Denaturalizing Criminal Aliens

The J Weber podcast is presented by Creative Planning, helping clients simplify their journey to financial wellness, one personalized plan at a time. The J Weber podcast is a production of IHART radio podcasts . Welcome to the J Weber podcast. And you're lucky to be listening today because this is great stuff. First , I will give you the only honest take when it comes to this wrong deal because neither side's cheerleaders are talking heads is going to do it. Also, we'll talk about how far left activists who are scheming for twenty twenty eight quietly admitting that they have no response to President Trump's America first strategy, as well as insisting that their party doesn't want the Obama and Biden era power brokers anywhere near this party anymore, given how terribly those administrations ran and how much they just covered up for Joe Biden. So that's interesting stuff. And finally, everywhere Trump's team looks, they're finding fraud and waste and incompetence, all that and more today. But first, producer Gregory John is back from a long weekend marrying off his daughter. Has the dowry been paid, Gregory ? Yes, it has. Yes, it has. Thank you so much for attending . We had such a great time and it was an honor to have you and the guys from the radio station there. Well, and thank you for inviting me to the wedding. It was a very fun time. And I'm not I don't want to embarrass you, but I left thinking, what a lucky man. Gregory John has won the lottery. He's got an adoring wife. He's got wonderful kids. He's got a chubby little grandchild with more on the way, I'm sure. Yeah . And then as a capper, you have this great career that you've loved so much that you could do it forever or you could retire today if you wanted to. You know, all sorts of people get a few of those things or one of those things. You have them all. So I assume you know what a lucky man you are. I certainly am, and I should mention today because today is Tuesday , the sixteenth for those listening later in the week . This is my anniversary. Forty six years with my lovely wife Dorothy, and we capped it off with that wonderful wedding last weekend. And congratulations. She's still talking to you. She still likes you . But this weekend, wow . Oh man . So how is the nesting ? This is the transition by the way. Do you need a little financial advisor now that you're getting hurt? Yes, I do. Do you have anybody in mind? I do have one. Have you heard of creative planning? They're one of the nation's largest independent wealth management firms offering fully integrated financial and retirement planning, investment management, estate planning, tax strategies, business services and international wealth management , and it's all in house and coordinated through your wealth manager. Their fiduciary wealth managers are here to help you navigate every piece of your financial life. Visit creativeplanning. com to schedule your introductory meeting. That's creativeplanning. com . Your team awaits. Paid for by creative planning, an SEC registered investment advisor. The speaker's statements are not an endorsement of the firm. I don't want to spend too long on the Iran deal, but I'll take a few minutes here to give you what is the only honest take on it. No one else on either side of the aisle is getting it right , and they aren't because politics gets in the way and it keeps them from telling the truth. There are several truths here. They include so long as these Islamist Mullahs are controlling Iran, Iran will never live up to a peace agreement. They never have and they never will. And that means the details of this agreement, which Trump haters on both sides are screaming about and lying about, and misrepresenting in the media , don't actually matter all that much. Anyone who has a brain in their head and an honest perspective on these things knows that Iran won't live up to any agreement anyway unless the international community forces them to, and even that's unlikely . Which means the practical part of this agreement, meaning the real reason that it's being reached is to bring an official end to this current conflict. That's all Trump and Western allies need to get out of this. A reason to end this month's long military action against Iran and walk away and wait for the next inevitable conflict to arise with the Mullahs. Hopefully though that's years from now. So that's the honest take. All the insiders and diplomats who are serious people and not playing political games knows Iran won't live up to an agreement, but it means Trump and Netanyahu who can declare we are done bombing Iran for now, this mission is accomplished, and then it lets things settle down. That's all I would be expecting from this agreement. Anything more than that is gravy. And I know Trump and JD Vance and some of the other world leaders are speaking in very optimistic terms and I'll get to that. But that's all I would expect from this agreement. It gets us back to normal. With the very significant and wonderful exception that this military campaign was a massive, massive success, which is something else the Trump haters will never admit. Our US and Israeli militaries conducted the most brilliant and one sided military campaign that this globe has seen in the era of more modern war fare. And for those who are saying nothing's changed, they're just stupendously foolish. Iran's military is decimated. It has no Navy or air force anymore. Its economy is in ruins, meaning that the Mullahs can't rebuild that military anytime soon because they have no money and because they need to focus on rebuilding the country and their economy first. That could take years. So the second important truth here is this is a massive military and security win for the West , and anyone who discounts that is just an angry dope. And as for the people on our own side of the aisle like Mark Levin and Eric Ericsson who seem furious that Trump quote isn't ending this and bringing about regime change, well , that would require boots on the ground or an internal uprising. But the Iranian people won't move to do that for whatever reason and for numerous reasons, and the American people have made it clear that they don't want boots on the ground over there or to expend the effort to quot e nation build and try to prop up a new government. And that is the right call. But it leaves Trump with one option to try to get the toughest settlement agreement that he can and hope to get international help in enforcing it. That's all Trump can do here if you all don't want boots on the ground. Try to bring this conflict to a logical end and quote get back to normal. That's the option he was left with because the Iranian people didn't rise up to overthrow the Mullahs. But very importantly, the U. S. and Israeli military and security goals were met beautifully. This is where we are now . And now, if you are smart and skeptical like myself, you take the rest with a grain of salt and hope for the best. Let's hope that this ro sy picture of a different sort of Middle East and a future in which Iran never gets the nuclear bomb can be realized. I really do hope JD Vance's version of this comes to pass, but it very likely won't. He's saying the deal will transform the Middle East. All right, hold on there, Tiger, color me skeptical. But he said the deal negotiated means Iran will quote never have a nuclear weapon, not just pursue a nuclear weapon, but to procure or buy a nuclear weapon as well. That's built into this agreement. Vent said that there will be quote real benefits for Iran if it sticks to the agreement, but he stressed that this will be contingent on the U. S. being able to verify that Tehran is delivering on its promises. It won't. But quote, If the Iranians comply with this deal , it's going to fundamentally transform the Middle East over the next fifty years, Vance said. It's going to end the war. It's going to make the Middle East more investable. It's going to mean a lot of prosperity and lower energy prices for the American people. We can hope, hope, hope, but that's a rosy view. All we needed was a way to end this war action and get back to normal, and this does it. But for what it's