamiltonians, who are more
pro executive power. So that's a very old debate. But
regardless of the debate, the empirical obvious reality is that
the president is the single most important figure and.
Speaker 3 (43:02):
He sets a tone.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
I mean he sets a tone both substantively and rhetorically.
So when you have a president of the United States
who's out there speaking of hamas has baalah Aran, who
ths just the radical Islamic cancer, the way that Donald
Trump is talking about him, then I mean that that
goes a really really, really really long way. So for instance,
(43:26):
right now, when it comes to Gaza, I think the
ball is very clearly in Benjamin Nintennah Who's court, because
Donald Truv has all but said to Prime Minister Natanya
who dude, go in and finish the job. I mean,
he hasn't said it literally that explicitly, but he's all
but said it. He's talked about how the gates of
hell are going to open, there will be hell to pay.
(43:46):
I mean, he's used very, very fiery rhetoric here. And
the thing from Nta Yahuo's perspective that I hope, indeed
I pray that he understands is that Donald Trump is
a leader who abhorrors weakness and respects strength. So when
he tells you to do something you really ought to
do it or else, you're gonna start looking very weak
in his eyes. And that that weakness, in turn is
(44:09):
what we'll we'll we'll cause Donald Trump to to to
make him lose respect for you. Actually, so I I
I hope Lisa, that that this time is finally the
time that Israel finishes the job. I'm cautiously optimistic that
it will be. As far as the time frame on
that that, I just have no idea. Now, it's worth
pointing out that regardless of what the resolution ends up
(44:32):
being in Gaza, and again, I hope and pray that
it ends with Moss fully being eradicated. There's not going
to be full scale stability in the Middle East anytime soon.
I wish, I wish that there were, that there would be,
but the the reality is that as long as the
Iranian regime that is currently there is in power, there's
(44:53):
going to be instability in the region because that that
that is a cancerous regime, that that funds all sorts
of of jihad, not just throughout the region when it
comes to the Houthis, when it comes to hasbalah Hamas
and over and over again, but frankly, Iran funds a
lot of this all throughout the world as well. So
at some point that regime is going to have to go.
I'm not saying that the United States should get involved militarily.
(45:15):
I've never said that, because it's not my stance. I
do think that the Trump campaign had it basically correct
the first time when it comes to this maximum pressure
campaign when it comes to crippling sanctions and just trying
to kind of choke them off and kind of get
the people to topple their own regime there. That seems
to be basically the game plan this time around as well,
and I'm certainly hardened by that.
Speaker 1 (45:33):
And then before we go. What do you hope people
take away from.
Speaker 3 (45:36):
Your book, Lisa, I want, above all.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
Multiple things, I would say, on a very short term,
kind of practical political level, I want a lot of
younger people, younger conservatives, maybe above all, younger Christians who
might be kind of tempted to go the way of
Candice Owans and various other online provideurs. I hope that
(46:02):
they remember that there's nothing that's quote unquote neocon or
quote unquote Bush administration about the Israel issue. I hear
a lot of young people these days just just dismissing
US Israel relations out of him because they say, it's
like your grandfather's issue. It's a Bush administration issue, it's
a Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld issue. And again that's just
(46:23):
simply not true. I mean, Donald Trump is the most
pro Israel president of American history, and he's not a Neocon.
He is a hard headed Jacksonian realist because he understands
that the realist case for USS relations is overwhelming. Frankly,
it's actually a much stronger case than making the same
case on explicitly moralistic neocon terms. So it's probably honestly strong,
but in both cases, but the real's case is honestly
(46:45):
even stronger. So I hope that that message resonates. I
have a whole chapter on it. It's chapter seven in
the book. The broader, kind of more abstract philosophical message
is I really, really hope that Jews and Christians alike
are are inspired by my strong, repeated urge to re
engage with scripture and to basically just try to fall
(47:08):
in love with our biblical inheritance again, because this country, America,
really was founded as an ecumenical, biblical country. It was
founded on biblical precepts. Many of the great men in
our country's history understood this, just as Joseph's story, he
was one of the greatest conservative justice on the on
screen court in the nineteenth century, famously said that America
(47:30):
adapted the English common law at our founding.
Speaker 3 (47:35):
We adopted it.
Speaker 2 (47:36):
And then he also said that Christianity itself was actually
part of the English common law. So the great jurists,
the great statesmen have understood that the Bible and the
two Biblical religions are are inextricable from what this country is.
So I'm really hoping, I mean my ideal hope of hopes.
Lisa I'm not saying that one book can possibly accomplish this,
but my ideal hope of hopes is to possibly try
(47:57):
to spark some sort of biblical restoration. I I think back,
you know, I was very lucky. My first TV hit
on this book was with Mark Levin this past Sunday
on his Fox News show. And what Mark said in
talking about the book, because Mark wrote an extraordinarily generous,
generous blurb for this book, but what he said on
air on his Fox show is that if enough people
read this book, then there's going to be a renaissance
(48:19):
in this country.
Speaker 3 (48:20):
And that's very kind of Mark.
Speaker 2 (48:21):
Obviously, but that really is my heart of hearts, you
know that that's my dream come true, is that enough
Jews and Christians alike here and that we actually have
a biblical restoration, a biblical renaissance there that, truly, Lisa,
I think would actually, genuinely, honest to God, make America
and by extension, the entire West great again.
Speaker 1 (48:40):
Well, I am proud of my friend Israel and civilization.
The fate of the Jewish nation and the destiny of
the West is out everywhere you can go get books,
and Amazon's replenishing so you can buy it there too.
But very proud of my friend and I'm so glad
that this is a success, and i hope that that
success just continues to grow.
Speaker 3 (48:58):
Thanks so much, Lisa, is so great to chat with you.
Speaker 1 (49:00):
That was Josh Hammer, author of Israel and Civilization, The
Fate of the Jewish Nation, and the Destiny of the West.
We appreciate him taking the time to come on the show.
Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday,
but you can listen throughout the week until next time.
Host
Lisa Boothe
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Betrayal: Season 4
Karoline Borega married a man of honor – a respected Colorado Springs Police officer. She knew there would be sacrifices to accommodate her husband’s career. But she had no idea that he was using his badge to fool everyone. This season, we expose a man who swore two sacred oaths—one to his badge, one to his bride—and broke them both. We follow Karoline as she questions everything she thought she knew about her partner of over 20 years. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-3 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.