October 16, 2025 • 44 mins
Kristi Noem just dropped a bombshell as it concerns that Mexican Cartels operations inside America. Are they working with domestic groups and Democrats to target ICE agents? It sure looks like that. This comes as Barack Obama resurfaces to tell some of the biggest lies of his political career. Jesse Kelly is all over these stories. You'll also hear from Senator Ron Johnson regarding a serious abuse of government power. Plus, Professor William A. Jacobson breaks down a massive Supreme Court case that was just heard.I'm Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TV
Choq: Visit https://choq.com/jessetv for a 17.76% discount on your CHOQ subscription for life
Golden Age Fats: Go to https://Goldenagefats.com/JESSETV and use code JESSETV for 25% off your first order.
Masa Chips: Visit https://MASAChips.com/JESSETV and use code JESSETV for 25% off your first order.
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):
Barack Obama, the communists who started so much of this.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
He's back, we'll talk about that.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Did the Mexican cartels put a bounty on the head
of ICE agents? It sure looks like it. Ron Johnson
is here, the government still shut down. All that and
more coming.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Up when I'm right.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Okay, So now that Barack Obama is back and we
have some clips for you here, clearly this is going
to be a thing where he's going to be speaking
out more, I think it's important to discuss a couple
of things before we get to actually what he said.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
First.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Barack Obama, specifically, he is the only president, from all
my reading, in the history of the United States of America,
the only one we've ever had who genuinely hates the country.
There have been all kinds of Democrat presidents and Republican presidents,
and some of them appear to be real patriots. Some
(01:01):
don't be wrong, plenty appeared to not really care about
the country at all, tyrants or morons or whatever. But
even if you go back to guys like Fdr. Bill Clinton,
you know, those guys didn't really genuinely hate the country.
May had done some selfish things, some bad things, but
they didn't hate the place. Barack Obama did. I'll tell
he was raised. Those were the influences in his life. Now,
(01:25):
combine that with the other thing, and it made Barack
Obama so damaging.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
He's good at it.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
He's really really good at politics. It's not just that
he has that hatred. Lots of communists hate the country.
Not many were as trained and capable as Barack Obama was.
He was so good at subversively destroying this place and
the inside while presenting himself as just the norm just
(01:53):
the normy. I remember, I remember his campaign ads running
for president seemed like a moderate guy. If you were
only believing the ads, just seem like kind of a
normal guy Democrat.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Eh, we all get a.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
He was just really really good at that kind of deception. Now,
set Obama aside a moment, we'll come back to him.
There's another thing about communists that you have to understand.
It's just the way they think. It's not how you think.
I'm glad that, but it's the way they think. The
communist believes that every single thing, every institution large and small,
(02:28):
every person large and small, but every institution should work
on behalf of the revolution. Remember he's religious. His revolution
is right before his communist god. It is all that
is good. Anything that opposes it is evil. And so
when he turns your public library into the spawn of
(02:50):
Satan where they're waving their penis in your daughter's face,
or he turns the FBI evil or by entertainment, and
he turns them into weapons of the revolution, he doesn't
think he's doing anything wrong.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
That's how he looks at everything.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Everything to be truly good has to work exclusively for
the revolution, and everything every institution should actively oppose all
the enemies of the revolution. And when he became president
of the United States of America, that's how he operated.
(03:26):
And again part of what killed us so much as
he was good at it, he was really good at it.
He really shunned a lot of the traditional Beltway people.
He had some but the traditional DC bureaucrats and it's
kind of scummy, selfish people. He ditched a lot of
those guys, and he went to where you can really
find the most evil, violent committed communists on the planet, academia,
(03:47):
the university system. And he started plucking people out of
academia and installing them all over the United States government
for eight years. He did this, even purged generals, replaced
them with his kind of generals. And at the end
of it, what we had, what Donald Trump walked into
for his first term, and really what we still have
for the most part, was a federal government that is
(04:08):
completely weaponized against the right and views itself as a
tool for the revolution.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
There's tons of these.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
People there, and so when he says things like this,
he's not really being hypocritical.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
We have blown through, just in the last six months,
a whole range of not simply assumptions, but rules and
laws and practices that were put in place to ensure
(04:43):
that nobody's above the law and that we don't use
the federal government to simply reward our friends and punish
our enemies, and the same things obviously happening and the
Justice Department.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Okay, I know you're screaming at the television set.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
That's what he did. I mean, look, we've talked about
this before in the show.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
That person ran for office to do what communists always do,
of course, promote the revolution, but reward her friends and
punish her enemies. Those are as we've discussed many times.
The only two things a communist does with power, and
they're the only two things he's interested. So is Barack
(05:34):
Obama a hypocrite when he accuses us of doing that?
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Maybe to you or me, he is, of course, but we.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Have to understand in his mind he is not when
he looks at the court, the dj when he looks
at the FBI, when he looks at all these things, everything.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Every McDonald's, doesn't matter what it is.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Everything is just something that should be used, should be
working for the If it's not, it either has to
be completely destroyed or infiltrated and taken over and turned
into something that works exclusively on behalf of the revolution.
He wasn't being hypocritical when he talked about the courts.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
You know, we don't want, you know, kangaroo courts and
trumped up charges. That's what happens in other places that
we used to scold yeah for doing that. You know,
we want like our court system and our Justice Department
and our prosecutors to be and our FBI to be
just playing things straight and looking at the facts and
(06:39):
not meddling in politics the way the way we've seen
later lately.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Of course, you can scream and yell that wait a minute,
that's the guy who brought in That's a guy who
brought in the FBI and CIA and apparently turn them
loose against Donald Trump. The incoming president ran an operation.
It was Barack Obama's he's the one who did all that.
But for communists, that's what you're supposed to do. The
(07:10):
FBI is supposed to arrest Republicans and protect Democrats in
the amount of a communist. That's what they're supposed to do.
If they're not doing that, they're failing. Everything has to
work on behalf of the revolution at all times. Enemies
of the revolution must be crushed. They cannot be tolerated. Everything,
even neutral things must be taken over or destroyed if
(07:34):
they're not working on behalf of the revolution. And speaking
of which, let's talk about the administrative state. This is
something we talk about a lot on the show. We
talked to Ned Ryan about it last night on the show.
All these federal employees, all these bureaucrats with all this power,
huge budgets, millions billions of your dollars, and then all
(07:56):
this regulatory authority. And we're not even talking about Central
Intelligence Agency, the power at their hands, the FBI, These
are institutions with the power to destroy your life if
they so choose, doesn't even have to be legit.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
They can destroy your life.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
So what was the thinking when the communists started installing
their minions, in promoting their minions all throughout these organizations,
the thinking always is, if the voters reject us, we
have to have a way to get around that. This
is all the way back to the Soviet Union when
(08:34):
the Bolsheviks took over and they told the people.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, you can have a vote.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Then they basically put it up for the vote, and
the communists got like twenty five percent of the vote.
That people were like, hey, we don't like you at all.
And then the Bolsheviks said, you know what, never mind
about that whole voting thing. They know they like to
appear to give you a choice, but they don't want
you to actually have a choice. That's why you fill
up the administrative state with committed communists. So when the
people reject you, go out vote for Donald Trump again.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
You are not left out hanging.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
You still have all these subversive revolutionaries inside the government.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Barack Obama was calling to them yesterday.
Speaker 4 (09:10):
Right now, there's just a little discomfort. And so when
I say, for example, if you're a law firm, you
know you saying to we're going to represent who we
want and we're going to stand up for what we
think is our core mission of upholding the law, and
(09:32):
maybe we'll lose some business for that, but that's what
we believe, that's what's needed. If you're a university president, say, well,
you know what this will hurt if we lose some
grant money from the federal government, but that's what the
downlands are for. Let's let's see if we can ride
this out, because what we're not going to do is
compromise our basic academic independence. If you're a business you
(09:57):
say you know what you know, we're not. We're gonna
we think it's important because of what this country is
to hire people from different backgrounds, and we're not going
to be bullied into saying that we can only know
hire people or promote people based on some criteria that's
(10:19):
been cooked up by Steve Miller. We all have this capacity,
I think, to to take a stamp.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
You hear what you're saying. You basically laid out exactly
what I told you in the beginning. The Communist drives
through your town, Seize the police department, chick fil a hospital,
the university, and all he sees are tools or potential
tools for the revolution. It is a truly sick, demonic
(10:57):
religion of destruction and dominate. And Barack Obama was the
one who laid the foundation for the struggles we have today.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Dirtball.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
All that may have made you uncomfortable, but I am
right now. We're going to talk a little bit about
some things, some ice things, some other things. Before we
talk about those other things, I want to talk to
you about your energy level. How do you feel, not
in the morning, although that affects it too, how do
you feel at night when.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
You get on from work? Are you done.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Totally gassed, don't feel like lifting a finger? Let's order
in or do you feel good? Ready to go? Good mood?
