Latest / Predictable with Stu Burguiere / Ep 1052 | Wis. Gov. Tony Evers’ SLIMY Veto Plot Passes State Supreme Court | Guest: Inez Stepman

Transcript

Ep 1052 | Wis. Gov. Tony Evers’ SLIMY Veto Plot Passes State Supreme Court | Guest: Inez Stepman · Predictable with Stu Burguiere

• 0:01
  Stu does America.
• 0:06
  Here I am
• 0:07
  doing America.
• 0:09
  What are you doing for America?
• 0:10
  Are you subscribing
• 0:12
  to YouTube.com/SudosAmerica?
• 0:14
  This is the best thing you can do for the country.
• 0:15
  People don't know that,
• 0:16
  but that's true.
• 0:17
  Many people are saying it.
• 0:18
  Uh,
• 0:18
  hit the bell for notifications while you're there.
• 0:19
  Also get your Studos America merch at Studosmerch.com.
• 0:22
  The codes do 10.
• 0:23
  You get 10% off your entire order.
• 0:25
  Inne Steman is here to,
• 0:26
  uh,
• 0:27
  fight for the rights of straight males everywhere.
• 0:29
  You know,
• 0:29
  it's about time.
• 0:30
  It's about freaking time.
• 0:32
  Pope Francis has passed away.
• 0:33
  We'll look at,
• 0:34
  uh,
• 0:34
  what comes next for the church,
• 0:36
  but we're also going to start by doing
• 0:38
  Tony Ever's slippery veto.
• 0:40
  This is a story really less about Tony Evers because honestly,
• 0:44
  unless you happen to live in Wisconsin,
• 0:46
  is he of any,
• 0:48
  any impact on your life?
• 0:49
  I mean,
• 0:49
  people don't even know who the guy is,
• 0:51
  uh,
• 0:51
  but I will say.
• 0:53
  This is a nice little snapshot of your government and how it operates.
• 0:58
  Uh,
• 0:58
  maybe just taken to the absolute extremes in Wisconsin.
• 1:01
  Wisconsin Supreme Court says governor's 400 year edit
• 1:04
  was within veto authority.
• 1:06
  Now,
• 1:06
  if you have not followed this story,
• 1:08
  it is one of the most,
• 1:09
  it's one of the craziest things.
• 1:11
  It's hard to believe it's a real story.
• 1:13
  If you have not followed this,
• 1:15
  it's almost impossible to believe that it's actually
• 1:18
  going on in our country,
• 1:20
  but this is real.
• 1:22
  This is really happening.
• 1:24
  The sentence,
• 1:24
  dull but clear,
• 1:26
  was buried in 158 pages into,
• 1:28
  uh,
• 1:28
  Wisconsin's budget.
• 1:30
  The sentence was for the limit,
• 1:32
  uh,
• 1:32
  for the 2023,
• 1:33
  2024 school year and the 2024,
• 1:35
  2025 school year.
• 1:36
  The sentence read,
• 1:37
  when it was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature,
• 1:40
  Add $325 to the amount school districts could
• 1:42
  generate through property taxes for each student.
• 1:45
  But by the time Governor Tony Evers,
• 1:47
  a Democrat,
• 1:48
  and his veto pen were finished,
• 1:49
  it said something else entirely.
• 1:51
  Now this is the sentence.
• 1:53
  Now remember,
• 1:54
  the legislature,
• 1:55
  they're the ones that make the law.
• 1:57
  They pass a law in a,
• 1:59
  this is particularly in a budget,
• 2:00
  it's part of a budget.
• 2:01
  It is handed for what's normally a signature.
• 2:03
  Now,
• 2:04
  Governor Evers has line item veto power,
• 2:06
  so he's gonna go through this a little bit,
• 2:07
  but this is what the Senate says.
• 2:09
  For the limit for 2023-2024 or 2425,
• 2:13
  uh,
• 2:13
  at $325.
• 2:14
  So let me show you what the,
• 2:15
  what it actually,
• 2:16
  this is what the edit looked like.
• 2:17
  Initially,
• 2:17
  it said for the limit
• 2:18
  for the 2023,
• 2:19
  2024 school year and the 2024,
• 2:21
  2025 school year,
• 2:22
  add $325 to the results
• 2:24
  under par.
• 2:25
  Now,
• 2:26
  what he did,
• 2:27
  bring that last one up again if you could,
• 2:29
  because
• 2:30
  what he wound up doing.
• 2:31
  was editing the,
• 2:32
  what's in red on this page,
• 2:34
  and I want to explain this to the podcast audience as well.
• 2:37
  The,
• 2:37
  for the limit,
• 2:38
  4,
• 2:39
  they take out the word the,
• 2:41
  but leave 2023 dash.
• 2:43
  Then take out 2024 school year and the 20
• 2:47
  in the middle of the year,
• 2:49
  but leave in 24-25 school year.
• 2:52
  Um,
• 2:53
  but taking out the dash in between.
• 2:55
  Now,
• 2:55
  you might say,
• 2:56
  wait a minute,
• 2:56
  what,
• 2:56
  what are you,
• 2:57
  what are you even talking about?
• 2:57
  Let's boil down to what it now norm now what it says.
• 3:01
  After his edit.
• 3:03
  It says you can keep that up there,
• 3:05
  please,
• 3:05
  for the limit.
• 3:07
  For 2023-2425.
• 3:12
  Add 325 to the result.
• 3:15
  So what
• 3:15
  he did was instead of it being two years,
• 3:17
  2023 and 2024,
• 3:19
  he extended it to
• 3:21
  2023 to
• 3:23
  the year 2425.
• 3:25
  A 400 year tax increase.
• 3:29
  That's the kind of thing that sells in Wisconsin apparently.
• 3:32
  Can you increase my taxes for the next 400 years guaranteed?
• 3:36
  Yes,
• 3:37
  yes,
• 3:37
  they can.
• 3:38
  Democrats can do that,
• 3:39
  so.
• 3:40
  To boil this down,
• 3:42
  Republicans passed a law
• 3:43
  that're going to give
• 3:44
  two years of this tax increase.
• 3:46
  The governor crossed out
• 3:50
  half of years.
• 3:51
  He vetoed
• 3:53
  literally when it said 2024-25.
• 3:56
  He just turned that into the year 2425,
• 3:59
  2,425,
• 4:01
  to change a two-year tax increase into a 400 year
• 4:04
  tax increase because he wanted more of your money.
• 4:07
  First of all,
• 4:08
  you'd think that would get him immediately thrown out of office,
• 4:11
  but
• 4:12
  I guess in Wisconsin this stuff sells.
• 4:14
  Of course,
• 4:15
  obviously what Republicans did was say,
• 4:16
  OK,
• 4:17
  we'll just go to the Supreme Court,
• 4:18
  we'll get this,
• 4:18
  uh,
• 4:19
  taken care of.
• 4:19
  Hm.
• 4:20
  Well,
• 4:21
  uh,
• 4:21
  this is how the New York Times described it.
• 4:22
  It was clever.
• 4:23
  Uh,
• 4:23
  was it clever,
• 4:24
  New York Times?
• 4:25
  Creative,
• 4:26
  perhaps even a bit subversive,
• 4:28
  extending the increase four centuries longer than lawmakers intended.
• 4:32
  But was it legal?
• 4:34
  On Friday,
• 4:34
  the Wisconsin Supreme Court said yeah
• 4:37
  in a 4 to 3 ruling in his lawsuit challenging Mr.
• 4:39
  Evers'
• 4:40
  use of his partial veto authority.
• 4:43
  It's really partial.
• 4:44
  The court's liberal majority said the governor had acted legally.
• 4:47
  The 3 conservative justices on the court dissented.
• 4:49
  Wisconsin has a long bipartisan history of inventive vetoing.
• 4:53
  That's what they're calling it,
• 4:54
  inventive.
• 4:55
  That has led to intermittent outrage from
• 4:57
  whichever party does not hold the governorship.
• 4:58
  Though many states give their governor the right to veto parts of bills,
• 5:02
  Wisconsin governors have long wielded
• 5:04
  a distinctly expansive veto authority
• 5:06
  in which they can cross out words or numbers,
• 5:09
  sometimes changing the meaning of a bill.
• 5:12
  That authority has been reined in over the decades but not eliminated.
• 5:15
  Now there have been some
• 5:17
  creative uses of this power in the past by both parties,
• 5:20
  by the way,
• 5:21
  uh,
• 5:21
  Governor Tommy Thompson,
• 5:22
  a Republican,
• 5:23
  Deployed deployed the so-called Vanna White veto to,
• 5:27
  uh,
• 5:27
  nix individual letters
• 5:29
  in the 1980s.
• 5:30
  Voters then amended the Wisconsin constitution to say governor could not
• 5:33
  make new words in an appropriation bill simply by erasing letters.
• 5:38
  Do you really have to say that?
• 5:40
  Apparently so.
• 5:41
  Apparently so.
• 5:42
  Again,
• 5:42
  that was
• 5:43
  19 that was the 1980s.
• 5:46
  This is not a recent problem,
• 5:48
  still going on.
