September 10, 2025 • 44 mins
President Trump just secured multiple Supreme Court victories, yet a huge test awaits. Jesse Kelly dives into that on this edition of I'm Right alongside Josh Hammer. This comes as a shocking NBC poll revealed a huge difference between male and female voters. Jesse dissects that and gives further breakdown. You'll also hear from Megan Basham for an on-the-ground look at the big story out of Charlotte, North Carolina. Plus, the Florida Surgeon General joins Jesse to break down his latest big announcement.
I'm Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TV | 9-9-25
Pure Talk: Go to https://www.puretalk.com/JESSETV and save 50% off your first month.
Choq: Visit https://choq.com/jessetv for a 17.76% discount on your CHOQ subscription for life
Follow The Jesse Kelly Show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJesseKellyShow
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Let's talk about women and communism and why is there
such a link there, especially in America. Let's talk to
Megan Basham about the terrible, terrible tragedy in Charlotte. Let's
talk to Florida's surgeon general. They're doing great things down there.
All that and more coming up, and I'm right now, Okay,
(00:29):
let's have an uncomfortable and undoubtedly offensive conversation about women
and communism and the link there and why we're seeing
the things we're seeing not just in American society but
throughout history. But we're going to focus here on America
because this is my home at the time. NBC just
released a poll. You've probably seen it or heard about it.
(00:50):
If not, they were surveying younger people, gen zs what
they called it, and there is a lot you could
take away from it. But one glaring thing when comparing
Trump voting men versus Harris voting women, was this men
the most important issue having kids. Continuing on the legacy,
(01:13):
the least important issue for Kamala Harris voting women was
being married and having children. The most important thing for
them was a job and money. A job and money.
So let's talk about what has happened and why it
(01:34):
has happened. And first let's begin with the building blocks,
the necessary building blocks of every single society, not just today,
throughout history and forever in the future. If you want
a good, solid society, I don't have to even think
(01:54):
about American politics, left right, Democrat, Republic, advent that taxes board.
I don't have to think about anything. If there are
solid nuclear family units that make up the majority of
that society, it will be a good society. It will
be solid. It will have problems like any other society will,
(02:17):
and some things are out of your control, some things aren't.
But a solid society of husbands, wives being together, staying together,
having babies, raising those babies will be a society that
will be good. It will be long lasting, it will
be stable, it will be clean, it will be it'll
be I don't have to know anything else. If you
(02:37):
told me that, hey, Jesse, this is society and eighty
percent of the people come from solid nuclear families, it's
gonna be a good society. And vice versa. If there
is a society where that number is twenty percent, thirty
percent homes are broken, children, fatherless, motherless, I don't have
(02:58):
to know anything else. I don't have to know who
the president is, taxes, I don't need to know anything else.
That society will be a disaster, a mixed up disaster
of a society. That's how we are created. Again, I
want to stress if any of this is offensive to you,
I couldn't possibly care less. These are facts. Now let's
(03:18):
get to the United States of America. The United States
of America had a Christian founding. It were Christians. It
was Christians who founded the United States of America in
search of a better life, religious freedom, all those things,
and various different forms of Christianity, you know, a Quakers
and Puritans. It were really different from state to state,
but either way, it was all kind of a Christian society.
(03:42):
And off of that Christian society, we had a society
that was full of solid nuclear families dad mom kids,
dad mom kids, over and over and over and over
and over again. And what that created was a strong,
morally good, independent minded country. You know, families, good families,
(04:08):
they end up in good communities. Good communities create good states.
You get the idea. The building blocks are the family. Now,
let's say you're a communist revolutionary and your goal is
to break up in destruction of the United States of America. Well,
there are many, many different things you can do to
(04:29):
bring that about and open borders, all kinds of things.
But if you're tearing down a building, let's say it's
a twenty story building, and you want to bring the
whole building down, do you set your explosives on the
top floor or do you set them on the foundation?
You set them on the foundation. What's the foundation of
(04:51):
our country, of any good country, the nuclear family. Communists
know this. So the goal has always and will always
be the destruction, the breakup of the nuclear family in
the United States of America. And to that end, communists
have tried to find a way to a way to
(05:12):
facilitate that breakup, a way to break the family down,
a way to set those explosive charges on the foundation.
And like all communist societies, they have found women to
be the easiest route to breaking up the family. Now,
let's discuss this. Lest you think I'm just being misogynist
Jesse and dogging on women, That's not the case at all.
(05:34):
Why is it women? Why are they the route to it?
I mean, communists, if the Soviet Union talked about this
and Cambodia, the most vicious were the women. Why is
that the case? Are women uniquely evil? Are they stupid? No? No,
women are mothers even once who aren't I'm not saying
you have children. Women are created with a motherly nature
(05:56):
to them. They want to care for bait, care for them,
nurture them, raise them up, care for smaller, weaker things.
It is a woman's nature. She has created that way.
That's why they're better nurses. That's why they're better homemakers.
That's they're created that way. They're better than that, they're
better than men at that. That's what they're created for.
So the communist he takes advantage of women using two things,
(06:21):
two things in combination. First, they're more inclined to be
afraid of social embarrassment. They're more people pleasing, you know,
and this creates a wonderful dynamic in a home. If
we're going out, I'm more inclined to say something inappropriate
or do something wrong, And my wife Aubrey is more
(06:43):
inclined to say, hey, Chessea, you can't make that joke,
Hey don't embarrass me. Does that means she's wrong and
I'm right or I'm wrong and she's right. No, it's
a nice it's a nice combination. Right, keeps everyone in line.
But when they are young, single developing minds, the communist
takes that desire for social acceptance combined with her motherly
(07:06):
nature and twists it into this. She becomes the mother
of his cause, whatever that cause may be. She becomes
the mother, and she's shamed into becoming that mother. Hey,
you don't need no man. Hey, you know what these immigrants,
(07:28):
they are all refugees. Shouldn't you care for them? Don't
you look that criminal, that violent criminal. Shouldn't he shouldn't
he be loved to? He needs help? Over and over
and over again, the university system beats this ended the
head of that eighteen year old girl you loved and raised,
and that's why two years later you get her back
(07:49):
and she's a three hundred pound lesbian with her head shaved,
who hates your freaking guts and denies the existence of God.
They take her motherly nature in her desire for social acceptance,
and they twist it up and she becomes the mother
of his cause. Soon, your eighteen nineteen twenty year old daughter,
instead of a strong desire for husband, for children to nurture,
(08:13):
to love a family. Instead, she wants to be a lawyer,
that's the most important thing. She wants a nice, fat
bank account, she wants a rules royce. These become the
things that are her priority. And what's the end result
of that. The end result of that is, oh, she
may end up making a great living. But men don't
(08:36):
want that, certainly, not the good ones. That's not what
men are looking for. It's not that men don't want
a woman with a career. I'm certainly not saying that
at all, but that's not what men are looking for.
A woman who prioritizes money her career. So the men
they don't marry her. Now that brings us full circle
to what we talked about in the very beginning toys families,
(09:01):
because the family never exists. Young men young women. Now
that they are separate, completely separate value systems. Now they
don't come together, get married, stay married, and make babies.
Now that's solid footing, the solid foundation of any society.
The nuclear family has been effectively demolished. Now the men
(09:23):
want wives, they want children, the women want money, the
women want jobs. And the net effect of this, of course,
is the destruction of our society. If you asked me
how how wonderful our prospects are for the future, Jesse,
where do you think will be in fifty years? I
(09:45):
only need one metric, only one. I don't need to
know how politics will go in the next fifty years,
what Congress is going to do, who the President's going
to be. I don't need to know about the border
or taxes. I don't need to know any of those things.
I need you to tell me if you want me
to tell you our prospects in fifty years, what are
(10:06):
the marriage statistics in the United States of America? Are
young men marrying young women staying married and making babies.
If they are, we're going to be just fine. And
if they're not, this country will end. The Communist is
well aware of this, well aware of this fact. And
(10:26):
that's why I want to leave you before we go
on talk to Megan Basham about crime and other things.
That's why I want to leave you with this little bit.
This is for parents of daughters, not that you don't
have to look out for your young men. Believe me,
you have to look out for your young men. If
he marries a communist, he will turn into one. Be
very careful. But your daughter. I know that you love her,
(10:48):
and I know that you've raised her with values. Of
course you do. You love your baby girl. And we think,
we think she's going to be okay eighteen years, are
right from wrong. We had her in church, she's baptized,
eighteen years, she's going to be just fine. Don't think
(11:08):
that your eighteen year old girl doesn't need your protection anymore,
not just physical protection. The Communists are circling her like wolves.
And when you send your baby girl off to college
or off to Instagram, those wolves are going to descend
(11:29):
on her, and they are going to attempt to destroy
her soul in an effort to destroy the country they
hate the most. And you may soon lose your daughter.
She may soon become a foot soldier in the war
against the United States of America, her motherly instincts twisted
up as she marches forward as a demon. Guard your
(11:55):
daughters closely, very very closely, and be very very careful
where you send that eighteen year old wonderful girl you
raised off the school. All that may have made you uncomfortable,
but I am right. We're gonna talk to Megan Basham
about many many things, including this stuff in a moment.
