March 7, 2025 • 46 mins
President Trump is preparing a historic executive order. Jesse Kelly has the details on that and discusses with a panel, but not before he gets into the latest betrayal from the Supreme Court on USAID. Jesse dives into that with Josh Hammer of America on Trial. Plus, a deep dive into some of Trump's healthcare appointees with Dr. Simone Gold.
I'm Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TV | 3-6-25
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):
We are going to discuss the system pushing back against
Donald Trump, the Supreme Court ruling, the Department of Education.
Josh Hammer is going to join us, break down some
legal matters.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
All that and more coming up.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
I'm right, Okay, let's talk about this Supreme Court ruling.
But I'll get to that in a moment. Because now
that everything has to be about World War two, I
thought it would be helpful to maybe bring up a
(00:34):
little World War two fact most people do not know,
So here's one for you. Why did Japan surrender? Most
people will say two atomic bombs. We dropped two bombs
on them. Japan surrendered, and of course that moved Japan
closer to surrender. But that actually is not the main
(00:54):
reason Japan surrendered. If you read anything from back in
the day, the main reason Japan surrendered was the people
of Japan were getting ready to revolt against their own government.
They were getting ready to rebel. Now, think about that
for a moment. In Japan, very different system from ours.
Back then, the emperor was a deity thought to be
(01:18):
a god, a god who walked the earth, and yet
the people and the people were taught to worship that god.
And yet the people were getting ready to rebel, revolt
against the god who ruled over them.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
What's that lesson have to do with today? Oh?
Speaker 1 (01:38):
The people, No matter what form of government you are in,
the people of any nation, under a monarchy or republic
of whatever it may be, will not have their will stymied.
Without end, you continue to deny and ignore the will
of the people, the people will rise up. Doesn't mean
(02:01):
they're going to rise up in six months or a year,
or even ten years. I'm not putting a time frame
on it. You continue to deny people what they want
for long enough, the people will rise up. I'm actually
gonna use somebody who I don't know, and always a Democrat.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Stephen A.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
Smith actually went on the View because those hags in
the View, we're talking about Donald Trump and Donald Trump's
presidency and Hawaii and what he doesn't have a mandate
And Steven A. Smith, I thought, laid it out pretty well.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Here was and what kind of mandate is this?
Speaker 4 (02:35):
Really?
Speaker 5 (02:36):
Well, it is a mandate, and I'm gonna explain why.
And I don't mind the question. But let me be
very clear. I'm no supporter of Trump. I'm a support
of truth in the facts. And here's the facts. The
man won every swing state. He increased in terms of
his vote to turn out in his favor. From the
standpoint of blacks, Latinos, and young voters, he increased his
numbers in that regard. From twenty twenty, eighty nine percent
(02:59):
of the counties shifted to the right. That's a mandate.
We can sit up there and play around all we
want to. In twenty twenty, they didn't. Trump didn't win
the popular vote. He didn't win the electoral college vote.
A matter of fact, the Republicans hadn't won the popular vote,
if I remember Cork two thousand and four.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
But they did this year.
Speaker 5 (03:19):
So twenty years after they last won the popular vote,
they wanted the popular vote, they won the electoral college vote.
The man won every swing state, and on top of
it all, eighty nine percent of the counties shift against
I don't understand how people can look at that and say,
there's no mandate.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
There's a man.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Datesn't think about that for a moment, because this is
going to be about the Supreme Court and the system itself.
Eighty nine percent of the counties in the United States
of America. Do you know how many counties there are
in the United States of America, and eighty nine percent
of them, the people in that county, they walked into
(03:57):
the voting booth after four years of communist rule under
Joe Biden, and they said, enough, this madness has to stop.
I am voting. The opposite way, eighty nine percent walked
in and said, I have had enough. I am voting
for whatever this isn't. I am voting for change. Now,
(04:20):
let's talk about the Trump presidency, Supreme Court, things like that,
Donald Trump, Elon Musk. They're doing a lot of things.
It's too much to keep up with, as you know.
Every single night here we're chasing down the latest thing
they do. But the USAID stuff USAID, depending on how
you want to say it. The exposure of naked corruption
and waste inside of the government, you know it all.
(04:41):
Trump laid it all out during his speech the other night.
You knew it already beforehand. We're sending money to every
single country on Earth for gage randy stuff, you name it, billions, trillions.
They're just shelling out money open naked corruption and the
spreading of communism, culture, Marxism worldwide.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
With your money worldwide.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Most Americans, you already knew, but most Americans are waking
up and finding out. Wait, I was already mad about
government corruption, but now I find out what I'm We're
figuring out how to tran him mice with my money.
Americans are outraged, and this exposure of this stuff is.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
The exact reason.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Eighty nine percent of the people went to the polls
and said this has got to stop.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
I want this to stop. That's what they said, which
brings us to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Supreme Court courtesy of John Robertson, of course, that trader
is hagged.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Amy Cony Barrett.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Decided that a judge, a lower court judge, was allowed
to stop Trump from stopping this money. Trump said, no, no, no,
this money is not going to be spent on this.
This is ridiculous. Stop stop, stop, We're not doing all this.
Some communist judge jumps in, some activist judge put in
there by, of course, the Democrats said no, no, no, no,
(05:59):
you have to continue to fund communism worldwide, which is
a ridiculous overstep of any judges authority and the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
It was thought they were going to.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Step in and say, okay, we have to get we
have to get the courts under control, no more of this.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
But that's not what they did.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
The Supreme Court stepped in and said no, no, no,
these lower judges, they are.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
More powerful than the president.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Now this isn't about this case specifically this case, I'm
just using it as an example. But I will say this.
Let me preface it by saying, I hate political violence.
You know that, if you watch the show for long enough,
you understand that I civil wars and domestic political violence
(06:47):
and stuff. It's the thing I fear the most. To
be honest with you, I despise it. It's families hurt,
it's our cities, our towns that you don't ever want
to live in a world.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Where there's domestic political violence.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
I don't ever want to live in a will where
there's domestic violence all over the place. I don't want
to and I didn't fear of it. And that's why
I've encouraged everybody to be as aggressive and active politically
now so we never get to a place where we
need that. But if the system, if the system is
(07:21):
able to deny the will of the voter for the
four years of Donald Trump's presidency, if they are successful
and stopping him from doing the reforms. They voted for him.
They voted for these reforms. They wanted the corruption to stop,
They wanted the evil to stop. If the system is
(07:41):
able to stop them, it's not about stopping Trump. If
the system is able to look at the voter and
say what you want, No, at the end of Donald
Trump's presidency, we will be closer to political violence in
this country than we ever have at any point since
the Civil War in this country. That is a fact,
because the American people will understandably take that as your
(08:04):
vote doesn't matter, vote in whoever you want. We still
rule over you, and we won't let you make any changes.
If you tell people in any country, under any system
of government, you tell people that you won't allow them
to make changes at the ballot box, they will make
changes by other means, if you will, just think it's
(08:27):
helpful to remember that. Now, let's move on. Talk about
a couple of things that happened today. This Department of
Education stuff. It was, of course reported Wall Street Journal
that Donald Trump planned on eliminating the Department of Education.
He's been talking about this forever.
Speaker 6 (08:42):
The Department of Education is a big conjobt to Linda
I hope you do a great job and put yourself
out of a job. I want her to put herself
out of a education department. So we're ranked number forty
out of forty schools. Right, we're ranked number one in
costs for pupils, so we spend more for pupil than
any other country in the world, and we're ranked at
(09:04):
the bottom of the list. We're ranked very badly. And
what I want to do is let the States run schools.
I believe strongly in school choice, but in addition to that,
I want the States to run schools, and I want
Linda to put herself out of a job.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
He's dead right on that, and good for Donald Trump. Now,
Caroline Levitt came out earlier today and said, no, no, no,
Donald Trump is not eliminating the Department of Education. Why
though not because he doesn't want to. He does want to,
because you can't do that by executive order. Linda McMahon,
the head of the DOE, can't even do that.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
She doesn't have the ability to do that.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
This is one of those things that must be done
by Congress itself. We continue to ask Trump to do
things Congress must do. Well, why isn't Congress doing those
things because we sit at home during primary elections and
keep sending the same rhino losers back to DC who
will never.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Do it now.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
All that aside education Speaking of the system, as we've said,
there are two central pillars that hold up American communism.
The first is when we already touched on their ability
to take your money and fund their revolution with it,
they've figured out a way to worm their way through
every bit of the government and send your money to
(10:20):
fund their revolution. The second pillar is their ability to
educate your children with freaks like this. Hi.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
For those of you who don't know me, I'm a
high school math teacher, and I have a pride flag
in my classroom. My job is to teach students' math.
But it's significantly more than just that. Some of the
students that I teach might not have liked their previous
math teachers, might not know how to learn math, may
have never even passed a math class before. So so
(10:48):
much of my job is building an atmosphere in a
persona that the students feel comfortable learning from me. Because
with everyone, especially high school students, learning is scary, Failure
is tough, and failure is required.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
To learn.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I'm asking my students to be vulnerable with their failures,
and in order for them to be vulnerable, they have
to feel safe. The Pride flag is one of the
many ways that I show my kids, regardless of who
they are, that you are safe in my class, that
no matter who you are, who you love, where you
come from, you're welcome here. So yeah, I think that
(11:26):
makes sense.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Handing our children over to the communists to be destroyed
by things like that is a big reason why we
are where we are as a country. We have a
mountain to climb, many many mountains to climb. Destroying the
Department of Education is just one of many. But this
is why I tell you we can't just show up
(11:54):
for elections when Donald Trump is on the ballot. We
can't dust off that maga hat once every four years
and save a country. It doesn't work that way. We
have a thousand battles we still must fight and must win.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
All that may have made.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
You uncomfortable, but I am right now. We have a
huge show for you. We'll talk a bit more about
this in just the moment. Before we do that, let
me talk to you about my watch. Wasson watch. I
love it see Wasson is well, they're near to my heart.
To be honest with you, I fell in love with
(12:28):
Wasson the company actually before I even got a watch
on my wrist, because I can't find another watch company
out there that is willing to speak out on behalf
of things like unborn babies. What kind of watch company
takes part in culture wars on our behalf? Oh, I
know all the rest of them have their pride flags up,
but why would they do that? Because Paul is a marine.
(12:50):
Because they believe that what they do is more than
just watches, high quality watches.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
They have a.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Calling before God to defend this country, defend the unborn,
to speak out on behalf of what is good.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
How cool is that.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
For a watch company, and the watches are obviously extremely nice.
