The Senate has passed the Big Beautiful Bill. Now what? Congressman Chip Roy joins Jesse Kelly to explain what happens in the House of Representatives. The whole process has actually led to retirements in the GOP as well. Jesse has an update on that. You'll also hear from Professor William A. Jacobson on a major decision from the Supreme Court. Plus, more corruption at the FBI exposed by Professor Nicholas Giordano.
I'm Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TV | 7-1-25
Masa Chips: Visit https://MASAChips.com/JESSETV and use code JESSETV for 25% off your first order.
Choq: Visit https://choq.com/jessetv for a 17.76% discount on your CHOQ subscription for life
Follow The Jesse Kelly Show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJesseKellyShow
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 (00:02):
The big ugly bill pass the Senate. Now it goes
to the House. We'll talk to Chip Roy about that.
How much of a win was that Supreme Court decision
last week? We will find out the most frightening segment
you've ever seen on this show, plus something to feel
great about. When I'm right now, let's talk about something
(00:28):
wonderful and I am aware that the big story of
the day is the big beautiful bill. We're gonna get
to that with Congressman Chip Roy in about ten minutes.
What passed the Senate, will it pass the House? What's
in it? What's good, what's bad? We are going to
get to all that. I don't want to talk about
that right now because I'm very very proud of you.
(00:49):
I'm proud of me, I'm proud of us. You know,
when you hand out criticism to people, that's fine, but
you better be willing to hand out compliments. If you're
gonna whip, you better hand out sugar cubes. For the
longest time, I have been very, very hard on the
GOP primary voter because you look in Washington, d C.
(01:12):
And you see loser after loser after loser, and the
Senate and the House and I'm not talking about Democrats.
I'm talking about Republicans. Yes, Democrats are vicious, demonic communists
trying to burn down America. But it is Republicans, a
group of Republicans, mostly from red states, that hold the
door open for them and let them do this. And
this is because the GOP primary voter has been lazy, stupid,
(01:37):
and worthless. The GOP primary voter has traditionally not shown
up to even vote in a primary, and when he
does show up, he votes for the incumbent almost every time,
and then goes home and winds about the GOP. It's
driven me crazy. How many times have you heard me
yell about it? But we are getting better, we are
getting smarter, we are getting more involved and changing a party,
(02:03):
a political party in the United States of America. It
is not an overnight process. It's not an event. It's
a process. We've had that talk before. It's going to
take time. It takes years to change a political party,
years to clean out the gunk, to get rid of
this guy in the House and this guy in the
(02:25):
Senate that you try to challenge him in a primary,
but your candidate fails, You don't raise the money you
have too many the voter doesn't show. There's a laundry
list of reasons. But it takes time to change a
party from something bad into something that reflects you and
something that reflects me. But we are doing it. Just
(02:46):
in recent memory. I can think of several losers in
the GOP, like Jeff Flake, who are gone. Now there
are more. Don Bacon of Nebraska, he's a member of
the House. Useless idiot retire. Mitch McConnell retiring. Last time
I saw Mitch McConnell at a public event in Kentucky.
(03:06):
Remember this is a state where he's ruled like a
god king forever. He was booed off the stage. Tom Tillis,
North Carolina retiring. You know this, Tom Tillis.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building
on January the sixth, and that's probably where most of
the friction was. If mister Martin were being put forth
as a US attorney for any district except the district
where January sixth happened, the protest happened, I probably support.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Them the most favored nation coming out of the administration.
All these other things are short sighted, unsustainable measures. Time
for regime change, and I believe that this president should
be given a fair amount of leeway to fact that.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
So.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
Look, I'm a Republican. I support President Trump, and I
believe that most of his policies on national security are right.
I believe his instincts are pretty good. But what I'm
telling you, whoever believes that there is any space for
Vladimir Putin and the future of a stable globe better
(04:07):
go to Ukraine. They better go to Europe. They better
invest the time to understand that this man is a
cancer and the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Yeah, he's retiring. He's retiring because of you. He's retiring
because he can't win reelection. And so of course he
had to make up a lie. They all say the
same lie. They're retiring to be with family. He's not
retiring to be with family. Being a senator is his
entire life. It's all he cares about. He's retiring to
avoid humiliation. Whether he'll spend time with family or not.
(04:41):
I don't know. He's retiring because you, the GOP primary voter,
have let him know he's no longer welcome. We have
got win after win after win in recent years of
losers like Mitt Romney retiring because of you.
Speaker 6 (04:58):
You know, Contrary to a lot of expectation, I enjoy
my work in the Senate a good deal. The last
few years have been particularly productive, as I was able
to help lead and negotiate the Bipartis and Infrastructure Law,
a comprehensive China Strategy process, religious liberty protections, a compromise
gun safety law, the Electoral Account Act reform, and emergency
(05:21):
COVID relief funding. Now we face critical challenges mounding national debt,
climate change, and the ambitious authoritarians of Russia and China.
Neither President Biden nor former President Trump are leading their
party to confront those issues. While I'm not running for reelection,
I'm not retiring from the fight. I'll be your United
(05:45):
States Senator until January of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
And he's gone, Tom till it's gone, Don Bacon gone,
Mitch McConnell gone. Guess who else is about to be gone?
Speaker 7 (06:01):
Hi?
Speaker 4 (06:01):
I'm Texas Senator John Cornyn. The last year has proven
quite a challenge as we've navigated the impact of COVID nineteen.
But with safe and effective vaccines finally being administered, there's
light at the end of the tunnel. Getting vaccinated is
the fastest way that life can return to normal. Under
the effective leadership of Director Ray, the agency has remained
(06:24):
committed to doing things independently and by the book Section
seven oh two of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
I've called this.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
The most important law that most people have never heard of.
It's been called the crown jewel of US intelligence.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
About to be gone. What's the deal with all this?
You me? The GOP primary voter is no longer sitting
at home just complaining and then going down and voting
for the incumbent. The GOP primary voter has gotten up
off the couch and has decided to change his voting habits,
(07:06):
and as such, the GOP is changing into something better
in You deserve the credit for it. Put a smile
on your face. I'm proud of us. We're doing good.
I don't think any of that made you uncomfortable. Maybe
it did, even still, I'm right, I'm very comfortable. But
(07:26):
it's probably because I have a belly full of massive chips.
I'm not gonna lie. I ate half a bag right
before the show started. I can't help it. And look now,
ob now my wife. She can't even yelp me about
the chips because massive chips have three ingredients. No more
seed oil stuff. You want chips that you don't have
to feel guilty about massive chips. And this is me.
(07:50):
When I heard they were healthy, I thought to myself, Oh,
it's gonna be garbage. I did. That's what I normally
think about healthy things. Every time Bob tries to give
me something healthy, it's disgusting. Massive chips are amazing, amazing
to have a little hot sauce on there. My youngest son,
he eats worse than I do, loves them. We fight
(08:11):
over them. He takes bags and hides him in his bedroom.
Get some massive chips and save a pile of money.
You can scan that little thing right there, or go
to massachips dot com, slash Jesse TV. You want to
binge chips without feeling guilty. There you go. We'll be back. Okay.
(08:38):
So I didn't talk much about the big beautiful bill
in the open because I wanted to talk about something wonderful,
and I did. But it is important that we discuss
what exactly passed, what's going to pass, and remember that
there's no such thing as a big bill that is
beautiful from a United States government? This corrupt. It's not
humanly possible. It'd be like asking how much makeup you
(09:00):
have to put on Joy Bay Hard and make her attractive.
It's not humanly possible to do it. But let's find
out what it is. Do we have a bill that anyway,
Chip Roy, great Congressman from the state of Texas, joins us. Now, okay, Chip,
It passed the House, then it went to the Senate
to pass the Senate, and now it's coming back to
gott to pass the House. Before I get what do
we have? What's the process?
Speaker 6 (09:21):
Like?
Speaker 1 (09:21):
I don't understand.
Speaker 8 (09:23):
I don't know, but you need to start a new
meter that shows how much makeup you need to put
on Joy bayhartspace in order for something to be beautiful.
That was fantastic. I'm now fully distracted, completely incapable of
putting out anything intelligent here, all right, Jim so looking
every one of us, you me, I mean all the Conservatives,
(09:44):
I know, people that I work with here. We want
to be with the President to deliver a bill that
will you know, make tax cups permanent, make sure that
more money's in all our pockets, help all the working
class Americans get the border funding needed for ICE to
undo all the damage. All of those things that we
know are important. But remember I set out six months ago,
(10:04):
I got the Freedom Carcass to lead into it and say, guys,
we should do two separate bills. The first bill should
just take care what the President wants to do on
the debt ceiling, take care what the President wants to
do on the border and defense, and move forward quickly
so we can get something done. Well, they wanted to
do a big, beautiful bill, Well here we are, and
I agree with you. Nothing big is ever going to
beautiful in this town. And so what we've got is
(10:26):
a bill that has some good things in it. We
fought for in the House, a couple of things in
the Senate that were actually not bad. Rick Scott, Mike Lee,
Ran Paul and Ron Johnson have been out there fighting
the good fight. But mostly what we have is a traditional,
massive bill that we'll have significant amount of deficit spending,
no matter what the administration says, no matter what my
(10:48):
colleagues in the House and the Senate saying. We've got
objective friends who are economists, budget people who worked for Trump,
who are with us. We want to deliver, but the
MAT's just not there. The deficits in the first five
years are huge. It has significant problems in the bill.
