The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 3586 - Border Czar Bribes; Stripping Citizenship w/ Amanda Frost

Episode Date: September 22, 2025

It's Fun Day Monday on the Majority Report On today's show: The Trump administration is hinting at a link between Acetaminophen and autism. Border Czar Tom Homan was investigated for receiving $50,000 in cash back in 2024 for a promise of employment in the Trump Administration. Oddly, after Trump's victory the DOJ shut down the FBI investigation. Professor of immigration and citizenship law at the University of Virginia, Amanda Frost joins the show to discuss her book You Are Not American: Citizen Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers. In the Fun Half: Despite saying himself that we are on a path to a dictatorship, Chuck Schumer still won't commit to a government shutdown or doing anything at all. When asked about how House Democrats can resist fascism Hakeem Jeffries says the answer is more protest, more speeches and offers nothing else. The Charlie Kirk Memorial in Glendale, Arizona had Donald Trump feeling like dancing. Stephen Miller addresses the Kirk mourners with a Goebbels inspired speech. The patriots leaving the memorial left an incomprehensible amount of garbage throughout the streets of Glendale. All that and more. The Congress switchboard number is [phone]. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: HELLOFRESH: Go to HelloFresh.com/majority10fm to get 10 Free Meals + a Free Item for Life! One per box with active subscription. Free meals applied as discount on first box, new subscribers only, varies by plan. COZY EARTH: Go to cozyearth.com/MAJORITYREPORT for up to 40% off the best pants, joggers, shirts, everything SUNSET LAKE:  Head to SunsetLakeCBD.com and use the code FlowerPower25 to save 40% on all their sun grown flower, pre rolls, and even vapor cartridges. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech Check out Matt’s show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon’s show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza’s music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/

Hey, folks, today's episode sponsored by one of my favorite sponsors, Sunsetlakesebade.com. And now that it's officially fall, our farmer friends at sunsetlakesebade.com are busy in their fields in full harvest mode right now. They're literally out there cutting and hanging fresh hemp flour in their drying rooms, getting the new crop ready for release later this year. They could very well be listening to the program as they are drying this stuff. And while they're busy doing all the hard work, you get to reap the rewards.

From now until the 28th, you can grab any of their smokable hemp products for 40% off with the code flower power 25. All one word, flower power 25. The 25 is the numbers, two and five. that's 40% doesn't matter whether you're trying to relax without the you know

extra high part or if you want to cut back on tobacco or maybe just you know stretch the other stuff a little bit longer

I know somebody who does that it's called what was the name of that there's a name for that entourage effect that's what it is anyways

they've got to they've got they've got keef they've got uh flower they've got uh pre rolls uh i myself am an enjoyer of the the pre roll occasionally on the weekend um but they have all sorts of they have all sorts of other great uh sabaday products but right now is the time to get that flower head over to sunset lake sabadet dot com use the code flower power two five as in 2025 uh flower power power to save 40% on all their sungrown flour, pre-rolls, and even vapor carter cartriages? Yeah. Whoof.

Yep. It's Monday. Sale ends September 28th at 1159 p.m. Eastern. See their site for terms and conditions. And now, time for the show. The majority report. Sam Cedar. It is Monday.

September 22nd, 2025. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA. On the program today, Professor Amanda Frost, Professor. of Immigration and Citizenship Law at the University of Virginia, author of You Are Not American, Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers. Also on the program, speaking of citizenship stripping,

Icehead Tom Homan took a $50,000 cash bribe, delivered to him in a, a fast food bag high end to influence the Trump administration and then Trump's

DOJ quashed the investigation meanwhile Trump directs supposed independent attorney general Pam Bondi to prosecute

his enemies this as he fired as a federal prosecutor quits over pressure to charge Letitia James. Meanwhile, back on

the Capitol Hill, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffreys demand Trump negotiate before the government shut down at the end of this week. And if not, they will demand it again. Wow.

That would be two demands. U.S. to offer all options to help salvage Argentinian economy wrecked by Javier Malay. Trump regime kills U.S. hunger reports. That way the hunger goes away. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday delays its inflation-related report. UN convenes in New York as Britain, Canada,

Australia, Portugal recognized a Palestinian state over the weekend France and others to follow suit as Israel continues to level Gaza. Meanwhile, over the weekend, the Congressional Progressive Caucus endorsed a bill to block offensive weapons to Israel.

Meanwhile, the White House is in disarray over its new H-1B visas policy, as rural hospitals face massive medical staff, Exodus. Also over the weekend, Trump hands to TikTok over to a cabal of right-wing oligarchs as pro-Palestinian posts are purged. And lastly, desperate to deliver on an autism cause, RFK Jr. set to blame aciditifin. All this and much more.

much more on today's majority report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for joining us at the beginning of this incredibly busy week. Emma Vigland here. We're covering from a, we won't even talk about what happened to the Giants. A lot of people are saying things, but I'm not going to say anything about the Giants' loss. How magnanimous of you? A lot of people are saying things, but I'm not going to. Good. You're going to dance right next to me as I cry, basically. That's kind of what we're thinking of. Well, we'll play that clip later. How dare you? I want to say something about this autism, Tylenol or acetaminophen connection. I think it was about two years ago, and I had, I don't know, I may be repeating myself because about a month ago there was a

court case. And I think at that time, I had said something. I certainly intended to. I may have forgotten. But two years ago, I interviewed an attorney at the torts conference that I attend annually or twice annually. I'm going to be going again in October. And he was pursuing a case of that claimed a connection between autism and mothers who took excessive amounts of melanol while pregnant. And I am quite sure at that time I was very

