The Daily Signal - #490: A Border Patrol Agent Shares What It's Really Like at the Border

Episode Date: June 24, 2019

"What was pretty amazing to me ... is just how bold these individuals are when they're crossing the border, giving themselves up knowing that they're going to get released and they're going to get released into the United States and that they're going to be able to disappear into the shadows of society," says Brandon Judd, a Border Patrol agent and president of the National Border Patrol Council.We also cover these stories:•President Donald Trump is launching new sanctions against Iran.•Britain is forcing a mentally disabled woman to have an abortion against her wishes. •The NBA commissioner is suggesting the league move away from the term "owner." The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, June 25th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. The full-fledged crisis on the border is worsening, and Congress isn't doing much about it. Our colleague Rachel Del Judas recently had the chance to speak with Brandon Judd, a Border Patrol agent who represents his colleagues to lawmakers. In that exclusive interview, he discusses the crisis on the border and what Border Patrol officers need from Washington. Plus, LGBT activists are alarmed over a new report on young people.

people's attitudes toward gays. We'll unpack the details. By the way, if you're enjoying this podcast, please consider leaving a review or a five-star rating on iTunes and encouraging others to subscribe. Now on to our top news. President Trump signed an executive order on Monday imposing new sanctions on Iran, a country that's already being crushed by existing sanctions. The president said the new sanctions were a strong and proportionate response to Iran's increasingly provocative actions, likely alluding to last week when Iran shot down an unmanned U.S. drone over international waters. The president had initially approved a military strike in response to that, but then called it off. The new sanctions specifically target Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah,

and other high-ranking officials. Here's what the President said Monday. The Supreme Leader of Iran is one who ultimately is responsible for the hostile conduct of the regime. He's respected within his country. office oversees the regime's most brutal instruments, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, sanctions imposed through the executive order that I'm about to sign will deny the Supreme Leader and the Supreme Leader's Office and those closely affiliated with him and the office access to key financial resources and support. President Trump also signed an executive order Monday designed to increase transparency and health care costs. Every day, American

are being taken advantage of by a system that hides critical information from them that they need to make decisions for them and their families. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told reporters, per the Hill. The goal appears to be helping consumers avoid unpleasant surprises when they receive a bill for a medical procedure and discover it's far more than they expected, or something like an out-of-network doctor ended up participating in the procedure, even though the hospital was in network. That, of course, would affect what their insurance would reimburse.

Senator Bernie Sanders is out with a new proposal to eliminate all student debt with a tax on Wall Street. Speaking outside the Capitol, Sanders introduced his plan to pay off all $1.6 trillion in American student debt, saying the plan would make full and complete education a fundamental human right. Here's the senator on Monday. Our proposal, which costs $2.2 trillion over 10,000. years will be fully paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation similar to what exists in dozens of countries around the world. The American people bailed out Wall Street. Now it is time for Wall Street to come to the aid of the middle class of this country. Congresswoman Ilhan

Omar is set to introduce a similar bill in the House. Senator Elizabeth Warren wants to give reparations to the LGBT community. The Massachusetts Democrat tweeted, It wasn't until marriage equality became law that gay and lesbian couples could jointly file tax returns, so they paid more in taxes. Our government owes them more than 50 million for the years our discriminatory tax code left them out. We must write these wrongs, end quote. Warren has introduced the refund equality.

Act. According to NewsSight Mike, quote, if the act passes LGBTQ plus couples married in states where their union was recognized before gay marriage was legalized nationwide in 2013, could amend their past tax returns to receive IRS refunds. According to News site Mike, quote, if the act passes LGBTQ plus couples married in states where their union was recognized before, ellipses, 2013, could amend their pass tax returns to receive IRS refunds. Well, former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke has announced a new plan for veterans that calls for the responsible end, quote unquote, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would reinvest one out of every $2 saved from those wars in veterans programs.

