Vance Dismantles Bill Maher on Immigration

Hey there, it's Wayfair here, where delivery and setup are as easy as a few taps on your phone.. You're relaxing in an old hammock, scrolling Wayfair's app when you spot it, a brand new patio set. Next thing you know, Wayfair delivers it right to your patio and sets it up Wha, you need a new grill too? Alright, Wayfair's got you covered. With Wayfair's Room of choice delivery and fast experts set up on qualifying orders, life gets a little easier. Visit wayfair. com or the Wayfair app. Wayfair everyvery style every home Four ladies and John Roberts sell out our country in the Supreme Court's worst case scenario ruling on birthright citizenship reallyally hate to say I told you so on this one It could not have gone worse. As of today, if your family settled in Jamestown in sixteen oh seven You are an invader with no claim to this stolen land And if your Chinese mom pops you out in Gam tomorrow, America is your birthright Make it make sense. Then the liibertarians in New Hampshire make Mussolini look like a hippie. And a new species of psychedelic mushrooms makes people see little gnomes everywhere, and scientists have no idea why. I'm Micha Knowles this Michael Knowles showhow Welcome back to the show. Can I get some of the gnome mushrooms Does anybody professor, do you have any gnome mushrooms to make this immigration decision go down easier I actually don't know that it even makes you happier. it probably just has you interact with demons. Really awful decision. I told you, when everyone started to get optimistic about the Supreme Court rulings, they said, o, look, they ruled this way on the Haitians. Oh, look, they ruled this. I said, they're giving Trump little tiny wins, but they're going to clobber him on the one that actually matters That's exactly what happened. Then we will also get to the Vice President Fresh on the heels of our interview with the vice President. We'll get to the vice President dismantling Bill Mare on immigration. There's a lot to learn just rhetorically from how we should talk about these issues. First so, smash that like button, suubbscribe. Check us out on Spotify where you can download full episode audio and video, to watch or listen whenever you want without using your data. Do not miss An episode The decision's brutal came out yesterday. It was a five, four decision You are seeing this reported in some places as a six three decision onn the question of birthright citizenship You recall that President Trump had an executive order that was overruling birthright citizenship, birthright citizenship, which had never really been definitively decided by the Supreme Court. Its precedent goes back to eighteen ninety eight, the Wong Kim Arc case to determine this line about from the fourteenth Amendment as to who is a citizen in the United States, The fourteenth Amendment, which was only ratified to deal with the issue of the freed slaves, it was not ratified in order to give Guatemalan drug dealers or Chinese spies the ability to go on birth tourism to California So the Supreme Court had never really ruled on it and President Trump provoked the Supreme Court with this executive order saying the fourteenth Amendment does not give birthright citizenship to Venezuelan gangsters or Chinese spies or anyone else who abuses our system to radically change our demography, to radically change our political. pololitical community. The case was Trump v. Barbara It was not a six three decision. The reason that some people are reporting that is they want to make it seem even more legitimate They want to give it more of this patina of authority. The reason they're able to do that is because you have a five four decision on the constitutional question. and then Kavanaugh comes in and he says, O, I'm going to join the majority of the court here, which is the liberals plus Barrett sorry, yeah, with Barrett and Roberts But I'm not going to do it on constitutional grounds. I'm going to do it on statutory grounds. So what Kavanaugh says is, I think that Trump's executive order violates the immmigration and Nationality Act I'm not going so far as to say that the fourteenth Amendment says that Guatemalan drug dealers can have anchor babies in the United States so that you then get chain migration, so you totally change your makeup of the country The liberal justices, all of them, all of them are women plus Amy Barrett, who is apparently kind of a liberal justice, plus John Roberts, who is the chief justustice, he tries to preserve the integrity of the court by acting in a really political, slippery way, which ironically only undermines the credibility of the court. They ruled to sell our country down the river. Basically it was all the women plus John Roberts. They ruled to sell the country down the river This is the worst case scenario because what they could have given us I told you, I did not think they were going to rule that birthright citizenship was not implied in the fourteenth Amendment. What they could have given us was a narrow ruling on the merits of the case on the executive order while punting the question to Congress, that is to say, Congress do your job and give a statutory remedy here to clarify what exactly is meant by birthright citizenship? They didn't do that. They said the fourteenth Amendment demands birth tourism from Chinese spies I Couldn't couldn't goers So Congress can't change it. Some people are saying, well, now we can have a constitutional amendment Good luck. You're not going get a constitutional amendment throughout the history of our country. For most of it, it was pretty tough to get constitutional amendments. Antonin Scalia when I met him as an undergraduate One of my friends asked, would you change anything about the Constitution? He said, I would make it easier to amend You're not going to get it In our very polarized country, not going to happen. You could call a Convention of States, not going to happen. So no, it's totally off the table The argument, I want to be as