And what they just passed, I mean, I can't even
I can't even say this out loud about getting schuming mad.
(11:11):
They basically gave a big giveaway to the moderates. They
gut it most of our work to repeal and terminate
the Green new scam. I mean, you can't even make
it up. The President said terminated. We terminated like sixty
percent of it in the House. I think they just
gutted it. And now we terminate maybe thirty or forty
percent of it in MAX. And by the way, we're
(11:31):
going to continue to provide medicaid to Ellelle aliens. We're
going to continue to have taxpayer funding go to transgender
surgeries and including kids. We only restrict playing paraanoid funding
for the first year, not for ten years. And there
are problem after problem. They created a new fifty billion
dollars rural Hospital fund. They created a new radiation exposure
fund that they say will only be six billion, but
(11:53):
everybody I talk to it will be two hundred billion. Look,
I don't know how to put it, the swamp is
going to swamp. And if the administration is, and we'll
a lean on everybody as they end this crazy then
why am I on the hook to vote for a
bill just so I can get some tax cuts in border,
which is what I want, But I don't want all
the spending here.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
We are, Okay? Where is it now? Chip? I? Obviously
we're well aware of your feelings on it. I know
it's coming back to the House. Is it going to
pass the House? Am I understanding there's a vote tomorrow?
Please feel free to correct me on that. But is
what it is now? Is it good enough to pass
(12:31):
the House? Did they make it so crappy that even
they it can't pass the House? Where is it now? So?
Speaker 8 (12:38):
We're going to be in the rules committee? In fact,
we're in the rules committee right now. When I finish
the stervew on my water back upstairs the third tour
of the Capital where I'm sitting in the Rules committee
listening to all of the testimony. We'll vote on it
in the Rules committee sometime by probably midnight. I think
it will be on the floor tomorrow. I think there's
a significant number of House Republicans who do not believe
that they can vote with this film. I currently am
(12:59):
one of them. I'm reading the bill. I'm looking at
the bill while we're sitting there. I'm listening to see
what the changes are. I'm always open to make sure
there's something I'm missing that I don't understand. But I
look at the bill and I say, it doesn't increase deficits.
Will we increase? Will we issue more bonds and more
debt as a result of this bill? I think we will.
Does this bill continue to do things we shouldn't do,
(13:22):
like give medicaidior legal aliens? I think it does. Does
this bill terminate the Green new scam? No, it makes
it and waters it down what we did, which I
thought was sort of a bare minimum. So there are
things in it that I just don't think pass muster.
I'm not alone. There are dozens of members of the
House that talk to me about how frustrated they are,
(13:42):
and they're considering voting, though I don't know how many
that will.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Be in the end. Okay, let me attempt to put
a smiling face on something here. What's good in it?
Speaker 8 (13:55):
Well, so, look, I mean everything we've been working on
for six months to try to get some Green new
scam subs, and he's reversed. Yeah, the bill still has
some of them all, but it's so watered down. I'm
not sure we did get serious Medica reforms. We got
work requirements, We got some work requirements for food stamps.
It would enrage you how much we had to water
some of that now, and in the Senate, by the way,
(14:15):
some of those things are in fact net improvements. They'll
tell you that we got like one and a half
trillion dollars of savings, but Jesse, to be clear, that's
reductions and increases, and our deficits are still going to
continue to be roughly two trillion dollars a year for
a decade. So look, there are good things. We worked
really hard to try to get them. The President's team
(14:37):
has worked hard with us.
Speaker 7 (14:39):
You know.
Speaker 8 (14:39):
Look, they're my friends, and I hate being an odds
with them. I love the President and what he's doing.
I want to deliver. But here we sit, and I
didn't come to Washington do increased deficits. I didn't come
to Washington to continue the Green new scam. Why can't
we just repeal it? That's what Democrats do. They get
an office and they do all this stuff. They passed
the Green new Scam under conciliation, they passed to Obamacare.
(15:02):
Of reconciliation. Republicans can't even reverse the bad things Democrats
do much less do something really. Wow, you totally change
the game, guys. So the President is kicking ass, Congress
is up here at dithering, and I'm trying to do
my best. You know, Rugsfeldt said, you go to army,
you go to war with the army. You got, Congress
(15:22):
is what it is. I've compromised.
Speaker 9 (15:24):
I gave.
Speaker 8 (15:25):
I voted for the House, felt to go to the Senate.
I voted for the budget. I voted you know, all
these things, trying to move the field of the ball
down the field. But here we are, and I think
it fails, and I think we need to go back
to the well. Look, the bill doesn't die until we
kill it. This week, we can go back to the
well and go try to fix it. Go to the Senate.
We should amend it, send it back to the Senate
with a House bill or something like it. Say, guys,
(15:47):
try again, that's what we should do.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Chip, Can you help me understand something? And I'm not
asking your name, names it's my job to be a
cher to everybody and make everyone in Washington man, it's
not yours. So a United States senator, I understand the
reluctance of some of these losers to repeal all the
green News scam stuff because their state gets a lot
of that cheddar and that's how they think they get reelected. Okay,
I get that. I disagree, but I get that. But
(16:13):
can you help me understand why red state senators would
insist on medicaid for illegals. There's not a red state
senator in the United States of America that gets elected
by handing out medicaid to illegals. It's such a Democrat priority.
Can you help me understand what the motivation would be there.
Speaker 8 (16:32):
What they do is they listen to hospitals in their
state or their district. In this case, Senators, it's their state,
and those hospitals will come back and say, guys, we've
got all these illegals in our hospital rooms and in
our emergency rooms, and no matter what the crack downe is,
we still have hundreds of thousands of them and we
need that meneral funding in order to deal with the
(16:52):
fact that we're required to have care in the emergency rooms.
And you know what, to some degree they're not wrong
I do is you have to cut off the funding supply.
You have to stop it from the top, and then
the hospitals will then have to come back and say it, guys,
we can't do this, and then that forces more pressure
to change the policies and remove more legal aliens. But
(17:16):
that's what happens, and they and these Republican senators listen
and they go, Okay, I guess we got to do that.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
So freaking frustrated, Jip, thank you so much for coming
by and updating us as always. Thanks for fighting the
good fight, my brother, good luck. I was in good bood,
Remember I started off the show. I was in a
good mood and I'm in a bad boot. I don't
like that. It's frustrating. It's very very frustrating. The GOP
(17:47):
is very very frustrating. But this is why, just like
we just talked about in the opening of the show,
this is why we have to stay engaged. We have
done a lot of cleanup, but we have a lot
more clean up to do. There are a lot of
turds still on the floor. They're red State senators and
their turds, and they smell and we've got to clean
them up and disinfect things. All right, we'll have the
(18:10):
energy to do that because we're all going to be
on male vitality stacks or female vitality stacks from chalk.
Surely you're already on one, right, don't worry. We're talking
natural things, natural herbal supplements. As I've watched the medical
profession violate all my trust over the last few years
and yours, I studied to really seek out natural solutions
(18:33):
for things. So when it comes to things like your
energy level, your focus, we just kind of accept that
those things go down as we get older. But we
don't have to accept that at all. We're just not
getting the things we want, the things we need. I
should say. That's where chalk comes in. You want to
be able to skip that afternoon coffee, that afternoon nap.
Chalk's here for you, natural herbal supplements. Here's what you
(18:57):
need to do. Go to chalk dot slash jessetv subscription.
Get a subscription. After ninety days, if you don't feel better,
cancel it. I want you to. They won't make it hard.
Ninety days, you're about to feel like a new person.
We'll be back all right. Last week we had a big,
(19:27):
a wonderful Supreme Court decision, but idiots like me or confused.
Was it a decision that stopped these ridiculous nationwide injunctions
by these judges? That did it end birthright citizenship? I've
seen headline after headline and they're all saying different things,
and I don't know what's going on. So obviously we
need to bring in the great professor Bill Jacobs and
(19:49):
Cornell University law professor and of course founder of legal insurrection. Okay, Bill,
what was this? Are we done with birthright citizenship?
Speaker 9 (20:00):
No, we're not even close to done. We are done
with a narrow set of relief that the district courts
have been imposing on the country called universal injunctions, where
a single federal district judge binds the entire country and
everybody in it to a ruling, even though those people
are not part of the court case. That's what's plagued
(20:22):
Trump one point zero administration and Trump two point zero
administration because there are over six hundred and fifty federal
judges and Trump needs to win every single time because
any one of those judges could terminate a program of
his or an action of his, whereas the challengers only
need to win once, they only need to win one case.
(20:45):
So this, the Supreme Court said that the federal district
courts do not have the authority, except in rare circumstances,
to issue these universal injunctions. But as you can guess,
there's a big butt about that.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Yeah, that's you know what you got me right away? Bill?
When I heard you say narrow, why don't you go
ahead and just explain what that means.
Speaker 9 (21:09):
Sure, So what the Court said is that, as a
general matter, the federal district courts, which are created by Congress.
Most people don't realize this. The federal district courts are
created by Congress, not the Constitution. The Constitution only creates
the Supreme Court, and therefore the federal district courts can
only do what Congress has given them jurisdiction to do.