careful in telling people like this is an early case. This stuff needs to be adjudicated. There is no indication that it's real at this instance. But I've also been involved with, you know, a lot of these cases in their early

stages that turn out to be, you know, quite important to to let people know about about a month ago this case hit the um a new york a federal court i believe it was the eastern district off the top of my head and the case was dismissed by the judge uh they had brought it together in a multi-district litigation this is different from a class action multi-district means that the class here is it's not a classic class action it's called a mass tort and the difference being that the harm is different for everybody but the cause is the same

whereas a class action the harm is similar so for instance like the big c8 case was a mass tort because some people got cancer from c8 some people some people got cancer from c8 some people got gastrointestinal problems, some people got different types of cancer, et cetera, et cetera. Apparently Trump and RFK Jr. are going to announce that there's some type of connection between acidaminophen and autism. The case, the claim is likely based upon a paper by Andrea Basterrelli. which was an overall sort of like a paper on all of the studies that have been done in the past. This person has been a paid expert in other plaintiff lawsuits alleging this link. But in this litigation, it was the Southern District of New York, Judge Denise Coat excluded Bottrell and other

plaintiff experts from testifying under what is known as the Dobert standard where a judge in these instances can measure the credibility of these expert witnesses or the expert witness uh witness excuse me studies the judge found methodological flaws in their scientific analysis and concluded their testimony lacks sufficient reliability and scientific merit to establish causation in court And so that case was basically rejected. And so to the extent that there is any even association with Tylenol and or acidaminophen and pregnancy, there are two things you should know. The studies that have shown any type of association at this point get. not causation, just association, not even quite necessarily correlation.

But those studies, when they have been redone controlling four siblings, that association goes away. Now, again, also, there may be other things that are associated with taking acidimidifin that may also be a factor in terms of autism. Like, for instance, if you have a very severe fever and you take Tylenol, it's possible that it could be the fever, or it could be the thing that gave you the fever. I mean, and I'm not implying that fevers or that stuff, you know, causes autism. I don't know. But it could be a health issue.

But the point being that just because you see, you know, you could also say, well, a lot of those women wearing pants. and you know that's also correlated but the there has been no discernible massive increase in the use of Tylenol by people over the course of the past 30 years when supposedly the incidence of autism has risen as opposed to diagnoses so well folks should be aware of that as this comes out. It remains to be seen what the Trump administration is going to do with this other than to supposedly offer some type of directive or who knows what. But we shall see. But I wanted to mention that at the top of the show. Now let's get to what I think should be a massive story. But of course, nobody will be talking about it in 24 hours, I imagine. Tom Holman,

the head of ice i don't know what he's i guess he's the borders are yeah um last year in twenty twenty four in september actually almost to the day september 20th 2024 hidden cameras were set up by the fbi i they were actually investigating somebody bigger than tom Homan. We don't know who this is. And a federal investigation was launched in Western Texas in the summer of 2024 after a subject in a separate investigation claimed Homan was soliciting payments in exchange for awarding contracts should Trump win the presidential election. You'll recall, certainly by the fall, but over the summer, Tom Homan was marched out every other day by the Trump administration

and with saying, I'm going to come back and I'm going to be the ice head and I'm going to deport all sorts of people. I mean, he was bragging about it. And I think he was even named by Trump in like a shadow cabinet. I don't know if it was at this point, but this is according to an internal Justice Department summary of the probe reviewed by MSNBC and people familiar with the case. The U.S. Attorney's Office in the Western District of Texas, working with the FBI, asked the Justice Department's public integrity section to join. in its ongoing probe, quote, into the border czar and former acting director of immigration and customs enforcement, Tom Homan and others, based on evidence of payment from an FBI undercover agents in exchange for facilitating future contracts related to border enforcement.

They have hidden video camera recordings. now I understand it like there'd be some room if it was just audio because it's it's Tom Holman and it's you know here's you here's your 50 here's your 50 grand could have been Holman could have been a garbage disposal exactly exactly um as contractors communicated and met several times last summer with a business colleague who introduced them to homin and with homin himself who indicated he would facilitate securing contracts for them in exchange for money once he was in office this is according to documents and the people familiar with the case um let's play a and then when trump filled in fbii agents and department

prosecutors took no further steps in the final months of 2024. What were the final months of 2024 were after Donald Trump gets elected? And several federal FBI and Justice Department agents believed they had a strong criminal case against Homan for conspiracy to commit bribery based on videotaping him accepting cash and his apparent promise. to assist in contracts, according to four people familiar with the probe. Homan could have been charged with a crime then, legal experts say, but his case was unusual. He was not a public official, and Trump was not president at the time he accepted money in the FBI's undercover sting.

So his actions didn't clearly fit under a standard bribery charge. That's interesting. Because here is Tom Homan. What was the date on this? November 11. Okay, which would be a full week after Trump is elected, and surely people in the DOJ who knew that Trump was coming in would have at that point alerted Homan to, hey man, there's videotapes of you taking cash saying that if you become, you know, if you work for Trump, you're going to help them out. so maybe you should make it clear that you're just an average dudes yes make it clear to the extent that you can articulate it you're just an average dude

let me be clear i don't work for the campaign i haven't taken a dollar from the campaign tom homin's doing it because i think he's the greatest president of my life time i'm on seeing that in the white house nobody says tom homie's working for the campaign time homer is working for the campaign Tom Holman is working for a campaign. Tom Homan is working in interest of the campaign. Tom Homan does an employee by a campaign and interest. I'm doing it because Tom Homan, retired ice church.

