Hour 4-The Judge

Don't good morning, everybody, get happy Tuesday to you. It is super Tuesday, and for a lot of us it was also a super Monday as the Supreme Court nine to zippo sides with President Trump on the whole Colorado battle ballot issue. And guess what it was. Probably I may look home hope this thing, but it ain't too bold. But you go for this judging

freedom, the great Judge of Politano. And first of all, I know for the people who are on Facebook and who who are able to see the judge, I hate to be mister Blackwell all the time with the judge's clothing. That's another great color on you, you know, that rustic orange round rusted color. I could, I could, I did, I did think of you this morning about five point thirty when I selected this shirt to where I said, we find a shirt that I'm not going to take on my

trip to Italy and I'll wear it for Jamie. All right, that's awesome, man, that is that is great? Well good now you know so I'm always checking it out. Judge of Politano. Yes, this was a big decision, but not anything that you didn't expect. Correct, correct, you know, by by ruling just on the meaning of the words in the in the Amendment. The Chief Justice was able to get a decision that was unanimous, and it was important that it was unanimous in order to avoid the

allegation that, oh, the Republicans on the court save Trump. So the issue here is, can the States interpret the fourteenth Amendment in their own unique way, even if they disagree with each other, in such a manner as to affect a national election, And the Court said no, there needs to be one uniform interpretation of The states can interpret the fourteenth Amendment how they want

for their own elections. So somebody running to be the mayor of Boulder, Colorado, or somebody running to be the governor of Colorado could be removed from the ballot by a court in Colorado if the court found that that person aided or abetted an insurrection after they took an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. There's no dispute about that. They just can't do it for federal office.

Why because the fourteenth Amendment says Congress shall have the authority to enforce the Amendment, and Congress has yet to speak on this issue with respect to the presidency. Now, sometimes I don't want to be the skunk at the garden party here, Jamie. But sometimes one needs to look as much as at as much at what the court didn't say as what it did say. It did say what I just did my best to explain. It didn't give Donald Trump

all the relief he wanted. Remember, a trial judge in Colorado found that he aided and abedded an insurrection. He asked the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse that finding. They did not. The Supreme Court of Colorado found that the president is an officer of the United States. Trump asked them to reverse that. They did not. They only ruled on that narrow issue of whether the states can interpret a clause of the Constitution different from each other

in the manner so as to affect a national election. By ruling in that way, it's obvious that they can't. Otherwise we'd have fifty different meanings to the Constitution. So that's how they got their unanimity. So they didn't even It wasn't even about whether or not he was convicted of an insurrection either.

It was just on the remerits of that Fourteenth Amendment element right correct. It was almost as if this was a law school hypothetical exam, not one based on actual facts, because there's no analysis here of what Trump did or didn't do. It's just whether or not it's just what the state of Colorado did. Now, of course this effects all states. There's a ruling in Maine that has now been invalidated, and there's a ruling in Illinois that has now

been invalidated. Those even though those rulings aren't even mentioned in the case because they came about after the case was argued and after the case was decided, but before it was published. Right, So it's interesting what the words of Amy Carr. I don't know about her and tell you the truth of Amy Cony Barrett. And she did kind of do what some people are calling kind of a passive aggressive take on the ballant issue. Where do you think that

came from. There's a principle of law that appellate courts follow, which say, you decide cases on the narrowest issue, and you don't decide more than you need to decide in order to decide the narrow issue. She chastised the majority for deciding more than they needed to. What does she mean when the court said only Congress can address this. The Court actually said what it will

accept and what it won't accept from Congress. Now unprecedented, but it's very unusual for the Court to pre guess, to prejudge what Congress is going to do. Courts don't do that because the Court and the Congress are equal branches of the government. So the Court's not in the business of saying to Congress, don't do this is what we expect you to do. The Court can evaluate the constitutionality of what Congress has done in the past, but it can't

prescribe what Congress needs to do in the future. That's what she chastised them for. There's a part of Supreme Court opinions called dicta diicta Latin word just meaning it has been stated, it has been said, But dicta is the part of a Supreme Court opinion that is not binding on future Supreme Courts because it wasn't necessary for the Court to go there. That's what Justice Barrett and