The Texas Tribune reports that the plane would also include a Veterans Health Care Trust Fund for each war the U.S. enters in the future, and he would pay for it with a quote-unquote war tax. on households without service members. The plan would also bring new reforms to the VA to give more focus on helping veterans, dealing with substance abuse and mental health issues. So much for her body, her choice, a British court has said that a mentally disabled woman

can't have her baby and is ordering her to have an abortion. Justice Natalie Levin, who is the judge behind the ruling, said, according to the Wall Street Journal, I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice start. all. The journal reported that, quote, doctors have diagnosed the woman as having a moderately severe learning disorder, a mood disorder, and the mental age of a six to nine-year-old child, end quote. The journal also reported that that woman's mother, the baby's grandmother, is willing to

raise the child. The woman whose name is not being released is believed to be Catholic, a religion which prohibits abortion. It is reported that her pregnancy is 22 weeks along. Well, a knitting website known as Ravelry has banned support for the Trump administration on its site, accusing Trump of, quote-unquote, open white supremacy. Ravelry announced on Sunday that it would remove members that express support for Trump on the platform. They said, quote, we cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy, end quote. The group reiterated that it wasn't banning a reprimacy.

Republicans or conservative politics just hate groups and political intolerance. Is the term owner racially insensitive? And an interview with TMZ sports, Adam Silver, who is the NBA commissioner, seemed ready to get the league to move away from the term owner. I got to ask you. So the 76ers owner moved away from the term owner and now goes manager partner, right? Do you see that happening more in the NBA? Do you like the idea that moving away from that term owner? I do. I don't want to overreact to the term because, as I said earlier, people end up twisting themselves into knots avoiding the use of the word owner.

But we moved away from that term years ago with the league. We call our team owners the governor of the team and alternate governors. But so I think it makes sense. As I said, I don't want to overreact. And you'll find the word throughout memos over the past decade in the NBA. but I'm sensitive to it, and I think to the extent teams are moving away from the term, we'll stick with using governor. Have you had positive feedback from some of the players and whatnot from this? Yeah, again, players have gone both ways. I think a few players have actually spoken out and saying the greatest thing that ever happened was when Michael Jordan was able to call himself an owner,

but of course, Draymond Green has been very public about the fact that we should be moving away from the term, and I completely respect that. Up next, Rachel's interview with Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council. Tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger government, become a part of the Heritage Foundation. We're fighting the rising tide of homegrown socialism while developing conservative solutions that make families more free and more prosperous. Find out more at heritage.org. We're joined on the Daily Signal podcast today by Brandon Judd. He's the president of the National Border. Patrol Council. Brandon, thank you so much for being with us today.

I appreciate you having me. Well, thank you again. Well, first off, can you give us a glimpse into what you, as well as what the National Border Patrol Council does? Yeah, the National Border Patrol Council, we are the, I'm sorry, let me take that back. All law enforcement has associations that look out for the interests of the law enforcement agents. The National Border Patrol Council is exactly like that. where the union who looks out for the interest of the agents looks out for what needs to happen as far as border security goes from an agent standpoint.

We are then able to go back and explain to congressmen, explain to the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the executive branch of government, what our agents are seeing and what needs to happen in order for the board. border to get secured. And so what we do is we represent the interests of the agents in border security and in any in any other matter that they would like us to represent them. And I actually got to see that firsthand when in April I was down at the border with you and some other agents and some other lawmakers. That was a very eye-opening visit and kind of got to experience what you guys do for the rest of the country firsthand. So after I met you at the border,

in April, you ended up voluntarily deploying to the Rio Grande Valley to patrol the border there. What was that experience like? So not only am I the president of the National Border Patrol Council, but I'm a border patrol agent as well. And so I wear two hats. I wear a uniform and I go out and I patrol the border on a regular basis. And then I also wear the political hat where I look out for the interest of the agent. When I went down to the border, I went down there so that I could have a firsthand experience in exactly what our agents are dealing with in that particular area. My area of expertise has been out of California and Arizona.

That's where I have spent the majority of my career patrolling the border, and so I have a very good understanding of what's going on in those locations. I needed to get firsthand knowledge of what was happening in the epicenter right now of where illegal immigration is taking place, and that's in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. And so I went down there, and I saw, again, firsthand exactly what was going on. And what was pretty amazing to me, and you saw this yourself when you were out in Yuma, what was pretty amazing to me is just how bold these individuals are when they're crossing. the border, giving themselves up, knowing that they're going to get released and they're going to get released into the United States and that they're going to be able to disappear into the shadows of society. I mean, in interviewing these individuals and talking to them and they knew exactly what the

process was going to be, this is what we call the catch and release magnet. And I got to hear it from these individuals that were crossing the border illegally. The catch and release magnet is what is drawing. these people to our country, inviting them to violate our laws because they know that they're actually going to be rewarded instead of a consequence being applied. We saw that as acting Sessarys McAlean testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. He testified that 90% of the people that claim asylum and that are subsequently released from our custody never show up to their court appearances.