worth, other world leaders, including Europe's lefty leaders who don't like Trump, are praising this as a strong deal. Kir Starmer in England, Macron in France, they're vowing to finally help to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. Other Middle Eastern leaders are praising the deal too. And so the only people who seem to hate it are A, those who don't understand it or what it really is, and B, Trump haters on both sides who won't admit he does anything right. And C, the Democrat strategists who wanted to launch an angry jihad against this yesterday so that they could kill two birds with one stone. First, not let Trump get praised for a global win. I mean, you gotta crap on the deal and pound on it as awful because your side is so pathetic and has so little to offer the world. But then second, they organize a social media jihad against this deal as a way to knock the very positive coverage related to Trump's UFC fight and the patriotic celebration that went on the day before . They were getting great headlines out of that. Both social and traditional media were flooded with all sorts of wonderful, excited pro America coverage of that, which was benefiting Trump on Monday morning . And so that's the honest take on this Iran deal. Don't get too invested in any other peripheral crap or arguing about it. Next item I would think that most people in this audience know that the Atlantic is a lefty magazine that East Coast elites love to read and reference. It was founded as a magazine way back in eighteen fifty seven in Boston . And so it is basically pieces done by white snobs for white snobs. It was literally dreamt up at a dinner party featuring Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Longfellow, Oliver Wendell Holmes. It was founded by famous writers and philosophers and poets at the time, including Harriet Becher Stowe and Herman Melville, but it was immediately readings, poetry, essays, etc by the elites for the elites. The poors didn't read the Atlantic, not in the eighteen sixties and certainly not now. But in defense of the overall literary effort, the Atlantic does have some interesting pieces. It's not a bad product if you can check your conservatism at the door and just kind of appreciate it for what it is. Like virtually all journalism and current events magazines of this sort now, it has moved further and further to the left over time, but its contributors and editors still produce some quality pieces. Well, this week, the Atlantic featured a pretty interesting article for the left wing insiders asking, the question, What is the Democrat Party's answer to Donald Trump's America first movement? Because after all, Trump might be term limited out in twenty twenty eight, but either JD Vance or Marco Rubio or whoever picks up the Mantle of Mega is likely to stick to that catchphrase, and more importantly, stick to that strategy. After all, America first isn't just a slogan, it's the basic premise of the Trump presidencies in today's Republican Party. What's best for America? What benefits and protects us as Americans and what contributes to American greatness versus what's harming us as a country and as a society? That's the underlying mission of Trump and the Republicans America first policy. And regardless of what the Trump haters want to say, it has worked to strengthen America, both domestically and internationally , and it has revived the economy twice now, actually. And so this is a great question for the Trump haters. What actually is their answer to America first? What is the plan or the platform that has them winning and running the country again? This is what the Atlantic Piece by Missy Ryan explores. And she focuses almost exclusively on America's foreign policy because the DC and the New York elites and those atop the Democrat Party apparatus , they're all certain that Trump's foreign policy has been disastrous. And so Ryan attends some insider seminars and some think tank events that are being put on by elite insiders and groups as they try to craft and brainstorm the Democrat Party's message for twenty twenty eight and beyond. I won't bore you with most of the details, but the very interesting takeaway is none of the people working to reform or remake the Democrat Party now want anything to do with the one hundred and twenty or so people who ran the Biden and Obama administrations. Missy Ryan says message number one as she talked to all of these longtime Democrat insiders and foreign policy experts was , Damn it, we don't want a single fingerprint on this party in twenty twenty eight from any person who had anything to do with the Obama or Biden presidencies or Obama or Biden foreign policy. Now, that is interesting because it tells me one, the leaders of today's Democrat Party and their affiliated activist groups are bound and determined to move even further to the left , because the strong sense that you get from this piece is the Democrats are the party of Jew hating and socialism now, and Obama and Biden's people weren't willing to take the country full socialist and also kept propping up those damn Jews. Honestly, this is one of the takeaways of the piece . The piece makes it clear, the insiders on the left who are already focusing on twenty twenty eight and beyond, are determined to keep taking the country further and further toward the radical left. The second thing this tells me is they now understand what boobs and dopes Barack Obama and Joe Biden surrounded themselves with. As Missy Ryan couches it, these are the one hundred and twenty or so people who ran the country over the last two Democratic regimes and a lot of them worked in both administrations, right? This would be referencing the Valerie Jarretts and Susan Rice's and Ben Rhodes and Anthony Blinkens and Jake Sullivan's. The Atlantic Peace says none of the Democrat Party's leadership team or foreign policy insiders want to see any of these stooges sitting at the table and scheming on how do we save the Democrat Party now? Why? Because they're the ones who destroyed it. Seems to be the reason. They lied and schemed for Obama. And then they really lieded and schem and cover it up for Biden . Quote, today's Democrats are not sure they want these people back, she writes. In a recent New York Times guest essay, Senator Chris Van Holland of Maryland said Democrat primary voters would not support any c andidate, quote, who plans to re enlist the senior democratic decision makers who whitewashed the truth during the Biden administration and refused to acknowledge their complicity. Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii posted on X that although he isn't into blacklisting, he believes quote, It's fair to want a whole new crop of foreign policy staffers in the next Democrat administration. He says it's not like the same one hundred twenty people are the only people who know anything . Then there's this sentence. Allies no longer believe Trumpism is an aberration and are unlikely to just pick up where Biden left off. Now that is interesting. It's basically an admission that Trump won on this back and forth that the country has been engaged in since the final years of Obama , then Trump's first term, then Joe Biden. This is a country whose leadership saw Obama trying to become the liberal Ronald Reagan, right? He himself said he wanted to do that. He wanted to touch off some socialist progressive era in this country. The guy who set the country on an entirely new woken socialist path, but he failed at it and so spectacularly that the country elected Trump instead of Hillary to continue Brock's terrible legac y. So Trump gets into office and reverses and destroys all of Obama's lefty executive orders and foreign policy blunders, including trying to flood the country with illegals, kill off the climate alarmism nonsense, he demands better of NATO , etc. So Trump whipsawed policy back toward the right , only to have only a single term before Biden whipsawed the policy back to the left, trying to reverse and destroy all of Trump's first term work. And in doing so , he really let the left go to new extremes and give away this country to the global left and foreigners, which so infuriated Americans that