January 21, 2026 • 11 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Continue to work with the rerec southbound seventy one below
fieldsirdle left leans block traffic backing up close to Western Row.
Then slow again between the Reagan Highway and Red Bank,
the earlier wreck and Kenwood clear southbound seventy five. That's
a slowgo in and out of Blackland northbound fourth seventy
one backs to Grand Now congratulations to Indiana winning the
(00:22):
national championship from college football. But quite frankly, our next
guest is a national champion in many categories, every single day,
no yellow flags, no unnecessary roughness. The judge is next
Chuck Ingram on fifty five krs the talk station.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Ay thirty two to fifty one KRC the talk station.
What is it with going on with Judge Enna Paula Tana.
Our video feed has frozen, suggesting that he's not hearing me.
I didn't see a reaction of the comments of Chuck Ingram,
so realize that that video is not working. Joe Strucker
is busily trying to get him on the telephone so
(01:07):
we can actually have a conversation about the American police
state arriving. So, Joe, did you successfully reach jud Jennen
of Politano, Yes, Judgin Polaitano, apologize to the technical difficulties.
This is two weeks in a row man. Welcome back.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
No, there are grandparents out there that do not want
you and me to see each other.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
That is true, but we still get to converse, and
that's good enough for me because what you have to say,
the words are what's important. Although I do like to
see your visage on the video screen. I hope you
and your your your loved ones are all well. Judgent Politano,
welcome back to the Morning show.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
We do the right.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
We have a freedom of assembly, we have free exercise,
we have the right to free speech, of course, and
we've got people on I guess I would argue both
sides of the political ledger seeking to curb and uh
uh and take away our right to free speech. Your
take on this the column which comes out tonight a minute.
I'm happy to get an early copy of it. The
American police state has arrived.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
Judge Napolitano, Well, there are many aspects to this, but
the column just devotes itself to the freedom of speech aspect, whereby.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
The government is attempting to chill the free speech that
it hates and fears detectives showing up at a lady's
house because she accuses one of the president's favorite members
of Congress of hypocrisy, a statement that is not violent,
absolutely protected speech, and is none of the business of
(02:45):
the police whatsoever. Our reporters home being raided by the FBI,
not because they're reported did anything wrong, but because the
government wants her cell phone, because she's communicating with whistleblowers
about the government, many of them about the FBI itself,
and of course efforts to threaten the governor of Minnesota,
(03:10):
of whom I'm not a fan, and the mayor of
Minneapolis a liberal Democrat. But these people have the same
free speech rights as the rest of us. You are
correct when you talk about rights clashing. So when freedom
of worship flashes with free speech, which prevails. Now here's
(03:33):
a great question. I used to ask law students, what's
the first right protected in the First Amendment. Every hand
goes up and says, free speech.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
No, free exercise right?
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Correct, the free exercise of religion. This is what the
courts would do if they are splitting hairs. When free
speech and free exercise clash, free exercise prevails. So whatever
happened in that church, the other day was absolutely wrong
and criminal for those people to enter the church to
(04:07):
disrupt the service. If you don't like the pastor because
you believe, accurately or not, that he's really an ice agent,
you can say what you want about him in such
a manner, time, place, and manner as not to interfere
with the religious service going on. That's not what happened.
They disrupted the religious service. I don't know if those
(04:29):
people were arrested or not.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Right, I understand the DJ is contemplating charges involving something
called the Face Act, but I'm just glad you definitely
cleared that up for me, because again, I think when
I responded to your email with passing along the article,
I'm thinking, hmm, we've got freedom of assembly, we've got
free speech, we've got free exercise, and then also the
right to the private property element. I don't think churches
(04:51):
are considered public property. The church still has control over
the property upon which it has the service.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
The church. I don't know the law in Minneapolis, but
since it is a liberal state like New Jersey, I'm
going to guess the law is comparable. A church is
a public accommodation, so you do not have to be
an adherent to go there, But that does not give
you the authority to disrupt what goes on there, because
(05:24):
your right to disrupt is subordinate to the right of
those gathered there to worship as they see fit. Can
you stand outside and chant your opposition of what's being
said inside? Of course you can, but not in such
a manner as to interfere with what's going on inside.
You know, it's the fascinating history here. To give me
(05:45):
thirty seconds. The Faith Act is federal access access to
clinic entrances. So in the early nineties, the late Senator
Edward Kennedy legislation that would guarantee women access to abortion clinics.