You wont ten percent off of Wasson Watch. It's your
next gift, putting your money where your morals are. Wassonwatch
dot com code Jesse gets you ten percent off.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
We'll be back.
Speaker 7 (13:27):
The bottom line is because it's not working. Department of
Education was set up in nineteen eighty and since that
time we have spent almost a trillion dollars and we
have watched our performance scores continue to go down. I
do believe that it is a responsibility to make sure
that our children do have equal access to excellent education.
(13:50):
I think that that is best handled at the state level,
closest to the states, working with state administrators, teachers, parents
who should have input into their curriculum.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
It's wild, how just common sense. All this stuff sounds
stuff that I would assume virtually every parent would support.
Right joining me now, Corey DeAngelis senior fellow with the
American Culture Project in the Great Ryan Walters, Oklahoma States
Superintendent Corey that message that's not even a partisan message,
or at least it shouldn't be, right. Isn't that something
(14:24):
any parent in schools would sign up for?
Speaker 8 (14:27):
Exactly?
Speaker 9 (14:28):
And she's talking about the proposal in Congress right now
to send education back to the states. Send that money
block granted using the Treasury Department back to the states.
You have more local control, because the Department of Education
is an unconstitutional waste of time and money. They have
about four thousand useless bureaucrats in DC wasting your hard
earned taxpayer dollars on themselves, not on your education. So
(14:52):
we would have more local control if we send this
back to the States, and I hope she gets in
there and body slams this department once and for all.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Ryan, most of us don't need any help hating the
Department of Education, obviously, but you are somebody who actually
knows how they work. Being us, how you're the superintendent
in Oklahoma, How does it work? How does the deal
we make your life harder or easier?
Speaker 2 (15:16):
What's it look like?
Speaker 10 (15:19):
Yeah, let me give you a few examples. You know,
one of the things that the Biden administration did very
quickly was they started sending out memos that all their
grants are going to have DEI in them, so that
when you're teaching a kid math or you're talking about
how to understand science, you got us. Now tell them
there's twenty seven genders. You got to be all inclusive,
you use inclusive language, pronouns, all that nonsense. Then, you know,
right when all the conservatives and parents were going, hey,
(15:40):
this is going off the rails, don't forget that. In
the middle of last summer, the Biden administration came out
and said, if you don't allow boys in the girls'
bathrooms and boys and girls sports, we're taking every bit
of federal funding from you, and we will sue you
for using the incorrect pronouns, so us that the federal
government will come in sue teachers, take them on the
classroom for using the wrong gender pronouns. This is the
(16:02):
absolute nonsense has been pushed by the federal Department of Education. Again,
while you are a one hundred percent wreck, it is
common sense. You are correct, Jesse. The problem is is
they do not want to give up power because they
want to control and indoctrinate your kids. And they know
that President Trump doing away with this agency greatly diminishes
their power.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Corey, sending the sending the money back to the States
and eliminating the Department of Education is something we all
cheer for, but it doesn't look like it's going to
be as easy as an executive order, right, what does
this look like?
Speaker 9 (16:37):
That's try and we have limited powers in the executive
branch in America, for better for worse. In this case
is a little bit for worse because he's trying to
reduce government involvement in our lives. Should be a little
bit easier for him to do that, but it does
require a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate, which
is a sixty vote three fifths majority. We only have
fifty three Republicans in the Senate right now, so I
(17:00):
don't see seven Democrats coming along. But because they're a
wholly owned subsidiary the teachers unions, who get ninety nine
percent of the contributions from the teachers unions, goes to
the Democrat Party. But we did have Randy Weingarten actually
on MSNBC recently admitting herself that she believes that education
should not be controlled by the federal government, that should
(17:22):
be controlled by the states. She basically made a case
to abolish the department, and she also said that her
members quote unquote don't really care all that much about
whether there's a federal Department of Education. They just really
want the money. Well, if you look at what the
bill does, it sends that money back to the states.
We'd have more money for education than we had before
if you're not wasting as much of it on the bureaucracy.
(17:44):
And so, okay, Randy, let's call her bluff and maybe
she'll lobby the Democrats to vote for the bill to
return education to the states. I don't see her doing
that because she has Trump derangement syndrome, and so do
all the Democrats in Congress, and because Trump is supporting it,
they're going to act like they have to be again.
But it is a fantastic idea to It's not like
the money's evaporating, which is what's happening right now.
Speaker 8 (18:06):
It would go back to the states.
Speaker 9 (18:08):
Any useful entities like the special needs programs that would
move under the Department of Health and Human Services, things
like civil rights protections that moves under the Department of Justice.
So this isn't as as this isn't as crazy of
an idea as what the Democrats are trying to make
it out to be. It's not as transformative, but it
(18:28):
would be beneficial for the individual kids in those states
if we had more local control.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Ryan, everybody knows the numbers, and they're sad numbers about
what's happened to our education system.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Trump talks about them all the time.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Fortieth this fortieth that how did that happen in a
country where we do have so many wonderful teachers, I know,
so many of them, in a country with this much money.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
We have the money for the.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Textbooks, we have the resources, we have resources people around
the world would kill for.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
And yet we're.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Graduating some of the dumbest, freaking people in the world.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
How did this happen? You know?
Speaker 10 (19:05):
And I think we lay a lot of this at
the feet of the Federal Department of Education. When you
look at its creation under Jimmy Carter. You know, what
had American education been like before then?
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Right?
Speaker 10 (19:14):
So, we had become the greatest country in the history
of the world. We had some of the greatest minds,
greatest inventors in world history that came from America. But
in the nineteen seventy nenties, we create a federal Department
of Education. By the way, that was an ask from
the Teacher's Union National Teachers Union lobbying Jimmy Carter for it.
He puts it in place. And what's happened since? Every
academic test score has gone the wrong direction? And then
(19:36):
also look at society overall, Jesse. We have teenage suicide
record high, teenage drug use record high. Everything has gotten
worse as we've allowed federal bureaucrats to manipulate education and
turn it into focusing on a doctrination rather than academic performance,
rather than making sure that kids are utilizing their God
given talents and not allowing parents to play that lead
(19:58):
role in developing their chill. I mean, think about the
absurdity of this. So if you would have told folks
back during the founding era of America that bureaucrats in
DC would dictate the curriculum inside a one room schoolhouse
at the time with their local teacher, they would have
thought that was absurd. Think about the thought process here
of where we've come from as a country that believed
in individual capability, individual capacity to one that believes in
(20:22):
a bureaucrat in DC literally should be telling a teacher
in your local schoolhouse how to teach their class and
telling parents you have no business in your kids classroom
with your kids education. We have really reached a crescendo
here of absolute absurdity, and thank god for President Trump
to put an end to this.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Gentlemen, thank you both. I'm back soon, please, thank you.
All Right, we have so much more to get to
before we do that. Let's let's talk about sleeping. Let's
talk about waking, actually, because that's really how you know
you had a good night's sleep. You don't know at midnight,
(21:02):
you know in the morning, when those eyes flutter open,
and I know that finding taking something to sleep, finding
something that will help you sleep is easy. Go take
cold medication and help you sleep. How do you get
a feel and you wake up you feel horrible. That's
what the difference is with dream powder from being when
you wake up you feel great instead of feeling like
(21:26):
like you still medicated or something like that, because it's
not medication, it's natural stuff. It's a cup of hot chocolate,
it's got melatonin and things like that in it, and
you just kind of slowly drift off to sleep, and
you sleep through the night. You're got tossing and turning,
getting up three times, and then when you wake up
you just feel ready to go. I want to feel
like that every single day. Shopbeam dot com, slash Jesse
(21:51):
Kelly gets you up to forty percent off.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
We'll be back.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Well, Supreme Court screwed us again, shocker. They tend to
do that from time to time. And as I explained
in the opening, courts, no courts, whatever the reason is,
if the system is able to stop the will of
the voter, not Trump's will, the will of the voter,
then we are on a very dark path in this country.
And I need somebody to make sense of this Supreme
(22:25):
Court thing for me. So there's only one place to turn,
like I always do, my friend Josh Hammer, host of
America on Trial, which I highly recommend you download. Josh, Okay, buddy,
help me understand Pow. The lower courts they decided some
vicious little comedy judge that Trump had to spend this
and had to spend that, which of course was ridiculous.
(22:46):
We all anticipated the Supreme Court would say, get yourself
in check, lower court, but they.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Didn't say that. Josh, tell me what's going on? All right?
Speaker 11 (22:54):
So first of all, Jesse, you're totally right that this
Lower Court judge, Amir Ali in Washington, DC is a
left wing activist.
Speaker 8 (23:02):
Left wing activist hack.
Speaker 11 (23:03):
I mean, this is a guy who was literally as
partisan a left wing litigator as it gets as recently
as six months ago. He was a very late Biden
term judicial nominee, someone who has been pretty public about
his aspirations to undermined the legitimacy of the nefarious John
Roberts conservative Supreme Court there. So, you know, the fact
is kind of psychologically that this judge is speaking the
(23:26):
way that he has about the United States Supreme Court,
at least in his pre judicial litigator life, which again
was just like six months ago. I mean, the fact
that the Chief Justice ruled the way he did in
this case, I just find completely remarkable because John Roberts
over and over again, Jesse going back for literally decades,
back to his first confirmation to the Court, I guess.
Speaker 8 (23:45):
Twenty years ago.
Speaker 11 (23:46):
Now, you know, the one thing that he cares about,
for better or for worse, is the perceived legitimacy of
the United States Supreme courts. Where you have a lower
court judge, amir Ale in this case, who is as
explicit as he is about trying to undermine the legitimacy,
it seems to me like the obvious thing to do
would be to swat him down and put him in
his place.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
There.
Speaker 11 (24:03):
After all, the United Supreme Court has the clenary absolute
power to stay any lower court ruling in the judiciary
that it wants to there But in this particular case,
John Roberts, nam Me Cony, Barrett, what they're basically saying
Jesse here is they're saying that because this was self
styled as a tro a temporary restraining order, that therefore
(24:24):
it is not necessarily ripe for their review. At that time,
they're basically waiting for a formal injunction, one of these
so called nationwide injunctions there, so they're basically trying to
kind of get out on a procedural leg But that's
not really how it works, because even though you're calling
this thing a tro there, when you continue to extend
the so called temporary restraining order, at some point, Jesse,
(24:46):
it ceases to be temporary at pot at some point
it ceases to be an injunction. You don't have to
be a lawyer to figure this out. You can just
have some basic common sense there. That's basically in part
what sam Alito says in his very livid and righteously
indignant descent, is it generally good rule of thumb when
it comes to Scotus watching Jesse. When you really take
off sam Alito, you're probably wrong because sam Alito gets
(25:08):
righteously indignant when he is correct, and he was correct
in this case there. So it's a major setback. It's
deeply unfortunate. But they still could do the right thing
when the appeal gets to them on the merits because again,
this was kind of a procedural, temporary restraining war type
thing there. Hopefully that day comes though sooner rather than later.