The guy spent three and a half decades doing a job. I want him to be president. I'll do what I can to help him. That's what it is. Now, he doth protest a little bit too much. I'm doing this out of the goodness of my heart, not just because I think that if he gets into office, he will drop this case.

He's making it clear that he has no association with them at that time, which makes the bribery charge harder to pin because he doesn't have the ability to do. He's getting paid on a hypothetical. This is like an if-come bribe, if you will. It is still a crime, however, for anyone to seek money to improperly influence federal contracts, the legal expert said, and whether they are a public official or not, or whether they ever delivered on their promise or not.

If someone who is not yet a public official but expects to take bribes in exchange for agreeing to take official acts after they're appointed, they can't be charged with bribery, said Randall Eliasson, former chief of public corruption, but they can be charged with conspiracy to commit bribery. In a conspiracy charge, the crime is the agreement to commit a criminal act in the future. And so what Holman's doing in that instance is trying to make it clear, like I'm in no way affiliated with them. I'm just out here doing this for the sake of like any other citizen. I love Donald Trump, et cetera, et cetera. I'm like one of you in the crowd. Try and guess who is in charge at the DOJ of shutting this down. Think of the DOJ officials who have been in the Trump administration.

Who, and you can name a name, who is the most despicable and has shown that they are completely they don't care about justice in any measure or form. Who do you think it was? There's not many names we know about the, from the Trump DOJ at this point. Beauvais or Bovue. The guy who was in there to bribe Eric Adams, the guy who was in there who said,

we don't listen to the courts, and the guy that the Republicans just appointed and nominated and confirmed to be a federal judge. And he was in charge in February, or late January or February 2025, former acting deputy attorney general email Boevy was briefed on the case and told the just department officially didn't support the investigation, according to people familiar with the case. And the through line with the Eric Adams thing and Beauvais and Holman is using the threat of prosecution as a way to keep people working for you in line and on. message and doing what you need them to do. We've talked about this before about the Pete Heggseth allegations. Trump sees people's paths that may have some, you know, shady elements to it as assets. Because the number one test for his administration's loyalty, it's not competence.

So if you have blackmail over someone, why is Tom Holman going out there on every Sunday, every night media hits selling the Trump administration's agenda? It's because he owes them. And to be fair, though, he also, I think, is a un-reconstructed racist. I've agreed. So it's probably can be both things. Definitely. He just wants you to know. It's called Synergy.

I like it. It works both ways. Good stuff, Tom. Anyway, get in a potato chip bag next time. It's unbelievable. Can't you get like something that looks like a, like, a beautiful? His case is too obvious. How about just hand him an envelope or something?

If you hand Tom a big, a large pizza box, no one will think twice about it. But that's what the FBI, that was their, that was their ploy, the cabab bag. And we just wanted to give you some lunch here in this Texas. He was like, it was actually $100,000 by eight half of the fly rock. It was money. I had no idea. I had no idea. All right.

In a moment, we're going to be talking to Amanda Frost. She is a professor of immigration, citizenship law at the University of Virginia, author of You Are Not American Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers. But first, a couple of words from our sponsor. One is Cozy Earth, and Cozy Earth products bring ultimate comfort that shows up day in, day out. Cozy Earth nailed comfort with their bamersy Earth. bamboo joggers and they're everywhere pant next level i wore my uh cozy earth hoodie in uh to work today same material as the jogger i have the jogger as well uh they are incredibly soft but also

structured does that make sense yes does that make honestly because it's a little thing i like i can't really figure out like what it is i like about them but they're very soft but they feel like they're not like well you need a little structure if you're wearing it outside the house you can't just have exactly but even the sweatshirt even the hoodie is more structured but it's also very soft the thing i love about the hoodie and the joggers the exact same way it keeps you warm but it feels cool does that make sense yes all right uh that's why they're your softest all season staple wardrobe, whether you're staying in or stepping out.

They also have something called the everywhere pant, which is basically you can wear the pant in any type of situation. It's comfortable, but it also looks sort of structured. I'm onto something here. Does that make sense? Yes, the concept of athleisure. Yeah. Okay, well, we didn't have that when I was a kid. Yeah, got it. The epitome of refined comfort and adaptability. Your new go-to pant effortlessly

blends breathability and flexibility allowing to embrace movement on the go and you know the sheets they don't have that in this thing but the sheets are also the exact same way they keep you warm but you feel cool agreed i have the duvet i'm excited about it when i talk about it so i understand i want to thank cozy earth for sponsoring this episode go to cozy earth dot com and use my code majority report for up to 40% off the best pants joggers shirts everything and if you get a post purchase survey telling me you heard about cozy earth right here built for real life made to keep up with yours cozy earth also uh oh yeah this is big in my life right now too uh fall is here um i always try and start off fall by like um making uh meals for saul because he's back to school

that type of thing and that lasts like five minutes because I'm like I can't go to the supermarket blah blah hello fresh is a huge boon to my ability to make uh I also work in factor which I think is from the same company but um but hello fresh uh is uh one of those services that send seasonal ingredients right to your door and this season they've taken things to the next level with their biggest menu refresh yet say hello to a whole new way to dinner want to thank hello fresh for supporting the majority report and making it possible uh for me to cook a home cooked meal uh but making it much much easier and the best thing about well right now you get 10 free meals plus a free item for life at hellofresh dot com slash majority number one zero fm that's

majority 10 fm the best thing that I like about this well there's two things one is the meals take very little time to what you can find they have a huge menu but you can find meals that will take like 15 minutes 20 minutes tops

