Latest / V / SCOTUS Questions Fetish Themes in Pre-K Curriculum (Ep.188)

Transcript

SCOTUS Questions Fetish Themes in Pre-K Curriculum (Ep.188) · V

0:00
Speaker 1: Good morning and welcome to Bongino Report. Early edition, SCOTUS
0:03
Speaker 1: extends deportation deadlines past weekends. A New Mexico judge resigns
0:09
Speaker 1: after housing an illegal gang member tied to Trende, Aragua.
0:13
Speaker 1: Representative Jamie Raskin commits soft treason by threatening foreign allies
0:18
Speaker 1: for cooperating with Trump deportations. SCOTUS Here's a case on
0:24
Speaker 1: forcing kids to read LGBTQIA whatever plus books without opt-outs
0:29
Speaker 1: for parents. The media amps up its Pete Hexeth smears.
0:33
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson calls right-wingers that he disagrees with psychopaths. A
0:39
Speaker 1: woman sues the Navy because she aged out of the
0:42
Speaker 1: Navy SEAL tryouts. And the Trump admin moves to ban
0:46
Speaker 1: toxic food dyes. All this on Bongina Report, early edition.
1:01
Speaker 1: SCOTUS just made a clear-cut deportation deadline, now a flexible,
1:09
Speaker 1: judge-interpreted guideline yesterday. In a narrow 5-4 decision on Tuesday,
1:16
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court ruled that immigrants who agree to leave
1:20
Speaker 1: the U.S. voluntarily are entitled to deadline flexibility if their
1:24
Speaker 1: 60-day departure deadline is falls on a weekend or federal holiday.
1:31
Speaker 1: So writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch stated that
1:34
Speaker 1: standard legal principles should apply, meaning that if a deadline
1:39
Speaker 1: falls on a weekend or a holiday, it extends to
1:41
Speaker 1: the next business day, just as it does in other
1:45
Speaker 1: areas of the law. That is the argument being made.
1:48
Speaker 1: Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the
1:52
Speaker 1: court's three liberal justices on this decision. And they argued
1:56
Speaker 1: that the timing of a voluntary departure isn't a minor detail.
2:01
Speaker 1: It can impact detention removal, fines, and an immigrant's ability
2:05
Speaker 1: to seek lawful status in the future. So this is,
2:08
Speaker 1: they're trying to make things easier on the illegal migrant.
2:13
Speaker 1: And the ruling overturned the 10th Circuit Court's previous decision.
2:17
Speaker 1: In dissent, Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Barrett said that
2:21
Speaker 1: the court lacked jurisdiction and warned against injecting sympathy into
2:26
Speaker 1: what should be a clear-cut statutory issue. See, the reason
2:30
Speaker 1: they say that is because federal law sets a 60-day
2:33
Speaker 1: deadline for certain immigrants to voluntarily depart the U.S., and
2:38
Speaker 1: there's no explicit provision saying whether that deadline extends past
2:42
Speaker 1: weekends or holidays. So in the dissenter's view, the court
2:46
Speaker 1: is bending the rules out of pity for the immigrants
2:50
Speaker 1: rather than staying true to what Congress actually wrote into law.
2:54
Speaker 1: And so.
2:56
Speaker 1: First of all, another case of SCOTUS making things more
2:59
Speaker 1: difficult for the Trump deportation mandate, which the vast majority
3:03
Speaker 1: of Americans voted for and want. We don't even just
3:05
Speaker 1: want deportations of criminals. The majority of Americans actually want
3:09
Speaker 1: deportations of all illegals, irrespective of whether they are murderers
3:15
Speaker 1: and rapists, although those guys got to go too. Here
3:18
Speaker 1: is where the outrage is coming from online, and I
3:20
Speaker 1: think you guys will be able to sympathize with this
3:23
Speaker 1: a lot. Suppose conservative justices, John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch,
3:28
Speaker 1: stayed silent for three years while January 6th defendants were overcharged,
3:35
Speaker 1: jailed without trial, denied basic rights, and yet they spring
3:39
Speaker 1: right into action to protect a deported illegal immigrant's weekend deadline.
3:46
Speaker 1: Misdemeanor trespass was twisted into a felony for American citizens.
3:51
Speaker 1: And Americans sat in solitary confinement with no court date,
3:55
Speaker 1: and Robert and Gorsuch refused to check the DC judges
3:59
Speaker 1: who were orchestrating the whole thing, enabling the whole thing.
4:02
Speaker 1: They did nothing when churches were shuttered in violation of
4:07
Speaker 1: the Constitution during COVID. But now, for a foreign national
4:12
Speaker 1: who crossed the border illegally, they suddenly find all this
4:16
Speaker 1: passion for due process. The priorities here are just really whack,
4:22
Speaker 1: especially when you look at what we're dealing with, the
4:25
Speaker 1: times that we're living in. We have Democrats going over
4:29
Speaker 1: to El Salvador on the taxpayer's dime, violating the Logan
4:34
Speaker 1: Act to bring back an MS-13 gang member. Is the judiciary,
4:41
Speaker 1: our representatives in Congress, are they at all interested in
4:45
Speaker 1: the welfare and well-being of American citizens? We're jumping in
4:47
Speaker 1: because we care so much about due process for illegals.
4:52
Speaker 1: So much so that we're going to have representatives go
4:54
Speaker 1: to El Salvador to bring back an MS-13 gang member.
4:57
Speaker 1: But when it comes to American citizens on January 6th,
5:01
Speaker 1: or their right to practice their faith during COVID, no
5:06
Speaker 1: one cares. And that impacts actual American citizens. We have
5:12
Speaker 1: SCOTUS now emboldening all these activist judges who are overstepping
5:17
Speaker 1: their roles simply because they hate Trump. I wanted to
5:21
Speaker 1: listen to this really excellent video from Wade Scott on
5:25
Speaker 1: the state of the judiciary branch in this country. And
5:29
Speaker 1: mind you, this video, he shared it yesterday, but this
5:31
Speaker 1: video actually came out last year, 2024. And it's still
5:36
Speaker 1: relevant today because even if we have a new president,
5:39
Speaker 1: even if we have President Trump, this amazing cabinet all
5:42
Speaker 1: around him, judiciary is still deeply broken. And so the
5:46
Speaker 1: problems that we were facing with the lawfare against President
5:49
Speaker 1: Trump They're all still existing right now. This is what
5:52
Speaker 1: we're dealing with. This is what's made the Trump mandate
5:55
Speaker 1: thus far really difficult to carry out. We have an
6:00
Speaker 1: entrenched and deeply corrupted branch of government. So take a
6:05
Speaker 1: listen to this.
6:07
Speaker 3: From the Trump trials to the border crisis, how many
6:09
Speaker 3: of our edge-of-your-seat political moments are just waiting around for
6:12
Speaker 3: decisions from judges? The news is like dancing with the stars.
6:15
Speaker 3: America is Tucker Carlson, and it all comes down to
6:17
Speaker 3: the opinion of the Honorable Bruno Tonioli.
6:20
Speaker 4: All rise.
6:20
Speaker 3: This isn't the way we were taught the government works.
6:23
Speaker 3: My 9th grade civics teacher didn't mention Judge Tonioli once.
6:26
Speaker 3: Federalist 78 said that the judiciary would have neither force
6:29
Speaker 3: nor will, but merely judgment. Maybe this was true for
6:32
Speaker 3: a while, but it's not now. Ask yourself a few questions.
6:35
Speaker 3: Can Texas defend its border with Mexico? Can Florida pass
6:38
Speaker 3: an anti-drag law? Can states pass voter ID laws? The
6:41
Speaker 3: official answer to all of these questions is whatever the
6:43
Speaker 3: judges decide. It doesn't matter what the people want or
6:46
Speaker 3: what their elected representatives want. It doesn't matter what the
6:49
Speaker 3: 10th Amendment says. Being a judge is like being Jared Leto.
6:51
Speaker 3: You wear a robe, tell people what to do, and
6:53
Speaker 3: try to act mysterious. The people of California voted to
6:56
Speaker 3: deny welfare benefits to illegal aliens, but a federal judge
6:59
Speaker 3: blocked it. Trump ordered a temporary ban on travel, and
7:02
Speaker 3: courts struck it down. Congress in several states specified in
7:05
Speaker 3: law that marriage is between one man and one woman.