the other actually the men against the women. The four concurring justices chastised the five in the majority of four female and five male justices, the four concurring justices, three liberals, one conservative, chastise the five male justices, all Conservatives, for going beyond where they needed to go. This is hair splitting that is of interest only to those of us who are in this business of

monitoring what the Court does and commenting on it. This really doesn't mean anything in my view, to the public or to the outcome of the case. Well, she did mention something that to me is disturbing. I obviously don't like chaos and strife and that kind of thing. But when she said that, particularly in this circumstances, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. Since when is it the Supreme courts job to have

any thing to do with a national temperature? I mean, isn't that The problem sometimes with the Supreme Court is that it's making decisions not necessarily by law or even writing them by law. It's making them on the whim of the public, which is disturbing to me. Which must explain why she went ahead and allowed I can't remember what state it was to bar people singing in church during COVID. It was it was Indiana. That's the case you're talking about.

It very upsetting to you and me. It was particularly upsetting because she was brand new on the Court. It was especially upsetting because it was inconsistent with some other rulings of the court. The Court should have no concern with the temperature of the public. The court should. The Court is the anti democratic branch. It does not exist to reflect what the public wants. Its job is to protect life, liberty, property, and the Constitution from the

overreaching of the popular branches of the government or the state. And the Court should do the right thing though the heaven's fall. Now I say, though the heaven's fall. There's a model of the justice. The model of the Justice Department is, uh, let there be justice though the heaven's full, meaning we are not concerned with popularity. We are only concerned with doing the right thing. Yeah, I mean, and that's why, you know when

you look back. For instance, we've talked about this before, to the Bush Gore decision. That was a super gutsy decision given the volatility. Uh. And they they did it anyway, and it took the case. And so you said, actually, in hedsight, I never forget you talked about this, because I was brilliant when you said, actually, they should never have taken the case. You should just let it play out. But still I think that was one where I don't think they really paid attention to the

national temperature at all. I think Rovers's way was right. Well. Rovers's Wade was decided at a time when abortion was very rare and almost novel in the United States, and there were only very few states in New York among them that permitted abortions. And you and I have condemned the opinion. There's one or two parts of it unworthy of condemnation. But what it ultimately did, of course, was to permit the slaughter of fifty million babies in the

womb in the United States. However, it was written without regard to what the public thought, and the Supreme Court should not have regard for what the public thinks. That's why they have lifetime tenure. They can't be removed from office because what they did was unpopular. Again, the whole purpose of an independent judiciary is to be anti democratic, gets to put breaks on the popular will when that popular will interferes with rights guaranteed by nature or guaranteed by the

Constitution. Yeah, it was. It's really kind of shocking. It was very uncomfortable seeing her say that and just knowing as a Supreme Court. The demand is that it be really assertively and aggressively independent from any opinion outside of it. So that's crazy to be. So the Democrats now in their grief, are trying to come up with ways that Congress can move in and what is the constitutionality of how that works. If Congress were to step in and

do something about this, what would what would what would it be? Well, I can't imagine it would be anything, because the Congress can't agree on the time of day, or couldn't agree on a speed limit. Even those speed limits are outside the constitutional competence of Congress. But I think what the Supreme Court was inviting was a statute saying in order to be disqualified under Section three of the fourteenth Amendment, the following would have to happen. A the

person would had to have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. B they would have had to have avetted an insurrection, and we define an insurrection as follows. Then they have to define it. Then they'd have to define a betting, and then they'd have to give the standard a proof. Can this

be proven in a criminal trial by a preponderance of the evidence. That's like fifty one percent of evidence, or does that have to be proven in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is like ninety seven, ninety eight, ninety nine percent of the evidence. So Congress would have to lay lay that out. Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a former professor of constitutional law, is introducing legislation to that effect this week. But again it's not it's

not going to pass. This would be irrelevant for Donald Trump and for twenty twenty four. They may want to address this for the future, but it's a fool's errand to think that they're going to get anything done between now and the time ballots are printed for the general election, which would be six or seven months from now. In October of this year, you mentioned speeding.