(21:32):
Notwithstanding federal judges thinking they are all powerful, in fact,
they are hemmed in by federal legislation. And that federal legislation,
the Supreme Court held, does not permit federal district court
judges to issue these broadened junctions, except they can fashion
those if it's absolutely necessary to afford somebody what they
(21:56):
called complete relief, meaning if there's no other alternative to it,
or they could use other procedural mechanisms, which is what
I expect to see and we're already seeing, which is
class actions. So class action lawsuits are lawsuits brought on
behalf of a group of people by a representative plaintiff,
(22:16):
and they can bind hundreds of thousands or millions of
plaintiffs who have a very common issue, and they can
bind the entire class of people. So there is a
big loophole. This is a big deal, the fact that
the judges now have to think of alternative ways of
going there. But nobody should think that this ends it.
(22:37):
And in fact, the case that was before the Supreme
Court about the birthright Citizenship Executive Order has already been
refiled as a class action. So big win for Trump
will affect a lot of cases against him. But it's
not a perfect remedy. It doesn't shut the door completely.
It shuts it most.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Of the way, Okay, so it's not a silver bullet
that got us all the way through. But I mean,
does this mean we're going to see a fraction as
many of these as we saw before, half as many
handicap it for us.
Speaker 9 (23:13):
Yeah, I think it's going to be half as many.
I think that most of the judges will have to
go through this analysis that the Supreme Court has given.
So it will stop a lot of the abusive injunctions,
but it's not going to stop all of them, and
it will simply make the plaintiffs and the more activist
federal judges more conniving in how they frame things. But
(23:35):
it also should embold in appeals courts that will maybe
put an end to it. So the best I can
say is it's a very positive development. Trump administration was
right to celebrate it. But nobody should think that the
law fare project that the Democrats haven't embarked on to
stymy the administration through dozens and hundreds of lawsuits, that
(24:00):
that's going to stop anytime soon.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
All right, all right, now, let's talk about the ruling itself.
Because somebody who surprised everybody was Amy Coney Barrett. Not
necessarily for how she voted, she can be here or
there with that, but for how she just in the
most professional way possible, just whipped Katanji Brown Jackson. What
do you make of this?
Speaker 9 (24:24):
Yeah, I mean, you know, I've heard it described many
different ways, and I've described it different ways, but you know,
she took KBJ out to the woodshed and beat her
legally creamy sound. I mean, they didn't call her stupid,
they didn't call her incompetent, they didn't call her, you know, ignorant,
(24:44):
but they came pretty close. They called her those things
without using those words. They basically said, we're going to
ignore everything she's saying in her dissenting opinion because it's
contrary to two hundred years of constitutional law and contra
to the Constitution itself. And what Kaitanji Brown Jackson said
(25:05):
was notwithstanding the legalese of the statues. She used the
term legalese, and the majority mocked her for that. Notwithstanding
the legalese, which of course is exactly what judges are
supposed to pay attention to. Notwithstanding the legalese, we should
do what we think is right. And it's a very activist,
very critical legal theory, very social justice warrior approach to things,
(25:31):
which is, if a judge sees a problem she doesn't like,
the judge should solve the problem and should not get
bogged down in all these things like limited jurisdiction. And
in fact, one of the most famous lines, there were
many of them, from the majority decision was that Katanji
Brown Jackson decries the imperial executive, but in fact wants
(25:54):
an imperial judiciary. She wants a judiciary which can do
whatever they want. That's just not the way it's set up.
It's not the constitutional structure, it's not the legislative structure.
It's not the way things have been treated for two
hundred years. And this is really what you see when
you get a total social justice warrior on the court.
You get dispensing with our constitutional traditions and our constitutional
(26:19):
protections and somebody who does whatever they want. And so
it was a really brutal There was just some great
lines in there to quote and mock Kaitanji Brown Jackson.
I keep going to say Jackson Brown because I grew
up listening to Jackson Brown, Katanji Brown Jackson. You know,
it was an embarrassment. But what's important is one it
(26:42):
was an Amy Coney Barrett decision. She's not known as
a hothead on the bench. Okay, if this thing was
written by Alito, you could certainly understand it. But this
was by somebody who's viewed as very polite and very
proper on the court. She wrote it, and six judges
joined it. Remember, any of those judges could have said, hey,
(27:03):
I don't think this is appropriate for the majority decision.
You want to basher, go do it in a concurring opinion,
in your own separate opinion. They all signed onto it.
The six justices signed onto this bashing of Kaitanji Brown Jackson.
And importantly, her dissent was not joined by any other justice,
(27:25):
not even so de Mayor nor Kagan were willing to
put their name on what Brown Jackson had written. That's
how bad it was. And so she's a laughing stock
frankly after this majority decision. And it doesn't matter to her.
I'm sure because she's got life tenures. She'll be there forever.
We've got her for twenty or thirty more years. But
(27:47):
she's not well regarded, and the majority just let the
world know it.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
Bill.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
As an aside, before I ask you about de naturalization.
As a law professor, do you find that the students
in your law school are radicalized when they get there
or radicalized before they get there?
Speaker 9 (28:10):
Well, you know, I teach a course that has nothing
to do with politics or social justice or anything like that.
My students, I think, are pretty straight down the middle,
and I think I'm fortunate I'm at a law school
that is not Columbia Law School, it's not Harvard Law School.
It's not as radicalized. So I don't think the students,
at least my students, become radicalized in law school. But
(28:33):
there are certainly your social justice warriors who arrive that way.
So I would say to it's more a problem of
how they are when they arrive and their world outlook
that they've been taught in high school, maybe even K
through twelve and college. They have a certain world outlook
that I don't necessarily agree with, and that's I think
(28:54):
more of a problem as opposed to what takes place
in the law school turning them into some sort of
radical radicals. So that's my personal observation, but I think
in general, law schools do push students towards becoming more
left leaning.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
Well, let's talk about something near and dear to my heart,
and from what I understand, near and dear to yours. Denaturalization.
This is not something that's been tossed around a lot.
The GOP has been real shy about things like that
and wanting to kind of play nice. But the DOJ
indicates they're gonna start looking at it, explain what it is.
Why where are we going from here?
Speaker 9 (29:35):
Sure? Well, if you have been naturalized as a citizen,
so you're not born here, and you go through the
immigration process and the naturalization process, if at any point
along that line you make material misrepresentations you forget to disclose,
not forget, you don't disclose things, you intentionally don't disclose things,
(29:56):
or you lie on your applications, the government can move
to rescind your naturalization, to strip you of your citizenship.
And I covered at my website about a decade ago
a very famous case involving a Palestinian terrorist named Rasmia Oday,
and she came to the United States. She lied on
(30:17):
her visa application about her terrorist connections, she lied on
her naturalization application about it. She denied having any connections,
but she did, and many years later, I think it
was fifteen years later, the FBI picked up on it
and they filed criminal charges against her to strip her
of her citizenship, and that is what eventually happened. She
(30:41):
lost the first trial, she got a retrial, and right
before the second trial, she consented to leave the country
and she was stripped of her citizenship. So if there
is a person here who lied on their immigration papers
and their naturalization papers, for example, maybe they misrepresented their
family connections, maybe they committed marriage fraud to get become
(31:04):
a citizen. And I don't you know, I'm not talking
about anybody in particular, but there have been allegations against
a congresswoman about that. If it is substantiated, if somebody
lied to get into the United States and get citizenship,
the government absolutely has a mechanism to strip them of that,
(31:26):
and the Department of Justice. Again, I don't know if
they have a particular person in mind, but the Department
of Justice has said they're going to start looking into
that for people who have obtained citizenship and to challenge it.
So it absolutely is a procedure. It has been used
in the past, and it can be used in the president.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
I just want to make sure I'm being crystal clear
with everybody that the professor was not discussing ilhan Omar
who lied and married her brother to get into the country.
He never mentioned that name at all. I just want
to make sure he never mentioned ilhan Omar. Thank you
so much, Professor, I appreciate you. All right, apparently it's
professor day. You know how highly educated I am. But
(32:09):
we're going to talk to a next one. Professor g
joins us next and this trying to think we've been
doing I'm right for a long time. This has the
potential to be the most frightening segment you've ever watched
on the show. Just wait, hang on.
Speaker 10 (32:32):
Domestic terrorism from white supremacist is the most lethal terrorist threat,
and the homeland.
Speaker 8 (32:38):
White supremacist, right wing extremists, and domestic terror is trying
to stoke fear in the hearts of New Yorkers.
Speaker 10 (32:45):
From a terrorism perspective, I think domestic violent extremism is
one of the greatest terrorism related threats that we face.
Speaker 11 (32:53):
The FBI's view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes
from racially or ethnically motivated ellent excreements, specifically those who
advocate it for the superiority of the white race.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
Remember how many conversations we had about what they were
doing there. Remember we've talked about this many times before.
You've never met a white supremacist in your life. I
haven't either, But They were doing that to preemptively justify
sending the forces of government after their political opponents. And
as I've told you many times before, I don't care
(33:29):
what else is going on in any part of the world.
There was nothing in the world more dangerous to you
and to me than our government turning its guns against
us joining me. Now. Nicholas Giordano, community college professor and
higher education fellow at Campus Reform has an incredible piece
up on The Federalist about this very thing. Professor, what
did they do.
