Center. Nice to be with you.
Happy fourth in July for everyone that's watching A day afterwards, and there were some really big victories in the Supreme Court.
I think we should take.
A moment to celebrate it also to tell people what is in these victories and what it means for precedence moving forward.
And then there's politics dealing with us as well.
We'll deal with that in a moment, with Democrats really trying to undermine the Court. But I go back to a saying that is said so many times by Conservats when they're running for office. Elections have consequences, and we have had some elections that made a solid conservative Supreme.
Court, and now we're reaping the benefits of that.
Well, let me say happy Birthday to the United States of America. July fourth. We celebrated our incredible nation. We celebrated our freedom. We celebrated the founding of this nation. We celebrated the signing of the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are in by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty in the pursuit of happiness. Those were extraordinary words, and
I got to say those words were vindicated. Last week, we had some blockbuster Supreme Court decisions. We discussed several of them in an earlier pod last week. We're going to discuss two more today, two big, big decisions, the student loan decisions and the free speech religious liberty decision coming out of Colorado. Let's start with student loans. In Biden versus Nebraska, the Supreme Court, by a vote of six to three, struck down Joe Biden's blatantly illegal attempt
to forgive student loans. It was an attempt right before the last election to buy a whole lot of votes. Joe Biden knew that it was lawless, He knew that he had no legal authority to do it. He knew that his lawyers almost certainly advised him this is contrary to federal statute. And he made the decision, screw it. I'm gonna do it anyway, buy and votes because we got an election coming up, and we're going to buy votes.
I'm going to tell people they're going to get their loans forgiven, even though, and I would wager dollar to donuts his lawyers told him we're gonna get sued we're going to go to court.
We're gonna lose.
And I do want to point out as we talk about this, when Biden issued this illegal student loan forgiveness plan, the next podcast we did, we did a deep analysis on the law and why it was illegal. Then that walks through the law and makes clear then what the Supreme Court has now ruled now, which is that we are a nation of laws and the president cannot act contrary to federal law. Now, the amazing thing is, you know who used to know.
That, A lot of liberals, one of them that I know that you don't usually agree with Nancy Pelosi.
You know, I don't know that we've ever teed up Nancy Pelosi in a positive sense. There is Nancy Pelosi doing something you've never seen or heard before, speaking the truth.
People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power. That would has to be an Act of Congress. And I don't even like to call it forgiveness because that implies a transgression. It's not to be forgiven to get just bring people from those obligations so the question of who gets forgiven, whether to use the term of art
that is out there is a debate. Do we use whatever money there is for the broadest base of support of those with more people with even less debt or fewer people with more debt. That a policy discussion, but the difference between the president president can't do it, So that's not even a discussion that not everybody realizes that. But the president can only postpone delay but not forgive.
I've never enjoyed listening Nancy Pelosi more in my entire life than that clip right there.
It truly is shocking. Every word she said was true. Yeah, and she said that beforehand.
It was obvious.
Look, everyone knew this that you couldn't just that the president's not a king, that he doesn't get to waive a scepter and forgive massive amounts of student loans. And look, there policy issues, and there are legal issues on the policy issues. What Joe Biden the Democrats did is is they purported to forgive ten thousand or in some cases, twenty thousand dollars of student loans from individuals making one hundred and twenty five thousand or lesser from couples making
two hundred and fifty thousand or less. They did it because they thought, Okay, a bunch of young people, we can buy their votes, we can get a to go vote Democrat. And this was designed to be a massive wealth transfer. And so who were they hurting. They were hurting every person in this country that didn't get a college degree. They were hurting truck drivers, they were hurting steel workers, they were hurting blue collar workers. They were
hurting union members. They were hurting also everyone who did get a college degree, who actually saved up and paid for their college degree. They're hurting everyone who did what I did, took loans. Look look when I went to college, a lot of them. When I went to college. When I went to grad school, my parents had just declared bankruptcy. They were in the oil and gas business. They had a small business. It was the mid eighties. Oil cratered and we lost everything. We lost our business, we lost
our home. They were in bankruptcy. So I showed up in college and they had no money at all. I was seventeen and was on my own financially, and so I took a ton of student life in college and in law school, I came out of grad school with about one hundred grand in student loans.
And this is back, I mean in today's dollars, that's a lot.
That's a lot. This is twenty plus years ago, significant amount of cash. It was nineteen ninety five. I owed over one hundred grand, so that almost thirty years ago. And you know, I joked that I had a mortgage. I just didn't have a house. Yeah, And I paid off those student loans for almost two decades. I paid them all off eventually, but I made payments every month, every month. And when I had a job, I sent a check, and I sent a check, and I sent
a check. And that's the way you're doing it. Well, you know what the Democrats said. You know, you and I are chumps. If you paid off your student loan, you're a fool. The responsible ones, Nope, what they want to do, and it's a reverse robinhood. They're literally taking it from guys out digging ditches. They're taking their money and they're giving it to young lawyers and young doctors
and young university professors. And really that's who the Democrat Party is, which is the party of the wealthy intelligentsia. And today The Republican Party is a blue collar party. It's the party of working men and women. It's also a party of responsibility. Like you know, there's a funny meme online which is, you know, solving the student debt crisis, you borrowed it, you took a loan solution.