A vitality stack from chalk. Whether you're a man or
a woman, they have male vital vitality stacks and female
vitality stacks. A male vitality stack or female vitality stack
from chalk is going to change your life. It is
life changing. You'll be better at work, you'll be better
(11:55):
at home, your personal life, recreation, everything's better. When you
feel better, go to chalk dot com slash jessetv.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
We'll be back.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Okay, let's talk about what's happening. It really we're gonna
talk about Ice. But this is really about the blue
areas of the country and.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
How they may just be lost. That we have to.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Acknowledge something before we go into this, before we go
into the bounties and the cartels Los Angeles, things like that,
that there are places in America that are now foreign countries.
Maybe we can bring them back into America, maybe we can't.
But if you are in a completely blue area, it's
a foreign country now. It's foreign, it's communists, it's hostile
to everything good, it celebrates everything bad. It's not the
(12:50):
United States of America anymore. And illegals even know that.
Why do you think they all flock there? Which, of
course brings us to the Trump administration. It brings us
to Ice. You know, people want to know, WHI is
Donald Trump going into Chicago? Why is he going into
New York Houston where I live? Why is he going
into Los Angeles? He's going into these big urban blue
hell holes, because that's where the worst of the worst
(13:14):
of the illegals. That's where they congregate, and that's where
you're going to get the most of them, because these
are foreign countries who tell illegals, come on in, you're
welcome here, you won't get in trouble, shoot will pay.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
You to be here.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
So if you have promised the American people that you're
going to try to deport all these savages we've brought
into the country, you have to go to where they are,
and they're in Los Angeles, and here's here's how that's going.
Speaker 5 (13:43):
Lake County has declared a state of emergency over the
immigration rage. The Board of Supervisors voted today. Board members
say the rage are preventing people from going to work
and forcing some businesses to close. The emergency allows the
board to look at enacting an eviction moratorium and other
protections for people impacted by the raids. And this news
just coming into our newsroom will of course continue to
(14:06):
follow it.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
Just before we talk about anything else.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Just wrap your mind around that Ice is going in there,
arresting people here illegally and deporting them.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
That's it.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
And in every blue area in the United States of America,
the Democrat politicians in that area are doing everything they
can to stop them. The street animals, as you can
see right there on the screen, are doing everything they
can to stop them. That's a hostile foreign country. And
speaking of hostile foreign countries, according to Christinome, Mexican drug
(14:43):
cartels are now placing bounties on the heads of ICE agents.
You get so much if you kill one, you get
so much if you take one alive. And they're working
with these street animal groups like Antifa to get it done.
America's radical left, they've joined forces with the drug cartels
(15:07):
to kill ICE agents. That's quite a lot to take in.
And now let's talk about the future. All these brave
ICE agents and people signing up for ICE because the
Trump administration is recruiting more.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
They need way more. If you want to get to
the deportation numbers. You want.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
What's going to happen to you if you're an ICE agent.
And let's say twenty twenty eight, twenty thirty two, Governor
Pritzker gets elected president.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
The tables will turn someday.
Speaker 6 (15:40):
These people should recognize that maybe they're not going to
get prosecuted today, although we're looking at doing that, but
they may get prosecuted after the Trump administration for the
things that they did because the statute limitations won't have run.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Wrap your mind around where we are is a country.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
I know that's Look, it's a lot to take in,
But when you really sit back and think about it,
we have America's Democrat politicians, every one of them, working
with America's street communists, working with the Mexican drug cartels
to protect rapists and murderers from being deported, while also
putting bounties on the heads of those ICE agents, while
(16:24):
also promising future prosecutions for ICE agents who arrest in
deport illegals. Now, let me say again, we have places
in the United States of America that are no longer
the United States of America. And this is where I
get to the ugly part because I hate saying this.
I'd like to bring a solution. If you're going to
(16:44):
bring a problem. I don't know what we do about that.
I don't know how. I don't even know if there's
a historical precedent for having a country and then having
a bunch of hostile city states essentially inside of the
country that actively work against the country.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
I'm not sure how to work that out. But I know, look,
even if we get JD.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Vance for eight years or whoever, even if we hold
the White house Hold, the house Hold, the Senate, that's
not gonna save Chicago, La New York.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
I don't know where we go from here. It's ugly.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Now, let's talk about the government going after United States senators.
Senator Ron Johnson is going to join us the moment.
We'll discuss that. Before we get Senator Ron Johnson. I
want to talk about something I love.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Tallow.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
I have fallen in love with cooking with tallow. Do
you know I'm gonna give you a little tidbit here.
Once you go to Golden Age bats and you get
yourself some tallow and you stop cooking with vegetable oil
and canola oil and all that field, let me give
you a little Jesse Kelly White trash.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Did bit.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Make your grilled cheese sandwiches with it? We did that
last night, grilled cheese sandwiches. Dropped that talo in there,
guilt free. They're talking vegetable oil here, Drop that talo
in there toast toast well, it's so good and you
don't have to feel bad about it. How about that
goldenagefats dot com slash JESSETV.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
We'll be back.
Speaker 7 (18:34):
The people on my special council team were like that,
the idea that politics played a.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Role and who worked on that case.
Speaker 7 (18:40):
Or who got chosen is ludicrous and andre you know,
and this is another thing that I think if you're
not inside the US Department of Justice, the idea that
politics would play a role in big cases like this,
it's absolutely ludicrous and it's totally contrary to my experience
as a part.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Yeah, the politics didn't play a role. I'm sure Senator
Johnson will acknowledge that. Joining me now, Senator from the
state of Wisconsin, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator, you don't think
politics played a role, right?
Speaker 3 (19:16):
Jack Smith can continue to claim that time and time again.
It's just a false claim. Politics was obviously behind, you know,
the decade long attack on President Trump, the fact that
President Biden basically declared half America potential domestic terrorists, the uh,
you know, the swat raids on on pro life individuals.
(19:40):
People who just attended the January sixth, the rally, whatever
you want to call that wasn't you know, most people
didn't just made the riots. They just came in and
listened to the President so again, now this this has
been a considered efforts partisan. What else could it be?
How many other how many Democrats did they had their
(20:02):
phone records snatched up by Jacksmith's prosecutors.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
What was arctic frost? What was the reasoning behind all
this up? And it obviously wasn't what they were selling us.
They had some kind of a plan.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
What was it?
Speaker 3 (20:18):
Well, again, I think they wanted to criminalize what happened
on January sixth, not the Obviously any kind of violence
was a criminal act, and those people got convicted and punished.
But they wanted to criminalize, for example, the alternate slate
of electors that was produced in Wisconsin, really following the
president of John Kennedy in Hawaii in nineteen sixty, really
(20:41):
following and correcting the mistake of Al Gore, who if
you would have had an ultimate slate of electors might
have prevailed in the Supreme Court. But because there was
no alternate slate of electors, there was no way other
than no way for the Supreme Court rule other than
to award the presidency to George Bush. So you, Judge
troopas in Wisconsin, learned that did the right thing legally.
(21:04):
Our Wisconsin Torney general actually said there's nothing wrong with it,
and then two years later he's trying to put judge
troops in jail, destroying him financially. I think his legal
bills are already a million dollars. So it's all about
it's all about that lawfare. It's all about criminalizing what
I thought was legitimate, illegal posturing and legal moves. Just
(21:25):
in case President Trump, for example, prevailed in his challenge
to the Wisconsin election results, which there were all kinds
of problems in Wisconsin twenty twenty.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
There were and you know, let's pause for a moment
and check in on that, because as you well know,
your home state is always critical in national elections.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Are those problems being cleaned.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Up to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we still have Central
Coton Milwaukee. It's not a particularly transparent process. But we
had something like I think it's one hundred and seventy
thousand ballots cured by the clicker courts in Milwaukee in
twenty twenty that they're not allowed to do that. You know,
we had the you know, the permanently confined voters that
(22:09):
went from a few tens thousands to many more tens
of thousands. You know, we had nursing homes, people voting
for folks in nursing homes. We had bounding in the
park which is not allowed by Wisconsin state law in Madison.
So again there were there were you know, four or
five different valid issues that need to be challenged. In
(22:29):
the end, it was just thrown out cloacal atches some
kind of legal concept. I don't even quite understand it.