7:08
Speaker 3: Judges not only invalidated all those laws, but declared a
7:11
Speaker 3: constitutional right to same-sex marriage. All in service of making
7:14
Speaker 3: our country look more like a gay club in Somalia.
7:17
Speaker 3: As Anton says, the only consistent thread here is the end.
7:20
Speaker 3: the progressive outcome must always prevail. On the other hand,
7:23
Speaker 3: the biggest court victories for the right in the past
7:25
Speaker 3: few years have all been judges overturning previous bad rulings.
7:29
Speaker 3: Dobbs striking down affirmative action, and if we put right-wing
7:31
Speaker 3: judges in the right place, maybe Tucker can have another
7:33
Speaker 3: shot at the trophy. Yes, these are wins, but they
7:36
Speaker 3: only serve to slow the left down a little. Then
7:38
Speaker 3: there's the Trump trials, in which the judge on the
7:40
Speaker 3: New York case donated to Biden's campaign, and his daughter
7:43
Speaker 3: did work for Kamala Harris and Adam Schiff. The judge
7:45
Speaker 3: on the Georgia case worked for DA Fannie Willis for
7:48
Speaker 3: four years.
7:49
Speaker 5: The D.C.
7:49
Speaker 3: Judge was appointed by Obama and wouldn't recuse herself despite
7:52
Speaker 3: her public negative statements about Trump. He'd have a better
7:55
Speaker 3: shot at objectivity on an episode of Judge Steve Harvey.
7:58
Speaker 3: These are our sovereigns, and conflicts of interest are fine
8:01
Speaker 3: as long as you're on the right team.
8:03
Speaker 6: He's right.
8:05
Speaker 1: In today's America, judges have effectively become sovereigns, unaccountable rulers
8:11
Speaker 1: who shape national policy not by interpreting the Constitution, but
8:15
Speaker 1: by imposing their personal ideologies. And we have this perspective
8:19
Speaker 1: on the right that, well, if we just pick somebody
8:22
Speaker 1: who will care about the Constitution, then we'll get the
8:25
Speaker 1: right outcome every single time. Meanwhile, the left is installing
8:29
Speaker 1: judges based on an ideological litmus test, because the Those
8:36
Speaker 1: judges don't view the court as a way to actually
8:41
Speaker 1: be a check on the other two branches of government.
8:44
Speaker 1: But instead, the court to them is a way to
8:46
Speaker 1: push radical progressive policy in this country. They're not being judges.
8:53
Speaker 1: They're being activists. And we're not playing the same game.
8:57
Speaker 1: We are just installing people who we think will do
9:00
Speaker 1: a good job. And then you have Neil Gorsuch and
9:02
Speaker 1: you have Justice John Roberts who— and Oftentimes Amy Coney Barrett
9:07
Speaker 1: continually letting us down because we are not even playing
9:11
Speaker 1: the game that the left is engaging in. And so
9:14
Speaker 1: we are therefore automatically losing. It's as if we're forfeiting.
9:18
Speaker 1: The judiciary has drifted far from its intended role. The
9:22
Speaker 1: founders envisioned judges as neutral arbiters, bound by the text
9:28
Speaker 1: of the Constitution and checked by the other branches. But
9:31
Speaker 1: that balance is broken. And courts now act as unelected
9:35
Speaker 1: super legislatures, issuing sweeping rulings with the force of law,
9:41
Speaker 1: and often untethered from precedent, public will, or constitutional limits. Certainly,
9:45
Speaker 1: in this case, completely irrespective of public will. We elected
9:50
Speaker 1: President Trump with the mandate to fix the invasion that's
9:53
Speaker 1: happened in this country over the last four years. Millions
9:57
Speaker 1: of people are here illegally. Oftentimes, many of them are
10:02
Speaker 1: violent criminals. We have an entire illegal network of gangs
10:07
Speaker 1: operating across the entire continental U.S., and this administration can't
10:10
Speaker 1: deal with it because they're being inhibited by activist judges
10:14
Speaker 1: and pacified, these judges, then by the Supreme Court, left
10:19
Speaker 1: and right. They can't get the job done. They can't
10:22
Speaker 1: do what the people elected them to do. It's not
10:24
Speaker 1: a check on the executive branch. It's actually an inhibitor
10:28
Speaker 1: for the legitimate role of the executive. This isn't blind justice.
10:34
Speaker 1: It is ideological governance in robes, and it's exactly what
10:38
Speaker 1: the founders warned against. Last week, I saw this story yesterday,
10:43
Speaker 1: and it feels like we see stories like this every
10:46
Speaker 1: single day. There's just a different one. Every day, every day,
10:49
Speaker 1: every day. 23-year-old mother, Lesbia Milith Ramirez Guerra, found murdered
10:55
Speaker 1: and buried in a Maryland forest. Authorities have charged her
11:00
Speaker 1: illegal immigrant boyfriend with the crime. How many of these
11:03
Speaker 1: stories do we need? The American people voted for mass deportations.
11:08
Speaker 1: Most Americans actually want mass deportations of all illegals, not
11:11
Speaker 1: just criminals. That is what the studies show. We don't
11:16
Speaker 1: want anybody here illegally. And the courts, again, are just
11:19
Speaker 1: left and right, inhibiting and weakening the mandate. All right,
11:24
Speaker 1: we're going to take a quick break. When we come back,
11:26
Speaker 1: we're going to keep talking about activist judges because this
11:28
Speaker 1: next story, shocking, shocking the way that this judge was
11:33
Speaker 1: actually helping an illegal alleged Tren de Aragua gang member.
11:39
Speaker 1: Don't go anywhere. Okay, so we're going to keep talking
11:41
Speaker 1: about activist judges because, like I said, you guys, you
11:44
Speaker 1: can't even make this stuff up. You can't even make
11:46
Speaker 1: it up. A Democrat magistrate judge in New Mexico, Joel Cano,
11:51
Speaker 1: has resigned after ICE arrested an alleged Tren de Aragua
11:57
Speaker 1: gang member at his home. The alleged gang member, who
12:01
Speaker 1: crossed the border illegally in December 2023, was allowed by
12:05
Speaker 1: Cano to use his house, his home address, to apply
12:09
Speaker 1: for immigration relief, and even he lived in a little
12:12
Speaker 1: casita on the judge's property. The federal authorities say the
12:16
Speaker 1: illegal was found with firearms and disturbing images of mutilated bodies.
12:23
Speaker 1: He was previously released due to border facility overcrowding and
12:27
Speaker 1: is now in the custody of firearms and immigration charges,
12:35
Speaker 1: of course. Now, Judge Cano can be seen in multiple
12:38
Speaker 1: photos and videos with the alleged gang member, including one
12:42
Speaker 1: where the illegal is handing him A weapon. Take a
12:46
Speaker 1: look at this. If we have it, Mikey.
12:52
Speaker 3: What kind of gun is that, Mikey?
13:02
Speaker 7: Do you know?
13:05
Speaker 2: Probably some kind of AR. Yeah.
13:13
Speaker 1: I mean, it looked pretty serious. It was in camo.
13:17
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not a gun expert. Believe me, I'm
13:20
Speaker 1: not a gun expert. Drop a comment if you know
13:22
Speaker 1: what kind of weapon that is. But I mean, it's
13:24
Speaker 1: such a disturbing video. It's a judge. So Judge Dolcano
13:30
Speaker 1: apparently didn't just turn a blind eye to an illegal
13:33
Speaker 1: immigrant with alleged ties to a foreign terrorist organization. That's
13:36
Speaker 1: what the Trump admin has said. Trendy Aragua is a
13:38
Speaker 1: foreign terrorist organization. He actively helped him He let a
13:43
Speaker 1: suspected Trente Aragua gang member use his personal home address
13:46
Speaker 1: for immigration filings. He housed him on his property. This
13:51
Speaker 1: is not the behavior of a neutral arbiter of the law.
13:55
Speaker 1: This is the behavior of someone who is using their
13:59
Speaker 1: position to undermine immigration enforcement and shield dangerous individuals from accountability.