Pay it back. Yeah, that was my solution.
And look, it wasn't fun to spend almost twenty years paying it back. But I took the loan, I owed the money. And by the way, I also took the loan to get a degree to make money. That enabled me to get a good job to make the money to pay it back. This is an issue where on politics the Democrats have a confluence of number one sort of young, unemployed slacker smoking bonds. That's who they're appealing to. These are the same people who do during COVID they
wanted to pay not to work. Well, you know, if you're not working, it's hard to pay your student loans. And suddenly Democrats have told a bunch of twenty three year olds, you don't got to work, man, that'd be mean to make you work.
Or you don't have to pay off your loans for years now.
Right like that?
But there's a second group, which is the constituencies, which is the universities, and the universities have become entrenched pits of Marxism. But ironically they're Marxists who like to make the money, which is actually not that ironic. If you look at whether it's Putin, whether it's Fidel Castro, whether it's She. Marxists lived like billionaires. They're actually very good in using power for them to live well. So the universities are printing money.
But they're can endowments. People don't talk about either.
Multi multi billion dollar endowments.
The professors live like kings and they can't get fired. They have life tenure, and they convince young people, hey, take one hundred thousand or two hundred thousand student loans to get a major in underwater basket weaving or in you know, transgender.
Literature analysis.
And then they find wait, I got a degree that no one wants to hire.
Yeah, like there is.
It used to be when you went to school and you're taking loans and you said, okay, I got to
pay these loans back. You stopped and said, okay, at the end of this, I'd like to be able to get a job and So the Democrats are taking care of two constituencies, young people who they've convinced it's a good idea not to work and they don't have to pay their debts, and universities who are scamming young people, not teaching them life skills to get good jobs, but instead in doctrinating them with woke nonsense, which happens not to pay the bills at the end of the day.
And here's what they're gambling. They're gambling that the truck drivers and steel workers will never know the difference, that the union workers won't understan stand they're getting sold a bill of goods. I'll tell you there's one fellow understood. A fellow came up and talked to Elizabeth Warren. So watch this exchange in twenty twenty on the campaign trail when she was offering the same sort of giveaway that Joe Biden tried to do.
I just want to ask one question, because my daughter's getting out of school. I saved all my money. She doesn't have any scheming my conflict. Am I gonna get.
Your money back?
So it's not so you're gonna pay for people who didn't save any money. So, yeah, those of us who did the right thing get screamed.
You know it's not even got scream.
We said, of course we did.
My buddy had fun, bought a car, went on vacations. I saved my money. He made more than idea. But I worked a double, ship, worked extra. My daughters works in his tent.
So you're laughing.
Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing. We did the right thing and we get screamed.
I appreciate that.
Sorry, there's a lot of people that feel like him.
I remember the first check I ever got.
I wrote a book right out of college, and I got that advance check and I paid off a large chunk of my student loans.
I didn't want to.
I wanted to go buy something fun like you was talking about his buddy a new car, and I said, no, I'm going to be responsible. I don't want to have debt. There are people that work two jobs and three jobs out of school to pay off those student loans. And he's right what he was saying here.
But by the way, notice her response. Her first response.
She laughs at him, yeah, and then she's like thank you and just walks off. She doesn't answer his question. He says, I got screwed my buddy. He went out, bought a new car, lived it out, and she has no substantive response. That is the modern Democrat response. They don't give a damn. They don't actually engage in debate
with you, they don't actually have a discussion. They're like, you don't matter, I don't care about you, because they're gambling that other people like him won't realize they're getting screwed.
And you know the magnitude of it.
So look, the legal argument that Joe Biden put forward to how he claimed he had the thought to do that is something called the Heroes Act. So the Heroes Act was a bill that Congress passed following nine to eleven. So September eleventh, the Global War on Terror begins. Planes fly into the World Trade Center, fly into the Pentagon.
Congress passed the Heroes Act, which gives the Secretary of Education the authority to quote, waiver modify any statutory regulatory provision applicable to the student financial Assistance programs under Title I of the Education Act, as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency. In other words, the Heroes Act was designed to there are a bunch of soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines that were off in Afghanistan, off fighting
to defend America. And it was to say, we can give some debt relief to those young fighting men and women that are keeping us safe. And what Joe Biden said is, well, now, everybody, we're all soldiers now, yeah, And they hinge it all on national emergency. They said, well, okay, COVID's a national emergency.
