The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guests: Sen. Rand Paul & Randy Clark | 12/9/24

Episode Date: December 9, 2024

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) joins to discuss Trump’s upcoming government waste program and his confidence that it will lead to a more efficient government. Border Patrol retiree and Breitbart News reporter Randy Clark joins to share what he’s seeing down at the border and how it may all change when President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in. Trump went on MSNBC’s "Meet The Press" over the weekend, but why should Trump give the mainstream media any sort of attention? Stu fact-checks a recent viral moment from that interview regarding birthright citizenship.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you were little, you had braced in the course of recreat, always in trying to negotiate, to exchange these cards of hockey, the bonhomes, some of the ballads. You know that each has a value,

well, to have been before having to be the things have not really changed. Negoti-tit-T-D you can't to renew with

your instinct of negotiation. With, without operation gratuit, no amount of minimum and any few fretsual.

You're made for negotiate, and the appellee-tit-tit-tit-td and fete to you add to you. Telechargeria right now. Big show today. Senator Rand Paul,

Randy Clark on the border, and Donald Trump went back on Meet the press over the weekend, talked about RFK Jr., vaccines, Ukraine, and so much more. We go over all of it on today's Best Up podcast. First, let me tell you about Lear Capital.

Gold-backed currency. Gold-backed currency. This is what the BRICS nations are moving towards. That cripples the United States. Now is the time to be thinking ahead and do something like the Brick Nations are doing with gold to back your account. I'm not talking about, you know, I got to have everything in gold. Have 10% of what you've saved in gold.

You know how much money your money, your dollar has lost? It's lost fortune in dollars. Gold has actually made money or actually just held the price of money. what you actually have saved. Build a hedge against the insanity of what's going on all around the world. Call Lear Capital right now, $800957 gold, $800957 gold. There is a high price to pay for the last four years, and we're not even close to paying it yet. 24-hour risk-free purchase guarantee. They're the only ones that do it. Make sure you ask them how you can get up to $15,000 in bonus gold or silver with qualifying purchase. It's Lear Capital at 800957 gold. 890957 gold.

You're listening to the best of the world. Talk to him about a couple of things. A, staying out of war in Syria. To Anthony Fauci, is he going to be pardoned? But let's start with Doge. The Senate Republicans hopefully are ready to just slash. government spending, and hopefully we do it in the fashion that Calvin Coolidge did it back in the 1920s. Senator Rand Paul, welcome to the program. Hey, Glenn, thanks for having me. You bet. So how serious do you think this Doge thing is? You know, I think it's very helpful because, you know, the problem is not just Democrats in Washington. It's big government Republicans. Correct. And I think Elon and Vivek bringing attention to

this. We've already offered up. I've been for 10 years collecting and arguing that we should get rid of waste. We sent them 2,000 pages worth of waste that could be addressed immediately. Some can be done through executive action. I think you can let people go. You can fire people. You can fire people for cause. You can also change the contracting. You know, one of the things Elon did at SpaceX was he started bidding on things and they started doing it through competitive bidding as opposed to cost plus. The big companies, Boeing and Lockheed, would get their contracts and say, oh, we bid a billion dollars. Oh, sorry, we came in at two billion. Well, you get 10% of whatever you come in at. So, in fact, yours is an incentive to come in over

budget. So there's a lot of things they can do, and I hope they will do. On spending reductions, there's a special procedure where if we send a billion dollars to the administration to build a ship and they build it for $800 million, they can send the $200 million back to us through a special procedure called rescission, and it gets an immediate vote, a privileged vote, and it's a simple majority. Most of the problems we have is getting to 60 votes to undo bad things the Democrats have done, but with this case, rescission, reducing spending that is sent back to us by the president, it's a simple majority. However, we tried to do this in the first Trump administration with a really small bill, $15 billion cut, and it failed because Republicans voted with the Democrats

to keep the spending. So we have to do that. to do this, we're going to have 53 in the Senate and only one or two majority in the House, we've got to see if we could actually get the majority of Republicans to vote for spending cuts. If they all do, we can cut significant spending. Would you agree with me that Donald Trump's different than he was in 2020, that if we would have had him in 2020, it would have been a different situation entirely? I think he's much more focused now. His picks for his cabinet, I think, are light years ahead of what was going on in 2016, for sure.