I want to ask you a quick question, a quick personal question. So I was going up to des Moines, Iowa to see Cardinal Burke, not to Moines, Iowa too to Wisconsin to see Cardinal Burke. Had to go through Iowa because my mapping took me all through these almost these crazy rural areas,

and I wound up. I got back home and I had two speed camera tickets taken by a camera and they even showed me video of me speeding, and that was taken by some camera and it was on some kind of rural road and all that kind of stuff, and so I don't want to pay them. I've gotten red light cameras before, and I don't really run red lights that much, but you know how, it happened sometimes way back in the day. And I never paid a red light camera ticket, never.

And I did look it up though, and there are apparently some cases that uphold the robot issued ticket, aren't there. Well, it's different in different states. The robot issued tickets are unlawful and invalid in New Jersey, so theoretically it doesn't even happen because it would be a waste of the government's money even to have these cameras. So under Governor CHRISTI, the cameras were

reverted from giving tickets to just monitoring what happens in an intersection. So god forbid, you have an accident there, your lawyer can get a video of what happened and help decide whose fault it is, but the camera can't issue the ticket. But my understanding is that these are valid in other states. I don't know what the law of Iowa. Is it is repellent that something like this can happen, but it does happen. Yeah, well, okay, well I guess I got to rethink my position on that. Then I

suppose I mean you don't you don't. What you don't want is and here I am giving one of my best friends in the world legal advice on a nationally broadcast. But what you don't want is for them to adjudicate you guilty in your absence, and then this thing is hanging out there and they may suspend your license in Iowa, and God forbid your driving in Iowa. Was it Iowa or Idaho? It was to Iowa people that I'm saying this, but I'm from New Jersey. Iowa and Idaho is the same. Okay,

getting exaggerating. You don't want them to suspend your life in that state. You might end up driving in that state and the next thing you know, you'll be arrested a license, So they never take me atter to bite the bullet and pay the fine then than risk the consequences. On the other hand, you want to hire lawyers to challenge this thing. There are civilibrities, lawyers who will challenge the power of the state to use a robot to give you a ticket. Yeah, go all the way to Supreme Court. Man.

Maybe that time, Amy Cony Barret will be on my side, all right. And then and then the New York case. It just so happens that this ruling came down almost amazingly on the very same day that Trump's trial on the insurrection issue was supposed to start yesterday. Well, yeah, the original trial. Yeah, I mean, you're talking about the federal the federal case now, not the Georgia case, right right, Yeah. And when that federal case is on hold because of the issue of immunity, she has

indicated she'll be ready to the trial judge. She'll be ready to go as soon as the court rules. Unless they really has total and absolute immunity, I don't think they will. That would be a radical change from the law. But he has a very busy spring and summer. He has a criminal trial starting on March twenty fifth, and he has to be in court one percent of that trial time starting March twenty fifth. That's the New York It's

the Stormy Daniels case. Stormy Daniels is going to testify, Michael Collen is going to testify. The former president's going to testify. This is going to be a bit of a circus. Wow, Yeah, no doubt so. Now, last time I talked to you about the Fanny Willis case in Georgia, you were not You didn't have the opinion that this was actually while even if it disqualifies her, it wasn't going to make the case totally go down the tubes. Since that time, have you heard anything and some of this

information's got a little testier and crazier with all these people testifying. Has your mind changed on that at all? Or is this going to be a case it sticks, but the people might not be there to prosecute it. I don't think he's even going to remove her from the case. I think that he may refer her to the ethics people for an ethics investigation, but I don't think he's going to remove her from the case. I don't think it

affects the case at all. I also think he totally mishandled this. I'm generally reluctant to criticize other judges, particularly a judge who's so young and new. Yeah, I'm sure that I made a lot of mistakes early on in my time on the bench. But this thing should have taken about two days instead of a month. He really, really really dragged it out in ways that, in my view, were unnecessary, and he should have rolled by.