they re elected Trump again, so he could whipsaw policies back the other way. And so I find this not only interesting, but also I find it vindicating that one of the elite magazines for the elite East Coast Leftists and Democrat insiders is basically admitting that Trump won the battle for the hearts of the American people and for the direction of U. S. policy. They quote don't see the next Democrat trying to pick up where Joe Biden left off. That's not only good news, but let's be clear. It's an admission that what Donald Trump is doing in terms, of tax cuts, closing the border, restoring America, dealing with Iran, have been positives or wins. As in, damn it, Trump got back into office and exposed Joe and Kamala as idiots, and he's keeping his promises and the voters have noticed. Darn . They can't run in twenty twenty eight trashing Trump for restoring the border or all but defeating the man made climate change myth, or restoring America's standing around the globe, or dealing with Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela , finally dealing with the Iranian Mullah, etc . At best, according to this piece, at best, they're praying for Trump to really screw up any resolution to this Iran war, so they can spin that as a terrible failure and a quagmire too. But the bottom line admission is they've got nothing appealing or concrete to really trash Trump's tenure with, not if he's keeping his promises and doing a bunch of things the Americans seem to like. And so back to the headline, what is the Democrats' answer to America first? Missy Ryan, in the end, admits they don't have an answer yet. Again, she's focusing mostly on foreign policy. In Cavanus Washington conference rooms, the party's prominent foreign policy thinkers have been presenting their ideas about how America should engage with a post Trump world at events organized by a who's who of centrist and left leaning think tanks. Foreign policy for America, the Center for American Progress, etc . She says, let's get this part out of the way. Some things haven't changed. The Democrats at time risked becoming parodies of themselves. For example, during one event's lunch break, attendees were invited to grab a bite from an array of quote affinity tables, including one for gender equality and another for diversity. Good lord. She says in the brainstorming sessions, themselves, quote, many of the proposals Democrats are putting forward are light on specifics. The challenge will be convincing voters that this time will be different and that the policies Democrats want to pursue will truly benefit voters' lives . One surprise to Missy Ryan here is how rapidly pro Palestine and anti Jew the party has already become. A recent poll, she writes shows that eighty percent of Democrats and Democrat leaning independents have an unfavorable view of Israel up from fifty three percent in twenty twenty two. The issue has become a proxy for generational divides over America's role in the world and for what many younger Democrats see as U. S. hypocrisy. Yeah, this is a growing fissure in the Democrat tent that is not healing. She says, senior Democrats are discussing whether Biden Aid should sit out the next Democratic administration. Other Democrats dismiss the Bruha as an ins ide the beltway distraction. But she says two Israel issues are likely to continue dividing the party. Whether candidates favor cutting support for Israel's air defense systems and whether candidates describe what occurred in Gaza as genocide, she points out that some are willing to do that like Rokana and AOC, and others are not. It continues in this vein, but bottom line, there really are secretive meetings being held around Washington, DC and on the east coast by left wing ers who understand how broken and divided their party is policy wise and who understand how effective Trump and Republicans have been in their America first approach. Now let's get into some other important things that the average American and the average Democrat voter doesn't know about their own party or its insiders. For example, how many regular old Democrat voters understand that Kamala's disastrous campaign in twenty twenty four has the DNC's top brass want ing to get off of the diversity train altogether in twenty twenty eight ? Talk about a big story that isn't being reported. Yeah, as the lefty media writes stories about how Kamala is the frontrunner for twenty twenty eight and how Democrats are fierce over losing their all black districts, etc . Heck, as the Democrat Party lawmakers and their accomplices in the media triple and quadruple down on playing racial games , there's a significant and growing chunk of Democrat leaders and strateg ists and insiders who are saying My God, can we finally give up the diversity charade already? Can we select a white candidate in twenty twenty eight preferably a Christian white male ? Isn't this something? And to be clear, some of this is being motivated by DC insiders who want to claim, look, I'm not racist, but America is. We have to admit that America still is racist, and so we just got to go with a white guy. A lot of these insiders are trying to explain away their position on this in that manner by blaming rural white idiot America. But that's clearly an excuse by people who simply want to get back to winning and who realize that all of the racial and gender and special equity nonsense that their party has engaged in has backfired . And so as one pundit put it, as Kamala Harris is still blissfully unaware of how unpopular she is, even people within her own party are looking past her for twenty twenty eight, and by the way, I told you they would, just based on Kamala's disastrous performance for that quicky three month sprint in twenty twenty four , I knew she would never get the nomination again. But how interesting is this? Democrat insiders are basically saying, Kamala has ruined it for any black or any woman short term because she's such a joke. So we need to nominate someone in twenty eight who is essentially a pallet cleaner, at least give us a pallet cleans er. Let's just give them a generic white guy to vote for again. Interesting strategy. But I'd remind them Joe Biden was generic white guy and won, and then he nearly destroyed the country. Their retort to that would obviously be, well, buddy won . And all they want is power. One analysis says, quote, These Democrat leaders think a straight white Christian man can put the party on his back and carry them to victory in twenty twenty eight. Okay, the only problem with that theory is today's Democrat party base. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were foolish enough to invite all of the people on the kook fringes of their party into the tent to have a seat at the big table. And now it's those kooks and those socialists and those grievance mongers and those Americ a haters who increasingly run the party . Do you really think today's left wing activists, the grassroots, the young people and the union members who do all the canvassing and organizing and bullying during election time? Do you really think that today's so called Democrat grassroots is going to be happy to get behind the straight white guy after AOC and Rokana and two other gays blacks, Hispanics, women, and fruit loops lose the primary ? Not a chance. Oh, and then there's this problem. Who's the straight white Christian male that they're going to promote? Pete But no he's gay, Josh Shapiro, nap, dirty Jew . Gavin Newsom. Well, he's not Christian, but he can pretend like the Clintons and the Bidens did, I suppose. Have him memorize a few Bible verses. So I guess he's closer than the other two, but do you see the problem? Moreover, it seems like a particularly bad time to try to convince today's left wing voter to pivot to some great white hope to save them in twenty twenty eight . The last ten years have been about hating white to the core and trying to put anyone but a white man or white woman in charge . As one pundit put it, if they don't have a diversity ticket in twenty eight , the Democrats will have to give up all of their excuses for why they lost to JD Vance. I mean, that's also true. Cheryl Chamley is a Washington Times columnist