fair as I can to the women and the chief justustice who destroyed our country yesterday The argument that they're making is that the fourteenth Amendment does presume birthright citizenship, which in a way kind of predates the fourteenth Amendment in the US because we take from the English common law this notion of use solely. There's use solely, the right of the soil, and use sanguinis, the right of blood And we, in the Anglo tradition, and from the English common law, we go with the right of the soil. thatre if you're born on our soil, You're a citizen. but there's an irony to it, which is that England, the UK doesn't even believe that anymore And it's because of an unjust conflation of two concepts sububject and citizen when the English gave us bequeathed to us this notion of the use solely They didn't really have citizens in anything like the modern sense. They had subjects. So if you're born on English soil You are English in a certain sense, but frankly, that entails more responsibilities to the king than it entails any rights in our modern nation state system After World War II. As the UK began to adopt the idea of citizenship, moreore than the idea of subject, what happened? In the nineteen eighties, the UK clarified and said, we do not have birthright citizenship anymore. As you had migration that was really beginning to tick up from around the world, they said, Hey, we got to clarify. you can't just show up here and because of the magic dirt, become an Englishman. That's not going to happen even when you look to the UK, one, they change their mind on the idea of birthright citizenship on the right of the soil, but two The source from which we get it never really meant the same thing as citizenship to have a birthright in nineteenth century England or eighteenth century England was very, very different than the kind of privileges that are entailed by birthright citizenship in twenty twenty six, America.. Enough of the majority for now. The dissents were scorching. Clarence Thomas, who's usually a man a few words, he gives this blistering very, very lengthy opinion or dissent rather shows that the majority of the court had misread history and precedent It was sm It was great in the sense that we hope that one day in the not too distant future after you get newew judges, with new clerks and new students and a new generation of legal minds. Hopefully they will overturn this horrible decision. For now though, the libs are thrilled. So we have a perfectly typical tweet from Yas Yasamin Ansori. Yasamin I' sorry, who's a Congress lady She says If you're born in America You're an American. Take that, Conservatives Take that peopleeople with a stable American identity Yasamin Ansori, who I think is the I think she's the child of immigrants Yasamin I' sorry, if you're born in America, you're in American. Thankk you so much for your opinion Yes, Anine, I'm sorry I really I really appreciate your opinion, Yasamin, I'm sorry. How convenient for you that this new definition of what it is to be an American includes you, a relatively recent arrival who has given nothing to the country whatsoever I you Yasamin' sorry now say that that's all that matters you have this Guatemalan lady who's also in Congress representative Delia. Ramirez, and this is almost more offensive She says, I am the proud daughter of Guatemalan immigrants I am a proud Anchor baby. All caps And I am an American Thank you, Thank you so much for your opinion, ladies. So the way the left is going to spin this is they're going to say, well, this is how the American law has always been The Supreme Court is just affirming the American law, the precedent that goes back not just to the Wang Kimmart case, but to the fourteenth Amendment, and really, it's even deeper It rooted American history To which we would have to say, Oh yeah, Then why was it a five, four decision Why did the Supreme Court have to take on this question in a definitive way In the year of our Lord twenty twenty six, two hundred and fifty years on into our country If it was so clear from American history Why was it one vote? Amy Barret, really, who we werere so furious out here. We expect little of John Roberts We've cut Ben actually. you know, we sometimes make fun of Ben when he makes bad political predictions, but Ben made one very good political prediction about John Roberts twenty years ago whenever he was confirmed We never expect Roberts to go with us. But I thought Amy Bert was supposed to be the based Catholic, pro life student of Anton and Scalia Well, the hardcore Scalia Ees, originalists and textualists on the court Alito and Thomas. They were obviously in the dissent. Amy Barrett totally betrayed us on a crucial issue. crucial issue posossibly the most significant case that the Supreme Court has dealt with. in decades You want to say that the most important case was the Dobbs decision. It was very, very important. But We have to put a little asterisk on the Dobbs decision because after the Dobbs decision, you didn't outlaw abortion. It just went back to the states and it got worse in some states. After the Dobbs decision, the number of abortions actually went up. That's not because of the Dobbs decisions, it's because of the technology of the abortion bill. But just to say the practical effect of Dobbs was basically non existent. We hope it will have more of a practical effect in the future The practical effect of this will be to incentivize birth tourism All those Chinese Ladies wororking for the CCP All the either explicit enemies of the United States or just people who are cynically trying to exploit our country. as a tax base and a welfare base, they are gearing up to have their kids There's nothing you can do about it They will get all of the privileges of American citizenship. They will then use chain migration to bring all of their family over, and they will radically change the demography because Amy Barret betrayed us so that now you have these ladies N Not exactly names out of Jamestown. Yasam mean I'm sorry