Now. You have a lot, a lot of human beings and a lot of assets involved in prosecuting and defending this case, and everybody has a right to know who's the prosecutor, when's the case happening, where are we going? What's taking you so long? So I but my view is there's not enough misbehavior on her part here to remove her, and there's no evidence of contamination of the case itself. I have to think the case against Trump and the others is very weak, but there is no evidence of its having

been contaminated by the personal relationship between these two prosecutors. Yeah, her attorney, in listening to some of the courtroom appearances, her attorney actually did a pretty good job of establishing that regardless of what, for instance, her boyfriend's colleague in the law office said, there's no way actually that he would know. And there's a lot of Really, he really did a good job in

establishing the plethora of hearsay that was going on. And I was I was kind of impressed, tell you the truth, And that's what I was thinking. Oh no, she's not going to be disqualified then probably Yeah, listen, I'm not saying that the judge was unfair or that the proceedings were unfair. I'm just saying they took far, far too long. But then again, I'm Italian, so I don't have a lot of patience. This is a good old Southern boy, and he moves at a different pace than we

two in the northeast. Yeah. Well, and and again, even if she's not disqualified, though there are some real problematic transactions and element office. You know, I don't know how she can run for reelection. I would think I'm going to assume she's a Democrat, and I'm going to assume that the Democrats would want to challenge her in the primary, maybe not even give her the party line. I don't know, but I would think politically she

is seriously damaged over this. Yeah, well, this is a system where processed. It's alien to me. And New Jersey has the federal system where judges are appointed for life. Broskers are appointed for five years. They don't they don't seek a political base or seek political public political endorsements, but in

Georgia they do well. And then you have the aspect of the Biden operative or the alleged Biden operative who was also in her office, and there was this sense or this insinuation somehow there was a commanding presence of this Biden operative kind of running the show there. But I guess that's for somebody else to investigate. Correct, correct, correct? I don't. I don't know how that again infects the case. Maybe maybe it does, but it certainly is

not at a lie level where it would require dismissal of the case. Yeah, gotcha, at least not at this stage. I mean, something may come up during the trial which would shock the conscience of the court. I think the great example of this is the trial of Daniel Ellsberg for stealing the Pentagon papers and giving them to the New York Times. They had already been published. The Supreme Court said the Times and the Washington Post can publish them.

The thief can be prosecuted, but not the publisher. So the papers were out there. The next administration was humiliated, the LBJA administration was humiliated, the generals who were humiliated. Elsberg's on trial, and the government is really claboring him in the courtroom, and then a couple of FBI agents decide we're going to help the government out. We're going to break into his psychiatrist's office and get the records of what he told is Shrink. Well, the

judge was so outraged that what they did. He dismissed the indictment right there, and the FEDS decided not to appeal and not to reprosecute. So occasionally government behavior so shocks the conscience of the court, And admittedly what I just told you is an extreme example. Rarely happens, but occasionally government behavior so shocks the conscience that the court throws the case out, even though it has

nothing to do with the merits of the case. There is no question but that Daniel Ellsberg, and I think he's an American hero, he's now deceased, And there's no question but that Daniel Ellsberg committed espionage by stealing national security secrets to which he was entitled ye to hold, but not to real All right, well, judgeph Aaltello, what's happening on Judging Freedom today? Well? Nothing, I'm on my way to Rome. So you're actually leaving today?

Oh? Yes, yes, I got a lovely note in the middle of the night from our favorite member of the College of Cardinals. So that began with Unfortunately I am still in Wisconsin in Rome, but he answered immediately and it was a very upbeat, uplifting Jamie Ullman like email. Yes, yeah, well that's good because well I'm going to talk to you later on this morning, or at least about about an hour from now about what's we're

planning with you later on in the springtime. But I'm glad you connected with him, and he did tell me that he was probably going to be spending more time in was content, especially after the Pope basically kicked him out. I don't know whether it became of that thing, but it was really just a bad treatment on the part of the Pope. And yes, yes, he did tell me he's going to be back in Rome by the end of March, so I missed him by a couple of weeks. Yeah, well,

