Trump's Big Iran Decision

But the big story that the international community and most Americans are really fixated that are paying attention to right now and how can we not address it at the top of the show, that is the roiling situation in Iran. So it is reaching rapidly something of a boiling point.

Earlier today, Donald Trump getting in briefed with his latest assessment as to what the possible options are as to what to do at this particular time when it comes to the horrific regime crackdown, regime crackdown on the innocent civilians who are rising up, who are risking their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor. Yes, that is the analogy draw here. They are risking it much as the patriots of seventeen seventy six risk it in order to

try to topple this terrible regime. As of yesterday, we were discussing on the show that the inside the Inside Baseball scoop that I heard from various sources was potentially upwards of two thousand Iranian civilians who have been slaughtered. I'm still hearing it's in the thousands. For what it's worth, I'm now hearing from some folks over at CBS News.

It's very, very difficult to get precise numbers on this stuff, and partially because of the Internet blackout parts, because the foam blackout parts are because this part of the world is just infamously difficult to get accurate numbers, see for instance, the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is run by Hamas. But for whatever it's worth, folks over at CBS and least those who I've been in touch with are are

estimating potentially potentially as many as twenty thousand. Potentially take take them with a grain of salt, Okay, a big grin of sault, potentially, but we could be looking at upwards of twenty thousand innocent to runians. Billions mowed down by this regime. Again, all sorts of anecdotal stuff. Images popping up over social media of just body bags upon body bags upon body bags at the hospital, at the Morgue.

It's a horrible, horrible situation. Well over million millions now of Iranians who have been taken to the streets in protests of this regime. This particular protest, as discussed previously on this show, have happened because of the plumbing real of the Iranian currency, because of food scarcity, of the droughts. That people just want the regime to focus on themselves as opposed to funding all of their terrorist proxies and all of the sheited insuluments, propaganda overseas and so forth.

By the way, as an aside, I have to say, putting on my pop culture lens here just for a secondifem I actually just started season three of Tehran, which is the show on Apple TV, strongly encouraged at the timing really could not be more incredible. But we just started that in season three is off to a good start. So I was watching that last night. It's like, oh my god, this is really happening in real life. So that is million dollar question though, is is it happening

in real life? Because we see now what's going on over in Iran, and it's it's bad. But where's auth these going to go from here? Moreover, is the Trump administration speaking clearly and with one voice on this issue. This has been one of the most difficult, thorniest evergreen topics whenever various issues for the Trump ministration come up, but perhaps especially those pertending to foreign policy. Does the administration actually speak with one voice? Does Donald Trump speak

on behalf of everyone? From Marc Rubio on the more hawkish end of the spectrum, Pete Hegseth, who is perhaps somewhere in the middle, all the way over to his own Vice President Jade Vance and the d and I, Tulca Gabber and others who have more isolation sympathies. It's pretty well known that there's a lot disagreements within the White House, within the administration when it comes to all

of these issues. So it's been somewhat of the talk of the town now for a few days that Trump's instincts are indeed to dramatically escalate in in bombing military fashion against the Iranian regime. And he is now the leading, one of the leading proponents, if you are paying attention to the tea leaves, he's one of the leading proponents of increasingly aggressive military action to try to topple this regime.

On the other hand, you have the Vice President JD. Vance, who is leading the alternative caucus, who is leading the caucus of those who are trying now to preach diplomacy and various other means for what it's worth, Donald Trump not exactly interested in diplomacy. Donald Trump putting out on truth social this morning quote Irode and patriots keep protesting, take over your institutions. Save the names of the killers

and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have canceled all meetings with the Roddian officials until the senseless killing of protesters stops. Help is on its way migas in make Iran great again. So he's canceled all meetings with officials until the killing stops. So it seems to me the Vance led push for diplomacy, whatever the merits of that of that may or may not be, simply are at this point falling on deaf years for President Trump, and by the way, that's his own entire can of worms.

