July 6, 2026 • 51 mins
Here’s why the Supreme Court legalized birthright citizenship and birth tourism.
It’s because conservative jurisprudence has put our justices into a box they can’t get out of.
Is Sharia law creeping into Texas? Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joins me to say how it can be stopped.
(05:15) Principle vs. Consequences
(08:04) SCOTUS's Conservative Split
(09:52) What Framers Intended
(11:07) The Real Outrage
(14:13) Jurisprudence On Trial
(16:00) Free Speech's Exceptions
(20:40) Guest Intro: Ken Paxton
(24:18) Constitution's Sharia Blind Spot
(27:34) Islam Or Extremism?
(31:28) Paxton Crushes Cornyn
(33:33) Talarico's Cowboy Costume
(36:22) Mary Was Pro-Choice?
(40:04) The Save Act Betrayal
(43:33) Talarico's Smear Campaign
(45:29) Enforcing Texas Law
If you’re tired of broken healthcare you need to choose the right pharmacy.
Check them out at allfamilypharmacy.com/dinesh and use code DINESH10 to save 10% off your next order.
Leave the old “buy and hold” crypto strategy behind at https://DineshCrypto.com ! Purchase crypto with military grade encryption and American customer service. Hundreds of crypto holders have saved MILLIONS thanks to BlockTrustIRA’s Animus AI. Visit https://DineshCrypto.com and receive up to $2,500 in FREE bonus crypto!
America has nearly 39 trillion dollars in debt! Are you protected from this pending disaster? Go to http://DineshGold.com and get up to 10% in bonus gold or silver.
I’m on substack! Check out what I have to say here: https://dineshdsouza.substack.com/
For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial (706) 262-4774 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/dinesh
Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan’s contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don’t directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options
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 (00:15):
The Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship has produced a
national crisis, but not for the reason that most people think.
The crisis is not whether the Supreme Court, including its
Republican appointees, has been captured by the left. Nor is
it over whether illegals who have children in this country
can thereby confer citizenship on them.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Neither of those things, as I'll explain, is really the
core problem.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
First of all, the Republican appointees on the Court are
not exactly rhinos or secret Democrats. Consider Amy Cony Barrett.
She voted to get rid of Robi Wade, she gave
Trump immunity from prosecution. She voted to end affirmative action,
She expanded gun rights, She ended special black and minority
voting districts in just a few days ago, voted against
(01:01):
the right of biological males to compete in women's sports. Now,
Barrett is, as Trump knew before he appointed her, a
political and cultural conservative. Even so, I see on social
media that Barrett voted the way she did because she's
a woman and women don't have the capacity to govern,
or she's a DEI appointed to the Court, or her
(01:21):
decision is based on the fact that she and her
husband adopted Haitian children. Now I'm dubious about all this.
Let's take up my second point. There are illegals who
have been in this country for twenty or even thirty years.
I am not happy about this because they two broke
the law. Even so, no one, not even Clarence Thomas,
(01:43):
challenges the fact that their children in this country have
a constitutional right to be US citizens. Why because the
relevant constitutional phrase is quote subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
It means subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
and quite obviously a family living here for decades is
(02:04):
subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn't owe its loyalty to
any other country. Moreover, one cannot pragmatically send these children
back to countries to which they have no ties and
whose language they very often do not speak. Thomas alludes
to this in his dissenting opinion. So what are we
talking about here. We're talking about birth tourism, which is
(02:27):
to say, about people who come to this country in
order to have children so that their children can automatically
become US citizens.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
That's the core issue.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Does the Constitution a firm births tourism as a right,
and what, if anything, do we do about it. Let's
begin by noting that there's no good argument for birth tourism. Recently,
The New York Times had a long profile of a
Honduran woman who was deported from the country and then
travels seventeen hundred miles to sneak back in so her
(02:58):
child could be born in a Mayora. The profile was
intended to garner sympathy, and to some extent it does,
But even here it's quite obvious that birthright citizenship birth
tourism in this way should not be allowed. People should
not be able to go around our immigration laws and
do this, regardless of their long term aspirations for their children. Then,
(03:19):
on the darker side, investigative journalist Peter Schweitzer my friend Peter,
who has been profiled in more than one of my films,
reveals that the Chinese are running a sophisticated birthright scam
on the United States. Over the past ten years, Chinese
men have dispatched roughly one million Chinese women to come
and have kids in this country. The kids then go
(03:39):
back to China, but they are now dual citizens. They
can vote in US elections, and over time their kids
would also be US citizens, and this way the Chinese
gain important leverage in controlling the outcome of close US elections.
Think about that, Given that we cannot give even a
single case in which birth tourism is disease, we can't
(04:00):
even imagine when it would be a good idea. It
is surpassingly strange that the Constitution seems to say that
there is an unqualified right for children born in this
country to be US citizens. It is even odder that
this practice has continued in this country for a century
and a half, and now an ideologically diverse majority on
(04:21):
the Supreme Court, three liberals and at least two conservatives
have affirmed that constitutional reading and that historical precedent. Sure,
we can scream about the decision, we make outrageous demands. Recently,
I saw a social media post that we should nullify
the court ruling, we should require sterilization of foreign visitors
(04:42):
prior to entry, we should dissolve the union itself. This
is irresponsible rhetoric because it makes no sense and it's
never going to happen. We cannot solve this problem without
recognizing what the problem exactly is. So what is the problem?
Whenever we deal with issue of justice or jurisprudence. We
(05:02):
can resolve it in one of two ways. We can
look for a principle that governs the matter, or we
can look at the consequences of what we decide. If
we go with the principle or rule, we tend to
downplay or ignore the consequences. If we go with consequences,
then we're willing to bend the principle or rule in
order to accommodate the outcome we want. This is such
(05:24):
a crucial distinction. I want to illustrate it with a
real life example. Consider a nerdy college student who makes
awkward sexual remarks to get noticed by girls.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
He goes up to girls and talks to him about
porn or about his cat being in heat.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Now, if this were to happen at an elite college
in say nineteen fifty, the dean would haul in the
kid and say, listen, weirdo, cut out that nonsense. I'm
giving you a warning, but if you do this again,
I'm going to have you pack your bags and go
home for the semester. Now, this is justice by consequence.
There are no rules. The dean basically looks at the
(06:00):
the kid's actions of cause and since the harm is
not so great, he makes a decision that keeps the
kid in school, but seeks to avoid a repetition of
the offending conduct. But today, that same college probably has
sexual harassment rules. Let's say the rule says that if
you sexually harass a girl, you'll be suspended for a
year or expelled. Now the dean has no discretion. You
(06:23):
violated the rule, and so he must send you home.
This is justice by principle and rule. There is some discretion,
ranging from suspension to expulsion, but only within the parameters
set by the rule. Now here's my point. There is
no room for consequences for consequential reasoning in our constitutional law.
(06:44):
There is room for such reasoning and other types of law.
For instance, in the British common law, it's routine for
judges to ask, what are you asking me to do?
What will be the effects of me ruling this way
versus that way? Who will be affected by my ruling
and how? This is consequential reasoning, which considers rules and precedents,
but it also considers the results of the decision itself.
(07:09):
Notice that of the various opinions delivered by the Supreme
Court on the birthright citizenship issue. Not a single one
openly employed consequential reasoning or reasoning by consequences. Every single
one purported to affirm some sort of constitutional principle. Now,
I'm going to ignore the liberals here because their reasoning
(07:29):
is mostly gobbledegook.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
I'm going to focus only on.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
The Republicans because that's how today's Supreme Court decisions are decided. Now,
the Conservatives broke into two camps, the majority camp with
the decision written by Chief Justice Roberts joined by Barrett,
and a dissident or minority camp with strong dissent by
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justice Kavanaugh took a middle position,
(07:52):
basically siding with birthright citizenship but offering a narrow legislative
pathway to limit certain types of it. Now, let's look
at the majority's reasoning, which is reasoning from principle. The
majority says, the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment affirms
birthright citizenship, and that of course would necessarily include birthright tourism.
(08:14):
Anyone born here is automatically eligible for citizenship. Sure, there
is that textual qualification, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But
the majority says that merely means that people who are
in America a subject to the jurisdiction of America and
the laws of America. Even a foreign tourist or ambassador
who's merely coming here residing here is at least to
(08:36):
some extent.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Subject to our laws.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Moreover, the majority camp of conservatives notes that birthright citizenship
has been the operating constitutional principle for one hundred and
fifty years since the end of the Civil War, when
the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. Precedent in law gives support
and corroboration to constitutional principle. Something is more likely to
be rightly decided when courts for more than a century
(09:02):
have read it that way. Frankly, this is a pretty
strong principled case for birthright citizenship and yet justice as
Thomas and Alito take it on. Thomas and Alito basically
make two key points, both of which focus on the
intentions of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the
framers intended through this amendment to give citizenship to the
(09:25):
former slaves and to their children born in this country.
This was their clear purpose in enacting the constitutional change.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
The slaves were brought here against their will.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
They had no place else to go, no allegiance to
any foreign power. America was their only home, and they
were given citizenship for their children based on that second
a related point, the Framers did not intend to give
citizenship to the children of foreigners with no allegiance to
this country. That's why those who proposed the law made
it clear. The children of foreign ambassadors were excluded. The
(09:59):
children of others foreign diplomats didn't qualify. Obviously, the children
of an invading army wouldn't get citizenship by virtue of
being born here. Significantly, the children of American Indians didn't
qualify either. Why not because the Indian tribes were considered
foreign nations. In other words, their allegiance was to their
(10:19):
nation within a nation, not to the United States. Thomas
and Alito therefore interpret the phrase subject to the jurisdiction
thereof as referring not merely to geographical presence in America,
but rather to fundamental allegiance to the United States as
opposed to some other nation. Now notice that both camps
here are arguing in terms of principle. The majority camp
(10:43):
is emphasizing the seemingly plain language of the rule, while
the dissident camp is emphasizing the underlying motive or intention
of the framers of the rule. The two sides are
disagreeing on what the principle is, not on whether a
principle should decide the issue. Yet, the outrage over birthright
(11:03):
citizenship and specifically birth tourism has nothing to do with
any of this. It does not derive at all from
outrage over the underlying motives of the framers.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
To see this, let's do a thought experiment.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Let's imagine that the founders did intend to make birthright.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Citizenship a constitutional right.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Let's assume that in the nineteenth century, when the country
had lots of empty space, the framers of the fourteen
Amendment felt, Hey, it's a big country. We don't mind
if anyone who comes here for any reason and has
a kid, that kid should be a US citizen. Now,
with this diminished today in the least our profound conviction
that birthright citizenship and birth tourism are a menace and
(11:41):
must be stopped, would it make us go, oh, okay,
now that we know what those guys really meant, we're
going to just go along with it.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Of course not.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Our point is that the circumstances have changed. The country
is now full. The people who are coming here have
very different goals and motives and the people who came
in the past. We're facing a national security threat from
countries like China that exploit our laws in this way.