14:06
Speaker 1: Do you see what I mean when I say the
14:08
Speaker 1: system is broken because we have very bad people in charge? very,
14:12
Speaker 1: very bad people, reveals the deep rot in certain parts
14:17
Speaker 1: of the judiciary where personal politics, personal ideological agenda, overrides
14:25
Speaker 1: the duty to uphold the law and protect the public.
14:29
Speaker 1: Judges like Kano don't just bend the rules, they erase
14:33
Speaker 1: them when it suits their ideological or personal goals. By
14:40
Speaker 1: the way, while Democrats are accusing the right of tearing
14:44
Speaker 1: up the Constitution, they're not only trying to re-import foreign
14:48
Speaker 1: terrorists back to this country, the Maryland man, as they're
14:50
Speaker 1: telling us he is, no, they're actually literally committing soft treason.
14:56
Speaker 1: On Pod Save America, Representative Jamie Raskin recently suggested that
15:02
Speaker 1: a future Democrat administration should retaliate against foreign governments that
15:07
Speaker 1: dare to cooperate with the Trump admin. Take a listen.
15:12
Speaker 5: So I like that idea. And it's a compliment to
15:17
Speaker 5: something that we need to be doing right now, which
15:20
Speaker 5: is engaged, engaging in far more work of transnational democratic
15:26
Speaker 5: solidarity with the democratic governments and the democratic movements and
15:30
Speaker 5: peoples and parties of the world to try to prevent
15:36
Speaker 5: the spread of the lawlessness and the fascist chaos that's
15:38
Speaker 5: been unleashed against us. But implicit in it should be
15:41
Speaker 5: the idea that if and when we come back to power,
15:45
Speaker 5: and we will, we are not going to look kindly
15:48
Speaker 5: upon people who facilitated, to use a word of the day,
15:55
Speaker 5: who facilitated authoritarianism in our country. That's an assault on
16:00
Speaker 5: our constitution and on our people.
16:02
Speaker 2: Yeah.
16:03
Speaker 1: Let me just read that back to you guys. It's
16:04
Speaker 1: just what he said again. He said, if and when
16:07
Speaker 1: we come back to power, and we will, we are
16:11
Speaker 1: not going to look kindly upon people who facilitated authoritarianism
16:15
Speaker 1: in our country. This is soft treason. Not in the
16:20
Speaker 1: legal sense of levying war, but in the moral and
16:23
Speaker 1: constitutional sense of threatening to subvert U.S. foreign policy and
16:29
Speaker 1: punish allied nations for cooperating with the sitting president of
16:34
Speaker 1: the United States, the man elected by the American people.
16:38
Speaker 1: He is threatening foreign nations saying, if you work with
16:42
Speaker 1: the United States in this moment, by really what they're
16:46
Speaker 1: actually addressing is deporting illegals guilty of violent crime and
16:52
Speaker 1: gang membership, then we're going to punish you in the future.
16:56
Speaker 1: They are actively subverting the duly elected president and threatening
17:03
Speaker 1: foreign countries. He is effectively declaring that if a sovereign
17:07
Speaker 1: nation complies with the lawful deportation policies of this Republican
17:11
Speaker 1: administration said nations will be blacklisted, defunded, or diplomatically isolated
17:16
Speaker 1: under the next Democrat regime. And they're telling us that
17:22
Speaker 1: they care so much about democracy, the law, the constitution. Really,
17:26
Speaker 1: you guys, really? Like this is like the complete opposite
17:30
Speaker 1: of caring about the rule of law and democracy. The
17:34
Speaker 1: president of the United States was elected by the people.
17:38
Speaker 1: elected by the majority of people, I might add. They
17:41
Speaker 1: can't even use this argument that the electoral college is
17:43
Speaker 1: somehow horrible and corrupt. And now they are actively subverting
17:47
Speaker 1: this administration by threatening foreign nations not to cooperate with
17:51
Speaker 1: the man who was elected by the people. Tell me
17:52
Speaker 1: how that's democratic. Tell me how that's so great for democracy.
17:57
Speaker 1: This is a betrayal of national sovereignty, constitutional separation of powers,
18:02
Speaker 1: the basic principle that foreign policy should serve America and
18:06
Speaker 1: the American people. not a party's power agenda. And framing
18:10
Speaker 1: cooperation with Trump's anti-crime policies as facilitating authoritarianism is just insane.
18:18
Speaker 1: And Raskin equates lawful deportation with tyranny and implies that
18:21
Speaker 1: foreign nations should disobey U.S. law if they don't agree
18:24
Speaker 1: with who's president. Do you see how crazy this is? Like,
18:27
Speaker 1: how is it fascism to say that If you are
18:30
Speaker 1: an illegal who committed heinous crimes in this country, you
18:34
Speaker 1: should be deported and sent to El Salvador to be imprisoned. Like,
18:37
Speaker 1: where is the argument here? How is this fascism? They
18:40
Speaker 1: have no rights here. You're not a citizen. What is
18:43
Speaker 1: the argument? Meanwhile, the same party was the one who
18:45
Speaker 1: abused everyone during COVID, forcibly shut down the country, businesses
18:50
Speaker 1: never reopened, the same people who threw January Sixers in
18:54
Speaker 1: solitary confinement while hiding evidence from their lawyers. There's no
18:59
Speaker 1: due process. There's no care for the law. And especially
19:03
Speaker 1: abusive American citizens, they could care less about. And at
19:07
Speaker 1: the same time, they are begging us on democratic grounds
19:12
Speaker 1: to re-import illegal gay members back into this country and
19:16
Speaker 1: threatening other countries if they don't, I guess, disobey the
19:19
Speaker 1: Trump admin or have terrible relationships with the Trump admin.
19:23
Speaker 1: That's a message that empowers cartels, undermines ICE. hands leveraged
19:28
Speaker 1: to anti-American actors. It's not diplomacy. It's extortion by elected
19:33
Speaker 1: officials against their own country's interests, against the will of
19:38
Speaker 1: the American people. I want to come back to SCOTUS
19:44
Speaker 1: for a moment here, because yesterday I told you all
19:47
Speaker 1: that the high court would be hearing a very consequential
19:50
Speaker 1: case on parental rights to opt out of their children
19:54
Speaker 1: being force-fed radical gender ideology in the classroom. Remember how
19:59
Speaker 1: I said Democrats, they don't care about the rights of
20:02
Speaker 1: the American people? We'll go all the way to El
20:06
Speaker 1: Salvador to protect the so-called rights of an illegal gay member.
20:09
Speaker 1: But when it comes to the parental rights, the religious
20:12
Speaker 1: liberty of Americans and the education of their children, Democrats
20:16
Speaker 1: could care less. They just do not care. This is
20:20
Speaker 1: a major First Amendment case challenging the right of public
20:27
Speaker 1: schools to require elementary students to read LGBTQ plus themed
20:31
Speaker 1: books without offering religious opt-outs. The case stems from Montgomery County, Maryland,
20:38
Speaker 1: where the public school district added storybooks like Prince and
20:42
Speaker 1: Knight and Uncle Bobby's Wedding to its curriculum. These are
20:46
Speaker 1: books that promote gay marriage and transgenderism. And initially, the
20:49
Speaker 1: school district allowed religious parents to opt their children out
20:54
Speaker 1: of these lessons. Pretty standard stuff. But that policy was
20:58
Speaker 1: revoked in 2022, which prompted a coalition of Christian and
21:02
Speaker 1: Muslim parents backed by the Trump-aligned Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty,
21:07
Speaker 1: to sue the school district. They argue the removal of
21:11
Speaker 1: opt-outs violates their right to raise their children according to
21:14
Speaker 1: their faith and forces their kids to participate in ideological
21:17
Speaker 1: instruction that they morally oppose. A pretty fair case. So
21:22
Speaker 1: what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court? That's what we're
21:25
Speaker 1: going to talk about right now. During the arguments, Chief
21:28
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, Barrett, and Kavanaugh all questioned...
