0:00

politics without the soap

0:02

opera with unfiltered constitutional

0:04

conservative truth the

0:07

conservative review And

0:10

welcome back fellow American patriots and

0:13

Minutemen standing at the ready to

0:15

focus on the issues that matter in

0:17

the way They matter at the time

0:19

they matter because I know you guys

0:21

have no time for nonsense distractions

0:24

grift You

0:26

want to have it given to you straight what's

0:29

going on? What are the biggest issues? What do

0:31

we do about it? Continuity

0:33

of ideas strategy follow-up. We do

0:35

it all here at Sierra podcast

0:38

every day, but certainly today Wednesday

0:40

March 27th and I

0:43

was gonna have a guest on today, but I'm

0:45

gonna push it off till tomorrow We're

0:48

gonna talk about the international

0:50

health regulations WHO Just

0:52

some more things on threats

0:54

to medical freedom Honestly,

0:56

there's so many things to cover. I don't

0:59

have enough minutes in the day It's

1:02

kind of hard to do the job of an

1:04

entire movement without a staff

1:07

But this is the problem we focus on

1:10

words not deeds We

1:12

focus on the latest distraction

1:15

Then we never even follow up on it then we

1:17

never even formulate ideas about it and we just go

1:20

on and on and on and Then

1:22

the more ineffective we are The

1:25

more crazy some of us get Act

1:28

out in a way that appears to be white

1:30

trash in front of the public. So then we

1:32

we lose even more elections Despite

1:34

the fact that broadly the public agrees with us

1:36

on the issues and rinse and repeat We're

1:40

in this vicious feedback loop of

1:42

failure failure electorally

1:44

failure on issues failure

1:48

failure on outcomes We

1:50

have a movement that Wheels

1:53

influence over what it doesn't have influence, but

1:55

then where it does it doesn't do anything

1:59

So the bill little bit all over the map today. I want

2:03

to talk about some stuff

2:05

going on in the courts. Continuing

2:08

our theme of the courts

2:10

being a one-way street, a one-way ratchet

2:13

against conservatives, including Republican

2:15

judges, particularly the three

2:18

Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices. And what do

2:20

we do about that? Because that's a

2:22

big problem. If the

2:24

left continues to violate civil liberties at a federal

2:26

level in the blue states and

2:28

we don't have recourse in the courts, but

2:31

then those same courts come after us when

2:33

we try to govern in red

2:35

states the few times we do, what

2:38

does that leave us? If

2:40

we believe in judicial supremacism, but

2:43

only a version that's a one-way ratchet, we'll

2:45

get into that. We

2:48

have the Francis Scott Key Bridge

2:50

being destroyed and 24 hours

2:53

later, I have no more news

2:56

for you, unless you guys have news. Literally

2:58

nothing. It's so weird. Just goes

3:01

into a black hole. It used to be it was one

3:03

or two day news cycles, now it's a couple hours. It

3:06

was done. Okay,

3:08

well what happened? What caused it? Do

3:12

we even have the name of the pilot and the crew? I

3:14

don't think we do. We

3:16

do know that the vessel was

3:19

involved in another major crash in

3:21

Antwerp, Belgium about eight years ago.

3:24

I don't know if it's

3:26

the same crew, but again,

3:28

was this cyber terrorism on

3:30

the navigation system? Was it

3:32

incompetence? And is incompetence

3:34

now endemic of operators of major infrastructure?

3:37

I don't know. I mean, it's not

3:39

a loaded question, but we literally don't

3:41

even have anything. It's just got pigeonholed.

3:43

Okay, so we just move on like

3:46

we move on from COVID. We move

3:48

on from Hawaii. We move

3:50

on from the Vegas shooting. And

3:53

again, what that does is because you don't

3:55

have same questions being asked, some people have

3:57

all sorts of crazy theories and gets discredited.

4:00

and then people don't like the right so they

4:02

don't care even more because that's

4:04

kind of what a strawman opposition is. You

4:09

know, Chris

4:11

Rufo said something very

4:13

interesting on Twitter that's important

4:15

to bring to the forefront. And

4:18

Chris is one of the few people we

4:21

have that are serious doers. He's

4:24

very much responsible for a lot

4:26

of the education policies for

4:28

DeSantis. He doesn't work directly for him or

4:31

set the Manhattan Institute, but he's

4:33

really been leading the charge to get

4:36

the rot cut out of public

4:38

education. So he's

4:40

not just some guy giving an opinion. He's

4:42

actually on the playing field doing things. There's

4:46

very few people I could say that about. He

4:49

made the following observation. We

4:53

have a problem on the right. The

4:56

economics of online discourse are

4:58

increasingly at odds with

5:01

forming and mobilizing a

5:03

successful political movement. How

5:08

cogent, cogent, sagacious

5:10

statement. Very, very cogent.

5:13

The economics

5:15

of online discourse are

5:17

increasingly at odds with forming and mobilizing a

5:20

successful political movement. Now, Chris

5:22

is not saying, oh, I'm sick of

5:24

these online crazies, white trash. I

5:26

want to just be a normie GOP. No.

5:29

I mean, Chris is like me that broadly speaking,

5:31

I don't know about some of the specific theories on

5:33

certain specific issues, but generally speaking, I mean, this is

5:35

the rise of the fourth Reich. We

5:39

have very serious problems affecting

5:41

every aspect of our life,

5:43

liberty, property, society, culture, health,

5:48

viability of the society, ability

5:52

to afford living, demographics, invasion,

5:54

the political

5:56

persecutions. So we need

5:58

a serious— successful

6:02

formulation and mobilization of

6:05

a political movement. And

6:07

we're trying to do this every day. Yesterday

6:10

we had Adam Morgan on. One

6:12

of our best Freedom Caucus guys, Chairman of

6:14

the South Carolina Freedom Caucus, running for Congress.

6:17

Think about how articulate he was. He's

6:21

more red-pilled than any Trump-Maga guy.

6:24

He actually gets it done. He

6:26

actually has turned South Carolina politics upside

6:29

down with what he's done there. But

6:33

does he come across to your normie suburban

6:35

voter as white trash? Not at all. That's

6:38

what we need. Look,

6:42

we're already in a situation where

6:44

we're treading on thin ice. We're

6:47

coming decades into a fake

6:50

opposition, so therefore Democrats have

6:52

successfully implemented immigration policies, education

6:54

policies, welfare and healthcare

6:56

policies that have created dependency that

6:59

have really made it very hard for any

7:03

conservative to win. So

7:07

it's going to be narrow no

7:09

matter what it is. We're done with the days of 1980,

7:11

84, 88 style wins. But

7:17

my gosh, you

7:19

don't come in front of people just stupid. Another

7:25

interesting observation he made, he

7:28

starts talking about Tucker and how

7:30

important Tucker was as kind of the leader

7:32

of conservative media, and

7:34

basically gently notes what we have noted

7:37

for a while, that he circled the

7:39

drain, went downhill when he went to

7:41

Twitter from Fox rather than getting better.