In short, our opposition derives entirely from the consequences of birthrights, citizenship,
(12:12):
and birth tourism. I'm sure that dissenters like Alito and
Thomas are quite aware of the deleterious consequences, yet remarkably
they are prevented from openly stating these consequences in their opinions.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Why is this, Well, it's.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Because of fifty years of conservative jurisprudence we have taught them.
We conservatives have collectively affirmed that it is not the
job of a judge to consider consequences. It is the
sole responsibility of judges to determine what the Constitution says,
illuminated in ambiguous cases by figuring out the intentions of
(12:48):
the framers.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Once the judge has done that, his job is done.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
I'm sure that if you pressed a Chief Justice Robert
so Amy Coney Barrett with horror stories about birth tourism,
they would nod their heads and sympathy and say, well, yeah,
but it's not our job to worry about outcomes. Our
job is to figure out and apply what the Constitution
says and what it means. Our task is one of ascertaining, meaning,
not deciphering, how the world will turn out if we
(13:15):
rule this way or that way. So that's what we
did here, And of course the dissenters who have been
raised in the same tradition must pretend that that is
also what they are doing. They must pretend that they're
concerned with birthright citizenship and birth tourism is not Honduran
women who sneak into the country with dubious motives, or
Chinese billionaires who are trying to change the electoral landscape,
(13:38):
but rather with the correct way to parse the phrases
in the text, either by consulting their dictionary meaning or
by excavating the motives.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Of their drafters.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
I hope you can see here that I'm trying to
identify not merely the defects of this particular ruling, which
flies in the face of all sound reasoning and common sense,
but also to highlight a defect in our constitutional jurisprudence itself.
What am I saying. I'm saying it's time to put
thirty years of conservative jurisprudence on trial. Why, because we
(14:11):
have talked our way into a box. We have elevated
original meaning and original intent jurisprudence into our highest constitutional principle,
and in doing so, our Supreme Court conservatives are forced
to make decisions entirely within this framework. And as we
can see from this single but crucially important case, the
framework is inadequate. In fact, the framework almost by itself
(14:35):
dictates the outcome. And if we keep the framework, we
risk the very destruction of the country. If we say, yeah,
but what else can we do, we're basically saying that
in order to keep our jurisprudential principle, we are willing
to give up the country itself. Consequences be damned, No,
this is ridiculous. Consequences must be taken into account, and
(14:58):
within our jurisprudence itself. We need a maga jurisprudence that
is not a rejection of Reaganized jurisprudence, but one that
updates so modifies the Reagan approach to the new situation
in which we find ourselves today. Doesn't this in a
way describe the whole MAGA movement. Policy solutions are not sufficient.
(15:18):
It's not enough to say, Okay, well let's stop pregnant
people from coming to this country. Okay, well let's stop
all immigration. Okay, let's prosecute criminal birth tourism schemes. Basically,
this approach is a way of saying, we're stuck in
this terrible box. So let's think of creative, even if
somewhat bizarre, ways to find some small holes in the box.
(15:38):
But the best way to get out of the box
is to open the box and step out. How do
we do this, My answer is really simple. We have
to reintroduce consequential reasoning into our constitutional jurisprudence. Now, this
consequential reasoning doesn't mean you can't have principles, but it
does mean that principles must give way to reasonable exceptions
(16:01):
when the consequences are bad. Stop applying the principle In short,
create exceptions. By the way, we do this now with
some of our fundamental constitutional principles, consider the First Amendment,
protection of free speech. Quote Congress shall make no law
restricting freedom of speech end quote. Or really, we have
all kinds of laws that restrict speech.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Here are a few.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
You can't shout fire in a crowded theater if there's
no fire. You can't use free speech to offer to
bribe a public official. You can't conspire through speech to
commit crimes. You can't threaten the life of the president.
You can't even go into a neighborhood with a big
bullhorn and shout slogans all day.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
But why not.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Doesn't the Constitution say? Well, yes, it does say, but no.
One wants to live in a society where speech is
used in these deleterious ways. The consequences in these important
cases override the principles. So we have a yes, but application. Yes,
we believe in free speech in most cases, but not
in this one, and not in that one, and not.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
In these other cases either.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
I think we need to convince our conservatives on the
Supreme Court and conservatives around the country that our previous
approach to jurisprudence is inadequate, not wrong, but incomplete. We
need to make room for reasonable exceptions based on an
evaluation of the consequences. This might require a new test case,
perhaps one involving Chinese birthright tourism, to get before the
(17:26):
Supreme Court. So the Court can rethink, can modify the
current ruling, but this requires Roberts and Barrett to alter
their jurisprudence to accept the cogency of the arguments presented here.
When consequences are taken into account, courts might decide that
certain types of birthright citizenships, such as a children whose
parents have been in the country a long while, should
(17:49):
be permitted, while others, such as tourists who are coming
here merely to give birth and thereby create US citizens,
should not. Actions and other words have real world consequences,
and it's about time the jurisprudence of our highest court
reflected this reality. And that's the way I see it.
(18:13):
If you're sixty four or older, here's an inflation report
you don't hear about, but should. This year, your Medicare
premiums went up nearly ten percent. Your cost of living
race under three. Think about that. You can't control premiums,
but you can control your plan. Millions of seniors are
on the wrong one, overpaying without even knowing it. They
(18:35):
are real savings to be had, but most people never
look chapter does. They're independent. The only Medicare advisors that
compare every plan nationwide.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
They look at your doctors, your prescriptions.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
What matters to you, and find the plan that protects
you and your wallet.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
They've helped thousands in my audience.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Myself included navigate the Medicare maze. Just last year, those
who found you plans with Chapters saved an average of
eleven hundred dollars on healthcare. Some of you told me
you saved as much as four thousand or five thousand dollars,
all from one twenty minute call call Chapter. Today, they're
a free resource for my audience. Seven oh six two
(19:17):
six two four seven seven four. Again that's seven oh
six two six two four seven seven four. Stop paying
more than you should. Here's the thing about crypto, it's
here to stay.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
That argument is over. But think about it.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
If this is a market that never sleeps, it's moving
at midnight, it's two am, three am, and while you're asleep,
who's watching. Because here's what nobody tells you. Most crypto
platforms give you a log in, wish you luck and call.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
It a day. That's not investing.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
That's gambling with your retirement and hoping for the best.
That's why I've partnered with block trust IRA. Block trust
Ira is cryptoio built for Americans who refuse to be
on the losing side of that equation. Their award winning
AI engine navigates the notoriously volatile crypto markets around the clock,
(20:12):
automatically rebalancing your portfolio to protect your gains and limit
your exposure when markets swing. No panic, no emotion, no
missleep At three am. Your savings sit inside a two
hundred million dollar institutional grade insurance shield, managed intelligently and
secured from day one.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Their AI never sleeps.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
It's rebalancing your portfolio around the clock, managing risk, responding
to volatility, protecting what you've built, automatically, intelligently, without panic.
Voted Bitcoin Magazine number one Technology platform, and that doesn't
surprise me one bit. Open your CRYPTOIRA today and block trust.
(20:54):
IRA will give you up to a twenty five hundred
dollars inflation shield bonus.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
It's right into your account.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Go to dneshcrypto dot com and sign up today. They
can print dollars, but they cannot print crypto. That's dneshcrypto
dot com. Ken it seems that there's a project underway,
led by a bunch of activists to islamlify the state
(21:25):
of Texas, to bring Islam to Texas and to increase
the influence of Islam in Texas. Just something that worries.
He was just a good thing or a bad thing.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
So look, I've always been a First Amendment I believe
with the constitition, with the Founders put in place in
the First Amendment of free speech, free expression of religion.
I think it's been fundamental to our country to have
that freedom. But we when we look at what's going
on in Europe and countries being taken over and allowing
Sharia law and the influence of Shria law to take
(21:54):
over the legal system. That's where I start having difficulties
because those law laws are in conflict with our constitution
and sometimes in conflict with federal and state laws. And
when that's occurring, that is a concern to me because
we will lose our constitutional republic and our freedoms if
we do not protect those laws.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Some people say that the issue is Islamic radicalism or extremism,
and we heard that kind of vocabulary going back to
nine to eleven. Other people think that it is Islam itself.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
Which do you think it is?
Speaker 4 (22:31):
So I don't know.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
All I know is that As a lawyer, the thing
that I can address is the law. I can't address
whether somebody in their heart has bad intentions. I can
only address what they actually do in their behavior. So
if they are violating state law or they are violating
the Constitution, that we can try to address that, and
we have. We've sued different entities that have tried to
(22:56):
promote either Shari law or they have tried to promote
violation of our state and state and federal laws. And
that's where I come in. Whether they have bad intent
I don't know. I just I know that we don't
have problems with people that are peace loving and that
are willing to follow our laws. I can't really address
that because the Constitution created an environment where that's possible.
(23:18):
You just can't be violent, you can't promote terrorism, you
can't promote different laws in our country. And that's the
defining to me, Those are the defining issues.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Over the centuries, we've had many people come to America
from the outside, and initially it was the Irish, the Italians,
the Jews. Later you have people coming from outside of
Western civilization, and by and large, it seems that the
structures of the Constitution were quite adequate to deal with that. Right,
(23:49):
If you are Hindu and you want to practice Hinduism,
no problem, however, just don't break the law. The trick
that I want to raise with you, you have with
Islam a religion that is also a worldview and a
jurisprudence and an educational system, so that the mosque functions
(24:13):
a little differently in Islam than say a Hindu temple
or a church. And so do you think that the
Constitution by itself adequately deals with the issues raised by Islam?
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Yeah, I think it does.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
What maybe we haven't focused on is state and federal
law addressing the problems that come about when they follow
Sharer law as oppose following our laws. So I don't
think we've fully contemplated how to address that from state legislature,
from the federal government, and the legislature in Washington, d C.
(24:48):
But the Constitution, I think is pretty open to just
free expression.
Speaker 4 (24:53):
I don't have to agree with you.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
As long as you are following our laws, you're not violent,
you're not promoting harmed the people, and you're just freely worshiped.
I can completely disagree with you, and that's all fine,
and we can still have a society that I think
functions the way that the founders intenda which with complete freedom.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
And by the way, you have.
Speaker 3 (25:12):
The opportunity to express your views and try to convince
me that you're right. And I had the right to
express my view and try to convince you that possibly
I'm right.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
Let's say that I'm coming at this from the Islamic perspective,
and I have the idea that here I am in America,
and we have all these freedoms, and I'm going to
use these freedoms but to get me to a destination
where I'm strong enough to start extinguishing them one by one. So,
for example, I'm going to run my guys for school board.