and has a great answer for these Democrat insiders who are saying, well Kamala and Hillary prove a woman can't win. America's still too misogynist, we're not ready yet. Chumley wrote, It's funny Democrats think it's a woman thing. With Kamala Harris, it was a cackling thing. With Hillary Clinton, it was a whole can't stop lying thing. On top of that, Harris wasn't even voted to her candidacy, not by voters anyway. She was installed by the party machine. Chamley says the talk is being driven by Michelle Obama, who said a few months ago, quote, there's still sadly a lot of men who don't feel like they can be led by a woman. Joe Biden of course blamed her loss on racism and sexism, and Harris herself blamed her loss on the inability of America to accept a woman, a black woman, a black woman married to a Jewish man. Chamley says Democrats are blind to the truth. It's not that America wouldn't vote for a woman for president or a black woman. It's that Americans don't want a freak show in the White House where masculinity is seen as aggressive and strong leadership is regarded as discriminatory and where borders are open and tax dollars are distributed to do nothings, and men masquerading as women lead up health policy. She says Americans already had that. It's called the Biden administration. So she concludes , if Democrats want to call the opposite of all of that, straight white Christian man, well, then so be it, Americans benefit either way. She says America welcomes a Democrat party that's repented from its weird and wicked ways. She nails it perfectly, doesn't she? And what's really annoying these insiders is the fact that as we approach a midterm election in which every historical and political mile marker would suggest this should be a big year for Democrats, they instead are seeing data that that shows while more Americans are starting to be disappointed in Donald Trump, they seem to be even more disappointed in today's Democrats. Poll after poll seems to prove most Americans are seeing nothing worthy or valuable about today's democrat Party. One recent revelation that went almost completely unreported is the total collapse of Hispanic support for Democrats. These numbers are based on CNN and NBC polling over time. They say Latino voters are fleeing the Democrat Party, showing a twenty point collapse since twenty twenty two . That's just the last midterm election, and a thirty point collapse since twenty eighteen. They say in twenty twenty two, Democrat Congressional candidates won sixty percent of the Hispanic vote according to NBC News exit polls. And at CNN's exit polls, that was more like sixty nine percent of Latinos voting for Democrats. Now the latest surveys show Democrats will be lucky if they can achieve even forty percent of the Latino vote in November just four years after they received sixty percent of it in twenty twenty two . Then you have the latest Ug survey. This was just done in May, and it shows just thirty nine percent of Hispanics plan to support a Democrat for Congress that's over a twenty point decline for Democrats in four short years and a thirty point decline in eight years. A left wing analysis says any brand, whether it's a political party or a household name, should be deeply troubled by such a strong loss of customer appeal. Yeah, it should. They say currently the party's favorability rating among Latinos sits at forty five percent. This is down fifteen points from the sixty percent that it was in October of twenty twenty four just before the president ial election . Now, this is another situation in which this doesn't mean that these disillusioned Hispanics are necessarily or automatically going to migrate over to the Republican Party. But it does mean they're up for grabs as voters this fall and moving forward into twenty twenty eight . The polling I'm seeing also has support for President Trump and the Republicans down slightly when it comes to Hispanics. They become an important group of swing voters and election deciders in our most recent elections, and so Trump and Republicans still need to impress them somehow and convince them to become more regular Republican voters . But to be bleeding that level of support from Hispanic voters is just a small indication of what sort of trouble today 's Democrat Party is in. It wasn't that long ago that our analysts on the right were saying, look, if the Democrats can't get sixty five percent of the Hispanic vote and eighty five percent of the black vote every election, they're screwed. They literally cannot win a national election or most of their competitive congressional elections with those numbers. Well, big chunks of those black and Hispanic voters seem to be up for grabs and fall in twenty twenty eight, don't they? More so than at any time in my lifetime they do. Can Republicans move them over while they're showing disgust for the Democrat Party? This is the thing that we need to monitor here moving forward and the thing that Republicans as a strategy need to focus on . But you really need to step back and appreciate this, my friends. And some people who listen to my radio show for decades will know this. The Democrats of the Clinton and Obama eras were certain, certain that they were building toward a permanent Democrat majority by twenty thirty. The minority populations in this country were growing and they're going to keep growing and they're going to keep growing. And so they assume that if they had a lock on black and Hispanic voters by twenty or thirty so when a population tipping point would come around, the population shifts alone would hand them an enduring majority, permanent control of Washington, DC and this country. So imagine the shock it's going to be if we enter the twenty thirties with having more minority Americans than ever voting and in bigger percentages than ever. And the Democrats are still losing with a weaker grip on power than they've had since the eighteen hundreds. Now that would be unexpected. And it would be because minority Americans are voting in more balanced ways for Republicans. Republicans don't even need to own the votes of most black and Hispanic voters. If the Republicans just get forty five percent of Hispanics and twenty percent of blacks voting, the Democrats won't be able to win most of their important national races short term. Trust me, today's older Democrats like the Bidens, Pelosi, Schumer, the Clintons, even the Obamas , they never expected that their grand schemes and their tampering would backfire in them so spectacularly as we approach twenty thirty , but they are. In fact, in the next segment, we'll talk about how most of their voting base is now more than willing, more than willing to toss black voters under the bus and destroy those all black and Hispanic voting districts if it means they can just regain power again. That's coming up . NewsTalk eleven thirty WISN He's proud to present the J Webber podcast J Weber draws from his thirty five year career in radio news and commentary to craft an insightful look at the major stories and impactful issues from around Wisconsin, the nation, and the world. And after you've enjoyed the J Weber podcast, we invite you to go to your radio or go online and listen to NewsTalk eleven thirty WISN Wisconsin's Most Listen to Radio Station . You are listening to the J Weber podcast. Oh I love this, my friends. In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that declared gerrymandering to protect minority districts unconstitutional, I am certain that the leaders on the left expected their voting base to have a melt down over it. What a great thing to use to whip up their voters, right? You can toss around all sorts of racial accusations, repeat Jim Crow ad nauseum, and boy that's gonna get the voters angry . Not really. Okay, okay, but it's at least going to get our voters on the left angry again not really It's almost as if even Democrat voters know that the last twenty to thirty years of racial games the Democrats and their activists have played were just that games. It's almost as if the American people know that in truth, America's not a racist country anymore, unless you're talking about the race baiters themselves. And they're