super easy you don't have to like you know I have gone to you know knife cutting school to to prepare these meals but the other thing I really like is they have they have like you know

straightforward stuff but they have a lot of stuff that is like more interesting uh that i can get salt to eat like this um like uh it's a beef bowl like a beef bowl on rice uh with saracha and sesame um and then i made some uh some uh pork tacos and so the meals are interesting and he eats them then also like the straightforward like they had a cake cassidia uh but hello fresh is double in its menu. You can choose now from 100 options each week, including new seasonal dishes and recipes from around the world. There you go. Dig

into bigger portions, keeping everybody satisfied. That's the other thing that's great about this. The waste is minimal. So you don't have to go and figure out, like I don't have to buy more cilantro than I need. Feel great with an even healthier menu filled with high protein

and veggie-packed recipes. Hello Fresh now helps you eat greener with veggie-packed recipes. that have two or more veggies. Get steak and seafood recipes delivered every week for no extra cost. There's three times more seafood on the menu now at no extra cost. Discover new seasonal produce each week from snap peas to stone fruit to corn on the cob and more. The best way to cook just got better. Go to hellofresh.com slash majority 10 FM, all one word.

Now to get 10 free meals and a free item for life. One per box with active subscription, free meal. applied as discount on the first box new subscribers only varies by plan that's hellofresh dot com slash majority 10 fm to get 10 free meals and a free item for life check the uh podcast and youtube description and we'll give you the links and the codes there as well quick break amanda frost professor of immigration and citizenship law at the university of virginia author of you are not american citizenship stretching from dread scott to the dreamers we'll be right back We're going to be able to be.

Thank you, Choochee, Choochee, Choochee, Choochooch, Choochoo. We are back, Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland, on the majority report. I want to welcome back to the program. It was 2012. It was during the ACA decision, or I should say, oral arguments maybe. Amanda Frost, professor of immigration and citizenship law at the University of Virginia, and author of You Are Not American Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers. Professor, welcome back to the program.

I thank you for having me. So before we get into the specifics, because sort of this more or less historical sort of, I guess, a trip through the various ways in which citizenship was redefined or undefined, et cetera like what over the course of the 200 and some odd years that we're covering here what is the overarching theme is it the malleability of citizenship or or how citizenship or expatriation is weaponized i think all of those things overarching theme is that the fight is never over, that there's always been this push pull back forth between people who wanted to find America with an exclusionary definition that usually limits people based on

lineage and ancestry and others who say, no, that's antithetical to the values on which our nation was founded. And this book runs through that history, and it is a long and troubling history of denying citizenship to groups and individuals, often on the basis of race, but also in the basis of ideology and gender. U.S. citizen women, native-born women who married non-citizens, lost their citizenship for a 20-year period. So it is all of those things. And as we see today, the contest is never completely over. We're never fully done with our debates over who is an American. Is it, I guess maybe you maybe you just answered that question. But is it a coincidence that it's never been, there's never been a systemic denial of citizenship to white,

men? Well, so what's really interesting to me about citizenship is all of the different facets of citizenship. So citizenship is a set of, we think of it today, is very much about political rights. All citizens can vote who are over 18, separate felons in some states, serve on juries, serve in federal and state office. But citizenship is more than just those legal rights. Of course, also, I should add, the very important legal right to enter and remain in the United States more important today than ever. But citizenship is also about a sense of belonging. And I will say that all white men have not always had political rights. In fact, you had to have property to be able to vote. And some non-citizens who are wealthy and property could vote when U.S. native-born men

who were considered citizens couldn't because they didn't own property. But I will say that I think white men were always accepted as rightly belonging in the United States. And Chief Justice Tani, of course, said that in Dread Scott. And that's the backdrop, the background, to our birthright citizenship principle, a reaction against Red Scott to say everyone born here as a citizen, whatever the color of their skin, religion, or the immigration status of their parents. When you say born here, I mean, it's also, I would imagine, intrinsically linked with immigration. And when there were those periods of contraction, when there were quotas, I mean, who got to come here in the 20th century to, expressly racialize. But immigration, how is it connected to immigration in the United States in like the 20th century and 21st century? Yeah. So the book that we began by speaking about,

which I published a couple of years ago, and you are not American about citizenship stripping, and it's now current again, I'm sad to say. So that book gives the history of citizenship stripping. But I'm writing a book about something that I think is worth celebrating, which is the history of birthright citizenship added to our Constitution in 1868. And so that book is forthcoming. And the last third of that book will address the fact that just as you said, Emma, the birthright citizenship guarantee that said if you're born in the U.S., you're a citizen, then brought with it all of these fights over immigration.

Because, of course, in order for someone to be born a citizen, they have to have a parent, a mother, actually, physically present in the U.S. when they're born, right, for that birthright citizenship principle to apply. So you're absolutely right. Our debates over citizenship start with our debates over immigration. Who should be allowed to become an American? And I should add, of course, that you can also naturalize. So people who are born outside the U.S., non-citizens can come to the U.S. and become citizens through a naturalization process. The U.S. has generally been, well, making it difficult to come to the U.S. if you're here and legal, you can get citizenship more easily than in many countries. And that's another way in which immigrants have powered our economy and our society in a very beneficial way for the United States.