7:46

For those wondering, there

7:48

is a structural as well as

7:50

an ideological challenge for Tucker on

7:52

X Twitter. The prime time

7:54

Fox spot was his previous

7:57

job was regular, time-downed and

7:59

coordinated. the whole movement offline

8:01

and online with the prestige and production of

8:03

the cable news network behind it. Tucker on

8:05

X is too fragmented, lacks the nightly rhythm,

8:08

and the topics have been all over the place

8:10

with some serious missteps. I say this is a

8:12

huge admirer of Tucker's and hope that he continues

8:15

to experiment with the format and pick up his

8:17

role as a coordinator and kingmaker on the right.

8:19

He's trying to be gentle, as you can tell.

8:21

But it's just, it's just crap. There's

8:24

no follow-up, there's no continuity of

8:26

strategy, there's no focusing on the

8:28

issues when we actually have votes

8:30

coming up, actually have primaries. Nobody

8:32

has matched what we have done

8:34

here so far. Matching

8:37

the intensity of trying to find ways

8:39

to focus on specific primaries, to focus

8:42

on systemic solutions for how to win

8:44

primaries like changing party rules

8:46

to state conventions, focusing

8:48

on the legislative sessions, bolstering the

8:50

Freedom Caucus, I

8:54

mean, think about it. The Freedom Caucus

8:56

by a mile is the most successful

8:58

institution we have in the

9:00

states. Why am I the

9:02

biggest cheerleader in the country of that? Why

9:06

isn't Tucker promoting that? Again,

9:09

the economics of

9:12

online discourse are at odds with

9:14

forming and mobilizing the successful political

9:17

movement. I

9:20

can't tell you how much time I have spent. I'm

9:24

rushing into this show with that clear mind.

9:26

I usually like to clear my

9:28

mind before I give over stuff to you. I've

9:30

just been focused on so many disparate issues, trying

9:33

to follow up on every one of

9:36

our beats, on immigration, on the states,

9:38

on the primaries, on judicial supremacism, court

9:40

cases. And again,

9:42

all with a forward-looking mindset of what we

9:44

need to do about it, not just, hey, this

9:46

is a nice story or this is something that's

9:48

catchy and this is something good to report on.

9:52

I've never had this many Windows and

9:54

Word documents out open in front

9:56

of me, flown up

9:59

my computer. And

10:02

I'm just I'm just struggling. I don't know

10:04

what we do. There's a lot we can

10:06

do if we had a movement But

10:09

we don't So

10:12

we keep getting the same results By

10:18

the way a lot of people are talking about RFK's

10:21

VP pick it's irrelevant Notice

10:24

I haven't talked much about him this entire

10:27

year. I never trusted the guy Look

10:30

if someone's frustrated with the two choices that they

10:32

want a third party just just for the sake

10:34

of it I respect that

10:36

I'm just telling you He

10:40

could have been that guy Ross Perot on steroids,

10:43

but like everyone else he gets

10:45

caught the caught up in the razzle dazzle You

10:47

just want to be like everyone else like the

10:49

Israelites and judges God says you're gonna be a

10:51

different sort of country a different sort of civilization

10:53

and they come back and like no No, no,

10:55

we want to be like all the other nations

10:58

have a king. We don't want You

11:01

know a Samuel an

11:03

inspirational leader That's

11:07

a decentralized Republic under

11:10

you know the auspices of following the

11:13

commandments of God we want a king

11:16

Want to be like everyone else so it's like everyone

11:18

gets they get gunshot. Oh, I'm gonna be there Oh,

11:20

actually, I'll just nominate a

11:22

leftist with money to be

11:24

my VP And notice

11:26

he hasn't really led on much I

11:30

Said this at the time when people in the medical freedom movement

11:32

a lot of the doctors we had on the show were getting

11:34

roped In with him I said look It's

11:37

not just on other issues that the Santas would

11:39

have been better than RFK because they were sucking

11:41

all the oxygen out focusing on RFK I said

11:43

even on Covid on

11:46

vaccines The Santas

11:48

will deliver much more and that was

11:50

RFK signature issue for many years because

11:53

there's no Shortcut

11:55

to someone actually standing in the

11:57

breach getting in that position and

12:02

Following through I don't think you understand

12:04

how hard that is the pressures

12:08

To focus on the razzle dazzle and do

12:10

it the way everyone else does it It

12:14

is so great In

12:17

a vacuum There's nothing so

12:19

great about the same this is governor ship

12:22

or it shouldn't be but it is I Can't

12:26

find anyone else coming close And

12:30

by the way speaking of a narrow

12:32

path, I mean I must say

12:36

What he's done electorally in Florida is pretty

12:38

remarkable alongside what he's

12:40

done policy wise You

12:43

know today is me signing the first bill to

12:46

protect landowners Homeowners

12:48

from adverse possession your squatter's

12:50

rights Every

12:53

day there's something else there And

12:58

Yet in his he's in his

13:00

sixth year there There

13:02

is no movement to try to match that With

13:06

another governor We

13:09

just continue going on and on Nothing

13:16

By the way the RFK VP pick is all

13:18

the more proof that the state Freedom caucuses are

13:20

the only thing we have There's

13:23

such desperation for mainstream acceptance that once you

13:26

get into a position of authority Or

13:29

influence you just can't actually make the play that you

13:32

always talked about There's something

13:34

that's standing on that field They

13:36

just act the way everyone else does That's

13:41

why the Freedom caucus is so important because they're upending

13:43

the way we do business and they don't care And

13:49

that's what we need to celebrate Again

13:52

I have this all the time in primaries Where

13:55

we'll have candidates and there's no rap sheet on

13:57

the guy. It's not like I could point to

14:00

you know, either, let's say he was

14:03

in the legislature or maybe he never was,

14:05

didn't have a record. Yeah, it's not like

14:07

he said or did anything bad on guns

14:09

or taxes or whatever, or, you know, he

14:11

seems to be a decent Republican in good

14:13

standing, and people are like, well, well, Daniel,

14:15

what's wrong? He's not good for you either?

14:17

Like, he might be decent if we had

14:19

good leadership, but if you want to upend

14:21

the system, he's not gonna do it. Again,

14:26

we had this in Ohio, I talked about some of these

14:28

races, people are like, oh, these guys seem good. I was

14:30

like, okay, did they pledge to join the Freedom Caucus? No.