almost entirely on the left. Let me try to be more clear. The overall reaction to that Supreme Court decision was not at all what the left thought it would be. It would have been more explosive and more sustained if most Americans and most Democrats really thought this was still a racist country, or was a country in which minor ity voters were being kept from the polls or blocked from voting. They're not. That's utter nonsense that the activist left and the Democrat party leaders have been claiming, but that hasn't been the case for decades and decades now, and everyone knows it. And so we have this situation now in which the typical sorts of race baiting numb skulls are trying to get people all whipped up about that Supreme Court decision that says you can't be racist when you create your election maps, but it's not working. Even those Democrats and race baiters who are out there mouthing the nonsense don't seem to be believing what they're saying . People like Al Sharpen and Hillary Clinton and Kamala are making the rounds and they're mouthing the same old tired talking points, but watch the videos. I swear to you, you can tell that they don't believe the baloney that's coming out of their mouths anymore if they ever did. I don't think they ever did, but you can tell that even they are tired of trying to keep up the fifty year racial grift. Their hearts just aren't in it anymore because they know the country's not really racist and they are weary of pretending it is. Listen to Hillary Clinton with no venom or vigor trying to continue the lies related to voter ID being racist, et cetera at a recent forum, she what they're doing to try to undermine voting. They're trying to kick people off voting rolls. They're trying to demand, you know, forms of identification that most real people don't have and most older people and most rural people don't have . They're certainly redistricting to make it difficult to elect black representatives or Latino representatives or Democrats . So that means we have to be even more int entional in showing up and voting . The video makes it even more apparent because you can see her sort of slouching in her chair, legs crossed, having to go through the motions. Her demeanor suggests she's telling herself in her head, okay, Hill, blather through the talking points and get this over with. The vodka's chilling in the hotel room. Even she didn't believe what she was saying, and I'd guarantee you that'd be the case if we could ever get her to be honest. But during that appearance, Clinton again suggested rural voters were too stupid and too slow to get an ID or bring it to vote. And she again claimed that no black or minority candidate could possibly win a political race on their own. Voters need to be segregated by race. She's still a horrible human being. Hillary perpetuated the lie that Republicans are kicking people off of the voter rolls, and I loved the part about demanding forms of ID that most older and black and rural people don't have, like a driver's license or something. Come on. You can't live in America anymore without carrying around some form of ID and everyone knows it, everyone has it or could easily get it. These excuses were lame and tired fifteen years ago when the same leftists floated them as the first vot er ID laws were starting to be passed. They're just as lame and tired today. None of them hold water. Kamala is out there suggesting that rural and poor voters can't make a copy of their photo ID if they wanted to vote by mail. This is her excuse . If you pass a law that says include a copy of your ID, oh my god no one can vote because most Americans, especially Black Americans are too poor and stupid to figure out how to make a copy of something. How insulting is that to rural or black America? You Democrats really think I'm so dumb that I can't find a way to make a photo copy of something? Yeah, that's what they think. Because as I said forever on my radio show, it is the white elites and racial grievance mongers who are the real racists in this country. Democrats never stopped being racists. They want to claim it's conservatives and Republicans. It never has been if we're going to tell the truth about which side is racist based on the history of America . It was white elites and especially southern whites who supported slavery and indentured servitude. It was the southern Democrats who held the slaves and fought against emancipation. It was southern Democrats who formed the KKK and disrupted and ruined reconstruction. And in this era, it's still the elitist white Democrats who are pretending to look out for minorities. But when you ask them why, you learn that it's because they still don't think people of color can take care of themselves , as in, yeah, we need to lift up the blacks because look at them. They're pathetic. They're not as smart or as capable as whites are. That sentiment genuinely undergirds the thinking of most East Coast elites and Democrats to this day . It really does . And they display it on issues like voter ID or majority minority districts. And just for the record, I reminded listeners of this regularly on my radio show, but I will introduce it to podcast listeners. For the record , a huge majority of Americans have always supported showing a photo ID before we vote. This was an eighty twenty issue back when Jimmy Carter and a bunch of election integrity gurus dreamt it up as an idea in the eighties. Yeah, voter Idea laws originated as a democrat idea back when they weren't America haters, but it was immediately popular and has always been popular. For most of these five decades it has had about eighty percent popularity. Interestingly, though, even after a two decade jihad against voter ID and voter ID laws by the left , even after twenty to thirty years of trying to convince voters it's a bad idea, even now , every poll on voter ID shows that it's at least se venty or seventy five percent popular, at least that much . I hate to subject you to the volume of CNN's Harry Enton again but he's a good data analyst and one of the people on CNN who seems to be willing to be honest. So here's about a minute of him yelling about how across the board popular voter ideas. Look, I got all this polling on the street and going back since twenty eighteen. You'll notice on all of it, it's all north of seventy five percent, seventy six percent, seventy six percent, seventy six percent , eighty one percent. And then eighty three percent in the last year of Americans , they favor photo ID to be able to vote. What about by party? What's the party bird? Yeah, normally you might expect hey, there'd be a big divide by party with Republicans really for it and Democrats really against it, but not really here. I mean, just take a look here. Favorite photo idea about. You got ninety five percent of Republicans, pretty much all of them, but even seventy one percent of Democrats favor photo ID to votes. And what you see is that the American people actually it's not really all that controversial. And then I edited some of Harry Enton out here because he was rambling a bit. And I wanted to get to specifically how minority voters view vot er ID. Okay, what's the racial breakdown on this, right? Because I think a lot of people make the argument that people of color, non white Americans have a harder time procuring a photo ID to vote. But even here, take a look here. Favorite photo ID to vote , eighty five percent of white people favorite, eighty two percent of Latino, seventy six percent of black Americans favorite. So the bottom line is this voter ID is not controversial in this country . So in a country in which we cannot get eighty percent agreement on nearly any issue, support for voter ID laws sits at eighty three percent. And I'll stress again , that's after two decades of Democrats trying to convince us otherwise. Twenty years of whining, lying, complaining, moaning, over vot er ID laws only seems to have convinced voters from all walks of life that we need voter ID laws. Fantastic. And the reason that this relentless leftist campaign against voter ID has failed so completely is that their claims are so ludicrous . Most Americans don't have an ID. Most Americans