21:32
Speaker 1: whether kindergartners can reasonably separate moral messaging from instruction, and
21:37
Speaker 1: why schools couldn't simply reinstate opt-outs as a compromise. And
21:41
Speaker 1: the district's lawyer, the school district's lawyer, argued that allowing
21:44
Speaker 1: religious exemptions would open the floodgates to limitless objections over
21:49
Speaker 1: curriculum and make public education somehow unmanageable. The liberal justice,
21:54
Speaker 1: so they're saying like, we just, we have to have
21:56
Speaker 1: transgenderism and and gay marriage for three-year-olds in the classroom. Oh,
22:00
Speaker 1: also bondage as well and weird fetishes. We have to
22:03
Speaker 1: talk about them with toddlers because otherwise it would just
22:07
Speaker 1: get too crazy. All the opt-outs would be just too insane.
22:09
Speaker 1: That's what the school district is saying.
22:10
Speaker 6: So basically they just want to force you into learning
22:14
Speaker 6: certain things.
22:15
Speaker 1: Yeah, they do. So there's just really no care at
22:18
Speaker 1: all for parental rights from the school district. This is
22:22
Speaker 1: something that we see across school districts in the country,
22:24
Speaker 1: and I'm really glad this is coming to the Supreme Court.
22:27
Speaker 1: And liberal justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson, of course, pushed
22:30
Speaker 1: back against parents' demands, suggesting that the real solution for
22:35
Speaker 1: religious families is to homeschool their kids or to seek
22:38
Speaker 1: private education. So if you don't want to opt out
22:40
Speaker 1: of radical gender ideology, the state-sponsored gayification of your kids,
22:45
Speaker 1: well then, homeschool or pay an exorbitant amount of money
22:49
Speaker 1: for private school. That's her solution. We had this viral
22:52
Speaker 1: moment that I want to share with you guys that
22:54
Speaker 1: was so incredible. when yesterday Justice Gorsuch explicitly questioned the
23:00
Speaker 1: leather and bondage imagery in the book Pride Puppy. And
23:05
Speaker 1: he was clearly deeply uncomfortable with the material being presented
23:08
Speaker 1: to these very young children, as we all should be.
23:12
Speaker 1: And this exchange, it's a little long, but it's very good.
23:15
Speaker 1: Take a listen to just how absurd, just how absurd
23:19
Speaker 1: this book and the argument from the school district is.
23:22
Speaker 2: And second, these books are being used in English class.
23:26
Speaker 8: The division between English class and other things in a
23:29
Speaker 8: second grade classroom doesn't really exist. You're sort of in
23:32
Speaker 8: a room with a teacher and some.
23:33
Speaker 2: No, I appreciate that. I went to second grade too.
23:38
Speaker 2: But it's part of the English curriculum that these books
23:41
Speaker 2: are being used in. I thought that was.
23:44
Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm not fighting the premise.
23:45
Speaker 5: I'm just saying.
23:45
Speaker 2: It's not the math class. It's not the human sexuality class. It's...
23:49
Speaker 2: It is certainly not the.
23:50
Speaker 8: Human sexuality class. I'm just sort of fighting the premise
23:54
Speaker 8: that there's a neat distinction.
23:55
Speaker 2: And they're being used in English language instruction at age three.
24:01
Speaker 2: Some of them.
24:02
Speaker 8: So Pride Puppy was the book that was used for
24:05
Speaker 8: the pre-kindergarten curriculum. That's no longer in the curriculum.
24:07
Speaker 2: That's the one where they are supposed to look for
24:09
Speaker 2: the leather and things and bondage, things like that. It's
24:12
Speaker 2: not bondage.
24:13
Speaker 8: It's a woman in a leather.
24:14
Speaker 2: Sex worker, right?
24:15
Speaker 6: No. No?
24:16
Speaker 8: That's not correct.
24:17
Speaker 6: No.
24:18
Speaker 2: I thought, gosh, I read it.
24:20
Speaker 7: It's a drag queen and drag queen.
24:21
Speaker 2: Drag queen and drag queen.
24:23
Speaker 1: Correct.
24:23
Speaker 8: The leather that they're pointing to is a woman in
24:25
Speaker 8: a leather jacket. And one of the words is drag
24:28
Speaker 8: queen in the search.
24:28
Speaker 2: And they're supposed to look for those.
24:30
Speaker 8: It is an option at the end of the book, correct.
24:32
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay. And you've included these in the English language
24:38
Speaker 2: curriculum rather than the human sexuality curriculum. to influence students,
24:45
Speaker 2: is that fair? That's what the district court found. Do
24:48
Speaker 2: you agree with that?
24:49
Speaker 8: I think to the extent the district court found that
24:51
Speaker 8: it was to influence, it was to influence them towards civility.
24:54
Speaker 8: The natural consequence.
24:55
Speaker 2: Of being exposed to- Whatever, but to influence them?
24:59
Speaker 8: In the manner that I just mentioned, yes.
25:00
Speaker 2: Okay. And responding to parents who are concerned, do you
25:06
Speaker 2: agree that there was some intemperate language used?
25:10
Speaker 8: I don't know that those were responding to parents who
25:12
Speaker 8: were concerned. This was after the fact for most of
25:15
Speaker 8: these comments. And this was in a very public setting,
25:18
Speaker 8: which obviously got heated and some intemperate comments were used, certainly.
25:22
Speaker 2: And I wanted to understand your context that you were
25:28
Speaker 2: giving about the statement that some Muslim families, it's unfortunate
25:32
Speaker 2: that this issue put some Muslim families on the same
25:35
Speaker 2: side of an issue as white supremacists and outright bigots.
25:39
Speaker 2: I think in response to Justice Sotomayor, you're trying to
25:41
Speaker 2: give some context to that.
25:43
Speaker 8: I don't think I was speaking directly about that comment.
25:45
Speaker 8: I think that comment was given or was made in June,
25:48
Speaker 8: which was several months after the decision to withdraw the
25:50
Speaker 8: opt-outs was made. I don't have context for that statement now.
25:56
Speaker 6: Okay.
25:56
Speaker 1: A lot to talk about here. So first of all,
25:59
Speaker 1: he talked about, and I'm glad that he was pushing
26:02
Speaker 1: back on this idea that we have to talk about
26:05
Speaker 1: these topics in English class. We have to put these
26:08
Speaker 1: books in English class. This is what has been the
26:12
Speaker 1: new strategy, especially for elementary, pre-K, kindergarten education, to put
26:19
Speaker 1: the radical gender ideology in all of the subjects. So
26:23
Speaker 1: you can't opt out. They've integrated the radicalism everywhere so
26:29
Speaker 1: that it's not just in one class where parents can
26:32
Speaker 1: seamlessly just say, I don't want my kids to be
26:35
Speaker 1: a part of that. You actually have it in English class,
26:37
Speaker 1: so you can't opt out of English class, therefore you
26:39
Speaker 1: can't opt out of transgender bondage teaching for pre-K. It's
26:44
Speaker 1: very smart, and it's very manipulative, deceptive. And so he
26:49
Speaker 1: is obviously pointing out just how insidious it is to
26:54
Speaker 1: inject this sort of ideology into subjects where parents can't
26:59
Speaker 1: seamlessly remove their kids. Clearly, the justice is disturbed by
27:04
Speaker 1: this book. for three-year-olds, as he should be. I mean,
27:07
Speaker 1: it's sort of indefensible. But if you disagree with the
27:11
Speaker 1: school district, well, then the school district is going to
27:14
Speaker 1: call you a white supremacist. This was Democrat Maryland City
27:20
Speaker 1: Councilmember Kristen Mink, who actually called the Muslim parents as
27:27
Speaker 1: aligning with white supremacists on this issue. And oh, how
27:30
Speaker 1: horrible it is. Kristen Mink is her name. I want
27:36
Speaker 1: to talk about the distinction between this case and the
27:41
Speaker 1: deportation case from the start of the show, because there
27:44
Speaker 1: is a distinction. There's a critical difference in the proper
27:50
Speaker 1: role of judges under the Constitution. Defending enumerated rights versus
27:57
Speaker 1: usurping political authority. When parents bring a First Amendment claim
28:02
Speaker 1: alleging that the government is compelling their young children to
28:05
Speaker 1: participate in instruction that directly contradicts their religious beliefs, they
28:10
Speaker 1: are invoking a core constitutional protection. The free exercise clause
28:15
Speaker 1: is not a value, a vague guideline. It is an
28:18
Speaker 1: explicit limit on government power. When judges step in to
28:22
Speaker 1: protect that right, they are doing what the judiciary is
28:25
Speaker 1: supposed to do, checking government overreach against individual liberty. But
28:32
Speaker 1: when the court wades into immigration timelines, like it just
28:38
Speaker 1: did by overriding the executive branch's deportation authority over a
28:42
Speaker 1: weekend technicality, it crosses the line. Immigration enforcement is squarely
28:47
Speaker 1: within the executive's domain. There's no constitutional right for non-citizens
28:52
Speaker 1: to extend the deadlines. And that's where judicial meddling becomes
28:57
Speaker 1: a problem. Not defending rights, but inserting itself into administrative
29:02
Speaker 1: discretion and undermining the rule of law. So yes, defending
29:06
Speaker 1: religious parents from state coercion is legitimate. But tying the
29:11
Speaker 1: executive's hands on border enforcement, that's judges overstepping their bounds,
29:17
Speaker 1: not to protect rights, but to advance ideology. The former
29:20
Speaker 1: protects liberty, the latter disrupts separation of powers. And by
29:25
Speaker 1: the way, there's a movement right now to say, regular citizens, me, you,
29:29
Speaker 1: we aren't smart enough to be talking about the legal system.