D Lia Eirez Proud anchor baby. telling us tellelling us what it is to be an American using definitions that The men of the Mayflower, the founding fathers, the A nineteenth century statesman, the twentieth century statesman, would not recognize at all. wouldn't recognize this country that one little silver lining to all of this before we get into Justice Jackson's I absurd opinion that tells us that country with a lukewarm IQ is not going to survive very long Before we get into all of that, there's a little glimmer of silver lining, which is I might become a libertarian again. thanks to the Libertarian partarty of New Hampshire. Before we get to that I want to tell you about Avebe Marine mutual funds. Ave Mariafunds d. com slash Michael M ICH A L Let's talk about compartmentalization for a minute People are encouraged to have one set of values on Sunday. than a totally different set of values at work who knows, mayay a different set values in the golf course You shouldn't do that You have another set of values when you vote You canre have another set of values when you do this, that' the other thing no. Somehow when it comes to investing They're often told that their values should not matter at all I have never found that argument to be very persuasive, notot since my libertarian youth have I entertained that If your convictions shape every other important decision in your life, why would they suddenly disappear when you're deciding where to invest your money? That's a very significant thing that you do in your life. That is one of many reasons that I'm very proud to serve on the board of Ave Maria Mutual Funds. It's a great fund It was founded in two thousand one. They've helped investors align their investments with their beliefs. Today, they manage nearly four billion dollars in assets for more than a hundred thousand shareholders, philosophy is really simple, straightforward They refuse to invest in companies involved in abortion, pornography, embryonic stem cell research, or companies supporting Plned Parethood. Lear more at avimariafunds d. com slash Michael. That is avimmariafunds d. com slash Micha. All mutual funds are subject to market risk, including possible loss of principle, request of perspectus, which includes investment objectives, risks fees, charges and expenses, and other information you should read carefully consider carefully before investing The prospectus can be obtained by calling one eight six to a three hundred sixty two sev four or can viewed at aMariafunds. com dot Av Maria mutual funds are distributed Ultimus Fund distributers, LC I was a libertarian when I was a teenager, okay? I say this is the right wing version of that old idiom. If you're not a libertarian by the time you're seventeen, You have no thummas, you have no chest or spirit. If you're not a traditional conservative by the time you're twenty five, you have no brain. You have no heart. We gott to workshop the phrase. In any case, I haven't been this attracted to libertarianism in a long, long time. Libertarian Party of New Hampshire responds to the birthright citizenship cases. Well, if we can't end birthright citizenship We'll just have to end democracy instead Did you just get, didid I get a thrill up my leg? hold on threaten me with an orderly society, whooa. Hold on, let's not forget the word democracy appears a handful of times in the Federalist papers Always in the negative, alwaysways with a warning. Our framers Not the most pro democracy people, despite what you might have heard in the twentieth century. Wow. I feel like I'm sixteen again. feeling so good about the Libertian party Apparently though they're of an offshoot of the actual libertarian party, so maybe not We're not going to end democracy The left might the next time they come to power and I'm not going to become a libertarian. However Our sacred democracy, as it were, might end all on its own, especially if Justice Katanji Jackson's writing is any indication Here's what The newest member of the Supreme Court, Justice Katanji Jackson wrote in her concurring opinion She says, In the aftermath of the Civil War, those who championed the fourteenth Amendment both within and beyond Congress understood the assignment Their work product used language that transcended race and region blah, blah, blah blah blah, Ion't go further. That's the line. Those three words are really going virally The those who championed the fourourteenth Amendment understood the assignment We're totally cooked. We're just pack it up If you you know, the billionaires are building all this bunkers and go befriend a billionaire go take weapons and gold and ukulees, whatever youre going to want go, make flour cigars Go to the bunker. We're not going we're not going to make it. We're cooked. It's over It's over. This is what Supreme Court justices are writing now. This is maybe what you would expect of a remedial seventh grader If I were a seventh grade English teacher or're social studies teacher, history teacher And I got this paper from a remedial seventh grader I would say, o, you know, hey Katanji, good try Hey, that's fun re you'll even with great inflation, you get a B minus because you have to Wite like a big boy, like a big girl. you got to write And you're not, this is pathetic And I know I haven't seen anyone make This rejoinder yet to all of us making fun of Kitanji Jackson's illiteracy, whichich shouldn't surprise us. This is a woman who, during her confirmation hearings could not say what a woman is That's the same woman. You remember that during the confirmation series, Marsha Blackburn says Judge Jackson, What is a woman? She says, I'm not a biologist It was almost like a tucker laugh from Katanji Jackson is a woman with two Harvard degrees. Katanji Jacks The condescension, not just the ignorance, not just the stupidity. The condesension I'm not a biologist How am I supposed to know what a woman is She a woman who wishes to be who wishes to tend to have such judgment that she would be on the Spme Court the highest