May 12, 2025 • 31 mins
Whether it's Senator Chris Murphy or former President Joe Biden, key figures in the Democratic Party are doubling down on fringe trans activist positions and cringeworthy woke politics. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, a non-binary crime wave at Columbia University and the Trump administration LOSES a huge free speech case.
CHECK OUT THE MERCH: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
SEND ME A VOICE NOTE: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
SUBSCRIBE TO MY NEW 2ND CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO76JR1mK5X5zbPJnv3NhsQ
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):
Do you think it's so?
Speaker 2 (00:00):
Do you think it's if you had a daughter competing
against a biological mail, would you find it unfair?
Speaker 3 (00:06):
I don't have col Democrats have learned absolutely nothing and
are doubling down on trans radicalism and other woke nonsense.
We're going to break down all of this, Plus Biden
goes on to view a non binary crime spree at
(00:28):
Columbia University and the Trump administration loses a huge free
speech case. All this and so much more is coming
up in today's episode of The Barrad Versus Everyone podcast,
my daily show where we take on the craziest ideas
from across the Internet, our media, and our politics, all
from an independent perspective of First guys, We've got to
(00:48):
touch on another story in what's becoming a trend of
Democrats learning absolutely nothing. This time it's another Democratic elected
official in the spotlight, Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat out
of etiquette for an interview he did with The New
York Times's resident conservative columnist Rouse Doothit. But the issue again,
this issue always seems to come up of transgender women
(01:10):
who are biologically male competing in women in girls' sports.
This issue came up again, and still, despite how unpopular
support for this is, despite how obviously contradictory it is
to basic science and common sense, Chris Murphy was unwilling
to make any concession. Take a listen to this really
really astounding clip.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I don't have any fear of transgender athletes participating in sports.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
But well wait, just so you you don't have any
fear of it, Do you think it's Do you think
it's if you had a daughter competing against a biological male,
would you find it unfair?
Speaker 1 (01:51):
I don't have girls, right, so I necessarily can't write
I can't.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Have some empathy right for those of us who do. Right,
So would you would you find it unfair?
Speaker 1 (02:04):
I mean, I've talked to lots of parents of girls
in Connecticut who do not think it's unfair, and who
think that the benefit that those athletes get from being
part of a team is important and they don't mind
or feel threatened by the competition. I think everybody can
come to their own conclusion. But I all, I'm saying that.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
You're but you're right, But your conclusion is the current
is the official, the official line of liberalism right now.
It's just why you're saying, yes.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
My conclusion is that I would support those athletes being
able to participate in my community right in my community.
But I but I would not substitute my judgment in
my community judgment for another community judgment.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
So it was really telling to me how insanely uncomfortable
this Democratic senator was about this question. Like you can
tell they are walking on absolute eggshells, terrified to say
the wrong thing, even about an issue that like eighty
percent of the American public obviously that's not an exact number,
but a huge majority if you look at polling agrees
(03:08):
sports should be segregated by biology, not identity, and having
biological males and women's sports isn't fair, it's not safe.
He resorts to a couple of straw man arguments like, well,
I'm not fearful of transgender athletes. Okay, nobody's fearful of them.
They're not going to come eat you when nobody's worried
they're gonna consume your children in a cannibalistic rage. It's
(03:30):
a question of whether they're fair, whether it's fair for
them to compete to women's sports, and most people think
it's not. So just answer the question, but he just
kept dodging. And kudos to Ross Duthal for really kind
of twisting the knife and forcing him to answer his
position on this issue, because they really seem scared to
speak on it, scared of the activists. And I listen,
(03:51):
I've covered how unhinged the activist class is on this issue,
how crazy the alphabet mafia organizations and groups are, and
how little room for descent there is. But it's very
telling to me that even in the post vibe shift America,
Trump's America, where it feels like a lot has changed,
very prominent, high ranking Democratic Party officials are still not
(04:12):
willing to acknowledge basic, common sense, fair positions for fear
of the far left flank, for fear of the woke
mob coming after them. And while I don't respect it
as a matter of principle or integrity, I do sort
of understand it as a political calculation because remember, there
have been a couple Democrats who've broken on this issue
(04:34):
and have spoken out against it. One of those was
a Massachusetts congressman named Seth Moulton, and he was viciously
attacked for just the basic position of like, listen, I
support trans rights, I don't want any discrimination. I support
civil rights laws, but I think maybe women's sports we've
got to have some rules to keep out biological males.
That's all he ever said or did, and he was
(04:55):
attacked viciously. Here's some reporting from the New York Times
to jog your memory on that. One to get on
the wrong side of transgender activists is often to endure
their unsparing criticism. After a Democratic congressman defended parents who
expressed concern about transgender athletes competing against their young daughters,
a local party official and ally compared him to a
(05:16):
Nazi cooperator, and a group called Neighbors Against Hate organized
a protest outside his office. Seriously, that's what happened when
one Democratic congressman broke ranks on this issue. So I
guess it's not surprising that they're still kowtowing in fear
to these activists. But it is kind of pathetic and
(05:37):
it is going to be a drag on the Democratic Party.
I mean, Trump is doing so many controversial things, He's
pushing so many boundaries, but a lot of people don't
feel like the Democratic Party offers any sort of myself included,
sane or normal alternative and it's this kind of issue.
I know, it's not the end of the world. It's
just sports, it's just a few thousand people being impacted.
(05:59):
Whatever you want to say, it's indicative of a broader
point that democrats are out of touch with reality and
common sense and are beholden to crazy, radical activists on
social issues, and that as long as that sense prevails,
is going to be a massive anchor dragging them down.
I just for me to you it's some free advice.
(06:20):
But what do you guys think? Let me know in
the comments. By the way, guys, we don't have a
sponsor today, but I did want to announce that we
have new merch items available now that feature our Last
brain Cell merch line designs where it's items you can
get mugs, shirts, cool sweaters that commiserate with me that
we're coming down to our last brain cell after dealing
(06:40):
with all this de Lulu. So do check out that
merch length in the description. And by the way, guys,
keep sending in voice notes with your wo car stories,
your personal dilemmas, or anything where you want my advice
or feedback. I've been loving getting them, going through them
all and doing those Friday episodes where I take your
scenarios and give my advice. So do send in more
the link in the description. Now we got to talk
(07:01):
about a crazy story because we've got a non binary
crime wave on our hands, at least at Columbia University,
the supposedly elite New York university that's part of the
IVY League, that just had another illegal like riot slash
protest from anti Israel protesters who took over their library
and scared students and disrupted them during finals week. Well,
(07:25):
a really interesting report just came out from Jonathan Levine
of the Washington Free Beacon where he found, and this
will shock you, disproportionate non binary representation among the alleged
Columbia criminals. Eleven percent of Columbia Library arrestees identify as
they slashed them, nearly seven times America's trans population. Marco
(07:47):
Rubio says he's reviewing foreign nationals arrested following the raid,
putting one day them student born in Vietnam at risk.
