3-17-25 - 8am - Alien Enemies Act

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael.

Speaker 2 (00:00):
I had a French girlfriend who told me to kiss
her where it stinks, so I took her to Commerce City.

Speaker 1 (00:07):
Michael, Commerce City is the butthole, and manned is this stink?
Oh my god? We asked, we shall see.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Why Why am I sitting here like I'm shocked or surprised,
you know, I I really maybe do need to reconsider
my my whole.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
Audience, audience.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
And I'm thinking, maybe I really need to consider my
entire life, because I do think this audience is a
reflection to me, and I find that incredibly frightening when
I actually hear from some of.

Speaker 1 (00:47):
Them likeror It's like, oh my god.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
So really this judge will get into the details of
the judge in the minute, but this judge has tried
to stop Trump from deporting criminals to Guatemala, and I
want to emphasize that marks even though Trump it's factually

(01:14):
questionable whether he disobeyed the temporary restraining order or not,
because it is factually contested whether the plane was still
in US airspace when the order was issued. Because if

(01:36):
the plane, which then creates an entire issue, does a
federal judge have any authority to stop the president from
deporting a criminal alien. I let me tell you first

(01:58):
a little I know I've done this before, but I
want you to understand the.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
Framework.

Speaker 2 (02:05):
The perspective a temporary restraining order is I run to
the courthouse because I know you are about to do
something that is going to harm me financially or physically,
or you know you're going to violate a contract we
have or something, and I know you're about to do this.

(02:25):
So I go and I ask for an injunction. Listen
closely to the terminology. I ask for an injunction to
enjoin you or stop you, or to force you to
do something or to not do something.

Speaker 1 (02:42):
For a.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
For an injunction to enjoin me, to force me to
do something, to stop me from doing something, I have
to have an opportunity to defend against that injunction. So,
in order to present the status the status quo, a
judge will enter in a temporary restraining order. But in

(03:08):
order for a judge to issue a TRO as it's
commonly referred to as from among those lawyers, a tro
is only issued when it appears from the evidence that
the petitioning party has supplied to the court, which is

(03:28):
always one sided, that it appears more likely than not.
It appears that me seeking the injunction to stop you
from doing something and it will force you to something,
that I'm likely to win that case. So the judge
has to make a kind of a crystal ball decision that, oh,

(03:48):
it appears to me that based on the statutes are
based on the common law, based on you know, the
equity is based on whatever considerations that I'm looking at,
that I'm more likely to win the nut. So I'll
issue a t tr tr O, which is why it's
called a temporary restraining order that stops everything in its
place until I can until all the parties can get

(04:11):
in front of the judge brief the issue, make their arguments,
and then the judge can make the decision about the injunction.
So that's why I say that this tro is a
small victory for those who are defending these deportees, who
are defending these written, these dirt bags, these people who

(04:37):
have no right to be here under any interpretation of
the law. This is obviously a radical judge. So the
Inner City Press posted on Saturday, late Saturday night, this okay,
now rare Saturday hearing in JGG Now JG is this

(05:01):
particular criminal that they're for whatever reason, trying to protect
the name of Okay, He tweeted, okay now rare Saturday
hearing in JGG versus Trump in which the District Court

(05:21):
Chief Judge Bosberg has or Bossburg and Mashrallia pronounce it
has already issued a temporary restraining order against deporting TRENDA
ROGWA members to Venezuela under the Alien Enemies Act. Inner
City Press will Life tweet thread below. Mack mud Khalil

(05:43):
petitioned in a minute after Live tweeted sdn Y Southern
District of New York proceeding about whether the case will
be moved and if so, whether New Jersey to which
he was moved at three am us says before four
am filing or Louisiana. What that means is this happened

(06:06):
at three in the morning. It was originally in the
Southern District of New York, although they were moving this
guy from sdn Y Southern District of New York to
New Jersey on his way to Venezuela. And this one
in particular is Mack mud Khalil. That's the Columbia protester

(06:28):
that's been organized well, here's what he said in his
in his post on really late Saturday night.

Speaker 3 (06:39):
Here at Southern from New York, who just covered the
mcmuccuril hearing before Jedge Furman.