But again, the evidence wasn't seen. It was just thrown
out on you know, from my standpoint, a pretty weak
legal argument that against courts just simply did not want
to review the result of that election because President Biden
(22:50):
was already elected president at that point in time, so
they don't want to go back. And that's always been
the problem with proving frauding elections. The time scales requirements
seed so quickly, the losing candage generally doesn't have the
money to challenge it, and so fraud generally goes unchallenged
and unpunished.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Problem.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
Senator, Let's circle back to this January sixth committee, the
Congressional Investigation.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
According to just the News.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
The Congressional investigators collected thirty million lines of phone data
as part of this Committee. Now, there weren't thirty million
people there by any stretch of the imagination.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
What were they doing. I don't know.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
I saw that exact same report by John Solomon, excellent
investigative reporter. That's what we need to get to. I mean,
we all know the January sixth committee was just a sham.
It did not follow the rules of the House, it
didn't have appropriately appointed minority members. This is just one great,
(23:52):
big sham committee that was designed for one purpose, and
again that was to basically convic to President Trump and
Quart has anybody associated with them. So they're just gathering
whatever evidence they could to again criminalize what was legitimate
concerns over all the problems with a COVID election where
(24:14):
we doubled the number of nasty ballots, which should Jimmy
Carter and James Baker said represented in ProArt of the
greatest threat terms of electric integrity, and yet we doubled
apste bounces as all, there's nothing to see here. No,
there was all kinds of things to see there, but
they want to criminalize just to investigating that.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Jasmine Crockett, not exactly your intellectual equal, is out there
talking about the CRS saying things like this.
Speaker 8 (24:39):
Basically, the last information that I got is that once
the Senate passed what we passed out of the House,
and as his day, we if they passed out of
the House, then we.
Speaker 9 (24:50):
Would come back.
Speaker 8 (24:52):
I think it's a terrible, terrible idea, is a terrible plan.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
What's going on with the CR Well, we just vote again.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
Don't have the results, but I'm sure the Democrats are
going to again vote against just funding the government at
Biden's levels for another you know, until right before Thanksgiving.
I mean that this is these are Joe Biden's spending levels.
This is a clean continued resolution which Democrats, when they
are in the majority, pass time and time and time
and time again. They had no problem with. Then all
(25:23):
of a sudden, now that they're shutting down the government,
they're holding people hostage because they're demanding one point five
trillion dollars in aditial spending, some of it for health
care for illegals, some of it for the Extended Enhanced
Temporary COVID subsidies that have fueled tens of billions of
dollars of fraud. Again, but they're just they're arrogant. They
(25:46):
believe they and they do have the legacy media in
their back pocket, which is why the American public is
so evenly split in terms who they're blaming for this.
But again, they're just being arrogant and confident, and they're
digging their heels in.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Where are we at as far as our resolve goes.
I know there's been a couple of flimsy senators on
our side as per usual, But are we going.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
To get caving and giving in on our side?
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Because if not, I mean to hear you say, it
sounds like this thing is gonna go on a while.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
That's what you said in the beginning. Anyway, I don't
believe so.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
I mean, we just came from lunch. You know. We
do have things in place. I mean, I've offered the
Elinate Shutdowns Act, which would delineate shutdowns for all time.
I'd love to see that pass. I've got to Shutdowns
Fairness Act, which would just pay anybody work for us
need to work. That's only fair. Nobody really wants to
bring that up right now because they don't want to
be the first one to blink. So that's fine. So again,
(26:40):
I was really harden to see a majority leader Scalise
come out strongly against extending those enhanced premiums. Sure sounds
like Leader Thun gave a real good argument and why
that shouldn't happen, so at least from a Lasia standpoint,
unless President Trump indicates otherwise, our leadership is just saying no,
we will pay the troops just past the clean cr
(27:05):
and that's pretty much our position. I don't have a
problem with that. It seems like a pretty solid position
to me.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
All Right, we've dumped four thousand government workers. That's I mean,
a very very small start. Is this going to continue?
I know the threats have been coming from the White
House say we're going to we're going to fire more,
We're going to fire more.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
But we haven't seen mass spirings yet. Is that going
to start?
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Well, that'll be up to russ vote and President Trump.
From my standpoint to the primary problem in this country
literally is the size, scope and cost of government. So
anything we can do to reduce the size, scope, cost
of government and it's influence in our lives. As government grows,
our freedoms necessarily recede. I don't see too many things
of government solving other than it's just exacerbates the problems.
(27:48):
It's further mortgage on kid's future. So I am all
for anything that would again shrink the size, scope and
cost of government.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
An inconvenient study Tracy Ben's ca him on our show
a couple of weeks ago and was talking about an
inconvenient study, and it was the stuff I'd never heard
before in my life.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
You've you've watched this, What do you think?
Speaker 3 (28:09):
I think it's an excellent job. Del Batree really lays
out the case. It's again, like Vaxed, it's a difficult
movie to watch, quite honestly, particularly early on when they
were going through these examples of parents. I mean, what
one set of parents had triplets, three beautiful little babies,
I think, two boys and one girl, and they got
them all vaxed the same day, and they lost them
(28:30):
pretty much the same day. They stopped talking, they started helping.
Now they have a six year old, their six year
old dollar you're talking about stealing diapers, not potty training.
I mean, it's just it's horrific to hear these stories
and the fact that the legacy media, the medical establishment
I've fed at health agencies haven't listened to the parents
who now for decades have been saying that my child
(28:51):
was normal until they got a vaccine. I lost my child.
That's what That's what doctor Andrew Wakefield. That's all he
did back in the early nineteen hundreds, I think it
was nineteen ninety or whatever, when he just was listening
to parents, did a study. Never said that MMMR caused autism.
We said, we ought to look at it, and they
(29:12):
had to destroy him for just basically listening to parents.
And we've been ignoring parents ever since. It's time for
that to end. So this is an excellent documentary.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
I urge all of.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
Your listeners to watch an inconvenient study.
Speaker 1 (29:26):
It's quite an endorsement. Thank you, Senator, I appreciate you.
Is Tiss James going to prison? What happened in the
Supreme Court today?
Speaker 2 (29:36):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
We're gonna ask Bill Jacobson about that. In a moment
before we talked to Bill, I want to talk to
you about something that's.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
It means a lot to me. It's near and dear
to my heart. Chips. I'm a chip man.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
You know, if you've been watching I'm right for any
length of time, you understand that I'm a chip man.
When I snack, it's chip. If I go to the pantry.
I'm in a kind of a snacky mood. I'm immediately
hunting what kind of chips? Now that's generally bad, because
chips today, what you're buying the grocery store, at the
gas station.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
Those are terrible for you.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
But now I can do it guilt free because we
have massive chips stacked up in our pantry. Just three ingredients,
none of this ugliness, just three ingredients. None of this
cancer causing filth, none of this stuff that makes you
feel bloated and disgusting, Just good quality ingredients you can
eat guilt free. Massachips dot com, slash JESSETV.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
We'll be back.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Well at the Supreme Courts meeting. And that's actually been
going pretty well for us lately, so I don't cringe
and WinCE when I say that. But there were oral
arguments today, all kinds of things going on, and so
we probably probably should bring in the professor to make
us smarter about the whole thing. Joining me now, Bill
Jacobs and Cornell University Law founder of the Wonderful Legal Insurrection. Okay, Bill,
(31:11):
what's this Louisiana case all about?
Speaker 9 (31:15):
Well, Louisiana has to do with whether the courts and
legislatures need to create majority minority districts in congressional redistricting.
And essentially it means, do you have to create districts
that preserve a certain number of majority black voters that
are likely to empower and elect blacks. And believe it
(31:39):
or not, that actually has been the law under the
Voting Rights Act, or at least as it's been interpreted.
But that's now up for play, and so the justices
are going to have to decide does it violate the
equal protection provisions of the Constitution and does it violate
the voting rights protections in the Constitution. To have a
(32:00):
legislature the Congress pass a law which is interpreted as
requiring that you create racially gerrymandered districts, and that's.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
What it is.
Speaker 9 (32:10):
It's a very complicated history to this case. But where
we are now is that there is an extra black
so called Black Congressional district was created by court order
in Louisiana. Another court of three judge panel put the
hold on that found that unconstitutional. The Supreme Court stated,
(32:32):
so now here we are are we going to create
black only districts in order to achieve a certain number
of black congressmen or are we going to say that
race doesn't matter. You can't do that, And that's really
the question. So it's a huge question. And really why
it matters to Democrats is not because they want more
(32:53):
black congressmen. It's they're going to be Democrat districts. So
you could have, and I've seen various estimates, three to
five seats in play if the Supreme Court does away
with this rule.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
So we've been handing three to five seats to the
Democrats just for some blatantly unconstitutional and frankly racist interpretation
of a law.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
That's bonkers. How long has this been going on?
Speaker 9 (33:18):
Bill, I don't know when the Voting Rights Act was enacted,
but at least several decades.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Good, Okay, so today was oral arguments. Did they make
a decision by dinner time?