level of the judiciary which is supposed to have judgment. should not surprise us at all. But I can foresee coming down the pipe a rejoer to us making fun of Kitanji Jackson's illiteracy And the rejoinder is going to be you people, you're betraying your own illiteracy, your own ignorance. because if you have ever read Dsents from conservatives, especially Anton and Scalia. you would know that they use silly, wacky language all the time So why is it okay when Scalia does it? It's not okay when Katji Jackson does it And it's fair enough to point out, Scalia in his dessents, will use phrases like jiggery pokery. That was one, I forget which case that was from, but he did he use the phrase jiggery pokery. in another desscent He referred to pure applesauce not as literal applesauce, but meaning nonsense In the Obergerfeld decision about the supposed right to intimacy mocked the idea that marriage would expand a right to intimacy, which doesn't exist anyway in the Constitution, and he used the phrase askk the nearest hippie. It's true. He would use funny language He explained the reason he did that was to make his dessents funny, interesting, entertaining, so that law students would actually read them so that he could infect their minds with his better jurisprudence so that when they became clerks and judges themselves, they would carry on his way of legal thinking. He was very intentional about it But notice the difference between what Scalia did And what Katanji did Scalia used uncommon language. In fact, part of the reason it jars you, part of the reason it's memorable is you don't hear these phrases all the time. Jiggy pokery doesn't come up in ordinary conversation. We don't refer to nonsense and piffle as ye, I think you might use the word piffle too, but we don't hear it referred to as applesauce is for ask the nearest hippie He used uncommon language to shake us out of the common language, the common language which George Orwell reminds us is made up of dead metaphors. Because those metaphors are not evocative, it opens up our minds to just have someone else's thinking enter it someone else who constructed those dead metaphors, those cliches Those people are doing our thinking for us. We outsource our thinking to them And that is what Kitanji does by using a phrase that is bland that really has been popularized on TikTok say understood the assignment. That's not evocative at all. What it shows you is she doesn't really think for herself. She outsources her thinking to the spirit of the moment to fAadDs and popular culture So much so that probably twenty years ago, she could have told you what a woman was, but because of the fashion, the fad of transgenderism, she couldn't. She outsources her thinking, She plugs her brain stem into the matrix of the zeitgeist, and she just lets the spirit of the age Come on in It's actually what she is doing here with this kind of language is the exact opposite of what Scalia was doing the Acalia actually could think and wanted Jud to think wanted you to think about the law in a new way and Katanjra Jackson canot toottally pathetic pathetic that our court told us yesterday that we're not allowed to have a country. It's basically what they told us pathetic that a supposedly self governing republic now has no right. The Supreme Court took, once again, from the Congress, our elected representatives, we have no right even to begin to weigh in on the matter of Who gets to come in and milk the system and take all the same political rights that we have Paththetic that even conservatives are pointing out that we don't have They're making liberal arguments in some cases. They're saying, no, we can't have tiers of citizenship, gradations of citizenship. First of all, yes, of course we can O course we again, that goes back to the Constitution The fact that the U. S president has to be a natural born citizen, tells you that, well Naturalized citizens and natural born citizens are all citizens Some have different privileges than others. namely running for president The fact that you have to be thirty five to run for president, thirty to run for the Senate, twenty five to run for Congress tells you there Gradations are privileges, even among citizens. And we all know that An anchor baby. Use the case of Hassan Piper, the left wing streamer who should be in prison He was an anchor baby. hisis parents, his mother had him here And he was raised in Turkey. He just goes to Turkey and he's raised in Turkey. then comes back here to milk the system for college. He hates the country. He doesn't really know anything seriously about the country. He only wishes ill on the country. He calls to murder multiple US senators. He calls for the streets to run red in our blood. And he says that America deserve nine hundred and eleven. But that guy, you're telling me, that guy is exactly as American as someone whose family came here on the Mayflower or settled at Jamestown, or even who's been here for three or four generations from legal immigrants? Of course not. No one seriously believes that Do the liberals on the court even believe that They're just declaring power for themselves, and it looks like for now it has worked. Okaykay. So They want to feed us a little bit of a win. There was one little win that out the Supreme Court yesterday. We'll get that Th then we'll get to the mushrooms that make you see gnomes And scientists can't evenig out what the drug is in the mushroom. It's kind of weird And I'm listen, it's been it's been a rough week. There have been some really great things obviously. gotot to interview the vice president. The White House put up a statue of my great, great, great, great, great grandpa. We had a cool ribon cutting yesterday with a couple of cabinet secretaries and I'll tell more about that. We'll try to get some video of that up too. But you know The Supreme Court sold out our country. The Yankees can't figure out how to hit or catch a baseball. You know, I don't know, it's getting a little bit rough and maybe I want