3-13-25 - 8am - Deport Khalil and SCOTUS and The EPA

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Last week we had twenty three Democrats post the pretty
much exact same video word for word, and yesterday we
have about fifty Democrats in Congress posting the exact same
furbage for a four week extension. These people are just

(00:23):
puppets and are told what to do. We don't have
real representation.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
I'm going to remind everybody leave us talkbacks. All you
have to do is, you know, take your iHeartRadio app,
which is free to you. You should already have a preset.
You need to preset six point thirty KHLW so you
can get the situation with Michael Brown. And you need
to preset ninety three seven Freedom Am seven sixty either

(00:51):
one so you can get the weekend with Michael Brown.
And once you get those presets done, you know you
can even preset the podcast. You can even do that
on the free iHeart right now. Then the other thing
you need to do is every day, you know, if
I'm saying something, or there's something that is mentioned that
you disagree with or you want to expound on, you've
got to question a comment whatever it is. Obviously, you

(01:13):
can leave the text message three three one zero three
keyword either Mike or Michael three three one zero three
and your message yet, But you can also leave a
talkback if poor Alex is doing all the heavy lifting
for everybody to Yeah, Alexa has to do all the work.
So if, if, if you don't start leaving talkbacks like
you're supposed to do, there will be consequence for that,

(01:34):
for the amount of money that we pay you to
listen to this program, whether it's live or on the podcast.
If you don't leave talkbacks, then we're either going to
riff you, we'll have a reduction enforce, or we'll have
to un look at the pay scale and consider what

(01:54):
we're paying for you, and we'll have to take appropriate action. So,
so don't say you haven't been warned. We we're we're
serious about talkbacks. Do you think I offended anything by Dragon?
Don't care? Oh so, I so you don't think I
did that. I can try harder if you want. I
don't think you did damn it. But either way, I

(02:17):
don't care. Well, okay, let me put it this way.
Leave some damn talkbacks better. You're not pulling your weight.
This is this is why, of course Dragon doesn't do
any lifting except when he's doing his exercises. Which you
can see on Instagram and YouTube. But other than that,

(02:39):
he does no lifting around here whatsoever. I'm tired of
doing all the lifting. I'm tired of doing all the work. Work.
Those last two hours took a lot of work. I mean, yeah,
you gotta cover fifty days. You gotta go back and
think about, you know, fifty days. What's what's been going on?
You have to remember fifty days ago. I can remember,

(03:01):
like last hour, you know, like I can't remember. But
I came in here at five thirty this morning. I
don't even know what was going on. So I was
trying to find there's a text mess. I'm gonna get
to lee Zelden in just a minute, but there's a

(03:21):
text message from Uber twelve fifty four. I've got mixed feelings.
In regard to the mackmu cahel case. Trump decried foul
to his malicious protection. I think you mean prosecutions. Trump
decried foul to his malicious prosecutions. Yet, take a look
at Heel's attorney affidavit regarding the conduct of the Immigration

(03:43):
and Customs Enforcements, misconduct regarding the lack of a hard
copy of the warrant being produced, plus and I've not
seen I've not seen her affidavit, so I can't comment
on that. But if there's an affidavit in the court,

(04:07):
you have to They need to file an affidavit in
the court. So I don't know whether the lawyer's playing
games here and disclaiming I haven't seen a hard copy.
Well maybe you've got an electronic copy. Maybe your client
has a copy and your client hasn't provided it to you.
Now I know your client's being held in Louisiana. I
thought it was Texas, but it's Louisiana. But let's move on.