• 5:49
  2005,
• 5:50
  uh,
• 5:50
  Governor Jim Doyle shifted more than $400 million to schools,
• 5:54
  he was a Democrat,
• 5:55
  by crossing all but 20 words out of a 752 word section of the budget,
• 6:00
  stitching together an entirely new sentence.
• 6:03
  That led to another amendment to the state constitution,
• 6:06
  this time banning Frankenstein vetoes that pieced together
• 6:09
  two parts of two or more sentences.
• 6:13
  Are we children?
• 6:14
  Really?
• 6:15
  are we children?
• 6:16
  Scott Walker got into this game as well.
• 6:18
  Uh,
• 6:18
  that amendment did not explicitly ban crossing out individual numbers,
• 6:22
  uh,
• 6:22
  an opening for some say a loophole that Governor Scott Walker,
• 6:24
  a Republican,
• 6:25
  used to change December 31,
• 6:26
  2018
• 6:28
  to December 30 to December 3018,
• 6:32
  involving school districts and energy efficiency
• 6:35
  projects.
• 6:36
  A thousand-year,
• 6:37
  uh,
• 6:37
  veto,
• 6:38
  that episode which became known in Madison as the thousand-year veto.
• 6:42
  was also challenged in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
• 6:44
  In that case,
• 6:45
  the court found that the lawsuit had not been brought
• 6:47
  in a timely manner and allowed the veto to stand.
• 6:52
  This is absurd.
• 6:53
  It doesn't matter who does it.
• 6:54
  It's completely
• 6:56
  crazy.
• 6:56
  In a statement on Friday,
• 6:57
  Mr.
• 6:58
  Evers said the court's decision
• 7:00
  is great news for Wisconsin's kids and our public schools who deserve
• 7:04
  a sustainable,
• 7:05
  dependable,
• 7:05
  and spendable state support.
• 7:08
  And investment.
• 7:09
  I exercise the same line item veto authority
• 7:11
  that has been used for decades' worth of Wisconsin governors,
• 7:13
  the governor said.
• 7:14
  The case put the Supreme Court in the
• 7:16
  middle of another battle over partisanship and power
• 7:19
  in the closely divided state.
• 7:20
  The court,
• 7:21
  which flipped from conservative to liberal in control in 2023,
• 7:24
  has heard pivotal cases in recent
• 7:25
  years over election results registering abortion.
• 7:28
  Now there's a bunch of ways you can,
• 7:29
  uh,
• 7:29
  you can look at,
• 7:30
  uh,
• 7:31
  let me,
• 7:31
  let me broaden this a little bit here.
• 7:32
  Not just talking about Wisconsin,
• 7:33
  we're talking about the way you think about
• 7:35
  law generally.
• 7:36
  Take it to the Supreme Court,
• 7:37
  for example.
• 7:37
  There's this sort of battle that goes on with
• 7:40
  what you're supposed to do in the Supreme Court.
• 7:42
  How this is a battle,
• 7:43
  I don't know.
• 7:44
  I frankly don't understand it.
• 7:45
  I've always thought,
• 7:47
  uh,
• 7:47
  I've always taken a very strong position on this,
• 7:49
  but
• 7:49
  there's the idea of,
• 7:50
  of the,
• 7:50
  of your view of how you should interpret
• 7:54
  the Constitution,
• 7:55
  right?
• 7:55
  And we go through this all the time.
• 7:56
  For example,
• 7:57
  there's originalism.
• 7:58
  This is the,
• 7:58
  this is the right answer,
• 7:59
  by the way.
• 8:00
  Originalism,
• 8:01
  uh,
• 8:02
  it's basically,
• 8:03
  hey,
• 8:04
  what did they actually mean?
• 8:06
  What were they trying to do?
• 8:07
  When,
• 8:08
  when this,
• 8:09
  uh,
• 8:09
  you know,
• 8:09
  when something comes out and it says,
• 8:11
  uh,
• 8:11
  you know,
• 8:12
  you're having trouble interpreting a couple of years later,
• 8:14
  I mean.
• 8:14
  The Second Amendment is an obvious example of this.
• 8:17
  Uh,
• 8:17
  people read the exact terms and they're like,
• 8:19
  Well,
• 8:19
  we don't use that fancy language anymore.
• 8:21
  What do they mean?
• 8:22
  Maybe they meant ban all guns.
• 8:24
  Who knows?
• 8:25
  Um,
• 8:26
  and so,
• 8:26
  you know,
• 8:27
  originalism says,
• 8:28
  hey,
• 8:28
  look at what they wrote at the time.
• 8:29
  Look at what they were trying to say.
• 8:30
  When you look back at that,
• 8:31
  it's quite clear,
• 8:32
  uh,
• 8:32
  what they meant,
• 8:34
  uh,
• 8:34
  in the,
• 8:35
  uh,
• 8:35
  in the Second Amendment.
• 8:36
  They,
• 8:36
  uh,
• 8:36
  you know,
• 8:37
  what,
• 8:37
  what a militia was at the time,
• 8:39
  uh,
• 8:40
  what,
• 8:40
  what well regulated,
• 8:42
  well regulated
• 8:43
  meant at the time.
• 8:44
  And the idea that
• 8:46
  quite clearly the founders said,
• 8:47
  hey,
• 8:47
  we want to be able to have a well armed population that
• 8:50
  has basically the same weapons available to the military at the time.
• 8:54
  That's basically what it was.
• 8:55
  They were pretty clear about it
• 8:57
  and
• 8:58
  you know,
• 8:59
  you could say,
• 8:59
  all right,
• 8:59
  well it's sometimes hard,
• 9:01
  right,
• 9:01
  to figure out
• 9:02
  what.
• 9:03
  Uh,
• 9:03
  you know,
• 9:03
  people meant that wrote a law,
• 9:05
  right?
• 9:05
  It is.
• 9:06
  I mean,
• 9:06
  like you go back and look at the Constitution,
• 9:07
  there is some disagreement on certain things.
• 9:09
  I don't think all of it's that difficult,
• 9:10
  but the left tries to make it difficult.
• 9:12
  Anyway,
• 9:13
  the difference here with the Wisconsin situation is we know
• 9:16
  what they meant because they're all still alive.
• 9:19
  We could just ask them.
• 9:20
  In fact,
• 9:21
  they wrote down what they meant pretty clearly,
• 9:23
  and they manipulated it entirely.
• 9:27
  The other version of the Constitution that
• 9:29
  people talk about is the living Constitution.
• 9:31
  You've heard the living Constitution.
• 9:32
  This is what the left loves to bring up,
• 9:33
  the living Constitution.
• 9:35
  This basically means,
• 9:37
  well,
• 9:37
  when society changes its values,
• 9:40
  changes what it,
• 9:41
  you know,
• 9:41
  really likes,
• 9:42
  we just kind of like interpret the Constitution to fit what we feel today.
• 9:46
  This,
• 9:46
  by the way,
• 9:47
  is an insane way to look at the Constitution.
• 9:50
  And should be disregarded completely,
• 9:52
  but this is kind of the way,
• 9:53
  you know,
• 9:53
  people on the left of the court look at the Constitution.
• 9:56
  It doesn't really matter what they meant at the beginning.
• 9:57
  What,
• 9:58
  what do we want it to mean now?
• 10:00
  That being said,
• 10:01
  even with that interpretation,
• 10:02
  with the Wisconsin situation,
• 10:04
  it makes no sense if you apply it
• 10:06
  in Wisconsin.
• 10:07
  That idea,
• 10:08
  it's not,
• 10:09
  there's been no time to change.
• 10:10
  They just passed it.
• 10:11
  They're just completely ignoring.
• 10:12
  They're letting
• 10:14
  a monarch rewrite the law completely.
• 10:17
  Changing what they want.
• 10:19
  This is completely
• 10:20
  crazy.
• 10:20
  And of course the last one is textualism,
• 10:22
  and I guess this is how it would somewhat be
• 10:24
  defended.
• 10:24
  I guess if you take the letter of the law,
• 10:27
  if you will,
• 10:28
  and apply it to the veto power of the governor,
• 10:30
  you can kind of come up with a way that he can do this.
• 10:32
  Of course they've tried to overturn this over and over and over again in the courts.
• 10:36
  They've now
• 10:38
  overturned several of Ever's own vetoes,
• 10:40
  but
• 10:40
  This one they didn't get to.
• 10:42
  Lawyers,
• 10:42
  this is,
• 10:43
  this is how,
• 10:43
  we won't talk about textualism.
• 10:44
  This is like reading,
• 10:45
  you know,
• 10:46
  you could say you,
• 10:46
  you,
• 10:46
  if you
• 10:47
  read,
• 10:48
  uh,
• 10:48
  something that was in the constitution or in a law.
• 10:50
  Even if it's not worded the exact way that you meant,
• 10:53
  you got to stick by the text no matter what.
• 10:54
  It's,
• 10:54
  it's there,
• 10:55
  it's the text.
• 10:55
  You're going to stick by the text,
• 10:57
  right?
• 10:57
  Well,
• 10:57
  this is,
• 10:58
  you want,
• 10:59
  you want to talk about a really narrow version of this.
• 11:01
  This is what they're attempting.
• 11:02
  Lawyers for Mr.
• 11:02
  Evers insisted that the veto,
• 11:04
  even if unusual,
• 11:05
  was well within his authority under Wisconsin law.