Speaker 4 (06:44):
Largely procedural. Basically, it's a question where are the capabile
go forward. The government is saying that they moved him
to New Jersey at three in the morning.

Speaker 3 (06:53):
And the cision wasn't filed until four in the morning,
and therefore there's no jurisdiction.

Speaker 1 (06:57):
In the SDN Y.

Speaker 3 (06:58):
The Mamukalis say that was a bad faith and that
also they made a second argument that they may have jurisdiction.

Speaker 4 (07:05):
Based on the Ice Office said that made the decisions.
Judge Burman says he's rejected that in the past, where
he pointed to a case where he encouraged petitioners to
waive that so that they'd get a faster hearing. Now
the question is they were also saying they might move
to Louisiana. There's been a new briefing schedule, and I
believe that going forward the filings will be on regular pacer,
which is good for everyone, but Inner City Breath recovering

(07:27):
this case as closely as possible.

Speaker 2 (07:29):
So I'm conflating two stories here, but there's a reason
for doing that. There is mank Mook Khalil, that is
the Yahoo that we talked about last week who is
here on a green card and a visa for h
and he is a member of whatever this design a
terrorist organization is that was organizing all of the Columbia

(07:54):
anti Semitic and i Jew protests. He's the one that
I told you had been moved Louisiana on his way
to a deportation to somewhere Yemen or who knows where.
And there are the Trendo Rodway gang members who are
also being moved. All this news comes shortly after the

(08:16):
President made it clear that he was going to use
the Alien Enemies Act to get rid of violent gang
members who are in this country illegally. Now I went
through on I think it was either Thursday or Friday
last week, that there is zero First Amendment issue involved

(08:37):
in any of these cases. He's not being deported because
he was protesting. He's being deported because he was violating
the law. He was occupying a building, preventing students from
going to class. He was damaging public and private property,

(08:59):
he was tresp he was hm. Come to think of it,
he was doing just about everything that every January sixth
defendant was accused of, whether they actually did it or not. Because,
as I told you about many of the Jay six defendants,
I think even the charges of trespassing were bogus, because

(09:20):
you can't trespass when you're invited onto a piece of property. Now,
if I again to emphasize the difference, if I bust
open a door to the US Capital, I'm trespassing. But
if a security guard, if a US Capitol Police officer,
as I'm approaching the door, opens the door, doesn't ask

(09:42):
me for credentials, doesn't ask me for a pass, doesn't
ask what I'm doing here, doesn't ask me where I'm
going to, just open the door, lets me in. That's
not trespassing. If you walk onto my property and I
tell you to get off and you refuse, you're trespassing.
If I say, oh, hi, what you're doing?

Speaker 1 (10:03):
Come on in?

Speaker 2 (10:04):
Let's you can I get you? Can I get you
a VODKATONI can I get you a martini? Would you
like a glass of cabernet? That's called an invitee and
you're not trespassing. So what about the Alien Enemies Act.
As I walked through all of this stuff with regards

(10:25):
to the others that we talked about, uh last week,
there are so many cases that support the deportation of
these people. Now, unless you think that some of these

(10:46):
judicial insurrectionists, and I think that's what some of these
judges are. I think these judges, which let me tell you,
Chief Justice Roberts and Amy call me Barrett. Well, let
me just speak to the entire US Supreme Court. You're
going to have to wake up and get busy and
do something because you have a bunch of trial judges
all across the country who are trying to tell the

(11:09):
President of the United States of America how to conduct
foreign policy. You've got judges all over the country. That's
why I call them insurrectionist judges who are trying to
tell the executive branch how to execute the laws of
this country. I think you've gone way beyond your authority. Now,

(11:33):
this particular judge happens to be involved in Russia Gate. Well,
all of these judges, including this particular judge Bossburg, are
plowing new ground with regard to the deportation of hostile
foreign enemies. In fact, Bosberg is maliciously violating the law

(11:54):
because I think he's part of a corrupt conspiracy. These
judges are are, in essence, trying to seize the power
of the presidency for themselves. That's a pretty strong statement
for me to make, but I mean it, At what
point do we give judges the authority to make decisions about, say,

(12:17):
foreign policy. At what point do we say when we
have a long, decades long history that immigration policy as
and this is pre administrative state, This is prior to
the Congress saying to the administrative agencies, hey, you just

(12:38):
go make up the rules and regulation. No, this is
a case where for the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the
Congress specifically said that when it comes to immigration, we
give all of that authority to the president, not to
some bureaucracy somewhere, but to the president.