Speaker 7 (33:51):
Well?
Speaker 10 (33:51):
The Byan administration issued what was called the National Stround
Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. And this is one of
the more terrifying government documents that exists, because what it
does is it turns ordinary citizens into potential targets as
domestic violent extremists. It says that anyone expressing anti government
sentiment or anti authority sentiment has the proclivity towards domestic terrorism.
(34:15):
Yet they never define what anti government or anti authority
actually means. What they use is examples. And so if
you push back against any of the pandemic responses to
pandemic mandates, well then you have a potential to be
a domestic terrorist. So this document was issued in June
of twenty twenty one, and what do we know, Well,
(34:35):
we know that just a few months later after it
was issued, the government began targeting parents at school board
meetings who were complaining about their children wearing masks in
school or what they were learning about in the curriculum,
that it was more based on indoctrination as opposed to education.
They targeted traditional Catholics. We now know that the FBI's
traditional Catholic memo was more widespread than Director Ray led on,
(34:59):
and that it was actually actionable when operational, where they
tried to infiltrate churches because Catholics believe in pro life,
they believe in two genders, and so it goes against
the narrative that the Biden administration wanted to put out.
But it wasn't just limited to the FBI and Department
of Homeland Security. If we look at the Department of
Education Campus Reform, it issued a report where seventy percent
(35:24):
of the university finds towards higher education went to Catholic
and Christian institutions. In fact, the last Secretary of Education
actually stated out loud that he would like to put
Christian universities out of business, particularly Grand Canyon University. So
we see it wasn't to stop domestic terrorism. It wasn't
to make Americans safe. Over what it was. It was
(35:45):
designed to target ordinary Americans that they sent it from
the government narrative, and that's the threat that this document posed.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
Professor, I'm going to ask a question, and it's probably
going to be a lame question. In my mind, it's
the most important thing in the world. Aren't there safeguards
in place in our system to stop, you know, some
dirty communists from taking over the White House and just
sending the FBI after school board moms. It can't be.
(36:16):
It surely can't be as easy as getting on Microsoft
Word and typing up a memo and shipping it off
to Christopher Ray. That that can't be how it works, right.
Speaker 10 (36:26):
Well, that's not the way it's supposed to work. But
that's how the system has morphed throughout the years. As
the bureaucracy has grown, it has strengthened, it's become more powerful,
and I argue that it's almost emerged as a fourth
branch of government that's unencumbered by the Constitution. It doesn't
follow the checks and balances that it's independent from the
legislative branch and the executive branch. In fact, it some
(36:48):
would argue that it has more power than the President,
who's supposed to be the one that actually runs the bureaucracy.
But the bureaucracy has long done what it wants and
there's no accountability within the SYSAM. For example, just on
several occasions in the Biden administration, the FBI illegally accessed
the NSA's repository on Americans, and the courts lambasted the
(37:10):
FBI for doing this, yet nobody was ever held accountable.
The CIA was caught spying on sitting members at the
United States Senate, and nobody was held accountable. When we
look at the prison program that was run through the NSA,
where they were collecting the metadata of every single American,
not a single person was held accountable. So since the
bureaucracy is never held accountable, it deems that it could
(37:32):
do it at once. And they've kind of labeled themselves
as the guardians of what they call democracy, where they
get to determine what the threats are and they get
to use it against ordinary Americans.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
That is, honestly, some of the most frightening stuff I've
ever heard in my entire life because the implications of
it are East Germany stuff. If the FBI just can
do whatever, the CIA can do what ever, and there
is nobody who will or can hold them accountable, then
why even have elections.
Speaker 10 (38:07):
Well let's look at it this way, right, So if
we read through the National Strategy, I encourage your audience
to read it. It's only thirty one pages. It says anti
government or anti authority sentiment, it doesn't say anti American sentiment.
So what the document is really about is it's about
protecting the bureaucracy itself and empowering the bureaucracy. So you
could criticize and threaten America all day long, that's fine.
(38:30):
But when you start to question government, well that's anti
government sentiment. When you question government policies, that's anti authority sentiment.
And if you look at Pillar four the National Strategy,
it says, well, if you adopt a far left agenda,
you know, DEI and schools, radical gun control, well that's
the only way to combat this idea of domestic terrorism.
(38:52):
That's the only way to take on the threat. And
that's why President Trump should immediately rescind this document. Congress
should actually define any type of agency or any type
of operation where tax dollars are going to this document,
because our tax dollars should not be used to silence us.
Our tax dollars should not be used to allow the
government to target us.
Speaker 7 (39:12):
And it's gone on for way too long.
Speaker 10 (39:13):
And if nobody steps in and stops this document, now,
well there's nothing that prevents this administration or the next administration,
or any subsequent administration from taking it even a step
further than the Biden administration did.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
Yeah, Lee, that is sobering. Speaking of sobering, we're going
to switch gears here a little bit, and let's look
at the probable potential next mayor of New York City. Here.
Speaker 8 (39:38):
He is of the neighborhood.
Speaker 9 (39:39):
All right, you are a self described democratic socialist.
Speaker 7 (39:43):
Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?
Speaker 12 (39:47):
I don't think that we should have billionaires because, frankly,
it is so much money in a moment of such inequality,
and ultimately, what we need more of is equality across
our city and across our state and across our And
I look forward to work with everyone, including billionaires, to
make a say that it's fairer for all of them.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
Well, one of the most interesting things I've learned about
this guy's background is he didn't get radicalized in Uganda.
He got radicalized in an American university system that has
been infiltrated by communists, domestic and foreign, frankly, and it's
frightening that these people now are a breath away from power.
Speaker 10 (40:27):
It is, and I think it ties into what we
were just talking about. Imagine someone like him getting into
the lovers of power where he deems wealthy people, people
that worked hard, were successful, earned a living as potential
domestic terrorists because they made too much money. And it
is frightening what our university system is doing. Just a
couple of days ago, Mungdannie came out and talked about
government run grocery stores. Now, any education system that is
(40:49):
worth a dive would teach when it comes to communism
that they had these government run grocery stores in the
Soviet Union and it didn't really work out too well.
Speaker 7 (40:57):
For the Soviets.
Speaker 10 (40:58):
They had to go wheelbarrows of Russian rubles to get
a loaf of bread, and store shelves were empty. Yet
you look at it, they're elevating him, hoping that he
is the next mayor.
Speaker 7 (41:09):
And if you look at his.
Speaker 10 (41:10):
Supporters, because I think that's critical, well, his supporters are
the wealthy, educated elite, the ones that went through the
same university system that he did and got indoctrinated with
this belief of a socialist utopia that Carl Mark states
is the very first phase of communism.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
Good, professor, you're involved in the university system. How involved
is China.
Speaker 10 (41:38):
Well, at Campus Performed, we put out a report where
collegists and universities throughout the entire country are receiving billions
upon billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, and
it becomes a national security issue because these countries give
that money to buy influence. They don't just give that
money because they want to. They believe in the American
(41:59):
institutions system. They give the money to buy influence so that,
you know, maybe they'll get better treatment when they're on
college campuses. They'll accept more foreign students. That one third
of college tuition is now covered by foreign students. The
universities have become reliant on this money, and I think
it's a very dangerous thing. I mean, look, at what
(42:21):
happened just a few weeks ago. You have Chinese student
coming in on a student visa trying to smuggle a
bioterror agent into the United States.
Speaker 7 (42:30):
That should be unacceptable.
Speaker 10 (42:31):
Now what gave that person the idea that they should
be able to do this.
Speaker 7 (42:35):
Well, it's because of the influence that China has. But
it's not just China.
Speaker 10 (42:38):
We see Qatar giving tons of money Saudi Arabia. This
has become a real problem, and this is something that
Congress should immediately investigate. Is how reliant on these universities
on foreign funds and what have they done for these
foreign countries?
Speaker 1 (42:57):
They did something, Professor, as always, thank you, com back.
All right, lighten the mood next. All right, it is
time to lighten the mood. And I guess maybe I'm
just in a good mood today because I opened up
(43:19):
the show talking about wonderful things things you have done.
Let's talk about something else you have done. You see,
the month of June is over. It's July first, and
June has been assaulted and made into this degenerate pride
month in the United States of America. But I want
you to look at something. I want you to look
at New York City's Pride. I want you to look
(43:41):
at this. Do you see that, the drop in corporate sponsorship.
I want you to look at that headline. Burn it
into your head. Do you know why? And by the way,
New York City wasn't alone. They're just the ones we isolated.
San Francisco went through the same thing. This happened in
Pride parade after Pride parade across the United States of America.
(44:04):
Burn that into your head because you did that. Donald
Trump didn't do that, the GOP House, the GOP Senate,
your governor, I don't care. Nobody did that. But you.
You did that because you finally started putting your money
where your morals are. You finally started making corporate America
(44:25):
afraid of you. For years, in years and years, corporate
America was only afraid of one side, the degenerate demons.
When they would sit down in a boardroom and think
about how many trainees should we sponsor this month. They
never had the tiniest bit of fear of you, that
you would take your money elsewhere, because we always had
this pathetic well we don't boycott, that's not who we are,
(44:48):
this pathetic attitude. Instead, we realized we have to make
these people take us in our values into account, and
we started to punish corporate America for their and now
they are backing away. Let this be a reminder to
you that you cannot live and let live your way
out of communism. You can't laise fare your way out
(45:10):
of it. You have to engage and fight and if
you do, you can win. We can win. You are
the one who turned down the volume on Pride Month.