14:33

Did they get money from the CLS? Yes. So,

14:36

you know, I can't find

14:38

anything bad they've done or said so far, but

14:40

you send them to Washington, they're not gonna be

14:42

with our guys to

14:46

upend the system. So, it's empty

14:48

calories. It's worthless. If you

14:50

have a guy running that you know

14:52

will do that, I

14:54

mean, that makes a big difference. Remember,

14:57

headed forward with

14:59

this red-pilled rhetoric, again, rhetoric,

15:01

rhetoric, rhetoric, increasingly,

15:06

you're gonna have very few

15:08

Republicans like Lisa Murkowski or

15:11

Mitt Romney that openly run on

15:13

them, although I would argue that

15:15

they are the Mitt Romneys of

15:17

2024. Remember, everyone's a big hero

15:19

now, like I say many, many

15:21

times on Mitch McConnell, but

15:23

at the time when I was challenging him

15:26

in 2010, 2012, 2014, that era,

15:29

people looked at me like I was from Mars,

15:31

like, what? I mean, I understand we have Lincoln

15:33

Chafee, we have Lisa Murkowski, we have Susan Collins,

15:36

but he's a good, you know, strong Republican, like,

15:38

what's your issue with him? People

15:42

didn't understand that. If

15:47

you're not actively putting

15:50

the people in who

15:53

will actively do things to

15:55

change the trajectory, we

15:58

are like Flight 93. where

16:01

you're going down. If you

16:03

don't get someone in there to grab

16:06

the yoke and get it up, you

16:08

know, everything else

16:11

is the same result. You could

16:13

either do nothing or get someone

16:15

in there who doesn't know what he's doing, get

16:17

someone in there to yank it down even more, sideways,

16:20

upside down, in and out, do

16:22

whatever, but

16:24

there's only one thing that's gonna work, and

16:28

it's finding some areas of

16:30

the country to get the right people in

16:32

to make the right place, and that requires

16:34

a movement to have

16:37

the proper focus.

16:39

You know, what are

16:41

the policies we want to do? What

16:43

are the strategies we want to implement?

16:45

Then electorally and legislatively, legally, culturally

16:48

sometimes, and follow

16:50

up, follow up, continuity.

16:56

Otherwise, we're just gonna continue spinning

16:58

our wheels. So

17:01

again, I mean on the on the Key Bridge, even

17:04

here locally, you

17:07

know, they talk about the logistics, the ramifications

17:10

of the bridge being

17:12

down, but what exactly happened with

17:14

that ship? Who

17:16

are they? Who's the pilot? Again, as

17:18

of 24 hours later, as of

17:20

right now, maybe it changed by the

17:23

time you hear this, the

17:26

only thing I could find is the

17:28

story which is very disquieting, that this

17:30

same cargo ship was involved in an

17:32

accident eight years ago. You

17:37

know, we have some very serious

17:39

issues. Again,

17:43

a lot of this is still speculation. It

17:46

could be this was a total freak accident

17:49

in the mechanical maintenance of the ship,

17:51

and it's no one's fault, and it

17:53

just happened to come in at

17:56

the worst time to work with. I'm not

17:58

being sarcastic. That does happen. You

18:00

know the last time was like 44 years ago and the

18:03

Tampa Bay causeway with the Sunshine

18:06

causeway But

18:08

the devastation wasn't nearly as bad because that

18:10

was just a random place in Tampa This

18:13

is like a major artery on I-95

18:16

going to a port So

18:22

You know we ought to know what's what's

18:24

behind this And

18:28

Speaking of Florida, that's

18:30

why competence is so important You

18:34

know to say this is conservative he's right-wing

18:36

he's based he's whatever but He's

18:39

also competent and and that's something we

18:42

do need There's a

18:44

lot of serious questions That

18:47

we have a bunch of boobs The

18:50

I hires are just a bunch of idiots in general

18:52

We have a mentally ill drugged up

18:55

society then we have all these foreigners we bring in We

18:57

don't know where they come from Who

19:00

knows who is running our critical

19:02

infrastructure these are things to think about

19:04

again I'm not making any accusations because we

19:06

don't know anything we see a ship hit

19:08

the bridge. That's all I know You

19:13

know it likely wasn't terrorists on

19:15

board. I mean, I think we would have known that

19:17

by now It

19:19

wasn't blown up. I mean it was strong enough to

19:21

knock it over I think you know see some people

19:23

like Allah, you know, how could it knock it over?

19:26

I was wondering at first too, but it's pretty clear

19:28

once you see how much weight that ship was and

19:30

where it hit You know everyone

19:32

I spoke to my dad. Um ironically He's

19:35

a mechanical engineer who worked at Bethlehem

19:38

Steel Which was the main thing on

19:40

the other side of that bridge and

19:42

sparrows point in the 80s when I was a kid he

19:46

didn't work on the bridge in the 70s and I'm gonna do with

19:48

that, but um he's very

19:50

familiar with that sort of stuff and You

19:53

know made it very clear that obviously it you know,

19:55

it didn't bother him He was

19:57

actually bothered by the surfside building Incidentally,

20:00

how that came down bothered him, but

20:02

not this bridge, the way the ship hit it.

20:06

But again, I mean it – the lights

20:08

went out twice, power went out twice, and

20:11

the ship steered in that way. Was

20:15

this a cyberattack? If not – I mean we

20:17

don't have the proof it wasn't or was. We

20:20

can't trust our government anymore, and I understand why people

20:22

have all these theories because they've lied

20:24

to us with mass

20:26

genocide. They've forgot about

20:28

the vaccines, even the virus itself. To

20:30

this day, to this day, we

20:34

have not gotten to the bottom of that. We

20:36

know it was man-made. We know

20:38

they're made – and we know they have

20:40

all these other bio-labs that they're making viruses.

20:43

There's no effort to stop it. You know

20:45

what I'm saying? Like, for the fact that the

20:47

vaccines is a little bit tough because you're not allowed

20:50

to even recognize the problem. But the virus, you know,

20:52

we're told the virus is the worst thing in the

20:54

world, right? Everyone knows

20:56

about that. It shut down the world. It was

20:58

the worst event in world history. And

21:01

yet we've not rectified it. It's continuing. We're

21:04

funding it. Because

21:06

when you have an ineffective

21:08

movement that's distracted, stupid, gets

21:11

too extreme and conspiratorily too quickly beyond the

21:14

Overton window sometimes but doesn't do what we

21:16

can do, focus on what we can't –

21:18

it's just all over the place. So

21:21

the common denominator is the left

21:24

continues doing their stuff, and

21:27

we continue to suffer from all

21:30

the downstream effects of bad public

21:33

policy without any

21:35

redress. This is

21:37

going to continue. You

21:41

know, last night, the Democrats

21:44

flipped – this

21:46

is very important. Democrats

21:49

flipped a legislative seat.