The only way he could get it passed was that
(06:08):
he threw in a paragraph there protecting access to churches.
So if you look this thing up, you'll find it
under abortion it protects both abortion clinics in churches in
the same set.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
This is really only in America. That is really actually comical,
all right. So you have perhaps criminal activity, perhaps bringing
the law by doing that this sort of thing the
religious service from being done in the name of protesting
what's going in Minneapolis. What of impeding a federal law
(06:46):
enforcement officer doing his or her job. Now you have
on one hand your argument for free speech, which I embrace.
You know, if the governor wants to say something, if
the mayor wants to say something he doesn't believe in ICE,
he thinks they should be defunded. They're entitled to that
political opinion, and they may suffer as a consequace of
embracing it, or it may help them out in the
long run. But if you actually heed their advice, they
are suggesting that people should engage in disruption of ICE
(07:09):
doing its job. So this seems immaterial to whether or
not you think there should be laws on the books
allowing ICE to enforce immigration laws, whether the immigration laws
themselves are appropriate or accurate. But if they are engaged
in legitimate federal law enforcement, then it is a crime
to interfere with them, is it not.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
But the crime is not committed by the speaker. No,
the crime committed by the person who does the interference. YEA.
You may argue that silently standing with your arms folded
in front of an ICE vehicle is a classic civil disobedience.
It is because it's not violent. You pay a price
(07:47):
for that civil disobedience, and that price is either either
a ticket obstructing the road getting out of the street
or a prosecution for obstructing justice. But the speaker who
calls for it, you know the case Brandenburgers not far
(08:11):
from where you are now. The speaker who calls for
this is absolutely protected. So I don't know where the
fens are going to go subpoenaing the mayor and the governor.
First of all, you don't subpoena the defendant in a
criminal case of dragging before the grand jury investigating him.
So maybe they've subpoena their cell phones or their office records.
(08:33):
It's hard for me to believe it's a subpoena for testimony. Secondly,
their speech is absolutely protected as long as there is
time you know the law as well as I may
be better time for more speech to challenge it. So
if if Tim Waltz or Jacob Price says, go block
those ice monsters, as long as there's time for Pam
(08:56):
Bondi or Christy Noms to say, don't block the ice monsters.
They're enforcing tederal law and we will arrest you if
you block them, then the speech is protected. If there's
no time it's hard to believe, but if there's no
time for countervailing speech, then the speech can be prosecuted.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Now, I'm not suggesting thessarily have probable cause for the subpoenas,
but taking that to the next level, if these elected
officials or even anyone out in the world coordinates and
encourages criminal activity on a coordinated basis. In other words,
I want you minions to go out there and obstruct ice.
I want you to go out there and block roads.
I want you to go out there. And they coordinate
(09:36):
it and fund it and even provide goods and resources
to help them accomplish that goal. Are they not engaged
in what I would argue is subject to RICO organized crime?
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Well, RICO requires the accumulation of some of some wealth.
I mean, the lynchpin of RICO is to see its
wealth from people. But I don't think you need to
go to RICO. Let's say the city handed out two
by fours and gave these demonstrators two by fours and
they're standing in the streets with these two by fours
(10:10):
and they use them to block the ice vehicles. Well,
then whoever handed out the two by fours has engaged
in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice. That is not speech.
If the city says, on the other hand, go stand
in the street and make ice in their keep, that
speech is protected. So speech plus is the issue here
(10:30):
depends on what the plus.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Is it does indeed, judgedital Pulton, Judging Freedom? Is this
podcast or encourage you our listeners to check it out
all the time wherever you get your podcasts? Judgedital Pulton.
Who's going to be on Judging Freedom today? Sir?
Speaker 3 (10:45):
I have two of my favorite academics, Professor Jeffrey Sachs
at ten and Professor Glenn Dieson from Norway with the
Norway understanding of President Trump's now infamous text message to
the Prime Minister of Norway. Hey, I'm going to go
for Greenland because you didn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize.
(11:07):
That's what we're talking. Yeah, hey, just like you have.
You can't make this up. You can't.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
I'm with you all day long about that. I'm still
scratching my head of this old Greenland thing. Judg Jenenapallatina,
thank you for your willingness to participate in little time
here on the fifty five Carssey Morning Show. Every Wednesday,
and I look forward to next Wednesday as always, have
a wonderful week, my friend, back at you. It's a
forty three coming up next. Doctor Stephen urback running for Congress.