Be proud of yourself. I'll set them on
The big ugly bill pass the Senate. Now it goes
to the House. We'll talk to Chip Roy about that.
How much of a win was that Supreme Court decision
last week? We will find out the most frightening segment
you've ever seen on this show, plus something to feel
great about. When I'm right now, let's talk about something
(00:28):
wonderful and I am aware that the big story of
the day is the big beautiful bill. We're gonna get
to that with Congressman Chip Roy in about ten minutes.
What passed the Senate, will it pass the House? What's
in it? What's good, what's bad? We are going to
get to all that. I don't want to talk about
that right now because I'm very very proud of you.
(00:49):
I'm proud of me, I'm proud of us. You know,
when you hand out criticism to people, that's fine, but
you better be willing to hand out compliments. If you're
gonna whip, you better hand out sugar cubes. For the
longest time, I have been very, very hard on the
GOP primary voter because you look in Washington, d C.
(01:12):
And you see loser after loser after loser, and the
Senate and the House and I'm not talking about Democrats.
I'm talking about Republicans. Yes, Democrats are vicious, demonic communists
trying to burn down America. But it is Republicans, a
group of Republicans, mostly from red states, that hold the
door open for them and let them do this. And
this is because the GOP primary voter has been lazy, stupid,
(01:37):
and worthless. The GOP primary voter has traditionally not shown
up to even vote in a primary, and when he
does show up, he votes for the incumbent almost every time,
and then goes home and winds about the GOP. It's
driven me crazy. How many times have you heard me
yell about it? But we are getting better, we are
getting smarter, we are getting more involved and changing a party,
(02:03):
a political party in the United States of America. It
is not an overnight process. It's not an event. It's
a process. We've had that talk before. It's going to
take time. It takes years to change a political party,
years to clean out the gunk, to get rid of
this guy in the House and this guy in the
(02:25):
Senate that you try to challenge him in a primary,
but your candidate fails, You don't raise the money you
have too many the voter doesn't show. There's a laundry
list of reasons. But it takes time to change a
party from something bad into something that reflects you and
something that reflects me. But we are doing it. Just
(02:46):
in recent memory. I can think of several losers in
the GOP, like Jeff Flake, who are gone. Now there
are more. Don Bacon of Nebraska, he's a member of
the House. Useless idiot retire. Mitch McConnell retiring. Last time
I saw Mitch McConnell at a public event in Kentucky.
(03:06):
Remember this is a state where he's ruled like a
god king forever. He was booed off the stage. Tom Tillis,
North Carolina retiring. You know this, Tom Tillis.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building
on January the sixth, and that's probably where most of
the friction was. If mister Martin were being put forth
as a US attorney for any district except the district
where January sixth happened, the protest happened, I probably support.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Them the most favored nation coming out of the administration.
All these other things are short sighted, unsustainable measures. Time
for regime change, and I believe that this president should
be given a fair amount of leeway to fact that.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
So.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
Look, I'm a Republican. I support President Trump, and I
believe that most of his policies on national security are right.
I believe his instincts are pretty good. But what I'm
telling you, whoever believes that there is any space for
Vladimir Putin and the future of a stable globe better
(04:07):
go to Ukraine. They better go to Europe. They better
invest the time to understand that this man is a
cancer and the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Yeah, he's retiring. He's retiring because of you. He's retiring
because he can't win reelection. And so of course he
had to make up a lie. They all say the
same lie. They're retiring to be with family. He's not
retiring to be with family. Being a senator is his
entire life. It's all he cares about. He's retiring to
avoid humiliation. Whether he'll spend time with family or not.
(04:41):
I don't know. He's retiring because you, the GOP primary voter,
have let him know he's no longer welcome. We have
got win after win after win in recent years of
losers like Mitt Romney retiring because of you.
Speaker 6 (04:58):
You know, Contrary to a lot of expectation, I enjoy
my work in the Senate a good deal. The last
few years have been particularly productive, as I was able
to help lead and negotiate the Bipartis and Infrastructure Law,
a comprehensive China Strategy process, religious liberty protections, a compromise
gun safety law, the Electoral Account Act reform, and emergency
(05:21):
COVID relief funding. Now we face critical challenges mounding national debt,
climate change, and the ambitious authoritarians of Russia and China.
Neither President Biden nor former President Trump are leading their
party to confront those issues. While I'm not running for reelection,
I'm not retiring from the fight. I'll be your United
(05:45):
States Senator until January of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
And he's gone, Tom till it's gone, Don Bacon gone,
Mitch McConnell gone. Guess who else is about to be gone?
Speaker 7 (06:01):
Hi?
Speaker 4 (06:01):
I'm Texas Senator John Cornyn. The last year has proven
quite a challenge as we've navigated the impact of COVID nineteen.
But with safe and effective vaccines finally being administered, there's
light at the end of the tunnel. Getting vaccinated is
the fastest way that life can return to normal. Under
the effective leadership of Director Ray, the agency has remained
(06:24):
committed to doing things independently and by the book Section
seven oh two of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
I've called this.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
The most important law that most people have never heard of.
It's been called the crown jewel of US intelligence.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
About to be gone. What's the deal with all this?
You me? The GOP primary voter is no longer sitting
at home just complaining and then going down and voting
for the incumbent. The GOP primary voter has gotten up
off the couch and has decided to change his voting habits,
(07:06):
and as such, the GOP is changing into something better
in You deserve the credit for it. Put a smile
on your face. I'm proud of us. We're doing good.
I don't think any of that made you uncomfortable. Maybe
it did, even still, I'm right, I'm very comfortable. But
(07:26):
it's probably because I have a belly full of massive chips.
I'm not gonna lie. I ate half a bag right
before the show started. I can't help it. And look now,
ob now my wife. She can't even yelp me about
the chips because massive chips have three ingredients. No more
seed oil stuff. You want chips that you don't have
to feel guilty about massive chips. And this is me.
(07:50):
When I heard they were healthy, I thought to myself, Oh,
it's gonna be garbage. I did. That's what I normally
think about healthy things. Every time Bob tries to give
me something healthy, it's disgusting. Massive chips are amazing, amazing
to have a little hot sauce on there. My youngest son,
he eats worse than I do, loves them. We fight
(08:11):
over them. He takes bags and hides him in his bedroom.
Get some massive chips and save a pile of money.
You can scan that little thing right there, or go
to massachips dot com, slash Jesse TV. You want to
binge chips without feeling guilty. There you go. We'll be back. Okay.
(08:38):
So I didn't talk much about the big beautiful bill
in the open because I wanted to talk about something wonderful,
and I did. But it is important that we discuss
what exactly passed, what's going to pass, and remember that
there's no such thing as a big bill that is
beautiful from a United States government? This corrupt. It's not
humanly possible. It'd be like asking how much makeup you
(09:00):
have to put on Joy Bay Hard and make her attractive.
It's not humanly possible to do it. But let's find
out what it is. Do we have a bill that anyway,
Chip Roy, great Congressman from the state of Texas, joins us. Now, okay, Chip,
It passed the House, then it went to the Senate
to pass the Senate, and now it's coming back to
gott to pass the House. Before I get what do
we have? What's the process?
Speaker 6 (09:21):
Like?
Speaker 1 (09:21):
I don't understand.
Speaker 8 (09:23):
I don't know, but you need to start a new
meter that shows how much makeup you need to put
on Joy bayhartspace in order for something to be beautiful.
That was fantastic. I'm now fully distracted, completely incapable of
putting out anything intelligent here, all right, Jim so looking
every one of us, you me, I mean all the Conservatives,
(09:44):
I know, people that I work with here. We want
to be with the President to deliver a bill that
will you know, make tax cups permanent, make sure that
more money's in all our pockets, help all the working
class Americans get the border funding needed for ICE to
undo all the damage. All of those things that we
know are important. But remember I set out six months ago,
(10:04):
I got the Freedom Carcass to lead into it and say, guys,
we should do two separate bills. The first bill should
just take care what the President wants to do on
the debt ceiling, take care what the President wants to
do on the border and defense, and move forward quickly
so we can get something done. Well, they wanted to
do a big, beautiful bill, Well here we are, and
I agree with you. Nothing big is ever going to
beautiful in this town. And so what we've got is
(10:26):
a bill that has some good things in it. We
fought for in the House, a couple of things in
the Senate that were actually not bad. Rick Scott, Mike Lee,
Ran Paul and Ron Johnson have been out there fighting
the good fight. But mostly what we have is a traditional,
massive bill that we'll have significant amount of deficit spending,
no matter what the administration says, no matter what my
(10:48):
colleagues in the House and the Senate saying. We've got
objective friends who are economists, budget people who worked for Trump,
who are with us. We want to deliver, but the
MAT's just not there. The deficits in the first five
years are huge. It has significant problems in the bill.
And what they just passed, I mean, I can't even
I can't even say this out loud about getting schuming mad.