She's wonderful on this stuff. Before we do that, maybe
(12:18):
you're sitting there thinking, well, I can't tell her no.
She's always wanted to go to Berkeley, Jesse. She got in.
I can't tell her no. I understand what you're going through.
Low testosterone. That is your problem. If you can't tell
your daughter no, then your tea levels are low. But
don't think that makes you unique. The United States of
(12:38):
America has lost fifty percent of its testosterone in the
last fifty years. That's why we have a society of
effeminate men who can't say the word no to anybody,
not to their wives, not to their daughters, not to
anything at all. I'm too scared. Let Chuck turn you
into what you should be. A strong Mayn male vitality
(12:59):
stacked from chald natural herbal supplements will have your testosterone
levels up twenty percent. In ninety days. You are about
to feel like how you should feel ninety days. Give
me ninety days and your whole life will be better.
Chok dot com slash JESSETV. We'll be back, all right.
(13:26):
So we're on day two of talking about this freaking
horrible story out of Charlotte and this young woman butchered
by this animal on train, and it's it's awful, and
you're sad and you're angry and soul my, it's freaking terrible.
There's no way to there's no way to change that.
But I want to make sure I remind you that
the communist is not sad. If he's angry about anything,
(13:50):
he's angry that his evil plans to release violent animals
onto the streets are being revealed courtesy of videotape courtesy
of social media. I mean, Brian Stelter went on CNN,
listen to what he's mad about.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
This story has trickled up from local news to social
media and now to the President's attention, and it's being used,
as you said, Brian, as a political symbol, with MAGA
media calling for more forceful punishments and more incarceration. I
have to say, some of the replies to musks, some
of the comments around this story are baldly racist, stoking
fear of African Americans because this man attacked a white woman.
(14:27):
The open racism on sites like x Today, it's eye popping.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Ah, we found the true evil in all this. Joining
me now, Megan Basham, author of the wonderful book Shepherds
for sale. If you want to know why your church
is run by a bunch of skinny jeans wearing losers
who tell you that gay marriage is okay, I would
highly recommend you pick up that book. Megan, Okay, you
live in the Charlotte area. What's been the reaction locally?
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (14:54):
I do, and as you can imagine, there's been just
a lot of shock, horror, anger about what's happened here.
And you know, something I always want to emphasize for
people is that this was not a dangerous area of
town where Arena Zarutzka was killed. It's actually a very
sort of trendy, fun shopping area, lots of restaurants. My
family and I go there frequently, so it's not like
(15:16):
she was in a bad part of town where this happened. So,
you know, just really devastation. But an important element is
I think a lot of people now are asking about
the policies that allowed de Carlos Brown to be on
the streets and commit this murder, because this is certainly
somebody who should have been behind bars.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
You wrote a wonderful piece for the Daily WHI are
talking about racial equity policies and how they made this possible.
What are you talking about.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
Yeah, so you know it's funny that you played that
Brian Stelterer clip there because they don't want to make
race an issue here. But you can't separate racial politics
from what happened in this incident because quite frankly, racial
equity policies are what led to de Carlos Brown being
on the streets. So back in twenty twenty, our Attorney
general are then Attorney General Josh Stein, who is now
(16:07):
the Governor, at the directive of our then Democrat Governor
Roy Cooper, initiated a racial Equity task Force in response
to George Floyd's death. And so part of the policies
that came out of that task force were increasing pre
trial release, which is exactly what De Carlos Brown had,
(16:27):
even though he had faced fourteen prior arrests, including for
armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, so he was
a non violent threat, and yet because of these pre
trial release policies, he was out on the streets. This
Racial Equity task Force also implemented decriminalizing homelessness and what
(16:48):
they called a public behavior, by which they essentially just
mean when you see these people being a public menace
on the street, they want to decriminalize that so that
you're allowed to live on the street, you're allowed to
harass people on the street. So that's what these quote
unquote racial equity policies have been pursuing. And then on
top of that, you know, since I published this story yesterday,
(17:08):
I also discovered that the very large, very wealthy, left
wing MacArthur Foundation gave Mecklenburg County, which Charlotte is a
part of, three point three million dollars as part of
an initiative to reduce the jail population. So what they're
really trying to do is ensure that people aren't jailed.
(17:30):
And they again, they're doing this in the name of
racial equity. So you cannot separate these two issues. And
so that's why you see people like Brian Stelter CNN
so very eager not to talk about those particular policies
that they promoted after George Floyd's death. That is a
part of DEI, that is a part of that Black
Lives Matter push to decriminalize behaviors that would have kept
(17:53):
to Carlos Brown behind bars, and to ensure that when
they are arrested, they're not kept in jail until they
face a judge. That they're allowed to just go free
on a written letter of saying they'll appear before the court.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
A grief. You say, this is a trendy area of Charlotte.
I love Charlotte. They have my favorite airport in the country.
Have you noticed a degradation of the city. Is this
I don't live there, is it noticeable? I'll tell you
in several cities. I go to New York City in particular,
it's every year you go, it's crappier than it was
(18:28):
the year before. You've seen this in Charlotte, Yeah, you are.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
And you know, we moved here in twenty sixteen, and
at that point you really never saw panhandlers homeless on
the street. And just in the last couple of years,
as these policies have started to be implemented, I have
started to notice, oh gosh, I don't feel quite as
safe in some of these uptown neighborhoods as I once did.
And I'm not the only one. I mean, I have
friends who I just spoke to somebody in Raleigh who
(18:54):
told me, you know, he has a neighbor who is
a schizophrenic who has been visited several times by the
place LEAs just all kinds of you know, horrible knife wielding.
And this guy is never arrested, He's never taken into custody.
So you have people who are being terrorized by their
neighbors because of these policies. And look, we can also
show this in hard numbers. I can give you my experience,
(19:14):
and that has been my experience, but I can also
show you that in twenty twenty four, Charlotte's homicide rate
was up twenty five percent, so that was the second
highest year on record. The highest year on record was
twenty twenty during the Black Lives Matter riots. Our just
violent crime overall is up nearly ten percent. Shootings into
(19:35):
occupied homes is up forty two percent. So you know,
we're experiencing this on a personal level and we're also
seeing it at a statistical level.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Megan, I remember, like it was yesterday, after Saint George
Floyd died, losing the church we'd gone to for years,
because my effeminate pastor got up and scolded everybody about
their white privilege, and he was certainly not alone. That
happened over and over and over again, back to what
have those big pastors been saying now in the wake
of this anything.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
I'm so glad you asked that question, Jesse, because no,
they're not. I'll give you a couple of examples right
here in North Carolina. If you know who Stephen Ferdick is,
he's kind of a popular I would call him a
prosperity gospel preacher. He's extremely well known all over the country,
kind of a young Joel Ostein. He was extremely vocal
(20:25):
after the death of George Floyd calling for reforms to
our policing system. He has said nothing about the death
of Arena Zarutska, even though he had a lot to
say about George Floyd, who was in another state. Another
example is the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention,
which is the largest Protestant denomination in the US, extremely
(20:46):
influential a pastor named Jade Greer. When he was president
of the Southern Baptist Convention, he urged evangelicals to use
the slogan black Lives Matter. He said that we need
to support their efforts to reform allegedly racist policing systems.
And so they gave aid and comfort to these very
(21:08):
policies that have now been enacted that resulted in the
death of Arena Zaruska on that light rail train. And
so no, they have had nothing to say even though
this death, this murder, which is obviously extremely high profile,
is right in their own backyard, They're not addressing that
at all. And I think it's because they know. Look,
they played a part in this. They played a part
(21:28):
in this by erroneously insisting that George Floyd's death was
somehow an indictment of the policing system and not an
indictment of his own drug habit. And because of this,
they know that, Look, we helped give aid and comfort
to policies that are now making our cities unsafe.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
Megan, before I let you go, how's your health. I
know you've been going through it.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
Thanks for asking, Jesse. It's good. So for those who
don't know, and many I'm sure don't, I was diagnosed
with age three colon cancer right on Thanksgiving last year,
and as of a little over a month ago, I've
been declared no evidence of disease. So feeling good, putting
weight back on and just praying for no recurrence.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
God is good. Yeah, thank you ma'am. All right, let's
talk to Florida's Surgeon General, doctor Joseph Lopato. He's been
out there spearheading so many things. He's even he's even
promoting some really koogy things like exercise. Let's talk to him.
(22:35):
In a moment. Before we talked to him, I want
to remind you that back in twenty twenty, when the
street animals were burning through the United States of America
and the wake of the death of Saint George Floyd,
that America's corporations sponsored the entire thing. Black Lives Matter
got big and national and powerful because it had corporate sponsorship.
(22:55):
And if you have Verizon AT and T or T Mobile,
you paid for it. Corporate America is involved. Are you
helping them? I'm not. My mobile company is Pure Talk.
If they give back, and they do, they're sending flags
to veterans, helping them back on their feet get medical care.