Is what is the current nature of the president vice president relationship. Recalled that Vice President Vance was actually not there at mar Lago during the Maduro operation. We saw all these images of Donald Trump flanked by people like Marco Rubiel. Well, where is the vice president? Well, his office put out a statement explaining why he was not there. They said that it was a possible security concern and

op SEC concern, operational security. I'm not entirely sure that makes a whole lot of sense to make, to be honest with you, there's a lot of problement people there. They all had their own large motor cads. But is this another issue from Venezuela and now to Iran where there is this emerging delta, there's this emerging gap between

President Trump and Vice President Vance. I actually, you know, putting on our domestic politics had for a minute here, I was just looking at an article a pull from rass Mussen ras Musen, which is one of the more conservative Republican leading major poulters out there. Ras Muson had a big piece just yesterday talking about how jad Vance's

favorability numbers have been plumbing recently. So is this going to help his recovery where he's yet again being seen, perhaps probably accurately, seen as being on the other side of President Tromp on a major foreign policy issue. I have to suspect that is not going to help JD. Vans when it comes to twenty twenty eight, when it comes potentially to Donald Trump's endorsement. Frankly of Jdvan's come twenty twenty eight, But we will cross that bridge when

it gets to it. For now, the possible escalation of military activities from the United States there looks at this point to be pretty much imminence. B fifty two bombers moving all the way into the Eastern Mediterranean, a lot of assets moving into places like Turkey. It seems like this thing is really going to potentially hit the fan asap. Now, you don't have to necessarily go in guns fully blazing. There are alternatives to There are things such as cyber

attacks and things of that nature. But even if this thing does really militarily escalade and there start being lots of bombs and fireworks and all of that, it's important to note a couple of things. One is that no one here is talking about boots on the ground. I mean, how many times do we hear this slogan of boots on the ground. It's becomes something of a line that a lot of the Tucker Curlson Ron Paul types push to try to persuade people not to take any military

action whatsoever. But it's obviously a false choice because there's approximately a million or two million different things that can happen between boots on the ground and between it doing absolutely nothing. Last I checked, there is virtually no one. I'm not even sure if Lindsey Graham himself is pushing for literal boots on the ground, the literal one hundred first airborne parachuting into Tehran to topple the Iyatola. No,

that's not what's happening. What is happening is that the Iranian people, who have been brutally, brutally repressed for four and a half decades from the world's number one state sponsor of jihad, are risky at all to go to the streets to fight back against this regime. That's what's happening.

was very clear. He said that it's worth supporting the Iranian people if slash, when they rise up against this regime. What's not necessarily worth doing is going in guns fully blazing, absent the running people's support. Totally separate conversation for what it's worth, if Donald Trump does decide to significantly increase the military threat in the United States visa vise the iotolin As moll as they're in, or it looks like he can count on at least some byparises a poorer at least some,

which is fascinating. For instance, here was John Fetterman and Pennsylvania speaking on CNN.

in spiral. So why wouldn't we want to support that and those brave protesters they've killed probably more than six hundred by now. So now why would we want to have the kinds of targeted, kinds of action that could break that regime?

Iran and by extension, frankly, for the whole world. Given how much jihad across the entire world that regime has sewed, how much American blood, how much European blood, how much Christian bloo Jewish blood, how much blood is on this theocratic isthmus regime's hands. It's not necessarily the job of the United States to go in there, with the aircraft carriers and the overwhelming ground, air and sea power. That's not what's being floated right now. What is being floated

is support of the Iranian people. The details that will be defined by the president. But make no mistake about it, donald Trump's red line has been crossed. And yesterday's show we explained why we're not necessarily the biggest fans of red lines. I prefer the more foreign policy be done in secretive, clandestine fashion. Why give the enemy and he heads up, what's whatever, it's what your next move might actually be. But he said a redline. He said, if