can't get an ID. All sorts of people can't find or get a birth certificate. Most blacks are too dumb and lazy to get an ID. Most rural voters are too dumb and lazy to get an ID. Most rural and black voters don't know what a copy machine is. Cleedus, I need me one of them machines that'll make a picture of another picture or a can't vote . Come on, really? This is what Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris think of you, or do they just think you're dumb enough to believe them ? But I'm wondering, back to that little giggle that I felt following the Supreme Court ruling that banned racial gerrymandering. This giggle I felt because most of their voting base is now more than willing to toss black voters under the bus if it means they can just gain power again. Also fantastic. Hey, if it means we can run things again, screw every one of those blacks and Hispanics who say they need representation in Congress. Fem a. This was from Politico shortly after the ruling. Even the headline is Democrats tell pollsters they'd happily ditch black districts to get more power . Unsurprisingly, Democrats are willing to eliminate black majority congressional districts in order to gain more political power , a new poll finds. Democrat politicians and pundits have long claimed that any proposed shift away from race based gerrymandering is racist, repeatedly weaponizing the issue to smear Republicans, but a political poll shows a lot of Democrats are willing to sacrifice black voting power to beat the GOP. Democrats must counter GOP efforts, they say, even if it means reducing the number of majority minority districts. And we aren't done yet. These average Democrat voters that they're polling at Politico, they aren't done betraying blacks and Hispanics yet. The poll respondents go on to agree. You know, it'd be okay if Democrats redrew their maps to use black and Latino voters as pawns in their own redistricting games , pack a bunch of black neighborhoods into districts that are red now just to dilute it a little bit and make them more competitive. I think you understand what this means. That means intentionally tossing away the power of the black or Hispanic vote, if you will, in some move that you hope allows Democrats to create more swing districts. After all, how will those blacks and Hispanics who are now assured to have a voice in Congress because of their protected districts. How are they going to have any future voice in Congress if you're simply using their neighborhoods to dilute red districts? You understand? This is rank and file Democrat voters genuinely agreeing, genuinely saying , We don't really care if blacks and Hispanics have a voice in Congress if it means we Democrats can keep power, screw them, let their votes be wasted in a scheme to dilute red districts. This is what the average Democrats really think as their party's leaders go around spouting nonsense about racism and representation . Politico says, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer criticized the Supreme Court's ruling, alleging it opens the floodgates for states across the South to make voters of color essentially invisible in our democracy. It's another step towards resurrecting the Jim Crow South. They quote Louisiana Representative Troy Carter, saying, Without the protections of the Voting Rights Act, there is no evidence to suggest that Black voters in our state will be able to elect candidates of their choice. Kamala Harris says the decision stripped away protection for black and brown voters, etc . As they're mouthing that bologna, their grassroots voters are telling poll ers, screw the blacks and Hispanics, let's use their votes to dilute red districts. Fan fantastic. What? Hypocrites. And the Supreme Court did make the right decision, and they did finally correct a long time constitutional error. The voting Rights Act never mandated that racial districts needed to be drawn in order to quote protect black and brown voters. That was purely an invention of the Democrats and the left wing activists afterward who wanted to play political g ames based on race . These so called majority minority districts were only ever purely political mechanisms in order to try to build in a new set of automatic wins for the Democrats in Congress into those maps. They wanted to maximize Democrat wins. That's all these ever were. In fact, there's a line of argument that has emerged from data crunchers and polysci professors that suggest these minority protected districts probably actually limited the number of black members of Congress rather than boosted them. And that theory makes sense. How many good black candidates could have been elected to office in so called white districts if they'd run over the years? Over the decades. Instead, they were limited to primarily running in quote their districts . I personally am certain that these minority districts certainly led to worse representation and more morons in Congress than there otherwise would have been. Look, there's no way that people like Gwen Moore or Sheila Jackson Lee or Maxine Waters could have won an election in a mixed district, is there? Does anyone really want to debate that? We've had all sorts of tree stumps elected to Congress over the years out of these special black and Hispanic districts who any regular group of voters would have rejected. But in Milwaukee's hood, Gwen looks smart, I guess. Dido for maxine in LA is hood, etc . And so diluting the black and Hispanic votes might actually have more of them making it to the halls of Congress , not fewer. Because the Democrats in those blue states and Republicans in the red states have both had an incentive to intentionally draw lines that limited the number of black representatives in particular who would be sent to Congress . The Democrats wanted to quote, protect the black vote and the Hispanic vote, but they gave Republicans an excuse to limit the number of Democrat districts in their red states by saying, Well, no, we have to ensure there's a minority district . You get it? So in the case of Milwaukee as an example, yeah, give Gwenmore all the black areas so the Republicans have an even better shot at winning the surrounding white areas. Yeah, we're okay with that. If that's what Democrats and the courts really insist we need to do. And so don't be surprised if these Supreme Court challenges actually lead to more black and Hispanic candidates winning races and going to Congress because they are smart people and good candidates who man to impressaged a wider racial rainbow of constituents. We actually already have all sorts of instances in which minority members represent predominantly white districts across the country, and why wouldn't they? If the criterion for office is Are you smart and of good character rather than are you black or brown? And it is. It's just one way that the Supreme Court decision is going to force the Democrats to confront their decades of racism that they insist on pretending is helpful racism. The truth is, the Supreme Court finally got this right and reached back and corrected a constitutional error and successive constitutional misinterpretations and banned racial gerrymandering. The country will be better off for it , and per usual, today's Democrat leaders and racially grifting whiners are all wrong in this manner. You're listening to the J. Weber podcast, a presentation ofs New eleTvenalk thousand thirty WISN and IHRT Radio podcasts. Jay Weber draws from his thirty five year career in radio news and commentary with an irreverent wit that simply can't be matched. Right minded alternative to media outlets that substitute self serving narratives for candor and truth. Listen to the J Weber podcast published every Tuesday and Friday. Be sure to subscribe . I started off the podcast by highlighting a story in the Atlantic that basically admits Trump's America first foreign policy has worked. Now the Atlantic is a magazine for lefty elites, and so they couch it as Trump's foreign policy has been so disruptive and damaging that the Democrats are struggling to form their own policy to counter act that and run in twenty twenty eight, etc . But the overall takeaway from the article is clear. Trump