(04:29):
Like you mentioned earlier, Ice is overwhelmed at the moment,
Yet they have the ability to play musical chairs and
move him from one federal facility all the way to Louisiana. Furthermore,
look into you want to know why I think they
did that pure security reasons. You put him in the
local jail, not Rickers, but at a local holding facility

(04:51):
in the federal courthouse in Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan,
and you're just asking for more protests. You're just asking
for more problems. So if I were the director of Vice,
I would have made the same decision mov him out
of the jurisdiction because he's not entitled to be held
in that jurisdiction. There's no constitutional right to be held

(05:15):
in that particular jurisdiction. So I I'm not quite sure
what you're trying to the point you're trying to make here.
Yet they have yet, they have the ability to play
musical chairs and move him from one federal facility all
the way Louisiana. Yes, and I think there's a reason
for doing that. Furthermore, look into the complainant's history. There

(05:39):
their zionist activism leaves a lot to be desired too. Okay,
let's just stop right there. That indeed may be true,
But this guy is more. This guy, Mark mukhil It
is more than just a protester. He is a Green

(06:01):
card holder. He is a criminal who is engaged in
criminal activity as and is subject to deportation. Now, if
you've got some Zionists, some pro jury people on the
other side that might be crossing the line, then they
need to be held accountable too. But when you say

(06:22):
that there's Zionist activism leaves a lot to be desired,
well tell me, I think you try to in the
next sentence, But I don't get it. One complainant apparently
is a suspended Columbia associate professor that has been suspended
for his radical activities. I don't know what that means.

(06:50):
He engaged in physical activities, he violated the law, or
he's just out giving really radical speeches. Because mack mu
was doing more than just giving radical speeches. But let's
go to the tape, because Rubo, Rubo Rubio drops some

(07:13):
truth bombs regarding this situation.

Speaker 3 (07:16):
President Trump appealed to a lot of Americans during his
campaign on free speech arguments and not suppressing speech, but
really especially from the government. But your revocation of the
green card to many is seen as one of the
most anti speech actions a secretary could take with his powers.

Speaker 4 (07:36):
Out of your response when you enter the this is
an important point, and I'm glad you asked this question.
When you come to the United States as a visitor,
which is what a visa is, which is how this
individual entered this country as on a visitor's visa. Okay,
you are here as a visitor. We can deny you
that visa. We can deny you that if you tell
us when you apply. HI, I'm trying to get into
the United States on a student visa. I am a

(07:57):
big supporter of Hamas, a murderous bar barrack group that
kidnaps children, that rapes teenage girls, that takes hostages, that
allows them to die in captivity, that returns more bodies
than live hostages. If you tell us that you are
in favor of a group like this, and if you
tell us when you apply for your visa, and by
the way, I intend to come to your country as
a student and rile up all kinds of anti Jewish

(08:19):
student anti Semitic activities. I intend to shut down your universities.
If you told us all these things when you apply
for a visa, we would deny your visa.

Speaker 2 (08:27):
I hope we would.

Speaker 4 (08:28):
If you actually end up doing that once you're in
this country on such a visa, we will revoke it.
And if you end up having a green card, not citizenship,
but a green card as a result of that visa
while you're here in those activities, we're going to kick
you out. It's as simple as that. This is not
about free speech. This is about people that don't have
a right to be in the United States to begin with.
No one has a right to a student visa. No

(08:48):
one has a right to a green card, by the way.

Speaker 2 (08:51):
And I would just I always made disappoint emphasize again
and even though you may have been granted the visa,
and I would say incorrectly. So if you were honest
with the with the person in the embassy, then I
would argue that you've lied in order to reach this country.
But just having the visa does not give you the

(09:14):
right to stay here. I get when I was doing
all my traveling is the undersecretary. Of course I had
a diplomatic passport, but I also still had to get visas.
I had to get visas even though I carried a
diplomatic passport. So to enter Russia on either an official
or a diplomatic passport still required a visa. Now why

(09:36):
is that? Because they can kick me out any time
they want to. I don't have a right to stay.

Speaker 4 (09:40):
So when you apply for a student visa or any
visa to enter the United States, we have a right
to deny you for virtually any reason. But I think
being a supporter of Hamas and coming into our universities
and turning them upside down and being complicit and what
are clearly crimes of vandalization complicit in shutting down learning institutions.
There are kids at these schools that can't go to class.

(10:00):
You pay all this money to these high price schools
that are supposed to be of a great esteem, and
you can't even go to class. You're afraid to go
to class because these lunatics are running around with covers
on their face, screaming terrifying things. If you told us
that's what you intended to do when you came to America,
we would have never let you in. And if you
and if you do it once you get in, we're
going to revoke it and kick you out boom.