That's the big question at this.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
Point, Josh, what's wrong with Amy Cony Barrett? And I
could ask the same question about Kavanaugh. Yes, I know
Kavanaugh happen to be on the right side of this one.
But our judges in general, I mean John Roberts, We've
all just basically been given up on John Roberts at
this point in time.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
But that was our guy. Their people never do this.
Their people never do this to them.
Speaker 1 (25:45):
They are reliably leftists every single time. Our people around well,
I'm not really sure about the whole thing.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
How do we get how do we get these people?
Speaker 11 (25:54):
Ammy Cony Barrett has been a tremendous disappointment. I mean
we should not mince words there. She's been a tremendous disappointment.
She was she was on the wrong side of the
Fisher case, the January sixth case. She joined an absolutely
abominable dissenting opinion. There By the way in that case,
the Fisher case, she was on the wrong side. Katanji
Brown Jackson happened to be on the correct side the
Katanji Brown Jackson the DEI Justice was literally, it was literally,
(26:17):
it was literally picked because she is a black woman.
She actually took the correct statutory interpretation stands in the
Fisher case, the January sixth j sixer case. There in
a way that Ammy Cony Barrett's not the mind just
totally reels at this stuff.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
There.
Speaker 11 (26:29):
Ammiy Coney Barrett actually was on the wrong side of
another case at the Supreme Corps just last week. It
was an EPA case out of out of San Francisco, California.
She sided with the liberals there. I don't really know
exactly what is what her problem is. I mean, I
will say this, Amy Coney Barrett did not have much
of a track record. If you go back there, she
was an academic. She was a constitutional law professor in
(26:49):
Notre Dame for about a decade decad and a half.
And if I'm being very very candid and bluntier, she
was not even a particularly prolific law professor. If you
go back and actually look at the at the scholarship
that she published, it was kind of few and far between.
She was not a particularly prolific writer, and that which
she published was not exactly kind of blazing stuff. It
was pretty run of the Mill Scholarship. Amy Cony Barrett
(27:11):
also barely served on the Seventh Circuit. She was only
on the Seventh Circuit Court Appeals for a year and
a half, two years before she was elevated to the
Supreme Court. Here's my take on amy Cony Barrett above all, Jesse,
here's what happened here. I think you'll probably recall this.
Back when she was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Bear,
there was that infamous viral clip with Dianne Feinstein, the
Late Center from California, saying the dogma lives loudly within you,
(27:33):
which was an abhorrum thing to say, wreaking of anti
Catholic bigotry, anti religious sentiment in general there. But because
Dianne Feinstein chose to say that to this clearly religiously
Catholic judge at that point there, Amy Cony Barrett became
a folk hero for people on the right. And I
think we basically let this viral moment then guide us
after Ginsburg passed away two years later in twenty twenty,
(27:55):
we basically let Diane Feinstein pick our Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 8 (27:58):
Is essentially what I'm saying there.
Speaker 11 (28:00):
Because of this stupid viral exchange back from her Seventh
Circuit confirmation hearing about how the dog mall lives loudly
within you. But if we had done the homework and
done the research there, we would have seen that she's
kind of a middling academic back in Notre Dame there
who had an okay track record on the Seventh Circuit.
Nothing particularly exemplary there. Look, she's still young in her career. Okay,
(28:20):
if we're being a little fair, I guess she's been
there for about four and a half years. I mean
it's not that young, but I mean things could change.
I'm not going to say I'm optimistic because I'm not there,
but you're right the right to The Republican Party has
a massive, massive problem on its hands here when it
comes to picking justice in a way that the left
simply does not have. It's a topic that I've written
a lot about over the USSE. I'm very passionate about
(28:41):
this there. The number one thing we have to do
is just do the reading. I mean, actually do the homework.
Make sure we have a clear, discernible track record. We
have to know exactly what we're going to get when
it comes to these judicial nominees. Another big thing that
I'm passionate about. They need to convince us that they
are eager and willing to aggressively change course at the
night at the US Supreme Court. So there are various
(29:03):
procedural points along Scotti's procedure that you can basically choose
to be timid. So, for instance, you can you can
choose not to vote to grant sert and to hear
a case. You can choose to dismiss a case on
Article three standing grounds. You can choose to punt on
a case because of starry decisive precedents. Any Cody Barrett,
by the way, does all three of those things there.
But I want to see a judge who's gonna grant
(29:24):
CRT in the hard cases, who's gonna over term those
flawed precedents, starry a decison Alex sam who's not gonna
find some stupid Article three standing escape hatch kind of
like what they did in the Murphy versus Missouri case,
the big Tech case last summer, where Barrett and Kavanaugh
decided to go out on this stupid standing gargment there.
So that's what I'm looking for. I'm hoping to see
better results this time around. Neil Gors's. For what it's worth,
(29:46):
he's a little bit better than Cavin on Amm Quinnen Barrett.
He's still not amazing, but he's better than those two there.
But we need more Clarence Thomas's and more Sam Alito's,
not Ammy Coney Barrett's.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
Gosh, we do.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Why can't we just clone Clarence Thomas a couple of times? Gosh,
that would be wonderful. Okay, Josh, let's shift gears from
all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
The Epstein stuff.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Has people up in arms every single day, and I
understand why they're up in arms. I want all the
criminals to be brought to justice as well. But I
also I've explained to my audience many times, there are
legal concerns here that that that make it not quite
as simple as just throwing something onto Twitter. Right, just
because somebody flew on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet doesn't make
(30:26):
them some kind of child trafficking monster.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
So explain what you think is going on with.
Speaker 11 (30:31):
All this, Right, So, there's a lot and that that
cannot necessarily be easily redacted. I mean, there are there
are genuine privacy concerns when it comes to the kind
people that you described there, but more more, more generally speaking, there,
you know, if you were, if you were a witness,
if you want, if you if you decide to turn
state evidence there, and you and you took some sort
of amun needs yell whereby you had your privacy shielded
(30:53):
and protection for cooperating with federal or in this case,
state prosecutors in Palm Beach County, Florida. There's all sorts
of re is why it's not just as easy as
kind of snapping her fingers and flipping a switch and
getting all the names out there there.
Speaker 8 (31:06):
Jesse.
Speaker 11 (31:06):
My candid take on what happened here is I think
that Donald Trump probably over promised and he set himself
up for under delivering there.
Speaker 8 (31:14):
He talked a big game.
Speaker 11 (31:15):
About this on the campaign trail there, but there's frankly,
there's not a whole lot of goods at this point
that can be divulged to the public in unredacted fashion there.
So we kind of put pam Bondi in cash battel
in a potentially difficult place.
Speaker 8 (31:27):
Again, We'll see what happens.
Speaker 11 (31:28):
I mean, maybe some files can actually still do adaptant
see the light of day there, But I'm not sure
exactly how much wiggle room Pam Bondi and Cash Ptel
actually have at this point.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
Josh, I can't let you go without asking about your book,
Israel and Civilization.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
Of course, it's coming out soon. Do you think you have.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
A snowballs chance in hell of surpassing the Anti Communist Manifesto,
one of the greatest novels ever.
Speaker 11 (31:53):
Written, Jesse, I would be honored to be even in
the same category, my friends, as the Anti Communist Manifesto.
Speaker 8 (32:00):
There, you know, you know, I mean, I.
Speaker 11 (32:02):
Don't think the New York Times bestseller lists and necessarily
looking at people like Jesse Kelly or Josh Hammer and
salivating and putting them on the best at list. I
hope I'm wrong about that, by the way, there obviously,
but look, I mean, I mean, we're generally Jesse, I'm
very excited about this book. It comes out in March eighteenth.
To make sure to pre order if you have not
already done so. Of course, Israel and Civilization the Fate
of the Jewish Nation, the descine in the West, calling,
(32:22):
ultimately Jesse for a Jewish Christian nationalist biblical alliance to
defeat the forces of wokeism. Islamism and global neoliberalism a
rather timely argument.
Speaker 8 (32:30):
If I don't say so myself, I think it.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
My friend.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
I'm sure it will do quite well. Israel in Civilization.
Go order Josh's book. You here all smarty, is Josh
my brother?
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Thank you? Appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
All right, It'll probably outsell mine. I'm mad about that.
I'm not mad about Pure Talk though. You See, I
may not have any money coming in from book sales,
but I pay half of what I used to pay
it for my cell phone. So that's something. See, we
had Team Mobile, four lines, me the boys. We paid
a lot.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
It was a lot. I was always just kind of
floored by it.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
I think it was something like two hundred and forty
eight dollars something crazy a month, and.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Then I find out about Pure Talk.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
Now, when I first found out about Pure Talk, I
found out it was the Patriotic Mobile Company. They's CEO
Vietnam veteran. That automatically, as you know, means so much
to me. So I started digging into it. When they
give back and they give back, they give back to veterans,
and then I find out I can pay way less
and they're on the same five g network. Why wouldn't
I switch? Why wouldn't you switch? Switch to pure Talk?
(33:38):
Keep your phone, keep your number or with a qualifying
purchase brand new iPhone fourteen so Samsung Galaxies, whatever you want,
puretalk dot com slash jessetv, We'll be back.
Speaker 12 (33:59):
Proper role of scientists and a pandemic is to answer
basic questions that policymakers have about what the right policy
should be.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
They're not.
Speaker 12 (34:07):
Our role isn't to make decisions to say you shouldn't
be saying goodbye to your your your grandfather as he's
dying in a hospital. It shouldn't be to say you
can't have a funeral because it's too dangerous.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
You should, you should?
Speaker 12 (34:21):
The scientists say here's what the risks are, and then
you then you decide what the risks whether you take it.
The role of the scientists shouldn't be to say you
can't send your kids to school for two years.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
That you can't.
Speaker 12 (34:34):
Don't you should close hospitals so that they can't treat
heart attack patients, That you should not. That the role
of scientist should be to address those problems by giving
good data and then let people make the science should
be an engine for freedom, knowledge and freedom, not not
something where it stands on top of society and says
you must do this, this and this or else. It
(34:54):
shouldn't be pushing mandates for vaccines that have been like
like the co vaccines that were tested for a relative
short period of time. I took the COVID vaccine myself,
but I think that the mandates that many scientists push
have led to the lack of confidence that so many
of uch of the public has in science. If science
(35:15):
is a force for freedom and for knowledge, it will
have universal support. That's what the role of science is.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
I love Jay.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
I can't believe he's there. I'm so excited about it.