(25:44):
I'm going to run them for city council. I'm going
to try to expand the number of Muslims and the Congress,
for example.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
And our goal is.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Shari a law, but not surely a law. Now, Shari
a law when we're strong enough to insist upon it.
And again when we insist upon it, we won't insist
upon it like Sharia for the whole country.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
It'll be well.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Listen, we need to have these no go zones where
keep the cops out keep the laws we'll have, sure
we form Muslims in those areas, and then you expand
outward from there.
Speaker 4 (26:14):
In other words, what I'm.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
Getting at is using the passport of our liberties to
take us to a destination that would crush those liberties.
Speaker 4 (26:23):
Yeah, look, I would be completely opposing that.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
Obviously, these are what most people come here to live under,
which is the freedom that we have versus other countries.
So if there are groups, if there are Muslim groups
trying to do that, I think we have to oppose them.
We have, and this is why elections matter. This is
why people have to show up at elections if they're
organizing better and they can try to influence policy towards
(26:48):
that direction. I mean, if we're not fighting it, we
can definitely lose our country from inside. And certainly that's
not what I want and I would do everything I
could to fight that and oppose that. But that's why
Americans have to pay attention to what's going on, and
they can't just believe everything that the media feeds them.
They need to understand what's really going on.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
The reason I think the sort of theological aspect is relevant.
And i'd like you as a lawyer to sort of
take stock of this. Is America's based on we the people,
and the fundamental idea is that the people are the
source of the laws. Islam is based on the idea
that the laws are handed down from on high. Allah
(27:29):
makes the law that's the meaning of Shariah, so that
the people have nothing to do with it. The people
are merely the instruments of Allah in like carrying out
those laws. And as I look at these two things,
they are kind of radically opposed to each other. Not
opposed on the edges, they're opposed fundamentally.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
Yeah, I do would disagree with that.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
I think that sharial law is in direct conflict with
our constitution, with state law and some federal law. So
I think, yes, if you are promoting a separate system
of law that comes from Allah versus what comes from
the people, the people who elect their representatives to make
these laws, that's a real problem. And I consider that
(28:10):
a real problem.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Is it possible to say that Islam is the problem
not necessarily Muslims, And by that I mean you could
have a Muslim guy that is or is not in
sort of full conformity with the kind of deep down
doctrines of Islam. So the issue isn't the Muslim but
(28:32):
it is the ideology, which, as I said, is not
just a theology, but includes a philosophy and a jurisprudence
and really a comprehensive doctrine of society.
Speaker 4 (28:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
So if you're following that doctrine that we all have
to be under Sharia law, that somehow terrorism harming people
is is is okay because we have a greater goal here.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
Yeah, that's a real problem.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
And I think that if that is what is going
on in certain segments of Islam, that does not work
with our constitutional form of government. It does not even
work with the idea that we're free, because that's controlled
by a few people, not everybody.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
How do you handle the politics of this. You're campaigning
for the Senate. There are Muslims in the state of Texas.
I assume you want at least some of them, maybe
a lot of them to vote for you. If the
Muslim goes, hey, listen, I'm a Muslim, so I subscribe
to the Quran, and whatever it says in the Quran,
I may not know everything in there, but whatever it
(29:35):
says I'm on board with. And you're telling me that
there's something wrong with my religion. How would you answer that?
Speaker 4 (29:43):
First, I don't have to agree with anybody's religion. I don't.
I mean, I have my own faith.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
It's different from many faith but that doesn't mean we
can't agree that certain people are better representing us in
the US Senate or in Congress. It's not based on
necessarily do I agree with every tenet of every religion.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
I don't. I have known faith that is different than
many faiths.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
But I have people from all kinds of faiths that
are willing to support me because they like the agenda,
the freedom agenda that we promote, one that is based
on the Constitution, that's based on the power coming from
the people and being accountable to them. And I would
assume that there are some Muslims that actually want that.
They came here for the freedom that we all experience,
(30:29):
and if you want something different, my push to them
would be, then go somewhere different.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Here's a hypothetical which is not that far from from
what's happening in Texas. So an Islamic group comes to you,
you're in the Senate, and they say, hey, we want
to buy five thousand acres of land in Texas. It's
the free market. We're going to pay with our own money.
We want to construct the largest mosque in Texas.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
We want to create.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
A madrasa school from Muslim boys. And yeah, we're going
to be teaching the Koran and we're going to be
teaching sure, real law. But you believe in free markets,
you believe in free speech, you believe in freedom of religion.
On what grounds would you oppose us? You should be
supporting us, because this is a conservative thing that we're doing.
What would you say.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
I would say, you have every right to express your
religion however you want to. Whatch you don't have a
right to do is impose those laws on a segment
of the population that are different than the laws that
the overall population of that state or of the United
States has put in place. That you can't do that
in the United States. So you can talk about any
(31:37):
issue you want to. It can be very extreme, it
can be very as long as you're not promoting harming people.
You can have all the views you want that are
different than anything that I might think is right. It's
your right in this country to have different views, to
express those views, to worship however you want to, but
you cannot impose your own legal system that is separate
and apart from the legal system that we have in
(31:58):
this country.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
That is unconstitutional and is not acceptable.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
You just went through a bruising but ultimately highly successful
campaign against Cornin. Now people sometimes call Cornin a rhino,
but he wasn't a rhino in the sense that he
wasn't one of these guys who was constantly subverting the
Republican or the Trump or the MAGA agenda.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
He claimed.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
I think, with some justification, I'm mostly on board with Trump,
and yet you were able to challenge him, expose him,
and defeat him, and quite easily and decisively. How did
you do that?
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I think just exposing his record that he did have
certain issues, whether it was Second Amendment, whether it was
the border, whether it's just being not in favor of
Trunk being elected.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Either time.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
It's one thing to talk about, it's another thing to
show proof of that. And so I think, you know,
I always tell people look at the record, not the rhetoric,
and the record is oftentimes different than the rhetorican in
this case, I think that proved to be true.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
So you know, we need to move on.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
I'm ready to move on and focus on the next round.
We've got to unite all the Republicans, whether you've voted for.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
Me or not.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
We've got to defeat this guy, James tell Rico, who
is I think the most radical politician that has ever
run in Texas, and he's out in San Francisco right
now raising money from the people that he actually agrees with.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Making an important point here, I think, which is that
you actually need the corn in voters to come over
to your side, and you get them in part by
exposing how bad taal Rico is right.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
And just because John and I had disagreements, they're not
the same kind of disagreements that I have with James Tealerrico.
Those are much Those are like as wide of a
chasm as you can get. John and I had disagreements
over certain issues, but it isn't like being I mean,
he was a Republican and so we do have some similarities.
And when you're in elections, you have to pick. You
(33:58):
only have two choices in selection. You have to pick
the one that you think is going to best represent you.
And in this case, you couldn't have a more diverse choice.
Speaker 1 (34:08):
I'm trying to understand this tallaryical phenomenon, because if I
were running the DNC or or the Democratic Party in Texas,
I would say, look, it's really important to get some
guy who is very centrist to run in Texas. It's
a red state. How on earth are we going to
beat a Paxton. We need a guy who's sort of
a rancher. We need a guy who's kind of like
(34:29):
a man's man. We need a guy who's sort of
right leaning, at least on certain issues.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
They don't do that.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
They go find this Tallarico character who you know, he
puts on a cowboy hat three times the size of
his head, and he has a photo of him in
a truck. But it seems to be a masquerade. And
my question is, why are the Dems going for a masquerade?
Why don't they try to find a real candidate.
Speaker 4 (34:54):
Maybe they can't. Maybe they can't. I think that may
be the real problem.
Speaker 3 (34:57):
So they're going with They're going with the personality as
opposed to real character that represents the values of Texas.
They couldn't have picked anybody worse to represent the values
of Texas.
Speaker 4 (35:07):
So what do they do?
Speaker 3 (35:10):
This is typical of them, they masquerade as somebody that
is different than what they actually are. So if you
look at James Talerico's actual views, he's running from all
of them, all the ones that he ran on in
the primary, all the ones that he supported in the
Texas legislature. Now suddenly he's adopting not just a little
different version, completely different version.
Speaker 4 (35:30):
I am not that guy. What did he say?
Speaker 3 (35:33):
I was taking his cringy comments and focusing on them.
I know, I'm taking your real positions on issues that
are very radical for Texas that would fit in San Francisco,
because that's obviously why he's there, because he knows those
people will write checks to him because they want him
to represent Texas, and they're using their money to make
that happen.
Speaker 1 (35:54):
Tall Rico has a very well, he would call it
a progressive Christianity. It appears to be, at least for
traditional Christians, a very strange doctrine because he'll talk about
the fact that you know, Mary, in conceiving Jesus was
actually exercising the pro choice position, or he'll talk about
(36:18):
God being non binary. I mean, this is not normally
the stuff of politics, because it's getting into the issues
of theology. But how do you how do you respond
to this kind of exotica.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
Say, it's it's he's deceptive, it's not the theology of Christianity,
of any kind of historical Christianity that he holds, And
it's it's dangerous because he's he's deceiving people about what
these scriptures actually say. There's very few historical Christians that
would agree with his view that that somehow abortion is
(36:53):
approved by Mary and the range between marry and God,
that God's non binary. You know that there are six genders.
That is not historical Christianity. That is a something else.
It's that I would consider antithetical to Christianity. It would
be it would be views that were actually opposed by scripture,
that are opposed by most Christians. So I think it's
(37:13):
it's a little scary that he is promoting himself as
a pastor and somebody that's an expert on the scriptures,
when in reality he has in his head what he
wants and he goes out and creates scriptural basis for
making up his own Bible.
Speaker 1 (37:27):
And is your campaign strategy pretty simple, which is just
take these positions, these extreme positions theological political highlight them
kind of put it in people's faces, and they're going
to the ordinary text and is going to go, I'm
not on board with that. I mean, do you have
to do anything more than that in this right now?
Speaker 4 (37:44):
That's it's pretty simple.
Speaker 3 (37:46):
The campaign is let people know, because you know, no
one really knows James Seller here. What have he's been
in the sex legislature. What are his accomplishments He has
virtually none.
Speaker 4 (37:55):
So what we have is his.
Speaker 3 (37:57):
Promoting certain things, him voting against For instance, when they
tried to ban transitioning children, he.
Speaker 4 (38:04):
Voted against him.
Speaker 3 (38:05):
But now he says he's not for transitioning kids. Well,
then why did you vote that way? So it's really
easy for him to come back off of these issues
and say he's not.
Speaker 4 (38:14):
He doesn't believe those anymore.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Those are just cringey issues that I took to use
against them. No, these are the things you promoted while
you were a representatives. You were doing interviews, promoting these views,
and now suddenly you know you can't win in Texas. California, yes,
San Francisco, yes, where you are now, but you cannot
win in Texas holding the views that James Tallerica holds
and So what does he do.
Speaker 4 (38:35):
He runs from all of them.