Speaker 2 (10:22):
It's fascinating to me that, No, it's not fascinating to me.
It is incredulous to me that a reporter who depends
upon the First Amendment for their livelihood does not understand
how that works. And quite with all due respect to

(10:42):
Guber number or whatever, Guber number one, two, five four,
you might have mixed feelings. But this is because for decades,
going back to my old boss and others, nobody was
willing to stand up and say, you know, wait a minute,

(11:03):
we're going to make certain that when you appear at
the embassy in I don't care where it is. And
you're applying for a visa, We're going to interrogate you
and we're going to find out everything that you believe,
why you want to come here, what your intentions are.
And even if we do grant you that visa, let's
just say you actually did tell the truth, and telling

(11:28):
the truth is still you get here and you don't
do that, you do something else and you engage in
criminal activity, we're going to kick your ass out. But
for so long these rules have not been enforced. And

(11:50):
just because they haven't been enforced doesn't mean that they've
gone away or that they're no longer enforceable. It's they're
still enforceable. We're just now doing it. And I think,
and including perhaps you twelve fifty four, are just upset
about it because you're buying into the free speech argument

(12:14):
that Yahoo has no right to free speech. Well, I
take that back. He has a right to free speech
while he is here. He has no right to engage
in the criminal activity now because he's a protester. Let's
think about the actual logistics of being a protester. As

(12:34):
I said, I think yesterday, if he were standing outside
on a public property either on or near Columbia University,
and he was shouting anti Semitic tropes against Jews. I
would have I would be in agreement with you. You

(12:56):
can't arrest him. He's entitled to scream whatever he wants
to scream, how anti submitting it is, how vulgar it is,
I don't care how at it. But that's not what
he did. He unlawfully occupied and kept Columbia University people
from using their offices. They physically prohibited, intimidated, and physically

(13:22):
prohibited Jews, in particular from going to Clint from going
to class. That is against the law. Now, in so
far as moving him to Louisiana, as I said earlier,
i'd have done the same thing. Maybe not Louisiana. I
might have sent him to Miami. I might have send him,
you know, someplace where it's going to be easy to
put him on a plane. I'm not sure putting him

(13:44):
on a planet at Louis Armstrong Airport in Louisiana is
going to there's going to be a direct flight to Damascus.
So I might have taken him somewhere out on Long Island.
I might have taken him. The point is I would
not have put him in a detention facility in the
Federal Center in Lower Manhattan, because all you're doing is
asking for all of the protesters to show up there

(14:07):
and start protesting there. So just get him out of sight,
out of sight, out of mind until you can process
him and get him out of the country. I truly
don't understand what's difficult about this case. Truly do not
understand it. And as long as we're on text messages
without saying much, goober number thirty four to thirty nine,

(14:29):
Michael from somebody fifty days from Mary? What? What?

Speaker 1 (14:35):
What?

Speaker 2 (14:35):
I'm not sure what your point is. So if you
could try to do that, that would be very helpful. Michael,
wait what four four six? So Michael, wait, what did
you say? I think you need to go back over
the past two hours? Please, well, because I can't remember stuff. Yeah,

(14:56):
it would be a challenge to go back over the
past two hours. I mean I could do it. I
got my notes, I can go through it and do
it again. But I'm not going to do that. Let's
move on to Leezelden because I think the whole lee
Zelden thing, in terms of these first fifty days really
is probably one of the most of them. They're all significant,

(15:17):
but I think in terms of the overall economy, I
think what Lee Zelden is doing at EPA is probably
one of the biggest things ever. He lobbed a bombshell
yesterday for what I think could become the largest revamp
of these stupid climate policies and the stupid climate regulations

(15:40):
in the entire history of the country. So he took
Trump's Day one executive order. What was that? He wanted
the cabinet to review the legality and the continuing applicability
of Obama's two thousand and nine in dagerment finding and
related to greenhouse gases. Remember that we talked about that. Oh,

(16:06):
I talked about that on the weekend program. I went
through a history going back to two thousand and nine
about how CO two, based on the two thousand and
seven Supreme Court decision, how CO two became a pollutant. Well,
Executive Warter number one was to review the legality and
continuing applicability of the two thousand and nine endangerment finding

(16:29):
about greenhouse gases. So what does Zelvin do yesterday? He
announced thirty one historic actions which could completely revamp how
we deal with to clean era.