And so they're deported in absentia, but because it's an abstention, they're not there, and so they're not actually removed from the country. They remain in the United States. And that's a problem, and that's that catch-and-release magnet that we see. And I wanted to personally see it firsthand, so I could hear from the individuals that this is exactly what they were intending, that those people across the border, they were intending to come here to gain the system and use the asylum loopholes. And that's exactly what I saw. You mentioned about, I think you said, 90% of people that cross the border don't end up

showing up for their court date. What percentage of illegal immigrants coming across would you say actually end up being detained? Very few. The ones that will actually detain pending their asylum or deportation proceedings, it's normally going to be single adults if they have children in their custody that are going to be released. And that's because there's a, there's a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case that says that we can only hold children in our custody for 20 days. And if we're, if we don't separate families, then we have to release the parents with the children as well within 20 days. And so they all know this. And that's why the vast majority of these people that are, that are across the border illegally, are bringing children with

them is because they know that they will ultimately be released. Now, again, it's interesting to know for your listeners that we do not have to release people except for minors. We, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, we must release minors within 20 days of apprehending them. But anybody else, we can hold in custody pending their deportation or asylum proceedings. But they know that as long if they have a children, they'll be released, or if they flood the system and we don't have the bed space to hold them in custody, then we ultimately release them as well. And that's what's happening. So the vast majority of people that cross the border illegally are ultimately going to be released, and then they're just not going to show up to their court appearances, and they'll just

stay in the United States for the rest of their lives. Have you seen situations where you're concerned that minors are being brought in by people who aren't their parents, but might be claiming to be or appearing to be? Yeah, we've known that that's been happening for going all the way back to 2014. We've known that it was happening, but we weren't able to prove it because we weren't deploying the technology that was necessary, the DNA technology that was necessary to show us that these people weren't the parents. And without that technology, we had to take their word for it. But we have since the voice technology to certain areas on the border. And it's called rapid DNA testing.

And we're finding that an awful lot of people that have crossed the border with children, those children that they claim are their children aren't actually their children. And so we're able to separate them and we're able to prosecute them for an additional crime beyond crossing the border. But again, we don't have the resources to test every single person that crosses the border with a child. I did want to ask you, too, about the lack of resources that you all are facing. I know that the number of people coming over the border right now is at record levels. And how are Border Patrol agents coping with these record levels of immigrants coming over, but not having adequate resources to handle that?

First off, we're not coping well, but your listeners have to understand why it is that we're dealing with record numbers of people. You're going to hear the mainstream media that are going to say, well, the Border Patrol has arrested more people in the past, and that's not true. The Border Patrol has made more arrests in the past, but we haven't arrested more people. And let me give you an example, and let me explain that. So in 2002, when I was down on the border in NACO, I arrested the same group of people in the same fifth three times. It was a group of seven individuals. They crossed the border in the same shift first time.

I arrested them. I took them to the station. I fingerprinted them. They didn't have any criminal history. And so I returned them to Mexico. They were from Mexico. Within an hour, they crossed the border again in the same location. I arrested them again, took him to the station.

This circle, this circular process, it took about three hours. And so I was able to arrest the same people in one shift three times. Although it was seven people, it counted as 21 arrests. So when the mainstream media says that we made, that we arrested more people in the early 2000s, they're misrepresenting what that mean. we made more arrest, but we were arresting the same people over and over again. Right now, we're not arresting the same people over and over again because we're not dealing with people from Mexico.

We're dealing with people from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Cuba, we're even starting to deal with people from Africa. We cannot return these people the same way we did with people from Mexico. So what happens, we hold them in our custody, we end up releasing them. That pressure and that stress is being put on on the limited resources that we have. It's horrendous working conditions for the Border Patrol agents. And frankly, Morales is taking a heat hit, which is one of the reasons why we have one of the highest attrition rates in the entire federal government. And you just can't have that.