the regime starts massacring dissidents, he will take action. Over the weekend. On Sunday, it was reported that Donald Trump was emitting that perhaps his redline has been crossed. Here on Tuesday, we can now definitively say it has been crossed, stomped on, and torn to shreds. It's in your court, mister president, exactly where you take it from here. But you have a unique opportunity to go down history for providing moral sooker. And yes, military support is necessary to

the running people. We'll be right back. I'm Josh Hammer and welcome back very much. Monitoring situation in Iraan. But as mentioned at the beginning, of our show. There's other stuff going on as well. One of the largest cases is actually technically two consolidated cases. One of the largest oral argument days at the Usupreme Court occurred earlier today. I listened to large swaths of the oral argument. So these are two technically combined cases. One is out of

the states of Idaho. One is out of the state of West Virginia. The state out of Idaho is Little versus Hcock's West Virginia, and is West Virginia versus BPJ.

They are basically dealing with the same fat pattern, which is whether or not a statute a law in Idaho or West Virginia that bans that bans biological males from competing against biological females when it comes to high school athletic competition, Whether or not these laws are constitutionally principal, perhaps if there's a fourteen mement angle, or perhaps whether

they run a foul of Title nine. Title nine being the amendments to the Civil Rights Act, which was passed in nineteen seventy two that prohibits set discrimination in all educational programs and for all those universities institutions that receive federal funding. More generally. So, as I mentioned, I watched and listen to a lot of this or argument this morning. The first thing that ought to be said is there actually was a lot of jarring language from some of

the right of center justices. You know, those of you who've known me for a long time, who are not silly new to the show, you know that one of my longest pet peeves I've mean being this drum basically my entire adult life, is the utter and complete debacle the failure of Republican judicial nominations. Why in the world can Republican presidents just not get their judges right? To be clear, they do sometimes. Most of the Trump Lower court judital picks, for the most part, are really good.

I know that firsthand. I actually clerked for one. I was one of the very first four law clerks for the Honorable James C. Hoe of the US corp Appeals for the Fifth Circuit back in twenty eighteen. Judge Hoe is a phenomenal jurist, and god willing will be our

next Supreme Court justice. But all three of Donald Trump's first term Supreme Court nominees performed, shall we say, in less than stellar fashion at the oral argument earlier today, you had both Bret Cavanaugh, both Brett Cavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, literally both of them who at times referred to boys who subjectively identify as girls as so called trans girls. Yes, Amy Coney Barrett, the one who's basically on the Supreme Court, because Dianne Feinstein, the late Diane Finestelin,

said that the dogmall lives likely within you. Ye, Amy Cony Barrett couldn't even bring herself to describe biological males as biological males. Brek Kavanaugh, for Wordsworth did essentially the same thing. Neil Gorsich for Wordsworth. Gorsich is a particularly

frustrating one. So Neil Gorsich asked about whether a prohibition on on cross sex dressing would amount to discrimination kind of this notion that transgenderism can entail subjective notions such as changing the clothes that you wear there and he actually even asked some of the lawyers for the transgender athletes why they were not trying to press the issue as to whether transgender's constitutes what in constitutional law are known as discrete and insular minorities, which is really kind

of legalize language. Goes back to a nineteen thirties opinion from the New Deal called Caroline Products. An infamous footnote in that case called footnote for basically it's not worth explaining the details. Basically what this means is gorse is trying to tee up for the transgender plaintiff layers a possible way of trying to litigate this case in a way that it would be seen as complete and utter

abominable discrimination. Gorstich is the justice who in twenty twenty also gave us a case called Bostak was a case not on Title nine but on Title seven, which involves employment decisions whether you can, for instance, hire or fire on the basis of sex. And in the Bostock case, the court held six to three where you had John Roberts annual, Gorstitch joined the liberals Gorsi's rule for the court.