and he really wants to disrupt. He is not going to allow the status quo. He saw the status quo use the apparatus of government to come after him individually. And he realizes that in 2016, but again through 2020, that our intelligence agencies were being used against him. Both retired and I believe active went after the whole Hunter Biden thing to say it was Russian propaganda. And it turned out the propaganda was actually U.S. propaganda calling it Russian propaganda. And FBI needs to be cleaned house. Cash Patel, I think can do it.

D&I, Tulsi Gabbard, I think can do it over there. And he hasn't picked, you know, moderate Republicans. He's picked strong people on the COVID front, picking Marty McCary, a doctor from Johns Hopkins, and Jay Batacharya, a doctor from Stanford, who have been leading leaders and pointing out this nonsense. These are people I would have picked. So I'm over the moon with some of these picks. So what do you think is going to happen?

I mean, you know, the White House is saying that Fauci may be pardoned in advance of anything, which doesn't seem like you could do that, but they'll try it anyway. I mean, at least it has to be, everything just has to be dumped and exposed. I've sent referrals, criminal referrals on Anthony Fauci twice to the Department of Justice without real response. Merrick Garland hasn't done his job. He's probably been the most partisan attorney general we've ever had. I will send those referrals again.

If they preemptively pardoned Anthony Fauci, it will seal his fate as the architect, author, and godfather of the pandemic. He's the one that funded it. He's the one that funded the research and move on. he's the one that allowed the research not to be screwed up. People don't quite get this. There was a safety committee that was supposed to scrutinize dangerous research. It was set up because of fear of exactly this happening.

There have been scientists talking about this for 20 years, worried that this is going to happen. Anthony Fauci sidestepped the safety committee and allowed this research to go on. Then when it came forward that he had done it, he was like, oh, nothing to see here. We didn't really do it. Oh, well, we funded EcoHealthy. and they funded Wu-on, but oh, nothing to see here. And then he had the gall to say it wasn't gain a function, and it wasn't dangerous.

That's all I, all that's come out. And really, we have him in his own words. We have him in private saying, oh, we know it's really dangerous there. And we know they do gain of function research. So we've got him dead to rights. If the president pardons him, I think it'll just cement his role in history as being the architect of gain of function surgery. So, but will we release this?

This is the one thing I'm hoping Cash Patel does. I hope he releases just the raw evidence that has been gathered, you know, kind of, kind of like the Twitter files, where we can see all the stuff that has been classified that should be seen by the American people. With regard to COVID, we voted unanimously to declassify all of it. So this was over a year and a half ago. The FBI did do their job. did a report and they said that they thought COVID came from the lab, that the virus or the pandemic

started with the lab leak. But they haven't released their report. They've been told to declassify it. I truly believe Cash Patel will look at that. And the way you declassified is this. If there's a name in there, you don't want somebody to know a name or a source, you take that out of the report. In fact, even when I read and see classified things, I almost never have seen a name or a source, which I think is good. You protect your sources. But I should get to see all the information. and really in this case, the American public should see all of the information. Anything to do with Russia Gate, anything to do with the abuse of the FBI to go after Donald Trump, all that has to be publicly released as well.

Well, on Friday, here in Fort Worth, Texas, there was a judge that ordered Pfizer to release and produce all of its emergency use authorization file to a group of scientists that they want to look through it. And they've been saying, well, we can't do it, we can't do it. and the judge finally just said, do it now. Yeah, we've never had someone like Donald Trump or like these appointees. And that's why first line of battle is getting them through. There are many establishment Republicans, you know who they are,

who are weak need or, frankly, just no better than Democrats that are looking to destroy Donald Trump's picks. And so I'm going to be working very hard for Robert Kennedy, for Tulsi Gabbard, for Cash Patel, uh... these are you know those three right at the tip of my mind are have a lot of establishment republicans questioning and we got to make sure we had them through and we got to make sure everybody you know listening to the radio everybody out there is calling their particularly republican senators and saying don't trump needs his team uh... how long do you think i mean do you think he's going to get these uh...

what do you call them out of out of session appointments uh... where because it took him like two years to get all of his appointment. He didn't even get all of them in two years. He needs them right now. But I hate the precedents that that would say. The vast majority, the vast majority would very quickly. I can tell you, I am hopeful that I will be chairman of the Department of Homeland Security. So, Christy Noem's nomination will come to my committee.