• 11:08
  Numbers,
• 11:09
  they argued,
• 11:10
  were not letters.
• 11:12
  And thus could be deleted individually under the Wisconsin constitution.
• 11:17
  Got that?
• 11:19
  The people,
• 11:21
  they got what this,
• 11:22
  this all went to the Supreme Court when other people tried
• 11:23
  it and they said you can't just delete individual letters.
• 11:26
  And he said,
• 11:26
  well,
• 11:27
  they're not letters,
• 11:28
  they're numbers.
• 11:29
  So we can do that.
• 11:30
  Now,
• 11:31
  I'm curious as to how every spending bill would go
• 11:33
  in the future if you got a Republican governor,
• 11:35
  because they could just take out all the numbers and
• 11:37
  then not spend on anything that he didn't want to.
• 11:39
  Is that the right way?
• 11:40
  Now look,
• 11:40
  I might like the result of that.
• 11:42
  However,
• 11:42
  that is not the right way to run a civilization.
• 11:46
  If you have a legis legislature that passes the laws,
• 11:50
  you can't just
• 11:51
  delete words,
• 11:53
  letters,
• 11:54
  numbers out of the dashes out of that particular
• 11:57
  text to completely reverse the meaning of it,
• 12:01
  and yet that somehow made it through the courts.
• 12:04
  Now you might say,
• 12:05
  well,
• 12:05
  this guy,
• 12:06
  it's got to change really quick.
• 12:07
  Uh,
• 12:08
  I mean,
• 12:08
  obviously they're going to reject this,
• 12:10
  right?
• 12:10
  Uh,
• 12:11
  no,
• 12:11
  in fact,
• 12:11
  if you remember,
• 12:12
  this was the election
• 12:14
  that Elon Musk was so fired up,
• 12:16
  uh,
• 12:16
  a few weeks ago,
• 12:17
  a Democratic-backed Susan Crawford won the
• 12:20
  Wisconsin Supreme Court seat,
• 12:22
  cementing a liberal majority,
• 12:24
  um,
• 12:25
  which they had since,
• 12:26
  uh,
• 12:26
  2023.
• 12:27
  Uh,
• 12:28
  if you remember,
• 12:28
  uh,
• 12:28
  talking about the breakdowns here,
• 12:30
  how Democrats won Wisconsin in 2025.
• 12:32
  Well,
• 12:32
  they got turnout and you see this pretty clearly in the numbers.
• 12:35
  Non-presidential elections have taken a more
• 12:37
  Democratic tilt of late in Wisconsin.
• 12:39
  Not a huge surprise.
• 12:40
  This is like the founding place
• 12:42
  of,
• 12:42
  uh,
• 12:43
  of progressivism,
• 12:44
  but in Republican,
• 12:45
  like in presidential years,
• 12:46
  you're seeing a really big,
• 12:47
  you know,
• 12:47
  uh,
• 12:48
  a Republican lean,
• 12:49
  um,
• 12:50
  um,
• 12:50
  uh,
• 12:50
  but when in the off years of 2025,
• 12:52
  only one year.
• 12:53
  Uh,
• 12:53
  not even a few months
• 12:55
  after they elected Donald Trump in Wisconsin,
• 12:57
  a 7 point Democratic margin,
• 13:00
  uh,
• 13:00
  in the state.
• 13:01
  And of course,
• 13:01
  you know,
• 13:01
  as Elon Musk was warning at the time,
• 13:03
  this is going to have major repercussions.
• 13:05
  Now we've got multiple more years
• 13:06
  of a liberal majority.
• 13:07
  And I believe the next person who comes up in the Supreme Court in Wisconsin
• 13:11
  is another one of the conservatives,
• 13:12
  and that's not till 2026,
• 13:14
  I think.
• 13:14
  So this,
• 13:15
  this is,
• 13:16
  this state of affairs is there.
• 13:17
  And of course,
• 13:18
  there's no,
• 13:19
  and we should be clear,
• 13:19
  no liberal justification for this type of nonsense either.
• 13:22
  They're just supporting their guy.
• 13:23
  There's no justification for this.
• 13:24
  This is completely crazy.
• 13:27
  You think it's a joke,
• 13:27
  but it's not.
• 13:28
  We are now,
• 13:30
  we have the,
• 13:31
  we have the governor going
• 13:32
  intentionally against the will of the legislature.
• 13:35
  This is,
• 13:35
  this would be a constitutional crisis if it happened
• 13:38
  nationally.
• 13:39
  Uh,
• 13:39
  however,
• 13:39
  in Wisconsin,
• 13:40
  it's just like the way things go.
• 13:42
  We all know it's insane,
• 13:44
  let the insanity continue.
• 13:46
  Doesn't matter whether it's a Republican or Democrat,
• 13:47
  however,
• 13:48
  it's just wrong.
• 13:48
  It's obviously wrong,
• 13:50
  and this is not the way this stuff is supposed to work.
• 13:52
  Our government is becoming just a series of trolls.
• 13:55
  Like,
• 13:56
  if you're on,
• 13:56
  I,
• 13:56
  I think about it,
• 13:57
  it's like,
• 13:58
  if someone,
• 13:59
  uh,
• 13:59
  if someone tweeted something and you edited the tweet by
• 14:02
  to take out some letters to change the meaning,
• 14:04
  that would be so,
• 14:06
  uh,
• 14:06
  morally wrong,
• 14:07
  it would stand out even on Twitter,
• 14:10
  which is not necessarily known as the most moral place in America.
• 14:14
  Yet
• 14:14
  you can do this with the law,
• 14:16
  you can do this with the budget,
• 14:17
  you can do this with people's money.
• 14:19
  You're talking about tax dollars
• 14:21
  being ripped out of the pockets of your voters
• 14:24
  for the next 400 years,
• 14:27
  and everyone stands back and is like,
• 14:28
  oh gosh,
• 14:29
  well this is normal.
• 14:29
  This is the way things go.
• 14:30
  The courts approve of it.
• 14:32
  Hopefully voters in Wisconsin will look at this and say this
• 14:34
  is absolutely shocking and we need to do whatever we can
• 14:38
  to reverse anyone who attempts to do this.
• 14:40
  I mean that message should be sent.
• 14:44
  his approval rating should be 4 right now
• 14:46
  after doing something like that,
• 14:47
  but it won't be
• 14:49
  because I don't even know if people in Wisconsin care
• 14:51
  enough about this story to pay attention to it,
• 14:52
  let alone
• 14:53
  the rest of the country.
• 14:54
  This is an exaggerated example of what goes on in our government,
• 14:57
  but honestly,
• 14:57
  it's not that exaggerated in a lot of states and across the country.
• 15:01
  It's one of those situations where
• 15:03
  We get into these battles about,
• 15:05
  you know,
• 15:05
  I,
• 15:05
  I mean,
• 15:06
  I can't tell you how many people
• 15:07
  talk to me
• 15:08
  about,
• 15:09
  about,
• 15:09
  uh,
• 15:10
  Katy Perry's space flight.
• 15:12
  And while I thought that was really funny and we made fun of it,
• 15:14
  uh,
• 15:14
  quite a bit,
• 15:15
  uh,
• 15:16
  not as important as something like this that no one seems to care about,
• 15:20
  uh,
• 15:20
  but
• 15:21
  we care about it,
• 15:21
  so we'll try to pay attention as close as possible.
• 15:23
  There's so much to pay attention to.
• 15:25
  I cannot understand honestly how something like this
• 15:27
  slips
• 15:28
  through the cracks.
• 15:29
  Uh,
• 15:29
  we do have,
• 15:30
  uh,
• 15:30
  much more to talk about when it comes to universities,
• 15:32
  when it comes to,
• 15:33
  uh,
• 15:33
  the battle on gender,
• 15:35
  uh,
• 15:35
  and so much more.
• 15:36
  We're going to talk about that with
• 15:37
  Inez Stetman.
• 15:38
  She comes in next.
• 15:50
  Basketball playoffs are heating up and there's still time
• 15:52
  to turn your hot takes into cold hard cash with
• 15:56
  prize picks.
• 15:56
  It's the daily fantasy app
• 15:58
  that lets you pick more or less on player
• 16:00
  projections.
• 16:00
  Right now,
• 16:01
  you might be thinking about Luca.
• 16:02
  Um,
• 16:02
  it's,
• 16:03
  can you get more than 28 points.
• 16:05
  Uh,
• 16:05
  Jayson Tatum,
• 16:06
  more than 8 rebounds.
• 16:07
  Hmm,
• 16:07
  which way are you gonna go on those?
• 16:08
  Well,
• 16:09
  just figure that out.
• 16:11
  Get your ticket in and you just,
• 16:13
  that's all it takes to build a lineup.
• 16:14
  That's it.
• 16:15
  Uh,
• 16:15
  it's simple,
• 16:15
  it's fast,
• 16:16
  it's actually fun.
• 16:16
  There's no confusing odds.
• 16:17
  There's no like waiting days for results.
• 16:20
  You just pick your players
• 16:21
  and run your game.
• 16:22
  Prize Picks is the place
• 16:24
  to turn your sports knowledge into cash
• 16:26
  with millions of members.
• 16:27
  Prize Picks has daily fantasy sports just all set up for you.