21:51

It was an open seat, but it

21:54

was a Republican seat in Huntsville, Alabama. And

21:57

I've noted before that – It's

22:00

not like, okay, we're losing the blue areas.

22:03

We're losing the cities and even suburbs

22:05

of cities in red states, and I

22:07

don't mean like Dallas, Houston

22:10

size, but Huntsville, Alabama, Birmingham,

22:12

Alabama. I mean, obviously,

22:14

the inner city of some of these places

22:16

are very black, but I mean even the

22:19

surrounding white areas, we're losing. Trump

22:22

only carried it by one point,

22:25

this district. Republicans

22:28

usually carried the – I think

22:30

last time they maybe carried the legislative

22:32

seat by like nine. They lost

22:34

it by almost 30 points last night.

22:36

You know that? Now,

22:39

a lot of people are saying the I.V.S. issue

22:42

loomed large because of the Alabama court

22:44

ruling. And

22:47

yeah, I mean I'm not going to lie to you.

22:49

I mean those who think that's important, I respect their

22:51

pro-life view, but it is kind

22:53

of stupid if that's going to be your

22:55

lead issue. It's not going to

22:58

win very electorally. I just don't think it's

23:00

wise to lose everything else on that. But

23:07

in general, it's

23:09

part of an uninterrupted

23:11

chain of special elections

23:15

that clearly demonstrate a bad environment

23:17

for Republicans, not a good one.

23:21

And again, like we've said, even the media

23:23

is now picking it up. The pendulum has

23:25

swung back, but the polls, the polls show

23:27

Biden winning. So

23:30

what are we going to do about that? What

23:33

are we going to do? We're

23:36

now going to lose the power structure

23:38

of mid-sized cities and suburbs and red

23:40

states. I mean

23:43

that's what's going to happen if we

23:45

continue with this do nothing, accomplish nothing,

23:47

have no narrative, the few issues we

23:49

glum onto, we get distracted, don't follow

23:51

up, don't pick a fight that's

23:53

going to harness national attention either with a federal budget

23:55

fight or a multiplicity of – or a multiplicity of

23:58

red states doing – action

24:00

and just

24:04

focus on Trump's white trash comments

24:06

incoherent nonsense every day, allow

24:09

Trump to endorse every piece of

24:11

crap, but then endorse against the

24:14

santis candidates that are ten times

24:16

better. Are

24:20

we really going to continue this? And

24:24

that leads me to really kind

24:27

of the main topic today, the

24:29

courts. We've talked about

24:31

this a lot the last couple weeks. There's yet

24:33

more important news in the courts that

24:36

Trump's three picks were imbeciles.

24:39

And I don't say this to even beat up on Trump. It's

24:42

not really the point. The point is what do

24:44

we do about it? Don't lie to ourselves, oh

24:46

we overconfolve those, well, no, no, no. We have

24:48

a big problem in the court. I now have

24:51

several dozen examples

24:53

of hypocrisy, particularly

24:56

those three judges to varying

24:58

degrees, where they are now

25:01

allowing the feds and blue

25:03

states to do egregiously unlawful

25:05

things without the Supreme

25:07

Court interfering. But then when

25:10

it comes to red states

25:12

doing good things, they interfere

25:14

with alacrity and they contradict

25:17

themselves with values of, you

25:19

know, procedurally standing, circuit splits,

25:21

or just in terms of

25:24

the contours of state powers versus

25:26

individual rights, upside down, inside out.

25:30

With COVID, they're not there for individual rights,

25:32

but somehow when it comes to drag shows,

25:34

they are. And the trainee

25:36

stuff. And

25:41

of course, illegal immigration. So

25:44

late last night, the Fifth

25:47

Circuit officially formally denied

25:49

Texas request to put SB

25:51

4 back into effect.

25:53

As we predicted, the Supreme

25:56

Court pressured them. So now, basically

25:58

the Fifth Circuit's taking their cues on the

26:00

Supreme Court. So

26:04

we now await a merits argument

26:08

next Wednesday, and it

26:14

looks like they will likely appeal Texas

26:16

will seek review in Bonk. So

26:19

hopefully in Bonk works better. It's not

26:21

such a great panel they

26:25

got here, but this

26:28

ruling is a very bitter

26:31

pill because this

26:33

ruling, like I said, was inspired by

26:35

Amy Barrett's concurrence where they

26:37

did a rope of adobe officially. They

26:39

allowed us before to go into effect,

26:42

but in fact what they did was

26:44

signal to the Fifth Circuit, we're not

26:46

gonna lock it up. We're not gonna

26:49

keep the injunction, but we'd like you to do it.

26:52

That's basically what they said. That's

26:54

what Amy Barrett and Kavanaugh did. Well

26:58

fast forward on that very same day,

27:00

we had

27:02

oral arguments in this Mifepristone

27:05

chemical abortion drug case,

27:09

and what

27:13

it demonstrates is this gross

27:15

hypocrisy of judges

27:17

like Kavanaugh and Barrett on

27:19

how they are working overtime

27:22

to ensure that

27:24

we don't get conservative victories

27:26

politically when it intersects with

27:28

the courts. But then,

27:31

meaning they're taking this basic approach basically like

27:33

this, when we come crying

27:35

to the courts because we're aggrieved, they're like

27:38

shut up, you don't have standing, we're not

27:40

some sort of super legislature, take that up

27:43

with the political branches. Well, alright,

27:45

you know, as you well know, those of you

27:47

have listened to me read my book, I'm very

27:49

sympathetic to that argument if we actually applied it

27:52

evenly. But no, because

27:54

you see anything we want to do in

27:56

a red state gets taken down

27:58

like we see with SB4. So

28:04

the problem here is you have

28:06

to diagnose what

28:08

is going on in the courts, and

28:11

then I've noted this before,

28:13

but I'm going to reiterate today, it

28:15

informs a very clear solution of what

28:17

we need to do about it. But

28:21

if you continue to go on and say,

28:23

it's terrible that Democrats are

28:25

delegitimizing at that point, no,

28:27

join in with them. They

28:30

pressure the courts, we should do the

28:32

other way, delegitimize them. They

28:35

respond to pressure. So

28:39

– and again, I just want to

28:41

– before we get into the minutiae of this

28:43

case of

28:48

Alliance Hippocratic Medicine, VFDA,

28:50

Texas case on this

28:53

mifepristone abortion drug, but

28:56

just understand the vitality of this issue. We

29:00

cannot move on until we come

29:02

up with a strategy to deal with this. What

29:05

is our goal? What is the only thing we

29:07

can do that we established yesterday and almost every

29:09

day we talk about in some form? Is

29:13

to take the reddest states in America,

29:15

elect Freedom Caucus guys to the legislature

29:17

and governor, and interpose

29:19

against federal tyranny, build

29:22

almost a parallel economy, currency, freedom,

29:24

all of it. Okay?