Lavigne writes, it's a they to fada like Antifada, but
they I guess at least nine of the eighty one people,
or eleven percent arrested in connection with storming at Columbia
University Library Wednesday used they slash them pronouns. A review
(08:08):
of public records by the Washington Free Beacon shows that
shares well above the one point six percent of Americans
who identify as transgender or non binary according to the
Pew Research Center, and more than double the five percent
of people who identify as transgender or non binary under thirty. Now,
if anything, these comparisons are a massive underestimate because of
that small percentage of the population that identifies as transgender.
(08:30):
Most of those are transsexual people who identify as a
sex that isn't the one they were born at birth,
but are either you know, men or women in their identity,
not the them, not non binary. So, if anything, it's
even more extraordinary overrepresentation than what this report suggests. And
the reporter who wrote this story, Levigne, covered and specifically
profiled several of the arrestees with their the them pronouns.
(08:54):
One of those is a woman named Condone they slash
She who was arrested at Columbia last week. She was
born in Vietnam and wants to write her senior thesis
on the Gaza solidarity encampment well, encampments are illegal. By
the way. You have the right to free speech, to protest,
to make your voice heard, but you don't have the
right to like take over buildings and deny people access
(09:14):
and disrupt the public. That's a crime. And so doing
your thesis on something where you're admitting to crimes is
probably not the best thing. And I've been very critical
of the push by the Trump administration to revoke student
visas because of people's opinions. We'll talk about that, but
if you're doing literal crimes like taking over buildings, assaulting cops,
(09:36):
you know, these kinds of things that are illegal, your
student visa should be revoked and you should be sent
back to your home country. And maybe you can complete
that thesis virtually that in Babe. I don't know. But look,
this story is really not that deep. I just thought
it was a funny update on the Columbia chaos that
we covered last week. And I also just have to
say Blair White has pointed this out. You will never
(09:57):
find a non Binaria Republican because it is not an
immutable demographic trait like being gay or being black or
anything else. It's a political identity. It's a fad that's
incoherent at its core, and I will never get over
the fact that people want to put that on some
sort of level playing field with me and others like
me because of who we are with this radical chic
(10:20):
fad that's inseparably intertwined with radical left wing politics. But
that's just my take, y'all. Let me know what you
think of these da Theems in the comments below. Now,
again on this theme of Democrats learning absolutely nothing, we've
got Joe and Jill Biden going on the view that
lovely bastion of hard hitting cable news journalism and again
(10:42):
pushing some of the most absurd, whoke victim narratives that
they're still clinging to. President Biden was on there and
insisted that Kamala Harris lost not because of her ties
to his failed administration, their disastrous border policies, the inflation
that happened while we was president, not because of her
random cackling and her word salads, not because she only
(11:06):
had a couple months to campaign, because they stuck with
Biden for too long, not any of these real things. Instead,
he blamed shocker, the identity boogeyman. Take a listen to
this an.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Election night came and it was like twenty sixteen all
over again.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
So why do you think the vice president lost?
Speaker 1 (11:23):
And were you surprised?
Speaker 5 (11:26):
I wasn't surprised, Not because I didn't think the vice
president most qualified person to be president. She is, she's
qualified to be president the United States of America. But
I was surprised. I wasn't surprised because they went the
root of the sexist rouit of the whole route. I mean,
this is a woman, she's this, she's a really I've
(11:47):
never seen quite as successful and a consistent campaign, under
cutting the notion that a woman couldn't lead the country,
and a woman of mixed race, and they played that to.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Free What what is old Joe here even talking about
I covered the presidential election very closely, and there really
wasn't that much made about the fact that she was
a female candidate. She got a lot of praise for it,
I guess, but she didn't lean into it that much
in a couple months before the presidential election, and the
Trump team certainly wasn't making that a big issue. That
(12:26):
wasn't a thing. They attacked her over the border, attacked
her over inflation, they attacked her over her crazy past
social positions like saying transgender prisoners and illegal immigrants should
get taxpayer funded sex change surgeries. All these things she
was on the record saying. But it wasn't Oh, we
can't have a mixed race person leading America. That is
(12:47):
just not true. I'm sure you can find some people
somewhere who believe that or think that, But it wasn't
a widespread sentiment. It wasn't a driving force behind the campaign,
and it certainly wasn't a dominant talking point as to
why she lost the election or why people voted against her.
And it's just a cheap and cowardly way out that
avoids any accountability for the fact that he picked a
(13:09):
poor vice presidential nominee. She wasn't very good at any
of this, and then he's stuck in the race, even
though his brain had turned to mush until it was
too late, then putting her in. Honestly, I have a
little bit of sympathy for Kamala Harris, just politically speaking,
because she was in a very difficult position to have
Biden cling to the nomination run for reelection even though
(13:30):
he was his brain was cooked. He shouldn't have run
again and then leave her having to scramble and put
together a campaign with just a couple months left to go.
That is a very difficult position to find oneself in.
I'm not saying she covered herself in glory. She could
have done it better, but it's not like she had
it easy because of the way that he set her up.
And so I think that explains this BS identitarian deflection.
(13:51):
He's trying to escape accountability. He's trying to admit or
avoid admitting how he messed things up, because he did,
and he's the huge culprit here. But it's cheap, divisive,
race baiting nonsense. And if anything, look, she was only
the nominee because of her race and gender. That's just true,
because when he was selecting a vice president, he specifically said,
(14:14):
I'm only going to pick a woman rolling out half
the demo, more than half of the Democratic Party's options,
and then he said I'm strongly leaning towards a woman
of color. So it's a bit rich to blame the
fact that she lost the election on extremely dubious and
spurious allegations of racism and sexism when she actually only
(14:34):
had that position in that opportunity in the first place.
Because of a form of reverse discrimination of this DEI type.
Not to say she wasn't qualified on paper. She'd been
a vice president, she'd been a senator, sure, but she
was lacking in a lot of other areas. And there's
really no disputing the fact that if she'd been a
white male senator from California, she never would have been
(14:56):
selected as vice president, and therefore she never would have
become the nominate. Can anyone dispute that? Can anyone really
argue that an identical senator to her named Bill Stevenson,
some boring white dude, would have been picked as Biden's
running mate? Can anyone seriously tell me that with a
straight face? Even more wild than this maddening moment from
Joe Biden was a follow up segment on CNN where
(15:19):
panelist and A Navarro defended this and lost her crap
on live TV. Take a look at this and warning, guys,
this is unhinged because racism is absurd.