(11:11):
They basically gave a big giveaway to the moderates. They
gut it most of our work to repeal and terminate
the Green new scam. I mean, you can't even make
it up. The President said terminated. We terminated like sixty
percent of it in the House. I think they just
gutted it. And now we terminate maybe thirty or forty
percent of it in MAX. And by the way, we're
(11:31):
going to continue to provide medicaid to Ellelle aliens. We're
going to continue to have taxpayer funding go to transgender
surgeries and including kids. We only restrict playing paraanoid funding
for the first year, not for ten years. And there
are problem after problem. They created a new fifty billion
dollars rural Hospital fund. They created a new radiation exposure
fund that they say will only be six billion, but
(11:53):
everybody I talk to it will be two hundred billion. Look,
I don't know how to put it, the swamp is
going to swamp. And if the administration is, and we'll
a lean on everybody as they end this crazy then
why am I on the hook to vote for a
bill just so I can get some tax cuts in border,
which is what I want, But I don't want all
the spending here.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
We are, Okay? Where is it now? Chip? I? Obviously
we're well aware of your feelings on it. I know
it's coming back to the House. Is it going to
pass the House? Am I understanding there's a vote tomorrow?
Please feel free to correct me on that. But is
what it is now? Is it good enough to pass
(12:31):
the House? Did they make it so crappy that even
they it can't pass the House? Where is it now? So?
Speaker 8 (12:38):
We're going to be in the rules committee? In fact,
we're in the rules committee right now. When I finish
the stervew on my water back upstairs the third tour
of the Capital where I'm sitting in the Rules committee
listening to all of the testimony. We'll vote on it
in the Rules committee sometime by probably midnight. I think
it will be on the floor tomorrow. I think there's
a significant number of House Republicans who do not believe
that they can vote with this film. I currently am
(12:59):
one of them. I'm reading the bill. I'm looking at
the bill while we're sitting there. I'm listening to see
what the changes are. I'm always open to make sure
there's something I'm missing that I don't understand. But I
look at the bill and I say, it doesn't increase deficits.
Will we increase? Will we issue more bonds and more
debt as a result of this bill? I think we will.
Does this bill continue to do things we shouldn't do,
(13:22):
like give medicaidior legal aliens? I think it does. Does
this bill terminate the Green new scam? No, it makes
it and waters it down what we did, which I
thought was sort of a bare minimum. So there are
things in it that I just don't think pass muster.
I'm not alone. There are dozens of members of the
House that talk to me about how frustrated they are,
(13:42):
and they're considering voting, though I don't know how many
that will.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Be in the end. Okay, let me attempt to put
a smiling face on something here. What's good in it?
Speaker 8 (13:55):
Well, so, look, I mean everything we've been working on
for six months to try to get some Green new
scam subs, and he's reversed. Yeah, the bill still has
some of them all, but it's so watered down. I'm
not sure we did get serious Medica reforms. We got
work requirements, We got some work requirements for food stamps.
It would enrage you how much we had to water
some of that now, and in the Senate, by the way,
(14:15):
some of those things are in fact net improvements. They'll
tell you that we got like one and a half
trillion dollars of savings, but Jesse, to be clear, that's
reductions and increases, and our deficits are still going to
continue to be roughly two trillion dollars a year for
a decade. So look, there are good things. We worked
really hard to try to get them. The President's team
(14:37):
has worked hard with us.
Speaker 7 (14:39):
You know.
Speaker 8 (14:39):
Look, they're my friends, and I hate being an odds
with them. I love the President and what he's doing.
I want to deliver. But here we sit, and I
didn't come to Washington do increased deficits. I didn't come
to Washington to continue the Green new scam. Why can't
we just repeal it? That's what Democrats do. They get
an office and they do all this stuff. They passed
the Green new Scam under conciliation, they passed to Obamacare.
(15:02):
Of reconciliation. Republicans can't even reverse the bad things Democrats
do much less do something really. Wow, you totally change
the game, guys. So the President is kicking ass, Congress
is up here at dithering, and I'm trying to do
my best. You know, Rugsfeldt said, you go to army,
you go to war with the army. You got, Congress
(15:22):
is what it is. I've compromised.
Speaker 9 (15:24):
I gave.
Speaker 8 (15:25):
I voted for the House, felt to go to the Senate.
I voted for the budget. I voted you know, all
these things, trying to move the field of the ball
down the field. But here we are, and I think
it fails, and I think we need to go back
to the well. Look, the bill doesn't die until we
kill it. This week, we can go back to the
well and go try to fix it. Go to the Senate.
We should amend it, send it back to the Senate
with a House bill or something like it. Say, guys,
(15:47):
try again, that's what we should do.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Chip, Can you help me understand something? And I'm not
asking your name, names it's my job to be a
cher to everybody and make everyone in Washington man, it's
not yours. So a United States senator, I understand the
reluctance of some of these losers to repeal all the
green News scam stuff because their state gets a lot
of that cheddar and that's how they think they get reelected. Okay,
I get that. I disagree, but I get that. But
(16:13):
can you help me understand why red state senators would
insist on medicaid for illegals. There's not a red state
senator in the United States of America that gets elected
by handing out medicaid to illegals. It's such a Democrat priority.
Can you help me understand what the motivation would be there.
Speaker 8 (16:32):
What they do is they listen to hospitals in their
state or their district. In this case, Senators, it's their state,
and those hospitals will come back and say, guys, we've
got all these illegals in our hospital rooms and in
our emergency rooms, and no matter what the crack downe is,
we still have hundreds of thousands of them and we
need that meneral funding in order to deal with the
(16:52):
fact that we're required to have care in the emergency rooms.
And you know what, to some degree they're not wrong
I do is you have to cut off the funding supply.
You have to stop it from the top, and then
the hospitals will then have to come back and say it, guys,
we can't do this, and then that forces more pressure
to change the policies and remove more legal aliens. But
(17:16):
that's what happens, and they and these Republican senators listen
and they go, Okay, I guess we got to do that.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
So freaking frustrated, Jip, thank you so much for coming
by and updating us as always. Thanks for fighting the
good fight, my brother, good luck. I was in good bood,
Remember I started off the show. I was in a
good mood and I'm in a bad boot. I don't
like that. It's frustrating. It's very very frustrating. The GOP
(17:47):
is very very frustrating. But this is why, just like
we just talked about in the opening of the show,
this is why we have to stay engaged. We have
done a lot of cleanup, but we have a lot
more clean up to do. There are a lot of
turds still on the floor. They're red State senators and
their turds, and they smell and we've got to clean
them up and disinfect things. All right, we'll have the
(18:10):
energy to do that because we're all going to be
on male vitality stacks or female vitality stacks from chalk.
Surely you're already on one, right, don't worry. We're talking
natural things, natural herbal supplements. As I've watched the medical
profession violate all my trust over the last few years
and yours, I studied to really seek out natural solutions
(18:33):
for things. So when it comes to things like your
energy level, your focus, we just kind of accept that
those things go down as we get older. But we
don't have to accept that at all. We're just not
getting the things we want, the things we need. I
should say. That's where chalk comes in. You want to
be able to skip that afternoon coffee, that afternoon nap.
Chalk's here for you, natural herbal supplements. Here's what you
(18:57):
need to do. Go to chalk dot slash jessetv subscription.
Get a subscription. After ninety days, if you don't feel better,
cancel it. I want you to. They won't make it hard.
Ninety days, you're about to feel like a new person.
We'll be back all right. Last week we had a big,
(19:27):
a wonderful Supreme Court decision, but idiots like me or confused.
Was it a decision that stopped these ridiculous nationwide injunctions
by these judges? That did it end birthright citizenship? I've
seen headline after headline and they're all saying different things,
and I don't know what's going on. So obviously we
need to bring in the great professor Bill Jacobs and
(19:49):
Cornell University law professor and of course founder of legal insurrection. Okay, Bill,
what was this? Are we done with birthright citizenship?
Speaker 9 (20:00):
No, we're not even close to done. We are done
with a narrow set of relief that the district courts
have been imposing on the country called universal injunctions, where
a single federal district judge binds the entire country and
everybody in it to a ruling, even though those people
are not part of the court case. That's what's plagued
(20:22):
Trump one point zero administration and Trump two point zero
administration because there are over six hundred and fifty federal
judges and Trump needs to win every single time because
any one of those judges could terminate a program of
his or an action of his, whereas the challengers only
need to win once, they only need to win one case.
(20:45):
So this, the Supreme Court said that the federal district
courts do not have the authority, except in rare circumstances,
to issue these universal injunctions. But as you can guess,
there's a big butt about that.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Yeah, that's you know what you got me right away? Bill?
When I heard you say narrow, why don't you go
ahead and just explain what that means.
Speaker 9 (21:09):
Sure, So what the Court said is that, as a
general matter, the federal district courts, which are created by Congress.
Most people don't realize this. The federal district courts are
created by Congress, not the Constitution. The Constitution only creates
the Supreme Court, and therefore the federal district courts can
only do what Congress has given them jurisdiction to do.