Speaker 1 (13:00):
So how do we.

Speaker 2 (13:01):
Know if I'm going to argue that what these judges
are doing is part of a corrupt conspiracy to seize
the powers of the presidency for themselves, and this judge
in particular, how can I make that claim? Well, because
the Supreme Court ruled in nineteen forty eight, long after
World War II was old, that the alien Enemies Act

(13:23):
gave the US president absolute authority to do something specific,
and in this nineteen forty eight case, they authorized the
president to detain and deport a German who had been
in this country legally legally since nineteen thirty. Lideki versus

(13:47):
Watkins is the case if you want to look it up,
lud Ludecke versus Watkins. In that case, the court ruled
explicitly that not only could the president to port foreign.

Speaker 1 (14:01):
Legal residents even if they.

Speaker 2 (14:03):
Weren't members of a foreign army, but that the courts
had no authority, zero authority to even review the president's
decision to do so. The court ruled the Alien Enemy
Act precludes do I need to define preclude for you prevents,

(14:27):
stops prohibits. They wrote, the Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial
review of the removal order. And again, I want to
emphasize that order. That ruling came down years after World
War Two had ended. They wrote this, listen closely. Such

(14:50):
great war powers may be abused, no doubt, but that
is a bad reason for having judges supervised their exercise.
Whatever the legal form is within which such supervision would
nominally be confined. Accordingly, we hold that full responsibility for
the just exercise of this great power may validly be

(15:13):
left be left where Congress has constitutionally placed it on
the President of the United States. You know, this is
I mentioned earlier that I think one of the greatest
gifts of this country to the entire world is the
United States Constitution. And I say that because that's the

(15:39):
basis upon which a free market, individual liberty, a republican
small art form of government is all based, is on
that Constitution. And here the Supreme Court for decades has
left stand a precedent that says, we hold that full
responsibility for the just exercise of this great power determining

(16:05):
who can or cannot come or stay into this country
may validly be left where Congress has constitutionally placed it,
and that's on the President of the United States. You see,
the founders, in their wisdom, made the President not only
the commander in chief, but also the one place in

(16:25):
the conduct of our foreign affairs. The Court went on
to say this, he meaning the President, who was entrusted
with such vast powers in relation to the outside world,
was also entrusted by Congress almost throughout the whole life

(16:47):
of this nation. With the disposition of alien enemies during
a state of war. Now, let's go to right now
in the current an instance where we are today. On
January twentieth, shortly afternoon after he was inaugurated and all

(17:07):
the ceremony was over with, the President declared a nationally
emergency of the border, noting an ongoing invasion by hostile
and violent enemy. And what did he say? What did
he declare?

Speaker 1 (17:27):
Michael, If a person is here illegally, that is in
the United States, do they have any rights under the constitution.

Speaker 2 (17:38):
Yes, they have all the rights under the Bill of Rights,
but like any other person, they don't have the right
to break the law. So, for example, when you come
here on a visa, or you have temporary protective status,

(18:02):
or you even have a Green card, all of those
are visa based entries into the country, which can be
revoked at any time if you violate the law. So,
for example, this mak mu Khalil has the right under

(18:23):
our constitution as long as he's on American soil, he
has the right to paint up a placard and go
march on a public easement, not disrupting traffic, not stopping traffic,
not vandalizing, not doing anything. He has a right. He
has a right to if he wants to get a

(18:45):
a a crate of some sort and turn it upside
down and stand on it and preach the Gospel, he
has the right to do that.

Speaker 3 (18:55):
Well, Michael, this is for Khalil right, who has a
green card has is married to an American.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
Because the question was anybody who's in the country.