Continue to work with the rerec southbound seventy one below
fieldsirdle left leans block traffic backing up close to Western Row.
Then slow again between the Reagan Highway and Red Bank,
the earlier wreck and Kenwood clear southbound seventy five. That's
a slowgo in and out of Blackland northbound fourth seventy
one backs to Grand Now congratulations to Indiana winning the
(00:22):
national championship from college football. But quite frankly, our next
guest is a national champion in many categories, every single day,
no yellow flags, no unnecessary roughness. The judge is next
Chuck Ingram on fifty five krs the talk station.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Ay thirty two to fifty one KRC the talk station.
What is it with going on with Judge Enna Paula Tana.
Our video feed has frozen, suggesting that he's not hearing me.
I didn't see a reaction of the comments of Chuck Ingram,
so realize that that video is not working. Joe Strucker
is busily trying to get him on the telephone so
(01:07):
we can actually have a conversation about the American police
state arriving. So, Joe, did you successfully reach jud Jennen
of Politano, Yes, Judgin Polaitano, apologize to the technical difficulties.
This is two weeks in a row man. Welcome back.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
No, there are grandparents out there that do not want
you and me to see each other.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
That is true, but we still get to converse, and
that's good enough for me because what you have to say,
the words are what's important. Although I do like to
see your visage on the video screen. I hope you
and your your your loved ones are all well. Judgent Politano,
welcome back to the Morning show.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
We do the right.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
We have a freedom of assembly, we have free exercise,
we have the right to free speech, of course, and
we've got people on I guess I would argue both
sides of the political ledger seeking to curb and uh
uh and take away our right to free speech. Your
take on this the column which comes out tonight a minute.
I'm happy to get an early copy of it. The
American police state has arrived.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
Judge Napolitano, Well, there are many aspects to this, but
the column just devotes itself to the freedom of speech aspect, whereby.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
The government is attempting to chill the free speech that
it hates and fears detectives showing up at a lady's
house because she accuses one of the president's favorite members
of Congress of hypocrisy, a statement that is not violent,
absolutely protected speech, and is none of the business of
(02:45):
the police whatsoever. Our reporters home being raided by the FBI,
not because they're reported did anything wrong, but because the
government wants her cell phone, because she's communicating with whistleblowers
about the government, many of them about the FBI itself,
and of course efforts to threaten the governor of Minnesota,
(03:10):
of whom I'm not a fan, and the mayor of
Minneapolis a liberal Democrat. But these people have the same
free speech rights as the rest of us. You are
correct when you talk about rights clashing. So when freedom
of worship flashes with free speech, which prevails. Now here's
(03:33):
a great question. I used to ask law students, what's
the first right protected in the First Amendment. Every hand
goes up and says, free speech.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
No, free exercise right?
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Correct, the free exercise of religion. This is what the
courts would do if they are splitting hairs. When free
speech and free exercise clash, free exercise prevails. So whatever
happened in that church, the other day was absolutely wrong
and criminal for those people to enter the church to
(04:07):
disrupt the service. If you don't like the pastor because
you believe, accurately or not, that he's really an ice agent,
you can say what you want about him in such
a manner, time, place, and manner as not to interfere
with the religious service going on. That's not what happened.
They disrupted the religious service. I don't know if those
(04:29):
people were arrested or not.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Right, I understand the DJ is contemplating charges involving something
called the Face Act, but I'm just glad you definitely
cleared that up for me, because again, I think when
I responded to your email with passing along the article,
I'm thinking, hmm, we've got freedom of assembly, we've got
free speech, we've got free exercise, and then also the
right to the private property element. I don't think churches
(04:51):
are considered public property. The church still has control over
the property upon which it has the service.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
The church. I don't know the law in Minneapolis, but
since it is a liberal state like New Jersey, I'm
going to guess the law is comparable. A church is
a public accommodation, so you do not have to be
an adherent to go there, But that does not give
you the authority to disrupt what goes on there, because
(05:24):
your right to disrupt is subordinate to the right of
those gathered there to worship as they see fit. Can
you stand outside and chant your opposition of what's being
said inside? Of course you can, but not in such
a manner as to interfere with what's going on inside.
You know, it's the fascinating history here. To give me
(05:45):
thirty seconds. The Faith Act is federal access access to
clinic entrances. So in the early nineties, the late Senator
Edward Kennedy legislation that would guarantee women access to abortion clinics.