Joining me now Doctor Simone Gold, author of the book
Selective Persecution.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Doctor Jay is.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
A friend friend of the show, and it does my
heart well to see him there, although I will admit
my blood pressure is going through the roof just reliving
all the evil crap that was done to us during
COVID in this country.
Speaker 4 (35:46):
Oh my gosh, Jessie, thank you.
Speaker 13 (35:47):
Yes, I'm friends with Jay as well, and I hadn't
seen it yet, so thank you. I'm glad to have
seen it. He's exactly right. If science is based on
good science, good facts, good information, and we present it
to people. Most people will love to follow those recommendations.
It will be very few who don't. But we didn't
see that during COVID. We saw inaccurate methodologies. We saw
(36:08):
rushed processes, and we saw forced hand, heavy decisions, heavy
hand on forcing people to do what the government wanted.
So I'm glad to hear them say all the opposite
of that, and the American people will much better serve
with doctor j. Boticharia as directing the Nah.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
Yeah, they sure will. Doctor.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
Can you help me understand in your own words, the
why about whatever you just said about all those things
you just said? Why were things rushed? Why was it
so different? I mean, why why did we turn so
tyrannical all of a sudden? Because prior to COVID, most Americans,
the vast majority, had such a high opinion of America's
(36:51):
medical institutions and doctors and things like that, and you
look at public opinion polls, now it's not good. Why
how did they blow it all so badly?
Speaker 4 (37:02):
Thank you? That's such an important question.
Speaker 13 (37:04):
So, first of all, yes, being a physician is a
very honorable thing to do with one's life. My father
was a doctor. Doctors all over the world, they go
on mission trips. We really just want to help people.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
You really not.
Speaker 13 (37:18):
Attracted to that as a profession if that's not your orientation.
So what has gone wrong in the medical system? We
have moved completely away from the.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
Doctor patient relationship.
Speaker 13 (37:29):
So I have noticed that really every year of being
a doctor in comparison to my father's time.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
You know, I grew up with the dad.
Speaker 13 (37:35):
I used to go with him to the hospitals and
the nursing homes, and we had an office in our house.
Speaker 4 (37:39):
I know exactly how medicine used to be practiced. It
was very much the focus on the patient.
Speaker 13 (37:43):
The patient would need something, or have a question, or
need some help, and my dad would be there for
the patient. That was the basis of the whole relationship.
And we've moved away from that year after year after year.
There's tremendous financial incentives to corporatize medicine because there's a
lot of money to be made by people who are
not doctors and people who are not patients. So we
(38:03):
started getting away from the doctor a small business owner,
and we made the doctor just an employee, just a widget.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
And kind of a big machine.
Speaker 13 (38:12):
I actually call it the medical industrial complex, which is
a combination of legacy healthcare like the big insurance companies
and big pharma. So that's really the legacy healthcare system.
And there's so much money to be made by people
all along the way that the doctor patient relationship has
(38:32):
really been lost, and actually for me as a doctor
is pretty heartbreaking.
Speaker 4 (38:36):
Now.
Speaker 13 (38:36):
I fought this as long as I could. In the system.
I was very much an insider. I was working in
the ers for over twenty years, Board certified emergency physician,
and I saw the encroachment of the payers and the
Medicare and the policies. But I always do what I
needed to do for the patient in front of me, right,
I'd work around the system.
Speaker 4 (38:54):
I'd find little cheats, little workarounds.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Right.
Speaker 13 (38:57):
But during COVID, the government made it impossible for me
to take care of the patient.
Speaker 4 (39:02):
They made it impossible.
Speaker 13 (39:03):
Specifically, the California Medical Board threatened me and all doctors
in California that if I prescribed early treatment medicine for
a patient, I could lose my doctor's license. This was
unheard of, unprecedented, totally illegal, outrageous, and as you know,
I'm a lawyer, and I really responded as a lawyer
would respond, and I said, no, hell no, you are
(39:24):
not going to tell me what I can and can't
do as a doctor. I am licensed as an individual.
We are not licensed as a corporation. We're licens as individuals.
And that was when I saw that the infrastructure for
medical tyranny was just totally embedded in our system right
because to be a doctor, I needed to have my
medical license, and the people given me my medical license
(39:47):
granted me my medical license, or state bureaucrats who were
telling me I couldn't actually practice. That was part of
the tyranny. Another part where the payers right Medicare. If
you had Medicare and you had went into the hospital
with COVID, you got the hospital got more money if
they put you on rem dis severe than if they
put you on ivermectin.
Speaker 4 (40:05):
They actually got thousands of dollars more.
Speaker 13 (40:07):
They couldn't give you ivermectin and not give you room
disavere and take all those extra payments. So Medicare policies
were set so the hospitals were being financially incentivized by
Medicare to do things that were not in the patient's interest.
Speaker 4 (40:19):
And these are just some of the problems that you
know we face.
Speaker 13 (40:21):
There was big pharma, legacy, media, the healthcare insurance in industry.
Speaker 4 (40:27):
Really it's it's quite difficult.
Speaker 13 (40:29):
So that is this is my mission, is to free
the patient from kind of the medical industrial complex.
Speaker 1 (40:38):
Yeah, speaking of that complex, doctor Marty McCarey, hopefully our
new head of the FDA here he was, do.
Speaker 13 (40:46):
You think we need to evaluate the people on the
committees or see whether they get royalties, or.
Speaker 5 (40:51):
See whether or not there are a conflict of interest
for the people making these decisions.
Speaker 2 (40:55):
Yes, I do, Senator.
Speaker 14 (40:56):
We need to review the ethics policy because people see
things that appear to be a cozy relationship between industry
and the regulators that are supposed to be regulating the products. Now,
I want American companies to thrive. I want life sciences
companies to thrive, but we need to call balls and
strikes and to keep that independent scientific review process free
(41:19):
of any conflicts. So I do think it deserves a.
Speaker 2 (41:21):
Love doctor the FDA.
Speaker 1 (41:27):
How much work can doctor Marty do because he's got
a whole spider web to untangle.
Speaker 2 (41:32):
You touched on some of it.
Speaker 13 (41:33):
Already there's there's so much to do at the FDA.
I want to orient your your viewers and you to
kind of a big way to look at it. So
during COVID, one of the ways I knew that the
government was lying is they were saying that this safe drug, hydroxychloroquin,
wasn't safe now and they were saying that it wasn't effective.
(41:57):
So the FDA was in the business of safety and efficacy,
and I submit to you they should not be in
the efficacy business.
Speaker 4 (42:05):
That safety is the only business.
Speaker 13 (42:07):
The FDA should be, And the FDA should have the
right to say this drug can't come to an American
market unless we deem it safe. I think that's a
valid role for an honest government. What is not valid
for the government is to put itself on a scale.
Speaker 4 (42:22):
Of what is effective.
Speaker 13 (42:23):
It turned out the government was incentivized by big pharma
to say hydroxychlorquin wasn't effective. So when they started talking
about that, people were listening.
Speaker 4 (42:33):
It happened to be false, but.
Speaker 13 (42:34):
They were suppressing us from bringing the data or to
that it was effective. But if we took a step
back and the FDA wasn't allowed to even comment on efficacy,
but only on safety. That in and of itself would
be a huge improvement. I don't need a nanny state
deciding for me what's most effective.
Speaker 4 (42:49):
I'd rather either do the research.
Speaker 13 (42:50):
Myself or find an honest doctor who can help me
do that.
Speaker 4 (42:53):
When they are given.
Speaker 13 (42:54):
The permission to say this is effective or that's not effective,
this is what we run into trouble. This is why
inexpensive treatments are often not being released to the public.
I rem actin fem bendesol, the bendozol. Those things appear
and laatrel appear to be effective for cancer treatments, But
you have any FDA say, oh, it's not affected.
Speaker 4 (43:14):
I'm not interested.
Speaker 13 (43:15):
I'm not interested in the FDA's dependent on efficacy. I
really hope doctor Mackerie just looks at it from that
position that the FDA, the government should not be in
that business. Let the free market decide what's effective.
Speaker 4 (43:27):
Isn't that an interesting idea?
Speaker 2 (43:31):
Do you do you view it?
Speaker 1 (43:33):
Obviously it's a conflict of interest, But how do we
get big farmer reps off of the FDA? You know,
it's this endless tunnel back and forth. Will they'll leave
this and they'll go there that they'll come back here.
It's this whole ugly system where everybody's incentivized to just
take care of the big farmer companies.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
Can we break that up?
Speaker 8 (43:51):
Yeah?
Speaker 13 (43:52):
This is a really difficult problem because people work for
the FDA, and then they leave the FDA position, and
then they go work for big pharma, and they know
that in advance when there's sitting.
Speaker 4 (44:00):
In their FDA jobs. So a lot of people left.
Speaker 13 (44:02):
As Steve Han is the one I remember the most.
He left the Trump administration. He then went on to
become the head of the financial arm of Maderna and another.
This just happens all the time. This is called regulatory capture,
where the big pharma industry is capturing or controlling the
regulatory agency that's supposed to be supervising it. It's a huge,
huge problem, you know.
Speaker 4 (44:24):
Listen.
Speaker 13 (44:24):
Bobby Kennedy is very aware of this as a problem.
This was a big subject in his book, So.
Speaker 4 (44:29):
He knows of the problem.
Speaker 13 (44:30):
And we hope for the best we have the right
leadership to try to unwind this regulatory capture, and lepe
Let's hope we do.
Speaker 1 (44:40):
We balked the gold. You were awesome come back soon.
I appreciate you very much. Lady was awesome. All right,
light the moon.
Speaker 2 (44:50):
Thanks. All right, it is time to lighten my mood.
Speaker 1 (45:02):
And very little lightens my mood like waking up every
day and finding out which new and horrific way Jasmine
Crockett chose to embarrass the Democrat Party with here. She
was talking about Trump sending black people back to the fields,
and as they.
Speaker 15 (45:17):
Have decided to go after immigrants and these and things
like that, and they've said, oh, they taken your black jobs,
they taken your black jobs. Not really, they are obviously
jobs that they want us to go back to, such
as work in the fields.
Speaker 4 (45:33):
All right.
Speaker 15 (45:34):
Those immigrants that come into our country, they work the fields,
something that we ain't done.
Speaker 4 (45:38):
In a long time.