he loves Lacrosse. I'll tell you that that's his that's his home base. So he built that magnificent, magnificent structure there. Oh yeah, that that is a beautiful place. The shrine is just absolutely amazing. I managed to be able to get through a lot of it and and hang out there and it's really truly moving and beautiful up there. Yes, all right, judge. Well, I'll talk to you a little bit and looking forward to excited about you getting to Italy and it'll be a ton of fun. Where

exactly you're going to go or you go all over? Where's your family from? Again? Well, this is a work trip. My family three quarters are from Naples, one quarter is from Florence. I'm giving a lecture on natural law at the Pontifical Academy in the Vatican. I am staying in the guest house where the Pope lives in the Vatican. Really, I'm told the breakfasts are communal, but if he wants to talk to you, he'll send a Swiss guard to come over and tap you on the shoulder three taps.

That means the Holy Father wants you. Wow. So do you think you're going to see the Pope? Chances are I will, but I don't want to get my expectations up. It's not a very large place I'm gonna be. The Vatican's about the size of Central Park and I'm going to be there for four days. Wow. Well, Uh, how are you gonna tell us staying to him? Are you just gonna be just what? You know?

My traditionalist friends want me to say, Oh, your holiness, I am a big fan of your immediate predecessor, but I think he wants to hear that. Yeah, yeah, well, maybe you can give him my phone numbers. We can call into the show sometime. He does speak English. That'd be great coming up next to the pope. Wow, all right, buddy, my column scoped out my breakfast with the Pope. But we'll

see if it happens. Okay, well that sounds great. All right, Judge of Politano judging freedom, I appreciate you so much and I'll talk to you a little bit, my friend. You got it, Thank you, Jamie. All right, then it's Judge and Polito. Yeah, I mean you know, it's for all of our blood. Right about the Pope, I don't know I saw him. I wanna be like, oh hi, mister Pope, how are you? Oh Lordie, Good morning this morning,

everybody, Happy super Tuesday to all of you. It's Almond in the Morning and it is Common Sense Radio. If you guys want to have a little fun later on, you can tune into my appearances the next few days on co Go in San Diego. So I had the privilege of filling in for the Great Lou Penrose there in San Diego today. It'd be about five o'clock our time, news radio six hundred. It's an AM station out there. I'm sure you could pick it up. So I'll be filling in for Lou.

I'll be there on the year about three hours because I'll follow up with the election results with Mark Larson and in the evening time, well not evening time, but it technically it'd be around the time the holes close. Soon enough, we'll have enough information there and it'll be a blast, So tune in later on today, Tomorrow and Thursday, so it'll be be a blast. I love those people out there in San Diego and actually love California.

They've got some really good conservatives out there. And the Republican of California is a little different than other Republicans, are a little more lower key. Steve Garvey is a great example of that. Garvey is polling two points ahead of Adam Schiff in a general election race, and he is very soft spoken.

He's not you know, he's kind of He's a great guy. He's one of my boyhood heroes because that was back in my day man seventy one seventy two, the heyday of my baseball love and seventy two seventy three, and so he's I remember him like yesterday. But he's very, very soft spoken, low key. Republicans out there aren't real fiery by any stretch. I mean, even Reagan and Nixon were kind of demure by some of the other

conservative standards that we have. But but they're they're they're good people out there. There's some strongholds out there, Orange County, Huntingdon Beach, San Diego still a little more liberal, but it's also a little purple too, and so it's fun to fun to broadcast out there because the station's hot and and and people like it in California as there. I do love California. Uh, Gavin k new some of these guys have basically ruined the place, but

it's it doesn't It deserves so much more than Democrat ruin. It just is really super sad to see because it's a beautiful state on a number of different levels, but the Democrat leadership has run it into the ground, and it's it's really bad news. So that's that's how I'm going to say. But San Diego is a cool place. And plus my son Ethan lives there with my brand new granddaughter, Claire, who is the first family member to be a native Californian. How does that sound? How are them apples? All?