So therefore we'll stop all the payments.
And then we'll just forgive it.
And by the way, the magnitude of how much we're talking about, the initial estimates were five hundred billion. There were later estimates that this was over a trillion dollars. You could never get a firm estimate on how much it costs. And the argument of the Democrats was, with a stroke of the pen, Joe Biden could give away a trillion dollars because he wants to or to buy votes.
In translation, and one of the fundamental protections of the Constitution is that Congress has the power of the purse. In other words, if you're going to spend money, the elected representatives in Congress have to sign off on it. This was an assault fundamentally on the limitations of the power of the president and the requirement that it be Congress that appropriates money. And yet here's Joe Biden reacting with disdain at anyone who would hold him too account.
Before we get to that, I want to tell you about Augusta Precious Medals. If you are sick and tired of being stressed out about your retirement portfolio and you have had losses over the last couple of years, and you say, hey, I want to preserve my wealth, I am in retirement, I am close to retirement, then you need to check out what august of Precious Metals can do for you and your retirement account. They can help you navigate the crazy maze of the economy by protecting
your hard earned assets with gold. They can help you switch to a gold IRA or four to one K. They will actually send you the free Investor's guide on gold and do a one on one web conference. This is like no other company out there because they sit down with you and they look at your life, your retirement, and your needs before any decisions are made on what you do next. Check out Augusta Precious Metals and see if a gold IRA is right for you to preserve
your hard earned hours. You can call them eight seven seven the number four gold IR eight seven seven. The number four gold IRA used a promo code Verdict and you can get also the free Investor's Guide on gold Augusta Precious Metals dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot com eight seven seven the number four Gold IRA Center.
Let's take a look at this.
Is Joe Biden, in his own words, getting very upset that people are questioning his motive or was he just straight uplying to the American people.
Mister president, why did you give millions of borrowers false hope? You've dated doubted your own authority here in the past.
I didn't give any false hope. The question was whether or not if I would do even more than was requested. What I did I thought was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done. I didn't give bars false hope. But the Republicans snatched away the hope that they were given.
And it's real, there was no hope ever from Republicans this would ever pass Number one and two. I really get to say this, what hell of a question from a reporter finally about him lying to the American people on purpose.
Yeah, look, he knew he was lying. His team knew he was lying, the media knew he was lying. Everyone knew that giving away a trillion dollars to every student borrower in America was not falling under the Heroes Act for Times of War taking care of soldiers and sailors. Yeah, like it was a ludicrous interpretation. His own Department of Justice had told him that, and then he flipped, had them flip their decision and wrote a very creative opinion
to justify the lawlessness. And you know what, it was great political lawyering. In other words, it was putting politics ahead of law. It was obvious on this podcast more than a year ago. I said this will be struck down, and it will be struck down six ' to three. And the only challenge, I said, was standing. In other words, they were gamming that it was going to be hard to find a plaintiff who could challenge it. That was their one hope is the court couldn't get to the merits.
I said, if he gets to the merits, it's a six ' to three easy decision. As it so happened, there were two lawsuits. One of them the Spring Court threw out and said you didn't have standing, but the other one, the Nebraska case, they concluded they did have
standing and on the merits it was exactly what I said. Actually, Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, quoted Nancy Pelosi with what we just played and said, look, everyone knew you couldn't do this, and this was a political decision to.
Ignore the law.
And you know, it's interesting, Biden gets so angry when he's challenged. It is really happened. It so rarely happens, but his anger is is just palpable at it. And it's and by the way, we forced to vote in Congress to to rescind this legislatively, and the Democrats in a party line vote, they've decided blue collar voters don't
matter to them. They think the Democrats think blue collar voters are too dumb to know they're getting screwed here, that this is this is the Democrat Party selling out steel workers.
In order to buy favor with gender studies.
Majors, We've seen big victories in the Supreme Court recently like we've never seen before, at least in my lifetime, and consistently. There's something that's happening here that I think is encouraging because we're seeing the rule of law being applied and they're not getting away.
With these radical ideas.
There's also those something that's happening that concerns me and I think many people that listen to this podcast and watch, and that is the delegitimizing and the undermining of the Supreme Court and what Democrats are trying to do.
And it's happened. We saw this with Roe v. Wade.
We've gone a great detail on that, the threats and the pressure, the leaking of that opinion, doxing the the Supreme Court justice where they live, putting their lives in danger. In other words, Democrats saying, if you don't give us what we want, we're going to burn the whole place down. We're gonna pack the court, We're gonna redo it the way we want it.
How we even say term limits.
In fact, you can see the media when they all got together in this montage doing exactly that when they didn't get their way on one issue.
And honestly, at this point, I think we're all right to a question the legitimacy of the.
Court like an anti version activist wrote it not a Supreme Court justice.
These justices are acting like this is somehow something that they have the right to change.
They do not have the right to.