• 16:31
  It's accessible to everybody.
• 16:32
  In almost every state,
• 16:33
  run your game all season long on prize picks,
• 16:36
  and when you play your 1st $5 lineup,
• 16:38
  you'll get $50 instantly.
• 16:40
  That's right.
• 16:41
  Win or lose,
• 16:41
  you still get the bonus,
• 16:42
  $5
• 16:43
  you get $50 instantly
• 16:45
  just for checking it out.
• 16:46
  Uh,
• 16:46
  so if you think you're sport.
• 16:47
  brain is playoff ready.
• 16:48
  Prove it.
• 16:49
  Download the app,
• 16:50
  uh,
• 16:50
  today.
• 16:50
  Use the code Ste Sports.
• 16:52
  You'll get $50 instantly after you play your 1st $5 lineup.
• 16:55
  The code is Ste Sports on prize picks.
• 16:57
  Get $50 instantly when you play only $5.
• 17:00
  Prize picks.
• 17:01
  Run your game.
• 17:05
  I'm joined now by Inne Steman.
• 17:06
  She's senior legal analyst at the Independent Women's Forum.
• 17:09
  She has a new piece over at National Review.
• 17:10
  It's called Men Need Single Sex Spaces 2.
• 17:14
  I'll be sure to tweet out a link to that.
• 17:16
  Inne,
• 17:16
  thanks so much for coming back on the program.
• 17:17
  Appreciate it.
• 17:18
  It's great to be here.
• 17:19
  Thank you.
• 17:20
  Yeah,
• 17:21
  your piece is really interesting in that I think
• 17:23
  we've had this debate here over the past few years
• 17:26
  about women's only spaces and how guys who say that
• 17:30
  they're women seem to be invading them quite a bit,
• 17:32
  and I think
• 17:33
  that's set off the appropriate amount of outrage.
• 17:37
  However,
• 17:37
  we kind of don't think of this as how it affects men as well.
• 17:40
  Can you kind of walk us through your thesis here?
• 17:43
  Yeah,
• 17:44
  sure.
• 17:44
  As you say,
• 17:45
  um,
• 17:45
  we've been having this huge national conversation,
• 17:47
  mostly spurred by people of one sex who claim to be the opposite sex,
• 17:51
  um,
• 17:52
  and of men,
• 17:52
  biological men invading women's spaces,
• 17:55
  and of course that's a big deal.
• 17:56
  In some ways,
• 17:57
  more sort of uh direct or obvious or urgent when we see girls losing,
• 18:02
  you know,
• 18:02
  sports competitions in,
• 18:03
  in a totally unfair way.
• 18:04
  Or even see women's uh safety
• 18:07
  threatened in prisons because we're putting,
• 18:09
  you know,
• 18:09
  male sex offenders who claim that they're women in women's prisons.
• 18:12
  Right,
• 18:13
  these are sort of
• 18:13
  five alarm fires,
• 18:15
  but I think the,
• 18:15
  the ways in which,
• 18:16
  um,
• 18:17
  you know,
• 18:17
  not having single sex spaces have affected men in society generally,
• 18:22
  um,
• 18:22
  has been more of a slower burn and there hasn't been this like,
• 18:25
  oh my God,
• 18:25
  this is in.
• 18:26
  Insane moment,
• 18:26
  but just slowly,
• 18:27
  one by one,
• 18:28
  and really since the 90s and early 2000s,
• 18:31
  there,
• 18:31
  there have been virtually
• 18:32
  no organized spaces where men can gather together and
• 18:35
  know that there won't be any women around.
• 18:37
  And I think that that's been a negative,
• 18:39
  even though it's not as,
• 18:41
  as sort of obvious as,
• 18:42
  as like I said,
• 18:42
  as women getting,
• 18:43
  uh,
• 18:43
  you know,
• 18:44
  beaten by an entire lap length in a race.
• 18:47
  Yeah,
• 18:48
  it's,
• 18:48
  it's an interesting thought.
• 18:49
  Well,
• 18:50
  as people might look at this,
• 18:51
  they might say,
• 18:52
  well,
• 18:52
  what's,
• 18:52
  what's the problem?
• 18:53
  What problem has been caused by this?
• 18:56
  I mean,
• 18:56
  you know,
• 18:56
  what's the problem with having men and women in the same
• 18:59
  areas?
• 19:00
  What are we losing here?
• 19:02
  Yeah,
• 19:03
  I mean,
• 19:03
  we're,
• 19:03
  we're losing fraternity,
• 19:05
  uh,
• 19:05
  in,
• 19:05
  in the,
• 19:06
  in the classical sense,
• 19:07
  right?
• 19:07
  Um
• 19:08
  and
• 19:09
  not that I'm saying that this is the only reason why we've seen
• 19:12
  friendship decline and,
• 19:13
  and since the 90s,
• 19:14
  um,
• 19:15
  especially for men.
• 19:17
  You know,
• 19:17
  1 in 4 men under 30 doesn't consider himself to have any close friends.
• 19:21
  Um,
• 19:21
  and I,
• 19:22
  I think this is just a small piece of it,
• 19:23
  these,
• 19:24
  these spaces,
• 19:24
  um,
• 19:25
  but it's also sort of the sexualization of male friendship as well.
• 19:28
  And in my piece I,
• 19:29
  I point to,
• 19:29
  um
• 19:30
  You know,
• 19:31
  Frodo and Sam and their friendship in Lord,
• 19:33
  Lord of the Rings,
• 19:34
  uh,
• 19:34
  of course,
• 19:35
  in our modern culture,
• 19:36
  we consider that like there's all those gay jokes,
• 19:38
  right?
• 19:38
  It,
• 19:39
  it seems homoerotic to people because
• 19:41
  we're so unfamiliar with the idea of close bonds and close friendships and,
• 19:44
  uh,
• 19:45
  between men.
• 19:46
  The military has been a traditional place where men
• 19:48
  can build that,
• 19:49
  but even the military now,
• 19:50
  um,
• 19:50
  is,
• 19:51
  is coed,
• 19:51
  right?
• 19:52
  And,
• 19:52
  and the dynamics of a space simply change when,
• 19:55
  uh,
• 19:55
  you know,
• 19:56
  women.
• 19:56
  Have their own dynamics among ourselves,
• 19:58
  right?
• 19:58
  When we're in all girls spaces.
• 20:00
  Um,
• 20:01
  men have their own dynamics as well,
• 20:03
  and I think those are healthy.
• 20:04
  Um,
• 20:04
  they develop healthy masculinity and I,
• 20:07
  I just,
• 20:07
  I think we have lost a lot
• 20:09
  by making sure that even the Boy Scouts is not allowed to be just
• 20:12
  for boys to learn how to be boys and grow up into men.
• 20:15
  Yeah,
• 20:15
  it's really interesting because I,
• 20:17
  I think like as a,
• 20:18
  you know,
• 20:18
  as you're growing up,
• 20:19
  you're with your own gender a lot,
• 20:21
  a lot of your friends are,
• 20:21
  are,
• 20:21
  are of the same gender.
• 20:23
  And you're kind of figuring out who you are,
• 20:25
  right?
• 20:25
  Like you,
• 20:26
  you don't necessarily act the same way in front of your guy friends as you do
• 20:29
  your female friends,
• 20:31
  um,
• 20:31
  and
• 20:32
  you know I,
• 20:32
  I noticed this with my son who's,
• 20:33
  uh,
• 20:34
  who's 13 now.
• 20:35
  He's,
• 20:36
  he loves baseball.
• 20:36
  He plays sports a lot,
• 20:37
  so he's on a lot of like male only teams and he has a lot of that time.
• 20:41
  But I mean if you're not doing that type of thing
• 20:43
  younger,
• 20:44
  as you're a younger boy,
• 20:46
  you're probably not getting any of that anymore.
• 20:48
  The Boy Scouts,
• 20:49
  as you mentioned,
• 20:49
  are now kind of
• 20:51
  breaking those,
• 20:52
  those lines down.
• 20:53
  And then as you get to become an adult,
• 20:55
  I mean,
• 20:56
  You know,
• 20:57
  most kids don't grow up to be professional athletes.
• 20:59
  There's really not much room there at all for
• 21:03
  guys to gather and just hang out.
• 21:05
  Uh,
• 21:06
  what,
• 21:06
  I mean,
• 21:07
  what can be done if it's just,
• 21:08
  just a thing of,
• 21:08
  of us waking up and figuring out,
• 21:10
  hey,
• 21:10
  maybe we do need these things again.
• 21:13
  Yeah,
• 21:13
  there are really two bases on which we,
• 21:15
  uh,
• 21:15
  sort of sex integrated everything,
• 21:16
  right?
• 21:17
  Um,
• 21:17
  the first is obviously this cultural push,
• 21:19
  and
• 21:19
  I think it's really time to reconsider that cultural push,
• 21:22
  right?
• 21:23
  Um,
• 21:23
  to say,
• 21:24
  hey,
• 21:24
  like,
• 21:25
  now that we've recognized how important it is for girls sometimes to have,
• 21:28
  you know,
• 21:28
  female spaces,
• 21:29
  maybe we need to reconsider that.