My plan is, if elected in the next couple of weeks in January to be the chairman, I will have a hearing for her before the inauguration. as soon as he officially appoints or after the inauguration, I may be able to have a vote that day. Sometimes we will vote that day. So while some of it was slow in 2016, the Secretary of State, Homeland Security, several of these important positions were filled pretty quickly.

We plan on doing that again. I would be surprised in the first week if we don't have four or five cabinet-level people appointed, voted on in the first week. Let me switch topics to Syria. The president made it very clear. that this is not our issue. You know, I went back this weekend and looked at a story from 2016

where the CIA was supporting one side and the Pentagon was supporting the other side in Syria and they were fighting each other. And now the president, the current president, whoever that is, you know, bombed Syria over the weekend. And I just had this bad feeling that the industrial, the military industrial complex wants to have a war, somewhere, and Donald Trump is coming out and saying it isn't any of our business.

I know where you stand on war. What do you see coming? I agree completely with Donald Trump on this, and the people who took over, the rebels who won, their new name is a new name given to an old group called Al-Nusra, which were associated with al-Qaeda. So they were Islamist, meaning that they were for a radical, fundamental sort of nature of Islam, that doesn't treat women well, doesn't treat Christians well, et cetera, a very primitive form of Islam. Well, they've been fighting there for a long time. There's also another group called ISIS that is actually somewhat the same,

fundamental Islamist. And then there are also other groups there as well. There have been the Russians there. There have been Iranian proxies there. There have been Assad there. Caught in the mix are hundreds of thousands of Christians who have always had sanctuary since the time of Christ, right? frankly, and are at risk. And so we have 900 soldiers. Nine hundred soldiers isn't enough to organize

a parade. I mean, 900 soldiers is not who you go to war with. You want to go to war in Syria. You put five, ten, a hundred thousand troops, and you don't put nine hundred troops in there. They become targets, not a deterrent. They're not deterring anything. But if some of them are killed, and I hope this doesn't happen, then all of a sudden maybe we are drugged into the middle of a civil war where there are no good people on either side of it. Let me ask you one final question about, you've got a bill coming out that's similar to the South Korean law, which I don't even know what happened in South Korea. I'm still confused by that, where the U.S. Senate would allow presidential emergencies

to continue only with a majority vote in Congress, which I 100% back. What does this mean to all of the emergencies that we have dating way, way back, that are still in effect? They expire. And currently, if a president has an emergency, the emergency can only be stopped by Congress if Congress votes to stop it, but then the president would veto it. So it really takes a two-thirds vote of Congress to stop an emergency. my bill would actually change it where it's a simple majority. We don't have to vote to stop it. It stops automatically by statute.

We had this in Kentucky in our state government. Our governor shut down the hotels, made it illegal to travel, made it illegal to go to church during COVID. And the legislature couldn't stop him because they were in session. So when they finally came back in session, our Kentucky legislature said, Governor's emergencies last 30 days, then they expire, and less affirmed by a majority of the legislature. So this reverses it. Instead of needing two-thirds to stop a crazy governor or a crazy president, it actually takes a simple, you have to have a simple majority to affirm it. So it really completely flips this on its head, and it's what we have all wanted. And some partisans will say,

oh, this is against Donald Trump. No, I had this under Harris. I had this under Biden. I've had this under, I've had this bill for years. And both Mike Lee and I have fought on this out of principle, nothing to do with who the president is. I don't want any, I don't want any president to have this kind of power. We have got to reduce the power of the president of the United States. And if he goes in and does everything by executive order, we lose because the next guy will come in and do exactly what, what Biden did and just cancel it all. We've got to. We've got to get back to a debate, to reason, and to Congress and the Senate actually doing their job. This is something that people need to realize that it's not new because people get caught up in