Speaker 3 (38:36):
Now, you know he was ahead of vegan campaign because
you know we're harming the environment by eating meat.
Speaker 4 (38:41):
Now you see him doing videos eating meat.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
He claimed that the flag was a complicated, you know
American symbol that you know has its issues.
Speaker 4 (38:50):
Well, now he's wearing a flag is his shirt. So
he is.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
Running away from almost every single position that he knows
Texans won't vote for him.
Speaker 4 (38:59):
Well, no, I don't believe those anymore. Vote for me anyway.
Speaker 3 (39:02):
We're going to put those back and say, wait a minute,
how do you justify what you said and how you
voted with what you're telling us now?
Speaker 4 (39:08):
Are you a liar?
Speaker 3 (39:09):
Or did you have a radical transformation when you won
the Democratic primary and now you're in a general what happened?
Speaker 1 (39:15):
Well, seems to me he's in a trap because he
could say I have really undergone a conversion, sort of
like I used to be an atheist and now I'm
a Christian. I used to be a vegan now. But
usually people who have those transformations have got to give
a sincere and believable account of how they got from
here to there. I think the problem is that for
(39:35):
him he's got to convince the liberal billionaires who give
him money, no, I'm still with you. And at the
same time he's got to convince the Texans I'm with you. Right.
So isn't he forced to play this double game where
he speaks, as they used to say, with four kid tongue.
Speaker 3 (39:53):
If he'd actually had a transformation, what he have spent
several days in San Francisco raising money, he had a
real transformation, he would be very vocal about that transformation.
And those people in San Francisco who are trying to
help him become the next US centator from Texas would
not be supporting him. Would They would be running from
him because if he was being honest then with them
(40:18):
about those views, they wouldn't support him. So he's playing
it both ways, right. He's raising money under the umbrella
of who he really is. He's running publicly in Texas
under the umbrella no, I'm not that guy, even though
I raise all my money from those people and I
tell them that I am that guy. Believe me, please,
I don't believe any of those views. Now that I'm
running for Texas senator, I'm out of the primary.
Speaker 1 (40:40):
Let's talk about this save Act because one of the
actually I think master strokes of your campaign is you
at one point even declared, Hey, if the Senate will
pass the Save Act and if Cornyn and Thune will
push this through, I'll get out of the race. They
didn't do it, And my question is why didn't they
do it? I mean, this is a voter ID has.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
Widespread public support. It's an eighty twenty issue.
Speaker 1 (41:05):
As some people like to say, why on earth would
Republicans who know this and they can see the data
as well as you and I can. What's going on
with the Senate and with the sort of establishment that
you've been to some degree running against.
Speaker 3 (41:18):
Yeah, so there apparently are Republican centers some who are
leaving that don't believe that's a worthy bill, and I
don't understand it. I don't think there is a more
worthy bill up there, because we do not protect our
elections with the photo ID, making sure that non citizens
are not voting, making sure that our mail in ballots
are not being used to defraud us, which they are
(41:39):
all over the country and they tried to do it here.
Speaker 4 (41:42):
We none of our issues are going to matter.
Speaker 3 (41:44):
So oh, yeah, you can protect the filibuster all you want,
but if we lose control of all of these states,
we're not going to have a Republican majority anyway, because
they're going to cheat in all these dates. They already
doing in most of the Democratic states. It's why we
can't win them. They why does it take? You know,
however many days count ballots in California, it takes a
little while to cheat.
Speaker 4 (42:02):
And they are absolutely with mail in ballots. We don't
know who's voting. If you don't if you can mail
up mail, abust.
Speaker 3 (42:08):
Everybody, and you have no idea through photo ID or
through at least a signature verification, who's sending him back.
One hundred percent, there is fraud going on at a
massive level. And if we are not going to fix
that as Republicans, and we will, we have something to
count on in the future, which is a Democratic majority
that we can never unsea because once they rig the
elections in these states and we haven't fixed them in time,
(42:31):
that when we've lost our majority, game over none of
our issues matter anyway. So I don't know how you
defend a filibuster, as valuable as that might be to
stop bad legislation.
Speaker 4 (42:41):
I do not disagree with that.
Speaker 3 (42:42):
I like the filibuster from the standpoint being a minority,
but we are at a crucial stage in our history
that if we do not protect elections, the filibuster has
no meaning.
Speaker 1 (42:54):
Do you think that the reason that that Thune is
acting the way he is is he has thew you
kind of the Marquis of Queensbury rules, which is, hey, listen,
we need to protect the filibuster because we want to
make sure that they don't get rid of the filibuster.
But of course they the Democrats, if they were in
(43:16):
our position, would have done it anyway. And second of all,
they're getting ready to do it when they need to
when they're in power. So we are our side is
resting on a kind of gentleman's agreement, with no confidence
that we're dealing with gentlemen in the first place.
Speaker 3 (43:31):
Yeah, And I think part of it is, you know,
if you look at the US Senate, he doesn't have
the member.
Speaker 4 (43:36):
Votes to get it done. And that to me is
a problem.
Speaker 3 (43:38):
That's a sad problem for the republic majority that cannot
govern because we don't have the wisdom to see what's
coming at us. And you know, they're going to hold
onto their seats for a little while longer, but eventually
they're not going to be able to maintain the majority
because if the elections are not fair and free of
most fraud, this idea that they're somehow protecting against being
(44:02):
a minority is just you know, it's a pipe dream.
It's not gonna work out.
Speaker 1 (44:09):
Taller Rico seems to me one of his weapons that
he's already started like unfurling against you, is he says,
I'm a straight lace guy. Ken has a very checker
and he's been impeached. He's got this, he's got accusations
of extramarrial affairs. Texans need to vote for the straight
lace tallar Rico and not the dubious Ken Paxton.
Speaker 3 (44:32):
Well, first of all, you'll know that when you are
fighting the fight, you know what happens. They come after you.
It's what happened to Donald Trump. Matter of fact, I
have a very similar history with him. I mean we've
both been impeached. He's been impeached twice, I've been impeached once.
We've both gone through indictments. He's had more indictments. But
when you're in the middle of the fight with the
(44:54):
left and even some of the establishment. They come after you,
and look, why does it not matter that they have
to prove what they actually are accusing you of, and
yet they go on accusing you as if you've.
Speaker 4 (45:06):
Done it with no proof.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
So what I would say is, these are people that
they don't want to talk about the issues.
Speaker 4 (45:12):
They want to talk about personal stuff. They don't want to.
Speaker 3 (45:14):
Talk about the issues because they know that if we're
talking about James Talerico's positions on boys and girls sports,
on transitioning children, on saying that you know he's running
a vegan campaign, on saying that God's non binary, the
list goes onto saying that you can't be Christian and
spoil the you know, oil and gas industry. These are
(45:35):
things that he doesn't want to talk about. So let's
make it personal. Let's not talk about all my bad
positions that will hurt the country.
Speaker 4 (45:42):
Let's try to make him look like he's a bad guy. Well,
guess what.
Speaker 3 (45:46):
The voters of Texas have spoken many many times. They've
been coming after me for over a decade. They came out,
They've come after Trump Trump for over a decade, and
the people of Texas will see through it.
Speaker 1 (45:56):
Ken, what are some things that you did as Attorney
General to deal with the problem of the Islamification of Texas.
Speaker 4 (46:05):
So my focus is always in the law.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
I'm a lawyer, I represent the state, I represent all
the agencies of governor or legislature. So one we've defended
when the Muslim Brotherhood and Cares sued the governor when
he eliminated certain practices. But also when we've seen examples
of certain entities Islam related who are not following Texas law,
(46:32):
we've sued him or we've investigated him. So we've shut
down certain developments out in Coffin County. We've sued over
the Epic City over a couple of different issues. One
is violation of state security laws. We also think they
violiated federal securities laws. And then we also.
Speaker 4 (46:47):
Think they did not appropriately manage the way.
Speaker 3 (46:49):
The process is supposed to be done with open meetings
and the way those are supposed to be accomplished.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
So we suit them over that.
Speaker 3 (46:55):
So when you don't follow our laws, then we are going.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
To address that.
Speaker 3 (46:59):
As i SA said earlier, if you want to go worship,
you go worship the way you want. If you want
to exist in our society, you have to follow our state,
our federal and our constitution. That's where I come in
to try to focus on. If you're not doing that,
we're going to stop you.
Speaker 1 (47:15):
Would it be fair to say that your position, even
where broadly can be summarized like this, that if there
are Islamic groups that are running a foul of the law,
you can count on the authorities, or you should count
on the authorities to be able to crack down on it.
But if you have a larger problem, let's say, you know,
you think that Islam is changing the cultural environment of Texas,
(47:35):
or there are too many mosques in the suburbs, then
guess what. It's your job as a voter to step
forward and be as active as the Muslims apparently are
in exercising your ballot and voting for the Texas that
you want.
Speaker 3 (47:50):
Absolutely, this is fundamental to a free society. It's fundamental
with the founder's envision was direct involvement of the people.
Put the power in the hands of the people. And
if you're not paying attention, if you're not paying attention
to the issues around you, whether positive or negative, and
you're not voting, then guess what. You can lose your
(48:11):
state We've seen it happen. You can lose your country.
We've seen other countries loss. We have a responsibility for
our children, for ourselves and for our grandchild to step up,
pay attention, vote and help the people that are doing
the things that we want done.
Speaker 4 (48:26):
Thank you very much, thank you.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Big news coming out on silver right now. The US
just added silver to the Critical Minerals List.
Speaker 2 (48:37):
What does this mean?
Speaker 1 (48:38):
This is an important list of minerals that are considered
crucial for US security and economic viability. So when you
buy silver to help protect your savings, you're also buying
a critical mineral that's needed for the US and its
economy to survive. That's why I want you to reach
out to my partners over at gold Co. They're the
number one gold and silver company in the country. They
(48:59):
have all eight thousand and five star reviews, and they
have the best gold and silver offer in the business.
So don't put this off, don't ignore the facts. Get
your free twenty twenty six gold and silver kit from
gold Co while you still can, and get up to
ten percent in bonus gold or silver while supplies last.
Go to dinesh goold dot com. That's Dinesh Gold dot com.
Speaker 2 (49:26):
I'm now on substack.
Speaker 1 (49:28):
It's a platform for articles and videos, and I've just
released a series of articles on the five key American Founders.
This is in honor of America's two hundred and fiftieth
anniversary and of course, in celebration of July fourth this week.
Speaker 2 (49:43):
So who are these founders?
Speaker 1 (49:44):
Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin.