I wanted to get to this later, but I'll ask you now and then maybe we can go back and go through some of like the Dred Scott and through reconstruction and suffragetts. But how durable is naturalization? Like, I mean, I think like up until maybe a couple of months ago, my sense was, if you're a naturalized citizen, you're in. It's locked in. That's like you can't, you can't reverse that. But it sounds like the Trump administration feels like you can reverse that. So just walk us through from a legal perspective, like how durable is naturalization? Yeah, and that was the impetus for the book.

you are not American, published now in the midst of Trump One, because I was watching the Trump administration declare that naturalized citizen status was at risk. And that was as shocking to me as it seems like it was to you. And I'm a professor of citizenship and immigration law. So I researched the history. That's what this book does in part. And it turns out we did have a history in the United States in the first half of the 20th century of taking away citizenship from naturalized citizens because of their political views. It was part of the Cold War era because of their race. There were people who were naturalized who were Arabic or who were South Asian.

And the U.S. Supreme Court and the executive branch said, wait, you weren't supposed to become a citizen. We weren't supposed to allow you to naturalize. We had racial limitations on naturalization in this country until the 1950s. So people lost their citizenship based on race, based on ideology. Women lost their citizenship, whether naturalized or born. U.S. citizens if they married a non-citizen. So that was the first half of the 20th century. But then the Supreme Court did away with that in 1967. It said we should almost never denaturalize people only for some kind of fraud or error in the naturalization process.

No other reason is good enough. You can choose to leave the nation and leave your citizenship, but the government can't take it away from you. And then that brought us to the first Trump administration where they very explicitly said, this isn't like my spin on it. This is what they said in memos, Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, among others, we're going to use denaturalization as a tool of immigration enforcement. And we're going to go after people, even if there's inadvertent error as some were. And they tried to denaturalize people on a grand scale, a broad scale. They did start a number of investigations, but they failed to do it in any broad mass systematic way, in part because courts have to be involved, and that slows everyone down. But they're

ramping up again. And of course, this is, again, part of the immigration crackdown is not just to send away immigrants, undocumented immigrants or legal immigrants, but also to take away citizenship and deport people. It's interesting that you mentioned that period, too, just because there was that piece in Rolling Stone about Stephen Miller and Trump had asked the question, who's my Roy Cohn, right? Miller, one, has a, for you say Jeff Sessions, he was a staffer under Sessions. Two, he has an obsession with the Immigration Act of 1924 and wants to return to the period of racial quotas, which was in part used to justify turning away boats of Jews fleeing the Holocaust during that time period. And that has been kind of with him acting like the president, basically being

the shadow president. That's been their policy goal is to return to that period that you're talking about there. Yeah. And the 1924 Immigration Act, as you just correctly said, was very much about racial quotas. That's what the enactors of that law said as they enacted it. I in this country in these cyclical ways and it's

often based on race but not entirely American Irish immigrants came to the U.S. in the middle of the 19th century. They were vilified. They were racialized as the other. Italian immigrants were the same. Then of course, we've moved on today to other groups, groups from, you know, South America,

groups from Asia. But it's just worth noting this has been something historically we've done, and we've had cyclical waves of xenophobia followed by embracing immigrants. Yes, this is part of Stephen Miller's plan. The fact that he's opposed to all immigration except white, South Africaners, I think tells you everything you need to know about him. And I will just add finally that I do think we need to take a hard look at immigration policy. I'm not a fan of open borders. I think we need to have limits. The question is what kind of limits, and that is really a question about what kind of nation we are. And the final point there, I'll say, is immigrants power our economy and our nation, and that has never been so obvious as now. And I predict in a

couple of decades, we're going to be competing with other nations for immigrants. And if we could be losing that race right now, Canada, for example, is building on our immigration system to try to entice people who've been approved for visas here, H-1B visas in the U.S., to come. to Canada, and many are taking that offer. Oh, I think, I mean, the number of foreign students is down. The, I think we're going to be desperate. In the event that we're in a position to articulate it as a country, we're going to be desperate for immigration, I think a lot sooner than a decade or two.

But there's two things I want to get to what you mean by open borders. But before we get there, are, is there anything? that the Trump administration is doing in terms of immigration that is novel relative to what they attempted during their first administration. Because, you know, I think there is a general sense like, oh, they're going much further this time. But is that the case? Or are they just more competent and have planned this out with their time off? Like, the idea that they were denaturalization during the first round of Trump administration, I think has been lost. And now we just see them doing it in a more methodical way.

Is that what's happening or is there something that's novel? I wouldn't call it more competent. I might say more brazen. Look, the goal, and it was clear from the beginning, I was listening to Stephen Miller speak publicly before the election and in the run-up to the taking office. And basically the goal is get the courts out of it or have the courts be yes-men to the degree possible

because what slows down this administration in Trump won in deporting non-citizens. And by the way, it wasn't successful. It didn't deport that many people in Trump One or stop people from coming across the border. And what they said the problem was was courts and due process, the requirement that people have in hearing and opportunity to be heard before they can be removed. So that's their goal to get rid of that. And are they more competent? I wouldn't say they're more competent.

They're losing in court. But they are going to lower courts cannot hold the line for that long. And Congress is not speaking up. So to the degree that they are attempting to deport people without due process, for example, by claiming we're being invaded. by Venezuela under the Alien Enemies Act. Not true. We're not under invasion. But to the degree they're making those kinds of claims, you know, eventually they will prevail in getting people removed from the United States because lower courts, district court

judges cannot hold the line for years. I ask you how, I guess, durable, naturalized citizen. How durable is non-naturalized citizenship? Like, I mean, you know, yours are mine. I mean, I was born here. My parents were, you know, American citizens. But is there a world in which they get to say, you know what, you've lost your citizenship? Yeah.