(23:18):
My cell phone company hires Americans. They're so patriotic. When
you get a hold of people at Pure Talk, they
speak English. I know, it's almost jarring, and they're nice
and they'll save you money. Switch to Pure Talk. Don't
pay for the destruction of your country. Pure talk dot
com slash jessetv. We'll be back.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
The Florida Department of Health, in partnership with the governors,
is going to be working to end all vaccine mandates
in Florida, La.
Speaker 5 (24:00):
All of them. All of them, all of them, every
last one of them, Every last one of them is
wrong and drips with disdain and slavery.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Okay, who am i as a government or anyone else,
or who am I as a man standing here now
to tell you what you should put in your body.
Your body is a gift from God. What you put
into your body, what you put into your body is
(24:34):
because of your relationship with your body and your God.
I don't have that right. Government does not have that right.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
It's wild to hear people speak like that with courage anyway,
Joining me now, the Surgeon General of Florida, doctor Joseph Latipoe. Hey, doctor,
why don't you want people? Why are you banning people
from getting vaccines.
Speaker 6 (25:00):
We're actually gonna get rid of all the vaccines in
the state.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
We're gonna hide them in a cave.
Speaker 3 (25:06):
No one will ever be able to get another vaccine
in the state of Florida.
Speaker 7 (25:09):
That's the point.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Don't tell anyone.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
Yeah, so you know, always saying.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
They're gonna they're all available.
Speaker 8 (25:18):
They're all gonna be available, all of the standard vaccines.
I'm not talking about mRNA here, that's.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
A special, special case, but but they're they're available.
Speaker 8 (25:29):
We're just talking about, you know, letting parents choose.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
I mean, it's who knew that that the idea that
parents know best for their children when it comes to,
you know, the medications they receive was such a controversial topic.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Doctor, Can you explain how we got to a place
in America where this is even remotely controversial that parents
should be able to decide that people are against mandates.
It's just wild for me, as a free American who
very much values that freedom, to see so many Americans
hate it.
Speaker 8 (26:06):
It's really sad and it reminds me.
Speaker 3 (26:09):
I'll tell you, Jesse, I didn't know, you know, when
I was a kid, we had that Presidential Fitness Award
and I remember being excited about that and you know,
doing pull ups and they push ups and other things.
I didn't know it went away, and with President Trump
trying to bring it back, you had this I was
reading this article in the New York Times about how
experts were worried that it could hurt the feelings of
(26:30):
children or something. And that's it's the answer to that
question that we could be so ridiculous as to not
is to feel like we have to protect children from
you know, aiming for physical fitness goals is the same
answer to the question of how we are you know,
it's it's controversial to push back on the notion that
(26:54):
the government, rather than.
Speaker 6 (26:56):
Your rather than a parent, designed what vaccines a child takes.
So it's it's all part of the same, you know, corrupted, sordid.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
Energy and entity.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
And it's it's so important that we pushed back. If
it wasn't present, all that is nonsense we saw during
COVID would not have been possible.
Speaker 7 (27:20):
But sadly it was possible because that's where we.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Are, right. Is this about money? Does this come down to?
I mean, look, everyone has their own opinion on this thing,
but let's sift through that. Is this just simply about money?
Speaker 9 (27:33):
You know?
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Is this pharma money? What are all these mandates about
people making money?
Speaker 3 (27:39):
Yeah, Money's a part of it. And pharma definitely is
intimidated by the notion that they lose the leverage.
Speaker 7 (27:48):
Of that of a mandate.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
They're definitely that that will that will make a big
deal for their bottom line, and they definitely care about that.
Speaker 8 (27:59):
But you know, among physicians, I mean, it's really about
It's like about religion. Aaron Siri, it's amazing, brilliant, brilliant
attorney just wrote this book and I think it's titled Vaccines,
Amen and and for for physicians and scientists, many of them.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
That's what it's about. And that's you know that that's
harder to that's harder to navigate. You.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
I've seen you multiple times promote this kooky idea about exercise.
You want to explain that.
Speaker 8 (28:33):
I know it's a really foreign concept to to Apparently
if you.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Go to medical school or or get a PAHCD, you
forget how important these things are. But yeah, man, it's
like it's so important, right, It's it's really important to
take care of our bodies as well as we can.
Speaker 8 (28:50):
And it actually it affects your immune system, you know,
it affects your mood, it affects your energy, It affects
your susceptibility to onus and disease, so it affects your
susceptibility to cancer. So it's it's it's really important.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
You have been a hardliner on the m R n
A stuff. It seems as if a lot of this
thinking is starting to bleed over into the federal government CDC.
Do you like the things you're seeing from the feds?
Speaker 8 (29:21):
I do?
Speaker 1 (29:21):
I do? And you know, Robert F.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Kenney is a you know, he's a.
Speaker 8 (29:25):
Good friend of mine. Dutch Baticharia, doctor Marty mckerry, Martin
mcerrey and doctor Oz too. You know, great guys, great doctors,
and you know, and they are up against a lot.
You know, this this stuff like this, we didn't get
to where we are overnight. You know, this is very
very very entrenched, the things that they are up against.
(29:47):
But you know they're working through it, and you know,
God bless them for doing it. And I know people
will also complain, and God bless them for complaining too.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
You know, if people don't like things that are happening,
just it's it's important that they express it. And but
I know also know that those guys are doing the
best that they can.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Doctor. The trust the public puts in organizations like the
CDC has been shattered, possibly permanently. How do we get
it back?
Speaker 3 (30:20):
Well, one way one step of that is to is
to is to lego mandates, because that's that's a major
part of distrust that we saw over the last few years.
But it's gonna be hard, man. They have you know,
when these guys when when doctor Narez and I pass
if I'm mispronouncing her hang, but they're former director and
(30:41):
their other senior leadership resigned, they have this rally I
think the next day.
Speaker 6 (30:47):
And you know, they are really really.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
They're like cuckoo for cocoa pups when it comes to
the vaccines. It's just like they're they're very intelligent people obviously,
but you just like you put the vaccine ship in
there and they just can't I can't think straight anymore.
So that's hard to overcome. It's very hard to overcome.
But the right leadership.
Speaker 7 (31:10):
And it's hard because you need both the strong scientific background,
but you also need the you know, the character like
someone who can lead, someone who inspires and rouses people
out of whatever state they are and orients them toward
a state that they intrinsically feel is better and more meritarious.
(31:32):
So it's it's gonna be hard because it's hard to
find that type of individual.
Speaker 8 (31:37):
But I think that's what it's gonna take.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
Doctor. I appreciate you very much. Keep doing what you do.
Let's find out what's going on in the Supreme Court.
We have good news. Next. It appears that Trump got
(32:02):
another couple wins at the Supreme Court. But as I've
explained to you before, whenever there's a court decision of
any kind, Supreme lower courts, and you get up and
you look at your phone and you see this decision,
don't don't write it in concrete just yet. Okay, take
it all with a grain of salt. There are decisions
that get way deeper than the headlines, that go back
(32:24):
and forth, that don't ever get too excited, and don't
ever go jump off a bridge when there's a decision
you love or a decision you hate. We have to
work through these things by talking to smart people. That's
why we bring Josh Hammer on the show, Host of
the Josh Hammer Show. Okay, Josh, I see headlines and
it looks like Trump got a couple nice winds, including
(32:44):
allowing Ice agents to keep arresting people. Focus on that.
What's the backstory? What happened?
Speaker 10 (32:51):
Yeah, so, Jesse, you know, in this case, I think
the headline matches. The reality is that these are a
couple of nice wins for the Trump ministration. So first
there is this immigration for Horseman case that comes out
of Los Angeles, one of America's most infamous so called
sanctuary cities, and they basically say that the trumpministration is
correctly enforcing immigration law when they are sending in ice
(33:12):
agents to to engage in so called raids, you know,
aka trying to deport illegal aliens people who should not
be here illegally, which last I checked, is in line
with the mandate that President Trump got at the ballot
box last November. This is exactly what people voted for.
And there's a very interesting concurring opinion from Justice Brett
Kavanaugh who basically says, you know what, there are some
(33:33):
administrations that go very light on enforcing immigration law. I
don't know, maybe the Barack Obomba administration or the Joe bidministration.
And then there are some administrations that are a bit
tougher on enforcing immigration law. That would be the Trump minstration.
What Brett Kavanaugh, I think very correctly and astutely says
is that, you know what, it's not up to us,
it's not up to us as judges to make these
(33:53):
policy determinations as to just how rigorous immigration law ought
being forced as a political decision for the voters, for
the people, I actually could, frankly go Jesse a little
further than that. There's an interesting clause and article two
in the Constitution called take the take care clause. It
basically says that the President shall take care that the
laws be faithfully executed. I have long interpreted, going back
(34:14):
to my law school days, I have long interpreted the
take care clause to mean that the president does have
an obligation to, in his best efforts to enforce all
the laws. Now, this gets a little tricky because there
is such thing as prosecutoral discretion. You simply cannot prosecute
every single crime in the country. There's literally not enough
money or manpower fun that's a reality in every prosecution
office there. But you can't just let some laws just
(34:35):
nakedly go unenforced. That's how you get Barack Obama's DACA
and DAPPA amnesties back from ten to twelve years ago
or so there. So anyway, it's a good opinion there.
