June 30, 2026 • 45 mins
The Supreme Court handed down a series of blockbuster decisions with major implications for presidential power, election law, and the future of the country. Jesse Kelly breaks down the rulings on executive authority, the mail-in ballot case, and why America's immigration debate is inseparable from the nation's political future. These decisions could shape the next election—and the country—for years to come.
Choq: Visit https://choq.com/jessetv for a 17.76% discount on your CHOQ subscription for life
Beam:Visit https://shopbeam.com/JESSEKELLYand use code JESSEKELLY to get our exclusive discount of up to 40% off.
Follow The Jesse Kelly Show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJesseKellyShow
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Supreme Court season.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Get ready, I mean there's more coming, and get ready
for this something we talk about so often. There are
going to be wins and there are going to be losses,
and some of the wins are going to be really
really big, and some of the losses are going to
be really really hurtful.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
This is one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions
in a century. And you can telp because the New
York Times is going crazy.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
They will get in the end everything they've ever wanted, everything,
the total destruction of our system, the crime that you name,
the common goal. It can and will be accomplished if
they can simply outnumber you.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Immigration.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Different people have different levels of passion for different political topics.
Right There are people who are hardcore pro lifers. They
are hardcore tax people or spenders or border issues, and
so immigration can be one of those things that if
it's not your thing, or it hasn't been your thing,
maybe you don't stress about it too much. And look,
(01:11):
that has been okay, but I am sorry. I certainly
hate to tell anybody what to do. That can't be
the case anymore. This has to be priority number one
for pretty much everybody, and The reason I say that
is not because that's my opinion. That's how the Communists
feel for them. Mass importation of foreigners has become priority one.
(01:35):
And you know why, we've talked about it many times before.
With the mass importation of foreigners from barbarian cultures, they
will get in the end everything they've ever wanted, everything,
the total destruction of our system, the crime that you name,
the common goal, It can and will be accomplished if
(01:57):
they can simply outnumber you, bring in hordes and hordes
of foreign barbarians, make it impossible to get rid of them,
and in the end, the commune knows that all his
other issues will be taken care of by said foreign barbarians.
And the flip side is true, Native born Americans, Americans,
(02:18):
they don't want any of this comedy garbage. Democrat issue
after Democrat issue after Democrat issue in this country polls
at twenty percent. We're not talking even forty sixty, thirty
seventy here, twenty percent. Democrats poll with issue after issue
after issue.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
If only Americans.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Are deciding elections, the Democrat Party, the Communist Party is
going to be annihilated to the point it would become defunct.
They would have to relabel it and start something new.
That's how bad their party would be wiped out. And
we can have that with the mass deportation of foreigners.
If you don't believe me how passionate they are about
(02:59):
this issue, the Supreme Court ruled last week that hundreds
of thousands of Haitians and Syrians who've been here forever
can actually finally go home. And this is how the
common has reacted.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
We have a significant Haitian community that's been working in
southern Delaware four years, that have put down roots that
have contributed to our community. But they're here because of
this temporary Protected Status program. The President will now use
this Supreme Court decision to expel them from.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
The United States.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
This is going to upend communities and families all over
our country, but is just part of his broader, frankly
cruel program of attempting mass deportations across our country.
Speaker 5 (03:46):
Trump wants to send TPS holders back to unsafe conditions.
And it's the far right extremists sitting on the Supreme
Court who has just let him sever this critical lifelonge
for Haitians and for TPS holders from.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
All around the world.
Speaker 5 (04:06):
We have a moral duty to protect TPS holders and
provide this vulnerable group with protections and a permanent pathway
to citizenship in our country.
Speaker 6 (04:17):
I thought it was a horrible ruling. And again, it
doesn't make any sense to say that, for instance, in
the case of Haitians, that they are somehow safe to
return to a country that is rocked by instability even today.
And on top of that, Donald Trump made very clear
(04:38):
his overtly racist intentions in sending them back to Haiti.
He called Haiti a whole country.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
We know why, We know exactly why all those people
want them all to stay. It's not because of some
care and concern for the people of Haiti. They know
the communist revolution wins if they stay here. But we
have a problem still on the right. We still have
a lot of traders in our midst to think America
as an economic zone. Who thinks people, you, me, your
(05:11):
children are simply economic units.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
It's all just about tax dollars.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
You see, this is the governor of the state of Ohio.
Speaker 7 (05:21):
US citizens do not go into Haiti. It's a very
very dangerous place. Just this last week, several more school
children were killed just because gangs were shooting back and forth.
The gangs control significant part of hate, so it is
clearly not safe. Anybody who has filed Haiti over a
(05:41):
long extended period of time knows that it's worse than
it has frankly ever ever been, and certainly in recent memory.
But the other point is it is not in the
United States' interest, certainly not in Ohio's interest, to have
people who are working every single day, who are supporting
(06:02):
a family, who are buying houses, fixing up old houses,
starting businesses and then put deep roots in this country
and really are contributing, and yank them out.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Did you hear the tell in there? Did you hear it?
What are these people from Haiti doing? They're buying houses?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Why do these GOP types, the low TGP types love
foreigners so much because they're big corporate donors love foreigners
buying up things, renting out apartments looks good on the
bottom line.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
You see, Sorry, your.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Car got breaken, got broken into, Sorry your daughter got raped.
Sorry your kids have a hard time understanding their classmates
in school. But hey, have you seen those text dollars
we're bringing in? This has been the line of the
GOP for a long time. Apparently Ohio state I was
born in, has a serious problem. Here's the former governor,
(07:06):
John Kasik.
Speaker 8 (07:09):
The Supreme Court decision has said that Haitians are going
to have to be removed from Springfield, Ohio. I guess
I understand that, But there is an opportunity for the
Congress to extend temporary protection status because things in Haiti
are just deteriorating, and sending people back there with their families,
to me is just crazy. I wish the Congress would
(07:31):
extend this for the Haitians.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
But if not, they'll say that.
Speaker 8 (07:35):
That's the law, and to quote somebody a figure from
a Charles Dickens novel, if that's the law, then the
law is an end.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Yes, I'm going to end this on a positive note though,
because we have all kinds of things still to get to.
We have to get to the Supreme Court decisions from
today not all bad, yes they're bad ones.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
But very very good one, very good one out.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
We'll get to all that in a moment, but I
want to end on this positive note. The good news
is Mike DeWine is retiring the Maria Salazar's to John Kasiks,
the John Cornyns, the James Langford's the amnesty wing of
the GOP is shrinking and shriveling every single day because
you are getting.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Louder about this issue.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
As you've watched your country be transformed into Indiana Jones
in the Temple of Doom.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
You have simply had enough.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
You're speaking out, and the old GOP is fading away.
Good for us, all right, we'll talk to some Supreme
Court issues. One of the reasons you're stepping up is
I know you're taking your male vitality stack from chalk
or your female vitality stack.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
I know this.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Because people are actually showing up at the polls. Now,
are you low on energy? Are you out of gas
at the end of the day, three in the afternoon,
reaching for yet another pot of coffee? That's because your
tea levels are criminally low. Your problem, it's a national
problem nationwide. We are chugging synthetic estrogen and testosterone levels
(09:07):
are in free fall. We have to be proactive about that.
Go to Chuck dot com, slash Jesse TV and start
some natural herbal supplements. You don't need a needle in
your arm, you need natural herbal supplements. I personally take
a male vitality stack every single day. Go be full
of pep, feel good all the time, Chuck dot Com,
(09:30):
slash Jesse TV.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
We'll be back. Well, it's Supreme Court season.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Get ready, I mean there's more coming, and get ready
for this something we talk about so often. There are
gonna be wins, and there are gonna be losses, and
some of the wins are gonna be really really big
and some of the losses are going to be really
really hurtful, and we just have to sift through the
damage and figure out did we come out. Okay, on
the other side, joining me, now, someone who's forgot more
about this than I'll ever know, THEO Wold, former Assistant
(10:03):
Attorney General, former White House Deputy Assistant for Domestic Policy
under Trump.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
So who knows a little bit about this stuff? Okay, THEO.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Let's start with the one that has everybody on the
rights blood pressure through the roof today and me Cony
Barrett Roberts. They go with the other side and decide
that mail in ballads can in fact be counted after
election that what was the decision?
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Do you like it? Do you hate it? And give
it to me?
Speaker 9 (10:30):
Yeah, So it's a five to four decision in a
case that originates out of Mississippi. And I think there's
a really important just sort of footnote here to lay
down at the beginning of this discussion, Jesse, and that's Look,
it's the state of Mississippi that is currently counting ballots
after an election. This is not about California, it's not
(10:50):
about New York. It's about Illinois. So, like, let's just
be clear about one thing as we begin this discussion.
Red state supermajorities, red state governors could fix this issue
if they wanted to, and they aren't. So it gets litigated.