and his supporters and most of America at large wants us to be a nation that projects strength globally and protects our national interests globally as Trump does. I take that as an admission. Trump's foreign policy successes have them rattled. After all, this Iranian situation seems close to resolved, and no matter how they try to spin it, the end result is that Trump and Netanyahu finally dealt aggressively with a fifty year Islamist threat and a terror problem. Then there's Trump keeping Putin penned in and impudently slowly losing his Ukraine war. Then there's Trump's closure of our border and immigration realignments with Mexico and South American countries, which is also good foreign policy. And that's not even talking about finally dealing with Venezuela and the Socialist Narcoterist regime there. His team has negotiated endings to several lesser foreign wars. They're finally taking on China's trade advantages and attempts at espionage here, et cetera. Let's face it, Donald Trump and his diplomat ic and defensive teams are racking up some real foreign policy wins here around the globe. They're changing America's future around the globe. And that's all been done within about fifteen months, leaving the nearly three more years of this administration to bake those short term foreign policy wins into lasting ones. On Friday, the president made it clear that with the cooperation of the new Venezuelan government, he's eliminated the leader and founder of the very violent and aggressive trend er R cagartua el. Fantastic. May he rot in hell for all of the misery that he's created in the U. S. and the Latin world . This is Trump finally targeting the upper echelons of these massive criminal cartels directly. And these are criminal cartel s that do nothing other than prey on the American people in various different ways, whether it's drugs, whether it's sex trafficking, etc . This was literally a drone strike on this cartel's compound. Hector Guerrero Flores, who is known as Nino Guerre ro, was listed as the most wanted fugitive by Ice and was killed in a swift and lethal kinetic strike, as Trump put it ontruth social. His post included a video and read in part My Direction the Un,ited States Southern Command delivered a swift and lethal kinetic strike to successfully execute Nino Guerrero, the infamous leader of Trend Aragua, one of the most bloodthirsty terrorist organizations on planet Earth. Before I returned to office, Joe Biden opened our southern border to millions of illegal criminals and allowed this foreign army to rape, maim, and murder American citizens with total impunity. During my campaign, I pledged to expel these monsters from our country and bring justice to the families of those they slau ghtered. He continued early in my administration I delivered on my promise to designate Trend Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization, deport thousands of evil criminals, and wage war against the cartels who have long been waging war against our citizens while weak leaders left America helpless and defensive. This action was coordinated closely with our friends in Venezuela, with whom we are working very well. As a result, Trend Aragwa terrorists no longer have safe haven in Venezuela or anywhere else, and under my leadership, Trump concludes, we will find these vicious murderers and drug lords anytime, any place and send them to the depths of hell where they belong. God bless America. So do you think most Americans want to see and hear something like that from their presidents? Or do most of us want to hear a bunch of hollow talk or weak needed rhetoric from our presidents of the sort that we got from Barack Obama and Joe Biden when it came to their foreign policy. Do you want your president opening our borders to dangerous criminal cartels or closing them? Do you want your president dealing more directly with a deadly terrorist regime that has menaced the globe for fifty years and killed thousands of Americans ? Or do you want them delivering pallets of cash to the Iranians in order to buy back our hostages? I'm telling you, away from the pathetic East Coast, nearly everyone in America wants to see Trump's form of foreign policy, not Obama or Biden's, and it's long overdue. On social media, members of the left seem to be melting down over the president's characterization of what the Biden administration allowed to happen, but how is Trump wrong? How is any of this wrong? Quote, Before I returned to office, Joe Biden opened our southern border to millions of illegal criminals and allowed this foreign army to rape, maim, and murder American citizens with total impunity. Biden's administration fam ously did, didn't they? Oh, but Biden's team didn't specifically let in criminals or just allow them to commit terrible crimes, Jay. Yeah, they did. Biden and his regime might have thought or hoped that they were letting in only the meekest, most worthy, the hardest working of the global poor, put it into any sort of rosy package you want to. Biden's regime might not have intentionally let in tens of thousands or even millions of criminals and dangerous gang members, but they did. They let them walk over the border and wave them right in. And that makes Biden's team responsible for the murders, the rapes and the maimings that then occurred here as committed by those foreigners. Well, but Jay, come on, Biden's team didn't quote allow that to happen, as Trump claimed, come on, allowed. But Biden's regime and the Democrats holding the positions in the DA's offices and the federal attorneys general positions around the country did allow it to happen. They did . They ignored the skyrocketing crime rate and gave criminal illegals pass after pass after pass on their crimes and even allowed them to stay after they'd been caught committing those crimes. Obama's regime at least deported the illegal crim inals, Biden's regime didn't even do that. And so nothing Trump says here is an exaggeration. It might be refreshingly blunt, but it's not inaccurate or an exaggeration, and most Americans know it. The American people from all walks of life should be willing to give Donald Trump and Republicans credit for keeping their promises in dealing with these terrible problems related to illegal immigration. No exaggerations. I consider this one of the greatest presidential wins that I have witnessed in my forty years of cover ing and watching this stuff. Donald Trump and this era's Republicans finally vowed to by God, get serious, and fix our illegal immigration and open borders problems, which the Democrats were not only exacerbating, but using we're as a wedge issue that they never wanted to solve. Never in the two hundred and fifty year history of this country has America had a secured and safe southern border? Now we have one. This is a massive win for this country. Probably the great est against all odds sort of political win for a president that I've ever seen in my lifetime. Now consider that this is just one great thing that Donald Trump and his top administration leaders have accomplished for this country in term two. And you know, it's a common complaint of mine that they're getting no attention or credit for it at least with the major media outlets who don't want to admit to or report on any Trump or Republican victories . So there's another one as of this week that I'll tell you about , and it's the sort of action that makes me appreciate this president and this team even more than I otherwise would have. Every other president whom I've seen promise to clean up the corruption or find the fraud or expose the waste in Washington D,C has only ever given it lip service. At most, they would get into office and make a few big splashy moves and then claim that they fixed it, drop it, get right back to the corrupt status quo. So the fact that Trump's team members are relentless ly doing this reforming and this exposing and this destroying of the political swamp in DC is just mind blowing to me. It's really impressive. And in a place in which you don't do it unless you can get credit for it, Trump's team really is daily rooting out more corruption, blocking more graft and dirty dealing, finding more fraud, finally