Speaker 2 (33:31):
How's it work from here? No?
Speaker 9 (33:34):
Hopefully we get it long before June. Typically, the very
big cases they wait till the end of the term.
And we've discussed what that means. That's simply when the
court has cases docketed and that ends in June. So
the really big cases they usually hold to the last
couple of days in June. The problem here is that
there are deadlines to get these districts redistricted by the
(33:58):
time of the twenty twenty six congressional election. So I
think we're going to get a decision this calendar year.
I don't know what the deadline is for voting in Louisiana,
but presumably if they got this redistricted this calendar year,
or at least a decision this calendar year, they could
get it done in time for the next election. If
they sit on this till June, then nothing can really change.
(34:20):
By November there just won't be enough time to have
primaries and things like that. So I think we'll get
a quick decision, not tonight, but I think before the
end of this calendar year.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
All right, let's shift gears something else here. Letitia James.
It looks to me, from the complete idiot layman's point
of view, that this is about as black and white
of a case as it is.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I may be a layman, but I have bought and
sold a.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Few houses in my various moves across the country, and it's.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Not a small section of it. Bill.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
It's pretty obvious. Are you declaring that to be your
primary residence or not? And if you lie, it's bank fraud.
What am I missing on this case?
Speaker 2 (35:01):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (35:02):
Well, I think the allegation is that she said it
would be a residence. I don't know if she said
it would be her primary residence, but she then immediately
rented it out, so it wasn't a residence primary or secondary.
And that's really the issue. That she got a better
rate on a mortgage and probably had an easier time
getting a mortgage when it's going to be a residence
(35:22):
than a rental property. And that's the issue. And they
seem to have a lot of evidence that this was
all planned, that she had a renter lined up immediately
and essentially defrauded the bank. That's the allegation, by getting
a better rate than she would have gotten, which of
course is very ironic because that's what she accused Donald
(35:43):
Trump of doing in the New York civil case against him,
was inflating his properties to get better deals from banks.
Of course, nobody was harmed. Actually the banks were very
sophisticated players. But so it's such an irony that the
person who weaponized the prosecutorial function against a political enemy
(36:06):
and against his family. Let's not forget that. She said
on the record she's going for his family. Also that
she is now indicted for a crime very similar to
what she tried to accuse him of doing. Now, his
was a civil case, not a criminal case, because she
couldn't prosecute him criminally. But what irony is there there that?
(36:27):
If there's anybody you know who talk about the boomerang,
I mean, this is a huge boomerang on Letitia James
if she gets convicted. I don't know if a jury
will convict her. It's the Eastern District of Virginia, so
there may be a little Trump derangement syndrome present on
the jury there that'll help her out. So called jury nullification,
(36:48):
but it's certainly the indictment is pretty damning. But of
course the indictment is just the prosecution's accusations. Doesn't tell
you what the defense is.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Okay, So let's talk about this jury nullification thing. Because
we have Brennan cole Mey with Tiss James, we have
Adam Schiff, we have all these people that may have
already been accused or we think they're going to be,
of having committed crimes. Where are these trials going to
be held? Because you'll have to forgive me. If they're
(37:19):
in Northern Virginia, were screwed?
Speaker 9 (37:21):
Yes, they're in Northern Virginia. So that's where they're going
to take place. And I'm not sure why it was
the Eastern District of Virginia. I said, why didn't they
bring these in DC? Probably didn't want to be in
DC of all places the prosecution. But you probably know
Northern Virginia better than I do. But what I know
as someone who's not living there is that it's turned
(37:42):
very solidly blue, with a lot of government employees, federal
government employees. So it would be a very favorable venue
for somebody like Letitia James, particularly when it's the Trump
administration going after her. We'd like to think juries can
rise above that, and hopefully they will, but that's certainly
(38:03):
a factor that we have to consider.
Speaker 2 (38:06):
Bill.
Speaker 1 (38:07):
I'm sure you saw Donald Trump is calling for the
Great Reform Agenda in higher education.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
What is this?
Speaker 9 (38:15):
Yeah, he released a couple of weeks ago something called
a Compact for Higher Education and he's been posting on
truth Social about it. That's getting a lot more attention
than when he issued the ten page document two weeks ago.
And basically, what is it's a carrot and stick approach.
That the carrot is if a school agrees to this compact,
(38:37):
which is ten pages, has a lot of stuff in there,
they will get preferential treatment when it comes to government funding,
they'll get fast tracked, they'll get other perks and benefits
if they agree to this. And what they're agreeing to
is essentially to deradicalize the university, to move it a
little back to the center, not to make it conservative,
(38:58):
not to make it maga, but just not as crazy
left as it's been. Introduce some viewpoint diversity, get rid
of the racism in hiring and admission, do all these things,
treat boys as boys and girls as girls based on biology,
not thought processes, things like that. But if you don't
(39:18):
take it, now comes the stick. And the stick is
basically the current situation, which is they are auditing schools,
they're reviewing schools, and if they find you in a
civil rights violation like they claim to have found Harvard
and several other schools, they're going to start to pull
your brands and pull your funding.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
That's the stick.
Speaker 9 (39:35):
So giving schools a choice, you can play ball with us.
You can agree to things which we know you don't like.
We know your faculty is going to hate, and if
you do, there'll be a reward. But if you don't,
you get stuck in the system you're in now. So
that's the choice he's giving them, and I expect most
schools will not go along with it.
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Bill, How realistic is it to think that you could
even attempt a lot of this. I'm glad he's attempting something,
But as you mentioned, the faculty, everyone knows personnel's policy
the wants of the oldest sayings in the world. Because
it's true, you can give as many directives as you
want to Harvard, but if it's a bunch of maoists
in the teaching department, what goods are going to do well?
Speaker 9 (40:19):
The way this is structured, if they do accept these reforms,
the president of the university is now personally liable if
they violate them, So that creates a strong incentive to
actually enforce this. And they talk about eliminating various programs
and things like that, so I think this will be
measurable and enforceable. Of course, the things are always going
(40:42):
to be hidden, but they've put things in place there
to put key people on the hook. If they don't
live up to it. And that's a strong incentive. If
you're president of a university, you have a strong incentive
so that you don't lose your life savings and possibly
worse to the federal government, very strong incentive to make
sure these rules are followed. That threat is not there
(41:04):
right now. The president of the university has no personal
incentive to make sure that the rules are followed and
the civil rights laws are obeyed. It's the institution that's responsible.
Speaker 2 (41:16):
So that's huge.
Speaker 9 (41:16):
So I think there are things in here that would
be extremely important. This is the equivalent of an intervention.
This is the Trump administration telling academia and higher education
that you are on an unsustainable path. You cannot continue
to live in this bubble that you've created. You have
(41:37):
alienated a significant percentage of the population. Gallup just came
out with the poll they said, the lowest ever percentage
of people think a college degree is important or very important.
Academia is a sinking ship, and the Trump administration is
actually trying to intervene and rescue it. That's not how
(41:59):
academia is going to look at it. They're going to
look at it as a gross interference but this is
actually in the long term interest of higher education to
get them off of a destructive path. It's like staging
a family intervention with a relative who's out of control.
Higher education cannot reform itself. It needs outside intervention.
Speaker 1 (42:22):
No one knows better than you. Thank you for everything
has always bill light in the mood. Next, all right,
it's time to lighten the mood. RFK Junior's wife is
Sheryl Hines, and she's out there hawkm things right now.
(42:46):
And so she got invited for the View to the View,
invited to be on the View. However, you're supposed to
say that it doesn't matter. Remember the communist, he lives
in a world of make believe, and he carefully constructs
and maintains this world of make believe at all times.
Speaker 2 (43:02):
Now, you it's not a problem.
Speaker 1 (43:04):
But if you're some middle aged woman sitting at home
watching the View all day popping xanax, you live in
a world that is not real at all because they
lie twenty four hours a day.
Speaker 2 (43:15):
They just lie to you.
Speaker 1 (43:17):
Now you bring in Cheryl Hines and she starts tearing
apart that world.
Speaker 2 (43:22):
You gotta go to commercial break.
Speaker 10 (43:24):
To say, hey, you know consult your doctor before you
take this. I agree with that, and I think that's
okay for moms to here. Surel yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 11 (43:35):
Out all right, I am this. This is not your
fight really to be fighting.
Speaker 10 (43:42):
This is your husband's thank you forechnolog ahead.
Speaker 2 (43:44):
But you're talking.
Speaker 11 (43:47):
I just I do want to say, you know, he's
not a doctor, and he's not a professional. Yes, and
oftentimes when he's talking.
Speaker 10 (43:56):
And just to be clear, ninety of secretarias of HHS
have not been doctors, but they've they've been great.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
Don be honest.