Change this and this Supreme Court.
That's it.
They don't care.
They don't care about this women.
What they care about is enclosing their extremest view all the rest of the country.
Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past fifty years.
Part of the.
Decision would be an abomination and abomination that's just on Roe v. Wade.
But they are now pushing this every time they don't get their way. Hey, we're going to de legitimize this court. We're gonna say that they're wrong. We saw Joe Biden say this court's not a normal court or something to that effect when he was walking out he took that last question.
He was walking out the room of the White House. And that concerns me.
And the Supreme Court does at least seem to be fighting back a little bit.
The radical left has corrupted every major institution of government. We've seen under Joe Biden. We've seen the hard left, the cultural Marxists take over We've seen them politicize and weaponized the Department of Justice, politicize and weaponize the FBI, politicize and weaponized the IRS, politicize and weaponize the intelligence community.
As you know, my last book, Justice Corrupted. The entire book is on the left seizing law enforcement and turning it into a political weapon to attack their opponents.
We've also seen them do that in Congress.
The absolute abuse of power we've seen from congressional Democrats in the Senate and in the House last year, the radical agenda they ram through the strict party line vote. There used to be such a thing as moderate Democrats in the Senate. In the House, they don't exist anymore. They have been driven out because the Democrats hate Trump so much that they've embraced Look Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and AOC that is the heart of today's Democrat party.
They're all socialists now. The one institution the Democrats have not managed to corrupt as the Supreme Court. So they've corrupted from within the executive branch, both the presidency but also the cabinet members, but also the career bureaucrats.
Up and down the agencies.
They've corrupted Congress, the Senate, in the House, they've corrupted the media, they've corrupted big tech. And the one outlier is the third branch of government, the judiciary that thank god, there are justices there who are actually following the law and the fury they have. Look this student loan decision. A few years ago, Nancy Pelosi said, it was obvious any lawyer who tells you like is actually speaking the truth, who is at a wild partisan would say this should
have been nine to zero. This is obvious that you can't give away a trillion dollars under a statute meant to help soldiers at a time of war. You don't get to call everyone a soldier and just give away a trillion dollars that if you want to do that, if you think it's a good policy to give away a trillion dollars, you actually have to pass legislation through the House, through the Senate, and get it signed by the president.
That's how you pass legislation. Everyone knows that.
But today's left wing Democrats they want the result and the hell with what the lawyer is, and so their intention they are systematically trying to delegitimize the court, trying to attack the court. Well, look, listen to this one one left wing congressman talk about his plans for the court.
A lot of lawmakers are calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court.
Do you think the president should do that?
Yes, expand a Supreme Court.
We need Supreme Court ethics reform, and we need term limits.
That's a completely different setup of the Supreme Court.
So we don't get our way. We want term limits.
I'm not sure why he's saying they want ethics reforms that they can blackmail them.
Oh, no, no ethics reform.
Look, we've seen the entire assault directed to Clarence Thomas from Pro Publica, funded by dark money left wing outfits, and we did a show on seeing bogus ethics complaints. We did a whole show on that, pointing out that the rules they're applying to Clarence Thomas, he followed the rules. His conduct is the same as the left wing justices, is the same as Steve Bryce, iiras Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
as Sonya saw to my as Atlanta Kagan. But the Democrats in the media are applying a completely double standard. They're faulting him for following the rules, and they're not looking at all on the conduct of the justices on the left.
That's the quote.
Ethics reform is part of the Democrats assault on the court to delegitimize it. Term limits and packing the court look FDR when he was trying to ram through the new Deal, wanted to pack the court, wanted to grow, and packing the court has a meaning. It means expanding the number of justices in the court so you can
ram additional justices on there to control the outcome. In this case, what the Democrats want to do is grow the Supreme Court from nine justices to thirteen justices so they can immediately port a point four left wing justices to undermine the Constitution across the board. It is profoundly dangerous by the way leftists, as is their wont abuse the language. They accuse Republicans of packing the court. And here's a pro tip. Everything the left is doing they
accuse the other side of doing. It's almost whatever the accusation is, you can be like, oh, that's what you're doing, so it is not packing the court to fill a vacancy with justices. It is true that Republican presidents have been elected, Republican senates have been elected, those Republican presidents have nominated constitutionalist justices, and those Republican Senates have confirmed
constitutionalist justices. That is not quote packing the court, right, that's the ordinary operation of our constitutional system for nominating and confirming justices. What is packing the court is altering the number of justices in order to just ram your partisans on board. That's what the Democrats want to do, and it's profoundly dangerous.
We're going to keep watching this becau it's going to be very important, but at least we're getting these And I also think there's one other encouraging aspect of this. The Supreme Court justice seemed to be becoming much more outspoken on this and not taking as much crap.
From the meeting.
Well, they're democratics. They're just following the law, and that's.