the situation. They think it's about one person or another. The constitutional position of conservatives and limited government advocates has always been that, as Madison said, we divided the powers, we separated the powers, and we wanted to pit ambition against ambition. In other words, the ambition of people to try to take power would be pitted by the others trying to keep them from taking power. But over the last hundred years since FDR, the power of the presidency has gradually expanded, and what we need now is a stronger legislature and less power for the central authority to balance that power again. This was sort of Montesquieu saying that when the executive legislates, when he has both the power to execute and legislate, that's

when liberty fails. That's when tyranny arrives. And so, I don't know, people just need to realize this has nothing to do with an individual, a new president, an old president. It has all to do with constitutional principles that have always motivated those of us who believe in limited government. I think there's a lot of people awake to exactly that message, and your time is right now, Rand. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Senator Rand Paul from the great state of Kentucky. Try relief factor. That's what they said. Got inflammatory properties helped get out of pain, they said. They said that a lot.

And you know what? Turns out they were right. My wife was the one who said, you got to try everything. Okay, all right, all right. It has taken away so much of the pain I used to live with. It's unbelievable. I got my life back. It's a daily supplement.

So it's not a drug. It's all natural, daily supplement. And all it does is it reinforces your body. It helps your body fight the pain and fight the inflammation, which is the source of most of the pain in our bodies and a lot of our disease as well. It's 100% drug-free. It was developed by doctors to help reduce or eliminate pain, whether it's neck, back, joint, muscle pain, relief pain, or, I mean, relief factor can help you relieve the pain. Feel better.

Stop masking your pain and start fighting back naturally. Give relief factor a try. Try their three-week quick start now. It's 1995, less than a dollar a day at Relieffactor. or 8100 the number four relief 800 the number four relief now back to the podcast this is the best of the glenbeck program and we really want to thank you for listening welcome to the program uh from bright part news uh a border patrol retiree randy clark a guy who's really been following what what's going on in the border um is on with us i i want to uh i wanted to talk to him

about a couple of things. First of all, Randy, welcome to the program. Have you seen any difference in Mexico and on the border since Donald Trump, I think it was last week, talked to the president of Mexico and said, you know, things are going to change. Is the military of Mexico, have they done anything different? So we haven't seen a significant posture change. They are still actively keeping.

A lot of migrants in southern Mexico from Mexico City all the way to Tapachula. There's been some loosening from my sources in Mexico on the highway checkpoints, but the train, that La Bastia train that we have seen thousands and thousands of migrants used to get to the border, it's basically void. They're still very strongly doing that. So my sources unofficially have said the number has reduced for November apprehensions to less than 50,000, which is important because that's the threshold. Remember, the 2,500 threshold per day that President Biden said in his executive order to deny asylum,

we're well under that. We're close to 1,200 a day nationwide. So it's staying pretty slow along the border thus far. Yeah, it needs to go even, the number needs to rise on the trip back. Are you seeing any movement at all on people who were either on their way to the border, turning around or people that are here getting out. If we have any indication of that? No, we certainly don't.

What we know is we're seeing caravans assemble. We're seeing the Mexican government allowing them to walk for a few days, get tired, and then dispersing them to cities around southern Mexico, urging them to wait for a CBP1 appointment or to use the CHVN parole program right now. But that's the complicating factor, Glenn, is that. definitely going to end as soon as the hand hits the Bible and President Trump has sworn in. We're assured that that's going to end. So that's that's 1450 people allowed in daily through ports of entry along the southwest border and another thousand a day through the airport.