(21:32):
Notwithstanding federal judges thinking they are all powerful, in fact,
they are hemmed in by federal legislation. And that federal legislation,
the Supreme Court held, does not permit federal district court
judges to issue these broadened junctions, except they can fashion
those if it's absolutely necessary to afford somebody what they
(21:56):
called complete relief, meaning if there's no other alternative to it,
or they could use other procedural mechanisms, which is what
I expect to see and we're already seeing, which is
class actions. So class action lawsuits are lawsuits brought on
behalf of a group of people by a representative plaintiff,
(22:16):
and they can bind hundreds of thousands or millions of
plaintiffs who have a very common issue, and they can
bind the entire class of people. So there is a
big loophole. This is a big deal, the fact that
the judges now have to think of alternative ways of
going there. But nobody should think that this ends it.
(22:37):
And in fact, the case that was before the Supreme
Court about the birthright Citizenship Executive Order has already been
refiled as a class action. So big win for Trump
will affect a lot of cases against him. But it's
not a perfect remedy. It doesn't shut the door completely.
It shuts it most.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Of the way, Okay, so it's not a silver bullet
that got us all the way through. But I mean,
does this mean we're going to see a fraction as
many of these as we saw before, half as many
handicap it for us.
Speaker 9 (23:13):
Yeah, I think it's going to be half as many.
I think that most of the judges will have to
go through this analysis that the Supreme Court has given.
So it will stop a lot of the abusive injunctions,
but it's not going to stop all of them, and
it will simply make the plaintiffs and the more activist
federal judges more conniving in how they frame things. But
(23:35):
it also should embold in appeals courts that will maybe
put an end to it. So the best I can
say is it's a very positive development. Trump administration was
right to celebrate it. But nobody should think that the
law fare project that the Democrats haven't embarked on to
stymy the administration through dozens and hundreds of lawsuits, that
(24:00):
that's going to stop anytime soon.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
All right, all right, now, let's talk about the ruling itself.
Because somebody who surprised everybody was Amy Coney Barrett. Not
necessarily for how she voted, she can be here or
there with that, but for how she just in the
most professional way possible, just whipped Katanji Brown Jackson. What
do you make of this?
Speaker 9 (24:24):
Yeah, I mean, you know, I've heard it described many
different ways, and I've described it different ways, but you know,
she took KBJ out to the woodshed and beat her
legally creamy sound. I mean, they didn't call her stupid,
they didn't call her incompetent, they didn't call her, you know, ignorant,
(24:44):
but they came pretty close. They called her those things
without using those words. They basically said, we're going to
ignore everything she's saying in her dissenting opinion because it's
contrary to two hundred years of constitutional law and contra
to the Constitution itself. And what Kaitanji Brown Jackson said
(25:05):
was notwithstanding the legalese of the statues. She used the
term legalese, and the majority mocked her for that. Notwithstanding
the legalese, which of course is exactly what judges are
supposed to pay attention to. Notwithstanding the legalese, we should
do what we think is right. And it's a very activist,
very critical legal theory, very social justice warrior approach to things,
(25:31):
which is, if a judge sees a problem she doesn't like,
the judge should solve the problem and should not get
bogged down in all these things like limited jurisdiction. And
in fact, one of the most famous lines, there were
many of them, from the majority decision was that Katanji
Brown Jackson decries the imperial executive, but in fact wants
(25:54):
an imperial judiciary. She wants a judiciary which can do
whatever they want. That's just not the way it's set up.
It's not the constitutional structure, it's not the legislative structure.
It's not the way things have been treated for two
hundred years. And this is really what you see when
you get a total social justice warrior on the court.
You get dispensing with our constitutional traditions and our constitutional
(26:19):
protections and somebody who does whatever they want. And so
it was a really brutal There was just some great
lines in there to quote and mock Kaitanji Brown Jackson.
I keep going to say Jackson Brown because I grew
up listening to Jackson Brown, Katanji Brown Jackson. You know,
it was an embarrassment. But what's important is one it
(26:42):
was an Amy Coney Barrett decision. She's not known as
a hothead on the bench. Okay, if this thing was
written by Alito, you could certainly understand it. But this
was by somebody who's viewed as very polite and very
proper on the court. She wrote it, and six judges
joined it. Remember, any of those judges could have said, hey,
(27:03):
I don't think this is appropriate for the majority decision.
You want to basher, go do it in a concurring opinion,
in your own separate opinion. They all signed onto it.
The six justices signed onto this bashing of Kaitanji Brown Jackson.
And importantly, her dissent was not joined by any other justice,
(27:25):
not even so de Mayor nor Kagan were willing to
put their name on what Brown Jackson had written. That's
how bad it was. And so she's a laughing stock
frankly after this majority decision. And it doesn't matter to her.
I'm sure because she's got life tenures. She'll be there forever.
We've got her for twenty or thirty more years. But
(27:47):
she's not well regarded, and the majority just let the
world know it.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
Bill.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
As an aside, before I ask you about de naturalization.
As a law professor, do you find that the students
in your law school are radicalized when they get there
or radicalized before they get there?
Speaker 9 (28:10):
Well, you know, I teach a course that has nothing
to do with politics or social justice or anything like that.
My students, I think, are pretty straight down the middle,
and I think I'm fortunate I'm at a law school
that is not Columbia Law School, it's not Harvard Law School.
It's not as radicalized. So I don't think the students,
at least my students, become radicalized in law school. But
(28:33):
there are certainly your social justice warriors who arrive that way.
So I would say to it's more a problem of
how they are when they arrive and their world outlook
that they've been taught in high school, maybe even K
through twelve and college. They have a certain world outlook
that I don't necessarily agree with, and that's I think
(28:54):
more of a problem as opposed to what takes place
in the law school turning them into some sort of
radical radicals. So that's my personal observation, but I think
in general, law schools do push students towards becoming more
left leaning.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
Well, let's talk about something near and dear to my heart,
and from what I understand, near and dear to yours. Denaturalization.
This is not something that's been tossed around a lot.
The GOP has been real shy about things like that
and wanting to kind of play nice. But the DOJ
indicates they're gonna start looking at it, explain what it is.
Why where are we going from here?
Speaker 9 (29:35):
Sure? Well, if you have been naturalized as a citizen,
so you're not born here, and you go through the
immigration process and the naturalization process, if at any point
along that line you make material misrepresentations you forget to disclose,
not forget, you don't disclose things, you intentionally don't disclose things,
(29:56):
or you lie on your applications, the government can move
to rescind your naturalization, to strip you of your citizenship.
And I covered at my website about a decade ago
a very famous case involving a Palestinian terrorist named Rasmia Oday,
and she came to the United States. She lied on
(30:17):
her visa application about her terrorist connections, she lied on
her naturalization application about it. She denied having any connections,
but she did, and many years later, I think it
was fifteen years later, the FBI picked up on it
and they filed criminal charges against her to strip her
of her citizenship, and that is what eventually happened. She
(30:41):
lost the first trial, she got a retrial, and right
before the second trial, she consented to leave the country
and she was stripped of her citizenship. So if there
is a person here who lied on their immigration papers
and their naturalization papers, for example, maybe they misrepresented their
family connections, maybe they committed marriage fraud to get become
(31:04):
a citizen. And I don't you know, I'm not talking
about anybody in particular, but there have been allegations against
a congresswoman about that. If it is substantiated, if somebody
lied to get into the United States and get citizenship,
the government absolutely has a mechanism to strip them of that,
(31:26):
and the Department of Justice. Again, I don't know if
they have a particular person in mind, but the Department
of Justice has said they're going to start looking into
that for people who have obtained citizenship and to challenge it.
So it absolutely is a procedure. It has been used
in the past, and it can be used in the president.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
I just want to make sure I'm being crystal clear
with everybody that the professor was not discussing ilhan Omar
who lied and married her brother to get into the country.
He never mentioned that name at all. I just want
to make sure he never mentioned ilhan Omar. Thank you
so much, Professor, I appreciate you. All right, apparently it's
professor day. You know how highly educated I am. But
(32:09):
we're going to talk to a next one. Professor g
joins us next and this trying to think we've been
doing I'm right for a long time. This has the
potential to be the most frightening segment you've ever watched
on the show. Just wait, hang on.
Speaker 10 (32:32):
Domestic terrorism from white supremacist is the most lethal terrorist threat,
and the homeland.
Speaker 8 (32:38):
White supremacist, right wing extremists, and domestic terror is trying
to stoke fear in the hearts of New Yorkers.
Speaker 10 (32:45):
From a terrorism perspective, I think domestic violent extremism is
one of the greatest terrorism related threats that we face.
Speaker 11 (32:53):
The FBI's view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes
from racially or ethnically motivated ellent excreements, specifically those who
advocate it for the superiority of the white race.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
Remember how many conversations we had about what they were
doing there. Remember we've talked about this many times before.
You've never met a white supremacist in your life. I
haven't either, But They were doing that to preemptively justify
sending the forces of government after their political opponents. And
as I've told you many times before, I don't care
(33:29):
what else is going on in any part of the world.
There was nothing in the world more dangerous to you
and to me than our government turning its guns against
us joining me. Now. Nicholas Giordano, community college professor and
higher education fellow at Campus Reform has an incredible piece
up on The Federalist about this very thing. Professor, what
did they do.
Speaker 7 (33:51):
Well?
Speaker 10 (33:51):
The Byan administration issued what was called the National Stround
Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. And this is one of
the more terrifying government documents that exists, because what it
does is it turns ordinary citizens into potential targets as
domestic violent extremists. It says that anyone expressing anti government
sentiment or anti authority sentiment has the proclivity towards domestic terrorism.