Speaker 5 (16:43):
Yeah, I leave that talk back, he asked for who
do you think is going to get blamed for this shutdown?
Do you think the Republicans should just leave the government
shut down as long as the Democrats want to play
this game of chicken.

Speaker 2 (16:58):
I've never really cared about government shutdowns because they're not
government shutdowns. What they what they do is they make
a big deal out of you know, the country's going
to fall apart, China's going to invade, Russia is going
to bomb us, the borders are going to be wide open. No,
they just do kind of peripheral things. Now, there is

(17:21):
a point where you would actually run out of cash
and you wouldn't have any money in the treasury in
omb to pay the bills, so you would go on
a borrowing binge. And of course we know the federal
reserve would do that. And but soldiers keep soldiering, Social

(17:46):
Security checks keep getting deposited, Medicare and Medicaid keeps getting paid.
VA benefits continue. So the government shut downs, to me,
have always been this performative art that that both sides
like to play. Now, who's going to get blame and
who should get blamed? If we have a shutdown are

(18:09):
two different things. Whether you like the continuing Resolution that
the House passed or not. Nonetheless, it passed, and it
passed with some Democrat votes. Now it goes to the Senate,
where when it hits the floor, you need sixty votes

(18:31):
to invote cloture to stop debate, which means you're going
to need some Democrat votes in order to get to
a vote. They claim they're not going to do it.
So if they don't do it and the Senate can't
vote on it, who stopped the bill? The Democrats did. Now,

(18:53):
Fetterman has indicated that he's willing to vote for cloture
so they can vote on the bill. He's not indicated
that once the bill gets to the floor, whether or
not he's willing to vote for the bill itself, the
cr itself, he may or may not be, But at
least he's saying, I don't want to be engaged in
these stupid games that if it shuts down, we'll get

(19:18):
blamed for it. Now he may still because I don't
will well. I think he's trying to take Joe Manchin's
place of being this kind of moderate, reasonable Democrat, and
he's succeeding pretty well. Still don't trust him, but in
this case he's trying to play the broker of I
think we ought to vote to vote cloture and shut

(19:40):
down debate and so we can vote on the bill. Well,
good for him, Now go find seven others or whatever
the number is. But if they don't and they can't
vote on the bill, who shuts it down? The Democrats do. Now,
if it it makes it to the floor, because we

(20:02):
have fifty three senators, well then we can pass the bill,
assuming they all vote for it. So, whatever way you
look at it, in this case, it's the Democrats that
will shut down the government. Now who will get blamed
when Democrats shut down the government? The Republicans? Yeah, Now,

(20:23):
did I have to explain that? Because you know that's
exactly what's going to happen. Just go back to Lee's Eldon.
So this really was a bombshell, truly a bombshell that
he dropped about what he plans to do. Let's listen
to just a little bit of it because it's pretty interesting.

Speaker 6 (20:49):
Today, I'm pleased to make the largest de regulatory announcement
in US history. The Environmental Protection Agency is initiating thirty
one his story. Actions to fulfill President Trump's promise to
unleash American energy, revitalize our auto industry, restore the rule

(21:10):
of law, and give power back to the states, EPA
will be reconsidering many suffocating rules that restrict nearly every
sector of our economy and cost Americans trillions of dollars.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
Our actions include.

Speaker 6 (21:26):
The Biden Administration's deeply flood Clean Power Plan, two point
zero mercury and Air Toxic Standards quato BC, particulate matter
two point five Light, Medium and Heavy Car and Truck.

Speaker 2 (21:41):
Rules knee APPS, and.