Speaker 6 (15:31):
She lost because the country was in a disastrous place
and they blamed him. And can you, as.
Speaker 7 (15:42):
A white guy saying that racism and you, as a
white male, I'm saying it, I am telling you, and.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
I am white guy, I would have won.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
With the same.
Speaker 7 (15:58):
I am telling you that it is incredibly ridiculous for you,
with the privilege that being a white male gives you
in this country, to say that there wasn't some element
of racism.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
The fact that people like Anna Navarro get paid millions
of dollars a year for their profound political insight to
be aired on cable news will never cease to astound
me and hurt my soul, honestly, because I think a
random person off the street could show up and make
a much more coherent and sensible argument, because she literally
(16:32):
didn't make an argument. Ben Ferguson, this conservative commentator, said,
I don't think kama O lost because of racism. I
think it was her policies. That is a proposition. It
is a debatable proposition, but there's a series of facts
and arguments that go into it on its side, and
then there's counter arguments. She responded with a total non argument.
She simply said, you're wrong because you're white, so you
(16:56):
must be incorrect about this, and I'm a woman of
coll so I must be correct. This is anti logic.
This is an identitarian mind virus because it absurdly suggests
that if you'd had a black Republican woman, which plenty
do exist commentators sitting there and saying the same thing
that Ben Ferguson said, it would have somehow been more
(17:19):
correct or more valid. No, it's an argument. It's either
right or wrong based on its logic and its points.
And I don't know how to explain to some progressives
in twenty twenty five. I don't know how to explain
to them how wrong it is to think that simply
citing someone's skin tone makes you correct and them wrong. Again, Babe,
(17:41):
it's giving woke kkk, it's giving a complete lack of
critical thinking, and it's the exact kind of divisive nonsense
that's made Democrats so unpopular in this country. Other than that, though,
great job, Anna, you're doing amazing. Now, while we're talking
about this appearance that Joe and Joe Biden did on
The View, we should talk about another moment from it,
(18:03):
which obviously Biden has been in severe cognitive decline for
some time. There have been all this reporting and all
these books about it, exposing it behind the scenes, and
to the credit of the one host of The View,
Alyssa Farroh Griffin, who I like. I don't agree with
her on everything, but I like her. She seems nice.
She actually asked President Biden about this and it didn't
(18:27):
go great. I should say it did not go amazing
for President Biden. Here, take a.
Speaker 8 (18:33):
Listen, mister president. Since you left office, there have been
a number of books that have come out, deeply sourced
from democratic sources, that claim in your final year there
was a dramatic decline in your cognitive abilities in the
final year of your presidency. What is your response to
these allegations? Are these sources wrong?
Speaker 5 (18:52):
They are wrong. There's nothing to sustain that number one.
Number two. You know, think of what we were left with.
We left with a circumstance where we had an insurrection,
I started not sense the civil war. We had a
circumstance where we were in a position that we well
(19:16):
the pandemic because of the incomponents of the last outfit,
end up over a million people dying, million people dying.
And we're also in a situation where we found ourselves
unable to deal with a lot of just basic issues.
And I won't go into it in interest of time.
And so we went to work and we got it done.
(19:39):
And you know, one of the things that that well.
Speaker 9 (19:44):
Well and listen, you know, one of the things I
think is that the people who wrote those books were
not in the White House with us, and they didn't
see how hard Joe worked every single day. I mean
he'd get up, he put in a full day, and
then at night he would I'd be in bed, you know,
(20:05):
reading my book, and he was still on the phone,
reading his briefings, working with staff. I mean, it was
non stop. It's the White House. Being president is not
like a job. It's a lifestyle. It's a life that
you live. You live it twenty four hours a day.
That phone can ring at eleven o'clock at night or
(20:26):
two in the morning. It's constant. You never leave it.
And Joe worked really hard. I think he was a
great president.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
So Biden does come off as sharp and with it
in this clip. Jill Biden, not Joe, and it is
extremely telling that when asked about his mental acuity and
the extensive reporting and books written about its decline and
a huge cover up in politics and media, President Biden
(20:56):
brings up two bizarre, irrelevant things that have nothing to
do with his state of mental fitness. One January sixth,
which happened before he was president, so I don't understand
how does that affect your mental sharpness in office over
the next four years and then two COVID nineteen But
the facts here actually more people died of COVID nineteen
(21:18):
in America while Biden was president than Trump, and not
even saying he's to blame for that. But again, it
just makes no real sense to bring up as a response,
and also has nothing to do with his alleged cognitive
decline that was put on full display at that presidential
debate where he started talking about Medicare and all sorts
of nonsensical rambling and then I'm gonna hold your hand
(21:40):
when I say this, President Biden. But the fact that
you trailed off in mumbling after about sixty seconds, not
even when asked about your mental fitness, and your wife
had to come jump in cut you off and take
over the answer and speak for you and explain it
all for you is not helping your case, uncle Jah.
It's not helping you be the cognitive decline allegations at all.
(22:05):
In fact, it kind of proves the point that a
lot of your critics were making. And I've said this before,
there is no shame in aging. There's no shame in
the decline that Biden experienced itself. It's normal, it's natural,
it's human. The shame is in clinging to power. The
shame is in running for reelection again when you shouldn't have,
when you should have passed the torch, you should have
(22:26):
allowed Democrats to have an open primary and go through
a whole process and come up with a better candidate potentially.
And the shame is in the cover up, the way
they lie, they gas lit, they denied for years. The
shame is in that. I always want to clarify this.
There's not shame in aging. In fact, we should all
be so lucky. There's not shame in things that happened
to us as we age that we can't control. The
(22:47):
shame here that will haunt the Biden legacy, I think forever,
is in the lying, the deceit, and the clinging to power,
and clips like this just prove more and more how
guilty they are of the accusations that have been made
against them. But what do you guys think? Do you
believe Jill Biden's version of events? Here? Let me know
(23:07):
in the comments. All right, guys, now we're going to
talk about another story, and this one. This is a
huge win for free speech. The Tofts University student who
was arrested and detained by plain clothes immigration officials and
had her visa revoked all for writing an anti Israel
op ed. She's been released at a federal judge's order.
Take a listen to this local news coverage from CBS Boston.
Speaker 6 (23:31):
It is the moment six weeks in the making.
Speaker 4 (23:33):
Thank you so much for all the sport and on low.
Speaker 9 (23:36):
I am.
Speaker 7 (23:37):
I live it tired, so I will take some risks,
but I really present you being here.
Speaker 6 (23:40):
TUF's University student Ramesa O's Turk walking out of the
detention center in Louisiana Friday evening, following her legal team's
victory in Vermont.