Speaker 10 (44:08):
One of Obama's Secretaries of HHS was an economist, so.
Speaker 11 (44:15):
Most the majority of them that haven't had medical backgrounds. Wait, science,
don't do anything else, don't say anything else yet, because
they don't have to take a break.
Speaker 2 (44:27):
All they do is lie to the poor dumb souls
who watch it. I'll see them
Barack Obama, the communists who started so much of this.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
He's back, we'll talk about that.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Did the Mexican cartels put a bounty on the head
of ICE agents? It sure looks like it. Ron Johnson
is here, the government still shut down. All that and
more coming.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Up when I'm right.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Okay, So now that Barack Obama is back and we
have some clips for you here, clearly this is going
to be a thing where he's going to be speaking
out more, I think it's important to discuss a couple
of things before we get to actually what he said.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
First.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Barack Obama, specifically, he is the only president, from all
my reading, in the history of the United States of America,
the only one we've ever had who genuinely hates the country.
There have been all kinds of Democrat presidents and Republican presidents,
and some of them appear to be real patriots. Some
(01:01):
don't be wrong, plenty appeared to not really care about
the country at all, tyrants or morons or whatever. But
even if you go back to guys like Fdr. Bill Clinton,
you know, those guys didn't really genuinely hate the country.
May had done some selfish things, some bad things, but
they didn't hate the place. Barack Obama did. I'll tell
he was raised. Those were the influences in his life. Now,
(01:25):
combine that with the other thing, and it made Barack
Obama so damaging.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
He's good at it.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
He's really really good at politics. It's not just that
he has that hatred. Lots of communists hate the country.
Not many were as trained and capable as Barack Obama was.
He was so good at subversively destroying this place and
the inside while presenting himself as just the norm just
(01:53):
the normy. I remember, I remember his campaign ads running
for president seemed like a moderate guy. If you were
only believing the ads, just seem like kind of a
normal guy Democrat.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Eh, we all get a.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
He was just really really good at that kind of deception. Now,
set Obama aside a moment, we'll come back to him.
There's another thing about communists that you have to understand.
It's just the way they think. It's not how you think.
I'm glad that, but it's the way they think. The
communist believes that every single thing, every institution large and small,
(02:28):
every person large and small, but every institution should work
on behalf of the revolution. Remember he's religious. His revolution
is right before his communist god. It is all that
is good. Anything that opposes it is evil. And so
when he turns your public library into the spawn of
(02:50):
Satan where they're waving their penis in your daughter's face,
or he turns the FBI evil or by entertainment, and
he turns them into weapons of the revolution, he doesn't
think he's doing anything wrong.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
That's how he looks at everything.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Everything to be truly good has to work exclusively for
the revolution, and everything every institution should actively oppose all
the enemies of the revolution. And when he became president
of the United States of America, that's how he operated.
(03:26):
And again part of what killed us so much as
he was good at it, he was really good at it.
He really shunned a lot of the traditional Beltway people.
He had some but the traditional DC bureaucrats and it's
kind of scummy, selfish people. He ditched a lot of
those guys, and he went to where you can really
find the most evil, violent committed communists on the planet, academia,
(03:47):
the university system. And he started plucking people out of
academia and installing them all over the United States government
for eight years. He did this, even purged generals, replaced
them with his kind of generals. And at the end
of it, what we had, what Donald Trump walked into
for his first term, and really what we still have
for the most part, was a federal government that is
(04:08):
completely weaponized against the right and views itself as a
tool for the revolution.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
There's tons of these.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
People there, and so when he says things like this,
he's not really being hypocritical.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
We have blown through, just in the last six months,
a whole range of not simply assumptions, but rules and
laws and practices that were put in place to ensure
(04:43):
that nobody's above the law and that we don't use
the federal government to simply reward our friends and punish
our enemies, and the same things obviously happening and the
Justice Department.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Okay, I know you're screaming at the television set.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
That's what he did. I mean, look, we've talked about
this before in the show.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
That person ran for office to do what communists always do,
of course, promote the revolution, but reward her friends and
punish her enemies. Those are as we've discussed many times.
The only two things a communist does with power, and
they're the only two things he's interested. So is Barack
(05:34):
Obama a hypocrite when he accuses us of doing that?
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Maybe to you or me, he is, of course, but we.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Have to understand in his mind he is not when
he looks at the court, the dj when he looks
at the FBI, when he looks at all these things, everything.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Every McDonald's, doesn't matter what it is.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Everything is just something that should be used, should be
working for the If it's not, it either has to
be completely destroyed or infiltrated and taken over and turned
into something that works exclusively on behalf of the revolution.
He wasn't being hypocritical when he talked about the courts.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
You know, we don't want, you know, kangaroo courts and
trumped up charges. That's what happens in other places that
we used to scold yeah for doing that. You know,
we want like our court system and our Justice Department
and our prosecutors to be and our FBI to be
just playing things straight and looking at the facts and
(06:39):
not meddling in politics the way the way we've seen
later lately.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Of course, you can scream and yell that wait a minute,
that's the guy who brought in That's a guy who
brought in the FBI and CIA and apparently turn them
loose against Donald Trump. The incoming president ran an operation.
It was Barack Obama's he's the one who did all that.
But for communists, that's what you're supposed to do. The
(07:10):
FBI is supposed to arrest Republicans and protect Democrats in
the amount of a communist. That's what they're supposed to do.
If they're not doing that, they're failing. Everything has to
work on behalf of the revolution at all times. Enemies
of the revolution must be crushed. They cannot be tolerated. Everything,
even neutral things must be taken over or destroyed if
(07:34):
they're not working on behalf of the revolution. And speaking
of which, let's talk about the administrative state. This is
something we talk about a lot on the show. We
talked to Ned Ryan about it last night on the show.
All these federal employees, all these bureaucrats with all this power,
huge budgets, millions billions of your dollars, and then all
(07:56):
this regulatory authority. And we're not even talking about Central
Intelligence Agency, the power at their hands, the FBI, These
are institutions with the power to destroy your life if
they so choose, doesn't even have to be legit.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
They can destroy your life.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
So what was the thinking when the communists started installing
their minions, in promoting their minions all throughout these organizations,
the thinking always is, if the voters reject us, we
have to have a way to get around that. This
is all the way back to the Soviet Union when
(08:34):
the Bolsheviks took over and they told the people.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, you can have a vote.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Then they basically put it up for the vote, and
the communists got like twenty five percent of the vote.
That people were like, hey, we don't like you at all.
And then the Bolsheviks said, you know what, never mind
about that whole voting thing. They know they like to
appear to give you a choice, but they don't want
you to actually have a choice. That's why you fill
up the administrative state with committed communists. So when the
people reject you, go out vote for Donald Trump again.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
You are not left out hanging.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
You still have all these subversive revolutionaries inside the government.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Barack Obama was calling to them yesterday.
Speaker 4 (09:10):
Right now, there's just a little discomfort. And so when
I say, for example, if you're a law firm, you
know you saying to we're going to represent who we
want and we're going to stand up for what we
think is our core mission of upholding the law, and
(09:32):
maybe we'll lose some business for that, but that's what
we believe, that's what's needed. If you're a university president, say, well,
you know what this will hurt if we lose some
grant money from the federal government, but that's what the
downlands are for. Let's let's see if we can ride
this out, because what we're not going to do is
compromise our basic academic independence. If you're a business you
(09:57):
say you know what you know, we're not. We're gonna
we think it's important because of what this country is
to hire people from different backgrounds, and we're not going
to be bullied into saying that we can only know
hire people or promote people based on some criteria that's
(10:19):
been cooked up by Steve Miller. We all have this capacity,
I think, to to take a stamp.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
You hear what you're saying. You basically laid out exactly
what I told you in the beginning. The Communist drives
through your town, Seize the police department, chick fil a hospital,
the university, and all he sees are tools or potential
tools for the revolution. It is a truly sick, demonic
(10:57):
religion of destruction and dominate. And Barack Obama was the
one who laid the foundation for the struggles we have today.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Dirtball.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
All that may have made you uncomfortable, but I am
right now. We're going to talk a little bit about
some things, some ice things, some other things. Before we
talk about those other things, I want to talk to
you about your energy level. How do you feel, not
in the morning, although that affects it too, how do
you feel at night when.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
You get on from work? Are you done.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Totally gassed, don't feel like lifting a finger? Let's order
in or do you feel good? Ready to go? Good mood?