My idea is not to try and tell the life
story of these men, but rather to identify the one
big idea that each of them stood for their unique
count tribution to the founding of America and to the
America we live in now. I think you'll find my
(50:05):
account's memorable, educational, inspiring. To read them, go to Dinesh
Desuza No apostrophe, Denesh Deesuza dot substack dot com. Become
a monthly subscriber. But I also have lots of free
content on substack, and you're welcome to check it all
out and then decide if you want to subscribe. Once again,
go to Dinesh Desuza dot substack dot com. Guys, I
(50:30):
want to announce I have a new book coming out
in the Fall I'm very excited about. It's called The
Stones cry Out subtitle Biblical Archaeology, Prophecy and the Last Days.
The book outlines the greatest discoveries in Biblical archaeology that
affirm the Bible, confirm the presence of the Jews and
the Holy Land, and also support the twin foundations of
(50:53):
Western civilization, which are Athens and Jerusalem. The Stones cry
Out has rave review from archaeologists, from leading pastors, and
from prominent commentators of the book, published by Charisma Books,
is available now for pre orders on Amazon. So I'm
calling a new early birds to order your copies now.
You'll be the first to get it when it's out.
The Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship has produced a
national crisis, but not for the reason that most people think.
The crisis is not whether the Supreme Court, including its
Republican appointees, has been captured by the left. Nor is
it over whether illegals who have children in this country
can thereby confer citizenship on them.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Neither of those things, as I'll explain, is really the
core problem.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
First of all, the Republican appointees on the Court are
not exactly rhinos or secret Democrats. Consider Amy Cony Barrett.
She voted to get rid of Robi Wade, she gave
Trump immunity from prosecution. She voted to end affirmative action,
She expanded gun rights, She ended special black and minority
voting districts in just a few days ago, voted against
(01:01):
the right of biological males to compete in women's sports. Now,
Barrett is, as Trump knew before he appointed her, a
political and cultural conservative. Even so, I see on social
media that Barrett voted the way she did because she's
a woman and women don't have the capacity to govern,
or she's a DEI appointed to the Court, or her
(01:21):
decision is based on the fact that she and her
husband adopted Haitian children. Now I'm dubious about all this.
Let's take up my second point. There are illegals who
have been in this country for twenty or even thirty years.
I am not happy about this because they two broke
the law. Even so, no one, not even Clarence Thomas,
(01:43):
challenges the fact that their children in this country have
a constitutional right to be US citizens. Why because the
relevant constitutional phrase is quote subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
It means subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
and quite obviously a family living here for decades is
(02:04):
subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn't owe its loyalty to
any other country. Moreover, one cannot pragmatically send these children
back to countries to which they have no ties and
whose language they very often do not speak. Thomas alludes
to this in his dissenting opinion. So what are we
talking about here. We're talking about birth tourism, which is
(02:27):
to say, about people who come to this country in
order to have children so that their children can automatically
become US citizens.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
That's the core issue.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Does the Constitution a firm births tourism as a right,
and what, if anything, do we do about it. Let's
begin by noting that there's no good argument for birth tourism. Recently,
The New York Times had a long profile of a
Honduran woman who was deported from the country and then
travels seventeen hundred miles to sneak back in so her
(02:58):
child could be born in a Mayora. The profile was
intended to garner sympathy, and to some extent it does,
But even here it's quite obvious that birthright citizenship birth
tourism in this way should not be allowed. People should
not be able to go around our immigration laws and
do this, regardless of their long term aspirations for their children. Then,
(03:19):
on the darker side, investigative journalist Peter Schweitzer my friend Peter,
who has been profiled in more than one of my films,
reveals that the Chinese are running a sophisticated birthright scam
on the United States. Over the past ten years, Chinese
men have dispatched roughly one million Chinese women to come
and have kids in this country. The kids then go
(03:39):
back to China, but they are now dual citizens. They
can vote in US elections, and over time their kids
would also be US citizens, and this way the Chinese
gain important leverage in controlling the outcome of close US elections.
Think about that, Given that we cannot give even a
single case in which birth tourism is disease, we can't
(04:00):
even imagine when it would be a good idea. It
is surpassingly strange that the Constitution seems to say that
there is an unqualified right for children born in this
country to be US citizens. It is even odder that
this practice has continued in this country for a century
and a half, and now an ideologically diverse majority on
(04:21):
the Supreme Court, three liberals and at least two conservatives
have affirmed that constitutional reading and that historical precedent. Sure,
we can scream about the decision, we make outrageous demands. Recently,
I saw a social media post that we should nullify
the court ruling, we should require sterilization of foreign visitors
(04:42):
prior to entry, we should dissolve the union itself. This
is irresponsible rhetoric because it makes no sense and it's
never going to happen. We cannot solve this problem without
recognizing what the problem exactly is. So what is the problem?
Whenever we deal with issue of justice or jurisprudence. We
(05:02):
can resolve it in one of two ways. We can
look for a principle that governs the matter, or we
can look at the consequences of what we decide. If
we go with the principle or rule, we tend to
downplay or ignore the consequences. If we go with consequences,
then we're willing to bend the principle or rule in
order to accommodate the outcome we want. This is such
(05:24):
a crucial distinction. I want to illustrate it with a
real life example. Consider a nerdy college student who makes
awkward sexual remarks to get noticed by girls.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
He goes up to girls and talks to him about
porn or about his cat being in heat.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Now, if this were to happen at an elite college
in say nineteen fifty, the dean would haul in the
kid and say, listen, weirdo, cut out that nonsense. I'm
giving you a warning, but if you do this again,
I'm going to have you pack your bags and go
home for the semester. Now, this is justice by consequence.
There are no rules. The dean basically looks at the
(06:00):
the kid's actions of cause and since the harm is
not so great, he makes a decision that keeps the
kid in school, but seeks to avoid a repetition of
the offending conduct. But today, that same college probably has
sexual harassment rules. Let's say the rule says that if
you sexually harass a girl, you'll be suspended for a
year or expelled. Now the dean has no discretion. You
(06:23):
violated the rule, and so he must send you home.
This is justice by principle and rule. There is some discretion,
ranging from suspension to expulsion, but only within the parameters
set by the rule. Now here's my point. There is
no room for consequences for consequential reasoning in our constitutional law.
(06:44):
There is room for such reasoning and other types of law.
For instance, in the British common law, it's routine for
judges to ask, what are you asking me to do?
What will be the effects of me ruling this way
versus that way? Who will be affected by my ruling
and how? This is consequential reasoning, which considers rules and precedents,
but it also considers the results of the decision itself.
(07:09):
Notice that of the various opinions delivered by the Supreme
Court on the birthright citizenship issue. Not a single one
openly employed consequential reasoning or reasoning by consequences. Every single
one purported to affirm some sort of constitutional principle. Now,
I'm going to ignore the liberals here because their reasoning
(07:29):
is mostly gobbledegook.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
I'm going to focus only on.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
The Republicans because that's how today's Supreme Court decisions are decided. Now,
the Conservatives broke into two camps, the majority camp with
the decision written by Chief Justice Roberts joined by Barrett,
and a dissident or minority camp with strong dissent by
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justice Kavanaugh took a middle position,
(07:52):
basically siding with birthright citizenship but offering a narrow legislative
pathway to limit certain types of it. Now, let's look
at the majority's reasoning, which is reasoning from principle. The
majority says, the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment affirms
birthright citizenship, and that of course would necessarily include birthright tourism.
(08:14):
Anyone born here is automatically eligible for citizenship. Sure, there
is that textual qualification, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But
the majority says that merely means that people who are
in America a subject to the jurisdiction of America and
the laws of America. Even a foreign tourist or ambassador
who's merely coming here residing here is at least to
(08:36):
some extent.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Subject to our laws.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Moreover, the majority camp of conservatives notes that birthright citizenship
has been the operating constitutional principle for one hundred and
fifty years since the end of the Civil War, when
the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. Precedent in law gives support
and corroboration to constitutional principle. Something is more likely to
be rightly decided when courts for more than a century
(09:02):
have read it that way. Frankly, this is a pretty
strong principled case for birthright citizenship and yet justice as
Thomas and Alito take it on. Thomas and Alito basically
make two key points, both of which focus on the
intentions of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the
framers intended through this amendment to give citizenship to the
(09:25):
former slaves and to their children born in this country.
This was their clear purpose in enacting the constitutional change.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
The slaves were brought here against their will.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
They had no place else to go, no allegiance to
any foreign power. America was their only home, and they
were given citizenship for their children based on that second
a related point, the Framers did not intend to give
citizenship to the children of foreigners with no allegiance to
this country. That's why those who proposed the law made
it clear. The children of foreign ambassadors were excluded. The
(09:59):
children of others foreign diplomats didn't qualify. Obviously, the children
of an invading army wouldn't get citizenship by virtue of
being born here. Significantly, the children of American Indians didn't
qualify either. Why not because the Indian tribes were considered
foreign nations. In other words, their allegiance was to their
(10:19):
nation within a nation, not to the United States. Thomas
and Alito therefore interpret the phrase subject to the jurisdiction
thereof as referring not merely to geographical presence in America,
but rather to fundamental allegiance to the United States as
opposed to some other nation. Now notice that both camps
here are arguing in terms of principle. The majority camp
(10:43):
is emphasizing the seemingly plain language of the rule, while
the dissident camp is emphasizing the underlying motive or intention
of the framers of the rule. The two sides are
disagreeing on what the principle is, not on whether a
principle should decide the issue. Yet, the outrage over birthright
(11:03):
citizenship and specifically birth tourism has nothing to do with
any of this. It does not derive at all from
outrage over the underlying motives of the framers.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
To see this, let's do a thought experiment.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Let's imagine that the founders did intend to make birthright.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Citizenship a constitutional right.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Let's assume that in the nineteenth century, when the country
had lots of empty space, the framers of the fourteen
Amendment felt, Hey, it's a big country. We don't mind
if anyone who comes here for any reason and has
a kid, that kid should be a US citizen. Now,
with this diminished today in the least our profound conviction
that birthright citizenship and birth tourism are a menace and
(11:41):
must be stopped, would it make us go, oh, okay,
now that we know what those guys really meant, we're
going to just go along with it.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Of course not.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Our point is that the circumstances have changed. The country
is now full. The people who are coming here have
very different goals and motives and the people who came
in the past. We're facing a national security threat from
countries like China that exploit our laws in this way.
In short, our opposition derives entirely from the consequences of birthrights, citizenship,
(12:12):
and birth tourism. I'm sure that dissenters like Alito and
Thomas are quite aware of the deleterious consequences, yet remarkably
they are prevented from openly stating these consequences in their opinions.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Why is this, Well, it's.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Because of fifty years of conservative jurisprudence we have taught them.