• 21:31
  Cultural strong push that it's somehow unfair or backwards,
• 21:35
  um,
• 21:35
  or discriminatory in a bad way to have,
• 21:37
  you know,
• 21:38
  uh,
• 21:38
  have clubs or,
• 21:40
  or like the Elks Club,
• 21:41
  um,
• 21:41
  which has declined.
• 21:42
  All those kinds of clubs have declined,
• 21:44
  um,
• 21:44
  not only because they've been integrated by sex,
• 21:46
  but partially because they've been integrated by sex.
• 21:48
  It's it's made it more difficult for them.
• 21:50
  Um,
• 21:51
  to,
• 21:51
  to attract,
• 21:52
  continue to attract men,
• 21:53
  uh,
• 21:53
  to those kinds of,
• 21:54
  of fraternal organizations,
• 21:56
  literally fraternal organizations.
• 21:58
  Um,
• 21:58
  so I think there's a cultural piece.
• 21:59
  There's also a legal piece here.
• 22:01
  Um,
• 22:01
  the,
• 22:02
  the Civil Rights Act,
• 22:03
  especially since the 1990s and some changes that were made,
• 22:05
  um,
• 22:05
  in the 1990s to the Civil Rights Act,
• 22:07
  uh,
• 22:08
  has been really,
• 22:09
  really broadly and in my view,
• 22:10
  misinterpreted.
• 22:12
  by the left over the years to basically,
• 22:14
  you know,
• 22:14
  run a litany of,
• 22:16
  of,
• 22:16
  um,
• 22:17
  lawsuits on any place that dared to,
• 22:19
  to close its doors to women.
• 22:21
  For example,
• 22:22
  there's an old bar in New York City,
• 22:23
  McSorley's Ale House,
• 22:24
  has been around since the 19th century,
• 22:26
  that was forced by the city council to admit women in the,
• 22:29
  in the 70s.
• 22:30
  So it's been this combination of one.
• 22:32
  To punch of the sort of cultural quote unquote progress that
• 22:35
  I think we should reconsider and then really broad or misinterpreted
• 22:40
  application of civil rights laws that,
• 22:41
  you know,
• 22:42
  forbid,
• 22:43
  uh,
• 22:43
  forbid,
• 22:44
  for example,
• 22:44
  a bar from just saying,
• 22:45
  hey,
• 22:46
  like we we want it only to be men in this bar.
• 22:48
  It's hard to imagine the left would ever misinterpret a civil civil rights law.
• 22:52
  I can't imagine that.
• 22:53
  And,
• 22:54
  um,
• 22:54
  let me go over to uh the universities here for a second because
• 22:57
  we certainly have that type of thing played out maybe first in the,
• 23:00
  in the university system.
• 23:02
  We're having this controversy now with funding
• 23:03
  of places like Harvard and Columbia.
• 23:07
  And I find it fascinating that
• 23:09
  these universities who have these brand names that are
• 23:13
  unquestionably seen as positive in most circles,
• 23:17
  Ivy League,
• 23:18
  this is like the thing you want your kid to grow up and grow up and somehow get into,
• 23:22
  and it will make their whole life go perfectly.
• 23:24
  They have these incredible reputations
• 23:28
  and then at the same time for some reason our government
• 23:31
  is funding them with billions of dollars
• 23:34
  as if we need to
• 23:35
  give them a little propping up.
• 23:38
  I just,
• 23:38
  I don't understand from the base of it.
• 23:40
  I don't understand why we do it at all and this bizarre
• 23:44
  situation we're in now where Harvard is seen as this brave university for
• 23:47
  turning back Donald Trump's horrible advances.
• 23:50
  I don't think the media is getting this right at all.
• 23:53
  Yeah,
• 23:53
  not,
• 23:54
  not at all.
• 23:54
  Um,
• 23:55
  fundamentally what's been going on for decades now is that the
• 23:58
  university sector feels entitled to operate substantially on federal money.
• 24:03
  That's why,
• 24:04
  um,
• 24:04
  these threats have sent,
• 24:05
  you know,
• 24:06
  uh,
• 24:06
  shock waves through,
• 24:07
  uh,
• 24:07
  the university sector is because their business
• 24:09
  model is heavily dependent on taxpayer money.
• 24:12
  They're the grants that the Trump administration is withholding
• 24:14
  from Harvard and Columbia now that amount to in,
• 24:17
  in both.
• 24:18
  Both of those schools' cases,
• 24:19
  almost a billion dollars each annually.
• 24:22
  Um,
• 24:22
  so it's a huge amount of money.
• 24:24
  Uh,
• 24:25
  but even that is the tip of the iceberg in terms
• 24:27
  of what the federal government is funding with regard to,
• 24:30
  um,
• 24:30
  you know,
• 24:31
  the,
• 24:31
  the model that higher ed,
• 24:32
  the business model that higher ed is running on.
• 24:34
  It's federally backed student loans that are the big kahuna,
• 24:38
  um,
• 24:38
  in terms of funding.
• 24:39
  So their,
• 24:40
  their entire model
• 24:41
  has allowed them to stack.
• 24:42
  Cash and endowments,
• 24:44
  and while having their day to day operating expenses and most of their payroll,
• 24:47
  etc.
• 24:48
  etc.
• 24:48
  heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.
• 24:51
  Um,
• 24:51
  and they've done that all while
• 24:53
  flagrantly,
• 24:54
  we just mentioned civil rights laws,
• 24:55
  right?
• 24:55
  Um,
• 24:56
  flagrantly violating the basic tenets of civil rights laws
• 24:59
  by discriminating against whites and Asians in admission,
• 25:02
  by discriminating on the basis of race very openly as when they hire,
• 25:06
  right?
• 25:06
  Cause the university is also largely.
• 25:07
  Employer,
• 25:08
  every time they open a department and they say like,
• 25:10
  we're gonna staff this with 30% black people,
• 25:12
  that's illegal.
• 25:13
  It always has been illegal since 1964.
• 25:17
  Um,
• 25:17
  but they're just used to doing these things,
• 25:19
  uh,
• 25:19
  and not worrying about it because these rules were never applied to them.
• 25:22
  All Donald Trump is doing
• 25:24
  is applying those
• 25:26
  rules to universities.
• 25:27
  And that's why I think,
• 25:28
  I mean,
• 25:29
  they're in full panic mode now and they ought to be because they really don't.
• 25:32
  Don't have an argument.
• 25:33
  They've,
• 25:34
  they've taken taxpayer money while spitting on the
• 25:37
  in the eye of the average American,
• 25:39
  um,
• 25:39
  looking down on,
• 25:40
  on,
• 25:40
  um,
• 25:41
  America and,
• 25:42
  and teaching their students that,
• 25:43
  uh,
• 25:44
  the United States constitutional system is racist and backwards and horrible,
• 25:48
  right?
• 25:48
  Um,
• 25:49
  they've been doing that for decades.
• 25:50
  It's just,
• 25:51
  and they've never stopped to think that
• 25:52
  actually,
• 25:53
  that was all a matter of political will.
• 25:55
  Republicans didn't have to fund.
• 25:57
  You know,
• 25:58
  they're,
• 25:58
  they're,
• 25:58
  um,
• 25:59
  university programs,
• 26:00
  right?
• 26:01
  The,
• 26:01
  the taxpayer doesn't have to agree,
• 26:03
  uh,
• 26:03
  to give them billions of dollars.
• 26:05
  Uh,
• 26:06
  but I,
• 26:06
  I,
• 26:06
  I find it all very like encouraging and and funny even,
• 26:09
  uh,
• 26:09
  the,
• 26:10
  the response of universities to this.
• 26:11
  They're all suddenly realizing that they are
• 26:14
  heavily,
• 26:14
  heavily dependent
• 26:16
  on taxpayer money and that therefore that
• 26:18
  taxpayer money has some strings attached and
• 26:20
  some laws attached to it that they've been violating for a very long time.
• 26:23
  Yes,
• 26:23
  100%.
• 26:24
  I mean,
• 26:24
  it really is.
• 26:25
  Bizarre that it took this long for conservatives to
• 26:28
  kind of grow a spine on this stuff.
• 26:29
  I mean this was always there for the taking.
• 26:31
  Obviously judging people by the color of their skin has never,
• 26:35
  or at least not in a long time,
• 26:36
  been popular.
• 26:37
  Since it kind of
• 26:38
  went out of favor thankfully a long time ago,
• 26:40
  people have always been on that bandwagon where you're like,
• 26:42
  look,
• 26:43
  I don't,
• 26:43
  that's not how I want to judge people.
• 26:45
  They continue to do it.
• 26:46
  They continue to put it in official
• 26:49
  press releases and university policy.
• 26:53
  And the right kind of just sit back and just
• 26:55
  kind of criticized it from a distance and said,
• 26:57
  gosh,
• 26:57
  that doesn't seem
• 26:59
  right,
• 26:59
  without really ever doing anything.
• 27:01
  Why has that changed?
• 27:02
  Is it just a change of political will?
• 27:04
  Is it just,
• 27:04
  you know,
• 27:04
  Donald Trump saying,
• 27:05
  hey,
• 27:06
  this is going to be a priority of mine?
• 27:08
  What's changed?
• 27:09
  Well,
• 27:10
  I,
• 27:10
  I've been arguing for Republicans to do something like this for,
• 27:13
  for a decade.