29:27

Demographically, deal with illegal immigration. Obviously,

29:29

it's one of the top things

29:31

we need to do. They're everywhere,

29:33

by the way, everywhere. Lots

29:38

of news about them flooding states like

29:40

Tennessee, red areas too

29:42

that you wouldn't think. So

29:46

we need to deal with it. But

29:48

unless we change our strategy in dealing

29:50

with the courts and get more aggressive,

29:54

even rhetorically – yes, rhetorically –

29:57

talking down Republican judges,

30:03

Everything, every single thing that you and I want

30:05

to do, it's not going to

30:07

be easy to get elected on people to do

30:09

it, but we claw and scrape and rock

30:12

climb that cliff. You

30:14

get on the bottom, you finally get to the

30:16

top, you know what's going to be waiting for you? The

30:20

judicial oligarch to shove you off that mountain

30:23

and make all the work we did

30:25

terrible. I'll

30:28

never forget when I had

30:30

a friend of mine who was a big activist in North Carolina

30:32

during the Tea Party era and she

30:34

was in tears when we spoke about

30:36

the courts screwing with their

30:40

voter ID law and she was like, we

30:42

worked years for that, all

30:44

for nothing, for a freaking lie to

30:46

create some sort of fundamental

30:49

right to vote without

30:51

a photo ID. I mean,

30:53

it's just so absurd. Never

30:57

forget the

31:00

same philosophy that

31:04

we have that

31:06

we'd be stupid to expend our

31:08

energy as a conservative media organization

31:10

movement pressuring Democrats and

31:13

the media rather than pressuring

31:15

Republicans who want to be

31:17

in good standing with conservatives.

31:22

The same holds true about Republican

31:25

judges. Okay, let's dispense with

31:27

this notion that there's some sort of

31:29

like machines behind some

31:32

bench that is unapproachable.

31:34

They go to events like everyone

31:37

else, they're human beings

31:39

like everyone else, they talk to

31:41

people like everyone else. Okay,

31:44

let's make it very clear.

31:48

How come the courts gave

31:50

us what is

31:52

considered a very bold ruling on

31:55

affirmative action and abortion?

31:58

When I say very bold, I mean... I mean like overturning

32:01

a half a century of precedent. It's

32:04

pretty bold. Yet they

32:07

won't even overturn some relatively

32:09

recent new things that are

32:11

even more egregious, or sometimes they'll even,

32:14

like we talk about a lot, passively

32:16

expand upon them by allowing bad lower

32:18

court rulings to stand, or sometimes themselves,

32:20

contributing to it. Let

32:24

me give you a classic example. What

32:28

is more egregious from

32:31

a legal, historical, and

32:33

constitutional standpoint? A

32:36

right to abortion or a right to

32:38

gay marriage? It's

32:40

obviously a right to gay marriage, because abortion at the end of

32:42

the day is a little bit of a negative right, because

32:45

they're asserting it's part of my body, and

32:48

I just don't want to be criminalized

32:50

for having an abortion. Whereas

32:54

with gay

32:56

marriage, it's like you're saying a state

33:02

has to redefine a

33:06

fixed institution to give

33:08

you something that is exclusively a state

33:10

benefit. You're the one, you're not saying,

33:12

look, just leave me alone, don't, don't,

33:14

see, with abortion, the state wants to

33:16

criminalize it. Here, you're the one asking

33:18

for a status. Meaning

33:20

the equivalent would be more of like

33:22

an anti-sodomy law. We're

33:25

not talking about that. You could go

33:27

have sodomy all you want. It's

33:29

just you're saying you want a state

33:31

benefit that doesn't exist when

33:34

two years prior to Obergerfeld and Windsor, Kennedy

33:36

himself said states have full authority since their

33:38

founding. What's more

33:41

deeply rooted in history and tradition? Gay

33:43

marriage or abortion? Abortion

33:46

for sure. You

33:49

know, it was illegal in the 1800s, but for the 1900s,

33:51

they really started to do it. Gay marriage

33:53

was unheard of until 2000. Yet

33:58

in Dobbs, they established a deep... rooted in

34:00

history and tradition, or reaffirmed

34:03

that litmus

34:05

test, that standard for

34:07

creating an unenumerated right, that

34:09

subjects strict scrutiny for a

34:11

state to to regulate, and

34:15

yet notice everyone agrees you

34:18

would likely only have Alito and

34:20

Thomas to overturn Obergefell. Why? Because

34:22

it has nothing to do with

34:24

the raw legalities. It's all political.

34:27

We have created on the right

34:30

a political movement that

34:32

at least if you're a Republican judge in

34:34

good standing, there's something for them to latch

34:36

onto. Affirmed as action

34:39

and abortion. Some other

34:42

things. Gay marriage? Pfft.

34:46

Where do you ever hear on the right anyone pushing for that?

34:51

Commensurate with how much

34:53

you pressure judges. And

34:55

when I say pressure, I mean all of

34:57

it. Conservative media, writing about it, naming them,

34:59

naming these judges who

35:02

screw us. They don't want that. And

35:06

then again, governors getting

35:08

together and delegitimizing, say a

35:10

court has no authority, court has no authority over this.

35:13

And making it clear that you might not listen. You

35:16

can always back down and give in. But

35:18

what I'm trying to tell you is, if

35:21

you do all this, delegitimize judicial supremacy

35:24

and all this, they will back off. But

35:27

anyway, I kind of

35:29

got to my solution before the problem. But

35:32

what happened yesterday in oral arguments

35:34

in Alliance Hippocratic Medicine vFDA. So

35:39

on the merits, there's no doubt that

35:41

the FDA is a proven approval of mifrapristone

35:45

in 2000, and its subsequent

35:48

expansions in 2016, 2021 were all unlawful. Okay?

35:54

So again, it's not just because, oh, we

35:57

don't like abortion. Now we don't. But legally,

35:59

there's a bunch of Texas doctors,

36:01

Alliance for Through

36:19

the wrong process. They might have been

36:21

able to use another process, but they used what was called Subpart

36:25

H, so the section of law for

36:28

FDA authority But

36:30

that approval is only reserved for a

36:33

drug that treats serious or life-threatening illness

36:36

Meaning it was what do you think it

36:38

means like cancer right that that's what that

36:40

kind of short circuit process now This is

36:42

a very important case. You know look.

36:45

I'm actually a little bit. You know a pariah on

36:47

the right in the sense that I I

36:51

think we need to focus on some other issues

36:53

like is our lead cause more than abortion But

36:56

this is the point of this is not about abortion

37:00

the point of this is The

37:03

hypocrisy of the Republican

37:06

judges on Outcomes on

37:08

rules of standing and also

37:10

on FDA authorities. That's very

37:12

important on on deference

37:15

to the experts a lot

37:17

of important things to unpack in

37:19

these oral arguments I'm just gonna give you just a

37:21

brief synopsis So

37:23

anyway this drug was you

37:25

know to treat serious illness, and I'll be

37:28

like well What illness the

37:30

only way to have approved an abortion drug is to

37:32

say that a pregnancy is an illness?