stopping waste as they run across it. This has been extremely impressive. Again this week, as no one was looking, Trump's team cut four million dollars in fraud and waste from pro illegal and pro DEI and pro climate change services. These were even more little secret griffs set up by the Obama and Biden era minions when they were in office. Trump's interior secretary, Doug Bergam, snuffed them out this week. The Department of the Interior has terminated forty three partnerships with outside organizations, eliminating more than four million dollars in planned funding for programs tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion , environmental justice, and services for illegal immigrants. Led by Secretary Doug Bergham, the Department of the Interior is ending partnerships with groups that no longer represent the priorities of the American people, the department said. A department wide review launched in March uncovered nearly three thousand active agreements with about two thousand outside groups ranging from non governmental organizations and nonprofits to private entities and educational institutions. This report says the review later found multiple groups did not appear to provide a clear benefit or did not align with the department's mission. Among the groups targeted were groups like Latino Outdoors, which advocates against oil and gas development and all sorts of other left wing ideas. There's the American Alliance of Museums, which had a contract with the Park Service to build DEI programs into the national park system . Why? Other groups, the Department of Interior is cutting ties with include Green Schools Alliance, National Wildlife Federation, California Native Plant Society, Clean Ocean Action, and National Geographic Society . Some of those might seem worthy to you, but they aren't. They all have one thing in common. They're all left wing activist groups. And so why do left wing activist groups have contracts within the federal government in the first place? Why are we taxpayers giving them our hard earned tax dollars? Not to do anything constructive, to push the leftist agenda, but the agencies within our governments aren't supposed to push political or activist agendas. So why do our federal agencies, virtually across the board, have all these grants and donations to left wing organizations in them, including organizations that support decidedly anti American agendas . You know the answer? It's because Democrat regimes in the past have layered them all into our government. They've created and hidden them within the bowels of our governmental agencies and budgets . Based on these issues cited, nearly all of these hidden traps and taxpayer scams were feather bedded into the Interior Department's budget by the Obama and Biden administrations. Clearly, it's all groups linked to climate change and fake get out the vote drives and gender equity and heck rewriting history on every plaque in our national parks and museums. I mean, we shouldn't be funding any of that because a link between government and these sorts of groups shouldn't exist, period. Another great example of this came last week as Secretary of State Marcarubio announced that the State Department and the Trump team are shutting down a bunch of operations related to birth tourism. These are scam artists globally that have been using bogus documents and loopholes in our immigration laws to run sophisticated scam operations and at least in some instances you have to know that workers within our own federal government knew they were going on and may have been cooperating with them. Marco Rubio said the State Department shutting down a sophisticated tourism network after the U. S. Embassy in West Africa revealed more than one hundred foreign nationals were using fraudulent documents and visa fixers to illegally obtain American citizenship. He said it's a similar story in North Africa where over one hundred visas were just revoked by that embassy there in which expectant mothers were coming to America to give birth for the sole purpose of giving their child American citizenship. He said, meanwhile in Europe, we now know that there were over four hundred suspected birth tourism cases there since twenty twenty four , a state department spokesman said, These are networks that are essentially trying to sell citizenship to the United States as if it was a commodity. And he said, in a lot of instances, we taxpayers are even paying for the hospital bills once these illegals get here. He said quote, This also includes the logistics that leave the American taxpayer footing the bill. Oftentimes in these cases, birth tourists pay the absolute minimum when it comes to their medical expenses. and then U. S taxpayers foot the bill. That is outrageous, that is unacceptable. We're putting a stop to it. And this scam, and these networks are being discovered around the world, and they include some degree of our U. S. consulates and embassies being scammed. Well, these operations probably couldn't exist or be so lucrative if there weren't U. S. employees in those consulates helping to scam the system. Could they? The State Department hasn't explicitly said that our foreign consul ate workers have been involved in the scam, but logically, I don't see how that cannot be the case. Someone has to be handing out the very well timed tourist visas to the U. S. so that these foreign women can fly into the country during a narrow window in which they then give birth and fly home. Mission accomplished, my baby's an American citizen. That's crap, and it's got to stop. Did we see either the Obama or the Biden administration's move to stop this sort of thing? No. Were they advising or encouraging consulate employees around the globe to actually allow it? Probably . Let's not be naive here given everything we know about how the Biden regime especially operated when it came to illegal foreigners . Let's also hit on this important change and win for the country by Trump's team last week. The Trump Department of Justice is finally, finally , the first presidential administration in a long time to do this. They're finally pulling the citizenship of illegal aliens who were given it and then got caught lying or breaking the law on the forms that they submitted. For some reason, this hasn't been done in decades. Trump's team is also saying we need to quote denaturalize people who lie on their forms and we're criminals back home. It's only logical after all. So the federal government's moving to denaturalize more than a dozen criminal aliens for allegedly lying about their past crimes, including child sex abuse, fraud, and drug dealing during the naturalization process, the story goes. The suspects include convicts originally from Somalia, Haiti, Colombia, Mexico, Cuba, and Jamaica, who were given citizenship and then found to have lied about past crimes in their home countries or lied on the forms. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a naturalized citizen's US citizenship may be revok ed and the certificate of naturalization cancelled if their naturalization was unlawfully or fraudulently obtained by the concealment of a material fact or through willful misrepresentation. The INS recently found fourteen instances of this, so these people will be stripped of their citizenship and sent back home. Some examples include a sixty eight year old from Haiti, Jean Claude Elfred, who became a naturalized U. S. citizen in nineteen ninety four, even though he repeatedly sexually abused his daughter back in Haiti when she was a child. There's a forty four year old who's the daughter of a major Colombian drug trafficker and obtained permanent residence in the US by concealing her big amous marriage to a US citizen. She was already married to another guy when she married a U. S. citizen to stay here. There's a forty three year old from Yugoslavia who was naturalized in two thousand five after lying about sexually abusing a ten year old child back in Yugoslavia. There's all sorts of business fraud here. There's a fifty four year old from Somalia that submitted applications for admission to the U. S. under two separate identities Ditto for a fifty year old from China who will