Speaker 1 (19:04):
No, no, no illegal?

Speaker 2 (19:06):
Oh okay, all right, Yes, if you're in the country illegally,
do you still have the right to certain things like
free speech? You still have certain rights to certain things
like due process, so that you have to be removed
using due process. But if you are a criminal illegal alien,

(19:29):
and a criminal alien as opposed to an illegal alien,
I know it's a very nuanced difference. You come across
the river, you're an illegal alien. But if you come
and that's one thing, you still have a right of
due process, et cetera. But if you come across the

(19:51):
country and you are a criminal in another court in
another country, or you come across the river illegally and
you commit a crime here, while you can still get
your due process to get your conviction, once you're convicted,
you are an illegal and you're no longer entitled to
due process criminal aliens. What we're talking about here is separate

(20:20):
from this, is the difficulty in conflating the protester at
Columbia versus Trenda Ragua.

Speaker 1 (20:27):
Trenda Ragua have.

Speaker 2 (20:29):
Been deemed as a group, whether they came across the
border and a border agent said, sure, you're seeking asylum,
come on in. They're as members of a group, have
been deemed to be persona on GRADA, and they're the
ones that they're trying to kick out, trying they are

(20:51):
literally taking them to prison in Guatemala. Rubio addressed this.

Speaker 5 (20:57):
I want to ask you about a decision you made
to revocus to visa for someone at Columbia University this
past week, the Wall Street Journal editorial board rights, the
administration needs to be careful. It's targeting real promoters of terrorism,
not breaking the great promise of a green card by
deporting anyone with controversial political views. Can you substantiate any

(21:18):
form of material support for terrorism, specifically to Hamas from
this Columbia student or was it simply that he was
espousing a controversial political point of.

Speaker 6 (21:29):
View or not just the student. We're going to do
more in fact, every day now we're approving visa ravocations.
And if that visa led to a green card, the
green card process as well.

Speaker 1 (21:38):
And here's why. It's very simple.

Speaker 6 (21:40):
When you apply to enter the United States and you
get a visa, you are a guest and you're coming
as a student, you're coming as a terrorist or what
have you. And in it you have to make certain assertations.
And if you tell us when you apply for a visa,
I'm coming to the US to participate in pro Hamas
events that runs counter to the foreign policy interest in
the United States of America.

Speaker 1 (21:58):
It's that simple. So you lied, you came.

Speaker 6 (22:00):
If you had told us that you were going to
do that, we never would have given you the visa.
Now you're here, now you do it. So you lied
to us, You're out. It's that simple.

Speaker 5 (22:07):
But is there any but is there any evidence of
a link to terrorism or is it just his your
point of view?

Speaker 6 (22:15):
Yeah, they take over I mean you're not. I mean
you should watch the news. These guys take over entire buildings.

Speaker 1 (22:21):
You should watch the news.

Speaker 6 (22:23):
They vandalize college, they shut down I'm asking about this.

Speaker 5 (22:26):
Then you should justification for the revocation of his visa.
Was there any evident, So was.

Speaker 6 (22:31):
The negotiator on it, negotiating on behalf of people that
took over a campus that vandalize buildings, negotiating over what
that's a crime in and of itself that they're involved in,
being the negotiator of the spokesperson this, that, and the other.

Speaker 3 (22:42):
We don't want it.

Speaker 6 (22:43):
We don't need these people in our country. That we
never should have allowed him in.

Speaker 1 (22:46):
The first place. If he had told.

Speaker 6 (22:47):
Us, I'm going over there, and I'm going over there
to become the spokesperson and one of the leaders of
a movement that's going to turn one of your allegedly
elite colleges upside down. People can't even go to school
library buildings being vandalized.

Speaker 1 (22:59):
We never would have let him in. We never would
have let.

Speaker 6 (23:01):
Him in to begin with. And now that he's doing
it and he's here, he's going to leave and so
are others, and we're going to keep doing it here.
And by the way, I find it ironic that a
lot of these people out there defending the First Amendment
speech to alleged free speech rights of these hamas sympathizers,
they had no problem, okay, pressuring social media to censor
American political speech. So I think it's ironic and hypocritical.