the magic mushrooms before I resort to that I want to tell you about Catholic Match. go to Catholicmatch. com. One of the most common questions We all get from the young people in our lives and especially I'm noticing from young Catholics who to get married, have fifteen or sixteen kids, to have a small Catholic family. They'll say, how do I actually meet someone notot theoretically, not someday, actually in real life right now. because if you're serious about marriage, there comes a point where you have to stop merely hoping'll bump into your future spouse in the grocery store. And in our modern culture, you either get weird hookup culture orr you get endless texting O you I don't know. I don't know what you do. You just keep swiping right on the apps. They're not going to align with your values and what you really want. That is one reason the Catholic Match is so great. It's the largest Catholic dating platform in the world built by Catholics for Catholics, not a secular dating app where you have to spend the first three conversations figuring out whether the other person even shares your faith or whether the other person like Katanji Jackson even knows what a woman is. Here, you're on the team. all right, You guys are aligned and you can get into what really matters. know your view of marriage, your view of the important things, all the way down to liturgical preference maybe you're a Latin mass person. I don't know. Then you found a real winner right there too get you off the app and sitting across the table from that real person right now. You need to Catholicatch dot comot It's free to download in the App App Store in Google Play. Go to Catholicmatch dot com to get started The girl is shot The chairs are held together by optimism. And what happened to the rug? Sounds like your outdoor setup is not ready for patio season Fix it all with Wfare, shop Wfare for grilles, rugs, furniture, and more With twenty million five star reviews, room of choice delivery, and experts set upp on qualifying orders, it's never been easier to do more for less. Get ten percent off your first eligible purchase Hurry to wayfair. com or download the app now So the good news out of the Supreme Court, we don't want to doom and gloom too much. There was one win and it was a cultural win for normal people Little V Hecox and West Virginia versus BPJ Not BJP notot the Hindu Nationalist Party in India, but BPJ Six three decision that said that states can in fact Ban men from women's sports That's a win. That's a win and we need to recognize that that is a win Also Man That's a win. That's a win. That's where we're at That's where we're at that we celebrate when the Supreme Court says that states can, but don't necessarily have to. Kep Hulking dudes out of women's sports leagues, that they at least kind of sometimes have the right to maybe do that You just think, man Imagine, imagine going back in a time machine not to eighteen thirty five not to seventeen ninety four but to like two thousand eight Imagine you getting your You get in your twenty first century time machine and go back to two thousand eight And you say, Hey, hey Cervatives I know it looks bad with Obama around the corner and you know probably the Iraq warar is not looking great in the financialpisis, But don't worry. we're about to score a major win, a major generational win at the Supreme Court because the court is going to say that states sometimes can keep men out of girls sports teams yourour little daughter doesn't always have to change in the locker room next to a big husky hank Huge win guys, bro, isn't that awesome They would look at you L you have five heads Yeah, I should hope that men are not going into the girls sports rooms And with the modern guy would tell the two thousand eight guys he'd say, well, no, no, sometimes they can. It's just that sometimes maybe the states can sort of sometimes stop it And that a great win? it's said What is the substance of the ruling? It's kind of an ironic ruling Because Justice Gorsuch is another conservative who flipped on us on a crucial case Justice Gorsuch, previously in the Bos doock decision, said that Title seven Th are all civil rightights act provisions. in Title seven when it comes to employment, the meaning of sex includes gender So you'd say like if you have a protection on the basis of sex You would say that therefore you do not have a protection on the basis of gender identity The reason being protection on the basis of sex If you make a claim based on gender identity can undermine the protection on the basis of sex because in the gender identity, you're claiming to be the opposite sex, so you're claiming rights and privileges that pertain to the sex rights and privileges that you do not have as a member of the opposite sex I'm oversimplifying it a little bit, but it's really weird that Justice Gorsuch would go tranny on the Bosock decision, but remain sensible on the Title Iine decision Now he makes the argument that it's totally harmonized. In fact, he makes the argument in this decision. He says, no, no, it' you're misunderstanding it because any decision on the basis of gender identity, therefore involves sex. In other words, if it's okay for a woman to wear a dress, but it's not okay for a man to wear a dress, in one sense, you could say it's a decision based on gender identity. But on the other, it is ultimately a decision on the basis of sex because One's a woman, one's a man He says, okay, that's cute, that' kind of clever. Furthermore, he says that Title seII is not does not create separate spaces for men and women, whereas Title nine explicitly does, that's where you get girls sports leag And Therefore, this is different, you apply some slightly different logic. But I want not to be cynical about this. And Justice S Gorset, he might be a real nice guy He's obviously very intelligent and educated, but I just Horsuch is claiming that his apparently contradictory rulings Pro Trance P trans on the Civil rightights Act. In the bus stck case, anti