And the question in Mississippi is is it constitutional for
Mississippi to continue to count ballots five days? That's the
(11:12):
magic number in Mississippi, five days after an election is
concluded on election Day. Goes all the way up through
the Fifth Circuit to the Supreme Court. And today the
Supreme Court, the three liberal justices, with Justice Barrett and
Justice Roberts joining Barrett writing the opinion, say yeah, you
can keep counting ballots after an election is held. And
(11:34):
I think the dissent from Justice Alito. Look, any patriotic American,
whether you care about the law, whether you're interested in
the Supreme Court or not, you should read this opinion.
It truly is a masterpiece. It goes through first the
history of the Federal Election Statute, why we have an
election day, why that's consistent throughout our history, even in
(11:56):
times of war like the Civil War and World War two.
Goes through a lot of legal precedent that we brought
over from the Anglo common law. It goes through actual
case precedent, and then it goes through the text of
the actual statute itself, and it unequivocally lays out that
the majority opinion written by Justice Barrett is flawed on
(12:16):
each one of these metrics. And ultimately, I think Justice
Alito's point that most people are now taking note of
in the mainstream media is to say, this is only
going to increase fraud, because if you can allow a
state to continue counting ballots after the election has concluded,
then there's no reason why a state like California couldn't say, well,
(12:37):
we'll accept ballots for twenty one days, thirty days, or
in some instances no time interval. There could be no limit.
We're only talking about five days, and just everyone who's
watching or listening needs to keep this in mind, we're
only talking about five days because that's the statute at
issue in Mississippi. But in a place like California, you
could be counting ballots for months until the sort of
(12:57):
metric that needs to be achieved to determine the winner
of an election to let flip flops weeks after an
election's been held. And that's the point that Alito makes
in his final concluding passages in his dissenting opinion, which
is the implications here for ferreting out election fraud, election abuse,
the consequences for say, a presidential election that comes down
(13:18):
to the counting of ballots in one county in one
state could be enormous, and the majority opinion seems to
totally ignore those. I think, Jesse, the last thing I'll
just say on this case is this is something you're
starting to see that's consistent. Unfortunately, for all three of
Trump's picks to the Supreme Court, that's Justice Gorsch, Justice Kavanaugh,
and Justice Barrett. They all seem to be shaped in
(13:41):
many ways by the same kinds of concerns that Justice Roberts.
Chief Justice Roberts has shown over his long tenure now
on the Court, which is what we would say in
the law like a concern for reliance interests, and that means,
you know, is there someone who's going to be negatively
affected by this opinion? Are there people who have come
to sort of rely on this sort of status in
(14:01):
the law. Think of this in terms of the temporate
protected statistications. Yeah, they were only supposed to be here
for a few months, but they've been here for eighteen
They've come to rely that the law is going to
treat them this way, and that seems to be the
real concern. In Barrett's opinion as well, there are military overseas,
military servicemen and women who would be affected by this.
The implications from Alito's dissent might be that all mail
(14:22):
in balloting is unconstitutional. Absentee balloting the way it's done
by states, even for disabled Americans, may have to change.
And we really just don't want to disrupt the apple
cart and Jesse. As you've noted so many times, the
liberal justices and those in the liberal legal movement, to
say nothing of the communists and the Democrats Socialists of
America movement, they have none of these concerns. They don't
(14:44):
care if they totally transform the country overnight. Unfortunately, Justices Gorsage, Kavanaugh,
and Barrett are still stuck in a nineteenth century worldview.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Okay, so THEO I guess I'll put it to you
this way, because I'm not a very delicate person on
this particular issue. It's Supreme Court made a ruling. Are
we screwed? Is there something we can do from here
going forward? What's the next step?
Speaker 10 (15:10):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (15:10):
I mean I think you and I would have the
same take on this Jesse, which is we're essentially screwed
because our legislature, both at the federal and state level,
they've proven themselves entirely incapable of governing.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Right.
Speaker 9 (15:21):
I mean, I think the white pill in this opinion
is it'd be very easy for Congress to come in
here and fix this. They could just say unequivocally, because
that's really where Barrett hinges her opinion. Well, the statute's
kind of silent. There's no specific statutory language dealing with
the counting of ballots submitted either on election day or
before election day that arrived after election day. Well, Congress
(15:45):
could just specify and clean that up. It could just
put some language into the existing statute and say, nope,
we're not any ballot received after election day will not
be counted, and then work with the United States Postal Service,
which is under currently under Republican control, to specify how
third already carriers FedEx usps ups would have to deal
with the reception and delivery of ballots. That could be
(16:07):
done tomorrow. Unfortunately, as it relates to the Save Act,
we've seen already unequivocally that Republicans are not interested in
actually fixing the election integrity issues we all know to
be you know, throughout not just counties, city states, not
just blue jurisdictions, but red jurisdictions all throughout the country.
Since the twenty twenty election, they've shown no interest in
taking this subject up in a meaningful way. So white
(16:29):
pill would be, Hey, this could be fixed, fixed by Congress.
Black pill is, we're stuck with the members of Congress
we have right now, and they don't. We can't even
get them to work, let alone work on hard issues
like this.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
So you know, I'm not trying to get cute, see,
you know, and get unrealistic with these weird scenarios I've
come up with in my head. But Trump obviously is
ahead of the Postal Service can't we do something there?
Is there something that can be done there?
Speaker 9 (16:55):
Oh yeah, for sure, I mean totally. I mean we've
already indicated this couple months ago. If you recall, Jesse,
there was that effort to say they needed to have
a special type of barcode and they needed to be uh,
you know, in a certain type of envelope, and they
and then they needed to be processed in a certain
time interval before an election to be counted. In other words,
(17:16):
if you're even if you're a blue state, and you say, wow,
we're going to allow mail in ballots to occur and
this way or that way and this timed duration. Not
through the US males. That's a federal service, and the
US Mail can say the transportation and delivery of any
election ballot will have to comply with these standards for
us to pick it up as a third party carrier
(17:37):
and deliver it for the counting of that ballot. That
that for sure could be done.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Jesse.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
All right, let's let's move on. Actually something you brought
up before. We did get a win, a nice win
when it came to temporary protected status Haitians, Syrians. What
does this ruling actually mean?
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Going forward.
Speaker 9 (17:57):
Yeah, I think what it means, Jesse is so just
to lay the ground for your viewers. A temporary protected
status is a discretionary tool that immigration law federal immigration
allow law gives to the chief executive, the President or
his delegate. His delegatee which would in this in since
be the Secretary of Homeland Security. They can use this
tool to allow those who are present in the United States,
(18:19):
either lawfully or illegally, to continue to remain in the
United States so long as there is a circumstance in
their home country that warrants them staying here. What's that
circumstance could be a civil war, could be a natural
disaster like an earthquake, a typhoon, a hurricane. And the
whole idea here was, Hey, if you know, tomorrow the
(18:39):
Congo irrupts into a you know, a giant civil war.
If there are Congolese who came here as tourists or
to do a short term project with their corporation living
and working in LA or New York and DC, we're
not going to send them back to be slaughtered. They
can stay until things find their you know, their equilibrium,
until there's some some calm in their home country. How
(19:00):
it's actually been used is TPS has turned out to
be essentially an amnesty loophole. TPS was issued for Somalis
back in nineteen ninety one and continued and continued and continued.
TPS was extended to Hondurans in nineteen ninety eight, to
Haitians originally in two thousand and eight, and then again
(19:20):
in twenty seventeen, and then renewed close to for over
eleven years here. So there's nothing temporary about temporary protected status.
And I think what the Court said was the chief
executive in using the discretionary tool, the president also has
the authority to decline to use that tool or to
turn it off and end it. In essence, that's what
(19:43):
that decision was all about. Was the temperate protected status
for Haitians and Syrians that the President moved to end
can actually be ended by the president. I mean, it's
total common sense here. The unfortunate part, Jesse, as was
the case with the related asylum decision issued by the
Supreme Court life last week, took eight and a half
years to get to this decision, and that should really
(20:04):
worry any American who's relying on the courts to guarantee
the meaning of the Constitution or the powers of the
presidency eight and a half years, and if the Democrats
had won the last election, this power would have never
been challenged. It would still be on the books as
it was under Clinton, under Obama, under Bush, under Biden.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
Democrats suck, but so much of the old GOP sucks too.
And I'm, of course talking about Ohio Republican alleged League
Governor Mike DeWine and his response to the fact that
some Haitians might be leaving his state.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Here he was.
Speaker 7 (20:38):
But the other point is it is not in the
United States' interest, certainly not in Ohio's interest, to have
people who are working every single day, who are supporting
a family, who are buying houses, fixing up old houses,
starting businesses, and then put deep roots in this country
(20:59):
and really are contributing, and yank them out.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Theo is this just simply the Chamber of Commerce running
the Republican Party as.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
They have for decades.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
In what universe could a Republican governor get up and
say we need two hundred thousand Haitians in Ohio.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
There's so much to say here, Jesse.
Speaker 9 (21:21):
I mean, I don't even know where to begin. I mean,
number one, Mike DeWine has been an elected office for
a half a century, and I'm not exaggerating. His first
election was in nineteen seventy two. So I mean one
thing just to say at the outset, thank god, his
career is coming to end in the next couple of months.