• 27:13
  So I'm,
• 27:14
  I'm really pleased to see Donald Trump,
• 27:16
  uh,
• 27:16
  step up and actually enforce civil rights laws against
• 27:19
  this university sector that is again so dependent on federal money.
• 27:22
  You know,
• 27:22
  if,
• 27:23
  if they don't want to take the strings that are attached to federal money,
• 27:25
  they can operate like Hillsdale College or Bob Jones University.
• 27:29
  And by the way,
• 27:29
  um,
• 27:30
  you know,
• 27:30
  I saw that President Obama,
• 27:31
  uh,
• 27:32
  former President Obama tweeted about this.
• 27:33
  I mean,
• 27:33
  he is the biggest hypocrite.
• 27:35
  The world when it comes to this.
• 27:36
  He tried to enforce civil rights statutes,
• 27:38
  Title IX specifically,
• 27:40
  um,
• 27:40
  the,
• 27:41
  his interpretations of those statutes,
• 27:42
  which are well beyond the text,
• 27:44
  he tried to enforce that against Hillsdale College,
• 27:46
  which doesn't take a dime of federal money,
• 27:48
  doesn't even take student loans that are backed by the federal government.
• 27:52
  It makes all of,
• 27:53
  you know,
• 27:53
  it raised all of its endowment and,
• 27:55
  and,
• 27:55
  um,
• 27:56
  all,
• 27:56
  all of its money exclusively either from former students,
• 27:59
  from donors,
• 27:59
  or from tuition.
• 28:00
  Itself.
• 28:01
  Um,
• 28:01
  so,
• 28:02
  you know,
• 28:02
  that is an option.
• 28:03
  A university can in fact operate without federal money
• 28:05
  and then decide what it wants to do.
• 28:07
  Um,
• 28:08
  but,
• 28:08
  but yeah,
• 28:08
  I've been arguing for Republicans to do this for a very long time.
• 28:11
  It actually,
• 28:11
  I think it was always just an obvious
• 28:14
  move,
• 28:14
  um,
• 28:15
  for,
• 28:15
  for,
• 28:16
  uh,
• 28:16
  people who'll be concerned about the direction,
• 28:19
  both in terms of merit and ideology at American universities.
• 28:22
  Um,
• 28:23
  but there's just wasn't the political will to do that.
• 28:25
  Just like there wasn't the political will to do
• 28:27
  all kinds of effective things against the left.
• 28:29
  I mean,
• 28:29
  what we've really learned in the first few months of the Trump administration is
• 28:33
  it was always possible to apply,
• 28:35
  um,
• 28:36
  you know,
• 28:37
  to essentially to,
• 28:38
  to take the institutional left seriously,
• 28:41
  um,
• 28:41
  and to start to dismantle that what
• 28:43
  amounts to this democratic patronage network that,
• 28:45
  uh,
• 28:45
  money's,
• 28:46
  you know,
• 28:46
  flowing to NGOs,
• 28:48
  to universities.
• 28:48
  I mean,
• 28:49
  the entire professional left is basically federally.
• 28:51
  Fund it
• 28:52
  and Republicans just didn't have the political will or frankly the
• 28:54
  balls to do anything about it until Donald Trump came along.
• 28:57
  Yeah,
• 28:57
  and that's really one of the real positive changes of the last couple of years.
• 29:01
  Inne Dettman,
• 29:02
  a senior legal analyst for the Independent Women's Forum,
• 29:04
  you can be sure to check out her piece over at National Review.
• 29:07
  It's called Men Need Single Sex Spaces 2.
• 29:10
  You can find it linked on my X page as well.
• 29:13
  Inne,
• 29:13
  thanks so much for coming on.
• 29:14
  I appreciate it.
• 29:15
  Appreciate your time.
• 29:15
  Thanks so much for having me.
• 29:25
  Lots of Pete Hegseth news today.
• 29:28
  Um,
• 29:28
  kind of started with this.
• 29:30
  Pete Hegseth said to have shared attack details in second signal chat.
• 29:34
  Now,
• 29:35
  this,
• 29:36
  The New York Times writes
• 29:37
  the Defense Secretary sent sensitive information about strikes in Yemen to
• 29:40
  encrypted group chat that included his wife and his brother.
• 29:43
  Um,
• 29:44
  when you kind of read the story a little bit more,
• 29:46
  uh,
• 29:46
  it mentions that,
• 29:47
  uh,
• 29:48
  his brother
• 29:49
  is his personal lawyer,
• 29:51
  but,
• 29:51
  um,
• 29:52
  uh,
• 29:52
  also has a job at the Pentagon.
• 29:55
  They say it's not clear why he would need to know about upcoming military strikes.
• 30:00
  Uh,
• 30:00
  so that's what their claim is.
• 30:01
  Also his wife,
• 30:02
  who is a Fox News,
• 30:04
  a former Fox News producer,
• 30:05
  not a Defense
• 30:06
  Department employee,
• 30:07
  but has traveled with him overseas,
• 30:09
  drawing criticism for accompanying her her husband to sensitive meetings
• 30:13
  with foreign leaders.
• 30:15
  So
• 30:15
  that happened.
• 30:16
  Then
• 30:17
  after all that came out.
• 30:19
  I don't know how many people got fired up about that,
• 30:21
  but then there was a report from NPR who was exclusively reporting
• 30:25
  that the president is now looking to replace Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary.
• 30:29
  Now,
• 30:30
  obviously he wouldn't do it for that.
• 30:32
  That wouldn't make any sense at all.
• 30:34
  There would have to be something else
• 30:35
  that was going on if that was going to actually occur.
• 30:38
  The White House has already come in and said no,
• 30:42
  we're not going to do that.
• 30:43
  This is fake news.
• 30:44
  So we'll see where this goes.
• 30:45
  Now look.
• 30:46
  You know,
• 30:47
  back in the first administration,
• 30:48
  this type of stuff happened a lot where something like this would be leaked,
• 30:51
  the White House would deny it and then it would wind up happening.
• 30:53
  A few days later it happened.
• 30:54
  I remember with HR McMaster,
• 30:55
  they were like,
• 30:56
  oh no,
• 30:56
  he's not getting fired at all.
• 30:57
  And then all of a sudden he was fired and John Bolton came in.
• 30:59
  And if I remember right,
• 31:00
  that that went really well,
• 31:01
  the whole.
• 31:01
  John Bolton thing.
• 31:02
  I think Trump was happy with that one.
• 31:04
  Anyway,
• 31:04
  uh,
• 31:04
  long story short,
• 31:05
  you,
• 31:06
  you can't trust denials,
• 31:07
  you can't trust NPR's reporting.
• 31:08
  You can't trust either,
• 31:09
  frankly.
• 31:10
  So we'll just have to see where all of this,
• 31:11
  uh,
• 31:11
  ends up.
• 31:12
  Uh,
• 31:12
  Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been transferred to El Salvador facility.
• 31:17
  He now has his own bed and furniture,
• 31:18
  ladies and gentlemen,
• 31:19
  that's right.
• 31:19
  Um,
• 31:20
  what an incredible update.
• 31:21
  This is what,
• 31:21
  I guess Van,
• 31:22
  uh,
• 31:22
  what was his name?
• 31:23
  I can't remember his name already.
• 31:25
  Van Hollen,
• 31:25
  Van Hollen,
• 31:26
  something like that.
• 31:26
  That guy from,
• 31:27
  uh,
• 31:28
  Maryland,
• 31:28
  a senator that no one knew who he was until last week.
• 31:31
  Uh,
• 31:31
  he went down there,
• 31:32
  you know,
• 31:32
  shaking hands,
• 31:33
  um,
• 31:33
  having margaritas.
• 31:34
  He wasn't really,
• 31:34
  I don't think,
• 31:35
  having margaritas.
• 31:36
  That was seemingly like a troll from.
• 31:38
  The Bukele people,
• 31:39
  uh,
• 31:39
  to make it look like he was having margaritas
• 31:41
  with oddly cherries on the rim,
• 31:43
  which I've never actually noticed that before.
• 31:45
  Uh,
• 31:45
  but,
• 31:45
  uh,
• 31:46
  that being said,
• 31:46
  they've now moved him to,
• 31:48
  I guess,
• 31:48
  a different facility,
• 31:49
  which sucks if you happen to be another MS MS-13,
• 31:53
  uh,
• 31:53
  member
• 31:54
  because you're not getting any of these perks.
• 31:55
  Only he gets these perks apparently.
• 31:57
  Uh,
• 31:58
  there was also a situation that happened over the weekend where Donald Trump
• 32:01
  released a picture of himself holding a photo of the knuckles of,
• 32:06
  of,
• 32:06
  of Brigo Garcia,
• 32:07
  where there's 4 tattoos on there,
• 32:09
  and then the,
• 32:10
  the,
• 32:10
  the letters MS-13,
• 32:12
  as if that was also tattooed on his hand.
• 32:14
  That was not tattooed on his hand,
• 32:15
  it was actually just added digitally after.
• 32:18
  The theory being that
• 32:19
  these sort of,
• 32:20
  these characters aligned with MS-13,
• 32:22
  like symbolized MS-13,
• 32:24
  though.