You can't have law enforcement agents or officers quitting their jobs because their morale is so low. But that is, in fact, what's happening today. Yeah. What would you say are the top three things that Border Patrol agents think would help them do their job? You have to have the support of Congress. And when you have people like Ocasio-Cortez that are comparing us to the Nazis, she's saying that the detention facilities that we hold people in are like concentration camps, which then, of course, compares us to the Nazis. any time that you do that, the signal that is sent is that Congress, who is supposed to provide us with the resources that are necessary. They don't believe in our mission. They don't believe in our job. So number one, we have to have Congress behind our back.

We have to have Congress that is supporting us. And right now we're just not seeing that support. And again, I use that Acacio-Cortez quote as, as a name. example. The other thing is we have to have good leadership. We have to have leadership that is innovative. We have to have leadership that can recognize as new problems occur. But unfortunately, we're a very reactionary organization, and we react very slowly to new trends that are taking place. The other thing that we have to have is we have to have the resources that are necessary to put more agents in the field so that we can secure.

the border. If we had those three things, I don't believe. I know we could secure the border once and from. We wouldn't have to continue discussing this issue. Yeah. You mentioned those three things. What is your perspective on all of the talk of the wall? President Trump has talked about it. Do you think a wall would help or wouldn't make much of a difference? Where do you fall on that side of the debate? No, walls are physical borders. Let's just call them physical. border, physical barriers, I'm sorry. Physical barriers are very effective in allowing us to dictate where illegal border cross and take place.

Unless you have a full 2,000 continuous, 2,000 miles of continuous physical barriers, there's going to be places that people are going to be able to enter the country illegally. But if we can dictate where those locations are, it allows us to be a lot more effective in seizing the drugs that are coming across the border legally, in apprehending the criminal element that is coming across the border, the criminal aliens are coming across the border. That's where the physical barriers are very effective. If the asylum loopholes continue,

then those individuals that have criminal records in the United States, they're going to continue to be released. But if we have the physical barriers, we will be able to stop the narcotics, and we will be able to stop the criminal. criminal aliens that are entering our country illegally. You mentioned the asylum loophole. What are some of the other loopholes that you see currently in the law that need to be changed?

The asylum and deportation loopholes are the main loopholes that affect the way we do our job and allows the catch and release program to continue. if we cannot deport people in a timely manner, then we have to hold them for up to nine months a year until all of their appeals processes play out. I'm all for appeals processes. I believe in the due process of all individuals, which is why we have our laws in the first place, which is why our country is such a great process because of that news process. but we have to be able to put them through that process much quicker than what we're currently doing. And those are the loopholes that they're exploiting. They know that if they overwhelm the system, if we don't have the judges in place,

if we don't have the facilities to hold these individuals, all they have to do is come across en masse, and they will then get released into the interior of the United States. And those are the loopholes that have to get closed. Can you talk a little bit for a second about the credible fear interviews? We talked about this during our time at the border back in April. And I believe it was you or another agent. We're saying how it's important to conduct these interviews. And I don't know if it's been common practice too or you were hoping that it becomes that.

But to ask these people who are crossing illegally and claiming asylum to determine whether or not they do have a credible fear of returning to their country. So the credible fear interviews, the reason why they're so important that they're done, immediately is because once a credible fear interview is done, then it gets rid of all of those loopholes that we've already talked about that they can exploit. If we do a credible fear interview initially and on the spot, then that person must be held and a judge has to adjudicate their case within 10 days. Right now, in adjudication of a case, takes anywhere between 2 to 5 years, and that's simply because of the resources and because citizens' immigration service who do the credible fear interviews because they're overwhelmed.

And so what has been looked at is to give Border Patrol agents the authority to conduct the credible fear interviews because we arrest them on the spot. And if we're able to give them a credible fear interview within the time that it takes to process these individuals, then it puts them into that asylum system immediately in which a judge by regulation, then must adjudicate that case within 10 days. It would force the government to actually do what it needs to do to deal with the current issue that we're facing. And it's amazing. We never see policy discussions like that in media. And that was my final question for you, is what is your perspective on the media coverage of the situation at the border?