transans with regard to the Civil Rights Act on this new case He's saying, no, no, there's a real logic here. You just got to squint and twist your head a little bit to see the logic, why this is consistent Can I just point out? Bos stock was decided in twenty twenty. more or less peak woke pek transgenderism gender ideology. And this case was decided in twenty twenty six after transgenderism has basically been eradicated from public life entirely, the whole preposterous ideology at every level. when even the Democrats are trying to run away from the transgender issue because they know it's a tot loser when Donald Trump has won the popular vote running against issues like transgenderism. I can't help but notice that Gorsuch's vote in Bostok, the Supremeourt's decision in Bostock was politically popular and fashionable in twenty twenty And this decision in twenty twenty six is also politically popular and fashionable. almost like the court reads the election returns. Almost like The liberals are totally inconsistent when it comes to their jurisprudence Even the originalists and the textualists might be arguing a little a little too much They might be talking past the sale a little too much The notion that which I think is derived and inferred from textualism and originalism The idea that In matters of jurisprudence, we don't have to apply too much our own judgment. We don't need to apply too much of our own thinking that comes by virtue of our education. the virtue that we have accumulated, the wisdom we've accumulated, along with reading of case history, the idea that really you could take the judge out of it entirely. You could basically just put a judge shaped robot because the plain meaning and the original public meaning or the original intent of a statute or of the Constitution is so clear that no one can really disagree I don't I don't know that that's true. in a way originalism or textualism is iss kind of Potestant. It's funny that the Supreme Ct is made up mostly of Catholics and Jews It's kind of Protestant in that it's solos Scriptura. It's soloscriptura for the law. And like Sola Scriptura whether whatever your theological views on'm sola Scriptura There is this really practical problem that comes out, which is that If the this If the scripture interprets itself If the meaning of the scripture is so plain How is it All these people who adhere to Sola Scriptura disagree on what the scripture means If if the text can interpret itself Wh do all of the people who hold to that very principle? That's not a principle I hold to, but all the people who do hold that principle A lot of them disagree about the meaning Well, the same thing is true with originalism and textualism which is certainly a preferable legal principle judicial principle to whatever the libs are doing, which is to shred the Constitution. But how is it that the art originalists like Alito and Thomas evenven a teextualists like Gorsage. they might disagree. Forget about the trans case for a second. go back to immigration They would disagree. with the other Ach original list Amy Barret who worked for Scalia How is it Maybe there's something a little more political going on Maybe there are some more intangible and personal aspects to this decision All the ladies. plus. Roberts really, really messing up our country Okay, okay. At least the libs are upset about the trans decision. We'll get to their reaction momentarily. And then then we will get to the mushrooms that I want to prorofessor Jacob, do you have Do you have any hard drugs on you right now It's very early in the morning No, I don't want you to zins.. Does it let you see little gnomes Yeah, for him, it probably does because his dosage is so high Before we get any of that My favorite comment yesterday N D Boy says I love how chill this comment section is compared to literally everywhere else online. I'm so impressed by it I'm picking that was from Spotify. You can leave comments on YouTube O I guess you can't really unlike Apple Podcasts, but you can unspotify and The comments on YouTube, lookook sometimes you get some real good ones It is schizo man. there is a there is A lot of schizophrenia and Psychosis and psychopathy on YouTube The guysy's on Spotify man, they're chilling They're chilling, they're cool, they're normal Maybe they're hallucinating little gnomes. I don't know, but whatever it is, theyre they're chill Before we move on to the magic mushrooms NBC was covering after the libs get this huge win on immigration But they still, it's not enough for them. They need to complain about the trans decision, try to overturn that This is how they report on rance decision The terms that we're using here during our reporting, biological, male, biological female. The High Court put those terms in quotations in their decision in their dissent. But just so you know, we're using those terms from the decision itself. Biological male, biological female NBC News is objecting to the terms biological male and biological female. They just gave a trigger warning transvestites because they had to read a Supreme Court opinion. What's funny is I also object to the term biological, male and biological female. I know a lot of the more moderate conservatives use those terms. I hate those terms because they imply that there is a non biological male They imply that there is some other kind of male or female. I'm a biological male, but I'm a spiritual female. which that's actually transgenderism Transgenderism says that you can have a biological kind of gender and a non biological kind of gender. So I hate that. It's just men and women is all it is Body and soul are fused together in a hylomorphic union I hate it. it's funny. I guess I agree with NBC News. We both object to this term for opposite reasons. For them, even that is too right wing. I just think like Are we in the bigig two six guys Are we Or are we in twenty twenty two Is this still peak woke? This is not coming from some fringe weirdo on YouTube. This is coming from NBC News. one of