We conservatives have collectively affirmed that it is not the
job of a judge to consider consequences. It is the
sole responsibility of judges to determine what the Constitution says,
illuminated in ambiguous cases by figuring out the intentions of
(12:48):
the framers.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Once the judge has done that, his job is done.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
I'm sure that if you pressed a Chief Justice Robert
so Amy Coney Barrett with horror stories about birth tourism,
they would nod their heads and sympathy and say, well, yeah,
but it's not our job to worry about outcomes. Our
job is to figure out and apply what the Constitution
says and what it means. Our task is one of ascertaining, meaning,
not deciphering, how the world will turn out if we
(13:15):
rule this way or that way. So that's what we
did here, And of course the dissenters who have been
raised in the same tradition must pretend that that is
also what they are doing. They must pretend that they're
concerned with birthright citizenship and birth tourism is not Honduran
women who sneak into the country with dubious motives, or
Chinese billionaires who are trying to change the electoral landscape,
(13:38):
but rather with the correct way to parse the phrases
in the text, either by consulting their dictionary meaning or
by excavating the motives.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Of their drafters.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
I hope you can see here that I'm trying to
identify not merely the defects of this particular ruling, which
flies in the face of all sound reasoning and common sense,
but also to highlight a defect in our constitutional jurisprudence itself.
What am I saying. I'm saying it's time to put
thirty years of conservative jurisprudence on trial. Why, because we
(14:11):
have talked our way into a box. We have elevated
original meaning and original intent jurisprudence into our highest constitutional principle,
and in doing so, our Supreme Court conservatives are forced
to make decisions entirely within this framework. And as we
can see from this single but crucially important case, the
framework is inadequate. In fact, the framework almost by itself
(14:35):
dictates the outcome. And if we keep the framework, we
risk the very destruction of the country. If we say, yeah,
but what else can we do, we're basically saying that
in order to keep our jurisprudential principle, we are willing
to give up the country itself. Consequences be damned, No,
this is ridiculous. Consequences must be taken into account, and
(14:58):
within our jurisprudence itself. We need a maga jurisprudence that
is not a rejection of Reaganized jurisprudence, but one that
updates so modifies the Reagan approach to the new situation
in which we find ourselves today. Doesn't this in a
way describe the whole MAGA movement. Policy solutions are not sufficient.
(15:18):
It's not enough to say, Okay, well let's stop pregnant
people from coming to this country. Okay, well let's stop
all immigration. Okay, let's prosecute criminal birth tourism schemes. Basically,
this approach is a way of saying, we're stuck in
this terrible box. So let's think of creative, even if
somewhat bizarre, ways to find some small holes in the box.
(15:38):
But the best way to get out of the box
is to open the box and step out. How do
we do this, My answer is really simple. We have
to reintroduce consequential reasoning into our constitutional jurisprudence. Now, this
consequential reasoning doesn't mean you can't have principles, but it
does mean that principles must give way to reasonable exceptions
(16:01):
when the consequences are bad. Stop applying the principle In short,
create exceptions. By the way, we do this now with
some of our fundamental constitutional principles, consider the First Amendment,
protection of free speech. Quote Congress shall make no law
restricting freedom of speech end quote. Or really, we have
all kinds of laws that restrict speech.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Here are a few.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
You can't shout fire in a crowded theater if there's
no fire. You can't use free speech to offer to
bribe a public official. You can't conspire through speech to
commit crimes. You can't threaten the life of the president.
You can't even go into a neighborhood with a big
bullhorn and shout slogans all day.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
But why not.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Doesn't the Constitution say? Well, yes, it does say, but no.
One wants to live in a society where speech is
used in these deleterious ways. The consequences in these important
cases override the principles. So we have a yes, but application. Yes,
we believe in free speech in most cases, but not
in this one, and not in that one, and not.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
In these other cases either.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
I think we need to convince our conservatives on the
Supreme Court and conservatives around the country that our previous
approach to jurisprudence is inadequate, not wrong, but incomplete. We
need to make room for reasonable exceptions based on an
evaluation of the consequences. This might require a new test case,
perhaps one involving Chinese birthright tourism, to get before the
(17:26):
Supreme Court. So the Court can rethink, can modify the
current ruling, but this requires Roberts and Barrett to alter
their jurisprudence to accept the cogency of the arguments presented here.
When consequences are taken into account, courts might decide that
certain types of birthright citizenships, such as a children whose
parents have been in the country a long while, should
(17:49):
be permitted, while others, such as tourists who are coming
here merely to give birth and thereby create US citizens,
should not. Actions and other words have real world consequences,
and it's about time the jurisprudence of our highest court
reflected this reality. And that's the way I see it.
(18:13):
If you're sixty four or older, here's an inflation report
you don't hear about, but should. This year, your Medicare
premiums went up nearly ten percent. Your cost of living
race under three. Think about that. You can't control premiums,
but you can control your plan. Millions of seniors are
on the wrong one, overpaying without even knowing it. They
(18:35):
are real savings to be had, but most people never
look chapter does. They're independent. The only Medicare advisors that
compare every plan nationwide.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
They look at your doctors, your prescriptions.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
What matters to you, and find the plan that protects
you and your wallet.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
They've helped thousands in my audience.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Myself included navigate the Medicare maze. Just last year, those
who found you plans with Chapters saved an average of
eleven hundred dollars on healthcare. Some of you told me
you saved as much as four thousand or five thousand dollars,
all from one twenty minute call call Chapter. Today, they're
a free resource for my audience. Seven oh six two
(19:17):
six two four seven seven four. Again that's seven oh
six two six two four seven seven four. Stop paying
more than you should. Here's the thing about crypto, it's
here to stay.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
That argument is over. But think about it.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
If this is a market that never sleeps, it's moving
at midnight, it's two am, three am, and while you're asleep,
who's watching. Because here's what nobody tells you. Most crypto
platforms give you a log in, wish you luck and call.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
It a day. That's not investing.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
That's gambling with your retirement and hoping for the best.
That's why I've partnered with block trust IRA. Block trust
Ira is cryptoio built for Americans who refuse to be
on the losing side of that equation. Their award winning
AI engine navigates the notoriously volatile crypto markets around the clock,
(20:12):
automatically rebalancing your portfolio to protect your gains and limit
your exposure when markets swing. No panic, no emotion, no
missleep At three am. Your savings sit inside a two
hundred million dollar institutional grade insurance shield, managed intelligently and
secured from day one.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Their AI never sleeps.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
It's rebalancing your portfolio around the clock, managing risk, responding
to volatility, protecting what you've built, automatically, intelligently, without panic.
Voted Bitcoin Magazine number one Technology platform, and that doesn't
surprise me one bit. Open your CRYPTOIRA today and block trust.
(20:54):
IRA will give you up to a twenty five hundred
dollars inflation shield bonus.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
It's right into your account.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Go to dneshcrypto dot com and sign up today. They
can print dollars, but they cannot print crypto. That's dneshcrypto
dot com. Ken it seems that there's a project underway,
led by a bunch of activists to islamlify the state
(21:25):
of Texas, to bring Islam to Texas and to increase
the influence of Islam in Texas. Just something that worries.
He was just a good thing or a bad thing.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
So look, I've always been a First Amendment I believe
with the constitition, with the Founders put in place in
the First Amendment of free speech, free expression of religion.
I think it's been fundamental to our country to have
that freedom. But we when we look at what's going
on in Europe and countries being taken over and allowing
Sharia law and the influence of Shria law to take
(21:54):
over the legal system. That's where I start having difficulties
because those law laws are in conflict with our constitution
and sometimes in conflict with federal and state laws. And
when that's occurring, that is a concern to me because
we will lose our constitutional republic and our freedoms if
we do not protect those laws.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Some people say that the issue is Islamic radicalism or extremism,
and we heard that kind of vocabulary going back to
nine to eleven. Other people think that it is Islam itself.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
Which do you think it is?
Speaker 4 (22:31):
So I don't know.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
All I know is that As a lawyer, the thing
that I can address is the law. I can't address
whether somebody in their heart has bad intentions. I can
only address what they actually do in their behavior. So
if they are violating state law or they are violating
the Constitution, that we can try to address that, and
we have. We've sued different entities that have tried to
(22:56):
promote either Shari law or they have tried to promote
violation of our state and state and federal laws. And
that's where I come in. Whether they have bad intent
I don't know. I just I know that we don't
have problems with people that are peace loving and that
are willing to follow our laws. I can't really address
that because the Constitution created an environment where that's possible.
(23:18):
You just can't be violent, you can't promote terrorism, you
can't promote different laws in our country. And that's the
defining to me, Those are the defining issues.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Over the centuries, we've had many people come to America
from the outside, and initially it was the Irish, the Italians,
the Jews. Later you have people coming from outside of
Western civilization, and by and large, it seems that the
structures of the Constitution were quite adequate to deal with that. Right,
(23:49):
If you are Hindu and you want to practice Hinduism,
no problem, however, just don't break the law. The trick
that I want to raise with you, you have with
Islam a religion that is also a worldview and a
jurisprudence and an educational system, so that the mosque functions
(24:13):
a little differently in Islam than say a Hindu temple
or a church. And so do you think that the
Constitution by itself adequately deals with the issues raised by Islam?
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Yeah, I think it does.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
What maybe we haven't focused on is state and federal
law addressing the problems that come about when they follow
Sharer law as oppose following our laws. So I don't
think we've fully contemplated how to address that from state legislature,
from the federal government, and the legislature in Washington, d C.
(24:48):
But the Constitution, I think is pretty open to just
free expression.
Speaker 4 (24:53):
I don't have to agree with you.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
As long as you are following our laws, you're not violent,
you're not promoting harmed the people, and you're just freely worshiped.
I can completely disagree with you, and that's all fine,
and we can still have a society that I think
functions the way that the founders intenda which with complete freedom.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
And by the way, you have.
Speaker 3 (25:12):
The opportunity to express your views and try to convince
me that you're right. And I had the right to
express my view and try to convince you that possibly
I'm right.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
Let's say that I'm coming at this from the Islamic perspective,
and I have the idea that here I am in America,
and we have all these freedoms, and I'm going to
use these freedoms but to get me to a destination
where I'm strong enough to start extinguishing them one by one. So,
for example, I'm going to run my guys for school board.
(25:44):
I'm going to run them for city council. I'm going
to try to expand the number of Muslims and the Congress,
for example.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
And our goal is.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Shari a law, but not surely a law. Now, Shari
a law when we're strong enough to insist upon it.
And again when we insist upon it, we won't insist
upon it like Sharia for the whole country.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
It'll be well.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Listen, we need to have these no go zones where
keep the cops out keep the laws we'll have, sure
we form Muslims in those areas, and then you expand
outward from there.
Speaker 4 (26:14):
In other words, what I'm.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
Getting at is using the passport of our liberties to
take us to a destination that would crush those liberties.
Speaker 4 (26:23):
Yeah, look, I would be completely opposing that.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
Obviously, these are what most people come here to live under,
which is the freedom that we have versus other countries.
So if there are groups, if there are Muslim groups
trying to do that, I think we have to oppose them.