So you're looking at nearly a million people a year under those two programs alone. They're going to shortly find out that they're not going to get any appointment scheduled after January the 20th. So the question is, how is Mexico going to kind of keep a lid on that pressure cooker they're going to have in a few short days? We are talking to a retiree of the Border Patrol and a great reporter for Breitport News, who is really an expert on this, Randy Clark. Randy, the drug cartels have made so much money. They've doubled the price since Donald Trump.

got into office of getting across. I personally think, this is just my opinion, but I think that we're almost in bed with these drug cartels and almost in business with him in some ways. Donald Trump has said he's going to take him on, and I think he will militarily. What's going to happen to, let's say, the new president of Mexico, if she has to start cracking down on these cartels,

People usually die in her position in Mexico. And I think we're seeing, you know, not an acknowledgement that she's going to be somewhat different than the predecessor in Mexico who believed in the hugs and not bullets. There are still some battles between the Mexican government and the Sina Lua cartel going on, although it's not highly publicized, but the murder rate there is through the roof. The murders continue in Mexico. So if she doesn't cooperate with the United States, they're still sitting on top of a horrible death rate for Mexican citizens in every state really in their union. So I think it behooves her to cooperate, but we must act. When you look at how many children and young adults are dying from fentanyl, it's marketed poisoning of our youth. So it's something that I take the president at his word to.

My last year before I retired was under, you know, Donald Trump. and the same folks he's nominating to run this Department of Homeland Security were involved in the policies and practices that saw us reach the lowest number of border crossings. They've got this all on the drawing board already. I think they're just going to enhance it and run it into high gear as soon as they get in January and be very creative about how we undo this mess we've seen over the last three years. Yeah, Randy, I too know a few people that he has hand-selected that are no-nonsense people. that are gearing for this, what would the reaction of Mexico and the Mexican people be, if we just started sending seal teams in to take these cartels out? Well, you know, I think in some Mexican states, they would probably welcome that because,

you know, if you look to see what El Salvador is doing right now, and you see the phenomenal impact, Well, Kelly's, you know, policies are having on crime there and the murder rate. That's the way we all want to live. None of us want to live in a place where you can't enjoy your surroundings and move and your children aren't safe. So I think you'd have some people in Mexico saying it's about time. The question is, can we push them to do for themselves? And I think we can.

And I think we've seen that since January. Right now, border crossings here in Eagle Passett, everybody witnessed on the news are down 80%. They were 250,000 in a month across the southwest border in December of last year. They are about 46,000 a month right now. So we can see what Mexico can do if you really put the pressure on. And nobody better than President Trump knows the leverage that he possesses and how to use it. So I think we can get a lot out of them without having to do that military intervention directly by declaring them terrorist organizations, by seizing that money, by stopping remittances to Mexico that are to the tune of $60 billion a year. So there's a lot that President Trump understands, and his crew understands they can do to get a handle on a lot of these things.

And I think the government of Mexico is already preparing for that, or they would have undone some of their enforcement efforts once they found out Kamala Harris lost. You know, if you ask the average person who has deported more people than any other president, maybe they would say Eisenhower. They, of course, would probably say Donald Trump here soon. But the one that is way over everybody else, everybody else is in the two, three million kind of number. The one that is the highest at 11 million is Bill Clinton. And, you know, nobody said anything about that. I didn't even, I was sure.

shocked when I read that. And I don't remember anybody saying anything about deporting, but he did it the right way. And he got 11 million people out from actually physically deporting and making it so uncomfortable that they would self-deport. What do you think Trump's move in policy is going to be like to deport all of these people? Well, I'm going to take him at his word. I think we're looking at mass deportations because it has to be a big problem. I've stood on the Mexican side of the river and watched a single group of over 2,000 crossed the border in one single group. I had never seen that in 32 years.

Never. In that same area, it would have been a big deal five, six years before to see 20 people, 30 people in a group perhaps crossing. It would have created cry to stir amongst the workplace. Let's get over there and let's find these folks. $2,400, it's hard to deal with. So if the removals are not going to be on a lot. a pace to match what we saw coming in. It would take decades to get this done. But I think there's, you know, we own the parole that we have granted out. We know it was for folks that were unvetted.