That'll be great for Ohio. It'll be great for the
Republican Party, unfortunately, Jesse. As you know Mike DeWine here,
(21:41):
he's just emblematic of an entire worldview of a whole
host of Republicans who are currently serving as governors, as senators,
as member of Congress, and this is their view. The
first thing I'll say is he said deep roots in
our communities. Well, that's how you know. Temperate protected status
is just to lie. It's supposed to be temporary. They're
(22:02):
not supposed to be buying homes. They're not supposed to
be enrolling their kids in public schools, opening bank accounts,
you know, starting you know, medical treatment. They're supposed to
be here for a temporary period of time. So which
is it, Governor Dwaine. Is it deep roots and you
lie to us? Or is it temporary protected status? And
they broke the law by insisting on access to things
(22:24):
that belong to American citizens and American citizens only. The
second point is we've heard this jesse for years and
years and years, where we need these people because they'll
do jobs that Americans won't do. We know that's a lie.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
We know that.
Speaker 9 (22:37):
You know, take Springfield, Ohio, which played such a big
role in the last presidential election. Springfield, Ohio has received
over ten thousand temporary protected status Haitians in essentially a
four to five year period. The unemployment for native born
Americans skyrocketed at the same time as those Haitians started
(22:58):
arriving in hundreds and ends of thousands of rivals, and
the economic numbers for Springfield overall have plummeted at the
same time as crime, property crime, violent crime in the
area has skyrocketed. So I think more Americans and i'd
say more citizens living in Western countries, generally in Sweden
(23:18):
and Norway, in the United Kingdom. Obviously here in the
United States, we're waking up to the reality that all
of these myths we've been told by the global elite
about the benefits of immigration never arrive, and all of
the myths that we've been told about the consequences of
mass immigration. Actually are far worse, far far worse than
(23:39):
any of our elected officials, our governing elites are willing
to acknowledge. And the impact of temperate protected status for
Haitians and Syrians just in Ohio has been enormous. So look,
is it the Chamber of Commerce? I don't know, but
what it's representative of is an old, old Republican elite
perspective about the economy, about the labor market, and about
(24:02):
the rights and privileges that belong to American citizens and
belong to American citizens exclusively. And thank god, there are
more and more individuals, both in office but in the
media who are willing to talk about this and push
people like Mike de Wine to the margins.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
THEO along the same lines. But I am going to
change the subject. Zooran ma'm donnie, communist mayor of New
York City, came out and said this about it all.
Speaker 10 (24:28):
This city, the one that we love, is one that
has been built by so many from so many different
parts of the world, and that includes our Haitian brothers
and sisters, our Syrian brothers and sisters, and we stand
here ready to be in solidarity with all of those
who are concerned by today's decision, and beyond just language
of solidarity, actions of solidarity, we have seen a cruelty
(24:49):
that has become normalized. And to have people who frankly
taught the world about freedom have their own freedom be
put in jeopardy by the actions of a Supreme Court
in a federal administration, it is not only cruel, it's
something that we will not ever accept. And so we
stand here as New Yorkers, proud of standing in solidarity
and proud to do everything that we can to keep
(25:09):
people in their homes and to keep people together.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
Thought the whole world about freedom.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Yeah, that little rebellion they had in Haiti was quite
the glorious affair, but we can set that aside for
the moment THEO and focus on this part of it.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
I try to.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
Read as much history as possible, and I just have
a very difficult time finding a historical precedent for hostile
foreign city states operating within the borders of a nation
and how a nation is supposed to deal with that,
unless we're talking about a rebellious city where the Romans
are just going to go sack the place and raise
it to the ground.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
How do we deal with this?
Speaker 9 (25:45):
Yeah, three quick things here, Jesse number one, zoron Mumdani.
The thread connecting him to John calcoun is so evident,
it's so explicit. The idea that any sort of state
actor can willfully ignore existing duly enacted federal law. No,
I will not enforce that law in South Carolina, or
as mom Donnie says, no, I will not enforce that
(26:06):
law in New York. That question is already been asked
and answered. We fought a civil war over it. And
it's interesting that Democrats are now totally totally in line
with this view that somehow you can thumb your nose
at federal law number two. I, for one, I don't
know about you, Jesse. I for one, will not be
lectured to buy Gunden who arrived here in twenty eighteen
about what the United States is or is not my
(26:30):
You know, I'm a fifth generation American. I have roots
that go back to the nineteenth century. Even then, I
took my cap to people who came over on the
Speedwell or the Mayflower. But the idea that someone who
arrived in twenty eighteen is going to lecture us about
what should be law or what is permissible in the
city of New York is deeply insulting. But also it's
(26:50):
kind of just calling New Yorkers on the carpet. I mean,
New Yorkers won't even let Red Sox fans walk down
the street, but they're going to let you Gundan tell
them what their city is or is not. And then
the third thing to your question, Jesse, the idea about
tolerating this kind of dissension U sort of open provocation
to rebellion in our in our homeland.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
I think you're right.
Speaker 9 (27:12):
It really is a test of what kind of government
do we have and who decides the idea that a
mayor of a city could essentially say the law does
not apply here. Try your best, try me and see
what I see what you can do about it. That's
a provocation for conflict number one. But number two, I
(27:32):
think it really does undermine the very concept of the
supremacy clause, about federalism and about the equal enforcement of
the law. These are sort of hallmark pillars of our civilization.
I'm not surprised that someone who wasn't raised in our
civilization doesn't understand them. Who's not really steeped in our culture,
has an incapacity to live with these principles. That doesn't
(27:55):
surprise me. But the idea that the mayor of one
of the largest cities in our country can say law
doesn't apply here and I will do everything to thumb
my nose at that law should really really concern anyone.
And the last thing I'll just say it, Jesse, is
we know where this goes, right, We know exactly where
this goes. Take the United Kingdom, for example. It was
in the early twenty teens when the art then Archbishop
(28:17):
of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said, well, we've already arrived at
this place where we defer to the local community leaders
in the Muslim community, on policing, on threats to safety.
We should take the additional step to allow them to
set up courts that will govern family law and sort
of basic civil disputes what we would call petty crime,
(28:39):
petty theft. And the United Kingdom did so, and now
look where they are. They've seeded their education system, they've
seated full parts of their court system, they've seated full
parts of actual built infrastructure to the growing Islamic majority
in London and throughout England. I think the idea of
tolerating foreign diaspora that will elect representatives to cater to
(29:02):
the interests of that diaspora, to make law specifically for
that diaspora, and we'll only do business within that diaspora
is so antithetical to America. It's deeply, deeply disruptive, not
just to our way of life, but to the law,
the basic premise of the equal enforcement of the law
in our country. It shouldn't be tolerated. It should not
be tolerated.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Agreed THEO. You got me all fired up, brother, Thank
you so much. I appreciate you coming back. Please, we
love you.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
All right. You know who else is all.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Kinds of fired up, only the other way, in a
really good way. Jeffrey Tucker, Brownstone Institute. There was a
Supreme Court ruling today that was awesome, absolutely awesome.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
And maybe maybe you don't know about it, maybe.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
I haven't digested it, but you might just stand up
and cheer here in just a moment. Before you stand
up and cheer, stay seated and.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Learn how to get a great night's sleep.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Every night, dream powder from beam, a cup of hot chocolate.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
What's better than that?
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Before bed, and you'll sleep like a little baby every night.
And more importantly, because there's lots of things that help
you sleep. When you wake up in the morning, it's
not going to be that heavy. Takes three hours to
wake up groggy, feeling like you feel when you take
something to sleep. You wake up and you feel good, rested.
(30:22):
How's that possible? Well, dream powder. This cup of hot
chocolate has natural things in a melotonin and racy and magnesium,
all these things, and you're just going to drift off
to sleep and stay asleep.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
And wake up ready to go.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Shopbeam dot com, Slash Jesse Kelly, we'll be back.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Well, you win some and you lose some.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Certainly at the Supreme Court and even a court you
think is supposed to always be on your side, sometimes
they are, sometimes they aren't. We can sit and cry
about losses today, but we did get a win, and
I think it's more significant than people were giving a
credit for. We can apparently fire bureaucrats now, it's a miracle.
Joining me now, my friend Jeffrey Tucker, founder of the
(31:12):
Brownstone Institute. Jeffrey, I just don't to think I can
live in a world where a government employee can actually
be fired.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
What happened today, This is one of the most significant
Streame Court decisions in a century. And you can tell
because the New York Times is going crazy. They had
a lead editorial we got pumped out within minutes about
how's the disaster? We now got a dictator in the
form of Trump. So what people need to understand is
(31:40):
that the inability to fire federal bureaucrats, the creation of
the civil service itself, and it's sort of immunity from
any kind of political pressure has been the essence of
progressivism since Woodrow Wilson days, if not before. It's arisen
during wartime, during the Great Depression, during World War Two,
during the whole sixties thing, and so on, and rarely,
(32:03):
if ever challenged what the administratives. And it's created the
administrative state, which is in effect the state. It's a
new branch of government, the fourth branch of government, and
it is the government everything else. And their existence reduces
all elected leaders to marionettes. And that's always been true
for a century. They never told us that. You rarely
(32:25):
read about it in any textbooks. But that's the grim
reality we have. Simply, like two hundred and twenty government agencies.