(34:15):
Yet they never define what anti government or anti authority
actually means. What they use is examples. And so if
you push back against any of the pandemic responses to
pandemic mandates, well then you have a potential to be
a domestic terrorist. So this document was issued in June
of twenty twenty one, and what do we know, Well,
(34:35):
we know that just a few months later after it
was issued, the government began targeting parents at school board
meetings who were complaining about their children wearing masks in
school or what they were learning about in the curriculum,
that it was more based on indoctrination as opposed to education.
They targeted traditional Catholics. We now know that the FBI's
traditional Catholic memo was more widespread than Director Ray led on,
(34:59):
and that it was actually actionable when operational, where they
tried to infiltrate churches because Catholics believe in pro life,
they believe in two genders, and so it goes against
the narrative that the Biden administration wanted to put out.
But it wasn't just limited to the FBI and Department
of Homeland Security. If we look at the Department of
Education Campus Reform, it issued a report where seventy percent
(35:24):
of the university finds towards higher education went to Catholic
and Christian institutions. In fact, the last Secretary of Education
actually stated out loud that he would like to put
Christian universities out of business, particularly Grand Canyon University. So
we see it wasn't to stop domestic terrorism. It wasn't
to make Americans safe. Over what it was. It was
(35:45):
designed to target ordinary Americans that they sent it from
the government narrative, and that's the threat that this document posed.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
Professor, I'm going to ask a question, and it's probably
going to be a lame question. In my mind, it's
the most important thing in the world. Aren't there safeguards
in place in our system to stop, you know, some
dirty communists from taking over the White House and just
sending the FBI after school board moms. It can't be.
(36:16):
It surely can't be as easy as getting on Microsoft
Word and typing up a memo and shipping it off
to Christopher Ray. That that can't be how it works, right.
Speaker 10 (36:26):
Well, that's not the way it's supposed to work. But
that's how the system has morphed throughout the years. As
the bureaucracy has grown, it has strengthened, it's become more powerful,
and I argue that it's almost emerged as a fourth
branch of government that's unencumbered by the Constitution. It doesn't
follow the checks and balances that it's independent from the
legislative branch and the executive branch. In fact, it some
(36:48):
would argue that it has more power than the President,
who's supposed to be the one that actually runs the bureaucracy.
But the bureaucracy has long done what it wants and
there's no accountability within the SYSAM. For example, just on
several occasions in the Biden administration, the FBI illegally accessed
the NSA's repository on Americans, and the courts lambasted the
(37:10):
FBI for doing this, yet nobody was ever held accountable.
The CIA was caught spying on sitting members at the
United States Senate, and nobody was held accountable. When we
look at the prison program that was run through the NSA,
where they were collecting the metadata of every single American,
not a single person was held accountable. So since the
bureaucracy is never held accountable, it deems that it could
(37:32):
do it at once. And they've kind of labeled themselves
as the guardians of what they call democracy, where they
get to determine what the threats are and they get
to use it against ordinary Americans.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
That is, honestly, some of the most frightening stuff I've
ever heard in my entire life because the implications of
it are East Germany stuff. If the FBI just can
do whatever, the CIA can do what ever, and there
is nobody who will or can hold them accountable, then
why even have elections.
Speaker 10 (38:07):
Well let's look at it this way, right, So if
we read through the National Strategy, I encourage your audience
to read it. It's only thirty one pages. It says anti
government or anti authority sentiment, it doesn't say anti American sentiment.
So what the document is really about is it's about
protecting the bureaucracy itself and empowering the bureaucracy. So you
could criticize and threaten America all day long, that's fine.
(38:30):
But when you start to question government, well that's anti
government sentiment. When you question government policies, that's anti authority sentiment.
And if you look at Pillar four the National Strategy,
it says, well, if you adopt a far left agenda,
you know, DEI and schools, radical gun control, well that's
the only way to combat this idea of domestic terrorism.
(38:52):
That's the only way to take on the threat. And
that's why President Trump should immediately rescind this document. Congress
should actually define any type of agency or any type
of operation where tax dollars are going to this document,
because our tax dollars should not be used to silence us.
Our tax dollars should not be used to allow the
government to target us.
Speaker 7 (39:12):
And it's gone on for way too long.
Speaker 10 (39:13):
And if nobody steps in and stops this document, now,
well there's nothing that prevents this administration or the next administration,
or any subsequent administration from taking it even a step
further than the Biden administration did.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
Yeah, Lee, that is sobering. Speaking of sobering, we're going
to switch gears here a little bit, and let's look
at the probable potential next mayor of New York City. Here.
Speaker 8 (39:38):
He is of the neighborhood.
Speaker 9 (39:39):
All right, you are a self described democratic socialist.
Speaker 7 (39:43):
Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?
Speaker 12 (39:47):
I don't think that we should have billionaires because, frankly,
it is so much money in a moment of such inequality,
and ultimately, what we need more of is equality across
our city and across our state and across our And
I look forward to work with everyone, including billionaires, to
make a say that it's fairer for all of them.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
Well, one of the most interesting things I've learned about
this guy's background is he didn't get radicalized in Uganda.
He got radicalized in an American university system that has
been infiltrated by communists, domestic and foreign, frankly, and it's
frightening that these people now are a breath away from power.
Speaker 10 (40:27):
It is, and I think it ties into what we
were just talking about. Imagine someone like him getting into
the lovers of power where he deems wealthy people, people
that worked hard, were successful, earned a living as potential
domestic terrorists because they made too much money. And it
is frightening what our university system is doing. Just a
couple of days ago, Mungdannie came out and talked about
government run grocery stores. Now, any education system that is
(40:49):
worth a dive would teach when it comes to communism
that they had these government run grocery stores in the
Soviet Union and it didn't really work out too well.
Speaker 7 (40:57):
For the Soviets.
Speaker 10 (40:58):
They had to go wheelbarrows of Russian rubles to get
a loaf of bread, and store shelves were empty. Yet
you look at it, they're elevating him, hoping that he
is the next mayor.
Speaker 7 (41:09):
And if you look at his.
Speaker 10 (41:10):
Supporters, because I think that's critical, well, his supporters are
the wealthy, educated elite, the ones that went through the
same university system that he did and got indoctrinated with
this belief of a socialist utopia that Carl Mark states
is the very first phase of communism.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
Good, professor, you're involved in the university system. How involved
is China.
Speaker 10 (41:38):
Well, at Campus Performed, we put out a report where
collegists and universities throughout the entire country are receiving billions
upon billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, and
it becomes a national security issue because these countries give
that money to buy influence. They don't just give that
money because they want to. They believe in the American
(41:59):
institutions system. They give the money to buy influence so that,
you know, maybe they'll get better treatment when they're on
college campuses. They'll accept more foreign students. That one third
of college tuition is now covered by foreign students. The
universities have become reliant on this money, and I think
it's a very dangerous thing. I mean, look, at what
(42:21):
happened just a few weeks ago. You have Chinese student
coming in on a student visa trying to smuggle a
bioterror agent into the United States.
Speaker 7 (42:30):
That should be unacceptable.
Speaker 10 (42:31):
Now what gave that person the idea that they should
be able to do this.
Speaker 7 (42:35):
Well, it's because of the influence that China has. But
it's not just China.
Speaker 10 (42:38):
We see Qatar giving tons of money Saudi Arabia. This
has become a real problem, and this is something that
Congress should immediately investigate. Is how reliant on these universities
on foreign funds and what have they done for these
foreign countries?
Speaker 1 (42:57):
They did something, Professor, as always, thank you, com back.
All right, lighten the mood next. All right, it is
time to lighten the mood. And I guess maybe I'm
just in a good mood today because I opened up
(43:19):
the show talking about wonderful things things you have done.
Let's talk about something else you have done. You see,
the month of June is over. It's July first, and
June has been assaulted and made into this degenerate pride
month in the United States of America. But I want
you to look at something. I want you to look
at New York City's Pride. I want you to look
(43:41):
at this. Do you see that, the drop in corporate sponsorship.
I want you to look at that headline. Burn it
into your head. Do you know why? And by the way,
New York City wasn't alone. They're just the ones we isolated.
San Francisco went through the same thing. This happened in
Pride parade after Pride parade across the United States of America.
(44:04):
Burn that into your head because you did that. Donald
Trump didn't do that, the GOP House, the GOP Senate,
your governor, I don't care. Nobody did that. But you.
You did that because you finally started putting your money
where your morals are. You finally started making corporate America
(44:25):
afraid of you. For years, in years and years, corporate
America was only afraid of one side, the degenerate demons.
When they would sit down in a boardroom and think
about how many trainees should we sponsor this month. They
never had the tiniest bit of fear of you, that
you would take your money elsewhere, because we always had
this pathetic well we don't boycott, that's not who we are,
(44:48):
this pathetic attitude. Instead, we realized we have to make
these people take us in our values into account, and
we started to punish corporate America for their and now
they are backing away. Let this be a reminder to
you that you cannot live and let live your way
out of communism. You can't laise fare your way out
(45:10):
of it. You have to engage and fight and if
you do, you can win. We can win. You are
the one who turned down the volume on Pride Month.
Be proud of yourself. I'll set them on
Host
Jesse Kelly
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.