Speaker 6 (21:43):
The so called Social Cost of Carbon. To advance cooperative federalism,
EPA will partner with states that were universally rejected by
the last administration's Good Neighbor Rule, among many other actions.
Today's momentous day also incl acludes the two thousand and
nine Endangerment Finding, along with.

Speaker 2 (22:03):
All actions that rely on it. I've been told the Endangerment.

Speaker 6 (22:07):
Finding is considered the holy grail of the climate change religion.
For me, the US Constitution and the laws of this
nation will be strictly interpreted and followed no exceptions. Today,
the green new scam ends as the EPA does it's
part to usher in the Golden age of American success.

(22:29):
Our actions will lower the cost of living by making
it more affordable to purchase a car, het your home,
and operate a business. Jobs will be created, especially in
the US auto industry, and our nation will become stronger
for it.

Speaker 2 (22:45):
From the campaign trail to.

Speaker 6 (22:46):
Day one and beyond, President Trump has delivered on his
promise to unleash energy dominance and lower.

Speaker 2 (22:54):
The cost of living. We at EPA will.

Speaker 6 (22:57):
Do our part to power the great Americans.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
I'm back good for him. So what does all this mean?
Enabled by this two thousand and seven Supreme Court ruling
a five to four decision by the way, Massachusetts versus EPA,
that was the case that allowed EPA to regulate greenhouse
gases as pollutants in the context of the Clean Air Act,

(23:24):
that endangerment finding is, as he points out, that's the
holy grail because it has served as the foundation for
this expansion of the EPA's authority and allowing the EPA
to impose its will onto almost every aspect of our lives.
Because CO two was determined to be a pollutant and

(23:45):
CO two ironically being necessary for life is everywhere. I'm
producing CO two as I speak. Those trees behind me
are producing carbon as they live. The finding, this endangerment finding,

(24:06):
that's what this is. The two thousand and seven Massachusetts
versus EPA that allowed them to regulate greenhouse gases. And
so obviously CO two is a greenhouse gas. Therefore it
is a pollutant, and therefore we can regulate it. I
would just add as a footnote, if they can regulate

(24:26):
CO two and the origins of CO two, I you,
and you and you are all origins of CO two.
And in a dystopian world, which is what they want,
they could regulate you because you're a source of CO two.
So the finding, this endangerment finding, provided what was the

(24:50):
driving rationale for the country to sign into the twenty
fifteen Parish Climate of Cords, and that in turn drove
the global effort to invoke a forced energy transition with
trillions of dollars in government subsidies. It's all a scam.
Trump famously withdrew from our participation in the Paris at
courts back during his first term, back in maybe I

(25:11):
think twenty seventeen, and now he's acting on a promise
that he had repeatedly made on the campaign trail throughout
that throughout twenty sixteen, which Biden reversed in twenty twenty one.
One of the very first things that Biden did. Trump
again withdrew us from after swearing in on January twenty
this year. But through all the presidential back and forth,

(25:34):
that one endangerment finding was never addressed by anyone. Now,
Biden obviously didn't want to address it because that's the
basis for which the whole climate scam rests. You regulate
CO two. You can regulate anything, damn well please, because
we're a carbon based world. But Trump and Zelden are

(25:59):
now moving aggressively in these first fifty days to change
that too. Michelle Bloodworth is the CEO of a cold
power trade group called America's Power. She says this EPA's
endangerment finding is the basis for regulations that have a

(26:19):
negative impact on many sectors of the US economy and
increased prices that Americans pay for energy, transportation, manufactured goods,
and other necessities. Now, if your energy costs more than
it should, that means that everything that you consume, everything

(26:41):
that you use, costs more because energy is required for
the manufacturing, the transportation and the distribution and eventually the
use of everything that we use, everything from dry wall
to chips we pay well. Let me put this way,

(27:06):
there have been so many scientific studies that have been
published during the sixteen years since that original finding that
it actually makes really logical, legal and even scientific sense
to review the engagement finding in light of all of
those studies. And I think the EPA they're obviously going
to seek input from the best scientists and all the