These people are cannot generally be fired and generally aren't.
They're the ones who.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Actually run the government. So the most.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
To the most significant feature of the Trump administration, and
it's more significant than anything else that he's done. You
may agree or disagree with anything else, but this is
the core. He went after, the illegal status of the
administrative state. And this morning we got the final victory
(33:03):
in the Supreme Court, which overthrows a decision that came
down in a new deal period called Humphrey's Executor, where
the Supreme Court said the president can't fire the head
of a regulatory agency. Now, that was the kind of
codification of what everybody understood to be true back in
the day. But it also meant that the administration's administrative
(33:27):
state was free to build and build and build, and
so it did over many decades. Over all these years,
the Trump administration's first term was marked by a grave frustration.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
That he had this.
Speaker 3 (33:41):
Constant sense that he wasn't really in charge. And Trump,
of all people, of all the presidents in our lifetime,
knows what it means to be in charge, because he's
taken over companies, been in the CEO, what he says Goes,
and so he figured that the same thing would happen
when he became president, and then quickly found out that
(34:02):
his job was just to you know, appear at signings,
you know, be a kind of personage, you know, a symbol.
That's what the administrative state had reduced our elected leaders to.
And everybody knew it except most people. All the insiders
knew it. And it's a little scam. They've been running
(34:23):
since since the since the progressive era. So Trump, coming
to power in the second term, really decided to make
this a parity. Look, if I'm going to be president,
I really need to be president. And actually we need
to have a system wherein the president is the president
at least according to the Constitution, we have three branches
of government, judicial, legislative, and the executive. All of these
(34:47):
agencies technically are under the executive branch. That's the Congress
voted them all into existence. But Congress put them under
the executive branch, which means executive branch, and the president
should be in charge of them.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
This is.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
It's clear from the ORG chart, but it's never worked
out in practice. So Trump decided to take this to
make an issue of it. And finally the Supreme Court
found itself sort of boxed in, Oh, can the president
do this well their executive agencies. He's the head of
the executive branch according to the US Constitution, So the
(35:30):
answer is yes. So it's yeah. I know, that sounds obvious.
It sounds like a no brainer if you're reading the Constitution.
Obviously that's the conclusion you come to. But Jesse, this
has been the great secret of the last one hundred years,
if not longer, which is that the president has not
(35:51):
really been the president that the experts have ruled us.
That's the very essence of the progressive vision. So the
Supreme Court today just just pulled the rugout from underneath
the entire scam. It's actually a great day to celebrate
if you believe that the regime under which we live
(36:12):
should be responsive to our voices and our wishes through
the electoral process and democratic mechanisms. If you believe that,
you believe in the US Constitution, you believe what Tolkville
said about America, then this is a.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
Great day to celebrate.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
But not everybody celebrating, as I mentioned to The New
York Times.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
Is bleary eyed with.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
Fury and denouncing this decision as the creation of dictatorship.
It's not a dictatorship anymore than George Washington was a dictator.
But the New York Times represents a kind of school
of thought that doesn't actually believe in the Constitution, doesn't
actually believe in people's government, doesn't believe in democracy. Even
(36:56):
they believe in a kind of dictatorship of the techmocrats,
which this decision completely undermind. So it's a great day
for the US and a great day for America. And
I will just add, just because Trump is a bit
of a controversial president, nobody can possibly agree with everything
he's done, this I think is his single greatest achievement.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
That is saying something Jeffrey, So, I guess, let me
put it this way. Why has the bureaucracy being protected
from being fired? Why has it only aided the left?
What does this only help them? Why hasn't it helped us?
Speaker 6 (37:39):
You know that?
Speaker 3 (37:40):
Well, there's an interesting story to that, because because in
principle you would think that that, and sometimes it has
happened that we've had good administrators in charge. Has happened
in the nineteen eighties, and they didn't get there. They
(38:00):
didn't get their way, or if the courts did back
the bureaucratic power, it quickly turns the other direction.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
This is the problem.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
It's like Lord Acton said it, all power tends to corrupt,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it applies to the
administrative state. So the administrative state was built in order
to undermine the Constitution, in order to undermine the people's liberties,
in order to undermine a democratic mandate. That was his
purpose from the very beginning. If you read the works
(38:33):
of Woodrow Wilson, you discovered.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
This he had.
Speaker 3 (38:35):
He didn't like the Constitution, thought it was idiotic, and
thought we should have experts running everything. And that's that's
mainly what the administrative state did. Now in the case
under consideration here, the Sumphuries executive case, this is an
interesting one because to your point, it was initially decided
in a way that the right agreed with, because FDR
(39:01):
was trying to exercise sort of imperial powers over the
federal buiocracy, trying to force them to do things that
they didn't really want to do and that the people
didn't really want to do. So that decision at the
time and the new Deals seemed like a good one,
like our people actually celebrated it, and the Supreme Court
(39:23):
was in the business of sort of restraining FDR that
it did multiple times during this period, and the right
wing was sort of cheering this, like, well, that's that's good.
The problem is very quickly, within a few years, you
know this, this this decision to empower legacy bureaucrats actually
(39:48):
became a serious problem because then presidents started using the
bureocracies to enact their agenda. And what it did was
it created a kind of emancipation of of the of
the civil service and presidents at any time that quite frankly,
it has been mostly Democrats, but anytime somebody from the
(40:12):
left got in charge, they would use this power to
their advantage. But conversely, anybody who had a problem with this,
with the way the system was set up, which we're
calling from the right, found found the bureaucracy just impervious
to their rule. And during our entire lifetimes, Jesse, this
is the way it's worked. New presidents could elected and
(40:38):
they appoint new administrators of agencies, and the bureaucrats completely
ignore them. The only difference that the new heads of
agencies have made in their lives is that there's a
new picture on the wall, you know, as you walk
past the front front, front office or whatever. But otherwise,
the bureaucrats have always outlasted the agency head, so they
(41:00):
paid no attention to them. They had no reason to.
And it's actually been tragic because I've had friends of
mine take over whole agencies and think, oh, finally we're
gonna we're going to figure out what's going on here
with the budgets. We're going to get rid of being
competent employees. We're going to reverse policies and do what
the voter voters want. And what they found is that
everybody ignores them. I mean, they're powerless, they're marrionettes, they're
(41:25):
just stand ins, you know, just just silly figures that
the bureaucuts have laughed at. Well, they're not laughing today
because now, for the first time, the representatives that the
people elect and their appointees have more power than the
entrance civil service for the very first time.
Speaker 1 (41:44):
We've turned the tables.
Speaker 3 (41:46):
Now to be sure, all this really does is bring
private sector standards to the public sector of you know,
you have the freedom to quit and also you can
be fired, right, I mean that's the way free enterprise works.
It's work for it's UH at will, right at will employment. Well,
(42:07):
now for the very first time, this federal service, civil
service is going to be charged with this, and it's
going to be interesting to watch the fallout. And we've
already seen the first science with the New York Times
going crazy, but they're.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
All going to go nuts.
Speaker 3 (42:21):
They're going to go nuts in Washington because these are
very powerful labor unions. They have very powerful voices they have,
you know, with from the from the Hill to their
own publications. They've been building executive state power now for
so many decades, and they're so proud of it. If
you get a federal government job, you get a pension,
(42:42):
you get unlimited power. You can just hang out and
be be depressed and demoralized, to hang around a bunch
of credence all day. But on the other hand, you
have guaranteed UH employment and invitation to become a psychopath,
which is what's always happened. Well, that changees as of today,
and we have now two years left in which the
(43:05):
Trump administration can actually control the biocracy, which is a
beautiful thing.
Speaker 1 (43:11):
Jeffrey. It is a good day.
Speaker 2 (43:13):
Yeah, we took someone on chim but it was a
good day. Thank you, my brother. I'll celebrate with you.
Speaker 1 (43:19):
All right. Light in the mood, thankst Well.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
I have great news on the spiteful front as we
go into a lighten the mood here. It's been quite
a while, years and years of superhero movies that are
really just commy filth. Trying to bring that comy filth
into the eyes of your children's that's what it's always
been about. And the great news is the American people,
(43:50):
time and time and time again are rejecting it. Years
of failures and box office losses and failures and box
office losses. And they had some new movie out, of
course I didn't see it, called super Girl. It was
coming out in surprise, surprise. They had some young comedy
actress who was out there doing a press tour saying things.
Speaker 11 (44:11):
Like this, I have many queer friends, so honestly, I'm
kind of on it. I'm on it. That's happening. But
I think because she doesn't live inside the binary of
what we think a woman should be, that that is
what makes us so special and so exciting and so new.