A vitality stack from chalk. Whether you're a man or
a woman, they have male vital vitality stacks and female
vitality stacks. A male vitality stack or female vitality stack
from chalk is going to change your life. It is
life changing. You'll be better at work, you'll be better
(11:55):
at home, your personal life, recreation, everything's better. When you
feel better, go to chalk dot com slash jessetv.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
We'll be back.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Okay, let's talk about what's happening. It really we're gonna
talk about Ice. But this is really about the blue
areas of the country and.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
How they may just be lost. That we have to.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Acknowledge something before we go into this, before we go
into the bounties and the cartels Los Angeles, things like that,
that there are places in America that are now foreign countries.
Maybe we can bring them back into America, maybe we can't.
But if you are in a completely blue area, it's
a foreign country now. It's foreign, it's communists, it's hostile
to everything good, it celebrates everything bad. It's not the
(12:50):
United States of America anymore. And illegals even know that.
Why do you think they all flock there? Which, of
course brings us to the Trump administration. It brings us
to Ice. You know, people want to know, WHI is
Donald Trump going into Chicago? Why is he going into
New York Houston where I live? Why is he going
into Los Angeles? He's going into these big urban blue
hell holes, because that's where the worst of the worst
(13:14):
of the illegals. That's where they congregate, and that's where
you're going to get the most of them, because these
are foreign countries who tell illegals, come on in, you're
welcome here, you won't get in trouble, shoot will pay.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
You to be here.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
So if you have promised the American people that you're
going to try to deport all these savages we've brought
into the country, you have to go to where they are,
and they're in Los Angeles, and here's here's how that's going.
Speaker 5 (13:43):
Lake County has declared a state of emergency over the
immigration rage. The Board of Supervisors voted today. Board members
say the rage are preventing people from going to work
and forcing some businesses to close. The emergency allows the
board to look at enacting an eviction moratorium and other
protections for people impacted by the raids. And this news
just coming into our newsroom will of course continue to
(14:06):
follow it.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
Just before we talk about anything else.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Just wrap your mind around that Ice is going in there,
arresting people here illegally and deporting them.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
That's it.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
And in every blue area in the United States of America,
the Democrat politicians in that area are doing everything they
can to stop them. The street animals, as you can
see right there on the screen, are doing everything they
can to stop them. That's a hostile foreign country. And
speaking of hostile foreign countries, according to Christinome, Mexican drug
(14:43):
cartels are now placing bounties on the heads of ICE agents.
You get so much if you kill one, you get
so much if you take one alive. And they're working
with these street animal groups like Antifa to get it done.
America's radical left, they've joined forces with the drug cartels
(15:07):
to kill ICE agents. That's quite a lot to take in.
And now let's talk about the future. All these brave
ICE agents and people signing up for ICE because the
Trump administration is recruiting more.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
They need way more. If you want to get to
the deportation numbers. You want.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
What's going to happen to you if you're an ICE agent.
And let's say twenty twenty eight, twenty thirty two, Governor
Pritzker gets elected president.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
The tables will turn someday.
Speaker 6 (15:40):
These people should recognize that maybe they're not going to
get prosecuted today, although we're looking at doing that, but
they may get prosecuted after the Trump administration for the
things that they did because the statute limitations won't have run.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Wrap your mind around where we are is a country.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
I know that's Look, it's a lot to take in,
But when you really sit back and think about it,
we have America's Democrat politicians, every one of them, working
with America's street communists, working with the Mexican drug cartels
to protect rapists and murderers from being deported, while also
putting bounties on the heads of those ICE agents, while
(16:24):
also promising future prosecutions for ICE agents who arrest in
deport illegals. Now, let me say again, we have places
in the United States of America that are no longer
the United States of America. And this is where I
get to the ugly part because I hate saying this.
I'd like to bring a solution. If you're going to
(16:44):
bring a problem. I don't know what we do about that.
I don't know how. I don't even know if there's
a historical precedent for having a country and then having
a bunch of hostile city states essentially inside of the
country that actively work against the country.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
I'm not sure how to work that out. But I know, look,
even if we get JD.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Vance for eight years or whoever, even if we hold
the White house Hold, the house Hold, the Senate, that's
not gonna save Chicago, La New York.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
I don't know where we go from here. It's ugly.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Now, let's talk about the government going after United States senators.
Senator Ron Johnson is going to join us the moment.
We'll discuss that. Before we get Senator Ron Johnson. I
want to talk about something I love.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Tallow.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
I have fallen in love with cooking with tallow. Do
you know I'm gonna give you a little tidbit here.
Once you go to Golden Age bats and you get
yourself some tallow and you stop cooking with vegetable oil
and canola oil and all that field, let me give
you a little Jesse Kelly White trash.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Did bit.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Make your grilled cheese sandwiches with it? We did that
last night, grilled cheese sandwiches. Dropped that talo in there,
guilt free. They're talking vegetable oil here, Drop that talo
in there toast toast well, it's so good and you
don't have to feel bad about it. How about that
goldenagefats dot com slash JESSETV.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
We'll be back.
Speaker 7 (18:34):
The people on my special council team were like that,
the idea that politics played a.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Role and who worked on that case.
Speaker 7 (18:40):
Or who got chosen is ludicrous and andre you know,
and this is another thing that I think if you're
not inside the US Department of Justice, the idea that
politics would play a role in big cases like this,
it's absolutely ludicrous and it's totally contrary to my experience
as a part.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Yeah, the politics didn't play a role. I'm sure Senator
Johnson will acknowledge that. Joining me now, Senator from the
state of Wisconsin, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator, you don't think
politics played a role, right?
Speaker 3 (19:16):
Jack Smith can continue to claim that time and time again.
It's just a false claim. Politics was obviously behind, you know,
the decade long attack on President Trump, the fact that
President Biden basically declared half America potential domestic terrorists, the uh,
you know, the swat raids on on pro life individuals.
(19:40):
People who just attended the January sixth, the rally, whatever
you want to call that wasn't you know, most people
didn't just made the riots. They just came in and
listened to the President so again, now this this has
been a considered efforts partisan. What else could it be?
How many other how many Democrats did they had their
(20:02):
phone records snatched up by Jacksmith's prosecutors.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
What was arctic frost? What was the reasoning behind all
this up? And it obviously wasn't what they were selling us.
They had some kind of a plan.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
What was it?
Speaker 3 (20:18):
Well, again, I think they wanted to criminalize what happened
on January sixth, not the Obviously any kind of violence
was a criminal act, and those people got convicted and punished.
But they wanted to criminalize, for example, the alternate slate
of electors that was produced in Wisconsin, really following the
president of John Kennedy in Hawaii in nineteen sixty, really
(20:41):
following and correcting the mistake of Al Gore, who if
you would have had an ultimate slate of electors might
have prevailed in the Supreme Court. But because there was
no alternate slate of electors, there was no way other
than no way for the Supreme Court rule other than
to award the presidency to George Bush. So you, Judge
troopas in Wisconsin, learned that did the right thing legally.
(21:04):
Our Wisconsin Torney general actually said there's nothing wrong with it,
and then two years later he's trying to put judge
troops in jail, destroying him financially. I think his legal
bills are already a million dollars. So it's all about
it's all about that lawfare. It's all about criminalizing what
I thought was legitimate, illegal posturing and legal moves. Just
(21:25):
in case President Trump, for example, prevailed in his challenge
to the Wisconsin election results, which there were all kinds
of problems in Wisconsin twenty twenty.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
There were and you know, let's pause for a moment
and check in on that, because as you well know,
your home state is always critical in national elections.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Are those problems being cleaned.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Up to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we still have Central
Coton Milwaukee. It's not a particularly transparent process. But we
had something like I think it's one hundred and seventy
thousand ballots cured by the clicker courts in Milwaukee in
twenty twenty that they're not allowed to do that. You know,
we had the you know, the permanently confined voters that
(22:09):
went from a few tens thousands to many more tens
of thousands. You know, we had nursing homes, people voting
for folks in nursing homes. We had bounding in the
park which is not allowed by Wisconsin state law in Madison.
So again there were there were you know, four or
five different valid issues that need to be challenged. In
(22:29):
the end, it was just thrown out cloacal atches some
kind of legal concept. I don't even quite understand it.
But again, the evidence wasn't seen. It was just thrown
out on you know, from my standpoint, a pretty weak
legal argument that against courts just simply did not want
to review the result of that election because President Biden
(22:50):
was already elected president at that point in time, so
they don't want to go back. And that's always been
the problem with proving frauding elections. The time scales requirements
seed so quickly, the losing candage generally doesn't have the
money to challenge it, and so fraud generally goes unchallenged
and unpunished.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Problem.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
Senator, Let's circle back to this January sixth committee, the
Congressional Investigation.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
According to just the News.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
The Congressional investigators collected thirty million lines of phone data
as part of this Committee. Now, there weren't thirty million
people there by any stretch of the imagination.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
What were they doing. I don't know.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
I saw that exact same report by John Solomon, excellent
investigative reporter. That's what we need to get to. I mean,
we all know the January sixth committee was just a sham.