Speaker 15 (45:39):
And clearly he is trying to make us go back
to the fields.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
She continues to write the gop ads for them, and Jasmine.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
I'm behind you, all right, I see them all
Speaker 7 (46:02):
Past
We are going to discuss the system pushing back against
Donald Trump, the Supreme Court ruling, the Department of Education.
Josh Hammer is going to join us, break down some
legal matters.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
All that and more coming up.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
I'm right, Okay, let's talk about this Supreme Court ruling.
But I'll get to that in a moment. Because now
that everything has to be about World War two, I
thought it would be helpful to maybe bring up a
(00:34):
little World War two fact most people do not know,
So here's one for you. Why did Japan surrender? Most
people will say two atomic bombs. We dropped two bombs
on them. Japan surrendered, and of course that moved Japan
closer to surrender. But that actually is not the main
(00:54):
reason Japan surrendered. If you read anything from back in
the day, the main reason Japan surrendered was the people
of Japan were getting ready to revolt against their own government.
They were getting ready to rebel. Now, think about that
for a moment. In Japan, very different system from ours.
Back then, the emperor was a deity thought to be
(01:18):
a god, a god who walked the earth, and yet
the people and the people were taught to worship that god.
And yet the people were getting ready to rebel, revolt
against the god who ruled over them.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
What's that lesson have to do with today? Oh?
Speaker 1 (01:38):
The people, No matter what form of government you are in,
the people of any nation, under a monarchy or republic
of whatever it may be, will not have their will stymied.
Without end, you continue to deny and ignore the will
of the people, the people will rise up. Doesn't mean
(02:01):
they're going to rise up in six months or a year,
or even ten years. I'm not putting a time frame
on it. You continue to deny people what they want
for long enough, the people will rise up. I'm actually
gonna use somebody who I don't know, and always a Democrat.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Stephen A.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
Smith actually went on the View because those hags in
the View, we're talking about Donald Trump and Donald Trump's
presidency and Hawaii and what he doesn't have a mandate
And Steven A. Smith, I thought, laid it out pretty well.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Here was and what kind of mandate is this?
Speaker 4 (02:35):
Really?
Speaker 5 (02:36):
Well, it is a mandate, and I'm gonna explain why.
And I don't mind the question. But let me be
very clear. I'm no supporter of Trump. I'm a support
of truth in the facts. And here's the facts. The
man won every swing state. He increased in terms of
his vote to turn out in his favor. From the
standpoint of blacks, Latinos, and young voters, he increased his
numbers in that regard. From twenty twenty, eighty nine percent
(02:59):
of the counties shifted to the right. That's a mandate.
We can sit up there and play around all we
want to. In twenty twenty, they didn't. Trump didn't win
the popular vote. He didn't win the electoral college vote.
A matter of fact, the Republicans hadn't won the popular vote,
if I remember Cork two thousand and four.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
But they did this year.
Speaker 5 (03:19):
So twenty years after they last won the popular vote,
they wanted the popular vote, they won the electoral college vote.
The man won every swing state, and on top of
it all, eighty nine percent of the counties shift against
I don't understand how people can look at that and say,
there's no mandate.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
There's a man.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Datesn't think about that for a moment, because this is
going to be about the Supreme Court and the system itself.
Eighty nine percent of the counties in the United States
of America. Do you know how many counties there are
in the United States of America, and eighty nine percent
of them, the people in that county, they walked into
(03:57):
the voting booth after four years of communist rule under
Joe Biden, and they said, enough, this madness has to stop.
I am voting. The opposite way, eighty nine percent walked
in and said, I have had enough. I am voting
for whatever this isn't. I am voting for change. Now,
(04:20):
let's talk about the Trump presidency, Supreme Court, things like that,
Donald Trump, Elon Musk. They're doing a lot of things.
It's too much to keep up with, as you know.
Every single night here we're chasing down the latest thing
they do. But the USAID stuff USAID, depending on how
you want to say it. The exposure of naked corruption
and waste inside of the government, you know it all.
(04:41):
Trump laid it all out during his speech the other night.
You knew it already beforehand. We're sending money to every
single country on Earth for gage randy stuff, you name it, billions, trillions.
They're just shelling out money open naked corruption and the
spreading of communism, culture, Marxism worldwide.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
With your money worldwide.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Most Americans, you already knew, but most Americans are waking
up and finding out. Wait, I was already mad about
government corruption, but now I find out what I'm We're
figuring out how to tran him mice with my money.
Americans are outraged, and this exposure of this stuff is.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
The exact reason.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Eighty nine percent of the people went to the polls
and said this has got to stop.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
I want this to stop. That's what they said, which
brings us to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Supreme Court courtesy of John Robertson, of course, that trader
is hagged.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Amy Cony Barrett.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Decided that a judge, a lower court judge, was allowed
to stop Trump from stopping this money. Trump said, no, no, no,
this money is not going to be spent on this.
This is ridiculous. Stop stop, stop, We're not doing all this.
Some communist judge jumps in, some activist judge put in
there by, of course, the Democrats said no, no, no, no,
(05:59):
you have to continue to fund communism worldwide, which is
a ridiculous overstep of any judges authority and the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
It was thought they were going to.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Step in and say, okay, we have to get we
have to get the courts under control, no more of this.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
But that's not what they did.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
The Supreme Court stepped in and said no, no, no,
these lower judges, they are.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
More powerful than the president.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Now this isn't about this case specifically this case, I'm
just using it as an example. But I will say this.
Let me preface it by saying, I hate political violence.
You know that, if you watch the show for long enough,
you understand that I civil wars and domestic political violence
(06:47):
and stuff. It's the thing I fear the most. To
be honest with you, I despise it. It's families hurt,
it's our cities, our towns that you don't ever want
to live in a world.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Where there's domestic political violence.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
I don't ever want to live in a will where
there's domestic violence all over the place. I don't want
to and I didn't fear of it. And that's why
I've encouraged everybody to be as aggressive and active politically
now so we never get to a place where we
need that. But if the system, if the system is
(07:21):
able to deny the will of the voter for the
four years of Donald Trump's presidency, if they are successful
and stopping him from doing the reforms. They voted for him.
They voted for these reforms. They wanted the corruption to stop,
They wanted the evil to stop. If the system is
(07:41):
able to stop them, it's not about stopping Trump. If
the system is able to look at the voter and
say what you want, No, at the end of Donald
Trump's presidency, we will be closer to political violence in
this country than we ever have at any point since
the Civil War in this country. That is a fact,
because the American people will understandably take that as your
(08:04):
vote doesn't matter, vote in whoever you want. We still
rule over you, and we won't let you make any changes.
If you tell people in any country, under any system
of government, you tell people that you won't allow them
to make changes at the ballot box, they will make
changes by other means, if you will, just think it's
(08:27):
helpful to remember that. Now, let's move on. Talk about
a couple of things that happened today. This Department of
Education stuff. It was, of course reported Wall Street Journal
that Donald Trump planned on eliminating the Department of Education.
He's been talking about this forever.
Speaker 6 (08:42):
The Department of Education is a big conjobt to Linda
I hope you do a great job and put yourself
out of a job. I want her to put herself
out of a education department. So we're ranked number forty
out of forty schools. Right, we're ranked number one in
costs for pupils, so we spend more for pupil than
any other country in the world, and we're ranked at
(09:04):
the bottom of the list. We're ranked very badly. And
what I want to do is let the States run schools.
I believe strongly in school choice, but in addition to that,
I want the States to run schools, and I want
Linda to put herself out of a job.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
He's dead right on that, and good for Donald Trump. Now,
Caroline Levitt came out earlier today and said, no, no, no,
Donald Trump is not eliminating the Department of Education. Why
though not because he doesn't want to. He does want to,
because you can't do that by executive order. Linda McMahon,
the head of the DOE, can't even do that.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
She doesn't have the ability to do that.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
This is one of those things that must be done
by Congress itself. We continue to ask Trump to do
things Congress must do. Well, why isn't Congress doing those
things because we sit at home during primary elections and
keep sending the same rhino losers back to DC who
will never.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Do it now.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
All that aside education Speaking of the system, as we've said,
there are two central pillars that hold up American communism.
The first is when we already touched on their ability
to take your money and fund their revolution with it,
they've figured out a way to worm their way through
every bit of the government and send your money to
(10:20):
fund their revolution. The second pillar is their ability to
educate your children with freaks like this. Hi.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
For those of you who don't know me, I'm a
high school math teacher, and I have a pride flag
in my classroom. My job is to teach students' math.
But it's significantly more than just that. Some of the
students that I teach might not have liked their previous
math teachers, might not know how to learn math, may
have never even passed a math class before. So so
(10:48):
much of my job is building an atmosphere in a
persona that the students feel comfortable learning from me. Because
with everyone, especially high school students, learning is scary, Failure
is tough, and failure is required.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
To learn.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I'm asking my students to be vulnerable with their failures,
and in order for them to be vulnerable, they have
to feel safe. The Pride flag is one of the
many ways that I show my kids, regardless of who
they are, that you are safe in my class, that
no matter who you are, who you love, where you
come from, you're welcome here. So yeah, I think that
(11:26):
makes sense.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Handing our children over to the communists to be destroyed
by things like that is a big reason why we
are where we are as a country. We have a
mountain to climb, many many mountains to climb. Destroying the
Department of Education is just one of many. But this
is why I tell you we can't just show up
(11:54):
for elections when Donald Trump is on the ballot. We
can't dust off that maga hat once every four years
and save a country. It doesn't work that way. We
have a thousand battles we still must fight and must win.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
All that may have made.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
You uncomfortable, but I am right now. We have a
huge show for you. We'll talk a bit more about
this in just the moment. Before we do that, let
me talk to you about my watch. Wasson watch. I
love it see Wasson is well, they're near to my heart.
To be honest with you, I fell in love with
(12:28):
Wasson the company actually before I even got a watch
on my wrist, because I can't find another watch company
out there that is willing to speak out on behalf
of things like unborn babies. What kind of watch company
takes part in culture wars on our behalf? Oh, I
know all the rest of them have their pride flags up,
but why would they do that? Because Paul is a marine.
(12:50):
Because they believe that what they do is more than
just watches, high quality watches.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
They have a.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Calling before God to defend this country, defend the unborn,
to speak out on behalf of what is good.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
How cool is that.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
For a watch company, and the watches are obviously extremely nice.
You wont ten percent off of Wasson Watch. It's your
next gift, putting your money where your morals are. Wassonwatch
dot com code Jesse gets you ten percent off.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
We'll be back.