It's a very nice win when it comes to immigration.
And forcemin a solid win for the administration.
Speaker 1 (34:49):
Okay, a surprise, surprise, Soto Mayor was unhappy with this
whole thing. I find the mind of the communists to
be fascinating. What exactly is her worldview on all this?
Speaker 10 (35:03):
Okay, So if you go into the Supreme Court and
move the federal courts more generally, if you look at
what they've said when it comes to how the presidency
can go about enforce the immigration law. First of all, Jessey,
you probably know I kind of object to this on
a level of principle. I do not think that the
courts should be engaged in this level of nitpicking as
(35:24):
to how the executive branch, how ice, how DHS goes
about enforcing immigration laws. You know, judges should stick to
judging there and let the political branches do.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
What they do.
Speaker 10 (35:33):
Nonetheless, the courts have weighed in a lot over the
years when it comes to how immigration law can be enforced,
and what they basically say is that they have the
ability to go into certain workplaces, focus on certain industries
where there are disproportionately going to be folks who are
not here legally, whether that is landscaping or construction or agriculture,
things like that, and Furthermore, they also say that it
(35:56):
is okay to focus disportionally on areas where there are
is not a lot of English being spoken. What they
also say is that it is illegal, it's unconstitutional to
explicitly racially profile. So they draw the line somewhere between
a preponderance of people not speaking English on the one hand,
which they say is okay, you can have ICE agents
(36:16):
focused there. On the other hand, they say that if
you're just picking out basically a bunch of brown people,
that is not okay to focus there. So look, if
we're trying to be charitable, which I don't really want
to be to Sony and Somai or but if we're
trying to be charitable, that's what she's saying. She's basically
saying that the Trump administration ICE is focusing not just
all the factors that I said that you're allowed to
focus on, but they're actually focusing really just on brown people. Again,
(36:39):
I don't buy this for a second, to be honest
with you, I think it's ludicrous, frankly that the courts
are involved in this kind of process in the first place.
But that's in theory. Jesse if we're trying to steal
man the urban cery, you're trying to give the best
impression of an argument that's in theory what she's trying
to say. But really it's just a communist As you.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
Said, Josh, what does this mean as far as ICE
in places like Chicago? Obviously Chicago has been all over
the news. We're sending in the National Guard. Does this
mean the Trump administration can move forward sending ICE anywhere
they please? Or are there little limitations in this ruling?
(37:15):
Like there always seem to be.
Speaker 10 (37:18):
Look, I mean, lawyers like to lawyer Jesse, so there's
always going to be some kind of legally lawyerly limits there.
I mean, yes, but also only to a point. I mean,
this does that thing pave the way nicely for the
trumpministration to start deploying ICE DHS. But the National Guard
is a slightly different legal analysis, but potentially also even
the National Guard, you know, speaking of Los Angeles, let's
(37:38):
not forget that the National Guard was just in Los
Angeles in June. There wasn't a specifically deportation oriented mission.
Math then was really just trying to quell anarchy, but
the anarchy was immigration related. So it's kind of well
related to another, but yeah, Chicago is very much in
the crosshairs. Just over the past twenty four hours, it
looks like Operation Midway Blitz has started, which is an
immigration forced operations dired around Brandon Johnson's city of Chicago,
(38:02):
perhaps all throughout.
Speaker 1 (38:03):
JB.
Speaker 10 (38:03):
Pritskro of State of Illinois. Look, Jesse is a former
Chicagoan myself who has been very sad to see that
city go tremendously downhill over the over the past decade.
And it was already pretty bad Frank was living there.
It's gone a heck of a lot more downhills ends then,
I say, all hands on deck. If Donald Trump wants
to queam Chicago, I say two big, fat thumbs up.
There's a long way to go. It is a serious challenge,
(38:23):
but it's a world class city that should be made
great once again.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
I think, Okay, let's focus on the other one. Donald
Trump removing a Democrat member of the Federal Trade Commission.
How in the world did this even end up on
the Supreme Court? What happened?
Speaker 3 (38:40):
So?
Speaker 10 (38:40):
The FTC is one of these quasi independent agencies there
where you have Congress that statutorily legislates where there has
to be a certain partisan mix of Republican commissioners Democrat commissioners.
Basically it is structured differently, the FTC, the FCC, the
National Labor Relations Board. There's a lot of these agencies
(39:00):
that really kind of go back to the early part
of the twenty century, especially the FDR era of a
New Deal. A lot of these agencies are structured differently
as a constitutional and statutory matter from kind of the
big iconic agencies that people are familiar with, you know,
call it the DOJ, Treasury, so forth.
Speaker 6 (39:16):
There.
Speaker 10 (39:16):
Now, the big legal fight that's going on here is
what is the extent of the president's executive power to
engage in removal decisions, to actually engage in hiring and
firing personal decisions. That is when it comes to all agencies,
whether they call themselves independent or not within Article two
of the Constitution. My very simple, straightforward legal analysis I've
(39:37):
been saying this for twenty years now, I guess is
that the executive power of Article two, if it means
literally anything whatsoever, it means the ability to control who
is in your executive branch. That, after all, is what
defines you as the chief executive of the executive branch.
So unless you're responsible for all hiring fine decisions, you
are not actually the executive wielding the executive power as
(40:00):
Article two, Section one, Clause one calls for. Are Now
the alternative argument, which is essentially an FDR New Deal
Democrat argument, is that no Congress can actually legislate certain
limits on the president's removal power. There all this is
teeing up potentially a direct challenge to a very problematic
case from the very height of the New Deal in
nineteen thirty five case called Humphreys Executor, which was one
(40:22):
of the more infamous decisions of that era, where they
basically said that congressional limitations on the president's removal power
for these independent agencies is actually okay, it actually is constitutional.
There's been a lot of chipping away at that, including
a National Labor Relations Board case earlier this term called
Win versus Wilcox, which is another win for a Trump
very similar context. They're firing a Biden nominated member Gwinn
(40:43):
Willcox of the NLRB. So between NRB and Willcox and
now the FTC in this particular case, I think we're
kind of gearing up for a direct challenge to this
case Humphrey's executor, and I say, frankly, as long overdue.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
All right, let's shift gears and talk about trel specifically
tariff refunds. And here was Scott pisent.
Speaker 7 (41:04):
If the Supreme Court rules against you on these tariffs,
is the administration prepared to offer rebates?
Speaker 9 (41:11):
So, Christen, I am confident that we will win at
the Supreme Court, But there are numerous other avenues that
we can take. They diminish President Trump's negotiating position, but
there are numerous in terms of and remember this isn't
about the dollars, this is about balance. The dollars are
(41:32):
an after amount.
Speaker 5 (41:34):
Would you offer rebates though?
Speaker 9 (41:35):
Are you prepared to offer rebates? So we would have
to give a refund in about half the tariffs, which
would be terrible for the treasury.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
You're prepared to give those refunds?
Speaker 9 (41:45):
Well, I mean, there's no be prepared. If the court
says it, we'd have to Josh what.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
Jesse?
Speaker 10 (41:55):
Look, I wish I could say that I share Scott
Pisant's confidence when it comes to this court outcome.
Speaker 1 (42:01):
I don't.
Speaker 10 (42:02):
I'm not predicting a loss, but I'm not predicting a
win either. I genuinely actually I'm not sure which way
this one is going to go. If you look at
the legal ruling from the US Court Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, which was the court that had the Court
Appeals ruling just about a week or two ago, whenever
it was, they wrote it in very kind of formalistic
legalistic we might even call it a quasi originalist form
(42:24):
of analysis. There clearly trying to appeal to breck have
an onto Amy Cony, Barrett John Roberts to the Court's
swing justice. You know which way they ultimately decide. I
don't actually know. I mean, the ultimate legal question here is,
is the balance of trade or America's gargantua and trade
deficit year in and year out the kind of quote
unquote emergency that would allow the president to invoke this
(42:46):
sort of emergency authority there. I think it's a very
interesting question. I see both sides, our men. I don't
actually have a super super strong stands on the matter.
I'm in klind to think that the administration is probably
correct there. I think Congress is likely and intended to
delegate a lot of this to the executive. But it's
a very interesting close legal argument. The easiest way to
get this done, though, just to clarify, is for Congress
just pass a law that is obviously the way that
(43:07):
this should be done, tariffs raising revenue. Congress is the
perfect body for that. Unfortunately, Jesse, as you and I
both know, Congress is not good for a whole lot
these days of the naming post offices and a bunch
of cable news Branston.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
So freaking true, Josh, thank you brother, come back. So
we have a wonderful light in the mood. Next, it's
time to lighten the mood. Sports has been attacked by
(43:42):
the right over and over again in recent years, most
definitely by myself included, because sports, especially large sports organizations,
have chosen to take part in the cultural destruction of
the United States of America. There's no question about that.
We've talked about it. But we should give credit where
credits due. All sports. It's not all teams, it's not
(44:03):
all players. There are still wonderful things happening in the
sports arena that we should highlight when they happen. My
favorite school is everybody knows is Ohio State University. I
was born in Ohio and Ohio State University. They just
had an invitation to Jesus event. There are star players.