Speaker 4 (23:49):
What we heard from the court today is what we
have been saying for weeks.
Speaker 6 (23:56):
The thirty year old doctoral student was detained on the
streets of Summerville and March, the video going viral. The
White House said it revoked her visa because of a
pro Palestinian op ed she wrote last year in the
student newspaper.
Speaker 4 (24:09):
There's absolutely no evidence that justifies detaining miss O's turk
for a single day. Let alone the six and a
half weeks that she has been detained.
Speaker 6 (24:19):
And on Friday, a federal judge agreed, saying there's absolutely
no evidence that she engaged in violence or advocated violence.
Her continued detention cannot stand. The judge went on to
say ohs Turk had serious First Amendment and due process claims.
Ost Turk video conferenced into the hearing from the Louisiana
detention center in which she's been held, reportedly hugging her
(24:40):
attorney after the judge's ruling, Governor Mara Healey wrote in
a statement the court confirmed the case isn't about safety,
but part of the Trump administration's campaign to silence those
who disagree with him.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
This is a big development and it's making a lot
of waves online. Connor Fitzpatrick from the non parts and
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which disclaimer little bit
of freelance work for, wrote about damn time. The government,
instructed by the court to provide evidence supporting her detention
at today's hearing had nothing, no witnesses, no exhibits, and
they didn't even cross examine her. It is shameful how
(25:13):
this administration has treated her. He then quoted the judge,
there's absolutely no evidence that she has engaged in violence
or advocated violence. She has no criminal record, she has
done nothing other than essentially attend her university. I agree
with this. I'm not against revoking student visas of people
who come here and commit crimes like we've seen at
(25:35):
Columbia and University. But the idea that the Trump administration
is weaponizing immigration policy to remove people from the country
and turn their lives upside down just because of an
opinion that they express, to me, that's totally incompatible with
support for free speed, tree expression, and open debate and
all the other things that the Trump administration said they
(25:56):
would champion when they were campaigning for presidents. So very
clearly to me, has a chilling effect on open debate
on campus, on people feeling free to speak their minds,
and it will likely have a chilling effect in terms
of international students wanting to come to the United States
to study when they could go to schools in Canada
or Europe or somewhere else. Why come to America where
(26:18):
if you say the wrong thing on the internet, just
have an opinion the government doesn't like, they might arrest
you on the street and deport you and detain you
for weeks in immigration facilities. I wouldn't want to come
to the US in that environment. And international students are
actually a boon to Americans because they pay really high
tuition rates, much higher than local students and American students,
(26:40):
which is a form of subsidy for the American students. Right.
They charge the international students way, way more, and that
allows them to charge the US students a little bit less.
So international students. Look, I think I generally view positively,
and I don't want the government to start weaponizing immigration
policy to crack down on just ideas. If we're talking
about crime. If we're talking about material support for a
(27:03):
terror group like Hamas, that is something of a different story.
I've talked about it on the Channel in the past,
but and that's what they kept saying when I first
commented on this case. Well, I'm sure it's not just
over the anti Israel op ed. There's got to be more.
She has to be involved with Hamas or something. And
now we've seen it. They went to court and the
federal government would have provided any evidence of that, and
(27:26):
they didn't. Literally all they had was an op ed
where in a couple sentences. She criticizes Israel, and you
don't have to agree with anything she said, but it's
just a political opinion in a student newspaper. I don't
know how the Trump administration can possibly claim to be
a pro free speech administration while arresting people for criticizing
a foreign government in their student newspaper. That is wild
(27:48):
to me. But Caroline Levitt, the Trump Press Secretary, is
defending this. Take a listen to what she said when
asked about it by a reporter.
Speaker 10 (27:56):
Does the administration have any responses? The needs today that
federal judge the immediate release the Romessa Ostur from detention,
particularly his comments that the government submitted no evidence other
than an op ed that was touched broad last year.
Speaker 11 (28:08):
I will have to check in with the Department of
Homeland Security on that particular case, but I think our
overall feeling, we've made quite clear that lower level judges
should not be dictating the foreign policy of the United States,
and we absolutely believe that the President and the Department
of Homeland Security are well within their legal rights to
deport to legal immigrants. As for visa revocations, the Secretary
(28:31):
of State has the right to do that as well.
Speaker 5 (28:33):
It is a.
Speaker 11 (28:34):
Privilege, not a right, to come to this country on
a visa.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
So there's a lot about this answer that I find
puzzling and kind of incoherent. First of all, these judges
are not dictating the foreign policy of the United States.
They are ruling on First Amendment and due process violations,
which are rights guaranteed in the Constitution to persons in
the US, not just citizens, And it is the job
(29:00):
of the judiciary to scrutinize executive and legislative actions for
violations of constitutional rights. So that's what they're doing. They're
not dictating the foreign policy. And what's interesting to me
is that the law that the Secretary of State Mark
or Rubio is using to justify these visa revocations suggests
that they have the unlimited right to revoke the visa
(29:20):
of anybody whose viewpoint or presence in the US may
be a threat to US foreign policy. Can someone explain
to me how some student writing something in a campus
op ed threatens US foreign policy, like, oh, no, we're
not going to be able to support Israel and fund
Israel now because Romesa oz Turk wrote something in the
Tufts University saying her campus shouldn't support Israel. What the
(29:44):
math is not mathing. And I think that federal statute
should be challenged in court even giving this the Secretary
of State that authorization, because we don't want that kind
of vast, unchecked power in any official. Another official and
say say that AOC became our next president could say, well,
our foreign policy of the United States is being against Israel,
(30:05):
so we're going to revoke the student visa of any
israel any student who expresses support for Israel. Is that
really a game we want to play? And guys, Caroline
Levitt mentioned illegal immigrants here, that's kind of a non sequitor.
What we're talking about are legal immigrants here on student
visas suddenly being arrested and having their lives turned upside
down for daring to express a political opinion the administration
(30:28):
doesn't like. That is wild. It is fundamentally un American,
and it is not something you can do while claiming
to be a supporter of free speech and free expression,
at least not while expecting us to take you seriously.
But what do you, guys think? Do you disagree with
me on this? Do let me know in the comments below.
By the way, guys, quick announcement, I did create a
(30:50):
second YouTube channel where I will be uploading a bonus
content once or twice a week, including story times, ask
Me Anythings, and other kind of stuff. I already posted
the first one, which is about how I got fired
from my woke college newspaper for non binary microaggressions and
old racist tweets. If you want to hear that story
(31:10):
and more that's coming out, I'll link to that new
channel in the description and you can go subscribe. All right, everybody,
that'll be it for this episode of the Brad Versus
Everyone Podcast. Thank you so much for tuning in. Please
do make sure you're subscribed. If you weren't yet, do
hit that like button before you go. Remember to comment
with your thoughts, check out the merch, leave me a
voice note, YadA YadA yah, and we'll talk again real
(31:30):
soon
Do you think it's so?