Speaker 7 (13:27):
The bottom line is because it's not working. Department of
Education was set up in nineteen eighty and since that
time we have spent almost a trillion dollars and we
have watched our performance scores continue to go down. I
do believe that it is a responsibility to make sure
that our children do have equal access to excellent education.
(13:50):
I think that that is best handled at the state level,
closest to the states, working with state administrators, teachers, parents
who should have input into their curriculum.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
It's wild, how just common sense. All this stuff sounds
stuff that I would assume virtually every parent would support.
Right joining me now, Corey DeAngelis senior fellow with the
American Culture Project in the Great Ryan Walters, Oklahoma States
Superintendent Corey that message that's not even a partisan message,
or at least it shouldn't be, right. Isn't that something
(14:24):
any parent in schools would sign up for?
Speaker 8 (14:27):
Exactly?
Speaker 9 (14:28):
And she's talking about the proposal in Congress right now
to send education back to the states. Send that money
block granted using the Treasury Department back to the states.
You have more local control, because the Department of Education
is an unconstitutional waste of time and money. They have
about four thousand useless bureaucrats in DC wasting your hard
earned taxpayer dollars on themselves, not on your education. So
(14:52):
we would have more local control if we send this
back to the States, and I hope she gets in
there and body slams this department once and for all.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Ryan, most of us don't need any help hating the
Department of Education, obviously, but you are somebody who actually
knows how they work. Being us, how you're the superintendent
in Oklahoma, How does it work? How does the deal
we make your life harder or easier?
Speaker 2 (15:16):
What's it look like?
Speaker 10 (15:19):
Yeah, let me give you a few examples. You know,
one of the things that the Biden administration did very
quickly was they started sending out memos that all their
grants are going to have DEI in them, so that
when you're teaching a kid math or you're talking about
how to understand science, you got us. Now tell them
there's twenty seven genders. You got to be all inclusive,
you use inclusive language, pronouns, all that nonsense. Then, you know,
right when all the conservatives and parents were going, hey,
(15:40):
this is going off the rails, don't forget that. In
the middle of last summer, the Biden administration came out
and said, if you don't allow boys in the girls'
bathrooms and boys and girls sports, we're taking every bit
of federal funding from you, and we will sue you
for using the incorrect pronouns, so us that the federal
government will come in sue teachers, take them on the
classroom for using the wrong gender pronouns. This is the
(16:02):
absolute nonsense has been pushed by the federal Department of Education. Again,
while you are a one hundred percent wreck, it is
common sense. You are correct, Jesse. The problem is is
they do not want to give up power because they
want to control and indoctrinate your kids. And they know
that President Trump doing away with this agency greatly diminishes
their power.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Corey, sending the sending the money back to the States
and eliminating the Department of Education is something we all
cheer for, but it doesn't look like it's going to
be as easy as an executive order, right, what does
this look like?
Speaker 9 (16:37):
That's try and we have limited powers in the executive
branch in America, for better for worse. In this case
is a little bit for worse because he's trying to
reduce government involvement in our lives. Should be a little
bit easier for him to do that, but it does
require a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate, which
is a sixty vote three fifths majority. We only have
fifty three Republicans in the Senate right now, so I
(17:00):
don't see seven Democrats coming along. But because they're a
wholly owned subsidiary the teachers unions, who get ninety nine
percent of the contributions from the teachers unions, goes to
the Democrat Party. But we did have Randy Weingarten actually
on MSNBC recently admitting herself that she believes that education
should not be controlled by the federal government, that should
(17:22):
be controlled by the states. She basically made a case
to abolish the department, and she also said that her
members quote unquote don't really care all that much about
whether there's a federal Department of Education. They just really
want the money. Well, if you look at what the
bill does, it sends that money back to the states.
We'd have more money for education than we had before
if you're not wasting as much of it on the bureaucracy.
(17:44):
And so, okay, Randy, let's call her bluff and maybe
she'll lobby the Democrats to vote for the bill to
return education to the states. I don't see her doing
that because she has Trump derangement syndrome, and so do
all the Democrats in Congress, and because Trump is supporting it,
they're going to act like they have to be again.
But it is a fantastic idea to It's not like
the money's evaporating, which is what's happening right now.
Speaker 8 (18:06):
It would go back to the states.
Speaker 9 (18:08):
Any useful entities like the special needs programs that would
move under the Department of Health and Human Services, things
like civil rights protections that moves under the Department of Justice.
So this isn't as as this isn't as crazy of
an idea as what the Democrats are trying to make
it out to be. It's not as transformative, but it
(18:28):
would be beneficial for the individual kids in those states
if we had more local control.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Ryan, everybody knows the numbers, and they're sad numbers about
what's happened to our education system.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Trump talks about them all the time.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Fortieth this fortieth that how did that happen in a
country where we do have so many wonderful teachers, I know,
so many of them, in a country with this much money.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
We have the money for the.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Textbooks, we have the resources, we have resources people around
the world would kill for.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
And yet we're.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Graduating some of the dumbest, freaking people in the world.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
How did this happen? You know?
Speaker 10 (19:05):
And I think we lay a lot of this at
the feet of the Federal Department of Education. When you
look at its creation under Jimmy Carter. You know, what
had American education been like before then?
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Right?
Speaker 10 (19:14):
So, we had become the greatest country in the history
of the world. We had some of the greatest minds,
greatest inventors in world history that came from America. But
in the nineteen seventy nenties, we create a federal Department
of Education. By the way, that was an ask from
the Teacher's Union National Teachers Union lobbying Jimmy Carter for it.
He puts it in place. And what's happened since? Every
academic test score has gone the wrong direction? And then
(19:36):
also look at society overall, Jesse. We have teenage suicide
record high, teenage drug use record high. Everything has gotten
worse as we've allowed federal bureaucrats to manipulate education and
turn it into focusing on a doctrination rather than academic performance,
rather than making sure that kids are utilizing their God
given talents and not allowing parents to play that lead
(19:58):
role in developing their chill. I mean, think about the
absurdity of this. So if you would have told folks
back during the founding era of America that bureaucrats in
DC would dictate the curriculum inside a one room schoolhouse
at the time with their local teacher, they would have
thought that was absurd. Think about the thought process here
of where we've come from as a country that believed
in individual capability, individual capacity to one that believes in
(20:22):
a bureaucrat in DC literally should be telling a teacher
in your local schoolhouse how to teach their class and
telling parents you have no business in your kids classroom
with your kids education. We have really reached a crescendo
here of absolute absurdity, and thank god for President Trump
to put an end to this.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Gentlemen, thank you both. I'm back soon, please, thank you.
All Right, we have so much more to get to
before we do that. Let's let's talk about sleeping. Let's
talk about waking, actually, because that's really how you know
you had a good night's sleep. You don't know at midnight,
(21:02):
you know in the morning, when those eyes flutter open,
and I know that finding taking something to sleep, finding
something that will help you sleep is easy. Go take
cold medication and help you sleep. How do you get
a feel and you wake up you feel horrible. That's
what the difference is with dream powder from being when
you wake up you feel great instead of feeling like
(21:26):
like you still medicated or something like that, because it's
not medication, it's natural stuff. It's a cup of hot chocolate,
it's got melatonin and things like that in it, and
you just kind of slowly drift off to sleep, and
you sleep through the night. You're got tossing and turning,
getting up three times, and then when you wake up
you just feel ready to go. I want to feel
like that every single day. Shopbeam dot com, slash Jesse
(21:51):
Kelly gets you up to forty percent off.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
We'll be back.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Well, Supreme Court screwed us again, shocker. They tend to
do that from time to time. And as I explained
in the opening, courts, no courts, whatever the reason is,
if the system is able to stop the will of
the voter, not Trump's will, the will of the voter,
then we are on a very dark path in this country.
And I need somebody to make sense of this Supreme
(22:25):
Court thing for me. So there's only one place to turn,
like I always do, my friend Josh Hammer, host of
America on Trial, which I highly recommend you download. Josh, Okay, buddy,
help me understand Pow. The lower courts they decided some
vicious little comedy judge that Trump had to spend this
and had to spend that, which of course was ridiculous.
(22:46):
We all anticipated the Supreme Court would say, get yourself
in check, lower court, but they.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Didn't say that. Josh, tell me what's going on? All right?
Speaker 11 (22:54):
So first of all, Jesse, you're totally right that this
Lower Court judge, Amir Ali in Washington, DC is a
left wing activist.
Speaker 8 (23:02):
Left wing activist hack.
Speaker 11 (23:03):
I mean, this is a guy who was literally as
partisan a left wing litigator as it gets as recently
as six months ago. He was a very late Biden
term judicial nominee, someone who has been pretty public about
his aspirations to undermined the legitimacy of the nefarious John
Roberts conservative Supreme Court there. So, you know, the fact
is kind of psychologically that this judge is speaking the
(23:26):
way that he has about the United States Supreme Court,
at least in his pre judicial litigator life, which again
was just like six months ago. I mean, the fact
that the Chief Justice ruled the way he did in
this case, I just find completely remarkable because John Roberts
over and over again, Jesse going back for literally decades,
back to his first confirmation to the Court, I guess.
Speaker 8 (23:45):
Twenty years ago.
Speaker 11 (23:46):
Now, you know, the one thing that he cares about,
for better or for worse, is the perceived legitimacy of
the United States Supreme courts. Where you have a lower
court judge, amir Ale in this case, who is as
explicit as he is about trying to undermine the legitimacy,
it seems to me like the obvious thing to do
would be to swat him down and put him in
his place.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
There.
Speaker 11 (24:03):
After all, the United Supreme Court has the clenary absolute
power to stay any lower court ruling in the judiciary
that it wants to there But in this particular case,
John Roberts, nam Me Cony, Barrett, what they're basically saying
Jesse here is they're saying that because this was self
styled as a tro a temporary restraining order, that therefore
(24:24):
it is not necessarily ripe for their review. At that time,
they're basically waiting for a formal injunction, one of these
so called nationwide injunctions there, so they're basically trying to
kind of get out on a procedural leg But that's
not really how it works, because even though you're calling
this thing a tro there, when you continue to extend
the so called temporary restraining order, at some point, Jesse,
(24:46):
it ceases to be temporary at pot at some point
it ceases to be an injunction. You don't have to
be a lawyer to figure this out. You can just
have some basic common sense there. That's basically in part
what sam Alito says in his very livid and righteously
indignant descent, is it generally good rule of thumb when
it comes to Scotus watching Jesse. When you really take
off sam Alito, you're probably wrong because sam Alito gets
(25:08):
righteously indignant when he is correct, and he was correct
in this case there. So it's a major setback. It's
deeply unfortunate. But they still could do the right thing
when the appeal gets to them on the merits because again,
this was kind of a procedural, temporary restraining war type
thing there. Hopefully that day comes though sooner rather than later.