Good because they've been attacked and the undermining of the court. I think they understood how much damage was done with the Roe v. Weight undermining and the releasing of that document beforehand and the doxing of them. Like I think now they're saying we're going to stick to the rules, but I'm glad to see them say it publicly.
So there's a reason the framers of the Constitution gave justicees life tenure. They're supposed to be immune or at least resistant to political pressure.
And you may be right.
You may see this majority now saying fine, if you're going to just assault this institution, we're going to keep our eyes on the law, and we're going to follow the law and follow the Constitution and let politics do what it may. Look you look at this other decision from last week, three or three creative lens that this is a very important decision. It's a religious liberty decision, it's a free speech decision. It was six ' three as well. Justice Gorsich wrote, wrote the opinion, and what
happened Here is a woman named Laurie Smith. Laurie Smith is an artist. She's a website designer. So she designs websites. That's what she does. She's creative. She makes websites and does She wanted to do wedding websites. She thought it'd be fun to do. You know, Ben and An are getting married. Let's do a website. Let's celebrate their lives.
Let's design something that tells their story. She's a storyteller. Well, the facts a legend The case is that two gay men wanted to hire her to create a website celebrating a gay marriage, a same sex marriage. She is a believing Christian and she did not want to tell that story. She did not want to say that she agreed with that because she doesn't agree with it. And Colorado has a very very strict law. They call it a non discrimination law, but it's design to really force and punish
anyone who wants to exercise their own religious liberty. Now, she wasn't trying to stop their wedding. She wasn't speaking out against their wedding. She was saying, I don't want to use my voice to say something that my faith teaches me is wrong.
Well, the Supreme Court six ' three ruled for her, and what's striking.
So there's several things that are striking, and I should point out I led an amicust brief in this case along with Senator Mike Lee. We had a number of House members and senators who joined us, urging precisely this outcome.
So this was I filed.
A brief in this case, and the Supreme Court agreed with our brief and upheld her religious liberty rights. But let me start with this point, which is the corrupt corporate media deliberately and Democrats deliberately are wildly mischaracterizing this case. So I want to give an example of AXI, which is this fairly well respected media outlet who put out a tweet and a headline that was just objectively false. And so I responded on Twitter. So here is the
tweet they put out. The tweet they put out is Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ plus customers.
Now if you look at.
That, that headline is objectively false, and you see what they wrote in their tweet breaking businesses can refuse to serve same sex couples if doing so would violate the owner's religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday. And so here's what I tweeted. I had a three part tweet threat.
I said.
First of all, if Axios were a first year law student, this answer would earn an f. It is either ignorance they don't know, or dishonesty they know in their line.
I suspect the latter. I think they know in their line.
If it's the former, if it's an honest mistake, then a real journalistic outlet with integrity would issue a correction. Now, why is it that they are wrong and they're either ignorant or lying. Well, let's look at the second tweet thread. Assuming that whoever wrote the headline didn't actually bother to read the opinion, which I think is a pretty good assumption.
What the court did hold is that the First Amendment prohibits the State of Colorado from compelling a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which she disagrees. This is a free speech case. This is about her right to speak and not be forced by the government to say things she disagrees with.
Third tweet the tweet thread.
So, for example, the government could not force Axios to tweet all journalists are morons or Donald Trump is awesome, two sentiments with which presumably Axios disagrees, Like, you can't force they can't go force Ben Ferguson to go say something I don't believe in online and say Memphis sucks. You're just not gonna.
Say you like bleed Memphis hometown. That's just the way it is. But no, you're right, I should never be put in that situation. And if you have a venue hall where you rent it out to people, and someone says I'm gonna come have a Satanic ritual there, and you say I don't want that in my private venue. You shouldn't be, you know, sued or lose a court case over that for religious beliefs.
So look, that's actually a different case. My point is this case is very different. This is about free speech. This is about expressive design. A website designer is writing. You were writing your own message. The point about this case, this really is the heart of it. It should the government force you to speak? So look, hosting a venue that's a different issue, and there's been litigation over that. But First Amendment speech, this would be about your radio host.
Can the government force you to say things you disagree with? Now, I will tell you just how dishonest the media is. Well, I'm not going to tell you how dishonest the media is. I want to show you. So watch David Brooks from the New York Times.
I'm not qualified to give it a legal opinion. I'm not a lawyer. So I look at it as a good or bad for society. And so in this case, you had the right for artistic expression against non discrimination, and it was a contest between those two, and the court chose free expression. That strikes me, just as someone who lives in American society, as doing great harm to
American society. It seems to me the idea that we do not discriminate in our businesses is just that's much more serious thing to break that than to restrict someone who's really running a business, not just painting a painting, but is running a business, and in fact that person who is running a business is allowed to discriminate. It seems to me it's just a poison in our society.