Speaker 2 (00:00):
Do you think it's if you had a daughter competing
against a biological mail, would you find it unfair?
Speaker 3 (00:06):
I don't have col Democrats have learned absolutely nothing and
are doubling down on trans radicalism and other woke nonsense.
We're going to break down all of this, Plus Biden
goes on to view a non binary crime spree at
(00:28):
Columbia University and the Trump administration loses a huge free
speech case. All this and so much more is coming
up in today's episode of The Barrad Versus Everyone podcast,
my daily show where we take on the craziest ideas
from across the Internet, our media, and our politics, all
from an independent perspective of First guys, We've got to
(00:48):
touch on another story in what's becoming a trend of
Democrats learning absolutely nothing. This time it's another Democratic elected
official in the spotlight, Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat out
of etiquette for an interview he did with The New
York Times's resident conservative columnist Rouse Doothit. But the issue again,
this issue always seems to come up of transgender women
(01:10):
who are biologically male competing in women in girls' sports.
This issue came up again, and still, despite how unpopular
support for this is, despite how obviously contradictory it is
to basic science and common sense, Chris Murphy was unwilling
to make any concession. Take a listen to this really
really astounding clip.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I don't have any fear of transgender athletes participating in sports.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
But well wait, just so you you don't have any
fear of it, Do you think it's Do you think
it's if you had a daughter competing against a biological male,
would you find it unfair?
Speaker 1 (01:51):
I don't have girls, right, so I necessarily can't write
I can't.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Have some empathy right for those of us who do. Right,
So would you would you find it unfair?
Speaker 1 (02:04):
I mean, I've talked to lots of parents of girls
in Connecticut who do not think it's unfair, and who
think that the benefit that those athletes get from being
part of a team is important and they don't mind
or feel threatened by the competition. I think everybody can
come to their own conclusion. But I all, I'm saying that.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
You're but you're right, But your conclusion is the current
is the official, the official line of liberalism right now.
It's just why you're saying, yes.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
My conclusion is that I would support those athletes being
able to participate in my community right in my community.
But I but I would not substitute my judgment in
my community judgment for another community judgment.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
So it was really telling to me how insanely uncomfortable
this Democratic senator was about this question. Like you can
tell they are walking on absolute eggshells, terrified to say
the wrong thing, even about an issue that like eighty
percent of the American public obviously that's not an exact number,
but a huge majority if you look at polling agrees
(03:08):
sports should be segregated by biology, not identity, and having
biological males and women's sports isn't fair, it's not safe.
He resorts to a couple of straw man arguments like, well,
I'm not fearful of transgender athletes. Okay, nobody's fearful of them.
They're not going to come eat you when nobody's worried
they're gonna consume your children in a cannibalistic rage. It's
(03:30):
a question of whether they're fair, whether it's fair for
them to compete to women's sports, and most people think
it's not. So just answer the question, but he just
kept dodging. And kudos to Ross Duthal for really kind
of twisting the knife and forcing him to answer his
position on this issue, because they really seem scared to
speak on it, scared of the activists. And I listen,
(03:51):
I've covered how unhinged the activist class is on this issue,
how crazy the alphabet mafia organizations and groups are, and
how little room for descent there is. But it's very
telling to me that even in the post vibe shift America,
Trump's America, where it feels like a lot has changed,
very prominent, high ranking Democratic Party officials are still not
(04:12):
willing to acknowledge basic, common sense, fair positions for fear
of the far left flank, for fear of the woke
mob coming after them. And while I don't respect it
as a matter of principle or integrity, I do sort
of understand it as a political calculation because remember, there
have been a couple Democrats who've broken on this issue
(04:34):
and have spoken out against it. One of those was
a Massachusetts congressman named Seth Moulton, and he was viciously
attacked for just the basic position of like, listen, I
support trans rights, I don't want any discrimination. I support
civil rights laws, but I think maybe women's sports we've
got to have some rules to keep out biological males.
That's all he ever said or did, and he was
(04:55):
attacked viciously. Here's some reporting from the New York Times
to jog your memory on that. One to get on
the wrong side of transgender activists is often to endure
their unsparing criticism. After a Democratic congressman defended parents who
expressed concern about transgender athletes competing against their young daughters,
a local party official and ally compared him to a
(05:16):
Nazi cooperator, and a group called Neighbors Against Hate organized
a protest outside his office. Seriously, that's what happened when
one Democratic congressman broke ranks on this issue. So I
guess it's not surprising that they're still kowtowing in fear
to these activists. But it is kind of pathetic and
(05:37):
it is going to be a drag on the Democratic Party.
I mean, Trump is doing so many controversial things, He's
pushing so many boundaries, but a lot of people don't
feel like the Democratic Party offers any sort of myself included,
sane or normal alternative and it's this kind of issue.
I know, it's not the end of the world. It's
just sports, it's just a few thousand people being impacted.
(05:59):
Whatever you want to say, it's indicative of a broader
point that democrats are out of touch with reality and
common sense and are beholden to crazy, radical activists on
social issues, and that as long as that sense prevails,
is going to be a massive anchor dragging them down.
I just for me to you it's some free advice.
(06:20):
But what do you guys think? Let me know in
the comments. By the way, guys, we don't have a
sponsor today, but I did want to announce that we
have new merch items available now that feature our Last
brain Cell merch line designs where it's items you can
get mugs, shirts, cool sweaters that commiserate with me that
we're coming down to our last brain cell after dealing
(06:40):
with all this de Lulu. So do check out that
merch length in the description. And by the way, guys,
keep sending in voice notes with your wo car stories,
your personal dilemmas, or anything where you want my advice
or feedback. I've been loving getting them, going through them
all and doing those Friday episodes where I take your
scenarios and give my advice. So do send in more
the link in the description. Now we got to talk
(07:01):
about a crazy story because we've got a non binary
crime wave on our hands, at least at Columbia University,
the supposedly elite New York university that's part of the
IVY League, that just had another illegal like riot slash
protest from anti Israel protesters who took over their library
and scared students and disrupted them during finals week. Well,
(07:25):
a really interesting report just came out from Jonathan Levine
of the Washington Free Beacon where he found, and this
will shock you, disproportionate non binary representation among the alleged
Columbia criminals. Eleven percent of Columbia Library arrestees identify as
they slashed them, nearly seven times America's trans population. Marco
(07:47):
Rubio says he's reviewing foreign nationals arrested following the raid,
putting one day them student born in Vietnam at risk.