That's the big question at this.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
Point, Josh, what's wrong with Amy Cony Barrett? And I
could ask the same question about Kavanaugh. Yes, I know
Kavanaugh happen to be on the right side of this one.
But our judges in general, I mean John Roberts, We've
all just basically been given up on John Roberts at
this point in time.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
But that was our guy. Their people never do this.
Their people never do this to them.
Speaker 1 (25:45):
They are reliably leftists every single time. Our people around well,
I'm not really sure about the whole thing.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
How do we get how do we get these people?
Speaker 11 (25:54):
Ammy Cony Barrett has been a tremendous disappointment. I mean
we should not mince words there. She's been a tremendous disappointment.
She was she was on the wrong side of the
Fisher case, the January sixth case. She joined an absolutely
abominable dissenting opinion. There By the way in that case,
the Fisher case, she was on the wrong side. Katanji
Brown Jackson happened to be on the correct side the
Katanji Brown Jackson the DEI Justice was literally, it was literally,
(26:17):
it was literally picked because she is a black woman.
She actually took the correct statutory interpretation stands in the
Fisher case, the January sixth j sixer case. There in
a way that Ammy Cony Barrett's not the mind just
totally reels at this stuff.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
There.
Speaker 11 (26:29):
Ammiy Coney Barrett actually was on the wrong side of
another case at the Supreme Corps just last week. It
was an EPA case out of out of San Francisco, California.
She sided with the liberals there. I don't really know
exactly what is what her problem is. I mean, I
will say this, Amy Coney Barrett did not have much
of a track record. If you go back there, she
was an academic. She was a constitutional law professor in
(26:49):
Notre Dame for about a decade decad and a half.
And if I'm being very very candid and bluntier, she
was not even a particularly prolific law professor. If you
go back and actually look at the at the scholarship
that she published, it was kind of few and far between.
She was not a particularly prolific writer, and that which
she published was not exactly kind of blazing stuff. It
was pretty run of the Mill Scholarship. Amy Cony Barrett
(27:11):
also barely served on the Seventh Circuit. She was only
on the Seventh Circuit Court Appeals for a year and
a half, two years before she was elevated to the
Supreme Court. Here's my take on amy Cony Barrett above all, Jesse,
here's what happened here. I think you'll probably recall this.
Back when she was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Bear,
there was that infamous viral clip with Dianne Feinstein, the
Late Center from California, saying the dogma lives loudly within you,
(27:33):
which was an abhorrum thing to say, wreaking of anti
Catholic bigotry, anti religious sentiment in general there. But because
Dianne Feinstein chose to say that to this clearly religiously
Catholic judge at that point there, Amy Cony Barrett became
a folk hero for people on the right. And I
think we basically let this viral moment then guide us
after Ginsburg passed away two years later in twenty twenty,
(27:55):
we basically let Diane Feinstein pick our Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 8 (27:58):
Is essentially what I'm saying there.
Speaker 11 (28:00):
Because of this stupid viral exchange back from her Seventh
Circuit confirmation hearing about how the dog mall lives loudly
within you. But if we had done the homework and
done the research there, we would have seen that she's
kind of a middling academic back in Notre Dame there
who had an okay track record on the Seventh Circuit.
Nothing particularly exemplary there. Look, she's still young in her career. Okay,
(28:20):
if we're being a little fair, I guess she's been
there for about four and a half years. I mean
it's not that young, but I mean things could change.
I'm not going to say I'm optimistic because I'm not there,
but you're right the right to The Republican Party has
a massive, massive problem on its hands here when it
comes to picking justice in a way that the left
simply does not have. It's a topic that I've written
a lot about over the USSE. I'm very passionate about
(28:41):
this there. The number one thing we have to do
is just do the reading. I mean, actually do the homework.
Make sure we have a clear, discernible track record. We
have to know exactly what we're going to get when
it comes to these judicial nominees. Another big thing that
I'm passionate about. They need to convince us that they
are eager and willing to aggressively change course at the
night at the US Supreme Court. So there are various
(29:03):
procedural points along Scotti's procedure that you can basically choose
to be timid. So, for instance, you can you can
choose not to vote to grant sert and to hear
a case. You can choose to dismiss a case on
Article three standing grounds. You can choose to punt on
a case because of starry decisive precedents. Any Cody Barrett,
by the way, does all three of those things there.
But I want to see a judge who's gonna grant
(29:24):
CRT in the hard cases, who's gonna over term those
flawed precedents, starry a decison Alex sam who's not gonna
find some stupid Article three standing escape hatch kind of
like what they did in the Murphy versus Missouri case,
the big Tech case last summer, where Barrett and Kavanaugh
decided to go out on this stupid standing gargment there.
So that's what I'm looking for. I'm hoping to see
better results this time around. Neil Gors's. For what it's worth,
(29:46):
he's a little bit better than Cavin on Amm Quinnen Barrett.
He's still not amazing, but he's better than those two there.
But we need more Clarence Thomas's and more Sam Alito's,
not Ammy Coney Barrett's.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
Gosh, we do.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Why can't we just clone Clarence Thomas a couple of times? Gosh,
that would be wonderful. Okay, Josh, let's shift gears from
all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
The Epstein stuff.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Has people up in arms every single day, and I
understand why they're up in arms. I want all the
criminals to be brought to justice as well. But I
also I've explained to my audience many times, there are
legal concerns here that that that make it not quite
as simple as just throwing something onto Twitter. Right, just
because somebody flew on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet doesn't make
(30:26):
them some kind of child trafficking monster.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
So explain what you think is going on with.
Speaker 11 (30:31):
All this, Right, So, there's a lot and that that
cannot necessarily be easily redacted. I mean, there are there
are genuine privacy concerns when it comes to the kind
people that you described there, but more more, more generally speaking, there,
you know, if you were, if you were a witness,
if you want, if you if you decide to turn
state evidence there, and you and you took some sort
of amun needs yell whereby you had your privacy shielded
(30:53):
and protection for cooperating with federal or in this case,
state prosecutors in Palm Beach County, Florida. There's all sorts
of re is why it's not just as easy as
kind of snapping her fingers and flipping a switch and
getting all the names out there there.
Speaker 8 (31:06):
Jesse.
Speaker 11 (31:06):
My candid take on what happened here is I think
that Donald Trump probably over promised and he set himself
up for under delivering there.
Speaker 8 (31:14):
He talked a big game.
Speaker 11 (31:15):
About this on the campaign trail there, but there's frankly,
there's not a whole lot of goods at this point
that can be divulged to the public in unredacted fashion there.
So we kind of put pam Bondi in cash battel
in a potentially difficult place.
Speaker 8 (31:27):
Again, We'll see what happens.
Speaker 11 (31:28):
I mean, maybe some files can actually still do adaptant
see the light of day there, But I'm not sure
exactly how much wiggle room Pam Bondi and Cash Ptel
actually have at this point.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
Josh, I can't let you go without asking about your book,
Israel and Civilization.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
Of course, it's coming out soon. Do you think you have.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
A snowballs chance in hell of surpassing the Anti Communist Manifesto,
one of the greatest novels ever.
Speaker 11 (31:53):
Written, Jesse, I would be honored to be even in
the same category, my friends, as the Anti Communist Manifesto.
Speaker 8 (32:00):
There, you know, you know, I mean, I.
Speaker 11 (32:02):
Don't think the New York Times bestseller lists and necessarily
looking at people like Jesse Kelly or Josh Hammer and
salivating and putting them on the best at list. I
hope I'm wrong about that, by the way, there obviously,
but look, I mean, I mean, we're generally Jesse, I'm
very excited about this book. It comes out in March eighteenth.
To make sure to pre order if you have not
already done so. Of course, Israel and Civilization the Fate
of the Jewish Nation, the descine in the West, calling,
(32:22):
ultimately Jesse for a Jewish Christian nationalist biblical alliance to
defeat the forces of wokeism. Islamism and global neoliberalism a
rather timely argument.
Speaker 8 (32:30):
If I don't say so myself, I think it.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
My friend.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
I'm sure it will do quite well. Israel in Civilization.
Go order Josh's book. You here all smarty, is Josh
my brother?
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Thank you? Appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
All right, It'll probably outsell mine. I'm mad about that.
I'm not mad about Pure Talk though. You See, I
may not have any money coming in from book sales,
but I pay half of what I used to pay
it for my cell phone. So that's something. See, we
had Team Mobile, four lines, me the boys. We paid
a lot.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
It was a lot. I was always just kind of
floored by it.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
I think it was something like two hundred and forty
eight dollars something crazy a month, and.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Then I find out about Pure Talk.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
Now, when I first found out about Pure Talk, I
found out it was the Patriotic Mobile Company. They's CEO
Vietnam veteran. That automatically, as you know, means so much
to me. So I started digging into it. When they
give back and they give back, they give back to veterans,
and then I find out I can pay way less
and they're on the same five g network. Why wouldn't
I switch? Why wouldn't you switch? Switch to pure Talk?
(33:38):
Keep your phone, keep your number or with a qualifying
purchase brand new iPhone fourteen so Samsung Galaxies, whatever you want,
puretalk dot com slash jessetv, We'll be back.
Speaker 12 (33:59):
Proper role of scientists and a pandemic is to answer
basic questions that policymakers have about what the right policy
should be.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
They're not.
Speaker 12 (34:07):
Our role isn't to make decisions to say you shouldn't
be saying goodbye to your your your grandfather as he's
dying in a hospital. It shouldn't be to say you
can't have a funeral because it's too dangerous.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
You should, you should?
Speaker 12 (34:21):
The scientists say here's what the risks are, and then
you then you decide what the risks whether you take it.
The role of the scientists shouldn't be to say you
can't send your kids to school for two years.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
That you can't.
Speaker 12 (34:34):
Don't you should close hospitals so that they can't treat
heart attack patients, That you should not. That the role
of scientist should be to address those problems by giving
good data and then let people make the science should
be an engine for freedom, knowledge and freedom, not not
something where it stands on top of society and says
you must do this, this and this or else. It
(34:54):
shouldn't be pushing mandates for vaccines that have been like
like the co vaccines that were tested for a relative
short period of time. I took the COVID vaccine myself,
but I think that the mandates that many scientists push
have led to the lack of confidence that so many
of uch of the public has in science. If science
(35:15):
is a force for freedom and for knowledge, it will
have universal support. That's what the role of science is.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
I love Jay.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
I can't believe he's there. I'm so excited about it.