So I got to say, David Brooks, who I don't know very well. I've met him, but I don't really know him. He's paid by the New York Times to be their fake conservative. So he claims to be a sort of conservative who just happens to agree with the left on everything.
And his whole job is to say.
I'm a conservative, and I hate conservatives, I hate all the people who believe what I say I'm believing. And at some level you got to wonder, what's the what self respect does someone have? Because he literally he's surrounded by people who loathe conservatives, he pretends to be one he's obviously not. But his whole point is to be the whipping boy.
You know, you know in the.
Old well, you know in old monarchies where you'd have the king and the prince, and the prince would misbehave, Like the phrase whipping boy came from. They didn't want to spank the prince because he had a royal behind, so the whipping boy. When the prince misbehaved, they grabbed the whipping boy and whip the whipping boy. And the whole purpose of it was the royal drri era cannot be touched. Someone needs to be spanked because of the prince's mouth seasans, So let's whip the whipping boy. It's
the person whose job it is to take the blows. Well, that's what David Brooks there says. So number one, he starts by saying, I'm not qualified to say anything about this because I'm not a lawyer. He's right, he's not qualified because he's not only not a lawyer, he hasn't read the opinion, he doesn't know what it's about, and he's not talking about the opinion. So it's not just that he doesn't have a law degree, it's that he hasn't done even the barest modicum of homework to know
what the case is about. But he knows what he's supposed to say. He's supposed to say the left is right and the right is wrong, because that's what he says every time, usually in a very self righteous, moralistic way. In this instance, he says, this is a battle between discrimination and artistic expression. No, no, no, it's speech. Wh it is literally can you force let me ask you, can you force a Jewish rabbi to perform a Muslim wedding ceremony?
Yeah, the answer should be no.
Because you can't force someone to speak. All right, David Brooks said that you know clearly preventing discrimination is more important than free speech, mind you. Number one, the guy works for the New York Times, so the New York Times is on record saying free speech is less important. He's the fake Conservative, so he especially believes free speech
is less important. All right, I'll tell you what I want to pass the law that every time David Brooks speaks, he must publicly say I'm a dishonest, lying, imbecile that works for the propaganda outlet called the New York Times, and he should be okay with that, because it's just
his free speech, and it's perfectly his free speech. Doesn't matter he told us that, so the government can force him to say, I'm assuming, well, maybe he does believe that he's allying propagandist, but i mean, given the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he doesn't believe that, should the government be able to force him to say that. And the point listen, it is altogether different if you take, for example, look, there was a prior case, the Colorado
baker case. It was the same Colorado state law, where again the press mischaracterized it and they said, this is a baker that didn't want to serve people who were gay. Well, the baker there said that's not the case at all, that he served people are gay every day, that when people came in they wanted to buy a cake, he'd sell him a cake. He didn't care if they were gay, transgender, whatever, like if you'd sell a cake. He was in a
cake buy a business, cake selling business. This was not a case about refusing to do their business, refusing service to someone because of their sexual identity. Rather, what the Colorado baker said is you had a gay couple that wanted to come in and have him design a wedding cake celebrating their same sex wedding. He was an evangelical Christian, and he said, look, my faith teaches me that's wrong. You can go get married, but I don't wish to speak.
And he said baking a cake was expressive. Now, I gotta admit, I'm not much of a cook or baker. I didn't really think of baking as all that expressive, but he said, for.
Him, it is when he does.
When he designed a cake, he was speaking, and you could get Look if you were a baker, and let's say you're you're a Jewish baker, and someone comes in and says, well, you bake a Nazi cake with a swastik on it, that you ought to be able to say, no, I'm not going to I don't wish to convey that message, but.
Or a Klansman cake or anything that goes against your beliefs.
But the point is the Colorado baker didn't refuse service to people on the basis of their actuality. People could come in and gay and buy any cake they wanted. He was not going to speak and offer his voice in this instance. This website creator there's no indication she'd ever turned down her services to someone who was gay.
If you had a gay couple who said, hey, we want to design a website about you know, the Colorado Mountains and the prettiest mountains, and we want to do a website, sure, she presumably would have said, sure, happy to do that, like, Okay, you're hiring me to design a website. Let's do this mountains, this side of this mountains, this side, let's put up pictures. It wasn't that she was refusing to do business with people who were gay.
She's more than happy to do business. They were asking her, we want you to use your voice to speak a message that you disagree with and that your faith teaches you is wrong.
Yeah, your religious beliefs going against your religious police.
That's the core.
That is fundamental that government cannot force you to speak, Which is why I use the example and to see the fake conservative of the New York Times happily say free speech doesn't matter, because all my left wing buddies tell me it doesn't matter.
Yeah, it really is, sad.
It's an interesting point.
I want to also get the CDC real quick, because I think this is really important.
Before we do that.