Speaker 2 (44:35):
Yeah, bombed. You know why bombed? Because the American people. Finally,
and we've been doing this for years, we've been getting
better and better. Finally of realized they have to put
their money where their morals are. They're tired of having
dirt kicked in their face, and they stay home.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
Bravo, I'll see them all
It's Supreme Court season.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Get ready, I mean there's more coming, and get ready
for this something we talk about so often. There are
going to be wins and there are going to be losses,
and some of the wins are going to be really
really big, and some of the losses are going to
be really really hurtful.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
This is one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions
in a century. And you can telp because the New
York Times is going crazy.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
They will get in the end everything they've ever wanted, everything,
the total destruction of our system, the crime that you name,
the common goal. It can and will be accomplished if
they can simply outnumber you.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Immigration.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Different people have different levels of passion for different political topics.
Right There are people who are hardcore pro lifers. They
are hardcore tax people or spenders or border issues, and
so immigration can be one of those things that if
it's not your thing, or it hasn't been your thing,
maybe you don't stress about it too much. And look,
(01:11):
that has been okay, but I am sorry. I certainly
hate to tell anybody what to do. That can't be
the case anymore. This has to be priority number one
for pretty much everybody, and The reason I say that
is not because that's my opinion. That's how the Communists
feel for them. Mass importation of foreigners has become priority one.
(01:35):
And you know why, we've talked about it many times before.
With the mass importation of foreigners from barbarian cultures, they
will get in the end everything they've ever wanted, everything,
the total destruction of our system, the crime that you name,
the common goal, It can and will be accomplished if
(01:57):
they can simply outnumber you, bring in hordes and hordes
of foreign barbarians, make it impossible to get rid of them,
and in the end, the commune knows that all his
other issues will be taken care of by said foreign barbarians.
And the flip side is true, Native born Americans, Americans,
(02:18):
they don't want any of this comedy garbage. Democrat issue
after Democrat issue after Democrat issue in this country polls
at twenty percent. We're not talking even forty sixty, thirty
seventy here, twenty percent. Democrats poll with issue after issue
after issue.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
If only Americans.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Are deciding elections, the Democrat Party, the Communist Party is
going to be annihilated to the point it would become defunct.
They would have to relabel it and start something new.
That's how bad their party would be wiped out. And
we can have that with the mass deportation of foreigners.
If you don't believe me how passionate they are about
(02:59):
this issue, the Supreme Court ruled last week that hundreds
of thousands of Haitians and Syrians who've been here forever
can actually finally go home. And this is how the
common has reacted.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
We have a significant Haitian community that's been working in
southern Delaware four years, that have put down roots that
have contributed to our community. But they're here because of
this temporary Protected Status program. The President will now use
this Supreme Court decision to expel them from.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
The United States.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
This is going to upend communities and families all over
our country, but is just part of his broader, frankly
cruel program of attempting mass deportations across our country.
Speaker 5 (03:46):
Trump wants to send TPS holders back to unsafe conditions.
And it's the far right extremists sitting on the Supreme
Court who has just let him sever this critical lifelonge
for Haitians and for TPS holders from.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
All around the world.
Speaker 5 (04:06):
We have a moral duty to protect TPS holders and
provide this vulnerable group with protections and a permanent pathway
to citizenship in our country.
Speaker 6 (04:17):
I thought it was a horrible ruling. And again, it
doesn't make any sense to say that, for instance, in
the case of Haitians, that they are somehow safe to
return to a country that is rocked by instability even today.
And on top of that, Donald Trump made very clear
(04:38):
his overtly racist intentions in sending them back to Haiti.
He called Haiti a whole country.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
We know why, We know exactly why all those people
want them all to stay. It's not because of some
care and concern for the people of Haiti. They know
the communist revolution wins if they stay here. But we
have a problem still on the right. We still have
a lot of traders in our midst to think America
as an economic zone. Who thinks people, you, me, your
(05:11):
children are simply economic units.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
It's all just about tax dollars.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
You see, this is the governor of the state of Ohio.
Speaker 7 (05:21):
US citizens do not go into Haiti. It's a very
very dangerous place. Just this last week, several more school
children were killed just because gangs were shooting back and forth.
The gangs control significant part of hate, so it is
clearly not safe. Anybody who has filed Haiti over a
(05:41):
long extended period of time knows that it's worse than
it has frankly ever ever been, and certainly in recent memory.
But the other point is it is not in the
United States' interest, certainly not in Ohio's interest, to have
people who are working every single day, who are supporting
(06:02):
a family, who are buying houses, fixing up old houses,
starting businesses and then put deep roots in this country
and really are contributing, and yank them out.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Did you hear the tell in there? Did you hear it?
What are these people from Haiti doing? They're buying houses?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Why do these GOP types, the low TGP types love
foreigners so much because they're big corporate donors love foreigners
buying up things, renting out apartments looks good on the
bottom line.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
You see, Sorry, your.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Car got breaken, got broken into, Sorry your daughter got raped.
Sorry your kids have a hard time understanding their classmates
in school. But hey, have you seen those text dollars
we're bringing in? This has been the line of the
GOP for a long time. Apparently Ohio state I was
born in, has a serious problem. Here's the former governor,
(07:06):
John Kasik.
Speaker 8 (07:09):
The Supreme Court decision has said that Haitians are going
to have to be removed from Springfield, Ohio. I guess
I understand that, But there is an opportunity for the
Congress to extend temporary protection status because things in Haiti
are just deteriorating, and sending people back there with their families,
to me is just crazy. I wish the Congress would
(07:31):
extend this for the Haitians.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
But if not, they'll say that.
Speaker 8 (07:35):
That's the law, and to quote somebody a figure from
a Charles Dickens novel, if that's the law, then the
law is an end.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Yes, I'm going to end this on a positive note though,
because we have all kinds of things still to get to.
We have to get to the Supreme Court decisions from
today not all bad, yes they're bad ones.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
But very very good one, very good one out.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
We'll get to all that in a moment, but I
want to end on this positive note. The good news
is Mike DeWine is retiring the Maria Salazar's to John Kasiks,
the John Cornyns, the James Langford's the amnesty wing of
the GOP is shrinking and shriveling every single day because
you are getting.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Louder about this issue.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
As you've watched your country be transformed into Indiana Jones
in the Temple of Doom.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
You have simply had enough.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
You're speaking out, and the old GOP is fading away.
Good for us, all right, we'll talk to some Supreme
Court issues. One of the reasons you're stepping up is
I know you're taking your male vitality stack from chalk
or your female vitality stack.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
I know this.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Because people are actually showing up at the polls. Now,
are you low on energy? Are you out of gas
at the end of the day, three in the afternoon,
reaching for yet another pot of coffee? That's because your
tea levels are criminally low. Your problem, it's a national
problem nationwide. We are chugging synthetic estrogen and testosterone levels
(09:07):
are in free fall. We have to be proactive about that.
Go to Chuck dot com, slash Jesse TV and start
some natural herbal supplements. You don't need a needle in
your arm, you need natural herbal supplements. I personally take
a male vitality stack every single day. Go be full
of pep, feel good all the time, Chuck dot Com,
(09:30):
slash Jesse TV.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
We'll be back. Well, it's Supreme Court season.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Get ready, I mean there's more coming, and get ready
for this something we talk about so often. There are
gonna be wins, and there are gonna be losses, and
some of the wins are gonna be really really big
and some of the losses are going to be really
really hurtful, and we just have to sift through the
damage and figure out did we come out. Okay, on
the other side, joining me, now, someone who's forgot more
about this than I'll ever know, THEO Wold, former Assistant
(10:03):
Attorney General, former White House Deputy Assistant for Domestic Policy
under Trump.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
So who knows a little bit about this stuff? Okay, THEO.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Let's start with the one that has everybody on the
rights blood pressure through the roof today and me Cony
Barrett Roberts. They go with the other side and decide
that mail in ballads can in fact be counted after
election that what was the decision?
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Do you like it? Do you hate it? And give
it to me?
Speaker 9 (10:30):
Yeah, So it's a five to four decision in a
case that originates out of Mississippi. And I think there's
a really important just sort of footnote here to lay
down at the beginning of this discussion, Jesse, and that's Look,
it's the state of Mississippi that is currently counting ballots
after an election. This is not about California, it's not
(10:50):
about New York. It's about Illinois. So, like, let's just
be clear about one thing as we begin this discussion.
Red state supermajorities, red state governors could fix this issue
if they wanted to, and they aren't. So it gets litigated.
And the question in Mississippi is is it constitutional for
Mississippi to continue to count ballots five days? That's the
(11:12):
magic number in Mississippi, five days after an election is
concluded on election Day. Goes all the way up through
the Fifth Circuit to the Supreme Court. And today the
Supreme Court, the three liberal justices, with Justice Barrett and
Justice Roberts joining Barrett writing the opinion, say yeah, you
can keep counting ballots after an election is held. And
(11:34):
I think the dissent from Justice Alito. Look, any patriotic American,
whether you care about the law, whether you're interested in
the Supreme Court or not, you should read this opinion.