(27:26):
legal experts as they conduct their review, and I think
that's going to lead to the decimation of thousands of regulations.
Now that's a great start, But here comes the cavalry,
and man, are they ready for bear. Joanne Spalding, who's

(27:50):
the legal director of the Sierra Club, has promised that
her organization is going to play a leading role instead,
she says, quote, instead of protecting communities reading from the
habit caused by climate disasters, Trump and zeld and seek
to shatter the foundation that undergirds our climate safeguards. Sierra
Club has been expecting and preparing for this unlawful action,

(28:13):
and we will use every legal means available to challenge it.
The Natural Resources Defense counsel. They're spokesperson David Doninger quote.
In the face of overwhelming science. In the face of
overwhelming science, it's impossible to think that the EPA could

(28:36):
develop a contradictory finding that would stand up in court.
So here we go. A new round of energy and
climate related lawfare is just on the horizon. In fact,
it probably would be right.

Speaker 7 (28:50):
Now, Mike, you really think anybody cares about our thirty
seconds on the radio.

Speaker 1 (28:57):
You get paid for it.

Speaker 2 (28:58):
We don't.

Speaker 7 (29:00):
It's like we're supposed to have satisfaction for being on
the radio for thirty seconds. Oh wait a minute, Yeah,
I might be wrong about this.

Speaker 2 (29:11):
That is it's sucking here you go. Yeah, And I
was just concerned for a moment that maybe she had
gotten mistakenly dropped off the payroll. So you know, maybe
maybe dragging you know, when you're doing that other show
after this one, you could go back and check the
payroll records and make sure she's getting her check. Like
I'll have dogs look over me and make to have

(29:33):
dose check it out. Yeah, yeah, be sure to do that.
So here we are. Lee Zelden has made an amazing
announcement that could fundamentally transform the economy in this country. Now,
as I planted out in the last segment, the law

(29:56):
fair against Zelden's attempt to kind of up in the
whole climate change bull crap is going to face a
bunch of law fare. But I want to give you
a little bit of good news. And the good news
is that a lot has changed in the legal landscape
that I think will give those opponents to Zelton's efforts

(30:16):
an uphill battle. And I want to walk through these
and we'll carry this through to the next hour two
because I want you to understand that not all is lost.
The first thing I point out is there's been a
change in the makeup of the Supreme Court. Now, when
the Massachusetts case was decided in two thousand and seven
that gave the endangerment rule that allowed CO two to

(30:37):
be a pollutant, the court was evenly divided four Conservatives
for liberals, and then Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate, that
was the swing vote. Yeah, he swung back and forth,
he played both sides of the fence all the time.
But conservatives don't choke them this. Conservatives hold an overwhelming

(30:58):
sixty three majority on today's court. Now, yes, I understand
I'm anxiety what you're thinking. You think I can understand
what you're thinking. I know the Chief Justice Roberts and
Associate Justice Amy call me Barrett have occasionally sided with
the three liberal justices in a handful of decisions. But
I don't think there's any reason to think that that's

(31:19):
going to happen in a reconsideration of the Massachusetts two
thousand and seven case. And I think that's especially true
for Justice Roberts. And here's why, because he wrote the
dissenting opinion in that two thousand and seven decisions. See,
you were all like, well, Chief Justice and Amy call

(31:40):
me Barrett are going to join with the minority, and
we're going to lose on this. No, no, no, no, no.
Justice Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion in Massachusetts versus EPA.
So there you go. That's number one. Number two would
be this the decision last year in the Lower Bright

(32:02):
Industries versus EPA case, that is the one that got
rid of the Chevron doctrine. The Chevron doctrine was that
doctrine that said that the courts will just give gigantic leeway.
We'll give a twelve lane freeway to the regulatory agencies

(32:23):
to interpret rules and regulations however they see fit and
will defer to those And we're not going to say
anything about Congress needing to write these rules or that
these rules really having the effect of law because they
provide civil and criminal penalties. They got rid of that,
and that was a six to three decision that reversed

(32:46):
the Chevron doctrine. So you see a lot has changed.
And don't forget Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion in the
original two thousand and seven case, and I'm sure he'll
be on the same side this time too. M