Rosie O'Donnell has some experience of this since Trump threatened to take away her citizenship. And she's a birthright citizen. So I'll say, first of all, that for those naturalized citizens who are listening, the Trump administration has tried to denaturalize people and investigate, but has yet to succeed. So I don't want people to live in fear. As for birthright citizens, that would be yet another, you know, bridge even farther. I think it's not beyond this president to want to, for example, deport what he called

homegrowns, by which he meant Native U.S. citizen committed crimes or sentenced for crimes and he said he'd deport them. I think there's a risk. and I think this is a slippery slope. And, of course, the birthright citizenship executive order purporting to limit who could be claiming a birthright citizenship is another example of how being born in the U.S. does not guarantee you safety. I'll be clear. I don't think we're there yet.

I'm not living in fear as a native-born U.S. citizen. But I've got my eye on this because I think that's the goal, destabilize everyone's status. Let's also just touch upon what limitations, you know, when we say open borders, and you say you're not for open borders. Yeah. What does open borders mean in that context? And what, what limitations do you think should exist on immigration and why? And then I do want to cover a couple of these. I was going to say in 30 seconds. Yeah. I'll just say no one, that certainly no political, no president, Democrat or Republican is for open borders or ever has been in any recent history. But when we say open borders, do we just mean no borders? Yeah. Or what I mean like what is? What is? what constitutes open borders? Do European countries have open borders with each other?

You know, the most extreme version of open borders is what we have between our states, right? Between the state of, you know, Virginia and its neighbors between, you know, European countries, although I don't think they're as open as they used to be or we're trying to be when they form the European Union. You know, I don't show a passport when I cross state lines as an American. living in the United States. That's what the most extreme version of open borders is. It works great, by the way, in the United States, between our states. But no, I don't think we should have that as a policy, and nor has it been the policy of any president, Democrat, or Republican. And I just use that, I make that point to say, having limits on immigration

makes sense. And there's something we should discuss as a nation. That's not the same as taking away citizenship or deporting people who are here legally or who have a right at least to be heard before they're reported. And so those are the distinctions I'm drawing. You asked about what our immigration policy should be. That is a tough question. And I wish Congress would grapple with it. That's where that's the body that should be considering this. Without a doubt, I'm just curious in the sense of like when we talk about there should be limitations on immigration. I mean, I think one of the problems that we have right now is that there has been. very little articulated about what an immigration policy would look like that is immigrant positive, if you will, which ostensibly a significant portion of the country, if not the majority, frankly, hold.

But we don't see that being articulated by, as far as I can tell, you know, the Democratic. party the opposition party here um there's just there is more of a well the you know the the republicans are extreme but there's no positive so i'm just curious when you say limitation like what does that look like yeah so there's a couple different changes that if you know i were immigrations are a member of congress who could start this conversation i would say we should do one is we have got to expand the number of visas available for those who want to work and to have skills to work in the United States. Our number was set in 1990 at 140,000 employment visas. 1990 was before the Internet, and our country, of course, has grown enormously since then, and our

economy has changed. That is just an unrealistic number. We need more unskilled workers. Over half the people who harvest our crops are undocumented immigrants. We would starve without them. Our food prices would rise without them. We need more legal ways for those people to come. So that's where the conversation should start. We should have more employment-based visas. And I'll add, I'm really frustrated by the hypocrisy because the same people who oppose immigration, who refuse to allow expansion of these numbers, and the same politicians who do this, also live in states with enormous numbers of undocumented immigrants being employed by Americans. Five percent of the working population in Texas is undocumented. They're employed by U.S. citizens in Texas who are violating

immigration laws, but those U.S. citizens never face the consequences. So they both bemoan undocumented immigration and benefit economically from undocumented immigrants. We should legalize those immigrants by providing work visas and letting them come legally. And the flip side is I think we need to fix our asylum system. We needed to move people through much faster, allow them in or not. Right now, asylum had become, or under Biden, a way for people to come and work. They were needed. They were benefiting our economy, but that's not the way to do it.

Well, you mentioned the business owners, too, and the exploitative labor piece of this. And I think that doesn't get discussed enough how, someone's status with immigration can be used by a boss as leverage against that worker. And in part, the lack of progress that we're talking about in Congress, I would argue, is because of that. Because this is like a sub-labors, you know, this is the folks that are most susceptible to wage theft. And you can have a boss say, you want to speak up a little bit about unsafe work conditions? Well, we can deport you. So my question then is, is do visas solve that problem or would citizenship and more blanket amnesty solve that problem?

Like, say, if you're going to work for, if American companies want to hire people, well, you know, they can't or put some protections in place so that that can't happen, for example. Yeah, I think that protections in place so that doesn't happen. What you just described, there's lots of empirical evidence. That is what happens. That is employers look the other way, hire undocumented immigrants, knowing they're undocumented. And then the minute the undocumented immigrant complains about dangerous workplace conditions or low, below minimum wage salary, then suddenly they report them to the immigration officials. So one way to stop that is to say, look, if an employee has been abused by an employer, then we're not going to, one, let the employer off the hook. They're going to have to pay the fines or suffer the costs.