Lavigne writes, it's a they to fada like Antifada, but
they I guess at least nine of the eighty one people,
or eleven percent arrested in connection with storming at Columbia
University Library Wednesday used they slash them pronouns. A review
(08:08):
of public records by the Washington Free Beacon shows that
shares well above the one point six percent of Americans
who identify as transgender or non binary according to the
Pew Research Center, and more than double the five percent
of people who identify as transgender or non binary under thirty. Now,
if anything, these comparisons are a massive underestimate because of
that small percentage of the population that identifies as transgender.
(08:30):
Most of those are transsexual people who identify as a
sex that isn't the one they were born at birth,
but are either you know, men or women in their identity,
not the them, not non binary. So, if anything, it's
even more extraordinary overrepresentation than what this report suggests. And
the reporter who wrote this story, Levigne, covered and specifically
profiled several of the arrestees with their the them pronouns.
(08:54):
One of those is a woman named Condone they slash
She who was arrested at Columbia last week. She was
born in Vietnam and wants to write her senior thesis
on the Gaza solidarity encampment well, encampments are illegal. By
the way. You have the right to free speech, to protest,
to make your voice heard, but you don't have the
right to like take over buildings and deny people access
(09:14):
and disrupt the public. That's a crime. And so doing
your thesis on something where you're admitting to crimes is
probably not the best thing. And I've been very critical
of the push by the Trump administration to revoke student
visas because of people's opinions. We'll talk about that, but
if you're doing literal crimes like taking over buildings, assaulting cops,
(09:36):
you know, these kinds of things that are illegal, your
student visa should be revoked and you should be sent
back to your home country. And maybe you can complete
that thesis virtually that in Babe. I don't know. But look,
this story is really not that deep. I just thought
it was a funny update on the Columbia chaos that
we covered last week. And I also just have to
say Blair White has pointed this out. You will never
(09:57):
find a non Binaria Republican because it is not an
immutable demographic trait like being gay or being black or
anything else. It's a political identity. It's a fad that's
incoherent at its core, and I will never get over
the fact that people want to put that on some
sort of level playing field with me and others like
me because of who we are with this radical chic
(10:20):
fad that's inseparably intertwined with radical left wing politics. But
that's just my take, y'all. Let me know what you
think of these da Theems in the comments below. Now,
again on this theme of Democrats learning absolutely nothing, we've
got Joe and Jill Biden going on the view that
lovely bastion of hard hitting cable news journalism and again
(10:42):
pushing some of the most absurd, whoke victim narratives that
they're still clinging to. President Biden was on there and
insisted that Kamala Harris lost not because of her ties
to his failed administration, their disastrous border policies, the inflation
that happened while we was president, not because of her
random cackling and her word salads, not because she only
(11:06):
had a couple months to campaign, because they stuck with
Biden for too long, not any of these real things. Instead,
he blamed shocker, the identity boogeyman. Take a listen to
this an.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Election night came and it was like twenty sixteen all
over again.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
So why do you think the vice president lost?
Speaker 1 (11:23):
And were you surprised?
Speaker 5 (11:26):
I wasn't surprised, Not because I didn't think the vice
president most qualified person to be president. She is, she's
qualified to be president the United States of America. But
I was surprised. I wasn't surprised because they went the
root of the sexist rouit of the whole route. I mean,
this is a woman, she's this, she's a really I've
(11:47):
never seen quite as successful and a consistent campaign, under
cutting the notion that a woman couldn't lead the country,
and a woman of mixed race, and they played that to.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Free What what is old Joe here even talking about
I covered the presidential election very closely, and there really
wasn't that much made about the fact that she was
a female candidate. She got a lot of praise for it,
I guess, but she didn't lean into it that much
in a couple months before the presidential election, and the
Trump team certainly wasn't making that a big issue. That
(12:26):
wasn't a thing. They attacked her over the border, attacked
her over inflation, they attacked her over her crazy past
social positions like saying transgender prisoners and illegal immigrants should
get taxpayer funded sex change surgeries. All these things she
was on the record saying. But it wasn't Oh, we
can't have a mixed race person leading America. That is
(12:47):
just not true. I'm sure you can find some people
somewhere who believe that or think that, But it wasn't
a widespread sentiment. It wasn't a driving force behind the campaign,
and it certainly wasn't a dominant talking point as to
why she lost the election or why people voted against her.
And it's just a cheap and cowardly way out that
avoids any accountability for the fact that he picked a
(13:09):
poor vice presidential nominee. She wasn't very good at any
of this, and then he's stuck in the race, even
though his brain had turned to mush until it was
too late, then putting her in. Honestly, I have a
little bit of sympathy for Kamala Harris, just politically speaking,
because she was in a very difficult position to have
Biden cling to the nomination run for reelection even though
(13:30):
he was his brain was cooked. He shouldn't have run
again and then leave her having to scramble and put
together a campaign with just a couple months left to go.
That is a very difficult position to find oneself in.
I'm not saying she covered herself in glory. She could
have done it better, but it's not like she had
it easy because of the way that he set her up.
And so I think that explains this BS identitarian deflection.
(13:51):
He's trying to escape accountability. He's trying to admit or
avoid admitting how he messed things up, because he did,
and he's the huge culprit here. But it's cheap, divisive,
race baiting nonsense. And if anything, look, she was only
the nominee because of her race and gender. That's just true,
because when he was selecting a vice president, he specifically said,
(14:14):
I'm only going to pick a woman rolling out half
the demo, more than half of the Democratic Party's options,
and then he said I'm strongly leaning towards a woman
of color. So it's a bit rich to blame the
fact that she lost the election on extremely dubious and
spurious allegations of racism and sexism when she actually only
(14:34):
had that position in that opportunity in the first place.
Because of a form of reverse discrimination of this DEI type.
Not to say she wasn't qualified on paper. She'd been
a vice president, she'd been a senator, sure, but she
was lacking in a lot of other areas. And there's
really no disputing the fact that if she'd been a
white male senator from California, she never would have been
(14:56):
selected as vice president, and therefore she never would have
become the nominate. Can anyone dispute that? Can anyone really
argue that an identical senator to her named Bill Stevenson,
some boring white dude, would have been picked as Biden's
running mate? Can anyone seriously tell me that with a
straight face? Even more wild than this maddening moment from
Joe Biden was a follow up segment on CNN where
(15:19):
panelist and A Navarro defended this and lost her crap
on live TV. Take a look at this and warning, guys,
this is unhinged because racism is absurd.
Speaker 6 (15:31):
She lost because the country was in a disastrous place
and they blamed him. And can you, as.