So there are a ton of people that are out of status right now that will release, some released with notices to report to ICE offices across the country that have disappeared. So I think no one's going to be more creative than the staff in January on how to get this done. I think they have a lot of tools. I think they need to look at the enforcement of employer sanctions provisions, because if you disrupt the economy, people will stop hiring undocumented workers. So I think they know that. Tom Holton knows that better than anybody else. And if you were advising the president, what would your policy be? What would you push for for the punishment of sanctuary cities? Well, you know, I think if you look at the existing laws, you cannot harbor. You can't harbor aid a bet, whether it's in a bill,

building anybody that you have reason to believe is in the United States in violation of law, right? So when ICE gives these detainers to these sanctuary cities for someone accused of rape that we know has already been removed, they are harboring when they don't let the ICE agents in there to do their job and they release them on the street. So they're not only endangering their communities. I think clearly you could say that is aiding and abetting. That's harboring when you say you can't come in this building because we don't want you to do your federal job. So I think with a Congress installed, it's a Republican. My advice is to get everybody together and harden this and make it very clear,

just like everybody has pushed for how many years to prosecute January 6 violators, take the same impetus and go against folks who fight this federal government to the letter of the law and say if you're a sheriff and you don't allow them in your county jails, if you release folks that we have told you, ISIS told you, are in the country illegally, you have harbored, aided, and abetted. And we've seen rogue police officers get put in jail for violating criminal statutes while on the job. Well, that should pertain to everybody. And then you've got the pocketbook. All of these states, like California, receives over $160 billion in federal assistance. Maybe not penalized students, but maybe you can turn around and say, hey, maybe some

secondary education programs at the liberal universities aren't going to get money if you don't abide by federal law. So it's quite simple. I think they're going to be more creative than I am. I hope so. I hope so. Randy, thank you so much. I appreciate it. And thanks for all your writing at Bright Barton and everything you've done in your history there on the border. God bless you. Thank you, Glenn. You'll have a merry, merry Christmas. You too. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Welcome to the program and welcome to a student. Thank you, Glenn. and Donald Trump went on Meet the Press this weekend.

Yes. This is what you're supposed to do. Is it? Yeah, apparently so. We're just supposed to reflexively go to NBC News whenever. Those days are over. Well, I thought they were too. No, I mean, he has to do him, but.

Well, does he? Does he have to do them? Yeah, I think he should do a little of everything. You know what I mean? I think you shouldn't just go to podcasts. You know, that's what Barack Obama did, remember? Bernie was like doing interviews with, you know, who was that woman in the bathtub? And you're like, okay, this is ridiculous.

You don't have to do the bathtub one. But I think you should go on places where you know you're not. Yeah, it's adversarial. You're not going to get a good interview. I think that's required as president. I agree with that. As president, not necessarily as a candidate. I think it's something you should do.

I mean, I think Kamala Harris should have done. an adversarial interview during the campaign at some point, which she did not do. She didn't do interviews. I mean, she wasn't doing anything for a very long time. Then they switched strategies and it did not help. In fact, it went the opposite direction. I do wonder there is their alternate world what that election would have looked like if she just continued to do nothing. I think it would have been closer.

I think if she never did an interview, it would have been closer. I think you're right on that. I think you're right. The more she spoke. the more you were like, oh, dear God, no. No, don't do that. Because I think they correctly realized that there were a certain amount of people who were very worried about a candidate that couldn't do an interview. Right.

And so they tried to solve that by doing interviews. And what they should have done is just let those people go. Like, realize they're not going to vote for you and hope. Has anybody noticed? And I am biased because I've been talking to. to him off air and watching him talk to a lot of people, you know, without cameras around. And his, his grasp on deep subjects has changed a great deal. Have you noticed Donald Trump in interviews is not the same guy he was in 2020?

Yeah, I think that's true. He certainly seems to be more focused and has a real plan as to what he's going to do. As we know, it's directly Project 2025, which he commissioned, which should remember. Of course. No, yeah, no, it does seem like he, you made the description. I think it was last week, which has been sticking with me, which is after 2020, he just spent four years just like, this isn't going to happen to me again. Like, I'm going to make sure these things, if I get a president, if I'm able to

become president again, I'm not going to be hit by all of these. I'm not going to be surprised ever again. Yeah, right. And it seems like he's coming in. He's ready. Ready for this. Yeah, he's ready. The other thing that happened to him that I think has cut down all of his slams and everything else.