You know, everybody wants to meet hang out with the
(44:24):
star players. Their star players had this event on campus.
Over seventy five people were baptized at this event. Sports
does matter, Leadership does matter, and people seem to be
waking up and discovering God again and that I hope
does your soul. Well, I'll see them all
Let's talk about women and communism and why is there
such a link there, especially in America. Let's talk to
Megan Basham about the terrible, terrible tragedy in Charlotte. Let's
talk to Florida's surgeon general. They're doing great things down there.
All that and more coming up, and I'm right now, Okay,
(00:29):
let's have an uncomfortable and undoubtedly offensive conversation about women
and communism and the link there and why we're seeing
the things we're seeing not just in American society but
throughout history. But we're going to focus here on America
because this is my home at the time. NBC just
released a poll. You've probably seen it or heard about it.
(00:50):
If not, they were surveying younger people, gen zs what
they called it, and there is a lot you could
take away from it. But one glaring thing when comparing
Trump voting men versus Harris voting women, was this men
the most important issue having kids. Continuing on the legacy,
(01:13):
the least important issue for Kamala Harris voting women was
being married and having children. The most important thing for
them was a job and money. A job and money.
So let's talk about what has happened and why it
(01:34):
has happened. And first let's begin with the building blocks,
the necessary building blocks of every single society, not just today,
throughout history and forever in the future. If you want
a good, solid society, I don't have to even think
(01:54):
about American politics, left right, Democrat, Republic, advent that taxes board.
I don't have to think about anything. If there are
solid nuclear family units that make up the majority of
that society, it will be a good society. It will
be solid. It will have problems like any other society will,
(02:17):
and some things are out of your control, some things aren't.
But a solid society of husbands, wives being together, staying together,
having babies, raising those babies will be a society that
will be good. It will be long lasting, it will
be stable, it will be clean, it will be it'll
be I don't have to know anything else. If you
(02:37):
told me that, hey, Jesse, this is society and eighty
percent of the people come from solid nuclear families, it's
gonna be a good society. And vice versa. If there
is a society where that number is twenty percent, thirty
percent homes are broken, children, fatherless, motherless, I don't have
(02:58):
to know anything else. I don't have to know who
the president is, taxes, I don't need to know anything else.
That society will be a disaster, a mixed up disaster
of a society. That's how we are created. Again, I
want to stress if any of this is offensive to you,
I couldn't possibly care less. These are facts. Now let's
(03:18):
get to the United States of America. The United States
of America had a Christian founding. It were Christians. It
was Christians who founded the United States of America in
search of a better life, religious freedom, all those things,
and various different forms of Christianity, you know, a Quakers
and Puritans. It were really different from state to state,
but either way, it was all kind of a Christian society.
(03:42):
And off of that Christian society, we had a society
that was full of solid nuclear families dad mom kids,
dad mom kids, over and over and over and over
and over again. And what that created was a strong,
morally good, independent minded country. You know, families, good families,
(04:08):
they end up in good communities. Good communities create good states.
You get the idea. The building blocks are the family. Now,
let's say you're a communist revolutionary and your goal is
to break up in destruction of the United States of America. Well,
there are many, many different things you can do to
(04:29):
bring that about and open borders, all kinds of things.
But if you're tearing down a building, let's say it's
a twenty story building, and you want to bring the
whole building down, do you set your explosives on the
top floor or do you set them on the foundation?
You set them on the foundation. What's the foundation of
(04:51):
our country, of any good country, the nuclear family. Communists
know this. So the goal has always and will always
be the destruction, the breakup of the nuclear family in
the United States of America. And to that end, communists
have tried to find a way to a way to
(05:12):
facilitate that breakup, a way to break the family down,
a way to set those explosive charges on the foundation.
And like all communist societies, they have found women to
be the easiest route to breaking up the family. Now,
let's discuss this. Lest you think I'm just being misogynist
Jesse and dogging on women, That's not the case at all.
(05:34):
Why is it women? Why are they the route to it?
I mean, communists, if the Soviet Union talked about this
and Cambodia, the most vicious were the women. Why is
that the case? Are women uniquely evil? Are they stupid? No? No,
women are mothers even once who aren't I'm not saying
you have children. Women are created with a motherly nature
(05:56):
to them. They want to care for bait, care for them,
nurture them, raise them up, care for smaller, weaker things.
It is a woman's nature. She has created that way.
That's why they're better nurses. That's why they're better homemakers.
That's they're created that way. They're better than that, they're
better than men at that. That's what they're created for.
So the communist he takes advantage of women using two things,
(06:21):
two things in combination. First, they're more inclined to be
afraid of social embarrassment. They're more people pleasing, you know,
and this creates a wonderful dynamic in a home. If
we're going out, I'm more inclined to say something inappropriate
or do something wrong, And my wife Aubrey is more
(06:43):
inclined to say, hey, Chessea, you can't make that joke,
Hey don't embarrass me. Does that means she's wrong and
I'm right or I'm wrong and she's right. No, it's
a nice it's a nice combination. Right, keeps everyone in line.
But when they are young, single developing minds, the communist
takes that desire for social acceptance combined with her motherly
(07:06):
nature and twists it into this. She becomes the mother
of his cause, whatever that cause may be. She becomes
the mother, and she's shamed into becoming that mother. Hey,
you don't need no man. Hey, you know what these immigrants,
(07:28):
they are all refugees. Shouldn't you care for them? Don't
you look that criminal, that violent criminal. Shouldn't he shouldn't
he be loved to? He needs help? Over and over
and over again, the university system beats this ended the
head of that eighteen year old girl you loved and raised,
and that's why two years later you get her back
(07:49):
and she's a three hundred pound lesbian with her head shaved,
who hates your freaking guts and denies the existence of God.
They take her motherly nature in her desire for social acceptance,
and they twist it up and she becomes the mother
of his cause. Soon, your eighteen nineteen twenty year old daughter,
instead of a strong desire for husband, for children to nurture,
(08:13):
to love a family. Instead, she wants to be a lawyer,
that's the most important thing. She wants a nice, fat
bank account, she wants a rules royce. These become the
things that are her priority. And what's the end result
of that. The end result of that is, oh, she
may end up making a great living. But men don't
(08:36):
want that, certainly, not the good ones. That's not what
men are looking for. It's not that men don't want
a woman with a career. I'm certainly not saying that
at all, but that's not what men are looking for.
A woman who prioritizes money her career. So the men
they don't marry her. Now that brings us full circle
to what we talked about in the very beginning toys families,
(09:01):
because the family never exists. Young men young women. Now
that they are separate, completely separate value systems. Now they
don't come together, get married, stay married, and make babies.
Now that's solid footing, the solid foundation of any society.
The nuclear family has been effectively demolished. Now the men
(09:23):
want wives, they want children, the women want money, the
women want jobs. And the net effect of this, of course,
is the destruction of our society. If you asked me
how how wonderful our prospects are for the future, Jesse,
where do you think will be in fifty years? I
(09:45):
only need one metric, only one. I don't need to
know how politics will go in the next fifty years,
what Congress is going to do, who the President's going
to be. I don't need to know about the border
or taxes. I don't need to know any of those things.
I need you to tell me if you want me
to tell you our prospects in fifty years, what are
(10:06):
the marriage statistics in the United States of America? Are
young men marrying young women staying married and making babies.
If they are, we're going to be just fine. And
if they're not, this country will end. The Communist is
well aware of this, well aware of this fact. And
(10:26):
that's why I want to leave you before we go
on talk to Megan Basham about crime and other things.
That's why I want to leave you with this little bit.
This is for parents of daughters, not that you don't
have to look out for your young men. Believe me,
you have to look out for your young men. If
he marries a communist, he will turn into one. Be
very careful. But your daughter. I know that you love her,
(10:48):
and I know that you've raised her with values. Of
course you do. You love your baby girl. And we think,
we think she's going to be okay eighteen years, are
right from wrong. We had her in church, she's baptized,
eighteen years, she's going to be just fine. Don't think
(11:08):
that your eighteen year old girl doesn't need your protection anymore,
not just physical protection. The Communists are circling her like wolves.
And when you send your baby girl off to college
or off to Instagram, those wolves are going to descend
(11:29):
on her, and they are going to attempt to destroy
her soul in an effort to destroy the country they
hate the most. And you may soon lose your daughter.
She may soon become a foot soldier in the war
against the United States of America, her motherly instincts twisted
up as she marches forward as a demon. Guard your
(11:55):
daughters closely, very very closely, and be very very careful
where you send that eighteen year old wonderful girl you
raised off the school. All that may have made you uncomfortable,
but I am right. We're gonna talk to Megan Basham
about many many things, including this stuff in a moment.
She's wonderful on this stuff. Before we do that, maybe
(12:18):
you're sitting there thinking, well, I can't tell her no.
She's always wanted to go to Berkeley, Jesse. She got in.
I can't tell her no. I understand what you're going through.