We have, and this is why elections matter. This is
why people have to show up at elections if they're
organizing better and they can try to influence policy towards
(26:48):
that direction. I mean, if we're not fighting it, we
can definitely lose our country from inside. And certainly that's
not what I want and I would do everything I
could to fight that and oppose that. But that's why
Americans have to pay attention to what's going on, and
they can't just believe everything that the media feeds them.
They need to understand what's really going on.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
The reason I think the sort of theological aspect is relevant.
And i'd like you as a lawyer to sort of
take stock of this. Is America's based on we the people,
and the fundamental idea is that the people are the
source of the laws. Islam is based on the idea
that the laws are handed down from on high. Allah
(27:29):
makes the law that's the meaning of Shariah, so that
the people have nothing to do with it. The people
are merely the instruments of Allah in like carrying out
those laws. And as I look at these two things,
they are kind of radically opposed to each other. Not
opposed on the edges, they're opposed fundamentally.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
Yeah, I do would disagree with that.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
I think that sharial law is in direct conflict with
our constitution, with state law and some federal law. So
I think, yes, if you are promoting a separate system
of law that comes from Allah versus what comes from
the people, the people who elect their representatives to make
these laws, that's a real problem. And I consider that
(28:10):
a real problem.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Is it possible to say that Islam is the problem
not necessarily Muslims, And by that I mean you could
have a Muslim guy that is or is not in
sort of full conformity with the kind of deep down
doctrines of Islam. So the issue isn't the Muslim but
(28:32):
it is the ideology, which, as I said, is not
just a theology, but includes a philosophy and a jurisprudence
and really a comprehensive doctrine of society.
Speaker 4 (28:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
So if you're following that doctrine that we all have
to be under Sharia law, that somehow terrorism harming people
is is is okay because we have a greater goal here.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
Yeah, that's a real problem.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
And I think that if that is what is going
on in certain segments of Islam, that does not work
with our constitutional form of government. It does not even
work with the idea that we're free, because that's controlled
by a few people, not everybody.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
How do you handle the politics of this. You're campaigning
for the Senate. There are Muslims in the state of Texas.
I assume you want at least some of them, maybe
a lot of them to vote for you. If the
Muslim goes, hey, listen, I'm a Muslim, so I subscribe
to the Quran, and whatever it says in the Quran,
I may not know everything in there, but whatever it
(29:35):
says I'm on board with. And you're telling me that
there's something wrong with my religion. How would you answer that?
Speaker 4 (29:43):
First, I don't have to agree with anybody's religion. I don't.
I mean, I have my own faith.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
It's different from many faith but that doesn't mean we
can't agree that certain people are better representing us in
the US Senate or in Congress. It's not based on
necessarily do I agree with every tenet of every religion.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
I don't. I have known faith that is different than
many faiths.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
But I have people from all kinds of faiths that
are willing to support me because they like the agenda,
the freedom agenda that we promote, one that is based
on the Constitution, that's based on the power coming from
the people and being accountable to them. And I would
assume that there are some Muslims that actually want that.
They came here for the freedom that we all experience,
(30:29):
and if you want something different, my push to them
would be, then go somewhere different.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Here's a hypothetical which is not that far from from
what's happening in Texas. So an Islamic group comes to you,
you're in the Senate, and they say, hey, we want
to buy five thousand acres of land in Texas. It's
the free market. We're going to pay with our own money.
We want to construct the largest mosque in Texas.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
We want to create.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
A madrasa school from Muslim boys. And yeah, we're going
to be teaching the Koran and we're going to be
teaching sure, real law. But you believe in free markets,
you believe in free speech, you believe in freedom of religion.
On what grounds would you oppose us? You should be
supporting us, because this is a conservative thing that we're doing.
What would you say.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
I would say, you have every right to express your
religion however you want to. Whatch you don't have a
right to do is impose those laws on a segment
of the population that are different than the laws that
the overall population of that state or of the United
States has put in place. That you can't do that
in the United States. So you can talk about any
(31:37):
issue you want to. It can be very extreme, it
can be very as long as you're not promoting harming people.
You can have all the views you want that are
different than anything that I might think is right. It's
your right in this country to have different views, to
express those views, to worship however you want to, but
you cannot impose your own legal system that is separate
and apart from the legal system that we have in
(31:58):
this country.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
That is unconstitutional and is not acceptable.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
You just went through a bruising but ultimately highly successful
campaign against Cornin. Now people sometimes call Cornin a rhino,
but he wasn't a rhino in the sense that he
wasn't one of these guys who was constantly subverting the
Republican or the Trump or the MAGA agenda.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
He claimed.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
I think, with some justification, I'm mostly on board with Trump,
and yet you were able to challenge him, expose him,
and defeat him, and quite easily and decisively. How did
you do that?
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I think just exposing his record that he did have
certain issues, whether it was Second Amendment, whether it was
the border, whether it's just being not in favor of
Trunk being elected.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Either time.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
It's one thing to talk about, it's another thing to
show proof of that. And so I think, you know,
I always tell people look at the record, not the rhetoric,
and the record is oftentimes different than the rhetorican in
this case, I think that proved to be true.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
So you know, we need to move on.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
I'm ready to move on and focus on the next round.
We've got to unite all the Republicans, whether you've voted for.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
Me or not.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
We've got to defeat this guy, James tell Rico, who
is I think the most radical politician that has ever
run in Texas, and he's out in San Francisco right
now raising money from the people that he actually agrees with.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Making an important point here, I think, which is that
you actually need the corn in voters to come over
to your side, and you get them in part by
exposing how bad taal Rico is right.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
And just because John and I had disagreements, they're not
the same kind of disagreements that I have with James Tealerrico.
Those are much Those are like as wide of a
chasm as you can get. John and I had disagreements
over certain issues, but it isn't like being I mean,
he was a Republican and so we do have some similarities.
And when you're in elections, you have to pick. You
(33:58):
only have two choices in selection. You have to pick
the one that you think is going to best represent you.
And in this case, you couldn't have a more diverse choice.
Speaker 1 (34:08):
I'm trying to understand this tallaryical phenomenon, because if I
were running the DNC or or the Democratic Party in Texas,
I would say, look, it's really important to get some
guy who is very centrist to run in Texas. It's
a red state. How on earth are we going to
beat a Paxton. We need a guy who's sort of
a rancher. We need a guy who's kind of like
(34:29):
a man's man. We need a guy who's sort of
right leaning, at least on certain issues.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
They don't do that.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
They go find this Tallarico character who you know, he
puts on a cowboy hat three times the size of
his head, and he has a photo of him in
a truck. But it seems to be a masquerade. And
my question is, why are the Dems going for a masquerade?
Why don't they try to find a real candidate.
Speaker 4 (34:54):
Maybe they can't. Maybe they can't. I think that may
be the real problem.
Speaker 3 (34:57):
So they're going with They're going with the personality as
opposed to real character that represents the values of Texas.
They couldn't have picked anybody worse to represent the values
of Texas.
Speaker 4 (35:07):
So what do they do?
Speaker 3 (35:10):
This is typical of them, they masquerade as somebody that
is different than what they actually are. So if you
look at James Talerico's actual views, he's running from all
of them, all the ones that he ran on in
the primary, all the ones that he supported in the
Texas legislature. Now suddenly he's adopting not just a little
different version, completely different version.
Speaker 4 (35:30):
I am not that guy. What did he say?
Speaker 3 (35:33):
I was taking his cringy comments and focusing on them.
I know, I'm taking your real positions on issues that
are very radical for Texas that would fit in San Francisco,
because that's obviously why he's there, because he knows those
people will write checks to him because they want him
to represent Texas, and they're using their money to make
that happen.
Speaker 1 (35:54):
Tall Rico has a very well, he would call it
a progressive Christianity. It appears to be, at least for
traditional Christians, a very strange doctrine because he'll talk about
the fact that you know, Mary, in conceiving Jesus was
actually exercising the pro choice position, or he'll talk about
(36:18):
God being non binary. I mean, this is not normally
the stuff of politics, because it's getting into the issues
of theology. But how do you how do you respond
to this kind of exotica.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
Say, it's it's he's deceptive, it's not the theology of Christianity,
of any kind of historical Christianity that he holds, And
it's it's dangerous because he's he's deceiving people about what
these scriptures actually say. There's very few historical Christians that
would agree with his view that that somehow abortion is
(36:53):
approved by Mary and the range between marry and God,
that God's non binary. You know that there are six genders.
That is not historical Christianity. That is a something else.
It's that I would consider antithetical to Christianity. It would
be it would be views that were actually opposed by scripture,
that are opposed by most Christians. So I think it's
(37:13):
it's a little scary that he is promoting himself as
a pastor and somebody that's an expert on the scriptures,
when in reality he has in his head what he
wants and he goes out and creates scriptural basis for
making up his own Bible.
Speaker 1 (37:27):
And is your campaign strategy pretty simple, which is just
take these positions, these extreme positions theological political highlight them
kind of put it in people's faces, and they're going
to the ordinary text and is going to go, I'm
not on board with that. I mean, do you have
to do anything more than that in this right now?
Speaker 4 (37:44):
That's it's pretty simple.
Speaker 3 (37:46):
The campaign is let people know, because you know, no
one really knows James Seller here. What have he's been
in the sex legislature. What are his accomplishments He has
virtually none.
Speaker 4 (37:55):
So what we have is his.
Speaker 3 (37:57):
Promoting certain things, him voting against For instance, when they
tried to ban transitioning children, he.
Speaker 4 (38:04):
Voted against him.
Speaker 3 (38:05):
But now he says he's not for transitioning kids. Well,
then why did you vote that way? So it's really
easy for him to come back off of these issues
and say he's not.
Speaker 4 (38:14):
He doesn't believe those anymore.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Those are just cringey issues that I took to use
against them. No, these are the things you promoted while
you were a representatives. You were doing interviews, promoting these views,
and now suddenly you know you can't win in Texas. California, yes,
San Francisco, yes, where you are now, but you cannot
win in Texas holding the views that James Tallerica holds
and So what does he do.
Speaker 4 (38:35):
He runs from all of them.
Speaker 3 (38:36):
Now, you know he was ahead of vegan campaign because
you know we're harming the environment by eating meat.
Speaker 4 (38:41):
Now you see him doing videos eating meat.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
He claimed that the flag was a complicated, you know
American symbol that you know has its issues.
Speaker 4 (38:50):
Well, now he's wearing a flag is his shirt. So
he is.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
Running away from almost every single position that he knows
Texans won't vote for him.
Speaker 4 (38:59):
Well, no, I don't believe those anymore. Vote for me anyway.
Speaker 3 (39:02):
We're going to put those back and say, wait a minute,
how do you justify what you said and how you
voted with what you're telling us now?
Speaker 4 (39:08):
Are you a liar?
Speaker 3 (39:09):
Or did you have a radical transformation when you won
the Democratic primary and now you're in a general what happened?