I mean, he still does. But you'll notice he's not as crazy on things. And I think that's what do you mean, look crazy than things? Like, just not as like, worried about, like, name calling. Okay, yeah. You know what I mean? He's not like that as much because I think he's, you know, I think it really, this is just my speculation. put yourself in his shoes in 2014.

Everybody on both sides loved him, right? Maybe not as the president. But they loved him. Everybody. And he was a great guy and he's a philanthropist and he's done so much. And then he gets in and everybody that were his friends that knew him and knew what he was like, they all of a sudden turned on him. And I think that just took him by absolute surprise. And he just kept, he had to keep punching and punching and punching and punching. And I think now

a couple of things have happened. One, he just stopped caring because you do care. No matter what anybody says, you do care. He stopped caring. And then I think when he was shot, I think he found his purpose, and I also think in the following months, he kind of became cool. He became the guy who could go on Saturday Night Live and make fun of himself. You know what I mean? And everybody would accept him. He became kind of mainstream again. And so I don't think he feels like he has to punch anymore.

That's interesting. Yeah. Yeah, I have noticed a difference in him. I mean, I think getting shot. No matter what that is. That was critical. It was change. Yeah.

I mean, it has to change you, right? And so he's going into this with a real plan. And one part of his plan, this is going to be clip four, is his plan to end birthright citizenship. This is, you know, obviously highly controversial. Many people on the left do not like it at all. They asked him about it on Meet the Press with, what was it, Wexler, Christine Wexler? Yeah, somebody that nobody's ever heard of because everybody who have heard of.

has no credibility. There you know. You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one. Is that still your plan? Yeah, absolutely. The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens. Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?

We're going to have to get a change. We'll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it with the only country that has it. Through an executive action? You know, with the only country that has it. Do you know, if somebody sets a foot, just a foot, one foot, You don't need to on our land. Congratulations, you are now a citizen of the United States of America.

Yes, we're going to end that because it's ridiculous. Through executive action? Well, if we can, through executive action. I was going to do it through executive action, but then we had to fix COVID first, to be honest with you. We have to end it. Okay, so notice what happened here. She comes to the 14th.

Stu, tell me why the 14th Amendment was first written. What is that really about? I mean, I was wrong to say slavery? No, slavery. Okay. It was written. You looked at me like I was going to. No, no, no, no.

It was written for slavery. It was written because all citizens could vote and, you know, you have certain rights, blah, blah, blah. And so the Southerners, the Democrats said, well, they're not citizens. They're not citizens. They're from Africa. So they can't vote. Yeah, so they can't vote. Okay.

if you were born here, even if you were born a slave, you're a citizen. That's what that was about. That was not illegal immigration. Illegal immigration. Come over here, get into a hospital, have a baby, and now, congratulations, everybody is a citizen. That we are the only one that has it. And the only reason we do have it is because of slavery.

It was a way to make sure the Democrats didn't just cut blacks out of the vote. again. That's what's so crazy. And so notice she goes, he says, we may have to go back to the people. Can you just change that? Well, no, it's a constitutional amendment. So we may have to go back to the people. He says that first. Her immediate response is through executive action. No, I just, I just said we may have to go back to the people. There are several parts in this interview where she, it doesn't seem like she's even listening to him. She's not. She's got this idea of what Donald Trump says in this moment and she's like already acted it out with her producers multiple times. So she's just not even listening. Yes. And I also, that's why they, that's why none of them have any credibility

because there's not an honest exchange. There is no honest questions. He just said we may have to go, he volunteered. We may have to go back to the American people for that. So you're suggesting that maybe it would be a constitutional amendment. Well, yeah, I think we would have to do it. I might I might, if I get stuck, I might try to find a way to do it through executive action, but it is a constitutional amendment. So yes, that's an honest conversation. Right. That's not what she did.