Low testosterone. That is your problem. If you can't tell
your daughter no, then your tea levels are low. But
don't think that makes you unique. The United States of
(12:38):
America has lost fifty percent of its testosterone in the
last fifty years. That's why we have a society of
effeminate men who can't say the word no to anybody,
not to their wives, not to their daughters, not to
anything at all. I'm too scared. Let Chuck turn you
into what you should be. A strong Mayn male vitality
(12:59):
stacked from chald natural herbal supplements will have your testosterone
levels up twenty percent. In ninety days. You are about
to feel like how you should feel ninety days. Give
me ninety days and your whole life will be better.
Chok dot com slash JESSETV. We'll be back, all right.
(13:26):
So we're on day two of talking about this freaking
horrible story out of Charlotte and this young woman butchered
by this animal on train, and it's it's awful, and
you're sad and you're angry and soul my, it's freaking terrible.
There's no way to there's no way to change that.
But I want to make sure I remind you that
the communist is not sad. If he's angry about anything,
(13:50):
he's angry that his evil plans to release violent animals
onto the streets are being revealed courtesy of videotape courtesy
of social media. I mean, Brian Stelter went on CNN,
listen to what he's mad about.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
This story has trickled up from local news to social
media and now to the President's attention, and it's being used,
as you said, Brian, as a political symbol, with MAGA
media calling for more forceful punishments and more incarceration. I
have to say, some of the replies to musks, some
of the comments around this story are baldly racist, stoking
fear of African Americans because this man attacked a white woman.
(14:27):
The open racism on sites like x Today, it's eye popping.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Ah, we found the true evil in all this. Joining
me now, Megan Basham, author of the wonderful book Shepherds
for sale. If you want to know why your church
is run by a bunch of skinny jeans wearing losers
who tell you that gay marriage is okay, I would
highly recommend you pick up that book. Megan, Okay, you
live in the Charlotte area. What's been the reaction locally?
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (14:54):
I do, and as you can imagine, there's been just
a lot of shock, horror, anger about what's happened here.
And you know, something I always want to emphasize for
people is that this was not a dangerous area of
town where Arena Zarutzka was killed. It's actually a very
sort of trendy, fun shopping area, lots of restaurants. My
family and I go there frequently, so it's not like
(15:16):
she was in a bad part of town where this happened. So,
you know, just really devastation. But an important element is
I think a lot of people now are asking about
the policies that allowed de Carlos Brown to be on
the streets and commit this murder, because this is certainly
somebody who should have been behind bars.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
You wrote a wonderful piece for the Daily WHI are
talking about racial equity policies and how they made this possible.
What are you talking about.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
Yeah, so you know it's funny that you played that
Brian Stelterer clip there because they don't want to make
race an issue here. But you can't separate racial politics
from what happened in this incident because quite frankly, racial
equity policies are what led to de Carlos Brown being
on the streets. So back in twenty twenty, our Attorney
general are then Attorney General Josh Stein, who is now
(16:07):
the Governor, at the directive of our then Democrat Governor
Roy Cooper, initiated a racial Equity task Force in response
to George Floyd's death. And so part of the policies
that came out of that task force were increasing pre
trial release, which is exactly what De Carlos Brown had,
(16:27):
even though he had faced fourteen prior arrests, including for
armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, so he was
a non violent threat, and yet because of these pre
trial release policies, he was out on the streets. This
Racial Equity task Force also implemented decriminalizing homelessness and what
(16:48):
they called a public behavior, by which they essentially just
mean when you see these people being a public menace
on the street, they want to decriminalize that so that
you're allowed to live on the street, you're allowed to
harass people on the street. So that's what these quote
unquote racial equity policies have been pursuing. And then on
top of that, you know, since I published this story yesterday,
(17:08):
I also discovered that the very large, very wealthy, left
wing MacArthur Foundation gave Mecklenburg County, which Charlotte is a
part of, three point three million dollars as part of
an initiative to reduce the jail population. So what they're
really trying to do is ensure that people aren't jailed.
(17:30):
And they again, they're doing this in the name of
racial equity. So you cannot separate these two issues. And
so that's why you see people like Brian Stelter CNN
so very eager not to talk about those particular policies
that they promoted after George Floyd's death. That is a
part of DEI, that is a part of that Black
Lives Matter push to decriminalize behaviors that would have kept
(17:53):
to Carlos Brown behind bars, and to ensure that when
they are arrested, they're not kept in jail until they
face a judge. That they're allowed to just go free
on a written letter of saying they'll appear before the court.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
A grief. You say, this is a trendy area of Charlotte.
I love Charlotte. They have my favorite airport in the country.
Have you noticed a degradation of the city. Is this
I don't live there, is it noticeable? I'll tell you
in several cities. I go to New York City in particular,
it's every year you go, it's crappier than it was
(18:28):
the year before. You've seen this in Charlotte, Yeah, you are.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
And you know, we moved here in twenty sixteen, and
at that point you really never saw panhandlers homeless on
the street. And just in the last couple of years,
as these policies have started to be implemented, I have
started to notice, oh gosh, I don't feel quite as
safe in some of these uptown neighborhoods as I once did.
And I'm not the only one. I mean, I have
friends who I just spoke to somebody in Raleigh who
(18:54):
told me, you know, he has a neighbor who is
a schizophrenic who has been visited several times by the
place LEAs just all kinds of you know, horrible knife wielding.
And this guy is never arrested, He's never taken into custody.
So you have people who are being terrorized by their
neighbors because of these policies. And look, we can also
show this in hard numbers. I can give you my experience,
(19:14):
and that has been my experience, but I can also
show you that in twenty twenty four, Charlotte's homicide rate
was up twenty five percent, so that was the second
highest year on record. The highest year on record was
twenty twenty during the Black Lives Matter riots. Our just
violent crime overall is up nearly ten percent. Shootings into
(19:35):
occupied homes is up forty two percent. So you know,
we're experiencing this on a personal level and we're also
seeing it at a statistical level.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Megan, I remember, like it was yesterday, after Saint George
Floyd died, losing the church we'd gone to for years,
because my effeminate pastor got up and scolded everybody about
their white privilege, and he was certainly not alone. That
happened over and over and over again, back to what
have those big pastors been saying now in the wake
of this anything.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
I'm so glad you asked that question, Jesse, because no,
they're not. I'll give you a couple of examples right
here in North Carolina. If you know who Stephen Ferdick is,
he's kind of a popular I would call him a
prosperity gospel preacher. He's extremely well known all over the country,
kind of a young Joel Ostein. He was extremely vocal
(20:25):
after the death of George Floyd calling for reforms to
our policing system. He has said nothing about the death
of Arena Zarutska, even though he had a lot to
say about George Floyd, who was in another state. Another
example is the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention,
which is the largest Protestant denomination in the US, extremely
(20:46):
influential a pastor named Jade Greer. When he was president
of the Southern Baptist Convention, he urged evangelicals to use
the slogan black Lives Matter. He said that we need
to support their efforts to reform allegedly racist policing systems.
And so they gave aid and comfort to these very
(21:08):
policies that have now been enacted that resulted in the
death of Arena Zaruska on that light rail train. And
so no, they have had nothing to say even though
this death, this murder, which is obviously extremely high profile,
is right in their own backyard, They're not addressing that
at all. And I think it's because they know. Look,
they played a part in this. They played a part
(21:28):
in this by erroneously insisting that George Floyd's death was
somehow an indictment of the policing system and not an
indictment of his own drug habit. And because of this,
they know that, Look, we helped give aid and comfort
to policies that are now making our cities unsafe.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
Megan, before I let you go, how's your health. I
know you've been going through it.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
Thanks for asking, Jesse. It's good. So for those who
don't know, and many I'm sure don't, I was diagnosed
with age three colon cancer right on Thanksgiving last year,
and as of a little over a month ago, I've
been declared no evidence of disease. So feeling good, putting
weight back on and just praying for no recurrence.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
God is good. Yeah, thank you ma'am. All right, let's
talk to Florida's Surgeon General, doctor Joseph Lopato. He's been
out there spearheading so many things. He's even he's even
promoting some really koogy things like exercise. Let's talk to him.
(22:35):
In a moment. Before we talked to him, I want
to remind you that back in twenty twenty, when the
street animals were burning through the United States of America
and the wake of the death of Saint George Floyd,
that America's corporations sponsored the entire thing. Black Lives Matter
got big and national and powerful because it had corporate sponsorship.
(22:55):
And if you have Verizon AT and T or T Mobile,
you paid for it. Corporate America is involved. Are you
helping them? I'm not. My mobile company is Pure Talk.
If they give back, and they do, they're sending flags
to veterans, helping them back on their feet get medical care.
(23:18):
My cell phone company hires Americans. They're so patriotic. When
you get a hold of people at Pure Talk, they
speak English. I know, it's almost jarring, and they're nice
and they'll save you money. Switch to Pure Talk. Don't
pay for the destruction of your country. Pure talk dot
com slash jessetv. We'll be back.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
The Florida Department of Health, in partnership with the governors,
is going to be working to end all vaccine mandates
in Florida, La.
Speaker 5 (24:00):
All of them. All of them, all of them, every
last one of them, Every last one of them is
wrong and drips with disdain and slavery.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Okay, who am i as a government or anyone else,
or who am I as a man standing here now
to tell you what you should put in your body.
