Oh lad with.
From my final thought tonight, I really was unsure what I wanted to talk about.
I really really was unsure.
Sometimes I want to talk about politics, some things, I want to talk about cultural, social issues, whatever happens to be on my mind, and I try not to talk about the thing that everyone else is talking about unless I feel I can give you something that nobody else can, will offer you something that you've not heard elsewhere, And
tonight I believe it's one of those nights. I'm actually going to make a bet with you that what I'm about to tell you tonight you haven't heard elsewhere, and if you have, I'll just deny that you actually heard it elsewhere. But I've heard it, You've heard it, We've all heard it. President Trump fancies a third term and he says he's not joking about pursuing it, and I believe him. I absolutely believe him, and you should too. Number One, Donald Trump doesn't have a sense of humor.
So when he says he's not joking, that's like Tuesday. Everything he says is not a joke. And let me be clear, he doesn't have a sense of humor because he doesn't know what humor is he loves to insult people, and you should not confuse insulting people all the time, and you finding the insults funny as having a sense of humor. He doesn't joke. He doesn't know what self
deprecation is. So when he says that he's going to pursue a third term, regardless of whether he says he's joking, regardless of what the Constitution says to the contrary.
He means it.
And so when we assess it, when we talk about it, we should take him at his word. A number of journalists have asked the president directly to him and those close to him about exactly how he's planning to go about pursuing this third term, to which no specifics are given, just vague comments about quote unquote, we're working on it, that's all they say. I was listening to Steve Bannon, heard some comments from him. We're working on it. Let
me clear up all the mystery. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I've been really digging into this and talking to my constitutional scholar friends about this. So it's based in some actual knowledge, and I'm pretty sure I know what the Trump team is planning to do at the end of this term. So hopefully we'll have this on the podcast.
Sam will put it in the podcast so we can refer back to this, because I'm pretty sure I'm right about this, and I'm pretty sure you haven't heard this from anyone else, and I'm kind of surprised because there are only so many attack points to the Constitution. What most people say is you can't become a president for the third time, specifically because of the twenty second Amendment. In fact, we heard it in the news break. That's the audio that you hear it, twenty second Amendment. Here's
how the twenty second Amendment reads. Quote, no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. And no person who has held the office of President or as acted as president for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. There are two words, I should say, one word which is repeated. That's the key to this.
The keyword in that passage is elected. No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. I would bet dollars to donuts that the line of constitutional attack will make the distinction between election and ascendants to the presidency.
Here's what I mean. For example, let's say Vice President JD.
Vance and Ron DeSantis hypothetically are the ticket in twenty twenty eight and they win.
JD Vance becomes president.
Conceivably the Santus as vice president could resign for some undisclosed reason. Could be illness, could be needs to spend more time with the family, could be he needs more time to buy shoe lifts. I don't know, but he decides to resign and get this. Per the twenty fifth Amendment, quote, whenever there is a vacancy and the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a vice president who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of
both Houses of Congress. And as of this moment, the Republicans control both the House and Senate. We don't know what's going to happen in twenty twenty six, but hopefully you could see where I'm going with this. The president, then JD. Vance could conceivably choose Trump as his next VP.
There's nothing explicitly preventing that. Then Vance could either be a figurehead president or could even resign himself, which would then mean dunk da da duh, Trump is your next president, not elected but has ascended.
Is it constitutionally sound? Maybe?
Maybe not. That's what the Supreme Court is for. Oh, that's right. A six to three majority. Do you actually think you wouldn't get five votes? It clearly violates the spirit of the twenty second and twenty fifth amendments. It's a workaround schame some shit, but not the letter of those amendments.
So that's it.
That's the strategy. Well, one of the strategies being considered. Dollars sodonuts. I know I'm right about this. They're going to challenge the word elected and not have him elected because there's no way that an amendment could be passed to circumnavigate this. Just in case you didn't know, a proposed amendment must be passed by a two thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, then ratified by
three fourths of the state legislatures or state convention. Not happy now or ever in a world of such partisanship, No way in hell.
This is the only way in. There's your roadmap.
He wouldn't be allowed on ballots otherwise, so it's not about electing him.
He wouldn't be.