29:33
Speaker 1: This conversation, it can't be had because a VDW doesn't
29:36
Speaker 1: have a law degree. That's the argument being made right now.
29:39
Speaker 1: We don't have a law degree, so therefore we can't
29:41
Speaker 1: have an opinion on anything going on in this country's
29:43
Speaker 1: legal system. This is from The Atlantic yesterday. Who reads
29:48
Speaker 1: entire lawsuits for fun? It's the headline. And the article
29:53
Speaker 1: slams this supposed growing trend of of what the author
29:57
Speaker 1: describes as amateur legal influencers dissecting complex lawsuits online.
30:03
Speaker 6: Horrifying, right?
30:05
Speaker 1: Candace Owens is talking about Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively.
30:10
Speaker 1: That's really what this article is about. So they're saying,
30:13
Speaker 1: without any legal training, these creators, some lawyers but many not,
30:17
Speaker 1: they fill social media with voices narrating filings line by line,
30:21
Speaker 1: building loyal followings because they have this talent for apparently
30:24
Speaker 1: making these mundane, legal documents feel dramatic. And the author
30:29
Speaker 1: of this Atlantic article, Caitlin Tiffany, describes this as lawyerly ASMR.
30:36
Speaker 1: And Tiffany says that while this might seem harmless or
30:39
Speaker 1: even educational, it raises an underlying concern. Legal interpretation is
30:44
Speaker 1: being flattened into entertainment, and expertise is being replaced with
30:48
Speaker 1: confidence and high-speed internet connection. And the whole article, again,
30:52
Speaker 1: like I said, it's really about Justin Baldoni and and
30:54
Speaker 1: this Blake Lively drama. We've talked about it on the show.
30:57
Speaker 1: You guys hate when I cover that whole mess that's
31:02
Speaker 1: happening right now. She's accusing him of sexual harassment. He's
31:06
Speaker 1: saying that she's trying to take over the movie. A
31:09
Speaker 1: lot of young women have been following this case. It's
31:11
Speaker 1: very fun to listen to and hear about. And so
31:15
Speaker 1: this author is really mad that Candace Owens has been
31:18
Speaker 1: following this story pretty incessantly, covering it, any little new
31:24
Speaker 1: detail that comes out to the point where Candace Owens,
31:26
Speaker 1: I guess, was actually cited in one of the legal
31:29
Speaker 1: documents related to this case. People were saying, oh, all
31:32
Speaker 1: these influencers are weighing in and it's getting out of
31:34
Speaker 1: hand and we need to hide certain evidence from the public,
31:38
Speaker 1: whatever the argument was. Candace Owens has injected herself into
31:41
Speaker 1: this case and she's weighing in, of course, on celebrity drama.
31:44
Speaker 1: And the author was saying, this is actually really bad.
31:48
Speaker 1: And I bring this up because this argument that we
31:53
Speaker 1: can't weigh in on a legal case involving celebrity drama
31:56
Speaker 1: is going to be used and is actually indeed being
31:59
Speaker 1: used to say we can't weigh in on anything in
32:02
Speaker 1: this country when it comes to the legal system. They
32:08
Speaker 1: don't want non-credentialed, non-experts weighing in again on literally anything,
32:12
Speaker 1: including the conversation that we just had at the entire
32:14
Speaker 1: start of the show. The First Amendment case that we
32:17
Speaker 1: discussed or the deportation deadline ruling is off limits if
32:21
Speaker 1: you don't have a law degree. The implication is that
32:23
Speaker 1: unless you're a legal expert, you don't have the standing
32:25
Speaker 1: to comment, especially if your views challenge the progressive status quo.
32:31
Speaker 1: And this is so ridiculous and absurd that it needs
32:36
Speaker 1: to be pushed back hard, even if right now they're
32:40
Speaker 1: just discussing celebrity drama. Because it's a justification to silence
32:46
Speaker 1: anyone who's talking about anything that has to do with
32:48
Speaker 1: the legal system. It matters. They're going after Candace Owens
32:52
Speaker 1: and her Justin Baldoni, Blake Lively fixation. Okay, maybe you
32:56
Speaker 1: don't care about that, but it's the same laws to
32:58
Speaker 1: be used to say Evita Duffy can't talk about what's
33:01
Speaker 1: happening with deportations or what's happening with parents who want
33:04
Speaker 1: to actually have the religious liberty to remove themselves, remove
33:07
Speaker 1: their children from radical gender ideology indoctrination. We're not allowed
33:11
Speaker 1: to talk about that. No, we are actually. American citizens,
33:14
Speaker 1: irrespective of whether they have credentials, can have opinions on
33:17
Speaker 1: things in this country, and it's not dangerous and wrong.
33:20
Speaker 1: You can be a smart person, And you don't have
33:22
Speaker 1: to have a college degree or a law degree. Newsflash.
33:26
Speaker 1: It's a really silly argument to protect the gatekeepers in
33:30
Speaker 1: society from any kind of accountability. That's really what this
33:34
Speaker 1: is about. All right, I want to talk about Pete Hexeth.
33:39
Speaker 1: Talking about gatekeepers in society. Not Pete Hexeth, but the
33:44
Speaker 1: people who are coming after him are the gatekeepers. And
33:47
Speaker 1: there is a real smear campaign underway to get rid
33:49
Speaker 1: of Pete Hexeth. Pete is, of course, under a lot
33:54
Speaker 1: of scrutiny because of the Signal Chat scandal that we
33:59
Speaker 1: discussed yesterday. We have another Atlantic piece. This is titled,
34:04
Speaker 1: Pete Hegseth's Patriotic Duty is to Resign. There was another
34:07
Speaker 1: one in the Atlantic really similar to that piece. Trump
34:10
Speaker 1: shouldn't be defending Pete Hegseth. I mean, it's just, it's
34:12
Speaker 1: gotten ridiculous. And the argument is that Pete Hegseth, he's
34:16
Speaker 1: dangerously unqualified to serve as Secretary of Defense. because he
34:20
Speaker 1: causes all these scandals and internal chaos, and he needs
34:22
Speaker 1: to resign. Tom Nichols writes in The Atlantic, Okay. So
34:46
Speaker 1: what is the argument here? That Hegseth leadership is just
34:49
Speaker 1: this chaotic meltdown because a few bureaucrats got fired from
34:53
Speaker 1: the Pentagon and his wife sat in on a meeting
34:56
Speaker 1: where no classified information was shared. It's all smoke, no fire.
35:01
Speaker 1: The so-called Signalgate scandal is a reheated nothing burger pushed
35:08
Speaker 1: by anonymous sources, bitter ex-staffers in a media class desperate
35:13
Speaker 1: to derail the one man at the Pentagon actually doing
35:16
Speaker 1: his job, which means cleaning house, killing DEI, and putting
35:19
Speaker 1: war fighters first. All of these hit pieces have dropped
35:24
Speaker 1: in perfect coordination just as Democrats were flailing over their
35:28
Speaker 1: defense of an alleged MS-13 thug. You see the timing
35:32
Speaker 1: here is kind of perfect. Oh, we're going to focus
35:33
Speaker 1: on Pete Hexeth now. We're going to focus on him.