Your body is a gift from God. What you put
into your body, what you put into your body is
(24:34):
because of your relationship with your body and your God.
I don't have that right. Government does not have that right.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
It's wild to hear people speak like that with courage anyway,
Joining me now, the Surgeon General of Florida, doctor Joseph Latipoe. Hey, doctor,
why don't you want people? Why are you banning people
from getting vaccines.
Speaker 6 (25:00):
We're actually gonna get rid of all the vaccines in
the state.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
We're gonna hide them in a cave.
Speaker 3 (25:06):
No one will ever be able to get another vaccine
in the state of Florida.
Speaker 7 (25:09):
That's the point.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Don't tell anyone.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
Yeah, so you know, always saying.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
They're gonna they're all available.
Speaker 8 (25:18):
They're all gonna be available, all of the standard vaccines.
I'm not talking about mRNA here, that's.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
A special, special case, but but they're they're available.
Speaker 8 (25:29):
We're just talking about, you know, letting parents choose.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
I mean, it's who knew that that the idea that
parents know best for their children when it comes to,
you know, the medications they receive was such a controversial topic.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Doctor, Can you explain how we got to a place
in America where this is even remotely controversial that parents
should be able to decide that people are against mandates.
It's just wild for me, as a free American who
very much values that freedom, to see so many Americans
hate it.
Speaker 8 (26:06):
It's really sad and it reminds me.
Speaker 3 (26:09):
I'll tell you, Jesse, I didn't know, you know, when
I was a kid, we had that Presidential Fitness Award
and I remember being excited about that and you know,
doing pull ups and they push ups and other things.
I didn't know it went away, and with President Trump
trying to bring it back, you had this I was
reading this article in the New York Times about how
experts were worried that it could hurt the feelings of
(26:30):
children or something. And that's it's the answer to that
question that we could be so ridiculous as to not
is to feel like we have to protect children from
you know, aiming for physical fitness goals is the same
answer to the question of how we are you know,
it's it's controversial to push back on the notion that
(26:54):
the government, rather than.
Speaker 6 (26:56):
Your rather than a parent, designed what vaccines a child takes.
So it's it's all part of the same, you know, corrupted, sordid.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
Energy and entity.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
And it's it's so important that we pushed back. If
it wasn't present, all that is nonsense we saw during
COVID would not have been possible.
Speaker 7 (27:20):
But sadly it was possible because that's where we.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Are, right. Is this about money? Does this come down to?
I mean, look, everyone has their own opinion on this thing,
but let's sift through that. Is this just simply about money?
Speaker 9 (27:33):
You know?
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Is this pharma money? What are all these mandates about
people making money?
Speaker 3 (27:39):
Yeah, Money's a part of it. And pharma definitely is
intimidated by the notion that they lose the leverage.
Speaker 7 (27:48):
Of that of a mandate.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
They're definitely that that will that will make a big
deal for their bottom line, and they definitely care about that.
Speaker 8 (27:59):
But you know, among physicians, I mean, it's really about
It's like about religion. Aaron Siri, it's amazing, brilliant, brilliant
attorney just wrote this book and I think it's titled Vaccines,
Amen and and for for physicians and scientists, many of them.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
That's what it's about. And that's you know that that's
harder to that's harder to navigate. You.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
I've seen you multiple times promote this kooky idea about exercise.
You want to explain that.
Speaker 8 (28:33):
I know it's a really foreign concept to to Apparently
if you.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Go to medical school or or get a PAHCD, you
forget how important these things are. But yeah, man, it's
like it's so important, right, It's it's really important to
take care of our bodies as well as we can.
Speaker 8 (28:50):
And it actually it affects your immune system, you know,
it affects your mood, it affects your energy, It affects
your susceptibility to onus and disease, so it affects your
susceptibility to cancer. So it's it's it's really important.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
You have been a hardliner on the m R n
A stuff. It seems as if a lot of this
thinking is starting to bleed over into the federal government CDC.
Do you like the things you're seeing from the feds?
Speaker 8 (29:21):
I do?
Speaker 1 (29:21):
I do? And you know, Robert F.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Kenney is a you know, he's a.
Speaker 8 (29:25):
Good friend of mine. Dutch Baticharia, doctor Marty mckerry, Martin
mcerrey and doctor Oz too. You know, great guys, great doctors,
and you know, and they are up against a lot.
You know, this this stuff like this, we didn't get
to where we are overnight. You know, this is very
very very entrenched, the things that they are up against.
(29:47):
But you know they're working through it, and you know,
God bless them for doing it. And I know people
will also complain, and God bless them for complaining too.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
You know, if people don't like things that are happening,
just it's it's important that they express it. And but
I know also know that those guys are doing the
best that they can.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Doctor. The trust the public puts in organizations like the
CDC has been shattered, possibly permanently. How do we get
it back?
Speaker 3 (30:20):
Well, one way one step of that is to is
to is to lego mandates, because that's that's a major
part of distrust that we saw over the last few years.
But it's gonna be hard, man. They have you know,
when these guys when when doctor Narez and I pass
if I'm mispronouncing her hang, but they're former director and
(30:41):
their other senior leadership resigned, they have this rally I
think the next day.
Speaker 6 (30:47):
And you know, they are really really.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
They're like cuckoo for cocoa pups when it comes to
the vaccines. It's just like they're they're very intelligent people obviously,
but you just like you put the vaccine ship in
there and they just can't I can't think straight anymore.
So that's hard to overcome. It's very hard to overcome.
But the right leadership.
Speaker 7 (31:10):
And it's hard because you need both the strong scientific background,
but you also need the you know, the character like
someone who can lead, someone who inspires and rouses people
out of whatever state they are and orients them toward
a state that they intrinsically feel is better and more meritarious.
(31:32):
So it's it's gonna be hard because it's hard to
find that type of individual.
Speaker 8 (31:37):
But I think that's what it's gonna take.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
Doctor. I appreciate you very much. Keep doing what you do.
Let's find out what's going on in the Supreme Court.
We have good news. Next. It appears that Trump got
(32:02):
another couple wins at the Supreme Court. But as I've
explained to you before, whenever there's a court decision of
any kind, Supreme lower courts, and you get up and
you look at your phone and you see this decision,
don't don't write it in concrete just yet. Okay, take
it all with a grain of salt. There are decisions
that get way deeper than the headlines, that go back
(32:24):
and forth, that don't ever get too excited, and don't
ever go jump off a bridge when there's a decision
you love or a decision you hate. We have to
work through these things by talking to smart people. That's
why we bring Josh Hammer on the show, Host of
the Josh Hammer Show. Okay, Josh, I see headlines and
it looks like Trump got a couple nice winds, including
(32:44):
allowing Ice agents to keep arresting people. Focus on that.
What's the backstory? What happened?
Speaker 10 (32:51):
Yeah, so, Jesse, you know, in this case, I think
the headline matches. The reality is that these are a
couple of nice wins for the Trump ministration. So first
there is this immigration for Horseman case that comes out
of Los Angeles, one of America's most infamous so called
sanctuary cities, and they basically say that the trumpministration is
correctly enforcing immigration law when they are sending in ice
(33:12):
agents to to engage in so called raids, you know,
aka trying to deport illegal aliens people who should not
be here illegally, which last I checked, is in line
with the mandate that President Trump got at the ballot
box last November. This is exactly what people voted for.
And there's a very interesting concurring opinion from Justice Brett
Kavanaugh who basically says, you know what, there are some
(33:33):
administrations that go very light on enforcing immigration law. I
don't know, maybe the Barack Obomba administration or the Joe bidministration.
And then there are some administrations that are a bit
tougher on enforcing immigration law. That would be the Trump minstration.
What Brett Kavanaugh, I think very correctly and astutely says
is that, you know what, it's not up to us,
it's not up to us as judges to make these
(33:53):
policy determinations as to just how rigorous immigration law ought
being forced as a political decision for the voters, for
the people, I actually could, frankly go Jesse a little
further than that. There's an interesting clause and article two
in the Constitution called take the take care clause. It
basically says that the President shall take care that the
laws be faithfully executed. I have long interpreted, going back
(34:14):
to my law school days, I have long interpreted the
take care clause to mean that the president does have
an obligation to, in his best efforts to enforce all
the laws. Now, this gets a little tricky because there
is such thing as prosecutoral discretion. You simply cannot prosecute
every single crime in the country. There's literally not enough
money or manpower fun that's a reality in every prosecution
office there. But you can't just let some laws just
(34:35):
nakedly go unenforced. That's how you get Barack Obama's DACA
and DAPPA amnesties back from ten to twelve years ago
or so there. So anyway, it's a good opinion there.
It's a very nice win when it comes to immigration.
And forcemin a solid win for the administration.
Speaker 1 (34:49):
Okay, a surprise, surprise, Soto Mayor was unhappy with this
whole thing. I find the mind of the communists to
be fascinating. What exactly is her worldview on all this?