Speaker 7 (15:42):
A white guy saying that racism and you, as a
white male, I'm saying it, I am telling you, and.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
I am white guy, I would have won.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
With the same.
Speaker 7 (15:58):
I am telling you that it is incredibly ridiculous for you,
with the privilege that being a white male gives you
in this country, to say that there wasn't some element
of racism.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
The fact that people like Anna Navarro get paid millions
of dollars a year for their profound political insight to
be aired on cable news will never cease to astound
me and hurt my soul, honestly, because I think a
random person off the street could show up and make
a much more coherent and sensible argument, because she literally
(16:32):
didn't make an argument. Ben Ferguson, this conservative commentator, said,
I don't think kama O lost because of racism. I
think it was her policies. That is a proposition. It
is a debatable proposition, but there's a series of facts
and arguments that go into it on its side, and
then there's counter arguments. She responded with a total non argument.
She simply said, you're wrong because you're white, so you
(16:56):
must be incorrect about this, and I'm a woman of
coll so I must be correct. This is anti logic.
This is an identitarian mind virus because it absurdly suggests
that if you'd had a black Republican woman, which plenty
do exist commentators sitting there and saying the same thing
that Ben Ferguson said, it would have somehow been more
(17:19):
correct or more valid. No, it's an argument. It's either
right or wrong based on its logic and its points.
And I don't know how to explain to some progressives
in twenty twenty five. I don't know how to explain
to them how wrong it is to think that simply
citing someone's skin tone makes you correct and them wrong. Again, Babe,
(17:41):
it's giving woke kkk, it's giving a complete lack of
critical thinking, and it's the exact kind of divisive nonsense
that's made Democrats so unpopular in this country. Other than that, though,
great job, Anna, you're doing amazing. Now, while we're talking
about this appearance that Joe and Joe Biden did on
The View, we should talk about another moment from it,
(18:03):
which obviously Biden has been in severe cognitive decline for
some time. There have been all this reporting and all
these books about it, exposing it behind the scenes, and
to the credit of the one host of The View,
Alyssa Farroh Griffin, who I like. I don't agree with
her on everything, but I like her. She seems nice.
She actually asked President Biden about this and it didn't
(18:27):
go great. I should say it did not go amazing
for President Biden. Here, take a.
Speaker 8 (18:33):
Listen, mister president. Since you left office, there have been
a number of books that have come out, deeply sourced
from democratic sources, that claim in your final year there
was a dramatic decline in your cognitive abilities in the
final year of your presidency. What is your response to
these allegations? Are these sources wrong?
Speaker 5 (18:52):
They are wrong. There's nothing to sustain that number one.
Number two. You know, think of what we were left with.
We left with a circumstance where we had an insurrection,
I started not sense the civil war. We had a
circumstance where we were in a position that we well
(19:16):
the pandemic because of the incomponents of the last outfit,
end up over a million people dying, million people dying.
And we're also in a situation where we found ourselves
unable to deal with a lot of just basic issues.
And I won't go into it in interest of time.
And so we went to work and we got it done.
(19:39):
And you know, one of the things that that well.
Speaker 9 (19:44):
Well and listen, you know, one of the things I
think is that the people who wrote those books were
not in the White House with us, and they didn't
see how hard Joe worked every single day. I mean
he'd get up, he put in a full day, and
then at night he would I'd be in bed, you know,
(20:05):
reading my book, and he was still on the phone,
reading his briefings, working with staff. I mean, it was
non stop. It's the White House. Being president is not
like a job. It's a lifestyle. It's a life that
you live. You live it twenty four hours a day.
That phone can ring at eleven o'clock at night or
(20:26):
two in the morning. It's constant. You never leave it.
And Joe worked really hard. I think he was a
great president.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
So Biden does come off as sharp and with it
in this clip. Jill Biden, not Joe, and it is
extremely telling that when asked about his mental acuity and
the extensive reporting and books written about its decline and
a huge cover up in politics and media, President Biden
(20:56):
brings up two bizarre, irrelevant things that have nothing to
do with his state of mental fitness. One January sixth,
which happened before he was president, so I don't understand
how does that affect your mental sharpness in office over
the next four years and then two COVID nineteen But
the facts here actually more people died of COVID nineteen
(21:18):
in America while Biden was president than Trump, and not
even saying he's to blame for that. But again, it
just makes no real sense to bring up as a response,
and also has nothing to do with his alleged cognitive
decline that was put on full display at that presidential
debate where he started talking about Medicare and all sorts
of nonsensical rambling and then I'm gonna hold your hand
(21:40):
when I say this, President Biden. But the fact that
you trailed off in mumbling after about sixty seconds, not
even when asked about your mental fitness, and your wife
had to come jump in cut you off and take
over the answer and speak for you and explain it
all for you is not helping your case, uncle Jah.
It's not helping you be the cognitive decline allegations at all.
(22:05):
In fact, it kind of proves the point that a
lot of your critics were making. And I've said this before,
there is no shame in aging. There's no shame in
the decline that Biden experienced itself. It's normal, it's natural,
it's human. The shame is in clinging to power. The
shame is in running for reelection again when you shouldn't have,
when you should have passed the torch, you should have
(22:26):
allowed Democrats to have an open primary and go through
a whole process and come up with a better candidate potentially.
And the shame is in the cover up, the way
they lie, they gas lit, they denied for years. The
shame is in that. I always want to clarify this.
There's not shame in aging. In fact, we should all
be so lucky. There's not shame in things that happened
to us as we age that we can't control. The
(22:47):
shame here that will haunt the Biden legacy, I think forever,
is in the lying, the deceit, and the clinging to power,
and clips like this just prove more and more how
guilty they are of the accusations that have been made
against them. But what do you guys think? Do you
believe Jill Biden's version of events? Here? Let me know
(23:07):
in the comments. All right, guys, now we're going to
talk about another story, and this one. This is a
huge win for free speech. The Tofts University student who
was arrested and detained by plain clothes immigration officials and
had her visa revoked all for writing an anti Israel
op ed. She's been released at a federal judge's order.
Take a listen to this local news coverage from CBS Boston.
Speaker 6 (23:31):
It is the moment six weeks in the making.
Speaker 4 (23:33):
Thank you so much for all the sport and on low.
Speaker 9 (23:36):
I am.
Speaker 7 (23:37):
I live it tired, so I will take some risks,
but I really present you being here.
Speaker 6 (23:40):
TUF's University student Ramesa O's Turk walking out of the
detention center in Louisiana Friday evening, following her legal team's
victory in Vermont.
Speaker 4 (23:49):
What we heard from the court today is what we
have been saying for weeks.
Speaker 6 (23:56):
The thirty year old doctoral student was detained on the
streets of Summerville and March, the video going viral. The
White House said it revoked her visa because of a
pro Palestinian op ed she wrote last year in the
student newspaper.