And are there things that you would like to see more widely, things that you'd like to see be more widely reported on. What leaves me stretching my head is why the media isn't just honest in discussing everything that's going on. You can discuss the humanitarian issue if you want, and that's perfectly fine. But why not discuss all of the truth that is associated with the catch and release, with the asylum loopholes, with the deportation loopholes? You hear the media talking about, you know, we have this crisis on the border because of the economic and violent situations that are going on in these countries. Yet there's not been any study that has been done that shows that the economic situation has changed in Honduras, Guatemala, or El Salvador since 2014, and that violence in some of those

countries has actually gone down a little bit, yet we have this huge – illegal immigration crisis, and the media doesn't discuss all of the factors behind that. All you hear is the sensationalizing of what's taking place, and you only hear one side of the story or one perspective, and that's the perspective from the illegal alien. As long as the public is, as long as it's being reported from all perspectives, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But because it's only being reported from a very liberal point of the of view, that becomes very frustrating and it becomes difficult to combat what's being put out in the mainstream media.

We've been talking with Brandon Judd. He's the president of the National Border Patrol Council and also a border agent. Brandon, thank you so much for speaking with us today. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Are you looking for quick conservative policy solutions to current issues? Sign up for Heritage's weekly newsletter, The Agenda. In the agenda, you will learn what issues Heritage Scholars on

Capitol Hill are working on, what position conservatives are taking, and links to our in-depth research. The agenda also provides information on important events happening here at Heritage that you can watch online, as well as media interviews from our experts. Sign up for the agenda on heritage.org today. A new poll on attitudes toward LGBT people shows a surprising trend. Young adults may be getting less, not more, accepting of LGBT lifestyles. Quote, we count on the next to narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant. John Gersima, CEO of the Harris Poll, said in an interview with USA Today, Harris Poll conducted the poll in coordination with LGBT activist group Glad. He added, these numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis

and discrimination. So what's happening? Well, among 18 to 34-year-olds who are not LGBT, 36% say they would be somewhat or very uncomfortable to learn that a family member is LGBTQ, up from 24% who would think that in 2017. 39% said they would be somewhat or very uncomfortable if they found out their child had a lesson on LGBTQ history and school. But overall, the poll shows no threat to the status quo, finding that 80% of non-LGB Americans want equal. rights for LGBTQ Americans.

So Daniel, what are your thoughts? Well, it's just really interesting that during the span of two years, you saw that uptake of people who were uncomfortable, would have been uncomfortable finding out that I had a gay family member. It is surprising, given the cultural, a lot, you know, the broad cultural trend, especially among young people, I find that I don't know of any explanation for this other than maybe people are a bit disenchanted by how aggressive the LGBT movement has become. come. You know, it did start off as a very kind of a soft thing, you know, trying to make its

way into what was the civil rights movement. But over time, you know, especially leading up to Obergefell, the Obergefell ruling and afterward, it really became a much more militant thing. And I think it became no longer a persuasive movement. It was no longer trying to persuade. It was just trying to coerce. And I think once it, once it attained the kind of a plurality of the public support, it was able to then impose its will increasingly in the country. So I think that's the only possible explanation I can think of is that some people might be turned off by that element of it.

Yeah, I mean, I think there's so many, unfortunately, I read the report, and unless I clicked on the wrong link, it was just not very comprehensive because there are so many ways you can interpret this data, and I don't know what the correct way is. I mean, one thing that occurred to me is, is it possible that, you know, Trump is very un-PC that people feel bolder and they're more willing to say what they actually think in 2019 as opposed to prior? Maybe. I thought it was interesting that they brought up history specifically, I believe, two states. I think it could be wrong, but I think both New Jersey and California now have LGBT history in schools.