In some cases, going to jail for the heads of companies that know this is happening. So that's a disincentive to violate immigration law that were ever enforced. And then secondly, to give workers that speak up about unsafe work conditions, protection from being deported if they're actually trying to protect the workplace. And I should add that when undocumented workers face unsafe work conditions, that means the U.S. citizens working alongside them do too. And so if you don't have any sympathy for the immigrant, I hope you do. But if you don't, then have sympathy for the U.S. citizen worker who faces similar dangers in that workplace.

there's no perfect solution there's no easy solution i certainly don't have an easy solution but we're not even trying to get to these solutions certainly not in congress and that's what's frustrating i mean i i guess the last big push was um during i mean i'm you know presumably i think you know biden offered something that never got taken up um and ended up frankly both uh the the supposedly sweetener in there ended up being the only thing that sort of, I think, survived that process, which is more often than not the case, that being, you know, mass deportations or, you know, assaults on or trying to keep people out. And I don't know if the Democrats will have learned. It has the same thing happened under Obama, that that strategy doesn't

seem to work um as a political matter uh but let's go look at there's a couple of of of um stories in the context of your book that i found uh really um surprised i was surprised about i did not know and um that uh that at one point women could be denaturalized if they married a foreign person like their own citizenship could be put in jeopardy. You write about Sylvia Pinkhurst and Ethel Coop McKenzie. Yeah. Tell us that and explain to us what that illustrates about our citizenship question. Yeah, Ethel McKenzie is such an amazing story.

And one I was shocked to learn as well. She was fighting for the right of women to vote in California before women got the right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. And that fight was intense in California. Women won the right to vote in California by a slim margin through efforts of women like her who fought so hard to get men. Men had to vote for it, to vote for it in California. And then she goes to cast her vote in the first election in which she's permitted

to as a woman in California. And she's barred from voting because she married a non-citizen. She married a Scottish tenor. They were this socially adored couple. They commanded the society pages of the San Francisco newspaper. She was a wealthy heiress, and she used the political power that she got from that media attention to make this an issue and said, of course, I should be allowed to vote. I'm a citizen. I shouldn't be allowed to lose my citizenship.

There's a federal law that said I lose my citizenship by marrying a non-citizen, but that violates my rights under the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provision. And she took that case to the Supreme Court in 19, I think it was 15, and she lost 9-0. the court kind of chided her and said, well, if you married a non-citizen, that's the consequence. Same thing happened in Congress when you tried to change it in Congress. Women fought for this. But then, lo and behold, women got the right to vote in our Constitution in 1920, and suddenly Congress is changing its tune. That law got repealed, although not immediately, and it excluded certain racial groups

like women who married Asian men who were barred from naturalizing non-citizen Asian men. So the history of that really is the history of our nation's fight over citizenship and who belongs. It's fascinating. It really is. I had no knowledge of that whatsoever. Let's also, I guess, I mean, maybe let's just start with Dred Scott, too, just to remind people what this dynamic was. And, of course, you know, everything that we saw in the reconstruction amendments were designed

to sort of address Dred Scott to the extent that the politics would allow at that time, I guess. But just remind us of Dred Scott. Yes, and I say in addition to it being an important part of the book, You Are Not American, it's also the topic of my future book on birthright citizenship. So I'm steeped in Dred Scott. Dred and Harriet Scott were an enslaved couple. They had two young daughters, and they very much feared the family being sold apart. and separated, which is why they filed a lawsuit. They claimed to be free, as in fact the law

supported that claim because they've been brought into free territory by their enslaver. And they also had to, in order to get into court, assert that they were U.S. citizens. And that had been a deeply contested question. Who was a citizen? There's no definition in the U.S. Constitution before we added birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment in 1868. So they brought their case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled against them on every front, said you're not free. And also, you're not citizens. And then they said, no black person, slave or free, could ever be a citizen. And then the court went further. Well, Chief Justice Tani, writing for the court, said, anyone who's of an inferior or subordinate class can't be a citizen. And I think that's been overlooked for too long. Who would be inferior and subordinate for him? We've seen in his jurisprudence and others thought this way, anyone of any other race other than white, anyone who wasn't Christian should not be an American. in the view of people like Chief Justice Tani. And then, of course, we had the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments, the first sentence

of the 14th Amendment, rectified, overruled Dred Scott, rectified this error and said, all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, our citizens. And it's clear from the debates in the Reconstruction Congress. It was intended to overrule Dred Scott. It was intended to give citizenship to the newly freed slaves. And it was intended to integrate the children of immigrants. into the United States. Chinese immigrants have been arriving on the West Coast in large numbers

in the 40s and 50s. They were a group that was being vilified at the time, and the Reconstruction Congress there were debates. Do we need to include the children of Chinese immigrants and those like them? And the answer was, yes, we did. Clearly stated out loud. So if you're an originalist, you should be comfortable with the idea that the birthright citizenship provision of the Constitution applies far beyond Dred Scott. And overruling Dred Scott, as it held for that slaves were not citizens. And I add that because the current position of the current administration, the Trump administration in court, is that the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause applies only to give citizenship to the freed slaves and no one else.

This is an odd, maybe a little off topic, but how does two slaves or would-be freed slaves bring a case at that time to the Supreme Court. Was this like, I mean, were there abolitionists who were, you know, had found essentially the Dred Scott and said, you know, like, we're going to, we're going to essentially marshal your case through the courts, or how did that work? Yeah. I love that question because I am fascinated by the family, the Scott family. And while, of course, we don't have quite, you know, we don't have as many records.