Able to get on enough ballots on different states to get enough Electoral College votes, he'll be easily disqualified. In any election attempt, it would never get to the ballot. So this is not about being elected. This is about ascendency to the presidency. There is an open question as to whether the word election also includes ascension. But either way, Donald Trump is serious about a third term. Why because he never jokes about anything. There's not a funny bone
in his body. He insults, but never jokes. This should be taken seriously in every way. For k if I am six forty, I'm mo Kelly. And here's my final thought. Let's talk about the Constitution. The Constitution applies to everyone, or it applies to no one. There's no in between, there's no shades of gray. Let's get the easy ones, right. I say it all the time. This is one of
the easy ones. The Constitution, meaning all of its amendments apply to everyone, including Mark Stefan and even Nick me or it applies to no one from the first Amendment on down. Not just the amendments you like, not just the second Amendment because you really love that one, Not just the tenth Amendment because that's what you heard somewhere, because those are the only two amendments you know without googling.
I'm talking about all of them, and I seriously doubt most people even know the total number of amendments presently that are in the Constitution, or what it takes to ratify a new one. But that's just my personal pet peeve because I'm real big on civics. But I also find it odd when someone says they love the Constitution yet can't tell me much about it, not in totality. It's strange, I tell you. But I want to be
clear on this. The Constitution applies to everyone, or it applies to no one, all amendments, all protections, or it is meaningless. And yes, I'm about to talk about the Maryland man with protected legal status who was sent to that horrible prison in El Salvador following a quote unquote administrative error, not to port it to the country in general, but to port it to a prison having not committed any crime while also being of legal status. His name
is Kilmer Abrego Garcia. And also according to our government, this is what our government said. They said that they don't think they have any way to get him back. Whether that's true, or not. I don't know, but I do know that Kilmore is just stuck in a prison for no good reason, no crime, no due process, no path back. The Constitution applies to everyone, or it applies to no one. And I know what you're thinking. I
know what you're thinking. You're probably thinking, uh mo, the Constitution only applies to American citizens.
No, that's not true.
Part of loving the Constitution is actually knowing the constitution Constitutional protections extend to all persons persons. It protects everyone, not just citizens, and those protections extend to non citizens who are within the United States. Those protections include due process, I'll come back to that, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a fair trial, and the right to counsel in criminal proceedings. If you think some of that
might apply to this, you'd be right. A person's immigration status does not diminish their constitutional rights, and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that constitutional rights extend to everyone living in the US, not just natural born citizens or legal immigrants. I hope you heard that either the Constitution applies to everyone or applies to no one. And according to the actual Constitution and Supreme Court.
It applies to everyone.
Some other arguments I heard were, well, what if that person entered the country illegally, or how do we know that this guy wasn't a violent gangbanger. Hello, that's what due process is for. That's the whole fricking point. Is the process which determines whether someone has broken a law, entered the country illegally, or is subject to be punished. Accordingly, you can't deport someone without determining their status. It's not done by guessing. It's not just done by I don't know, hypnosis.
It's a very simple concept. Unless you think the Constitution only applies to some people. Oh, look out, now might step on some does, which would mean you neither know the constitution nor do you love the Constitution all twenty seven amendments. There's your answer, he has twenty seven amendments.
Or maybe you live in a community or represent a community which doesn't and has not ever had to worry about government agents rolling up on you with mass putting you in handcuffs, stuffing you in a van, with no due process. Maybe you've never been stopped while walking or driving simply because you quote unquote fit the description. Maybe you've never been pulled out of your car and put on a curb in handcuffs while your car was searched.
Maybe you've had no experience with that, no reference point. Maybe you've never had a gun place to your head because someone thought that you had just robbed a bank.
I have.
And none of this makes any sense to you. If it's all unfamiliar to you, maybe you just don't care. I get that, because it's not gonna be you. It's not going to be your father, it's not going to be your son, So it's not going to be your problem.
Got it.
Just stop telling me about the Constitution and how important it supposedly is to you, because it's not. You're just cause playing patriotism. This shouldn't be political. I mean, it shouldn't be. It was then candidate Donald Trump who said, we are a country of laws, and without laws, we do not have a country. That's a quote he said that, And I hope you know every single law, every single one, is predicated upon due process, every single law. You can't
break a law unless you've had due process. Due processes one of the main differences, not the only difference, but one of the main differences between US and North Korea, and US and Russia and US in China, Because moments just like these is when you should be saying hashtag all lives matter. Right now, this is the time you're
supposed to say, hashtag all lives matter. Not just the lives that you care about, not just the people who look like you, not just the people you like, not just the people who agree with you, not just the people who love like you do, not just the people who happen to vote the same way that you do. These are the moments you should be saying hashtag all lives matter, because when you don't, it sure seems like you're admitting that they don't. For KF, I am six forty,
I'm Moe Kelly. By now you've heard about New Jersey Senator Corey Booker standing on the Senate floor for more than twenty five hours speaking in critique of President Trump and the Trump administration, a new record.