At that time, Gorsich held that discrimination on the base of sex essentially amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex orientation and gender identity. And right now Gorsich today seemed to be again advanced the argument that transgenderism should be seen as a protected class. And my reading the tea les is that Grosich could potentially be a vote here to extend his same logic and rationale in the

Bostock case. That's a Title seven case to now this Title nine case when it comes to these two transgender at the cases. For what it's worth, John Roberts, who is as squishy as of all of the Republican nomination jurors on the court there, John Roberts actually came across probably as the most sober of all the centrists, which

is not necessarily the most encouraging thing. Having said that, not trying to overly blackpill you guys, I still, despite that, find it really really hard to believe that Idaho and

West Virginia and also the DOJ. The DOJ swooped in here as an intervener, they had an oral advocate at the courts as well, argue in defense of the Idaho and West Virginia laws, or arguing defense of biological reality, or arguing defense of sexual dimorphism, arguing defense of the integrity of biological females not be subjected to athletic competition for biological males. So I have to think that there is enough that there is enough ammunition even if someone

like Neil Gorstich were to go wildly. Admittedly, though, you're starting to play with fire, because if Gorstich does indeed vote to extend his principle from Bostock, and he tries to conceive of transgenderism as a so called protective class, and he ends up holding on these laws are illegal under Title nine, then you're down to a one vote margin. You can't afford to lose capital Roberts or Barrett's. So it's just so frustrating. I mean, this is such an easy case. This is so easy, or at least it

should be. You know, for all the legal leads we're talking here about carolling products footnote four, We're talking about discreet insummonorities, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, all these tears of scrutiny, which by the way, are all made up. How about he cut to the chase. How about the law just reflect the truth? Is that not The purpose of law in the first place is to be a reflection of the truth, to be a reflection of God's plan for mankind,

of human anthropology, of human teleology. What we are here to do? What is our purpose? The law should express this, and when it doesn't, that's how you know that a law is flawed or is unjust, and when there is an ambiguous statue, not that any of these statues are ambiguous is incumbent upon judges in this case us to read these statutes when in doubt. When an ambiguous cases, which again this is not, but you should read it to err on the side of things like biological truth

and moral truth, substantive justice, things like this. I didn't hear a lot of that, frankly at the oral argument at the court earlier today. If this does go the wrong way, if Idah, how West Virginia lose this, and if the court says that biological males can compete against biological females, that is something of a yet another five alarm fire for the conservative legal movement. If God forbid, two of the three of Kavanaugh Baron Gorsis go the

wrong way, that is a really, really, really big deal. Again, if I had to make a guess, it really seems like Gorsis could go the wrong way. I still think that you look in a five to four victory for Idaho and West Virginia, but it really really really should not be this close, really really really should not be this close at all because when a legal regime is not ultimately tethered to the truth, is appropriate to start questioning the legitimacy of that regime in the first place.

And it's not just that Bostock is the only recent pressant for this. Yes, Gorstitz wobbled and boss Stock and Roberts actually, for what it's worth, also had the wrong opinion in this Title seven case. But just last year it was actually even more recent present. It was a

case at a Tennessee called Scrimetti. In the Scrimmetti case out of Tennessee, the court said that is well within the police powers of the states in this case Tennessee the volunteer state to severely ban or outright proscribe the use of hormones, of chemical castrain drugs, general mutilation, all this stuff when it comes to so called transgender adolescents prepubessence. That was a sixth three decision that the more recent case in the Bostock case, that should hold. That absolutely

should hold. But the fundamental point is this against about the truth. What is transgenderism. Transgenderism is a lie, of course, gender dyspory is not a lie. It's a mental condition. But the notion of a distinct class of transgenderism doesn't make any more sense than a distinct class of drug addicts or alcoholics. We should have immense compassion, but in no way whatsoever should the law, ever, ever, ever deviate from the truth in order to accommodate what is in

this case a mental illness. God willing, Idaho and West Virginia will prevail. We'll be right back. We're also still tracking the ice situation in Minneapolis. It's pretty good for the most part. Notably my article three project. Colleague Will Chamberlain, in an excellent incisive post yesterday, noted how this is looking at a lot different than the summer of twenty twenty. Right now, you see a generally emboldened US law enforcement presidents.