the major news networks is still doing this stuff. They're still doing it They haven't given it up and They're not going to give us. It's going it's going to get worse. The second they get power again winning that That Supreme Court decision on immigration gives them a lot of power They're champion at the bit they're salivating They see the path They're going to bring all that back No biological males or females allowed. Okay. Speaking of salivating This is a weird story. It has nothing to do with any practical politics right now, but I had to get to it The New York Post is reporting that there's a new magic mushroom. It makes users see tiny gnome people And you say, okay, well, magic mushrooms, psychedelic mushrooms They do make you hallucinates. That's not surprising You know, you like smell color man You know, and you see like little weird demon things or whatever. and that's a very specific subset of that. What's weird about these mushrooms is The scientists can't find any drugs in the mushrooms And they don't usually the magic mushrooms use a silocybin there's another another active ingredient. And That's not in here So what are these guys seeing So even to this day Science doesn't understand what's going on in the brain to cause this or how to treat it And this mushroom is the only thing that we currently know of reliably produce this effect What they're seeing, they're hallucinating teeny, tiny people. all around them. This is something no other mushroom is known to do. They don't have any of the other side effects of magic mushrooms. They don't have the dilated pupils or the elevated heart rate or the impaired coordination. They just hallucinate little tiny gnomes. And apparently the gnomes are kind of playful Apparently the gnomes will they're like crawling up chairs and in doorways. They will interact with objects in the real world. They are three dimensionally rendered, highly detailed figures inhabiting the exterior world And they don't know. why it happens. They're calling them Liliputians after Jonathan Swift Scllerous travels. So The reason the story is so fascinating to me is I think Why would anyone do these mushrooms Why would anyone do them You don't even get the other weird effects of the drug. you just see little tiny gnome things all around you. Wh Why would you do them Is it just the novelty is it becausecause I that would freak me out a lot. I don't Is it just the novelty? Is it just curiosity I think that's why people do a lot of things, not certainly drugs, but also Lots of other weird behaviors. Is it just? it's just for the thrill and the weirdness of it Use it see When people would tell you, I had a bunch of friends who did, I've never done a hard drug, but I had a bunch of friends who did like mushrooms or LSD or whatever in school And They would say, Oh, man, its could totally changes your brain And I think, all right, well, I kind of like my brain I'm not a brawny guy, so my brain is very, very important to my life Why would I want to change it? N man, it rewires it. It' like, Yeahah, well, but it's kind of it's basically working now. Why would I want to rewire it No, man. thenen they go further. They make spiritual claims It allows you to communicate you know, past the illusions of this world to another kind of spirit realm. In Christian language, that means you're talking to demons basically. I say, Okaykay, why do I want to do that? Why Why do I want to talk to demons You think about this with like seances and weird oult rituals is say now you can talk to these spiritual entities that are very I think, okay, I don't want to. No thanks. No, thank you. Either to go back to the gome Little gnan drug Either, they're not real, in which case they're just distracting and weird, and I don't want to see the known people. orr they are real. Or if the hippies are right and you really are seeing something that maybe actually has a kind of spiritual reality, then you can see it in a physical way, then I don't want to see the tiny little L Putian demons. Why would anybody want that People are so Stupid. I don't mean like other people, not me. I mean like people as such after the fall were' so stupid. It's like Drew Claven's orange for a head joke We just want thingsings that are bad for us to get a thrill. I don't know. this is like the dumbest one yet. Hey, do you want a drug that doesn't make you feel good, but allows you to hallucinate miniature demons? What's the catch? Was it really? I can have all of that, no thank you. I'm good People like they do this with Ayahas because you got to go take Ayahask a man Great you evacuate your intestines, you violently vomit for like twelve hours, you sweat, and then you pass out. It's so great, man. You think, I'm good. Maybe I'll have a pina cololada and like sit at the pool. That sounds nice. Okay. Before we go Speaking of novelty, you know, we were obviously just introvdiewing the vice Pident on the show. A lot of those clips making the rounds, lot of fake news coming out of that from the vice president's enemies, which I think is great. You know, it tells you you're really over the target. some really interesting, really interesting insights from the VP. and into his way of thinking when it comes to religion his conversion, which is the subject of his book whether or not he's ever had a kind of numinous experience. You know, you ever see a ghost his view on the Iran warar, the future of conservatism, had to make sense of all the wararring factions on the right. A lot of insight there that he gave As part of this book tour, he went on Bill Marr's showow and He gave us a masterclass in political rhetoric talking to people on the other side because Bill Maar for his flattery of the American right occasionally He's a guy the left. He's a deemocat. He's liberal. His preremacies are liberal. He's a deemocat He's really not one of us And when when it really counts, he's not on our side Here is how The Vice presresident disarms him You guys went too far You went too far and you should own it