Speaker 4 (24:09):
There's absolutely no evidence that justifies detaining miss O's turk
for a single day. Let alone the six and a
half weeks that she has been detained.
Speaker 6 (24:19):
And on Friday, a federal judge agreed, saying there's absolutely
no evidence that she engaged in violence or advocated violence.
Her continued detention cannot stand. The judge went on to
say ohs Turk had serious First Amendment and due process claims.
Ost Turk video conferenced into the hearing from the Louisiana
detention center in which she's been held, reportedly hugging her
(24:40):
attorney after the judge's ruling, Governor Mara Healey wrote in
a statement the court confirmed the case isn't about safety,
but part of the Trump administration's campaign to silence those
who disagree with him.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
This is a big development and it's making a lot
of waves online. Connor Fitzpatrick from the non parts and
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which disclaimer little bit
of freelance work for, wrote about damn time. The government,
instructed by the court to provide evidence supporting her detention
at today's hearing had nothing, no witnesses, no exhibits, and
they didn't even cross examine her. It is shameful how
(25:13):
this administration has treated her. He then quoted the judge,
there's absolutely no evidence that she has engaged in violence
or advocated violence. She has no criminal record, she has
done nothing other than essentially attend her university. I agree
with this. I'm not against revoking student visas of people
who come here and commit crimes like we've seen at
(25:35):
Columbia and University. But the idea that the Trump administration
is weaponizing immigration policy to remove people from the country
and turn their lives upside down just because of an
opinion that they express, to me, that's totally incompatible with
support for free speed, tree expression, and open debate and
all the other things that the Trump administration said they
(25:56):
would champion when they were campaigning for presidents. So very
clearly to me, has a chilling effect on open debate
on campus, on people feeling free to speak their minds,
and it will likely have a chilling effect in terms
of international students wanting to come to the United States
to study when they could go to schools in Canada
or Europe or somewhere else. Why come to America where
(26:18):
if you say the wrong thing on the internet, just
have an opinion the government doesn't like, they might arrest
you on the street and deport you and detain you
for weeks in immigration facilities. I wouldn't want to come
to the US in that environment. And international students are
actually a boon to Americans because they pay really high
tuition rates, much higher than local students and American students,
(26:40):
which is a form of subsidy for the American students. Right.
They charge the international students way, way more, and that
allows them to charge the US students a little bit less.
So international students. Look, I think I generally view positively,
and I don't want the government to start weaponizing immigration
policy to crack down on just ideas. If we're talking
about crime. If we're talking about material support for a
(27:03):
terror group like Hamas, that is something of a different story.
I've talked about it on the Channel in the past,
but and that's what they kept saying when I first
commented on this case. Well, I'm sure it's not just
over the anti Israel op ed. There's got to be more.
She has to be involved with Hamas or something. And
now we've seen it. They went to court and the
federal government would have provided any evidence of that, and
(27:26):
they didn't. Literally all they had was an op ed
where in a couple sentences. She criticizes Israel, and you
don't have to agree with anything she said, but it's
just a political opinion in a student newspaper. I don't
know how the Trump administration can possibly claim to be
a pro free speech administration while arresting people for criticizing
a foreign government in their student newspaper. That is wild
(27:48):
to me. But Caroline Levitt, the Trump Press Secretary, is
defending this. Take a listen to what she said when
asked about it by a reporter.
Speaker 10 (27:56):
Does the administration have any responses? The needs today that
federal judge the immediate release the Romessa Ostur from detention,
particularly his comments that the government submitted no evidence other
than an op ed that was touched broad last year.
Speaker 11 (28:08):
I will have to check in with the Department of
Homeland Security on that particular case, but I think our
overall feeling, we've made quite clear that lower level judges
should not be dictating the foreign policy of the United States,
and we absolutely believe that the President and the Department
of Homeland Security are well within their legal rights to
deport to legal immigrants. As for visa revocations, the Secretary
(28:31):
of State has the right to do that as well.
Speaker 5 (28:33):
It is a.
Speaker 11 (28:34):
Privilege, not a right, to come to this country on
a visa.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
So there's a lot about this answer that I find
puzzling and kind of incoherent. First of all, these judges
are not dictating the foreign policy of the United States.
They are ruling on First Amendment and due process violations,
which are rights guaranteed in the Constitution to persons in
the US, not just citizens, And it is the job
(29:00):
of the judiciary to scrutinize executive and legislative actions for
violations of constitutional rights. So that's what they're doing. They're
not dictating the foreign policy. And what's interesting to me
is that the law that the Secretary of State Mark
or Rubio is using to justify these visa revocations suggests
that they have the unlimited right to revoke the visa
(29:20):
of anybody whose viewpoint or presence in the US may
be a threat to US foreign policy. Can someone explain
to me how some student writing something in a campus
op ed threatens US foreign policy, like, oh, no, we're
not going to be able to support Israel and fund
Israel now because Romesa oz Turk wrote something in the
Tufts University saying her campus shouldn't support Israel. What the
(29:44):
math is not mathing. And I think that federal statute
should be challenged in court even giving this the Secretary
of State that authorization, because we don't want that kind
of vast, unchecked power in any official. Another official and
say say that AOC became our next president could say, well,
our foreign policy of the United States is being against Israel,
(30:05):
so we're going to revoke the student visa of any
israel any student who expresses support for Israel. Is that
really a game we want to play? And guys, Caroline
Levitt mentioned illegal immigrants here, that's kind of a non sequitor.
What we're talking about are legal immigrants here on student
visas suddenly being arrested and having their lives turned upside
down for daring to express a political opinion the administration
(30:28):
doesn't like. That is wild. It is fundamentally un American,
and it is not something you can do while claiming
to be a supporter of free speech and free expression,
at least not while expecting us to take you seriously.
But what do you, guys think? Do you disagree with
me on this? Do let me know in the comments below.
By the way, guys, quick announcement, I did create a
(30:50):
second YouTube channel where I will be uploading a bonus
content once or twice a week, including story times, ask
Me Anythings, and other kind of stuff. I already posted
the first one, which is about how I got fired
from my woke college newspaper for non binary microaggressions and
old racist tweets. If you want to hear that story
(31:10):
and more that's coming out, I'll link to that new
channel in the description and you can go subscribe. All right, everybody,
that'll be it for this episode of the Brad Versus
Everyone Podcast. Thank you so much for tuning in. Please
do make sure you're subscribed. If you weren't yet, do
hit that like button before you go. Remember to comment
with your thoughts, check out the merch, leave me a
voice note, YadA YadA yah, and we'll talk again real
(31:30):
soon
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.