If you happen to know the history, it meant.
Different things to different people and different constituencies. If you don't know, standing on the Senate floor and talking ad infinitum is not new from the late strom Thurman, the previous record holder, to more recently Ted Cruz, who tried to filibuster in the hopes of defunding Obamacare back in twenty thirteen. He stood on the Senate floor for twenty one hours. The question that most people have is simple, or the assumptions are pretty predictable. What did Corey Booker accomplish?
If anything on substance, nothing on substance, absolutely nothing. It doesn't impact what the Trump administration has done. It doesn't likely impact what the Trump administration will do, in the way that Senator Strom Thurman's filibuster did nothing to stop the Civil Rights Act of nineteen fifty seven, and Senator Ted Cruz did nothing to help repeal Obamacare. On substance
made no impact. But these are times in which symbolism can matter, I said, can as impossibly the Democrats have been lost in the wilderness my phraseology since November.
Booker's twenty five hours.
Can galvanize a party and focus a party, I said, can not necessarily will, But symbolism does have its place. Some moments can lead to momentum, and momentum can be turned into a movement. Elections in a national sense are all about momentum. You can go from no momentum to some momentum just because of one act. It could be a speech, it could be an interview, it could be a debate performance, and if you think about it, that
could go either way positive or negatively. Democrats will tell you that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court election win last night is a big step in the right momentum direction. Maybe maybe not, but it's worth noting that in a race that Elon Musk spent some I don't know ninety million dollars and gave away million dollar checks to multiple individuals, that impact of Elon Musk was negligible or nonexistent in
terms of swaying that election. So say what you want, but that Republican loss, it's absolutely connected to why it's being said that Musk will be leaving Doze or stepping back in Trump administration duties in the coming weeks. Put another way, that race mattered. That's how momentum starts. And this is not about twenty twenty eight. This is about twenty twenty six. Flip a few House seats and the speakership goes to Hakim Jeffreys. No more blank check for
the Trump administration. More momentum has been generated and so on, here's how I know, and we're going to use history as a guide. Ted Cruz's twenty one hour filibuster in the hopes of defunding Obamacare back in September of twenty thirteen was on substance unsuccessful, but on symbolism and momentum. In the twenty fourteen midtermal life just a year later, the Republicans won sixteen seats from the Democrats, and the GOP achieved their largest majority in the House since nineteen
twenty eight due to that Republican wave. Arguably, you can trace the beginning of that red wave right back to Ted Cruz's filibuster the year prior Cruz was mocked and ridiculed by the Democrats. Sound familiar, not unlike the Republicans who've largely have mocked and ridiculed Booker, questioning what it accomplished, I hope you can see where I'm going with this. The spark, while symbolic, is the point, of course, there are other variables along the way, but every wave starts
with a droplet. It also bears mentioning that in the way that Cruz used his filibuster to prime the pump for his eventual presidential campaign, you should assume the same with Booker. Lastly, the past is prologued and there are any other meaningful parallels between filibusters and future elections. Ted Cruz's twenty one hours on the Senate floor was one year before a major red wave midterm and three years
before a Republican returned to the White House. Just in case you're paying attention, So before you write off Booker's record as just some meaningless stunt, look at the lessons of Ted Cruz and that roadmap. Not everything needs to have an immediate impact or a substantive reward for it to matter. On substance, neither Ted Cruz nor Corey Booker gained anything, but in the longview, don't overlook how symbolism
can be the spark that a party needs. For KFI AM six forty, I'm mo Kelley, and tonight the show started a little bit differently than usual. Usually it's like ha ha, ha ha, jokes, all sorts of fun. But tonight was a little bit different because today, earlier today and throughout the day, it was a heavy moment and maybe you didn't believe me. I was saying, we were living through history. What happened with the stock market with
the tariffs, what might be happening in subsequent days. If you've been following Dow futures, the stock market has continued to go down even after the closing bell. This is a very significant moment in our nation's history. And I said that there will be responses from other countries. I know that France has announced in the recent hours that it's going to stop all investments and future investments in the US pending some clarity on what the US is
going to do going forward. And there'll be other responses from other nations. This is, I would say, the end of the beginning. We are just getting into what these tariffs are going to mean. But tonight I wanted to close out the show just a little bit differently as far as how I talk about these issues.