When it comes to ice, when it comes to DHS, when it comes to National Guard, but even when it comes to the local police that are choosing to work with defence, they're generally doing a pretty good job of tamping down and putting down the incipient mayhem they are in Minneapolis, but more generally speaking, getting us outside of the Minneapolis Renee Good ice situation, there continues to be a concerted effort on the left to paint illegal aliens

as the victims of unjust laws. We were talking before the break about these transgend or athlete cases and the notion of trying to make sure that your law is tethered to truth and to reality. Well, folks, one of the most real and truthful things we can ever say about the law is that the law exists for a particular nation state. There's also this thing as global law, other than the law of God, God all My to himself,

the Bibles close as we come to global law. Other than that, the entire notion of a body of law is implicitly dependent on there being an entity for whom that law combined. That means the nation state. And if you have a nation state, that means you have borders. Now, we've had so many Democrats who are pulling their hair on saying, oh my God, Ice is deporting a lot of these aliens who didn't even commit a crime. They

didn't commit a homicide or a rape or this or that. There, They're just undocumented workers, to which I say, the crime they committed was when they walked here in the first place. But don't just take it from me. I was watching this wonderful Cliff and a certain gentleman made a certain radio address in the year nineteen ninety five on this very topic, and he said this, He said, it does not matter if they have committed crimes while here. They came here legally. That's a crime. They have to go.

Who do I speak of? I speak of Bill Clinton? Where is that sentiment today? It was totally common sensible back in the mid nineties. Let's go ahead, actually and watch this clip of Bill Clinton speaking in his State of the union'sdress the very same year of nine ninety five.

hate that phrase. Certainly, there are very few people here who are direct a sentence of the Mayflower in sixteen twenty.

That's something of a tangential non starter point though, because at various points over our family histories, our genealogies, someone came here and someone decided to assimilarly, to learn to learn English, to subscribe to cultural Americanism, to subscribe to the broader Protestant work ethic, ethos that has defined this country for hundreds of years, to do things like understand

American civics and constitutionalism and this and that. So we're a nation of Americans, both the native born and the umorents. That's a better way to phrase it. But the point is that even slick Willy, even slick Willy Clinton in the nineteen nineties compelled to say that we are a

nation of laws. Of course, nowadays nowadays, if you support Ice, if you support a Christy Noman DHS Tom Holman, the borders are and all the Ice men and women, if you support them enforcing this nation's im immigration laws, then you will get invariably tarn feathered as a fascist. They'll call it hate speech. They'll say, oh, man, what are they doing in rounding up and getting getting this guy? Who is he? He's just laying around here. He's not

committing any crimes. Yes he did. His crime was cries on the border illegally. His first act on our soil was to be here illegally. When you don't enforce the rule of law, respect for the rule of law dies. Without the rule of law, you are nothing. You are nothing whatsoever.

but not the other way around. The most important distinction in all of the rule of law, at least for the United States of America, is that between Americans and non Americans. It's deeply relevant when it comes to which provisions of the Constitution apply and which provisions of all many other statutes in our legal code apply as well. The Democrats today have lost their everlasting minds when it

comes to the topic of immigration. They say that you are trying to go back to nineteen thirties era Germany, that Ice is the gestape. How offensive, how utterly appallingly offensive is this look. If you have an issue with how this ministration is enforcing its immigration laws, maybe, just maybe you should have forced their hand by letting in millions and millions millions of unvetted illegal aliens during the four years of the Biden Harris regime. Maybe that was

a good idea. Who would have thought of that. I'm just so sick of this notion that we hear and over over and over again that you have to have committed a crime in order to justify Ice supporting you. First of all, Ike doesn't give a you know what about your own subjective approval or lack thereof. They couldn't care less, But they don't need anything more than identifying an illegal alien and saying, guess what you're out of here.