No. Do we have this clip handy again to play it again? I'll see if you catch this one little bit in this. This is a clip four again. Listen to her verbiage of the 14th Amendment. You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one. Is that still your plan? Yeah, absolutely.

The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, All persons born in the United States are citizens. Can you get around the 40th? Is that a quote? All persons born in the United States are citizens. That's what she said. The 14th Amendment says. Now that you ask me, I doubt it is.

Right. But I don't do. Have you looked it up? I have it. Okay. All persons born or naturalized in the United States. So she leaves that out, but not necessarily important to the conversation. But the next part is, comma, and subject to the judge.

jurisdiction thereof, comma, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. The whole 14th Amendment argument, and you might disagree

with this part of it, is that that phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof means that illegal immigrants are not included. Now, I... How?

Well, they're not subject to that jurisdiction. So in other words, well, if Like slaves would be. Right. If mom and baby were here, then they would be subject to that jurisdiction. But the family would not be. Because there someplace else?

I think the argument, again, I wouldn't say I'm an expert on the 14th Amendment argument here. I'm going to tell you, I absolutely am so far away from an expert. Right, right, right. You might as well talk to a fisherman. What I have heard is people make this argument before. Okay. And the argument basically is to be subject to that jurisdiction does not mean that you don't, you know, everyone, of course, has to follow the laws of a country that you move into. But to be subject of that jurisdiction means you have to have a basis in the country.

So it's not like you just cross the border and, hey, I'm now, I'm now a subject of this jurisdiction. You're a visitor, right? Like, or in this case, a criminal crossing the border. Right. So you would not get necessarily those protections. of that 14th Amendment. May I just say the only thing I hate the founders for is their use of commas? You know, that's a good point.

Stop with the use of commas. Could you please, for the love of Pete, the right to keep and bear arms, comma, under a well-run regulated militia, comma, shall not be infringement. Can you stop with the comments? It makes it too complex now. Stop with the commas. Very true. But I mean, I think regardless of what you think about the argument of the 14th Amendment

and people who believe illegal immigrants would not be grandfathered into that, if it's foundational to the argument, why would you skip it? Right. Right. Like, you have to bring that up. Could you do me a favor? Do you have chat C.T? Or something like that.

Yeah. Type that in and ask what that means. Sure. Let's see. It'll take me a second, obviously. Yeah, yeah. All right. Do you want to go onto the next clip or you want to stick to that?

Yeah, let's go to the next clip. Okay. Next one is on Ukraine. And what needs to happen with Ukraine? This is, again, Trump on Meet the Press. There are people being killed in that war at levels that nobody's ever seen before. You have to go back to the Second World War. And even that, if you take a look at it.

And you know what it is? It's the soldiers largely. The cities have been emptied out and demolished. The country has been demolished. If I won that election, which you know how I feel about it, I won't get into it because we don't need to start that argument. I think it's an easy argument. It was really proven even more conclusively by the wind that I had on this one.

But you did that. Well, that's your opinion, but I disagree with it. Had I assumed, kept control. Number one, Israel wouldn't have happened. Number two, Ukraine would have never happened. It would have never happened, Ukraine, Russia. But the number of people that are being killed, soldiers, young, beautiful soldiers, hundreds of thousands of people are being killed.

And, you know, it's very interesting. It's level. Totally level. The battlefields, totally level. You know what's happening? The only thing that stops a bullet, you know what it is, is a body, a human body. And the people that are being killed, hundreds of thousands on both sides. Russia's lost probably 500,000.

Ukraine's lost higher than they say probably 400,000. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of bodies laying all over fields. It's as stupidest thing I've ever seen, and it should have never been allowed to happen. Biden should have been able to stop it. Amen. He's absolutely right. And when this is over and the body count is actually revealed, and when you see Black Rock there rebuilding,

when you see all of these friends of the Bidens rebuilding, when you see Black Rock owning the farmland, then maybe we'll start to have some idea of how grotesque this really was. It's never too early to plan your summer's story in Europe with WestJet, from rolling countryside to cobblestone streets. Begin your next chapter. Book your seat at westjet.com or call your travel agent. WestJet, where your story takes off.