The only way he could get it passed was that
(06:08):
he threw in a paragraph there protecting access to churches.
So if you look this thing up, you'll find it
under abortion it protects both abortion clinics in churches in
the same set.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
This is really only in America. That is really actually comical,
all right. So you have perhaps criminal activity, perhaps bringing
the law by doing that this sort of thing the
religious service from being done in the name of protesting
what's going in Minneapolis. What of impeding a federal law
(06:46):
enforcement officer doing his or her job. Now you have
on one hand your argument for free speech, which I embrace.
You know, if the governor wants to say something, if
the mayor wants to say something he doesn't believe in ICE,
he thinks they should be defunded. They're entitled to that
political opinion, and they may suffer as a consequace of
embracing it, or it may help them out in the
long run. But if you actually heed their advice, they
are suggesting that people should engage in disruption of ICE
(07:09):
doing its job. So this seems immaterial to whether or
not you think there should be laws on the books
allowing ICE to enforce immigration laws, whether the immigration laws
themselves are appropriate or accurate. But if they are engaged
in legitimate federal law enforcement, then it is a crime
to interfere with them, is it not.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
But the crime is not committed by the speaker. No,
the crime committed by the person who does the interference. YEA.
You may argue that silently standing with your arms folded
in front of an ICE vehicle is a classic civil disobedience.
It is because it's not violent. You pay a price
(07:47):
for that civil disobedience, and that price is either either
a ticket obstructing the road getting out of the street
or a prosecution for obstructing justice. But the speaker who
calls for it, you know the case Brandenburgers not far
(08:11):
from where you are now. The speaker who calls for
this is absolutely protected. So I don't know where the
fens are going to go subpoenaing the mayor and the governor.
First of all, you don't subpoena the defendant in a
criminal case of dragging before the grand jury investigating him.
So maybe they've subpoena their cell phones or their office records.
(08:33):
It's hard for me to believe it's a subpoena for testimony. Secondly,
their speech is absolutely protected as long as there is
time you know the law as well as I may
be better time for more speech to challenge it. So
if if Tim Waltz or Jacob Price says, go block
those ice monsters, as long as there's time for Pam
(08:56):
Bondi or Christy Noms to say, don't block the ice monsters.
They're enforcing tederal law and we will arrest you if
you block them, then the speech is protected. If there's
no time it's hard to believe, but if there's no
time for countervailing speech, then the speech can be prosecuted.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Now, I'm not suggesting thessarily have probable cause for the subpoenas,
but taking that to the next level, if these elected
officials or even anyone out in the world coordinates and
encourages criminal activity on a coordinated basis. In other words,
I want you minions to go out there and obstruct ice.
I want you to go out there and block roads.
I want you to go out there. And they coordinate
(09:36):
it and fund it and even provide goods and resources
to help them accomplish that goal. Are they not engaged
in what I would argue is subject to RICO organized crime?
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Well, RICO requires the accumulation of some of some wealth.
I mean, the lynchpin of RICO is to see its
wealth from people. But I don't think you need to
go to RICO. Let's say the city handed out two
by fours and gave these demonstrators two by fours and
they're standing in the streets with these two by fours
(10:10):
and they use them to block the ice vehicles. Well,
then whoever handed out the two by fours has engaged
in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice. That is not speech.
If the city says, on the other hand, go stand
in the street and make ice in their keep, that
speech is protected. So speech plus is the issue here
(10:30):
depends on what the plus.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Is it does indeed, judgedital Pulton, Judging Freedom? Is this
podcast or encourage you our listeners to check it out
all the time wherever you get your podcasts? Judgedital Pulton.
Who's going to be on Judging Freedom today? Sir?
Speaker 3 (10:45):
I have two of my favorite academics, Professor Jeffrey Sachs
at ten and Professor Glenn Dieson from Norway with the
Norway understanding of President Trump's now infamous text message to
the Prime Minister of Norway. Hey, I'm going to go
for Greenland because you didn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize.
(11:07):
That's what we're talking. Yeah, hey, just like you have.
You can't make this up. You can't.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
I'm with you all day long about that. I'm still
scratching my head of this old Greenland thing. Judg Jenenapallatina,
thank you for your willingness to participate in little time
here on the fifty five Carssey Morning Show. Every Wednesday,
and I look forward to next Wednesday as always, have
a wonderful week, my friend, back at you. It's a
forty three coming up next. Doctor Stephen urback running for Congress.
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.