35:37
Speaker 1: And also a huge thread in all of these articles
35:41
Speaker 1: about Pete Hexeth is he's not qualified. He's not an expert.
35:45
Speaker 1: He can't lead as Secretary of Defense. The same one with, oh,
35:50
Speaker 1: you can't read legal documents. You're not a lawyer. You
35:53
Speaker 1: don't have the credentials for that. And it's not about
35:56
Speaker 1: the credentials. It never is. It's about, are you effective
36:01
Speaker 1: at subverting progressive ideals? And if you are, well, then
36:04
Speaker 1: you don't have the credentials, so you can't have this position,
36:06
Speaker 1: or you can't talk about this subject. I think they
36:09
Speaker 1: found their target in Hegseth because he is a reformer.
36:12
Speaker 1: He is a patriot. and a direct threat to the
36:15
Speaker 1: entrenched bureaucracy that loves endless wars and identity politics in
36:19
Speaker 1: the military. The media attacks on Pete Hegseth are less
36:22
Speaker 1: about actual misconduct and more about political retribution from a
36:26
Speaker 1: panicked DC establishment. And by the way, who added the
36:32
Speaker 1: Atlantic writer to that initial signal group chat, the initial
36:35
Speaker 1: signal gate? Was that Pete Hegseth? No, it wasn't. It
36:40
Speaker 1: was Mike Walsh, or I guess maybe one of his staffers.
36:44
Speaker 1: So why is Pete getting blamed for it? It's because
36:47
Speaker 1: he's doing a good job. That's why he's getting blamed
36:50
Speaker 1: for it. Why experts always seem to get it wrong.
36:56
Speaker 1: This is from 2014, Mikey from Forbes. What's the argument here, Mikey?
37:01
Speaker 6: It's that they're always wrong. And it's funny that they
37:03
Speaker 6: wrote this before COVID when experts actually started to matter.
37:08
Speaker 4: Yeah.
37:08
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the Free Press had a piece recently where
37:11
Speaker 1: they were arguing that actually the experts got most everything
37:14
Speaker 1: right during COVID. Sometimes the Free Press has some good
37:17
Speaker 1: pieces out, but a lot of times, wow, they're really bad.
37:19
Speaker 1: That one was horrible. They got nothing right during COVID.
37:23
Speaker 1: The masks, the vaccines, the lockdowns, the COVID origins, literally
37:29
Speaker 1: everything the experts were drilling in our heads during that
37:32
Speaker 1: time and telling us that we were spreading dangerous misinformation
37:35
Speaker 1: for contradicting them with. They were wrong. They just got
37:38
Speaker 1: it all wrong. I think now is not the time
37:42
Speaker 1: to pounce on Pete Hexeth. Somebody said this is an
37:45
Speaker 1: IQ test for conservatives. Do not buy the framing that
37:49
Speaker 1: the Pentagon is going up in flames because of Pete Hexeth.
37:52
Speaker 1: This is a very stupid, brain-dead thing to think. This
37:55
Speaker 1: is clearly a media game because he's actually being effective
37:57
Speaker 1: at the job that he has been assigned to do.
38:00
Speaker 1: Now is the time to stick by Pete. The whole
38:03
Speaker 1: thing is transparently media malfeasance. And I got to remind
38:07
Speaker 1: you guys, this photo was posted by Jill Biden when
38:11
Speaker 1: President Joe Biden was in office. She says, preparing for
38:14
Speaker 1: the G7 summit. Do we have that photo, Mikey? As
38:19
Speaker 1: if she's the president of the United States. And we're
38:23
Speaker 1: mad that Pete Hex, that's why I've said it in
38:25
Speaker 1: a meeting, where again, no classified information was shared. But
38:29
Speaker 1: Jill Biden was acting essentially like she's the president of
38:31
Speaker 1: the United States. And nobody batted an eye, at least
38:34
Speaker 1: in the corporate media. Never believe these people. All right,
38:39
Speaker 1: on that note, I want to address some conservative infighting
38:43
Speaker 1: going on. Some of you guys were already predicting I
38:46
Speaker 1: was going to cover this before I even announced what
38:49
Speaker 1: the headlines were today, and I had to. I saw
38:52
Speaker 1: it last night. We just have to talk about this. Yesterday,
38:56
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson was on Joe Rogan, and he made a
39:00
Speaker 1: really bizarre statement about certain unnamed leaders in the political right.
39:06
Speaker 1: And he specifically references the woke right. Before I play
39:10
Speaker 1: this video from Jordan, I'm gonna give you some context.
39:12
Speaker 1: The woke right is this fake term made up by
39:15
Speaker 1: a guy named James Lindsay to describe right-wing thinkers who
39:19
Speaker 1: James Lindsay claims adopt the left's authoritarian tactics to push
39:25
Speaker 1: their own moral and religious agenda. So basically what white
39:29
Speaker 1: is like a catch-all term that liberals like James Lindsay
39:33
Speaker 1: use to smear people who are conservative Christians or they're
39:37
Speaker 1: right-wingers who aren't neocons. And it's kind of just this like, again,
39:40
Speaker 1: catch-all insidious term to demonize populists, non-interventionists, authentic traditionalists and conservatives.
39:47
Speaker 1: as somehow bad and dangerous to the party. So anyways,
39:51
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson has a different term for the so-called woke right,
39:56
Speaker 1: the right-wingers who he disagrees with. And I want you
39:58
Speaker 1: to take a listen to how Jordan Peterson describes right-wingers
40:02
Speaker 1: who he disagrees with. Take a listen.
40:05
Speaker 4: I think that virtualization has enabled the psychopaths. Without a doubt. Yeah, well.
40:12
Speaker 4: Without a doubt. That's a terrible thing because the psychopathic types,
40:16
Speaker 4: they're always the death of everything. I'm seeing this come
40:19
Speaker 4: up on the right now. So imagine this, I've been
40:22
Speaker 4: working on a new, theory of political psychopathology, and I
40:26
Speaker 4: like it quite a lot. Is this where the term
40:28
Speaker 4: the woke right comes in? Yeah, well, Lindsay is pointing
40:32
Speaker 4: at that, but he hasn't got the diagnosis exactly right.
40:35
Speaker 4: So it isn't woke. That's not the issue. It's not exactly.
40:39
Speaker 6: I think what.
40:39
Speaker 4: They're talking about is like similar types of behavior. He
40:43
Speaker 4: is talking about that.
40:44
Speaker 5: Yeah, I know.
40:45
Speaker 2: Woke just lets you clarify in your head.
40:48
Speaker 4: Oh, it's like that. Yeah, but the problem is like Antifa. Absolutely.
40:52
Speaker 4: But the problem is, is that That argument is predicated
40:57
Speaker 4: on the claim that the ideas are the problem, like
41:00
Speaker 4: the woke ideas, for example, on the right or the left,
41:03
Speaker 4: but that's not the problem. The problem is that four
41:07
Speaker 4: to 5% of the population, something like that, is cluster B,
41:14
Speaker 4: that's the DSM-5 terms, histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial, psychopathic, and they
41:21
Speaker 4: have dark tetrad traits, they're Machiavellian. They're sadistic. That's about 4%. Okay,
41:26
Speaker 4: so the question is how do these people maneuver? And
41:30
Speaker 4: the answer is they go to where the power is
41:32
Speaker 4: and they adopt those ideas and they put themselves even
41:35
Speaker 4: on the forefront of that. But the ideas are completely irrelevant.
41:39
Speaker 4: All they're doing is they're the Pharisees. They're the modern
41:41
Speaker 4: version of the Pharisees. They're the people who use God's
41:44
Speaker 4: name in vain, right? As they proclaim moral virtue. Doesn't
41:48
Speaker 4: matter whether it's right or left or Christian or Jewish
41:50
Speaker 4: or Islam. They invade the idea space, and then they
41:55
Speaker 4: use those ideas as false weapons to advance their narcissistic advantage.