And it's not going to be my voice.
It's going to be the voice of maybe someone that you more respect, someone that you more appreciate, someone you more revere. And these are just a few voices who articulate in opinion both past and present, which I think are relevant, remarkable, and needed right about now. The first one I wanted to play for you, This is Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, and this is from today, and he's responding to the mayhem and the chaos which was going
on in our financial markets. He's made it clear that he hasn't been a supporter of the tariffs, but this is what he had to say given what was going on.
If President Trump is successful in reducing traves in other countries, I'm going to say, Amen, praise the Lord. But if he's unsuccessful, I'll say I told you soul. That's Senator Chuck Grassley.
And if anything you can extract from that is that he's making it clear that he tried to provide wise counsel to our president.
That's Senator Chuck Grassley. That's not me.
Here is our present Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. But he wasn't obviously always secretary of state. Back in twenty sixteen, he was running for president and then an opponent of then candidate Donald Trump. This is what he had to say about tariffs.
I think we need to be very careful with tariffs. And here's why China doesn't pay the tariff. The buyer pays the tariff. If you send a tie or a shirt made in China into the United States, and American goes to buy it at the store and there's a tariff on it, it gets passed on in the price to the consumer. So I think the better approach. The best thing we can do to protect ourselves against China economically is to make our economy stronger.
That's what Senator Mark or Rubio, now Secretary of State, had to say back in twenty sixteen. The next voice I want to play for you is Kentucky Senator Ran Paul. This is from just days ago.
With regard to tariffs, Let's be very clear, tariffs are simply taxes. Tariffs don't punish foreign governments. They punish American families. When we tax imports, we raise the price of everything from groceries to smartphones, to washing machines to prescription drugs. Every dollar collected in tariff revenue comes straight out of the pockets of American consumers. Conservatives used to understand that
tariffs are taxes on the American people. Conservatives used to be uniformly opposed to raising taxes because we wanted the private marketplace, the private individuals to keep more of their incomes.
We were always for lower taxes.
And yet now the mantra that's coming is we want higher taxes. What happened all the same and give up all the things we used to believe in as conservatives, I, for one, haven't. I still think more taxes is bad for the economy, more money taking out of the productive sector of the private sector and given to the government
is a mistake. To those who still call themselves conservatives but now support tariffs, let me remind them that Milton Friedman said tariffs raised prices to consumers and waste our resources.
That's Kentucky Junior Senator Ran Paul now Here's noted economists and historian Thomas Soule.
It's painful to see what a ruinous decision from back in the nineteen twenties being repeated now in so far as he's using these tariffs to get various strategic things settled, and that he is satisfied with that.
But if you's got set off.
A worldwide trade war.
That has a devastating history, everybody loses, everybody follows suit, and all that happens is that you get a great reduction and international trade.
This is a very famous economics teacher you might have heard before.
In nineteen thirty the Republican controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of anyone, anyone the Great Depression, passed anyone, anyone a tariff bill, the Holly Smoot Tariff Act, which anyone raised or lowered raised tariffs in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone, anyone know the effects. It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression.
That was, of course actor ben Stein playing the economics teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but it was relevant to today.
In the last voice, I want to leave with you. You is why he doesn't really need any introduction.
For those of us who live through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing, and today many economic analysts and historians argue that high teriff legislation passed back in that period, called the Smoot Hawley Tariff, greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery.
You see, at first, when someone says, let's impose tariffs on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs, and sometimes for a short while it works, but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is first homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then while
all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High terraf inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, in less and less competition. So soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people
stop buying. Then the worst happens. Market shrink and collapse, businesses and industry shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs. The memory of all this occurring back in the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity. Now,
it hasn't always been easy. There are those in the Congress, just as there were back in the thirties, who want to go for the quick political advantage, who risk America's prosperity for the sake of a short term appeal to some special interest group. Who forget that more than five million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business and additional millions are tied to imports.
For k IF, I am six forty. I'm mo Kelly