That's the way that it ought to work. Immigration abortion Maybe the two issues really more generally with Democrats have more the leftist the quickest in the decades since the Clinton administration in the nineteen nineties, Bill Clinton was the era of safe, legal and rare on the issue of abortion. Nowadays, abortion is touted as the left's foremost pagan sacrament, as a moloch like altar to the pagan non god goddesses that they all too frequently worship in favor or in

lieu of the One True God. As for immigration, well, their immigration priorities other than some occasional votes of relatives any people like Eric Adams in New York City, people like John Fetterman in Pennsylvania, with very rare exceptions loan of voice and wilderness. Their take on immigration seems to me that it is dictated by, on the one hand, possibly corporate needs, that's the corporate chilling time Democrat, but

more generally and more often by multiculturalism and intersectionality. You know, they say that the so called great replacement theory is a conspiracy theory, it's not. There is a lot of intentional attempts to dilute America's historical inheritance going on there as well. A lot of it also is just cynical attempts to gain more voters. Really quite simple. But ultimately,

you are undermining and desecrating the rule of law. By promoting a scheme of legal immigration, by encouraging those to come here illegally, and by refusing to deport those who are already here illegally, you are ruining support and respect for the rule of law. You are ruining support for the only edifice that prevents us from descending into tyranny and anarchy. The rule of law is the bedrock of any society. Is one of Donald Trump's fortes. We are

blessed to have him in power right now. He's doing a bank up job at Frankly, when it comes to crime, when it comes to illegal immigration, keep it up, mister President Bill Clinton. Ninth nineties, frankly would have agreed with you. We'll be right back. Welcome back. Last we checked in on Megan Kelly, it wasn't pretty. Unfortunately, it's only gone significantly worse since then trust me, I don't like to talk about the fact that Megan Kelly has ascended into

hyperconspiratorial lunacy. I would much prefer it to be the case that Megan Kelly were still a voice for civilizational stunning. But when you look at Megan Kelly's career, it's really only about meg Kelly feels in a given moment, is better to boost herself or to better acculturate herself to her audience or her cliqts more accurately at a given time. You see what's one time back on Fox News, me

and Kelly really made her bones. She advanced up the corporate ladder there at News Corp. As a no nonsense, vaguely centrist ish kind of lawyerly proseput style interviewer who can forget her every very very difficult grilling, probably over the top offensive grilling of Donald Trump back in that twenty fifteen President of primary debate. Fox News didn't like that very much. She ended up going to NBC News,

where she tried to appease her left wing bosses. At thirty Rock, she took a very hard left stance on issues, where today she now ironically claims to be pretty hardcore issues like transgenderism. There was this infamous segment on Making Kelly's Show, her very short lived show in NBC years ago, where she brought on a group a group of teenagers and was lauding them for their courage for transitioning from

girls to boys or boys to girls. Now, Megan or Grandma Groper as we prefer to call her, Grandma Draper, says that she's had something of a change of heart on the issue of transgenderism for teenie, but really, does any religious person, does any religious Jew or Christian have to evolve or have a change of heart on the notion of male female sexual dimorphism. It's only right there in the twenty seventh verse of the entire Bible, in Genesis one twenty seven, the notion that God made man

his image male and female had created them. Eventually, after being fired by NBC News, Main Kelly reservices with her current show being and Kelly Show, and for a while it was going just fine. Indeed, after the horrific hamas Pegram the Simhatora massacre of October seven, twenty twenty three, Megan had yours truly on as I guessed fairly frequently, including one appearance where I was on for an hour or more. It was a really deep dive and all the various angles and facets of the then all too

fresh slaughter and the war that was to come. Unfortunately, mein Kelly over the past we'll go back potentially as far as year ish, but really really really accelerating over the past half year and going into hyperdrive after Charlie Kirks assassination. At this point Me and Kelly has made her bed with the enemies of Western civilization. She has repeatedly made her loyalty to individuals like Candae Owens at