42:02
Speaker 4: And so then you have the problem, and the right's
42:05
Speaker 4: gonna face this more and more particularly, because the left
42:07
Speaker 4: had to face it when they were in power. How
42:10
Speaker 4: do you identify the psychopathic parasites 4% of the population
42:15
Speaker 4: who are clothed in your clothing and waving your flags,
42:20
Speaker 4: but who are only in it for narcissistic benefit.
42:25
Speaker 5: All right.
42:25
Speaker 1: It's a little long. Jordan Peterson's argument sounds scientific. At
42:32
Speaker 1: its core, it reduces political disagreement to pathology. By claiming
42:38
Speaker 1: that 4% to 5% of the population are cluster B
42:41
Speaker 1: types who manipulate ideology for personal gain, He opens the
42:45
Speaker 1: door to labeling anyone he finds morally suspect or just
42:49
Speaker 1: strategically aggressive as a psychopath. And though he frames the
42:54
Speaker 1: concern as psychological, not ideological, the practical effect is the same.
42:59
Speaker 1: People whose behavior or tone he disproves of, especially those
43:03
Speaker 1: rising in right-wing spaces, more like the new right, the
43:07
Speaker 1: populist right, they aren't just wrong or flawed. They're mentally disordered.
43:12
Speaker 1: They're mentally ill. That's what he's saying. That's a powerful
43:16
Speaker 1: way to delegitimize rivals without engaging in their ideas. It
43:22
Speaker 1: pathologizes dissent, making it harder to distinguish between genuine bad
43:27
Speaker 1: faith and mere disagreement. So really insidious stuff. And I
43:34
Speaker 1: like a lot of things that Jordan Peterson does and says.
43:37
Speaker 1: And I've always considered him to be a very smart guy.
43:39
Speaker 1: And I still think that he is a very smart guy,
43:42
Speaker 1: which is why I find this argument to be so disturbing.
43:45
Speaker 1: It is transparently manipulative and in bad faith. You can't
43:51
Speaker 1: claim that anybody who disagrees with you is a psychopath.
43:55
Speaker 1: It's very silly. All right. I want to get to
43:59
Speaker 1: this lawsuit against the Navy that I was not able
44:01
Speaker 1: to cover yesterday. But first I want to set the
44:05
Speaker 1: stage a little bit and discuss DEI in the military.
44:09
Speaker 1: exactly what Pete Hex has been addressing. So 2015 Marine
44:13
Speaker 1: Corps study found that all male units outperformed mixed sex
44:18
Speaker 1: units in 69% of ground combat tasks. Female, Michael, really?
44:27
Speaker 1: Female participants suffered injury rates more than double those of
44:32
Speaker 1: men and lagged significantly in critical areas like casualty evacuation
44:37
Speaker 1: and load bearing under fire. Despite this data, Pentagon leaders
44:41
Speaker 1: prioritized equity over combat effectiveness, and they lowered physical standards
44:46
Speaker 1: for women. So now Secretary Pete Hexeth has ordered a
44:50
Speaker 1: 60-day review to reestablish high uncompromised standards in special forces
44:55
Speaker 1: and other direct ground combat units. And his memo emphasizes
44:59
Speaker 1: that jobs requiring sustained physical performance, speed, strength, endurance under
45:05
Speaker 1: duress must not be subject to DEI quotas or political pressure.
45:10
Speaker 1: The military has to prioritize mission readiness over social experiments.
45:14
Speaker 1: Great news. This is clearly what's best for the military,
45:17
Speaker 1: also what's best for national security. And yet we have
45:21
Speaker 1: this Navy lawsuit and women who just, I don't know,
45:25
Speaker 1: they just are obsessed with injecting themselves into spaces where
45:29
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, women are not the best equipped for these roles.
45:32
Speaker 1: So Amanda S. Reynolds, she's a 41-year-old attorney from Long Island,
45:36
Speaker 1: She's filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Navy, claiming
45:39
Speaker 1: that bureaucratic delays in processing her application unfairly blocked her
45:45
Speaker 1: from pursuing her dream of becoming the first female Navy
45:48
Speaker 1: SEAL officer. Reynolds alleges that despite being sworn into the
45:52
Speaker 1: Navy in 2018 and completing paperwork in 2019, the Navy
45:56
Speaker 1: lost track of her status and never processed her for service.
45:59
Speaker 1: And by the time that she would have been eligible
46:01
Speaker 1: for Navy officer training command in Rhode Island, she would
46:04
Speaker 1: have surpassed the Navy's strict age limit of 42. She's
46:09
Speaker 1: representing herself in Brooklyn Federal Court, and she's accusing the
46:12
Speaker 1: Navy of unjustifiably delaying and age discrimination. Now, Reynolds is
46:18
Speaker 1: a long-distance runner, swimmer, scuba diver. Her application detailed a
46:23
Speaker 1: Viking-like pursuit to serve the country, rooted in a family
46:28
Speaker 1: tradition of military service, Now, no woman has ever been
46:31
Speaker 1: able to join the Navy SEALs, not because the SEALs
46:33
Speaker 1: will not let women join, but because no woman has
46:36
Speaker 1: ever passed the programming. Candidates must first pass this intense
46:41
Speaker 1: physical screening, followed by basic underwater demolition SEAL or BUDS training,
46:46
Speaker 1: a grueling 24-week ordeal where you have multi-mile swims in
46:50
Speaker 1: freezing water, beach runs in boots, underwater knot tying while bound,
46:55
Speaker 1: hours-long log and boat carrys, And then of course, infamous
46:59
Speaker 1: hell week, which is like a five and a half
47:01
Speaker 1: day near constant exertion with only a few hours of sleep.
47:05
Speaker 1: This is like the most grueling process that you could
47:10
Speaker 1: go through. Few men make it through, buds. How many
47:14
Speaker 1: men make it through, Michael? Do you know the percentage?
47:17
Speaker 6: About 20, 20%.
47:20
Speaker 1: And if you're, what do you think it is for
47:21
Speaker 1: somebody who's older, like in their late 30s, which she
47:23
Speaker 1: would have been when she wanted to join?
47:25
Speaker 6: Definitely lower. But here's an interesting little fact on the screen.
47:29
Speaker 1: Oh, what does it say? A lot of female candidates
47:32
Speaker 1: break their legs or develop stress fractures. A woman made
47:35
Speaker 1: it to four days of BUDS first phase recently, but
47:38
Speaker 1: she quit on day four. That's the farthest a woman
47:41
Speaker 1: has gone. Nine women have entered the steel pipeline since 2016.
47:44
Speaker 1: Of course, none of them have actually made it.
47:46
Speaker 6: It's a six-month program, FYI.
47:48
Speaker 1: Yeah, six-month program. And she made it four days. Yeah,
47:51
Speaker 1: like I said, and few men make it through this thing.
47:54
Speaker 1: And this comes back to what I was saying about
47:56
Speaker 1: men and women, like we, and just gender ideology and
48:01
Speaker 1: all of the insanity. We are different. Women can be
48:05
Speaker 1: in the military and there are roles that women can take,
48:08
Speaker 1: but Navy SEALs is not one of them. It's not,
48:10
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. If women don't like men and girls locker
48:13
Speaker 1: rooms and chest feeding and birthing person and all the
48:16
Speaker 1: ways that the left is abusing women during this time,
48:21
Speaker 1: we have to shake off some of this girl boss
48:23
Speaker 1: attitude and recognize that Navy SEALs is not a role
48:25
Speaker 1: for women.
48:26
Speaker 8: It's not.
48:27
Speaker 1: There's nothing wrong with being feminine and recognizing that we
48:31
Speaker 1: have certain strengths that men do not have and vice versa.