It did not follow the rules of the House, it
didn't have appropriately appointed minority members. This is just one great,
(23:52):
big sham committee that was designed for one purpose, and
again that was to basically convic to President Trump and
Quart has anybody associated with them. So they're just gathering
whatever evidence they could to again criminalize what was legitimate
concerns over all the problems with a COVID election where
(24:14):
we doubled the number of nasty ballots, which should Jimmy
Carter and James Baker said represented in ProArt of the
greatest threat terms of electric integrity, and yet we doubled
apste bounces as all, there's nothing to see here. No,
there was all kinds of things to see there, but
they want to criminalize just to investigating that.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Jasmine Crockett, not exactly your intellectual equal, is out there
talking about the CRS saying things like this.
Speaker 8 (24:39):
Basically, the last information that I got is that once
the Senate passed what we passed out of the House,
and as his day, we if they passed out of
the House, then we.
Speaker 9 (24:50):
Would come back.
Speaker 8 (24:52):
I think it's a terrible, terrible idea, is a terrible plan.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
What's going on with the CR Well, we just vote again.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
Don't have the results, but I'm sure the Democrats are
going to again vote against just funding the government at
Biden's levels for another you know, until right before Thanksgiving.
I mean that this is these are Joe Biden's spending levels.
This is a clean continued resolution which Democrats, when they
are in the majority, pass time and time and time
and time again. They had no problem with. Then all
(25:23):
of a sudden, now that they're shutting down the government,
they're holding people hostage because they're demanding one point five
trillion dollars in aditial spending, some of it for health
care for illegals, some of it for the Extended Enhanced
Temporary COVID subsidies that have fueled tens of billions of
dollars of fraud. Again, but they're just they're arrogant. They
(25:46):
believe they and they do have the legacy media in
their back pocket, which is why the American public is
so evenly split in terms who they're blaming for this.
But again, they're just being arrogant and confident, and they're
digging their heels in.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Where are we at as far as our resolve goes.
I know there's been a couple of flimsy senators on
our side as per usual, But are we going.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
To get caving and giving in on our side?
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Because if not, I mean to hear you say, it
sounds like this thing is gonna go on a while.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
That's what you said in the beginning. Anyway, I don't
believe so.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
I mean, we just came from lunch. You know. We
do have things in place. I mean, I've offered the
Elinate Shutdowns Act, which would delineate shutdowns for all time.
I'd love to see that pass. I've got to Shutdowns
Fairness Act, which would just pay anybody work for us
need to work. That's only fair. Nobody really wants to
bring that up right now because they don't want to
be the first one to blink. So that's fine. So again,
(26:40):
I was really harden to see a majority leader Scalise
come out strongly against extending those enhanced premiums. Sure sounds
like Leader Thun gave a real good argument and why
that shouldn't happen, so at least from a Lasia standpoint,
unless President Trump indicates otherwise, our leadership is just saying no,
we will pay the troops just past the clean cr
(27:05):
and that's pretty much our position. I don't have a
problem with that. It seems like a pretty solid position
to me.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
All Right, we've dumped four thousand government workers. That's I mean,
a very very small start. Is this going to continue?
I know the threats have been coming from the White
House say we're going to we're going to fire more,
We're going to fire more.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
But we haven't seen mass spirings yet. Is that going
to start?
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Well, that'll be up to russ vote and President Trump.
From my standpoint to the primary problem in this country
literally is the size, scope and cost of government. So
anything we can do to reduce the size, scope, cost
of government and it's influence in our lives. As government grows,
our freedoms necessarily recede. I don't see too many things
of government solving other than it's just exacerbates the problems.
(27:48):
It's further mortgage on kid's future. So I am all
for anything that would again shrink the size, scope and
cost of government.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
An inconvenient study Tracy Ben's ca him on our show
a couple of weeks ago and was talking about an
inconvenient study, and it was the stuff I'd never heard
before in my life.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
You've you've watched this, What do you think?
Speaker 3 (28:09):
I think it's an excellent job. Del Batree really lays
out the case. It's again, like Vaxed, it's a difficult
movie to watch, quite honestly, particularly early on when they
were going through these examples of parents. I mean, what
one set of parents had triplets, three beautiful little babies,
I think, two boys and one girl, and they got
them all vaxed the same day, and they lost them
(28:30):
pretty much the same day. They stopped talking, they started helping.
Now they have a six year old, their six year
old dollar you're talking about stealing diapers, not potty training.
I mean, it's just it's horrific to hear these stories
and the fact that the legacy media, the medical establishment
I've fed at health agencies haven't listened to the parents
who now for decades have been saying that my child
(28:51):
was normal until they got a vaccine. I lost my child.
That's what That's what doctor Andrew Wakefield. That's all he
did back in the early nineteen hundreds, I think it
was nineteen ninety or whatever, when he just was listening
to parents, did a study. Never said that MMMR caused autism.
We said, we ought to look at it, and they
(29:12):
had to destroy him for just basically listening to parents.
And we've been ignoring parents ever since. It's time for
that to end. So this is an excellent documentary.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
I urge all of.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
Your listeners to watch an inconvenient study.
Speaker 1 (29:26):
It's quite an endorsement. Thank you, Senator, I appreciate you.
Is Tiss James going to prison? What happened in the
Supreme Court today?
Speaker 2 (29:36):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
We're gonna ask Bill Jacobson about that. In a moment
before we talked to Bill, I want to talk to
you about something that's.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
It means a lot to me. It's near and dear
to my heart. Chips. I'm a chip man.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
You know, if you've been watching I'm right for any
length of time, you understand that I'm a chip man.
When I snack, it's chip. If I go to the pantry.
I'm in a kind of a snacky mood. I'm immediately
hunting what kind of chips? Now that's generally bad, because
chips today, what you're buying the grocery store, at the
gas station.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
Those are terrible for you.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
But now I can do it guilt free because we
have massive chips stacked up in our pantry. Just three ingredients,
none of this ugliness, just three ingredients. None of this
cancer causing filth, none of this stuff that makes you
feel bloated and disgusting, Just good quality ingredients you can
eat guilt free. Massachips dot com, slash JESSETV.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
We'll be back.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Well at the Supreme Courts meeting. And that's actually been
going pretty well for us lately, so I don't cringe
and WinCE when I say that. But there were oral
arguments today, all kinds of things going on, and so
we probably probably should bring in the professor to make
us smarter about the whole thing. Joining me now, Bill
Jacobs and Cornell University Law founder of the Wonderful Legal Insurrection. Okay, Bill,
(31:11):
what's this Louisiana case all about?
Speaker 9 (31:15):
Well, Louisiana has to do with whether the courts and
legislatures need to create majority minority districts in congressional redistricting.
And essentially it means, do you have to create districts
that preserve a certain number of majority black voters that
are likely to empower and elect blacks. And believe it
(31:39):
or not, that actually has been the law under the
Voting Rights Act, or at least as it's been interpreted.
But that's now up for play, and so the justices
are going to have to decide does it violate the
equal protection provisions of the Constitution and does it violate
the voting rights protections in the Constitution. To have a
(32:00):
legislature the Congress pass a law which is interpreted as
requiring that you create racially gerrymandered districts, and that's.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
What it is.
Speaker 9 (32:10):
It's a very complicated history to this case. But where
we are now is that there is an extra black
so called Black Congressional district was created by court order
in Louisiana. Another court of three judge panel put the
hold on that found that unconstitutional. The Supreme Court stated,
(32:32):
so now here we are are we going to create
black only districts in order to achieve a certain number
of black congressmen or are we going to say that
race doesn't matter. You can't do that, And that's really
the question. So it's a huge question. And really why
it matters to Democrats is not because they want more
(32:53):
black congressmen. It's they're going to be Democrat districts. So
you could have, and I've seen various estimates, three to
five seats in play if the Supreme Court does away
with this rule.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
So we've been handing three to five seats to the
Democrats just for some blatantly unconstitutional and frankly racist interpretation
of a law.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
That's bonkers. How long has this been going on?
Speaker 9 (33:18):
Bill, I don't know when the Voting Rights Act was enacted,
but at least several decades.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Good, Okay, so today was oral arguments. Did they make
a decision by dinner time?
Speaker 2 (33:31):
How's it work from here? No?
Speaker 9 (33:34):
Hopefully we get it long before June. Typically, the very
big cases they wait till the end of the term.
And we've discussed what that means. That's simply when the
court has cases docketed and that ends in June. So
the really big cases they usually hold to the last
couple of days in June. The problem here is that
there are deadlines to get these districts redistricted by the
(33:58):
time of the twenty twenty six congressional election. So I
think we're going to get a decision this calendar year.