That's a kind of thing that, you know, when it used to be just about same-sex marriage, there wasn't this discussion of stuff like the school education, curriculum's changing. And that's definitely a new front. Yes. But overall. It was always an issue. It was never a complete revamp of curriculum or worldview. It was just, we'll add this piecemeal into everything else. Right. And I think there was also a lot of discussion about tolerance. And as you said, that's sort of been eradicated. People have seen, you know, these religious liberty cases, most prominently Jack Phillips, of course, the Christian Baker in Colorado, who's now being sued, I believe, a third, maybe a fourth.

time over refusing to make a cake. This time I think it's a transgender birthday cake, which I don't even understand. But I think if people are following the news, you know, again, this is way beyond just same-sex marriage at this point. But overall, I have to say, this particular poll, I didn't know what I would have answered to some of these questions. If I had a family member who told me they were LGBT and they said, you know, I'm Catholic, that there's still plan to live in accordance with our religious teachings, which also ban pre-marital sex, ban getting divorced, a whole host of things, I would be like, okay, I wouldn't be bothered by it. I mean, to me, it's like these very strict rules of faith that is what I care about, not who someone is. I think it's bad that

in the past that some people considered being LGBT, like icky or gross or something like that. I don't think that's good. So I don't really know what people thought they were answering to a certain extent. Well, and that kind of, you know, another question that was in the poll that you mentioned was the percent of non-LGBT Americans who want equal rights for, I mean, obviously I think anyone would say equal rights. We want equal rights, but it's just a question of how do we define those rights and what do we mean by that?

Because the other side said marriage equality, but it was always a debate about what is marriage, the nature of marriage, not should marriage be equal? Right. And I think that that's a kind of a... subtle way of sidestepping the real issue that is not being looked at. Right. I mean, for instance, Canada, you know, a Catholic school, fire a teacher who is in a same-sex marriage because they consider that teacher to be a minister.

People would disagree on whether equal rights requires that or would ban that. Yeah. Well, if anything, I mean, we could make a lot of conclusions from this poll, but if anything, I hope that it indicates maybe we're heading back to an equilibrium where people, I would hope, are just getting tired of the coerciveness and the outrage that seems to be driving driving so much of the political correct. You know, it is part of a larger PC culture of enforcing people's speech and actions by publicly shaming them.

And I also, I would be very curious, and as far as I know the poll didn't do this, did they separate like how people felt about gays and lesbians versus how people feel about transgender people? Because I think it, to me, at least it makes an, intellectual sense to be on board for the gay and lesbian lifestyle, but to have concerns about someone literally mutilating their body because they think they would feel better a certain

way. And we've obviously seen a huge surge in interest in transgenderism and people identifying as the other gender. So to me, at least it would be fascinating if they had separated those two to see what the numbers showed then. Yeah. I just think in these polls, it's so important how it's phrased because I could see a, you know, a nonpartisan, you know, polling group asking people, do you accept transgender people? Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean that I accept the identity of transgender or the philosophy behind it or the idea that it's a good thing to mutilate your body to conform to your feelings. Right.

And I think they actually had a question. I can't remember the results, but like how would you feel if an LGBT, sorry, LGBT. Keep breaking in the straight gate. Whatever. If an LGBT person attended a church service or saying, and I was like, well, of course I would welcome them. But just like with a multitude of issues, there would be, yes, depending on if they wanted to be a full member or something, there would need to be some conversion. It's not as though we're rejecting people's personhood. And that's what I think a lot of LGBT activists do think because they identify sexual orientation so closely with personhood.

and I think if we just got away from that, we would realize that, hey, a lot of people who disagree in this country actually respect each other's personhood. And if we just kind of cool off and recognize that, we can be a bit more successful at living together as a country. And that's actually partially what irritated me about Taylor Swift's new single, which is like this pro-LGB anthem, and mentions Glad, which was behind this poll specifically.

But she has, I haven't seen the music video, and actually I haven't listened. I've just read the lyrics. But, you know, she's setting up this false dichotomy about people who are throwing shade at gay people. And I'm, I just, I don't understand what she means by that because except for the Westboro Baptist Church, which is obviously a very fringe group. I don't know of anyone who's going around, like, hating gay people. They might disagree on what our laws should be and, you know, what appropriate lifestyles are. But of course, I just. I mean, it certainly wasn't what Barack Obama was doing in 2008 when he ran. Right. Unless she wants to say that those people in the video were Barack Obama in 2008, she needs to, she needs to. 2008, Barack Obama in 2012 until Joe Biden.

As late as 2012, yeah. So, anyway, she needs to, what did she say in the video? Calm down? Is that what it is? I don't know. I don't do calm. Well, we will leave it there. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation.

Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us review. or rating on iTunes to give us feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow. You've been listening to The Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.