(23:24):
But the bottom line is this, if you are in
this country to promote Hamas, to promote terrorist organizations, to
participate in vandalism, to participate in acts rebellion and riots
on campus, we never would have let you in if
we had known that.

Speaker 5 (23:36):
And now that is not only pro Palestinian people who
are going to have their visas remote provoked, or other
points of view as well.

Speaker 1 (23:43):
God, you know what really irritates me about her?

Speaker 2 (23:47):
Is it only the pro Hamas people or people with
other points of view. She will not let go of
the free speech. This is not a free speech issue.
This under the Criminal Aliens Act.

Speaker 1 (24:03):
This is.

Speaker 2 (24:06):
It's an entirely separate statute. This says the President has
full and complete authority to deport those who are enemies
to this nation. Now, someone that just crossed the border
because they want a job picking let us, they're not
necessarily an enemy to this nation in the sense that

(24:29):
someone that comes here to actually break our law, or
who are already criminals themselves other than crossing the border,
they're criminals in their own country. They're criminal aliens. And
the President has the absolute authority to deport them. Why

(24:52):
ask yourself, why does Margaret Brennan insist on continuing to
use phrases like act.

Speaker 6 (24:58):
Yeah, rebellion and riot on campus. We never would have
let you in if we have known that.

Speaker 5 (25:03):
And now that is not only pro Palestinian people who
are going to have their visas remote, provoked or other
points of view as well.

Speaker 2 (25:09):
Or other points of view. No, this has nothing to
do with his point of view. It has to do
with the fact that he is advocating violence. He's engaged
in violence, he's engaged in criminal activity. It is not
a free speech issue. Again, I emphasize if he were,
Let's just take him at face value. He's here with

(25:31):
a green card, regially a visa. Now he's converted it
to a green card. He's still a guest and subject
to deportation. What he has done is he did not
walk up and down Fifth Avenue with a sign that
said I support hamas he actively engaged in criminal activity,

(25:53):
actually incited, provoked, and encouraged people to materially support AMAS,
a foreign terrorist organization and enemy of the United States,
and he did it on American soil. He is subject
to deportation. Absolutely subject to deportation under the under the

(26:14):
Alien Enemies Act, which let me finish Rubil, and we'll
go back to the Enemy Alien the Enemy's Alien Enemies
Act next, go right back to it.

Speaker 6 (26:26):
Hang on, No, I think anybody who's here in favor,
But we want to get rid of training that Agua
gang members. They're terrorists too. We the President designated them,
asked me to designate and I did, as a terrorist organization.
We want to get rid of them as well. We
don't want terrorists in America. I don't know how hard
that is to understand. We want people. We don't want
people in our country. They are going to be committing
crimes and undermining our national security or the public safety.

(26:49):
It's that simple, especially people that are here as guests.

Speaker 1 (26:52):
That is what a visa is. I don't know what we've.

Speaker 6 (26:54):
Gotten it in our head that a visa is some
sort of birthright.

Speaker 1 (26:56):
It is not.

Speaker 6 (26:57):
It is a visitor into our country, and if you
violate the terms of your visitation, you are going to leave.

Speaker 2 (27:03):
You know, just as I keep pointing out that I
find it fascinating, like for example, Senator Kelly Suddenly the
environment doesn't make any difference. It's just that he's actually
supporting the waste, fraud and abuse. He doesn't want it uncovered,
he doesn't want the transparency, he doesn't want it exposed.
Now that we're actually taking actions something you and I

(27:23):
have asked to do, something which the President is authorized
to do by the Alien Enemies Act, he's now doing that,
and he's deporting these people. And I think these judges
are acting like insurrectionists and trying to impose their will.
They're violating the Supreme Court orders. Go back in the

(27:45):
case of the Decie versus Watkins, the Supreme Court ruled
explicitly then not only could the president deport legal foreign
residents even if they weren't members of a foreign army army,
but the courts had no authority to even review the
president's decision to do that. I cited it verbatim, the

(28:08):
Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of the removal order.
Then here's where I was at in terms of what
the case said. Such great war powers may be abused,
no doubt, but that is a bad reason for having
judges supervised or exercise whatever the legal formulas within which

(28:29):
such supervision would nominally be confined. Accordingly, we hold that
full responsibility for the just exercise of this great power
may validly be left where Congress has constitutionally placed it
on the President of the United States. And then they
went on to say.