37:35

And that's absurd in fact. It's so absurd

37:37

that judge hoe Just Jim

37:39

hoe who is one of the fifth

37:41

circuit judges who you know

37:44

rolled to strike down That's

37:46

the approval of this drug He

37:49

noted that population council which was the

37:51

entity that sought approval in 2000 They

37:54

actually protested the government using this

37:56

process because they said quote neither

37:58

pregnancy nor unwanted pregnancy is an

38:00

illness, and therefore they were concerned

38:02

that the courts would strike it down. That's irony,

38:05

and these idiots refused to do it. And

38:08

then what happened was in 2016 and 2021, so

38:12

originally they approved this and said, look, we're

38:14

going to have adverse event reporting. Same thing

38:17

as COVID, by the way, is the COVID

38:19

shots. You're going to have to have a

38:21

doctor's visit, all these gestational limits

38:23

of when you can use it. Subsequently,

38:26

2016, 2021, they took that

38:28

all off. You could use it any stage, mail

38:31

in without seeing a doctor in person,

38:33

all this stuff. Remember,

38:37

it's also important to understand that we're

38:39

always fighting yesterday's issue. So they give

38:41

us a dobs, but

38:43

now most abortions are going to be chemical

38:45

drug abortions. This is

38:47

– if that is your big issue, which

38:49

is not my top issue, just for a

38:51

variety of philosophical reasons, I'm

38:54

just like, they're killing us, so

38:56

I'm going to spend my capital

38:58

protecting myself. I know this sounds

39:00

horrible, but I'm almost at the point of like, just

39:03

kill your own people, leave me alone. If that's

39:06

going to be such a political liability relative

39:08

to everything else – again, that's a long

39:10

conversation. My point is that

39:12

if abortion

39:15

is your issue, if the

39:17

court rules against us on this, this is a big problem,

39:21

because dobs is going to increasingly become

39:23

moot. And

39:26

that's a whole other thing that even when we get a

39:28

good ruling, notice how they don't police it. Now,

39:31

this is a little bit different,

39:33

but remember, we talked about that

39:35

Virginia case with affirmative

39:37

action that they're making an end round

39:39

around having admission standards to schools based

39:41

on race. They just don't call it

39:44

race, and the Supreme Court

39:46

refused to grant the appeal from the students.

39:49

So these judges are

39:51

pathetic. But

39:53

the reason is, they only get pressure from one end Of

39:57

the political debate. And make no mistake, it's

39:59

all political. It all political.

40:03

So anyway, I'm. In.

40:06

His early it took. Twenty three years.

40:08

April seven twenty twenty three at the

40:10

be a surprise Doctors. A

40:13

Federal District Judge Matthew. Ah

40:15

to the merits of the Northern

40:17

District of Texas. I'm ruled that

40:19

the entire as the approval was

40:21

unlawful. Again, it's as as

40:23

politically we don't like abortion. This.

40:26

Is an important if you believe

40:28

in judicial oversight. Of

40:31

exacted agencies. Setting

40:33

Outside of that story, Downs is very

40:35

legitimate for a quarter roulette. Those.

40:38

Do with what you like. Abortion or not. Not

40:40

easy. The plaintiffs didn't like abortion, but that's

40:43

immaterial to the ruling. Because

40:46

it did, this is a lot of bearings

40:48

on a lot of issues that we're dealing

40:50

with. like like the covert shots and I

40:52

know on I can our friends that bit.

40:55

Dell built Big Three has another lawsuit. On

40:58

at the approval of us decongestant

41:00

drug some wholly different step. the

41:02

site. Cool vid. As an

41:04

example as a present for using animal

41:06

trials and it's a big problem. You

41:09

know lot of us believe deregulation, but remember

41:11

we have regulatory capture. This.

41:14

A very important point in Central I would

41:16

rather does all things the private sector but

41:18

we have a very strong as the A

41:20

when they want to be strong so it's

41:22

regulatory capture. We don't have the ability to

41:24

police safety of products to the Se as

41:26

a monopoly on it's so we rely on

41:28

them since A very big problems when as

41:30

the A now green lights dangerous products and

41:32

we have no way around that. says.

41:36

That abortion. Yossi. If you're listening

41:38

and you're like a big abortion

41:40

during, just understand that these are

41:42

cities You That means Democrats forever

41:44

were complaining that was is none

41:46

of regular regulatory oversight. Over

41:48

as the A approvals for food safety. Other

41:50

things. That these they were into it before

41:52

it. Became goal. So.

41:56

Nobody. Could argue that. the

41:58

entire approval one unlawful.

42:04

Anyway, it went before

42:06

the Fifth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit did a

42:08

partial reversal, partial upholding. They basically said, nah, we're

42:10

not going to strike down the original approval of

42:12

the drug, but we are going to strike down

42:15

the 2016-2021 expansion of

42:17

making it available at all

42:19

terms of gestation and, you

42:21

know, without an in-person doctor's

42:25

visit among a couple other things. So

42:29

Judge Jim Ho had a partial dissent in which

42:31

he agreed with the district court that it should

42:33

have fully be uprooted

42:36

fine. Okay, so

42:39

right off the bat, I pointed this out

42:41

in December when the court agreed.

42:43

The court granted cert to overturn the

42:45

good part of the Fifth Circuit ruling,

42:48

but not the bad part, classic hypocrisy,

42:50

where they only grant the bad guys'

42:52

appeals, not our appeals. So it's like,

42:54

alright, maybe just take it up altogether.