Joining me now Doctor Simone Gold, author of the book
Selective Persecution.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Doctor Jay is.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
A friend friend of the show, and it does my
heart well to see him there, although I will admit
my blood pressure is going through the roof just reliving
all the evil crap that was done to us during
COVID in this country.
Speaker 4 (35:46):
Oh my gosh, Jessie, thank you.
Speaker 13 (35:47):
Yes, I'm friends with Jay as well, and I hadn't
seen it yet, so thank you. I'm glad to have
seen it. He's exactly right. If science is based on
good science, good facts, good information, and we present it
to people. Most people will love to follow those recommendations.
It will be very few who don't. But we didn't
see that during COVID. We saw inaccurate methodologies. We saw
(36:08):
rushed processes, and we saw forced hand, heavy decisions, heavy
hand on forcing people to do what the government wanted.
So I'm glad to hear them say all the opposite
of that, and the American people will much better serve
with doctor j. Boticharia as directing the Nah.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
Yeah, they sure will. Doctor.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
Can you help me understand in your own words, the
why about whatever you just said about all those things
you just said? Why were things rushed? Why was it
so different? I mean, why why did we turn so
tyrannical all of a sudden? Because prior to COVID, most Americans,
the vast majority, had such a high opinion of America's
(36:51):
medical institutions and doctors and things like that, and you
look at public opinion polls, now it's not good. Why
how did they blow it all so badly?
Speaker 4 (37:02):
Thank you? That's such an important question.
Speaker 13 (37:04):
So, first of all, yes, being a physician is a
very honorable thing to do with one's life. My father
was a doctor. Doctors all over the world, they go
on mission trips. We really just want to help people.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
You really not.
Speaker 13 (37:18):
Attracted to that as a profession if that's not your orientation.
So what has gone wrong in the medical system? We
have moved completely away from the.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
Doctor patient relationship.
Speaker 13 (37:29):
So I have noticed that really every year of being
a doctor in comparison to my father's time.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
You know, I grew up with the dad.
Speaker 13 (37:35):
I used to go with him to the hospitals and
the nursing homes, and we had an office in our house.
Speaker 4 (37:39):
I know exactly how medicine used to be practiced. It
was very much the focus on the patient.
Speaker 13 (37:43):
The patient would need something, or have a question, or
need some help, and my dad would be there for
the patient. That was the basis of the whole relationship.
And we've moved away from that year after year after year.
There's tremendous financial incentives to corporatize medicine because there's a
lot of money to be made by people who are
not doctors and people who are not patients. So we
(38:03):
started getting away from the doctor a small business owner,
and we made the doctor just an employee, just a widget.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
And kind of a big machine.
Speaker 13 (38:12):
I actually call it the medical industrial complex, which is
a combination of legacy healthcare like the big insurance companies
and big pharma. So that's really the legacy healthcare system.
And there's so much money to be made by people
all along the way that the doctor patient relationship has
(38:32):
really been lost, and actually for me as a doctor
is pretty heartbreaking.
Speaker 4 (38:36):
Now.
Speaker 13 (38:36):
I fought this as long as I could. In the system.
I was very much an insider. I was working in
the ers for over twenty years, Board certified emergency physician,
and I saw the encroachment of the payers and the
Medicare and the policies. But I always do what I
needed to do for the patient in front of me, right,
I'd work around the system.
Speaker 4 (38:54):
I'd find little cheats, little workarounds.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Right.
Speaker 13 (38:57):
But during COVID, the government made it impossible for me
to take care of the patient.
Speaker 4 (39:02):
They made it impossible.
Speaker 13 (39:03):
Specifically, the California Medical Board threatened me and all doctors
in California that if I prescribed early treatment medicine for
a patient, I could lose my doctor's license. This was
unheard of, unprecedented, totally illegal, outrageous, and as you know,
I'm a lawyer, and I really responded as a lawyer
would respond, and I said, no, hell no, you are
(39:24):
not going to tell me what I can and can't
do as a doctor. I am licensed as an individual.
We are not licensed as a corporation. We're licens as individuals.
And that was when I saw that the infrastructure for
medical tyranny was just totally embedded in our system right
because to be a doctor, I needed to have my
medical license, and the people given me my medical license
(39:47):
granted me my medical license, or state bureaucrats who were
telling me I couldn't actually practice. That was part of
the tyranny. Another part where the payers right Medicare. If
you had Medicare and you had went into the hospital
with COVID, you got the hospital got more money if
they put you on rem dis severe than if they
put you on ivermectin.
Speaker 4 (40:05):
They actually got thousands of dollars more.
Speaker 13 (40:07):
They couldn't give you ivermectin and not give you room
disavere and take all those extra payments. So Medicare policies
were set so the hospitals were being financially incentivized by
Medicare to do things that were not in the patient's interest.
Speaker 4 (40:19):
And these are just some of the problems that you
know we face.
Speaker 13 (40:21):
There was big pharma, legacy, media, the healthcare insurance in industry.
Speaker 4 (40:27):
Really it's it's quite difficult.
Speaker 13 (40:29):
So that is this is my mission, is to free
the patient from kind of the medical industrial complex.
Speaker 1 (40:38):
Yeah, speaking of that complex, doctor Marty McCarey, hopefully our
new head of the FDA here he was, do.
Speaker 13 (40:46):
You think we need to evaluate the people on the
committees or see whether they get royalties, or.
Speaker 5 (40:51):
See whether or not there are a conflict of interest
for the people making these decisions.
Speaker 2 (40:55):
Yes, I do, Senator.
Speaker 14 (40:56):
We need to review the ethics policy because people see
things that appear to be a cozy relationship between industry
and the regulators that are supposed to be regulating the products. Now,
I want American companies to thrive. I want life sciences
companies to thrive, but we need to call balls and
strikes and to keep that independent scientific review process free
(41:19):
of any conflicts. So I do think it deserves a.
Speaker 2 (41:21):
Love doctor the FDA.
Speaker 1 (41:27):
How much work can doctor Marty do because he's got
a whole spider web to untangle.
Speaker 2 (41:32):
You touched on some of it.
Speaker 13 (41:33):
Already there's there's so much to do at the FDA.
I want to orient your your viewers and you to
kind of a big way to look at it. So
during COVID, one of the ways I knew that the
government was lying is they were saying that this safe drug, hydroxychloroquin,
wasn't safe now and they were saying that it wasn't effective.
(41:57):
So the FDA was in the business of safety and efficacy,
and I submit to you they should not be in
the efficacy business.
Speaker 4 (42:05):
That safety is the only business.
Speaker 13 (42:07):
The FDA should be, And the FDA should have the
right to say this drug can't come to an American
market unless we deem it safe. I think that's a
valid role for an honest government. What is not valid
for the government is to put itself on a scale.
Speaker 4 (42:22):
Of what is effective.
Speaker 13 (42:23):
It turned out the government was incentivized by big pharma
to say hydroxychlorquin wasn't effective. So when they started talking
about that, people were listening.
Speaker 4 (42:33):
It happened to be false, but.
Speaker 13 (42:34):
They were suppressing us from bringing the data or to
that it was effective. But if we took a step
back and the FDA wasn't allowed to even comment on efficacy,
but only on safety. That in and of itself would
be a huge improvement. I don't need a nanny state
deciding for me what's most effective.
Speaker 4 (42:49):
I'd rather either do the research.
Speaker 13 (42:50):
Myself or find an honest doctor who can help me
do that.
Speaker 4 (42:53):
When they are given.
Speaker 13 (42:54):
The permission to say this is effective or that's not effective,
this is what we run into trouble. This is why
inexpensive treatments are often not being released to the public.
I rem actin fem bendesol, the bendozol. Those things appear
and laatrel appear to be effective for cancer treatments, But
you have any FDA say, oh, it's not affected.
Speaker 4 (43:14):
I'm not interested.
Speaker 13 (43:15):
I'm not interested in the FDA's dependent on efficacy. I
really hope doctor Mackerie just looks at it from that
position that the FDA, the government should not be in
that business. Let the free market decide what's effective.
Speaker 4 (43:27):
Isn't that an interesting idea?
Speaker 2 (43:31):
Do you do you view it?
Speaker 1 (43:33):
Obviously it's a conflict of interest, But how do we
get big farmer reps off of the FDA? You know,
it's this endless tunnel back and forth. Will they'll leave
this and they'll go there that they'll come back here.
It's this whole ugly system where everybody's incentivized to just
take care of the big farmer companies.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
Can we break that up?
Speaker 8 (43:51):
Yeah?
Speaker 13 (43:52):
This is a really difficult problem because people work for
the FDA, and then they leave the FDA position, and
then they go work for big pharma, and they know
that in advance when there's sitting.
Speaker 4 (44:00):
In their FDA jobs. So a lot of people left.
Speaker 13 (44:02):
As Steve Han is the one I remember the most.
He left the Trump administration. He then went on to
become the head of the financial arm of Maderna and another.
This just happens all the time. This is called regulatory capture,
where the big pharma industry is capturing or controlling the
regulatory agency that's supposed to be supervising it. It's a huge,
huge problem, you know.
Speaker 4 (44:24):
Listen.
Speaker 13 (44:24):
Bobby Kennedy is very aware of this as a problem.
This was a big subject in his book, So.
Speaker 4 (44:29):
He knows of the problem.
Speaker 13 (44:30):
And we hope for the best we have the right
leadership to try to unwind this regulatory capture, and lepe
Let's hope we do.
Speaker 1 (44:40):
We balked the gold. You were awesome come back soon.
I appreciate you very much. Lady was awesome. All right,
light the moon.
Speaker 2 (44:50):
Thanks. All right, it is time to lighten my mood.
Speaker 1 (45:02):
And very little lightens my mood like waking up every
day and finding out which new and horrific way Jasmine
Crockett chose to embarrass the Democrat Party with here. She
was talking about Trump sending black people back to the fields,
and as they.
Speaker 15 (45:17):
Have decided to go after immigrants and these and things
like that, and they've said, oh, they taken your black jobs,
they taken your black jobs. Not really, they are obviously
jobs that they want us to go back to, such
as work in the fields.
Speaker 4 (45:33):
All right.
Speaker 15 (45:34):
Those immigrants that come into our country, they work the fields,
something that we ain't done.
Speaker 4 (45:38):
In a long time.
Speaker 15 (45:39):
And clearly he is trying to make us go back
to the fields.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
She continues to write the gop ads for them, and Jasmine.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
I'm behind you, all right, I see them all
Speaker 7 (46:02):
Past
Host
Jesse Kelly
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
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.
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.