It truly is a masterpiece. It goes through first the
history of the Federal Election Statute, why we have an
election day, why that's consistent throughout our history, even in
(11:56):
times of war like the Civil War and World War two.
Goes through a lot of legal precedent that we brought
over from the Anglo common law. It goes through actual
case precedent, and then it goes through the text of
the actual statute itself, and it unequivocally lays out that
the majority opinion written by Justice Barrett is flawed on
(12:16):
each one of these metrics. And ultimately, I think Justice
Alito's point that most people are now taking note of
in the mainstream media is to say, this is only
going to increase fraud, because if you can allow a
state to continue counting ballots after the election has concluded,
then there's no reason why a state like California couldn't say, well,
(12:37):
we'll accept ballots for twenty one days, thirty days, or
in some instances no time interval. There could be no limit.
We're only talking about five days, and just everyone who's
watching or listening needs to keep this in mind, we're
only talking about five days because that's the statute at
issue in Mississippi. But in a place like California, you
could be counting ballots for months until the sort of
(12:57):
metric that needs to be achieved to determine the winner
of an election to let flip flops weeks after an
election's been held. And that's the point that Alito makes
in his final concluding passages in his dissenting opinion, which
is the implications here for ferreting out election fraud, election abuse,
the consequences for say, a presidential election that comes down
(13:18):
to the counting of ballots in one county in one
state could be enormous, and the majority opinion seems to
totally ignore those. I think, Jesse, the last thing I'll
just say on this case is this is something you're
starting to see that's consistent. Unfortunately, for all three of
Trump's picks to the Supreme Court, that's Justice Gorsch, Justice Kavanaugh,
and Justice Barrett. They all seem to be shaped in
(13:41):
many ways by the same kinds of concerns that Justice Roberts.
Chief Justice Roberts has shown over his long tenure now
on the Court, which is what we would say in
the law like a concern for reliance interests, and that means,
you know, is there someone who's going to be negatively
affected by this opinion? Are there people who have come
to sort of rely on this sort of status in
(14:01):
the law. Think of this in terms of the temporate
protected statistications. Yeah, they were only supposed to be here
for a few months, but they've been here for eighteen
They've come to rely that the law is going to
treat them this way, and that seems to be the
real concern. In Barrett's opinion as well, there are military overseas,
military servicemen and women who would be affected by this.
The implications from Alito's dissent might be that all mail
(14:22):
in balloting is unconstitutional. Absentee balloting the way it's done
by states, even for disabled Americans, may have to change.
And we really just don't want to disrupt the apple
cart and Jesse. As you've noted so many times, the
liberal justices and those in the liberal legal movement, to
say nothing of the communists and the Democrats Socialists of
America movement, they have none of these concerns. They don't
(14:44):
care if they totally transform the country overnight. Unfortunately, Justices Gorsage, Kavanaugh,
and Barrett are still stuck in a nineteenth century worldview.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Okay, so THEO I guess I'll put it to you
this way, because I'm not a very delicate person on
this particular issue. It's Supreme Court made a ruling. Are
we screwed? Is there something we can do from here
going forward? What's the next step?
Speaker 10 (15:10):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (15:10):
I mean I think you and I would have the
same take on this Jesse, which is we're essentially screwed
because our legislature, both at the federal and state level,
they've proven themselves entirely incapable of governing.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Right.
Speaker 9 (15:21):
I mean, I think the white pill in this opinion
is it'd be very easy for Congress to come in
here and fix this. They could just say unequivocally, because
that's really where Barrett hinges her opinion. Well, the statute's
kind of silent. There's no specific statutory language dealing with
the counting of ballots submitted either on election day or
before election day that arrived after election day. Well, Congress
(15:45):
could just specify and clean that up. It could just
put some language into the existing statute and say, nope,
we're not any ballot received after election day will not
be counted, and then work with the United States Postal Service,
which is under currently under Republican control, to specify how
third already carriers FedEx usps ups would have to deal
with the reception and delivery of ballots. That could be
(16:07):
done tomorrow. Unfortunately, as it relates to the Save Act,
we've seen already unequivocally that Republicans are not interested in
actually fixing the election integrity issues we all know to
be you know, throughout not just counties, city states, not
just blue jurisdictions, but red jurisdictions all throughout the country.
Since the twenty twenty election, they've shown no interest in
taking this subject up in a meaningful way. So white
(16:29):
pill would be, Hey, this could be fixed, fixed by Congress.
Black pill is, we're stuck with the members of Congress
we have right now, and they don't. We can't even
get them to work, let alone work on hard issues
like this.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
So you know, I'm not trying to get cute, see,
you know, and get unrealistic with these weird scenarios I've
come up with in my head. But Trump obviously is
ahead of the Postal Service can't we do something there?
Is there something that can be done there?
Speaker 9 (16:55):
Oh yeah, for sure, I mean totally. I mean we've
already indicated this couple months ago. If you recall, Jesse,
there was that effort to say they needed to have
a special type of barcode and they needed to be uh,
you know, in a certain type of envelope, and they
and then they needed to be processed in a certain
time interval before an election to be counted. In other words,
(17:16):
if you're even if you're a blue state, and you say, wow,
we're going to allow mail in ballots to occur and
this way or that way and this timed duration. Not
through the US males. That's a federal service, and the
US Mail can say the transportation and delivery of any
election ballot will have to comply with these standards for
us to pick it up as a third party carrier
(17:37):
and deliver it for the counting of that ballot. That
that for sure could be done.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Jesse.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
All right, let's let's move on. Actually something you brought
up before. We did get a win, a nice win
when it came to temporary protected status Haitians, Syrians. What
does this ruling actually mean?
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Going forward.
Speaker 9 (17:57):
Yeah, I think what it means, Jesse is so just
to lay the ground for your viewers. A temporary protected
status is a discretionary tool that immigration law federal immigration
allow law gives to the chief executive, the President or
his delegate. His delegatee which would in this in since
be the Secretary of Homeland Security. They can use this
tool to allow those who are present in the United States,
(18:19):
either lawfully or illegally, to continue to remain in the
United States so long as there is a circumstance in
their home country that warrants them staying here. What's that
circumstance could be a civil war, could be a natural
disaster like an earthquake, a typhoon, a hurricane. And the
whole idea here was, Hey, if you know, tomorrow the
(18:39):
Congo irrupts into a you know, a giant civil war.
If there are Congolese who came here as tourists or
to do a short term project with their corporation living
and working in LA or New York and DC, we're
not going to send them back to be slaughtered. They
can stay until things find their you know, their equilibrium,
until there's some some calm in their home country. How
(19:00):
it's actually been used is TPS has turned out to
be essentially an amnesty loophole. TPS was issued for Somalis
back in nineteen ninety one and continued and continued and continued.
TPS was extended to Hondurans in nineteen ninety eight, to
Haitians originally in two thousand and eight, and then again
(19:20):
in twenty seventeen, and then renewed close to for over
eleven years here. So there's nothing temporary about temporary protected status.
And I think what the Court said was the chief
executive in using the discretionary tool, the president also has
the authority to decline to use that tool or to
turn it off and end it. In essence, that's what
(19:43):
that decision was all about. Was the temperate protected status
for Haitians and Syrians that the President moved to end
can actually be ended by the president. I mean, it's
total common sense here. The unfortunate part, Jesse, as was
the case with the related asylum decision issued by the
Supreme Court life last week, took eight and a half
years to get to this decision, and that should really
(20:04):
worry any American who's relying on the courts to guarantee
the meaning of the Constitution or the powers of the
presidency eight and a half years, and if the Democrats
had won the last election, this power would have never
been challenged. It would still be on the books as
it was under Clinton, under Obama, under Bush, under Biden.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
Democrats suck, but so much of the old GOP sucks too.
And I'm, of course talking about Ohio Republican alleged League
Governor Mike DeWine and his response to the fact that
some Haitians might be leaving his state.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Here he was.
Speaker 7 (20:38):
But the other point is it is not in the
United States' interest, certainly not in Ohio's interest, to have
people who are working every single day, who are supporting
a family, who are buying houses, fixing up old houses,
starting businesses, and then put deep roots in this country
(20:59):
and really are contributing, and yank them out.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Theo is this just simply the Chamber of Commerce running
the Republican Party as.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
They have for decades.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
In what universe could a Republican governor get up and
say we need two hundred thousand Haitians in Ohio.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
There's so much to say here, Jesse.
Speaker 9 (21:21):
I mean, I don't even know where to begin. I mean,
number one, Mike DeWine has been an elected office for
a half a century, and I'm not exaggerating. His first
election was in nineteen seventy two. So I mean one
thing just to say at the outset, thank god, his
career is coming to end in the next couple of months.