42:56

No. So clear up. There's no chance

42:58

they're going to take

43:01

Judge Ho's side and overturn the Fifth

43:04

Circuit on not overturning the

43:06

original approval, but we could only

43:08

lose out that we won't even

43:10

get the Fifth Circuit's ruling to

43:12

overturn even the expansion. And indeed, yes,

43:15

they went oral arguments, and

43:17

they seem to indicate exactly that. Now,

43:20

as always, Kavanaugh, Barrett,

43:22

and sometimes Gorsuch – in this case,

43:25

Gorsuch is included – they

43:28

want to find out – they

43:30

want to find ways that will allow

43:33

them to give bad rulings without

43:36

giving bad rulings. So what's a great way to

43:38

do it? Oh, you don't have a standing. So,

43:42

I mean, there's a lot of interesting things that happened. Justice

43:45

Jackson basically said we need

43:47

to defer to the experts. We

43:50

shouldn't be second-guessing the

43:52

experts, which is interesting because this

43:54

is a woman, if you remember, who said during her

43:56

confirmation that we – I'm not a scientist. I don't

43:58

know what a woman is. So this

44:00

is the new thing that governmental agencies

44:03

could now go ahead and just

44:05

do whatever the hell they want And we do well,

44:07

well, it's medicine. It's it's but again, this is nothing

44:10

to do with medicine. I Mean

44:13

it happens to be it's dangerous. It happens to be

44:15

it's on the freaking menu on

44:17

the label of The FDA

44:19

that between 2.9 and 4.6 percent

44:22

of women will end up in the

44:24

emergency room. It's on the FDA label

44:27

Okay, so even if you're

44:29

pro abortion the This

44:32

is a dangerous drug The

44:36

manufacturer admits that between a hundred thousand

44:38

and three hundred fifty thousand two to

44:40

seven percent of users require Surgery

44:42

due to adverse events. This

44:45

is a really big problem again

44:47

over and beyond abortion You

44:50

don't need to be a doctor to listen to

44:52

their own statement and the FDA is label But

44:55

nonetheless, you don't even have to get into the whole

44:57

debate over safety and advocacy of drugs It

45:01

was the only way you could

45:03

say it was lawful is to say that

45:05

pregnancy is an illness and that that's mentally

45:07

ill But that's part of the

45:09

whole mindset. Now these guys don't

45:12

want to go be sound like Justice Jackson. So they

45:14

play games and they said They

45:16

didn't like the standing Justice

45:19

Gorsuch said there's been a rush

45:21

of sweeping court injunctions in recent

45:23

years and a

45:26

Prime example of turning what could be a

45:28

small lawsuit into a nationwide Legislative

45:30

assembly on an FDA rule or any other

45:32

federal government action. So, you know, I get

45:35

I'm sympathetic in a vacuum to like Yeah,

45:37

you know, we don't want to turn

45:40

the you know courts

45:42

to a super legislature to

45:44

basically determine the validity of every

45:46

major public policy issue decision

45:49

decided by by The

45:53

political branches now, I will just say that

45:56

Even in my sympathetic nature there is a difference between Yeah

46:00

the legislature and the executive branch

46:02

together versus an executive agency clearly

46:04

stepping out sort of outside

46:07

of its statutory bounds. That

46:10

more is the job

46:12

of the court versus, let's say, the legislature

46:14

clearly did this, but you feel it's unconstitutional

46:16

or whatever. But

46:18

I'm a sympathetic. Justice Barrett and Kavanaugh,

46:20

same thing. Barrett said, so

46:23

if that's right, I mean I think the difficulty here

46:25

is that, at least to me, these

46:27

affidavits do read more like the conscience

46:30

objection is strictly to actually participating in

46:32

abortion. And I

46:34

don't think, you know, Scott and Francis, the

46:36

doctors, plaintiffs ever

46:39

participated. In other words, what do you care? What do

46:41

you care, guys? What do you care? You

46:44

know, so you don't like abortion. There's a conscience

46:46

protection. You're not going to have to do it. You're

46:48

not going to have to prescribe these drugs. How does

46:50

it affect you? Now,

46:55

some of you who are smart onto this, you might be

46:57

jumping out of your seats. But

46:59

this really pissed me off. If

47:01

you want to go back to strengthening

47:04

Article 3 standing the way it was

47:06

in 1789, that you have to have

47:08

a very valid, ripe, particularized, tangible injury,

47:10

in fact, to be a plaintiff, you

47:14

can't just have some kind of subterfuge to put

47:16

a political issue in the courts because you disagree

47:18

with it politically, that it has to be a

47:20

clear, clear, you know, stakeholder

47:23

in it. I generally

47:25

am actually more sympathetic—I'm very sympathetic to

47:27

that. I generally think that's where the

47:29

courts should be. But let's apply it

47:32

evenly. My gosh, these idiot judges are

47:34

nowhere for us when the left wing

47:36

does this to us on labor, environment,

47:38

immigration. We have foreign nationals getting standing.