48:36
Speaker 1: There's nothing wrong with recognizing that men are physically superior
48:39
Speaker 1: to women. They just are. Special forces is not the
48:41
Speaker 1: place for women. It just isn't. And like I said,
48:46
Speaker 1: hardly any men even pass this training. So I'm fine
48:51
Speaker 1: with women trying it out, the SEALs giving them zero
48:55
Speaker 1: special treatment, which is what Pete wants to do, and
48:58
Speaker 1: then women inevitably flunking out of this thing, whatever. I
49:01
Speaker 1: just think that we as women need to embrace our
49:03
Speaker 1: roles a little more in society and stop trying to
49:05
Speaker 1: invade men's spaces and do manly things to feel good
49:08
Speaker 1: about being women. Reynolds' case isn't just about one woman's ambition,
49:13
Speaker 1: it's a window into a culture that treats male and
49:15
Speaker 1: female as interchangeable, gender as construct, tradition as object. obstacle,
49:20
Speaker 1: hierarchy as injustice. And the hard truth is that women
49:23
Speaker 1: and men are different, and that difference is not only beautiful,
49:26
Speaker 1: it's necessary for civilization to function. But we've been catechized
49:30
Speaker 1: into believing that recognizing differences is somehow bigotry. Something that is,
49:37
Speaker 1: on the other hand, consistent between men and women, is
49:40
Speaker 1: that nobody needs to be consuming dyes like blue one,
49:44
Speaker 1: blue two, green three, red three, red 40, yellow five,
49:47
Speaker 1: and yellow six. Not good for human flourishing, whether you
49:51
Speaker 1: are a male or female, which is why Health and
49:53
Speaker 1: Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is preparing to
49:57
Speaker 1: announce an initiative to phase out artificial, he did announce it,
50:02
Speaker 1: artificial dyes in the US. And this is planned to
50:05
Speaker 1: occur over a two-year period And the move aims to
50:09
Speaker 1: address concerns over health risks associated with these synthetic colorings,
50:14
Speaker 1: which have been linked to cancer, among other health issues.
50:18
Speaker 1: Here is FDA Commissioner Martin Macri.
50:21
Speaker 7: Today, the FDA is taking action to remove petroleum-based food
50:25
Speaker 7: dyes from the U.S. food supply and from medications. For
50:30
Speaker 7: the last 50 years, American children have increasingly been living
50:34
Speaker 7: in a toxic soup of synthetic chemicals. The scientific community
50:39
Speaker 7: has conducted a number of studies raising concerns about the
50:43
Speaker 7: correlation between petroleum-based synthetic dyes and several health conditions, such
50:49
Speaker 7: as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, cancer,
50:56
Speaker 7: genomic disruption, GI issues, as I've seen in the hospital,
51:01
Speaker 7: and allergic reactions. While America's children are sick and suffering
51:06
Speaker 7: 41% of children have at least one health condition, and
51:12
Speaker 7: one in five are on medication. The answer is not
51:16
Speaker 7: more Ozempic, more ADHD medication, and more antidepressants. There's a
51:22
Speaker 7: role for those medications, but we have to look at
51:25
Speaker 7: underlying root causes. The F in FDA stands for food. Now,
51:33
Speaker 7: there's no one ingredient that accounts for the child chronic
51:36
Speaker 7: disease epidemic. And let's be honest, taking petroleum-based food dyes
51:41
Speaker 7: out of the food supply is not a silver bullet
51:43
Speaker 7: that will instantly make America's children healthy. But it is
51:47
Speaker 7: one important step. This administration is not interested in continuing
51:52
Speaker 7: down the path of doing the same old things as
51:55
Speaker 7: we watch our nation's children get sicker.
51:58
Speaker 1: We've got a Babylon Bee headline here. Democrats begin checking
52:02
Speaker 1: artificial food dyes to protest RFK. That's so funny. I mean,
52:06
Speaker 1: it is so, like these guys, like we got to
52:08
Speaker 1: do the opposite of whatever Trump does. And we have
52:11
Speaker 1: David Hogg right now saying we can't just be the
52:12
Speaker 1: party of anti-Trump, but that is what the Democrat strategy
52:16
Speaker 1: has been ever since 2015. We're just anti-Trump. That's all
52:21
Speaker 1: we stand for. So yeah, it's a joke. It's also
52:24
Speaker 1: kind of not a joke because they're defending artificial food dyes.
52:27
Speaker 1: They're defending everything that is wrong with health and flourishing
52:32
Speaker 1: in this country. It's like they're in bed with big
52:36
Speaker 1: pharma and big food, the Democrats are, because I guess
52:39
Speaker 1: now that's anti-Trump. Now, obviously, this move is a big
52:43
Speaker 1: win for the Maha movement. And this is one of
52:45
Speaker 1: the most genuinely populist, pro-American moves that we have seen
52:49
Speaker 1: in decades. We have petroleum-derived chemicals banned in many other
52:54
Speaker 1: developed countries. but pumped into our children's cereal, snacks, and
52:58
Speaker 1: drinks for decades while the FDA looked the other way.
53:02
Speaker 4: And why?
53:03
Speaker 1: Because the experts, oh yeah, the experts, we're gonna talk
53:06
Speaker 1: about them again, the same class of people who pushed
53:08
Speaker 1: endless wars, mutilated constitutional rights, obsessed over DEI and gender theory,
53:12
Speaker 1: the experts were never authentically interested in human health. They
53:16
Speaker 1: were too busy protecting corporate interests, approving more drugs, and
53:19
Speaker 1: telling you that the answer to rising childhood illness was
53:22
Speaker 1: more pharmaceuticals, not fewer toxins in food. They have failed us.
53:26
Speaker 1: The experts have failed us spectacularly. And now, for once,
53:31
Speaker 1: we have leadership that doesn't care about hurting Big Food's
53:34
Speaker 1: feelings or appeasing the medical industrial complex. This is a
53:38
Speaker 1: rare moment of clarity, of genuine courage. This is what
53:43
Speaker 1: America First actually looks like in practice. It's what it
53:48
Speaker 1: actually looks like. How many moms out there have been sidelined,
53:54
Speaker 1: told doctors And just in the world on social media,
53:58
Speaker 1: how their child behaves differently, acts differently when they're consuming
54:02
Speaker 1: some of these diets or certain foods. And they've just
54:04
Speaker 1: been gaslit in the same way that we were all
54:06
Speaker 1: gaslit during COVID. When we said, oh yeah, these masks
54:09
Speaker 1: aren't working. The lockdowns aren't working. The vaccines aren't working.
54:13
Speaker 1: Or somebody's getting vaccine injured. And then you're silenced for it.
54:16
Speaker 1: Because again, we're protecting this union between government and big
54:20
Speaker 1: pharma or government and big food. There's an entire industry
54:25
Speaker 1: around this. Callie and Casey Means have talked about this extensively.
54:29
Speaker 1: We had Callie on the show talking about it. And
54:36
Speaker 1: so for so long, I think people genuinely interested in
54:40
Speaker 1: American health have been silenced by the so-called experts, told
54:43
Speaker 1: their opinions don't matter because they don't have that degree.
54:46
Speaker 1: It's not just about borders or trade. What we need
54:51
Speaker 1: is a reclaiming of sovereignty over our own bodies, our children,
54:56
Speaker 1: our future. It's more than regulatory reform. This is a
55:01
Speaker 1: moral stand against the slow, quiet poisoning of the American public.
55:07
Speaker 1: It sends a message that we are done being lab
55:10
Speaker 1: rats for global corporations. For the first time in a
55:13
Speaker 1: long time, our government is putting our health first, not Pfizer's,
55:17
Speaker 1: not Nestle's, not Pepsi's, but ours. And that's not just refreshing.
55:23
Speaker 1: It is, in this time, frankly, revolutionary. And with that,
55:28
Speaker 1: thank you all so much for tuning into this show.
55:31
Speaker 1: If you want to follow me on Instagram or X,
55:33
Speaker 1: my user is Evita Duffy underscore one. I'm here live
55:38
Speaker 1: on Rumble, 9 a.m. Eastern time, five days a week.
55:41
Speaker 1: I'll see you guys all tomorrow.
55:43
Speaker 4: The U.S. Soccer Podcast. I'm your host, Megan Klingenberg, and
55:47
Speaker 4: I am super stoked to be joined by Daryl Dike.
55:50
Speaker 1: Arguably, your most impressive quality cannot be measured. You're a
55:54
Speaker 1: guy who is the definition of grit. Injuries have ended
55:57
Speaker 1: plenty of careers, but instead you decided yours would only
56:00
Speaker 1: be a chapter instead of the ending. Welcome to the show, Daryl.
56:03
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. That's a good intro right there.
56:05
Speaker 5: That's good.
56:06
Speaker 1: The U.S.
56:07
Speaker 7: Soccer Podcast.
56:08
Speaker 1: Follow and listen on your favorite platforms.