That'll be great for Ohio. It'll be great for the
Republican Party, unfortunately, Jesse. As you know Mike DeWine here,
(21:41):
he's just emblematic of an entire worldview of a whole
host of Republicans who are currently serving as governors, as senators,
as member of Congress, and this is their view. The
first thing I'll say is he said deep roots in
our communities. Well, that's how you know. Temperate protected status
is just to lie. It's supposed to be temporary. They're
(22:02):
not supposed to be buying homes. They're not supposed to
be enrolling their kids in public schools, opening bank accounts,
you know, starting you know, medical treatment. They're supposed to
be here for a temporary period of time. So which
is it, Governor Dwaine. Is it deep roots and you
lie to us? Or is it temporary protected status? And
they broke the law by insisting on access to things
(22:24):
that belong to American citizens and American citizens only. The
second point is we've heard this jesse for years and
years and years, where we need these people because they'll
do jobs that Americans won't do. We know that's a lie.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
We know that.
Speaker 9 (22:37):
You know, take Springfield, Ohio, which played such a big
role in the last presidential election. Springfield, Ohio has received
over ten thousand temporary protected status Haitians in essentially a
four to five year period. The unemployment for native born
Americans skyrocketed at the same time as those Haitians started
(22:58):
arriving in hundreds and ends of thousands of rivals, and
the economic numbers for Springfield overall have plummeted at the
same time as crime, property crime, violent crime in the
area has skyrocketed. So I think more Americans and i'd
say more citizens living in Western countries, generally in Sweden
(23:18):
and Norway, in the United Kingdom. Obviously here in the
United States, we're waking up to the reality that all
of these myths we've been told by the global elite
about the benefits of immigration never arrive, and all of
the myths that we've been told about the consequences of
mass immigration. Actually are far worse, far far worse than
(23:39):
any of our elected officials, our governing elites are willing
to acknowledge. And the impact of temperate protected status for
Haitians and Syrians just in Ohio has been enormous. So look,
is it the Chamber of Commerce? I don't know, but
what it's representative of is an old, old Republican elite
perspective about the economy, about the labor market, and about
(24:02):
the rights and privileges that belong to American citizens and
belong to American citizens exclusively. And thank god, there are
more and more individuals, both in office but in the
media who are willing to talk about this and push
people like Mike de Wine to the margins.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
THEO along the same lines. But I am going to
change the subject. Zooran ma'm donnie, communist mayor of New
York City, came out and said this about it all.
Speaker 10 (24:28):
This city, the one that we love, is one that
has been built by so many from so many different
parts of the world, and that includes our Haitian brothers
and sisters, our Syrian brothers and sisters, and we stand
here ready to be in solidarity with all of those
who are concerned by today's decision, and beyond just language
of solidarity, actions of solidarity, we have seen a cruelty
(24:49):
that has become normalized. And to have people who frankly
taught the world about freedom have their own freedom be
put in jeopardy by the actions of a Supreme Court
in a federal administration, it is not only cruel, it's
something that we will not ever accept. And so we
stand here as New Yorkers, proud of standing in solidarity
and proud to do everything that we can to keep
(25:09):
people in their homes and to keep people together.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
Thought the whole world about freedom.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Yeah, that little rebellion they had in Haiti was quite
the glorious affair, but we can set that aside for
the moment THEO and focus on this part of it.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
I try to.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
Read as much history as possible, and I just have
a very difficult time finding a historical precedent for hostile
foreign city states operating within the borders of a nation
and how a nation is supposed to deal with that,
unless we're talking about a rebellious city where the Romans
are just going to go sack the place and raise
it to the ground.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
How do we deal with this?
Speaker 9 (25:45):
Yeah, three quick things here, Jesse number one, zoron Mumdani.
The thread connecting him to John calcoun is so evident,
it's so explicit. The idea that any sort of state
actor can willfully ignore existing duly enacted federal law. No,
I will not enforce that law in South Carolina, or
as mom Donnie says, no, I will not enforce that
(26:06):
law in New York. That question is already been asked
and answered. We fought a civil war over it. And
it's interesting that Democrats are now totally totally in line
with this view that somehow you can thumb your nose
at federal law number two. I, for one, I don't
know about you, Jesse. I for one, will not be
lectured to buy Gunden who arrived here in twenty eighteen
about what the United States is or is not my
(26:30):
You know, I'm a fifth generation American. I have roots
that go back to the nineteenth century. Even then, I
took my cap to people who came over on the
Speedwell or the Mayflower. But the idea that someone who
arrived in twenty eighteen is going to lecture us about
what should be law or what is permissible in the
city of New York is deeply insulting. But also it's
(26:50):
kind of just calling New Yorkers on the carpet. I mean,
New Yorkers won't even let Red Sox fans walk down
the street, but they're going to let you Gundan tell
them what their city is or is not. And then
the third thing to your question, Jesse, the idea about
tolerating this kind of dissension U sort of open provocation
to rebellion in our in our homeland.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
I think you're right.
Speaker 9 (27:12):
It really is a test of what kind of government
do we have and who decides the idea that a
mayor of a city could essentially say the law does
not apply here. Try your best, try me and see
what I see what you can do about it. That's
a provocation for conflict number one. But number two, I
(27:32):
think it really does undermine the very concept of the
supremacy clause, about federalism and about the equal enforcement of
the law. These are sort of hallmark pillars of our civilization.
I'm not surprised that someone who wasn't raised in our
civilization doesn't understand them. Who's not really steeped in our culture,
has an incapacity to live with these principles. That doesn't
(27:55):
surprise me. But the idea that the mayor of one
of the largest cities in our country can say law
doesn't apply here and I will do everything to thumb
my nose at that law should really really concern anyone.
And the last thing I'll just say it, Jesse, is
we know where this goes, right, We know exactly where
this goes. Take the United Kingdom, for example. It was
in the early twenty teens when the art then Archbishop
(28:17):
of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said, well, we've already arrived at
this place where we defer to the local community leaders
in the Muslim community, on policing, on threats to safety.
We should take the additional step to allow them to
set up courts that will govern family law and sort
of basic civil disputes what we would call petty crime,
(28:39):
petty theft. And the United Kingdom did so, and now
look where they are. They've seeded their education system, they've
seated full parts of their court system, they've seated full
parts of actual built infrastructure to the growing Islamic majority
in London and throughout England. I think the idea of
tolerating foreign diaspora that will elect representatives to cater to
(29:02):
the interests of that diaspora, to make law specifically for
that diaspora, and we'll only do business within that diaspora
is so antithetical to America. It's deeply, deeply disruptive, not
just to our way of life, but to the law,
the basic premise of the equal enforcement of the law
in our country. It shouldn't be tolerated. It should not
be tolerated.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Agreed THEO. You got me all fired up, brother, Thank
you so much. I appreciate you coming back. Please, we
love you.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
All right. You know who else is all.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Kinds of fired up, only the other way, in a
really good way. Jeffrey Tucker, Brownstone Institute. There was a
Supreme Court ruling today that was awesome, absolutely awesome.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
And maybe maybe you don't know about it, maybe.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
I haven't digested it, but you might just stand up
and cheer here in just a moment. Before you stand
up and cheer, stay seated and.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Learn how to get a great night's sleep.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Every night, dream powder from beam, a cup of hot chocolate.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
What's better than that?
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Before bed, and you'll sleep like a little baby every night.
And more importantly, because there's lots of things that help
you sleep. When you wake up in the morning, it's
not going to be that heavy. Takes three hours to
wake up groggy, feeling like you feel when you take
something to sleep. You wake up and you feel good, rested.
(30:22):
How's that possible? Well, dream powder. This cup of hot
chocolate has natural things in a melotonin and racy and magnesium,
all these things, and you're just going to drift off
to sleep and stay asleep.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
And wake up ready to go.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Shopbeam dot com, Slash Jesse Kelly, we'll be back.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Well, you win some and you lose some.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Certainly at the Supreme Court and even a court you
think is supposed to always be on your side, sometimes
they are, sometimes they aren't. We can sit and cry
about losses today, but we did get a win, and
I think it's more significant than people were giving a
credit for. We can apparently fire bureaucrats now, it's a miracle.
Joining me now, my friend Jeffrey Tucker, founder of the
(31:12):
Brownstone Institute. Jeffrey, I just don't to think I can
live in a world where a government employee can actually
be fired.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
What happened today, This is one of the most significant
Streame Court decisions in a century. And you can tell
because the New York Times is going crazy. They had
a lead editorial we got pumped out within minutes about
how's the disaster? We now got a dictator in the
form of Trump. So what people need to understand is
(31:40):
that the inability to fire federal bureaucrats, the creation of
the civil service itself, and it's sort of immunity from
any kind of political pressure has been the essence of
progressivism since Woodrow Wilson days, if not before. It's arisen
during wartime, during the Great Depression, during World War Two,
during the whole sixties thing, and so on, and rarely,
(32:03):
if ever challenged what the administratives. And it's created the
administrative state, which is in effect the state. It's a
new branch of government, the fourth branch of government, and
it is the government everything else. And their existence reduces
all elected leaders to marionettes. And that's always been true
for a century. They never told us that. You rarely
(32:25):
read about it in any textbooks. But that's the grim
reality we have. Simply, like two hundred and twenty government agencies.