Right? So this is the this is the anti science segment that will be culminating in the revelation that plastic recycling is bull crap and has been from the very beginning, and the plastics industry is finally now admitting what we have known all along. But first, let's begin with the one part of anti science, which actually turned into a comment about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling. This guy is really funny. He is Sean Farrish, and he is a Trump

impersonator. And this is what he had to say about the ruling yesterday. It was mighty mighty five. Oh wait, when you think about it, even Kataji Brown Jackson, who doesn't know what a woman is, knew that I belong on that ballot. And now they're putting me back on there, and they're going to put my name on that ballot in twenty four characters. That was my favorite part that they're going to be putting his name on the

ballot in twenty four carrot cold. I mean, it's this is so much fun, But it is true that you've got a Kataji Jackson Brown who doesn't know what a woman is, but she does know what a anti constitutional authoritarian piglet is in the form of that in the form of that Secretary of state there in Colorado. Here's more anti science, this is anti math. So these are all the people news media who yesterday and I heard some of them on Fox News. I wish one of you would tell me who that was,

because I can't remember which ditch it was. Was it Emily Campagna or whatever her name is, or was it Macaninny or whatever her name is? Both of them are I can't tell between their voices, but one of them was like, yeah, this is really technically five to four. It's like, okay, shut anyway. This is on the other networks where they decided that the nine to zero uh is really five to four, And these are

it's no surprises. They're coming from the same people who don't believe a baby in the womb as a human, who don't believe that a man is a man and a woman as a woman who believe in the global warming huax. So it's no surprising that that they're now just trying to turn this into something that's not. This is a five to four ruling. I'm part of it. This is actually a five to four decision. It's five to four. Trump will take this. Yeah, it's five to four. That's what it

is. Five to four. It's really a five to four season based on a couple of comments that people I have said on the court, the judges have said. But that doesn't mean it's a five to four decision. But again, these people don't care, they don't care about reality. They're the ones who call us anti science, and they're precisely just that, all right, And here's the final final knife in the body of the recycling fans. Nothing more. And I've said this all along. There really is nothing more

anti sciences than they're recycling. Lie. We all know that even the plastic bags, the reusable plastic bags, those kind of things, they wind up in the landfills anyway. So all these communities are passing, you know, reusable plastic bag laws and all that nonsense, they're winding up in the landfill. Anyway, here's here's a story that I'm bringing to you from instapundent. For decades, plastic producers knowingly misled the public about the feasibility of plastic recycling,

according to a recent study by the Center for Climate Integrity. The nonprofits report details how the plastic industry marketed recycling as a solution to plastic waste for decades, all while dismissing it internally as both technically and economically unviable. So we all know, oh that we've all been you know, the pay not only the paper of plastic, but we also had the separate containers for plastic. And it turns out there's really no market for recycled plastic. Most plastic

is either burned or it winds up in a landfill. Uh And and according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development, which is this inter governmental group whatever that means, they said, only nine percent of plastic in the US is ever recycled. Can you believe that? Uh And And of course this isn't

uh well, this isn't your fault that it's that it's not recycled. It's the fault of the marketplace because there aren't really there's really no market for recycled plastic anymore, except for the people who make those obnoxious water bottles that when you open them, they squirt all over your face because the plastic is so flimsy. That's maybe this is about this water bottle babies constitutes about This is

your sum total of plastic recycling right here. Nothing else is recycled. I mean, I already told you a while back that there's no market for recycled glass. In fact, if there is any market for recycled glass, they use it for sand traps on golf courses. They grind it up and that becomes part of the of a sand trap. It's ground up glass. And same thing with park benches and things like that. They use it as a resin for park benches, plastic park benches and plastic playgrounds and all that other

stuff. That's it. So the recycling on pretty much everything you're telling you about pretty much has amounted to a big lie. So anyway, congratulations with you your separate containers at home, I still do that. Why am I doing that? President Trump on Fox and Friends this morning and was asked about the situation Israel Gaza, and he added a few more gems as he always does. You've got to finish the problem. You had a horrible invasion.