Speaker 7 (28:47):
This, Yeah, there's just no way that this country's everging
to unite with the media the way it currently stands.
I mean, it's just lies after lies. They do nothing
but subdivision in this country. They're absolutely terrible for the
psyche of this country and regular everyday Americans. I mean,
even my mom is off her rock or with Trump

(29:08):
and everything else that's going on.

Speaker 1 (29:10):
And uh, if if it.

Speaker 7 (29:12):
Doesn't get shut down, or if Trump doesn't shut it down,
call it good man, We're done.

Speaker 2 (29:18):
Unfortunately, I think you're right, and I have in my
in my off air life, I have I'm having to
talk so many people off the ledge because the cabal
is well while in many places the cabal is beginning
to collapse. For example, again to Mark Kelly, example, did

(29:41):
it have you heard anybody in the cabal? Ask Mark Kelly,
wait a minute. You gave up an ev which we
thought was going to save the planet to get a
gas guzzler. I mean literally, a Chevy Tahoe is not
exactly what I would call you know, a fuel efficient.

Speaker 1 (29:54):
Car could have easily have gotten one of the other
EV's out in the.

Speaker 2 (29:59):
He could, yeah, exactly. So if you wanted to dis musk,
there were other ways to do it and claim stupidly
that he's saving the environment. But no, the media is
not going to do that because they're full bore right
now trying to create the chaos and the belief that
all of these things that Trump's I saw I had

(30:21):
to go read the story talking about it was on
Drudge over the weekend, something to the effect that Trump
is suffering from a metal breakdown. And then when you
read the story, it's like there's nothing, there's no there there,
but yet that's the headline. And with everybody in the
country having ADHD, with all due respect to your mother

(30:43):
or mother in law, whichever was you just mentioned, I'm
sure she is going crazy. Camera's going crazy. All my
friends are going crazy crazy in the sense that they're
being so over because two things are occurring. Trump's doing
exactly what he'said that he would do, and that's exactly
what we wanted him to do, and now that he's doing,

(31:04):
everybody's going oh my god, he's doing. Oh look, it's
oh people are not. There's a story I'll never get
to it today that someone's written this bizarre article about
how by cutting off USAI D we're killing people. Uh
really we're killing people. Then where are all the other

(31:25):
Let's just say that somebody's starving in Africa and now
we're not providing that foreign aid. Well, then where's the
United Nations? Where's France? France runs the Statue of Liberty back.
How about this instead of paying to transport the Statue
of Liberty back, why don't you get off your ass?
Why don't you send Why don't you send some more
money to Africa. We're tired, we're tired of carrying all
of this. And yes, if some I forget who it was,

(31:48):
I heard somebody over the weekend talk about if some
people get hurt in this process, that's the reality of life.
Some people are going to get hurt. But that's what
we have to do. You know, if this nation were
invaded by other than illegal aliens, if we were literally

(32:11):
invaded by the People's Republic army, if if they started
invading us, people are going to get hurt because we're
going to defend ourselves, at least I hope we are.

(32:33):
I just encourage you to take a deep breath, embrace
the change, because, to your point on the talkback, if
we don't, if we don't get these changes made, then
everything that I've talked about the crushing depth. At some

(32:55):
point it will be a tipping point. All of these
things are going to come true, and we won't have
a republic. Trump is here. He's not a perfect vessel.
Some of the stuff he does drives me absolutely batty,
but nonetheless he's doing what we ask him to do. Now,

(33:17):
clearly I've blown the clock in terms of getting back
to this case in beginning back to the enemy aliens case.
But we'll finish that and then let's talk for a
moment about how we deal with this. And I don't
even like to use the word chaos because chaos implies

(33:40):
that it's just halph hazard. Now it's really not halph
hazard at all. It's very, very deliberate, but the media
wants you to think that it's chaos.