I don't know what the deadline is for voting in Louisiana,
but presumably if they got this redistricted this calendar year,
or at least a decision this calendar year, they could
get it done in time for the next election. If
they sit on this till June, then nothing can really change.
(34:20):
By November there just won't be enough time to have
primaries and things like that. So I think we'll get
a quick decision, not tonight, but I think before the
end of this calendar year.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
All right, let's shift gears something else here. Letitia James.
It looks to me, from the complete idiot layman's point
of view, that this is about as black and white
of a case as it is.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I may be a layman, but I have bought and
sold a.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Few houses in my various moves across the country, and it's.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Not a small section of it. Bill.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
It's pretty obvious. Are you declaring that to be your
primary residence or not? And if you lie, it's bank fraud.
What am I missing on this case?
Speaker 2 (35:01):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (35:02):
Well, I think the allegation is that she said it
would be a residence. I don't know if she said
it would be her primary residence, but she then immediately
rented it out, so it wasn't a residence primary or secondary.
And that's really the issue. That she got a better
rate on a mortgage and probably had an easier time
getting a mortgage when it's going to be a residence
(35:22):
than a rental property. And that's the issue. And they
seem to have a lot of evidence that this was
all planned, that she had a renter lined up immediately
and essentially defrauded the bank. That's the allegation, by getting
a better rate than she would have gotten, which of
course is very ironic because that's what she accused Donald
(35:43):
Trump of doing in the New York civil case against him,
was inflating his properties to get better deals from banks.
Of course, nobody was harmed. Actually the banks were very
sophisticated players. But so it's such an irony that the
person who weaponized the prosecutorial function against a political enemy
(36:06):
and against his family. Let's not forget that. She said
on the record she's going for his family. Also that
she is now indicted for a crime very similar to
what she tried to accuse him of doing. Now, his
was a civil case, not a criminal case, because she
couldn't prosecute him criminally. But what irony is there there that?
(36:27):
If there's anybody you know who talk about the boomerang,
I mean, this is a huge boomerang on Letitia James
if she gets convicted. I don't know if a jury
will convict her. It's the Eastern District of Virginia, so
there may be a little Trump derangement syndrome present on
the jury there that'll help her out. So called jury nullification,
(36:48):
but it's certainly the indictment is pretty damning. But of
course the indictment is just the prosecution's accusations. Doesn't tell
you what the defense is.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Okay, So let's talk about this jury nullification thing. Because
we have Brennan cole Mey with Tiss James, we have
Adam Schiff, we have all these people that may have
already been accused or we think they're going to be,
of having committed crimes. Where are these trials going to
be held? Because you'll have to forgive me. If they're
(37:19):
in Northern Virginia, were screwed?
Speaker 9 (37:21):
Yes, they're in Northern Virginia. So that's where they're going
to take place. And I'm not sure why it was
the Eastern District of Virginia. I said, why didn't they
bring these in DC? Probably didn't want to be in
DC of all places the prosecution. But you probably know
Northern Virginia better than I do. But what I know
as someone who's not living there is that it's turned
(37:42):
very solidly blue, with a lot of government employees, federal
government employees. So it would be a very favorable venue
for somebody like Letitia James, particularly when it's the Trump
administration going after her. We'd like to think juries can
rise above that, and hopefully they will, but that's certainly
(38:03):
a factor that we have to consider.
Speaker 2 (38:06):
Bill.
Speaker 1 (38:07):
I'm sure you saw Donald Trump is calling for the
Great Reform Agenda in higher education.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
What is this?
Speaker 9 (38:15):
Yeah, he released a couple of weeks ago something called
a Compact for Higher Education and he's been posting on
truth Social about it. That's getting a lot more attention
than when he issued the ten page document two weeks ago.
And basically, what is it's a carrot and stick approach.
That the carrot is if a school agrees to this compact,
(38:37):
which is ten pages, has a lot of stuff in there,
they will get preferential treatment when it comes to government funding,
they'll get fast tracked, they'll get other perks and benefits
if they agree to this. And what they're agreeing to
is essentially to deradicalize the university, to move it a
little back to the center, not to make it conservative,
(38:58):
not to make it maga, but just not as crazy
left as it's been. Introduce some viewpoint diversity, get rid
of the racism in hiring and admission, do all these things,
treat boys as boys and girls as girls based on biology,
not thought processes, things like that. But if you don't
(39:18):
take it, now comes the stick. And the stick is
basically the current situation, which is they are auditing schools,
they're reviewing schools, and if they find you in a
civil rights violation like they claim to have found Harvard
and several other schools, they're going to start to pull
your brands and pull your funding.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
That's the stick.
Speaker 9 (39:35):
So giving schools a choice, you can play ball with us.
You can agree to things which we know you don't like.
We know your faculty is going to hate, and if
you do, there'll be a reward. But if you don't,
you get stuck in the system you're in now. So
that's the choice he's giving them, and I expect most
schools will not go along with it.
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Bill, How realistic is it to think that you could
even attempt a lot of this. I'm glad he's attempting something,
But as you mentioned, the faculty, everyone knows personnel's policy
the wants of the oldest sayings in the world. Because
it's true, you can give as many directives as you
want to Harvard, but if it's a bunch of maoists
in the teaching department, what goods are going to do well?
Speaker 9 (40:19):
The way this is structured, if they do accept these reforms,
the president of the university is now personally liable if
they violate them, So that creates a strong incentive to
actually enforce this. And they talk about eliminating various programs
and things like that, so I think this will be
measurable and enforceable. Of course, the things are always going
(40:42):
to be hidden, but they've put things in place there
to put key people on the hook. If they don't
live up to it. And that's a strong incentive. If
you're president of a university, you have a strong incentive
so that you don't lose your life savings and possibly
worse to the federal government, very strong incentive to make
sure these rules are followed. That threat is not there
(41:04):
right now. The president of the university has no personal
incentive to make sure that the rules are followed and
the civil rights laws are obeyed. It's the institution that's responsible.
Speaker 2 (41:16):
So that's huge.
Speaker 9 (41:16):
So I think there are things in here that would
be extremely important. This is the equivalent of an intervention.
This is the Trump administration telling academia and higher education
that you are on an unsustainable path. You cannot continue
to live in this bubble that you've created. You have
(41:37):
alienated a significant percentage of the population. Gallup just came
out with the poll they said, the lowest ever percentage
of people think a college degree is important or very important.
Academia is a sinking ship, and the Trump administration is
actually trying to intervene and rescue it. That's not how
(41:59):
academia is going to look at it. They're going to
look at it as a gross interference but this is
actually in the long term interest of higher education to
get them off of a destructive path. It's like staging
a family intervention with a relative who's out of control.
Higher education cannot reform itself. It needs outside intervention.
Speaker 1 (42:22):
No one knows better than you. Thank you for everything
has always bill light in the mood. Next, all right,
it's time to lighten the mood. RFK Junior's wife is
Sheryl Hines, and she's out there hawkm things right now.
(42:46):
And so she got invited for the View to the View,
invited to be on the View. However, you're supposed to
say that it doesn't matter. Remember the communist, he lives
in a world of make believe, and he carefully constructs
and maintains this world of make believe at all times.
Speaker 2 (43:02):
Now, you it's not a problem.
Speaker 1 (43:04):
But if you're some middle aged woman sitting at home
watching the View all day popping xanax, you live in
a world that is not real at all because they
lie twenty four hours a day.
Speaker 2 (43:15):
They just lie to you.
Speaker 1 (43:17):
Now you bring in Cheryl Hines and she starts tearing
apart that world.
Speaker 2 (43:22):
You gotta go to commercial break.
Speaker 10 (43:24):
To say, hey, you know consult your doctor before you
take this. I agree with that, and I think that's
okay for moms to here. Surel yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 11 (43:35):
Out all right, I am this. This is not your
fight really to be fighting.
Speaker 10 (43:42):
This is your husband's thank you forechnolog ahead.
Speaker 2 (43:44):
But you're talking.
Speaker 11 (43:47):
I just I do want to say, you know, he's
not a doctor, and he's not a professional. Yes, and
oftentimes when he's talking.
Speaker 10 (43:56):
And just to be clear, ninety of secretarias of HHS
have not been doctors, but they've they've been great.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
Don be honest.
Speaker 10 (44:08):
One of Obama's Secretaries of HHS was an economist, so.
Speaker 11 (44:15):
Most the majority of them that haven't had medical backgrounds. Wait, science,
don't do anything else, don't say anything else yet, because
they don't have to take a break.
Speaker 2 (44:27):
All they do is lie to the poor dumb souls
who watch it. I'll see them
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.