Speaker 1 (39:15):
Well, seems to me he's in a trap because he
could say I have really undergone a conversion, sort of
like I used to be an atheist and now I'm
a Christian. I used to be a vegan now. But
usually people who have those transformations have got to give
a sincere and believable account of how they got from
here to there. I think the problem is that for
(39:35):
him he's got to convince the liberal billionaires who give
him money, no, I'm still with you. And at the
same time he's got to convince the Texans I'm with you. Right.
So isn't he forced to play this double game where
he speaks, as they used to say, with four kid tongue.
Speaker 3 (39:53):
If he'd actually had a transformation, what he have spent
several days in San Francisco raising money, he had a
real transformation, he would be very vocal about that transformation.
And those people in San Francisco who are trying to
help him become the next US centator from Texas would
not be supporting him. Would They would be running from
him because if he was being honest then with them
(40:18):
about those views, they wouldn't support him. So he's playing
it both ways, right. He's raising money under the umbrella
of who he really is. He's running publicly in Texas
under the umbrella no, I'm not that guy, even though
I raise all my money from those people and I
tell them that I am that guy. Believe me, please,
I don't believe any of those views. Now that I'm
running for Texas senator, I'm out of the primary.
Speaker 1 (40:40):
Let's talk about this save Act because one of the
actually I think master strokes of your campaign is you
at one point even declared, Hey, if the Senate will
pass the Save Act and if Cornyn and Thune will
push this through, I'll get out of the race. They
didn't do it, And my question is why didn't they
do it? I mean, this is a voter ID has.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
Widespread public support. It's an eighty twenty issue.
Speaker 1 (41:05):
As some people like to say, why on earth would
Republicans who know this and they can see the data
as well as you and I can. What's going on
with the Senate and with the sort of establishment that
you've been to some degree running against.
Speaker 3 (41:18):
Yeah, so there apparently are Republican centers some who are
leaving that don't believe that's a worthy bill, and I
don't understand it. I don't think there is a more
worthy bill up there, because we do not protect our
elections with the photo ID, making sure that non citizens
are not voting, making sure that our mail in ballots
are not being used to defraud us, which they are
(41:39):
all over the country and they tried to do it here.
Speaker 4 (41:42):
We none of our issues are going to matter.
Speaker 3 (41:44):
So oh, yeah, you can protect the filibuster all you want,
but if we lose control of all of these states,
we're not going to have a Republican majority anyway, because
they're going to cheat in all these dates. They already
doing in most of the Democratic states. It's why we
can't win them. They why does it take? You know,
however many days count ballots in California, it takes a
little while to cheat.
Speaker 4 (42:02):
And they are absolutely with mail in ballots. We don't
know who's voting. If you don't if you can mail
up mail, abust.
Speaker 3 (42:08):
Everybody, and you have no idea through photo ID or
through at least a signature verification, who's sending him back.
One hundred percent, there is fraud going on at a
massive level. And if we are not going to fix
that as Republicans, and we will, we have something to
count on in the future, which is a Democratic majority
that we can never unsea because once they rig the
elections in these states and we haven't fixed them in time,
(42:31):
that when we've lost our majority, game over none of
our issues matter anyway. So I don't know how you
defend a filibuster, as valuable as that might be to
stop bad legislation.
Speaker 4 (42:41):
I do not disagree with that.
Speaker 3 (42:42):
I like the filibuster from the standpoint being a minority,
but we are at a crucial stage in our history
that if we do not protect elections, the filibuster has
no meaning.
Speaker 1 (42:54):
Do you think that the reason that that Thune is
acting the way he is is he has thew you
kind of the Marquis of Queensbury rules, which is, hey, listen,
we need to protect the filibuster because we want to
make sure that they don't get rid of the filibuster.
But of course they the Democrats, if they were in
(43:16):
our position, would have done it anyway. And second of all,
they're getting ready to do it when they need to
when they're in power. So we are our side is
resting on a kind of gentleman's agreement, with no confidence
that we're dealing with gentlemen in the first place.
Speaker 3 (43:31):
Yeah, And I think part of it is, you know,
if you look at the US Senate, he doesn't have
the member.
Speaker 4 (43:36):
Votes to get it done. And that to me is
a problem.
Speaker 3 (43:38):
That's a sad problem for the republic majority that cannot
govern because we don't have the wisdom to see what's
coming at us. And you know, they're going to hold
onto their seats for a little while longer, but eventually
they're not going to be able to maintain the majority
because if the elections are not fair and free of
most fraud, this idea that they're somehow protecting against being
(44:02):
a minority is just you know, it's a pipe dream.
It's not gonna work out.
Speaker 1 (44:09):
Taller Rico seems to me one of his weapons that
he's already started like unfurling against you, is he says,
I'm a straight lace guy. Ken has a very checker
and he's been impeached. He's got this, he's got accusations
of extramarrial affairs. Texans need to vote for the straight
lace tallar Rico and not the dubious Ken Paxton.
Speaker 3 (44:32):
Well, first of all, you'll know that when you are
fighting the fight, you know what happens. They come after you.
It's what happened to Donald Trump. Matter of fact, I
have a very similar history with him. I mean we've
both been impeached. He's been impeached twice, I've been impeached once.
We've both gone through indictments. He's had more indictments. But
when you're in the middle of the fight with the
(44:54):
left and even some of the establishment. They come after you,
and look, why does it not matter that they have
to prove what they actually are accusing you of, and
yet they go on accusing you as if you've.
Speaker 4 (45:06):
Done it with no proof.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
So what I would say is, these are people that
they don't want to talk about the issues.
Speaker 4 (45:12):
They want to talk about personal stuff. They don't want to.
Speaker 3 (45:14):
Talk about the issues because they know that if we're
talking about James Talerico's positions on boys and girls sports,
on transitioning children, on saying that you know he's running
a vegan campaign, on saying that God's non binary, the
list goes onto saying that you can't be Christian and
spoil the you know, oil and gas industry. These are
(45:35):
things that he doesn't want to talk about. So let's
make it personal. Let's not talk about all my bad
positions that will hurt the country.
Speaker 4 (45:42):
Let's try to make him look like he's a bad guy. Well,
guess what.
Speaker 3 (45:46):
The voters of Texas have spoken many many times. They've
been coming after me for over a decade. They came out,
They've come after Trump Trump for over a decade, and
the people of Texas will see through it.
Speaker 1 (45:56):
Ken, what are some things that you did as Attorney
General to deal with the problem of the Islamification of Texas.
Speaker 4 (46:05):
So my focus is always in the law.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
I'm a lawyer, I represent the state, I represent all
the agencies of governor or legislature. So one we've defended
when the Muslim Brotherhood and Cares sued the governor when
he eliminated certain practices. But also when we've seen examples
of certain entities Islam related who are not following Texas law,
(46:32):
we've sued him or we've investigated him. So we've shut
down certain developments out in Coffin County. We've sued over
the Epic City over a couple of different issues. One
is violation of state security laws. We also think they
violiated federal securities laws. And then we also.
Speaker 4 (46:47):
Think they did not appropriately manage the way.
Speaker 3 (46:49):
The process is supposed to be done with open meetings
and the way those are supposed to be accomplished.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
So we suit them over that.
Speaker 3 (46:55):
So when you don't follow our laws, then we are going.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
To address that.
Speaker 3 (46:59):
As i SA said earlier, if you want to go worship,
you go worship the way you want. If you want
to exist in our society, you have to follow our state,
our federal and our constitution. That's where I come in
to try to focus on. If you're not doing that,
we're going to stop you.
Speaker 1 (47:15):
Would it be fair to say that your position, even
where broadly can be summarized like this, that if there
are Islamic groups that are running a foul of the law,
you can count on the authorities, or you should count
on the authorities to be able to crack down on it.
But if you have a larger problem, let's say, you know,
you think that Islam is changing the cultural environment of Texas,
(47:35):
or there are too many mosques in the suburbs, then
guess what. It's your job as a voter to step
forward and be as active as the Muslims apparently are
in exercising your ballot and voting for the Texas that
you want.
Speaker 3 (47:50):
Absolutely, this is fundamental to a free society. It's fundamental
with the founder's envision was direct involvement of the people.
Put the power in the hands of the people. And
if you're not paying attention, if you're not paying attention
to the issues around you, whether positive or negative, and
you're not voting, then guess what. You can lose your
(48:11):
state We've seen it happen. You can lose your country.
We've seen other countries loss. We have a responsibility for
our children, for ourselves and for our grandchild to step up,
pay attention, vote and help the people that are doing
the things that we want done.
Speaker 4 (48:26):
Thank you very much, thank you.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Big news coming out on silver right now. The US
just added silver to the Critical Minerals List.
Speaker 2 (48:37):
What does this mean?
Speaker 1 (48:38):
This is an important list of minerals that are considered
crucial for US security and economic viability. So when you
buy silver to help protect your savings, you're also buying
a critical mineral that's needed for the US and its
economy to survive. That's why I want you to reach
out to my partners over at gold Co. They're the
number one gold and silver company in the country. They
(48:59):
have all eight thousand and five star reviews, and they
have the best gold and silver offer in the business.
So don't put this off, don't ignore the facts. Get
your free twenty twenty six gold and silver kit from
gold Co while you still can, and get up to
ten percent in bonus gold or silver while supplies last.
Go to dinesh goold dot com. That's Dinesh Gold dot com.
Speaker 2 (49:26):
I'm now on substack.
Speaker 1 (49:28):
It's a platform for articles and videos, and I've just
released a series of articles on the five key American Founders.
This is in honor of America's two hundred and fiftieth
anniversary and of course, in celebration of July fourth this week.
Speaker 2 (49:43):
So who are these founders?
Speaker 1 (49:44):
Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin.
My idea is not to try and tell the life
story of these men, but rather to identify the one
big idea that each of them stood for their unique
count tribution to the founding of America and to the
America we live in now. I think you'll find my
(50:05):
account's memorable, educational, inspiring. To read them, go to Dinesh
Desuza No apostrophe, Denesh Deesuza dot substack dot com. Become
a monthly subscriber. But I also have lots of free
content on substack, and you're welcome to check it all
out and then decide if you want to subscribe. Once again,
go to Dinesh Desuza dot substack dot com. Guys, I
(50:30):
want to announce I have a new book coming out
in the Fall I'm very excited about. It's called The
Stones cry Out subtitle Biblical Archaeology, Prophecy and the Last Days.
The book outlines the greatest discoveries in Biblical archaeology that
affirm the Bible, confirm the presence of the Jews and
the Holy Land, and also support the twin foundations of
(50:53):
Western civilization, which are Athens and Jerusalem. The Stones cry
Out has rave review from archaeologists, from leading pastors, and
from prominent commentators of the book, published by Charisma Books,
is available now for pre orders on Amazon. So I'm
calling a new early birds to order your copies now.
You'll be the first to get it when it's out.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
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