It took place. It would have never happened if I was president. By the way, as you know, Iran was broke. Brian they were broke. They had no money for Hamas for Hesbila, they were broke. This would have never happened. And for another reason, they wouldn't have done it to me. I guarantee you that they did this because they have no respect for Biden, and frankly, they got soft and what happened here is incredible. That should never have happened. Likewise, Russia would never have attacked Ukraine

never. You know it, everybody knows it, and that wouldn't have happened. This is all on Biden. Do you think the president's in the process of abandoning Israel. I do believe that, But I don't think he knows where he is. Frankly, I think you could ask him a question right now, ask him the same question. I don't think he knows what to say about many subjects. Actually, it's really the people that surround him. It's the fascist and the communists that surround him. They're making the calls.

They're calling the shots, He's not calling the shots. Yes, I have no doubt that about what Trump says is absolutely true. That really, and I'm not trying to neither is Trump trying to absolve Biden of responsibility for his actions. But you got to know that this is all kind of all the Obama leftovers that Jim Carafano warned us about are all all there. And you

have to know that he's he's a trojan horse. You have to know that this is whatever is happening is all being machined by these people who surround him because the way that they create this complicated level of gas lighting, manipulation, passive aggressiveness, that kind of thing. Keep in mind, Joe Biden.

I don't know who was telling me this. I can't remember whether it was Jim or somebody else, that Joe Biden was considered one of the dumbest members of the US Senate, like most of his colleagues thought he was dumb as a bag of hair. And and I mean you just kind of look at him, and you mean, you've seen what was going on, and he's a plagiarist, he's a weirdo. And I mean he's not very bright.

And the Biden family just seems kind of like, you know, a bunch of East Coast hillbillies, and that's the level that they're playing at, and kind of white trashy, you know what I mean. And I do believe that. But they're just kind of like a white trash East Coast family and that you wouldn't like want to play lawn darts with, you know what I mean. So there's no way that he could come up with any of these

complicated, convoluted ways of destroying his country on his own. There's no way there are people who I mean, imagine the kind of that you could you could literally come out and say after, for instance, Israel was attacked and watch your nuts comes out and says, well, you know, our biggest concern now is blowback to the Islamic community. It's like, we're really worried about the Islamic community. That's as people were marching and chanting rivers to the

sea and calling for the extermination of Jews. Watch her hair was like, well, you know, we're really mostly concerned about Islamophobia. I mean, it's like, who comes up with that? It wasn't Joe Biden. Coming

up with that. It's all it's all the plotters and his You know, how could you possibly have a situation where you've got this guy, there's this king manipulator like Majorcus, who is almost a to on the verge of like being mentally disturbed, it seems, who will sit there and be asked about the death of this collision and just not even take any kind of responsibility for it or anything. And eight months ago he declares the border secure when everybody

knows it's not true, like our lying eyes right. And and that's why Trump is doing so well right now because all the things that the media and others are trying to tell us, uh that our aren't there. We see and and whether the news media ignores it or not now at this point doesn't even matter, because we live it. And and that's and I think that's a good way we need to demand of our politicians, people who live that way again for all of I think, what what Mitch McConnell did. I

think he did a pretty good job. I think one of the things he did was he helped Trump get elected by deferring the Merrick Garland appointment and and not letting it happen, and that left a seat open, and let that that left the consequences of election to be just that much more important. I think it actually helped Trump. But but ultimately, the Lindsey Grahams and the Mitch McConnell's and these guys need to go away, uh and be replaced with

people who have lived a real life. And it would help if Congress and the Senate had to live like us to begin with, and didn't suddenly had to go up to Washington, d c. And no longer buy a bag of groceries, no longer fill their tank of gas, uh, and and no longer have to worry about illegals occupying their rec centers. So ultimately, I believe that that once we get people who are living the real that be That's that's really where it all stands. That we need to have people who

are who live real lives. So we also have this This is and and this is great, and I'm gonna probably deal with this more tomorrow because we're running out of time. But we're There's this woman, she's an elder woman, and she is before the council, UH city council in the sanctuary City of Denver, Colorado and she uh is trying to appeal to them to please change your laws. Change help us, God help us. So I'll deal with that tomorrow. Hopefully you guys have a fantastic rest of your day.

Alex thanks a ton It's common Sense Radio. Have a good one, Happy Super Tuesdays.