like you did childless cat ladies. Wh. So here's the basic problem with that bill is you cannot do any deportations without law enforcement And you can't do a law enforcement operation like that without having some situations that don't look good they when they're recorded like that. I mean, let me give you just one obvious example. Let's just set aside the immigration element of this, okay? If you take a guy who's committed murder, And you go in and arrest that guy. Sometimes that person's going to resist arrest. Sometimes if you take a video of it and it's out of context and you don't appreciate why that person is being arrested in the first place, it looks pretty icky. if you take that out of context video clip. And what I worry about is when people say you can't ever do immigration enforcement if it produces a bad video clip, what they're really saying is you can't ever actually do immigration enforcement We had twelve million people come into the country into the interior over the last four years, I should say from twenty twenty one to twenty twenty five And we were elected with a mandate to get some of those people out of the United States of America J a masterclass, just a masterclass in how to notice everything that you fit in into that what was that one minute clip? you get a very common objection and not just specific objection type of argument from Bilmar. This is this is how liberals argue whether it's on immigration or taxation or foreign policy or abortion or whatever He says, look, look, look, people can disagree on immigration, but you guys went too far this vague claim Not that you're wrong in principle. You can't only the craziest ideologue would say It is wrong to deport foreign criminals in principle. mean some Democrats make that claim, but Bill Moore is not to do that. He says, no, no, I'm going to grant deportationations, Rain principle. But you guys went too far. And what does Vance do Does he say what a lot of us are thinking, which is we didn't go nearly far enough. A you kidding too far? We got three million illegals a year coming in under Biden, plus another million leillegal immigrants, plus whatever chain migration that implies for the future. We got to go way further. He says, Well, Bill Okay, I see. why you could conclude that. I see why in other words, I see why that's a persuasive argument because Anyt time you have any immigration enforcement, forget immigration. He takes it out of that hot issue And he puts it into something we can all agree on, like a murderer on the street, who even is a citizen Anytime The police go to arrest anyone for any crimes The criminal might resist arrest and that might lead to provocative situations, and that might lead to a confusing little melee that might not always look good on camera. He's not saying it was awesome for that cop to run over Renee Good. or sorry to shoot Rennee G as you tried to run over him. It was awesome to kill Alex Predty. It was he's not saying that I don't think anybody really thinks that. You can think the killings were justified while not celebrating them. You say, No, no Th Those do look bad. We don't like to look at those things on camera. E George Floyd, was resisting arrest and had a four times lethal dose of fentanyl and all the rest. It just you don't like looking at a guy you with his knee on his back or his neck or you don't like looking at that. So you say, no, it can look icky. But just follow me here, Bill If you're going to have any, Law enforcement at all Sometimes the criminals are going to resist. And then you're going to get a provocative situation. And if you record it, sometimes it's going look icky but When people say, You've gone too far what they usually mean is we don't want you to enforce the law. at all And he says it in a calm way He explains the real meaning here, and he does it in such a way that Bilmore really has no rejoinder And he says, that's really what that's getting at. It reminds me when he was talking to when the vice president was talking to Whipi Goldberg on the view Wh be said, you know, you're erasing history and you're not you're erasing the history of slavery, the Trump administration And he says What be what specifically are you talking about And he doesn't do it in a condescending way or a mean way. What are you talking about woman? He just hold on. don't I want to make sure we're not talking past each other. What specifically talking about and she couldn't cite a single example. She was, I mean, I'm tal I mean, I mean, it's well it's like oh there's so many examples The same thing here. they say you've gone too far How far is Forna Why do why do why do you think that we got too far if you sincerely believe that And what do you really mean with that statement that you don't want us to enforce law at all. But by the way President Trump got elected with the popular vote, specifically with a mandate to do this thing. to do the mass deportations He makes the he dismantles or rather he Exoses The substance of the left wing argument, which ultimately is specus, And then He also gives the political justification for the president's actions. which Bil Mar can't argue against. It's just really masterfully done. This is the kind of rhetoric that conservatives should be paying attention to and should be imitating. It's very, very good. Okay. So much more I want to get to When I get to James Taler Rico's whitess, I know I keep saying I'm going get to his whiteness and masculinity. for the future Senator from Texas, we hope not I can't do it right now. I am in the middle of nowhere, Idaho I am going to give a speech today. then I am coming back I'm flying back to Nashville, there will be a meen room segmentum Not today. Today, if you want to talk to people that seem kind of like virtual You got to do the weird new magic mushrooms and hallucinate the gnomes. But because you can't, there's not going to be a crereme de la Creme Mememberom Segment today that will resume tomorrow In the meantime I' Michel Ns, the Michael Ns, show, see