47:40

And I want to

47:43

point out two examples of how they're never there for

47:45

us. Environmental

47:49

issues, okay? There

47:51

is something called aesthetic

47:56

injury. There's a

47:58

doctrine of standing all over the place. aesthetic injury where

48:03

basically any random plaintiff can assert

48:05

that they will no longer be able to look at a

48:08

plant or an animal as

48:10

a result of you know

48:13

an EPA or Department of Interior reg

48:15

meaning they feel they need to police

48:17

you know Endangered Species Act more or

48:19

whatever it is and

48:23

this is from Lou and the

48:27

defense of wildlife 1992 1992 case desire to use or

48:29

observe an animal species

48:33

even for purely aesthetic purposes

48:36

is undeniably a cognizable

48:38

interest for purpose of

48:40

standing this is

48:43

true particularly for those okay so yeah

48:45

that was a quote and the person

48:47

who observes or works with a particular

48:49

animal threatened by a federal decision is

48:51

facing perceptible harm meaning if

48:54

you're like a scientist or a zoologist

48:56

so you totally have things a doctor should

48:58

be the same thing look you

49:01

know again if you want to

49:03

apply it strictly I could I could respect not

49:05

granting standing here but based

49:07

on the standing doctrine that these

49:10

same justices continue to uphold when

49:12

the left soothes our

49:14

policies it is absurd to

49:17

say that doctors who are

49:19

in or actively practicing cannot

49:22

assert that the FDA used an

49:25

unlawful process to approve a drug

49:27

that is very dangerous then

49:32

there's something called offender observer

49:34

standing you

49:37

know the whole line of the establishment clause

49:40

cases where they sue and say that the

49:42

government ever like mentioned Christmas or having a

49:44

replica of the Ten Commandments it

49:47

violates the establishment clause now obviously

49:49

that's absurd it doesn't but even

49:51

if it did you

49:54

might be wondering how the hell do you

49:56

get standing how does the existing of a

49:58

tenth of a ten command Replica

50:00

harm you my eyes it

50:03

hurts my eyes like what is it doesn't

50:05

do any like Literally,

50:07

how do you ever get standing? And

50:11

there's millions of cases they get random

50:15

atheist Satanic or

50:17

whatever plaintiffs They

50:19

have nothing to do with it. He is sending

50:21

I Have

50:24

one example I wrote about years ago Felix

50:26

the city of Bloomfield a 10th circuit case

50:29

Where they ruled that the city of Bloomfield

50:31

met New Mexico Had

50:33

to remove its replica of the Ten Commandments

50:36

on the city hall lawn And

50:39

you might be wondering Well, how do

50:41

they get planted standing? Here's what the 10th circuit said

50:45

Well Bloomfield argues that past

50:47

exposures meaning like exposure

50:49

that I have to look at

50:51

the see the existence of this

50:53

Ten Commandment monument does

50:55

not create imminent injury the

50:58

facts found by the district court establish

51:00

ongoing ongoing injuries and Charges

51:03

to plank this behavior. I'm

51:05

sorry changes Behavior resulting from

51:07

the highly visible religious display Felix

51:10

He's the plaintiff stopped going to City Hall

51:12

to pay her water bills So

51:14

she could avoid the monument but still sees

51:16

it from the road five or six times

51:18

a week Coon another plaintiff

51:20

drives past the monument three or four

51:22

times a week and sees it up

51:24

close every month When he

51:26

goes to pay his water bill this that

51:28

kind of exposure is more than enough for

51:31

standing I promise you I'm not making up

51:33

that up That's a verbatim quote from 10th

51:35

circuit and in 2017 when the

51:37

city appealed to the Supreme Court They denied

51:39

the appeal and sided with the 10th friggin

51:41

circuit So folks, this

51:43

is where we are The

51:47

same bastard courts that just

51:50

reached in officially To screw

51:53

with Texas defending themselves from an invasion.

51:56

They're like look guys hands off the

51:58

FDA. Don't tell them what to do,

52:00

even when it's clearly dangerous and all awful.

52:04

Oh, you don't have standing, doctors don't

52:06

have standing. Are you freaking

52:08

kidding me? I mean,

52:10

look, if

52:12

you want to say that in this

52:14

circumstance, doctors don't have standing, that

52:17

would pretty much throw out the left-wing

52:20

lawfare on environment and so many

52:22

critical issues. I am all

52:24

for making that deal. The problem

52:26

is, these bastard judges, and

52:29

yes, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh

52:32

are hypocritical bastards.

52:35

They will never apply it evenly, because

52:37

they're all political and because they feel

52:39

the pressure from one end and the

52:42

right never pressures them. We need to

52:44

call them out, we need to pressure

52:46

them, governors need to start legislating and

52:49

signing laws in accordance with our values regardless

52:51

of what they think they're going to rule.

52:55

And it's time we tell them to get off our lawn. I'm

52:58

telling you, they are prone to

53:00

pressure. Remember, there's a reason

53:03

why the Supreme Court did a reversal in 24

53:05

hours and rather than

53:10

putting an injunction on SB4, they're like, well, we

53:12

don't want to do it, but wink and

53:14

nod, we want the Fifth Circuit to do

53:16

it. Because

53:19

this is an issue that's becoming

53:21

like abortion, the invasion, and they're

53:26

feeling the pressure. This

53:29

is the sort of stuff we need a movement to

53:31

think of, but because I'm just telling you strategically, we

53:34

got a big problem. We

53:36

need answers. What are we going to

53:39

do when you have a Supreme Court

53:42

that is a one-way ratchet on

53:46

every doctrine, whether it's merits, whether

53:48

it's standing, whether it's rules of

53:52

orders and motions on preliminary

53:54

injunctions, administrative injunctions, or

53:56

administrative stays? where

54:00

it's all outcomes based, that

54:04

they basically have a scorecard. Oh, well,

54:06

we did the Harvard case, we did

54:08

Dobbs, we did Bruin. Well, now we

54:10

can't rule with you on these cases.

54:15

The courts are a very big,

54:17

big problem. I'm

54:20

just going to tell you, again,

54:22

if Trump were to somehow become president

54:26

and he were somehow to have the most effective

54:28

legal advisors and cabinet

54:31

members, no

54:34

one could disagree with what I'm saying here. Everything

54:37

he would accomplish would be executive. There's nothing you're going

54:39

to do through Congress. We

54:42

already proved that. So

54:46

I'm just going to tell you, the

54:48

left is going to a sell

54:51

all of them. Let's say there's 100 cases. They

54:56

will all be illegitimate lawsuits. But

55:01

Barrett and Kavanaugh and the likes will

55:04

make sure to side with them either

55:06

explicitly or through the shadow docket, not taking

55:09

up, you know, strategically taking up and not

55:11

taking up appeals at their whims at

55:14

least 50% of the time, if

55:17

not more. I'm

55:19

telling you, because remember, it's going to be even

55:21

worse because, you know,

55:24

to the extent we have a Republican president, it's going to be

55:26

Trump at this point, Trump appointed

55:28

them. So they're going to want to

55:30

they're certainly not going to want to look like

55:32

the rubber stamping the man that appointed them. That's

55:34

how they think. Trust

55:37

me, that is the psychology of these

55:39

judges. They

55:42

are prone to pressure every bit

55:44

as much as

55:46

these Republican governors that we refuse to

55:50

expose to pressure. Now, it's a little bit

55:52

different because it is life tenure and there is no

55:54

primary a little bit different.

55:56

But but again, pressure does work. They're

55:59

human beings. And

56:03

it's time we play the pressure game on

56:07

the courts the same way the left does, rather

56:10

than unilaterally disarming. I

56:13

understand in the perfect world, we want

56:15

the courts to have its jurisdiction, us

56:17

to have ours, follow the law, no

56:19

politics. That ended

56:21

years ago. The left has

56:24

weaponized it beyond belief. So

56:29

if the courts are not going to be

56:31

there for us to protect us when

56:34

the feds and the blue states screw with us at

56:36

a political level, you

56:38

better believe we're going to want to secure what

56:41

we do politically in the red states, because

56:43

if we don't do that, there

56:46

is quite literally zero hope. I

56:49

want to end with this point. I

56:52

do believe – I still believe the most

56:54

likely scenario is that Biden

56:56

will win, or if

56:59

they swap him out with someone else, Democrats will win.

57:02

Unless something changes – I mean,

57:05

down ballot, this is clear. Nobody

57:07

argues. No pollster argues. Polls all say

57:09

that. It's

57:12

a pro-Democrat environment, and there's

57:14

a reason for that because of the stupidity of the

57:16

right. But

57:20

you cannot imagine the mandate they will think

57:22

they have and the things that they're going

57:24

to do where they have power. So

57:28

therefore, you cannot imagine the things we're going to

57:30

need to do in red states. And

57:32

I'm just going to tell you, almost everything

57:34

the Biden admin would do, hypothetically,

57:37

next year will be upheld by the

57:40

courts, and

57:42

almost everything we want to do to protect ourselves will

57:44

be struck down. Now, again, some will be the courts,

57:46

some will be the lower courts, they'll play games, but

57:50

they will strategically make sure that's how it works.

57:53

Don't doubt me. This is what's happening in the courts.

57:56

A lot more political news we want to get to. Again,

57:58

we'll talk to you tomorrow. special guest

58:00

on that WHO medical freedom movement where

58:03

things stand what we can do in

58:05

the state again

58:08

the courts are going to loom large and anything we want

58:10

to do