These people are cannot generally be fired and generally aren't.
They're the ones who.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Actually run the government. So the most.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
To the most significant feature of the Trump administration, and
it's more significant than anything else that he's done. You
may agree or disagree with anything else, but this is
the core. He went after, the illegal status of the
administrative state. And this morning we got the final victory
(33:03):
in the Supreme Court, which overthrows a decision that came
down in a new deal period called Humphrey's Executor, where
the Supreme Court said the president can't fire the head
of a regulatory agency. Now, that was the kind of
codification of what everybody understood to be true back in
the day. But it also meant that the administration's administrative
(33:27):
state was free to build and build and build, and
so it did over many decades. Over all these years,
the Trump administration's first term was marked by a grave frustration.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
That he had this.
Speaker 3 (33:41):
Constant sense that he wasn't really in charge. And Trump,
of all people, of all the presidents in our lifetime,
knows what it means to be in charge, because he's
taken over companies, been in the CEO, what he says Goes,
and so he figured that the same thing would happen
when he became president, and then quickly found out that
(34:02):
his job was just to you know, appear at signings,
you know, be a kind of personage, you know, a symbol.
That's what the administrative state had reduced our elected leaders to.
And everybody knew it except most people. All the insiders
knew it. And it's a little scam. They've been running
(34:23):
since since the since the progressive era. So Trump, coming
to power in the second term, really decided to make
this a parity. Look, if I'm going to be president,
I really need to be president. And actually we need
to have a system wherein the president is the president
at least according to the Constitution, we have three branches
of government, judicial, legislative, and the executive. All of these
(34:47):
agencies technically are under the executive branch. That's the Congress
voted them all into existence. But Congress put them under
the executive branch, which means executive branch, and the president
should be in charge of them.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
This is.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
It's clear from the ORG chart, but it's never worked
out in practice. So Trump decided to take this to
make an issue of it. And finally the Supreme Court
found itself sort of boxed in, Oh, can the president
do this well their executive agencies. He's the head of
the executive branch according to the US Constitution, So the
(35:30):
answer is yes. So it's yeah. I know, that sounds obvious.
It sounds like a no brainer if you're reading the Constitution.
Obviously that's the conclusion you come to. But Jesse, this
has been the great secret of the last one hundred years,
if not longer, which is that the president has not
(35:51):
really been the president that the experts have ruled us.
That's the very essence of the progressive vision. So the
Supreme Court today just just pulled the rugout from underneath
the entire scam. It's actually a great day to celebrate
if you believe that the regime under which we live
(36:12):
should be responsive to our voices and our wishes through
the electoral process and democratic mechanisms. If you believe that,
you believe in the US Constitution, you believe what Tolkville
said about America, then this is a.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
Great day to celebrate.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
But not everybody celebrating, as I mentioned to The New
York Times.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
Is bleary eyed with.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
Fury and denouncing this decision as the creation of dictatorship.
It's not a dictatorship anymore than George Washington was a dictator.
But the New York Times represents a kind of school
of thought that doesn't actually believe in the Constitution, doesn't
actually believe in people's government, doesn't believe in democracy. Even
(36:56):
they believe in a kind of dictatorship of the techmocrats,
which this decision completely undermind. So it's a great day
for the US and a great day for America. And
I will just add, just because Trump is a bit
of a controversial president, nobody can possibly agree with everything
he's done, this I think is his single greatest achievement.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
That is saying something Jeffrey, So, I guess, let me
put it this way. Why has the bureaucracy being protected
from being fired? Why has it only aided the left?
What does this only help them? Why hasn't it helped us?
Speaker 6 (37:39):
You know that?
Speaker 3 (37:40):
Well, there's an interesting story to that, because because in
principle you would think that that, and sometimes it has
happened that we've had good administrators in charge. Has happened
in the nineteen eighties, and they didn't get there. They
(38:00):
didn't get their way, or if the courts did back
the bureaucratic power, it quickly turns the other direction.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
This is the problem.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
It's like Lord Acton said it, all power tends to corrupt,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it applies to the
administrative state. So the administrative state was built in order
to undermine the Constitution, in order to undermine the people's liberties,
in order to undermine a democratic mandate. That was his
purpose from the very beginning. If you read the works
(38:33):
of Woodrow Wilson, you discovered.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
This he had.
Speaker 3 (38:35):
He didn't like the Constitution, thought it was idiotic, and
thought we should have experts running everything. And that's that's
mainly what the administrative state did. Now in the case
under consideration here, the Sumphuries executive case, this is an
interesting one because to your point, it was initially decided
in a way that the right agreed with, because FDR
(39:01):
was trying to exercise sort of imperial powers over the
federal buiocracy, trying to force them to do things that
they didn't really want to do and that the people
didn't really want to do. So that decision at the
time and the new Deals seemed like a good one,
like our people actually celebrated it, and the Supreme Court
(39:23):
was in the business of sort of restraining FDR that
it did multiple times during this period, and the right
wing was sort of cheering this, like, well, that's that's good.
The problem is very quickly, within a few years, you
know this, this this decision to empower legacy bureaucrats actually
(39:48):
became a serious problem because then presidents started using the
bureocracies to enact their agenda. And what it did was
it created a kind of emancipation of of the of
the civil service and presidents at any time that quite frankly,
it has been mostly Democrats, but anytime somebody from the
(40:12):
left got in charge, they would use this power to
their advantage. But conversely, anybody who had a problem with this,
with the way the system was set up, which we're
calling from the right, found found the bureaucracy just impervious
to their rule. And during our entire lifetimes, Jesse, this
is the way it's worked. New presidents could elected and
(40:38):
they appoint new administrators of agencies, and the bureaucrats completely
ignore them. The only difference that the new heads of
agencies have made in their lives is that there's a
new picture on the wall, you know, as you walk
past the front front, front office or whatever. But otherwise,
the bureaucrats have always outlasted the agency head, so they
(41:00):
paid no attention to them. They had no reason to.
And it's actually been tragic because I've had friends of
mine take over whole agencies and think, oh, finally we're
gonna we're going to figure out what's going on here
with the budgets. We're going to get rid of being
competent employees. We're going to reverse policies and do what
the voter voters want. And what they found is that
everybody ignores them. I mean, they're powerless, they're marrionettes, they're
(41:25):
just stand ins, you know, just just silly figures that
the bureaucuts have laughed at. Well, they're not laughing today
because now, for the first time, the representatives that the
people elect and their appointees have more power than the
entrance civil service for the very first time.
Speaker 1 (41:44):
We've turned the tables.
Speaker 3 (41:46):
Now to be sure, all this really does is bring
private sector standards to the public sector of you know,
you have the freedom to quit and also you can
be fired, right, I mean that's the way free enterprise works.
It's work for it's UH at will, right at will employment. Well,
(42:07):
now for the very first time, this federal service, civil
service is going to be charged with this, and it's
going to be interesting to watch the fallout. And we've
already seen the first science with the New York Times
going crazy, but they're.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
All going to go nuts.
Speaker 3 (42:21):
They're going to go nuts in Washington because these are
very powerful labor unions. They have very powerful voices they have,
you know, with from the from the Hill to their
own publications. They've been building executive state power now for
so many decades, and they're so proud of it. If
you get a federal government job, you get a pension,
(42:42):
you get unlimited power. You can just hang out and
be be depressed and demoralized, to hang around a bunch
of credence all day. But on the other hand, you
have guaranteed UH employment and invitation to become a psychopath,
which is what's always happened. Well, that changees as of today,
and we have now two years left in which the
(43:05):
Trump administration can actually control the biocracy, which is a
beautiful thing.
Speaker 1 (43:11):
Jeffrey. It is a good day.
Speaker 2 (43:13):
Yeah, we took someone on chim but it was a
good day. Thank you, my brother. I'll celebrate with you.
Speaker 1 (43:19):
All right. Light in the mood, thankst Well.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
I have great news on the spiteful front as we
go into a lighten the mood here. It's been quite
a while, years and years of superhero movies that are
really just commy filth. Trying to bring that comy filth
into the eyes of your children's that's what it's always
been about. And the great news is the American people,
(43:50):
time and time and time again are rejecting it. Years
of failures and box office losses and failures and box
office losses. And they had some new movie out, of
course I didn't see it, called super Girl. It was
coming out in surprise, surprise. They had some young comedy
actress who was out there doing a press tour saying things.
Speaker 11 (44:11):
Like this, I have many queer friends, so honestly, I'm
kind of on it. I'm on it. That's happening. But
I think because she doesn't live inside the binary of
what we think a woman should be, that that is
what makes us so special and so exciting and so new.
Speaker 2 (44:35):
Yeah, bombed. You know why bombed? Because the American people. Finally,
and we've been doing this for years, we've been getting
better and better. Finally of realized they have to put
their money where their morals are. They're tired of having
dirt kicked in their face, and they stay home.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
Bravo, I'll see them all
Host
Jesse Kelly
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
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