Let me tell you about Patriot Mobile, the only conservative Christian cell phone provider in the country. You've probably got a cell phone and if you were just like me, where you're just done with woke companies. You're sick and tired of give in your money to companies actually not only disagree with your values, but are fighting against your values. That is why you need to switch to Patriot Mobile. Big Mobile has actually been giving millions and millions of
dollars to woke leftist causes, including Planned parenthood. If you don't want your money going there, switch to Patriot Mobile.
Now.
They have nationwide coverage on all three major network tower systems, so you don't have to worry about coverage. You can keep your same cell phone, your same cell phone number if you want to, and switching is easy with one hundred percent US based call center. They can also help you with your business or your small business line. Switching all of those over and many times actually save you money every month. Now, when you pay your bill, this
is where the magic happens. They take a portion of that bill no extra cost to you, and they give it to conservative causes and organizations that you want to support. We're talking about the First and Second Amendment. We're talking about protecting unborn children. We're talking about our veterans, our wounded warriors. That's where your money is going. So check out Patriot Mobile eight seven eight Patriots their number, that's eight seven eight Patriot or Patriot mobile dot com slash verdict.
That's Patriot mobile dot com slash vertict. He's a promo code vertict when you call them and you will get free activation the best deals of the year. Patriot mobile dot com slash verdict. There's something I want to bring up, and you and I were talking about this before the show. Center Biden has nominated a radical CDC director. You're trying to change how this nomination process works.
Explain why.
Well, look, we all learned during COVID that the head of CDC can have a massive impact on everyone's life in America. That it is an enormously important position. We saw CDC pushing for shutdowns and lockdowns all across the country, school shutdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, impacting life and liberty and health of every American. And it is a massively important position. That there is a basic proposition in our constitution that positions that are very important, that impact the
American people very significantly, should be subject to Senate confirmation. Historically, the CDC director has not been subject to Senate confirmation. So it's just someone that the President can appoint, that the Secretary of HHS can appoint, and CDC did not
require Senate confirmation after COVID. I think everyone recognizes, Okay, this is big enough, it requires it, And in fact, Congress has passed a law that going forward, the CDC director will require Senate confirmation starting in January of twenty twenty five.
So why they wait so long? Out of curiosity? People don't understand this in laws? I mean, it's annoying. Why not twenty four?
Whoever wrote it in just wrote it? I assume wait till after Biden's presidency got it. But what it means? So Biden has named a woman named Mandy Cohen to be head of the CDC. She presumably will be the last head of the CDC if nothing changes, whoever takes that position without Senate confirmation, The next one after January of twenty twenty five will require Senate confirmation. I have introduced legislation. It's very simple. It makes Senate confirmation. The
requirement immediate. It just moves the date forward from January twenty twenty five to now. And it would make Mandy Cohen so object to Senate confirmation. Why is that? Because her record is terrible. So, she was the head of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, and she was one of the leading advocates of shutdowns, of lockdowns. She was an advocate of shutting down small businesses. She was an advocate of shutting down schools. She was an
advocate of mask mandates. She was a total acolyte of doctor Fauci. She went so far as wearing a mask with doctor Fauci's face on it. I mean she's a fangirl for Anthony Fauci, quite literally. She's also a Democrat partisan. She's been a Democrat partisan her entire life. She's been very active. For example, in two thousand and nine, she was the national outreach director for Doctors for Obama. So this is a partisan Democrat. She also participated in the
quote white coat rally supporting Obamacare at these I remember that. Yeah, So she is a partisan Democrat. You know, the CDC historically has been a relatively a political position that you should be. You put a respected scientist. This woman is a partisan Democrat who she shut down churches in North Carolina with much stricter rules than other places. So she had the hostility of Democrats towards churches because she didn't like churches and religious belief and she put much tougher
rules than for any any other organization. And you know, I got to say the degree to which she just abused her power.
Well, look, I'm actually gonna let you watch her.
Tell you I'm laughing because you sent this to me earlier this week and it's brilliant, So go ahead.
So I want you to watch this interview with Mandy Cohen where she described vibes just how cavalierly she approaches her abusive power.
So I would call probably the person I called most was the Secretary of Health and Human Services in Massachusetts. She worked for a Republican governor just to but you know when she was like, are you are you gonna let them have professional football? And I was like nope, and She's like, okay, neither away, neither we. So you know, it was like conversations like that, so or I'd be like, so, when are you gonna think about widening up a mass or it's like next Monday. I'm like, okay, next Monday.
So look, she's telling you that she would call the head of HHS in Massachusetts. By the way, North Carolina. I'm sure that people are thrilled to know North Carolina is taking their cues for Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states.
In the country.
Yeah, and listen to what she just said. So are you going to allow them to play professional football?
Which is insane that elected official can even decide that.
No, neither am I ha. She just laughs. I mean it.
She doesn't care at all the imperiousness with which I am going to ban football. Who you are too, isn't it fun?