Speaker 10 (35:03):
Okay, So if you go into the Supreme Court and
move the federal courts more generally, if you look at
what they've said when it comes to how the presidency
can go about enforce the immigration law. First of all, Jessey,
you probably know I kind of object to this on
a level of principle. I do not think that the
courts should be engaged in this level of nitpicking as
(35:24):
to how the executive branch, how ice, how DHS goes
about enforcing immigration laws. You know, judges should stick to
judging there and let the political branches do.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
What they do.
Speaker 10 (35:33):
Nonetheless, the courts have weighed in a lot over the
years when it comes to how immigration law can be enforced,
and what they basically say is that they have the
ability to go into certain workplaces, focus on certain industries
where there are disproportionately going to be folks who are
not here legally, whether that is landscaping or construction or agriculture,
things like that, and Furthermore, they also say that it
(35:56):
is okay to focus disportionally on areas where there are
is not a lot of English being spoken. What they
also say is that it is illegal, it's unconstitutional to
explicitly racially profile. So they draw the line somewhere between
a preponderance of people not speaking English on the one hand,
which they say is okay, you can have ICE agents
(36:16):
focused there. On the other hand, they say that if
you're just picking out basically a bunch of brown people,
that is not okay to focus there. So look, if
we're trying to be charitable, which I don't really want
to be to Sony and Somai or but if we're
trying to be charitable, that's what she's saying. She's basically
saying that the Trump administration ICE is focusing not just
all the factors that I said that you're allowed to
focus on, but they're actually focusing really just on brown people. Again,
(36:39):
I don't buy this for a second, to be honest
with you, I think it's ludicrous, frankly that the courts
are involved in this kind of process in the first place.
But that's in theory. Jesse if we're trying to steal
man the urban cery, you're trying to give the best
impression of an argument that's in theory what she's trying
to say. But really it's just a communist As you.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
Said, Josh, what does this mean as far as ICE
in places like Chicago? Obviously Chicago has been all over
the news. We're sending in the National Guard. Does this
mean the Trump administration can move forward sending ICE anywhere
they please? Or are there little limitations in this ruling?
(37:15):
Like there always seem to be.
Speaker 10 (37:18):
Look, I mean, lawyers like to lawyer Jesse, so there's
always going to be some kind of legally lawyerly limits there.
I mean, yes, but also only to a point. I mean,
this does that thing pave the way nicely for the
trumpministration to start deploying ICE DHS. But the National Guard
is a slightly different legal analysis, but potentially also even
the National Guard, you know, speaking of Los Angeles, let's
(37:38):
not forget that the National Guard was just in Los
Angeles in June. There wasn't a specifically deportation oriented mission.
Math then was really just trying to quell anarchy, but
the anarchy was immigration related. So it's kind of well
related to another, but yeah, Chicago is very much in
the crosshairs. Just over the past twenty four hours, it
looks like Operation Midway Blitz has started, which is an
immigration forced operations dired around Brandon Johnson's city of Chicago,
(38:02):
perhaps all throughout.
Speaker 1 (38:03):
JB.
Speaker 10 (38:03):
Pritskro of State of Illinois. Look, Jesse is a former
Chicagoan myself who has been very sad to see that
city go tremendously downhill over the over the past decade.
And it was already pretty bad Frank was living there.
It's gone a heck of a lot more downhills ends then,
I say, all hands on deck. If Donald Trump wants
to queam Chicago, I say two big, fat thumbs up.
There's a long way to go. It is a serious challenge,
(38:23):
but it's a world class city that should be made
great once again.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
I think, Okay, let's focus on the other one. Donald
Trump removing a Democrat member of the Federal Trade Commission.
How in the world did this even end up on
the Supreme Court? What happened?
Speaker 3 (38:40):
So?
Speaker 10 (38:40):
The FTC is one of these quasi independent agencies there
where you have Congress that statutorily legislates where there has
to be a certain partisan mix of Republican commissioners Democrat commissioners.
Basically it is structured differently, the FTC, the FCC, the
National Labor Relations Board. There's a lot of these agencies
(39:00):
that really kind of go back to the early part
of the twenty century, especially the FDR era of a
New Deal. A lot of these agencies are structured differently
as a constitutional and statutory matter from kind of the
big iconic agencies that people are familiar with, you know,
call it the DOJ, Treasury, so forth.
Speaker 6 (39:16):
There.
Speaker 10 (39:16):
Now, the big legal fight that's going on here is
what is the extent of the president's executive power to
engage in removal decisions, to actually engage in hiring and
firing personal decisions. That is when it comes to all agencies,
whether they call themselves independent or not within Article two
of the Constitution. My very simple, straightforward legal analysis I've
(39:37):
been saying this for twenty years now, I guess is
that the executive power of Article two, if it means
literally anything whatsoever, it means the ability to control who
is in your executive branch. That, after all, is what
defines you as the chief executive of the executive branch.
So unless you're responsible for all hiring fine decisions, you
are not actually the executive wielding the executive power as
(40:00):
Article two, Section one, Clause one calls for. Are Now
the alternative argument, which is essentially an FDR New Deal
Democrat argument, is that no Congress can actually legislate certain
limits on the president's removal power. There all this is
teeing up potentially a direct challenge to a very problematic
case from the very height of the New Deal in
nineteen thirty five case called Humphreys Executor, which was one
(40:22):
of the more infamous decisions of that era, where they
basically said that congressional limitations on the president's removal power
for these independent agencies is actually okay, it actually is constitutional.
There's been a lot of chipping away at that, including
a National Labor Relations Board case earlier this term called
Win versus Wilcox, which is another win for a Trump
very similar context. They're firing a Biden nominated member Gwinn
(40:43):
Willcox of the NLRB. So between NRB and Willcox and
now the FTC in this particular case, I think we're
kind of gearing up for a direct challenge to this
case Humphrey's executor, and I say, frankly, as long overdue.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
All right, let's shift gears and talk about trel specifically
tariff refunds. And here was Scott pisent.
Speaker 7 (41:04):
If the Supreme Court rules against you on these tariffs,
is the administration prepared to offer rebates?
Speaker 9 (41:11):
So, Christen, I am confident that we will win at
the Supreme Court, But there are numerous other avenues that
we can take. They diminish President Trump's negotiating position, but
there are numerous in terms of and remember this isn't
about the dollars, this is about balance. The dollars are
(41:32):
an after amount.
Speaker 5 (41:34):
Would you offer rebates though?
Speaker 9 (41:35):
Are you prepared to offer rebates? So we would have
to give a refund in about half the tariffs, which
would be terrible for the treasury.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
You're prepared to give those refunds?
Speaker 9 (41:45):
Well, I mean, there's no be prepared. If the court
says it, we'd have to Josh what.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
Jesse?
Speaker 10 (41:55):
Look, I wish I could say that I share Scott
Pisant's confidence when it comes to this court outcome.
Speaker 1 (42:01):
I don't.
Speaker 10 (42:02):
I'm not predicting a loss, but I'm not predicting a
win either. I genuinely actually I'm not sure which way
this one is going to go. If you look at
the legal ruling from the US Court Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, which was the court that had the Court
Appeals ruling just about a week or two ago, whenever
it was, they wrote it in very kind of formalistic
legalistic we might even call it a quasi originalist form
(42:24):
of analysis. There clearly trying to appeal to breck have
an onto Amy Cony, Barrett John Roberts to the Court's
swing justice. You know which way they ultimately decide. I
don't actually know. I mean, the ultimate legal question here is,
is the balance of trade or America's gargantua and trade
deficit year in and year out the kind of quote
unquote emergency that would allow the president to invoke this
(42:46):
sort of emergency authority there. I think it's a very
interesting question. I see both sides, our men. I don't
actually have a super super strong stands on the matter.
I'm in klind to think that the administration is probably
correct there. I think Congress is likely and intended to
delegate a lot of this to the executive. But it's
a very interesting close legal argument. The easiest way to
get this done, though, just to clarify, is for Congress
just pass a law that is obviously the way that
(43:07):
this should be done, tariffs raising revenue. Congress is the
perfect body for that. Unfortunately, Jesse, as you and I
both know, Congress is not good for a whole lot
these days of the naming post offices and a bunch
of cable news Branston.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
So freaking true, Josh, thank you brother, come back. So
we have a wonderful light in the mood. Next, it's
time to lighten the mood. Sports has been attacked by
(43:42):
the right over and over again in recent years, most
definitely by myself included, because sports, especially large sports organizations,
have chosen to take part in the cultural destruction of
the United States of America. There's no question about that.
We've talked about it. But we should give credit where
credits due. All sports. It's not all teams, it's not
(44:03):
all players. There are still wonderful things happening in the
sports arena that we should highlight when they happen. My
favorite school is everybody knows is Ohio State University. I
was born in Ohio and Ohio State University. They just
had an invitation to Jesus event. There are star players.
You know, everybody wants to meet hang out with the
(44:24):
star players. Their star players had this event on campus.
Over seventy five people were baptized at this event. Sports
does matter, Leadership does matter, and people seem to be
waking up and discovering God again and that I hope
does your soul. Well, I'll see them all
Host
Jesse Kelly
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Herd with Colin Cowherd
The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a thought-provoking, opinionated, and topic-driven journey through the top sports stories of the day.