• 32:25
  There's not a lot to support that that is what it was.
• 32:28
  Again,
• 32:29
  I think honestly,
• 32:30
  the effective thing for the Trump administration there is just
• 32:32
  to show the guy had tattoos on his knuckles,
• 32:34
  and there's just not a lot of people who do that except gang members.
• 32:37
  Uh,
• 32:37
  so I don't know,
• 32:38
  we'll see
• 32:39
  where that lands as well.
• 32:40
  Now,
• 32:40
  all of this has been going on and the sort
• 32:42
  of embrace of potential MS-13 members has been going on.
• 32:46
  Uh,
• 32:46
  it's a,
• 32:46
  it's an interesting,
• 32:48
  it's an interesting tactic,
• 32:49
  right?
• 32:50
  Like.
• 32:51
  Most people who,
• 32:51
  I mean this guy,
• 32:52
  we know,
• 32:53
  at least for a fact,
• 32:53
  he was accused
• 32:55
  of beating his wife.
• 32:57
  Normally you don't run to,
• 32:59
  you know,
• 32:59
  to those people and just be like,
• 33:01
  hey.
• 33:01
  You know,
• 33:02
  we're so happy to be on your side of things.
• 33:04
  Like,
• 33:04
  generally speaking,
• 33:05
  that doesn't go on.
• 33:06
  Uh,
• 33:06
  Democrats are now trying to switch things up.
• 33:07
  They're growing,
• 33:08
  facing growing calls
• 33:10
  for generational change,
• 33:11
  you know,
• 33:12
  maybe
• 33:13
  the 90 year old people,
• 33:14
  uh,
• 33:15
  that they keep trying to put into office and maybe not the right direction.
• 33:17
  They want some generational change,
• 33:19
  and obviously we've now found where that generational change is going to come from.
• 33:22
  Progressive icon and ex-representative Barbara Lee
• 33:25
  has won a race
• 33:26
  for mayor of Oakland.
• 33:29
  Oakland,
• 33:29
  a wonderful,
• 33:30
  wonderful place.
• 33:31
  Barbara Lee going to be the mayor there.
• 33:32
  Surely that's gonna work out probably as well as the Los Angeles mayor
• 33:35
  thing has worked out so far,
• 33:37
  um,
• 33:38
  you know,
• 33:38
  for those areas of,
• 33:40
  uh,
• 33:40
  Los Angeles that still stand and are not,
• 33:42
  uh,
• 33:43
  you know,
• 33:43
  burned to the ground.
• 33:44
  So that's,
• 33:44
  that's gonna be,
• 33:45
  uh,
• 33:45
  nice.
• 33:46
  And finally,
• 33:46
  if you're looking for generational change,
• 33:48
  let me see,
• 33:48
  I have a suggestion for you.
• 33:50
  My girl,
• 33:50
  Jasmine Crockett,
• 33:51
  yes,
• 33:51
  Jasmine Crockett.
• 33:53
  The,
• 33:53
  uh,
• 33:54
  perhaps,
• 33:55
  perhaps the greatest
• 33:57
  representative we have in Congress today,
• 33:59
  she was uh tearing up
• 34:01
  on MSNBC
• 34:03
  uh for talking about democracy or something.
• 34:05
  Here she is though,
• 34:06
  I love this,
• 34:06
  this moment
• 34:07
  where she discusses the legal issues for President Trump.
• 34:10
  Watch.
• 34:12
  But here's the reality.
• 34:13
  Um,
• 34:14
  as far as I'm concerned,
• 34:15
  he's a lot less criminal than the person that's sitting in the White House,
• 34:18
  because last time I checked,
• 34:19
  he doesn't have any criminal convictions.
• 34:21
  I don't even think he has any outstanding cases
• 34:23
  versus the guy that still had cases pending when he was sworn in on January 20th
• 34:28
  and also has 34 felony convictions.
• 34:31
  So listen,
• 34:31
  I don't want to hear anything from the Republican.
• 34:33
  Party about how they're trying to keep us safe when their fearless leader
• 34:36
  is actually the biggest criminal
• 34:38
  thus far that we have seen because I haven't seen
• 34:41
  anybody with a rap sheet that looks like the president's.
• 34:43
  I've never seen anything like that.
• 34:45
  That's fascinating.
• 34:46
  She's missed so many people in history.
• 34:48
  Thus far,
• 34:49
  the greatest criminal we've ever seen is Donald Trump.
• 34:51
  I mean,
• 34:52
  not,
• 34:52
  I could come up with a few.
• 34:53
  I mean,
• 34:54
  Anyone watched any Jeffrey Dahmer documentaries recently?
• 34:57
  Apparently he's never seen a rap sheet
• 35:00
  like Donald Trump's,
• 35:01
  which was filling out forms incorrectly,
• 35:04
  multiplied by how many times per month he did it.
• 35:07
  There's all of his,
• 35:08
  uh,
• 35:08
  federal,
• 35:09
  uh,
• 35:09
  all of his,
• 35:10
  uh,
• 35:10
  convictions for felonies
• 35:12
  that she's never seen anything like that,
• 35:14
  even though,
• 35:14
  you know,
• 35:15
  senators on the Democratic side have been thrown out of office for much worse,
• 35:18
  so have Republicans.
• 35:20
  Obviously,
• 35:20
  criminals,
• 35:21
  any
• 35:22
  person who's been an MSF 13 has crimes much,
• 35:24
  much worse than even what Donald Trump was accused of.
• 35:26
  But let's just roll with it anyway because
• 35:29
  it flows.
• 35:30
  That's the thing with Jasmine Crockett.
• 35:31
  The words don't need to make sense.
• 35:33
  It's more of a,
• 35:34
  it's more of a like
• 35:36
  sing-songy flow of speech.
• 35:38
  It's not necessarily going to make sense
• 35:40
  in your
• 35:41
  prototypical
• 35:42
  English language scenarios,
• 35:44
  but,
• 35:45
  uh,
• 35:45
  you know,
• 35:46
  again,
• 35:46
  it sounds really,
• 35:47
  really good,
• 35:47
  and that's why I love her.
• 35:48
  I want her on TV all the time,
• 35:50
  more Jasmine Crockett.
• 35:51
  Uh,
• 35:52
  for us to consume
• 35:53
  as a person who has to come up with content multiple days a week,
• 35:56
  she provides it,
• 35:57
  so,
• 35:57
  uh,
• 35:58
  we love you,
• 35:58
  Jasmine,
• 35:59
  keep talking.
• 36:13
  Is your retirement account cheering
• 36:15
  for the team kneeling during the anthem?
• 36:18
  Hm.
• 36:18
  When Wall Street shrugs at core American values,
• 36:20
  every dollar you invest could be working
• 36:24
  the other sideline,
• 36:25
  and that's a mismatch,
• 36:25
  uh,
• 36:26
  no hardworking patriot
• 36:27
  should tolerate.
• 36:28
  90% of the big mutual funds bankroll causes that
• 36:31
  laugh at stuff like faith and freedom and,
• 36:33
  you know,
• 36:34
  basic biology.
• 36:35
  Every investment dollar is a secret ballot,
• 36:37
  and Constitutional Wealth makes sure that ballot checks lower taxes,
• 36:41
  secure borders,
• 36:42
  and the freedoms your family relies on.
• 36:44
  These pros live in the market all day and still stand for the anthem
• 36:48
  at night.
• 36:48
  Yeah,
• 36:49
  that's,
• 36:49
  that's the way you want it,
• 36:50
  right?
• 36:50
  That's all,
• 36:50
  that's all you're asking for,
• 36:51
  basics.
• 36:52
  Legacy Media insists only the left plays shareholder politics.
• 36:55
  Reality check,
• 36:56
  values-driven investors are already pushing boardrooms to rethink bad policies.
• 37:00
  There's been some really positive changes on this front.
• 37:02
  And this is a great part of this.
• 37:04
  Uh,
• 37:04
  it's Constitutionalwealth.com/Blaze.
• 37:06
  Constitutionwealth.com/Blaze.
• 37:08
  You can get a free consultation today,
• 37:10
  Constitutionwealth.com/Blaze.
• 37:12
  Now Constitutional Wealth is a registered investment advisor.
• 37:15
  You should review Constitutional Wealth's disclosures at
• 37:17
  Constitutionwealth.com to understand their services and fees.
• 37:20
  All investing,
• 37:21
  of course,
• 37:22
  involves risk,
• 37:23
  including the risk of loss.
• 37:24
  I am a client,
• 37:24
  a client of the firm.
• 37:25
  This is a paid endorsement.
• 37:27
  My opinions,
• 37:27
  however,
• 37:28
  as always,
• 37:29
  are my own.
• 37:32
  And now you know Pope Francis has passed away,
• 37:34
  uh,
• 37:35
  died on Easter Monday at the age of 88.
• 37:38
  Uh,
• 37:38
  you know,
• 37:38
  I'm not Catholic myself,
• 37:40
  um,
• 37:40
  obviously a very influential figure
• 37:42
  globally though,
• 37:43
  Pope Francis,
• 37:45
  and you know,
• 37:45
  Catholics are in the church is going to have to figure out who comes next,
• 37:48
  of course that's going to be a big portion of debate.