Ha?
And she says, also, when are you gonna lessen your your mask mandates? Oh, Monday, okay, I'll do it on Monday too. It is an accuture. How arbitrary By the way, the mass mandate was, It's made up, right, it.
Was totally made up. It was like, all right, well, i'll release it. When you release it, let's synchronize it. Totally different parts of the country, totally different stats and dat at that point, I'm sure, totally different hospitization written numbers at that moment, different, I see you numbers.
But this was politics on science. Politics. It's not science. It's purely politics. And you look at that and you see the contempt she holds the American people in. She believes she's an unaccountable philosopher king she'll dictate. Look, when was the last time you saw someone say, are you going to allow professional football?
Yeah?
And laugh about it, by the way, And it's why I say she needs to be subject to Senate confirmation. Let's make senators vote on her. Do you want that woman to have the power to ban football, which she's already done once and she laughs about it. And if you do, you know what, Joe Manchin, why don't you cast a vote and tell us you want to put her in charge of the next lockdown. You want to put her in charge of the next shutdown in schools that hurt school kids across the country. You want to
put her in charge of illegal vaccine mandates. Let's put every senator on record.
Great point.
There's one more thing I want to play for everybody because you sent this and it's hilarious, and before we play it, because it deals with exactly this issue.
Let me tell you about our friends of her Chalk.
If you're a guy and your deal with a real problem that men are dealing with, and that is low testosterom, you need to check out Chalk choq dot com. Chalk has the Male Vitality Stack. Now, this is herbal supplements that can help boost your testoster mubbles up.
To twenty percent in ninety days.
So if you're filling lethargic, you're feeling like you're just kind of weak and you just don't want to get off the couch, You don't want to go do fun things like workout or play sports, any of those types of things. You just feel like you've lost that edge. Check out Chalk. Go to chalkchoq dot com use the promo code Ben. You're gonna get thirty five percent off
your order for life. So if you haven't tried it and you're ready to get back to the way you used to fill, go to chalkchoq dot com, grab that Mail Vitality Stack promo code Ben thirty five percent off and you will not have to give in to that weakness that you're experiencing right now. Choq dot com. That Choq dot Com promo code ben for thirty five percent off. Lastly, Senator, Uh,
this one is hilarious. I'll let you tee it up because you sent it to me and I was like, is this is pretty brilliant and people I think are gonna like it?
All right, So this is a video I had my team put together and I talked about just how radical and extreme Mandy Cohen's record is. The corporate media doesn't want to cover, if they want to hide, if they want to bury it. It's also why they don't want to see her subject to Senate confirmation, because they want to put her in a position to be able to ban football and shut down schools and shut down your businesses.
Once again, I don't want that to happen. So here is a lighthearted video that actually lays out what a real record is.
See that don't make gussie.
She is asking we.
Lockdown's had a spirits love, didn't have a place to go, kids had down, so didn't learn a thing and felt she bought her keys.
Many coming to a by.
Drunk on Darren feeling.
With another press Congress just follow the signe. She's gotta calls you best. And when she got the ship.
She was the masking Queen was one of the coming of.
Masking Queen.
Feel the pain of man.
Yeah it shap try loangasta. I can't see her. She's wearing a mask.
She is.
Dare I say I want more of these senator from the team.
It is the perfect way of exposing who these people are, what they're all about, and using a little bit of humor to do it, because this is what people will send it around and go, Okay, I don't want this woman to be the CDC director, especially when she's crazy like this.
That's her actual record, that's her with Fauci on the mask. She really is a fangirl to doctor Fauci. You saw the video over coming out to the press conference, She's not wearing her mask and then suddenly, like all good hypocretic Cara democrats, TV camera got to put a mask on for the TV camera. Has nothing to do with science, nothing to do with medicine, nothing to do with the virus, has everything to do with virtue signaling. And as she just lasts and shows you let's ban football because ha,
I can every sense ought to vote my vote as hell. No, But there are a bunch of Democrat senators who are running in red states. I'd like to know what John Tester thinks in Montana. Does he want her to be able to shut down schools and ban football in Montana. I'd like to know what Joe Manchin thinks. I'd like to know what Shared Brown thinks. He always votes left wing anyway, but the people of Ohio happen to like some football.
So let's have a vote on this.
This ought to be easy, but let's see if Democrats actually support putting a radical in charge of shutdowns and lockdowns and shutting down our kids schools.
Call your centers, Call your senators, Call your senators. Center is always a pleasure. Don't forget. We do this show three days a week. And if you are watching this, make sure you share this video on your timeline, if you're watching on Facebook or YouTube.
If you're listening to this, there's that little forward button.
You can share this on any social media platform you're on to help us reach more people with what's really happening in this country? Right us a five story review and hit that follow like or button if you're listening to this podcast, so you don't miss an episode, and we'll see you back here in a couple of days,