Tuger Carlson. No, that would be Candace Owens, who is a literal nineteen thirties Germany esque Jew hater, who is an avowid enemy of Western civilization for that matter, who I know from people who attended her wedding. She had a drink called Pudence Punch because of her russophilia and love for the Kremlin in Russia. Canis Owens, who implicated Erica Kirk, who Megan pretends to defend Kansas has implicated

Erica Kirk in her own husband's assassination. Literally a conspiracy theorist so dripping in utter madness that even Alex Jones think felt compelled recently to say, stop, you're making us look bad. Really he did that, check the record. And Megan also has made her undying loyalty known to Tucker Carlson, the single leading provocateur of the anti American, anti Semitic, anti Western quote unquote right, someone whose daily show is

filled with myriad apologia for Russia, China, Oran Venezuela. He literally defended Maduro and Venezuela is a daily dose of how to make the American people stupider. That's what Megan Kelly is what I signed up for. Well, just last week, less than a mom that though she called me a snake on her show, Megan who is the quintessential coward because she refuses to actually go with the courage of

her admittedly kind of only half baits convictions. She refuses to do anything whatsoever to call out the lunacy from her friends, refuses, categoric refuses to say, can't just stop, Tucker, stop, what are you doing? It's pure cowardice. So she gratuitously dunked on me about a month ago, for no reason, called me a snake for having done it nothing whatsoever

ovent to retweet one or two vaguely critical tweets. And now last week, Megan went on her best friend Tucker Carlson the Doha Shill, because Tucker is, if nothing, if nothing else, he is certainly a shill for the regime and Katar. So Megan Grandma grayper Kelly went on Tucker the Dohah Shill Carlson Show last week, and boy was it a doozy. They were celebrating who else but Tucker's most controversial recent guest, otherwise known as the lifelong arch

foe of their purported friend Charlie Kirk. Nick Fuentes, our dear friend Dave Ruben put together quite a montage of this. Go ahead and watch. This is Joseph Stalin's birthday. I'm a family. You're a fan of Stalins as an admirer.

years of her career. Ditto Tucker Carlson, by the way, also formerly of cable News, also consigned to the digital ghetto now. Tucker is a slightly different situation because he really does seem to have some genuine animus and hatred, not just for Jews, but also for many Christians, frankly,

and also for Western civilization more generally. But Grandma Grouper is making a purely cynical play here to fall over hel to trip over herself, to apologize for the gutter, trash, filth, the utter verman, as Charlie Kirk called him of Nick Flentes. Is this how you treat your friend? I mean, these two call Charlie Kirk their friend. Fuentess was the lifelong arch foe of Charlie Curry. Disgusting, absolutely disgusting, And it's

all this desperate play for clicks. You know, when I decided to leave my law firm trajectory, when I left the law firm years ago now and I finished my clerkship for my federal judge, and I said, though I was going to embark on a different kind of career, the kind of career that I'm doing right now speaking into this microphone, producing audio video content, writing columns, writing books, essays. When I said I was going to leave the legal career and do all of this, I made a promise

myself that I would never sell out. I'm in this for the truth. I'm in this because America matters, Because ideas matter, because Western civilization matters, because the Biblical inheritance matters. That's why I'm in this business. When you were deciding who to get your information from, who to be a consumer of, when it comes to the media, when it comes to information, you should ask yourself, is this person in it because he or she cares about values and

the truth or in it just to be a clickhore. Unfortunately, Grandma Grouper has established herself as the foremost clickhore of the current online zeitgeist. It's a really sad, entredded descent to watch, but unfortunately there's really no one to blame for it other than Grandma Groper, Megan Kelly herself. She's made her bed, she will lie with it. It's a bold strategy, and frankly, I don't think it's going to pay off for her. I'm Josh hammer having good EATA