• 37:50
  It'll be interesting to see what direction they go in because you've got
• 37:53
  kind of like the Benedict path and the Francis pact path,
• 37:55
  and they are very,
• 37:56
  very different.
• 37:57
  So it'll be very interesting to see
• 37:59
  which direction they go in here in the coming weeks.
• 38:03
  Another death though that you might not have
• 38:04
  heard as much about was Daniel Kahneman.
• 38:06
  He was an economist,
• 38:07
  a thinker.
• 38:08
  Um,
• 38:09
  he,
• 38:09
  uh,
• 38:10
  wrote a book called Thinking Fast and Slow,
• 38:12
  uh,
• 38:12
  which is maybe his best known work.
• 38:14
  Very,
• 38:14
  very interesting about how the human brain works,
• 38:17
  uh,
• 38:18
  but he was a really fascinating guy.
• 38:19
  There's a book by a man called Lewis called The Undoing Project,
• 38:22
  which is really good if you haven't,
• 38:23
  if you haven't read it.
• 38:24
  It kind of goes through his life and a close friend of his and how they work together,
• 38:29
  uh,
• 38:29
  to kind of solve a bunch of issues,
• 38:31
  very,
• 38:32
  very interesting book.
• 38:32
  I've read both books
• 38:34
  separately,
• 38:35
  years apart,
• 38:36
  uh,
• 38:36
  and it wasn't until I finished them both that I realized one was about the other one.
• 38:40
  so that's the sort of attention I pay apparently when I,
• 38:42
  when I'm reading,
• 38:43
  uh,
• 38:43
  things.
• 38:44
  Um,
• 38:44
  what's fascinating though about his death in particular,
• 38:47
  he died when he was,
• 38:47
  I think he was 90 years old,
• 38:49
  is he wound up,
• 38:50
  uh,
• 38:52
  killing himself
• 38:53
  in this newfangled euthanasia sort of way.
• 38:57
  Um,
• 38:57
  and he wasn't sick,
• 39:00
  really.
• 39:00
  He wasn't dying,
• 39:02
  he wasn't on the verge of death.
• 39:03
  He hadn't lost his,
• 39:04
  uh,
• 39:05
  faculties.
• 39:05
  He just kind of called it a day.
• 39:07
  It's fascinating.
• 39:08
  And now this is,
• 39:09
  there's an essay written about this in The New York Times.
• 39:11
  No surprise,
• 39:12
  partially written by Peter Singer
• 39:14
  of all people,
• 39:14
  and if you don't know anything about him.
• 39:16
  His attitudes on life and death are quite interesting,
• 39:19
  but in explanation,
• 39:20
  Professor Kahneman wrote a letter
• 39:22
  to his friends that they would receive a few days later.
• 39:25
  Quote,
• 39:25
  I have believed since I was a teenager.
• 39:27
  That the miseries and indignities of the last years of life are superfluous,
• 39:32
  and I am acting on that belief.
• 39:34
  I am still active,
• 39:35
  enjoying many things in life except the daily news,
• 39:38
  and will die a happy man,
• 39:39
  but my kidneys are on their last legs.
• 39:42
  The frequency of mental lapses is increasing.
• 39:44
  I'm 90 years old.
• 39:46
  It's time to go.
• 39:50
  Look,
• 39:51
  you know.
• 39:53
  We are in a society that really is changing its attitude about whether life matters,
• 39:57
  and this of course is often focused on the beginning of life,
• 40:01
  the very early days in the womb,
• 40:03
  and are now going to the end of life,
• 40:05
  whether it's worth living,
• 40:06
  even if you feel fine.
• 40:09
  He goes on to talk about an interview that they had before his death
• 40:12
  where he just totally had his faculties,
• 40:15
  described,
• 40:15
  you know,
• 40:16
  talked about these philosophies outwardly,
• 40:19
  um,
• 40:20
  called the next day and said,
• 40:21
  hey,
• 40:21
  thanks for the interview,
• 40:22
  had a great time,
• 40:23
  and then they never heard from him again because he just killed himself.
• 40:29
  I just,
• 40:30
  I,
• 40:30
  I think we're going down the wrong road here when it comes to the sanctity of life,
• 40:33
  and that's a term that gets kind of politicized,
• 40:36
  but it shouldn't be.
• 40:36
  Like it should be a pretty easy one.
• 40:38
  We should all think that life is important.
• 40:40
  Um,
• 40:41
  trying to keep it going is,
• 40:42
  you know,
• 40:42
  something that we all do.
• 40:43
  Obviously there is some level of.
• 40:46
  Of
• 40:47
  effort that people don't want to put in toward the end
• 40:49
  of life when something serious is going on with you,
• 40:51
  but to just end it because you hit a number
• 40:54
  on the calendar
• 40:55
  strikes me as a really bad precedent to be set from a guy who lived an amazing life.
• 40:59
  So,
• 40:59
  a really,
• 41:00
  really sad story.
• 41:01
  No surprise Peter Singer was involved in it.
• 41:10
  Conservatives are kind of have had a good run here lately,
• 41:13
  right?
• 41:13
  I mean,
• 41:13
  the movement is gaining ground,
• 41:15
  I think.
• 41:15
  People are waking up.
• 41:16
  The narrative of the left is cracking.
• 41:19
  The momentum is shifting a little bit.
• 41:20
  That's kind of feeling good,
• 41:21
  but the fight is not even close to being over.
• 41:23
  That's why Blaze TV exists,
• 41:25
  because in a world full of noise,
• 41:27
  we need a stronghold for bold voices,
• 41:29
  free thinkers,
• 41:29
  and fearless commentary
• 41:31
  that help make sense of the chaos.
• 41:32
  At Blaze TV we've built a home for some of the strongest,
• 41:35
  smartest voices in conservative media,
• 41:37
  people who tell it like it is
• 41:38
  and ask the tough questions that the mainstream won't
• 41:40
  touch and aren't afraid to challenge the narrative.
• 41:43
  It's everything the networks won't show you delivered on your.
• 41:46
  Terms
• 41:47
  on any device
• 41:48
  at any time,
• 41:48
  and it starts at just $8 a month.
• 41:50
  The price of what?
• 41:51
  a fancy cup of coffee,
• 41:52
  uh,
• 41:53
  when you use the promo code stew at checkout at least,
• 41:55
  uh,
• 41:55
  that's only 26 cents a day to stand with the platform that stands with you.
• 42:00
  So if you're ready to keep winning,
• 42:02
  shop your values and make sure we don't lose the ground we've gained,
• 42:05
  go to blazetv.com/stew.
• 42:07
  Subscribe today.
• 42:07
  It's blazetv.com/stew.
• 42:09
  Save $20 off your annual plan now.
• 42:11
  It's blazetv.com/stew.
• 42:15
  OK,
• 42:16
  so here's what happened.
• 42:17
  Look,
• 42:18
  if you're looking for a job,
• 42:19
  I would not suggest taking a job in the field of pornography.
• 42:23
  Not a good outcome,
• 42:24
  uh,
• 42:24
  for the rest of your life.
• 42:25
  Um,
• 42:26
  however,
• 42:27
  uh,
• 42:27
  maybe slightly better than that is taking a job for a band
• 42:30
  called The New Pornographers.
• 42:32
  Now I don't know this band myself,
• 42:33
  I will say,
• 42:35
  um.
• 42:36
  There are some tips I would say if you're going to join the New Pornographers.
• 42:39
  Number one,
• 42:39
  you've got to be a great drummer,
• 42:41
  which apparently
• 42:42
  Joe Sider,
• 42:43
  I'm sure was.
• 42:44
  However,
• 42:45
  um,
• 42:45
  if you happen to.
• 42:47
  Join the new pornographers,
• 42:48
  you may want to stay away from actually creating child porn
• 42:52
  of your own.
• 42:52
  I just think because the headlines are just
• 42:54
  too much.
• 42:55
  Here is the guy,
• 42:55
  by the way,
• 42:56
  here's his mug shot,
• 42:57
  Joe Sider.
• 42:58
  Uh,
• 42:58
  he was actually arrested going to a bathroom.
• 43:00
  Why?
• 43:00
  Because two days previously,
• 43:02
  he apparently
• 43:03
  had filmed children in the bathroom,
• 43:06
  young boys,
• 43:07
  uh,
• 43:07
  in the bathroom,
• 43:08
  and then had left and apparently got away with it,
• 43:11
  but then came back to do it again.
• 43:12
  Uh,
• 43:13
  and then was finally got in trouble for it.
• 43:15
  And then you get this headline,
• 43:16
  New Pornographer's drummer arrested in Southern California
• 43:18
  for possession of child sex abuse material.
• 43:21
  So suboptimal is what I would say there.
• 43:22
  I would also say suboptimal placement for
• 43:24
  the weather girl for this particular station because
• 43:27
  it,
• 43:27
  people don't know who the,
• 43:28
  they don't know who the drummer is.
• 43:29
  Is she the drummer?
• 43:30
  Is she,
• 43:30
  was she arrested?
• 43:31
  I don't know.
• 43:32
  Poor,
• 43:32
  look,
• 43:33
  I,
• 43:33
  I know you want to tell us the weather,
• 43:34
  but that's,
• 43:35
  that's a tough placement.