of them, as any historian would like. I'll say we know enough to know they were the agents of their own story. They pursued this case, particularly Harriet Scott. She was the one who was more valuable to the family that enslaved her, and she was afraid for the children, their daughters, who could easily be sold away from them. So they instigated this lawsuit. Now, they had to find a white establishment lawyer to bring the case, right? No, they couldn't, they themselves were not literate and not lawyers, obviously. So they did find someone to bring this case on their behalf. But they were, one, working to pay the fees. They didn't just get the help of pro bono lawyers. They actually paid for their lawsuit, at least in part themselves. They found allies

who supported them along the way. And they knew their rights. It was actually very clear when they started the lawsuit that because they'd been brought into free territory by their enslaver, they were free. And slaves did learn about their legal rights and did pursue them in courts. And in this interesting legalistic culture, we had this evil thing of slavery, and yet there were lawyers and judges who would enforce the rules even in slave states. And they would declare that slaves were free. About 40% of the slaves who filed lawsuits were eventually prevailed in the Missouri courts. And Missouri was a slave state. So they began this lawsuit very intentionally to protect their family, and they fought it for 11 years. And while they lost in

the Supreme Court, I want to add the postscript that they eventually, prevailed in the sense that the press and the outrage was so strong that they were then freed and their family lived in freedom for the last few years of Dred Scott's life in St. Louis. Oh, that's fascinating. I mean, that's the

to just bring a case that will go that far in general rather challenging, never mind being sort of like intentionally kept illiterate for that. Let's go So let's jump forward to the Operation Wetback.

There's just a couple of, I think, things that, you know, people aren't quite familiar with. And then maybe one other topic. But tell us about Operation Wetback. Yeah. In addition to these other examples of citizenship stripping from Dred Scott to Ethel McKenzie, the suffragist who lost her citizenship for marrying a non-citizen, and that was one interlead. We then saw in the 1930s and then again in the 1950s mass,

they called them repatriations of Mexican families. But I'm putting the word repatriation in scare quotes because many of the people that were sent to Mexico from the United States had never actually lived in Mexico. So they weren't being repatriated anywhere. They were being relocated. The 1930s, it was, of course, a reaction to the Great Depression. the idea was they're taking our jobs.

They being Mexican immigrants and their children and grandchildren. Of course, the view of some of these people were, you know, the border moved. We didn't move. And also they'd come legally and been embraced initially. So this was extraordinarily coercive at times, violent at times, where families in the midst of this Great Depression were pushed out of the United States. And then it happened again in the 1950s. That's Operation Wetback, as the slur used to describe it by the government in these mass roundups. They would gather people in parks and load them onto buses and put them in camps and then deport them.

There were many people, U.S. born, who were included mistakenly, some of them as children of parents who were being deported, some mistakenly included. There wasn't really any kind of due process. This is not an example we want to repeat. heat, of course, today, although President Trump has said at times that he thought this was a good move that President Eisenhower made. So that's the story I tell. I tell the story of two people that actually made their way back into the U.S., both borns who were wrongly deported and made their way back, which was difficult to do, and then made lives in the United States and then testified about their experience before the California State Senate. I mean, it definitely feels like we're reliving that. You know, there are reports that a dozen

of people have been basically disappeared out of alligator alcatraz and we we know this is ongoing um all right lastly i'm i'm curious about um uh fritz julius coon and the the german american bund because um we're also seeing the use of like this construct of the enemy within as a fig leaf to try and depose people. We had, you know, Secretary of State basically saying, like, if you criticize our policy towards Israel or really for any other reason, we can deport you, but just recount for us that era. Yeah, so that era was fascinating because, again, this reason I wrote the book is that

stories of the individuals involved are fascinating. and they give a bigger picture of what was going on in the United States. So Fritz Julius Kuhn was known as the American juror. He led the German-American Bund, which was not always an initially pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler, but was under Kuhn's leadership. And I pair his story with that of an incarcerated Japanese-American, born in the U.S., a U.S. citizen, but a Japanese descent man who was incarcerated in one of those, they called them at the time concentration camps that the U.S. set up for Japanese immigrants

and U.S. citizens of Japanese descent. And then he voluntarily left the U.S. at the end of the war. He was done with the nation that had decided to incarcerate him and not treat him as a loyal American. So I pair of those two stories. And Kuhn is interesting because he led the German-American Bund. He was virulently anti-Semitic, virulently pro-Hitler. He held a rally in Madison Square Garden, attended by tens of thousands of people. There were plenty of people who supported him. But of course, we went to war with Germany. And so he was a naturalized U.S. citizen. He'd lied about his history. He'd committed crimes in Germany. He lied about. And he was uncomfortable person for the U.S. government to have around. So they held a trial. He lost his citizenship. He was deported to Germany. But after a trial,

unlike the, you know, everyone, all the Japanese Americans and Japanese immigrants in concentration camps at the time. And interestingly enough, he begged to get his U.S. citizenship back. While he was in the U.S., he said, I'm a German, and Germans are German, no matter what citizenship they have, and that's my first allegiance. But he regretted taking that position and tried to come back to the U.S. unsuccessful. They're cowards all back then, too. Yeah, his take on it was I'm pro-Hittler and I'm German to the core until wait, Germany lost the war. I'm American. Some things never change. But even in that context, we were far harsher based upon racial lines as opposed to the, I don't know, some other assessment of how much of an enemy, theoretically, these people were relative to, like, you know, their nationality.

Yeah, so, I mean, the story of this book is this story of citizenship stripping, and 90% of the stories, the citizenship stripping is based on race. There is some ideological examples. Emma Goldman, who was an anarchist, lost her citizenship. She was white. We saw some labor leaders who were white in the Cold War era, lose their citizenship for their speech. So that certainly happened and something to always keep an eye on because that's also antithetical to our values. But Kuhn's a good example. He lost his citizenship, but he did so after a full hearing before a federal judge. He didn't get this treatment that the Japanese Americans on mascot as we just assume you're disloyal because of your blood was what the government said and incarcerated them. So I paired this two groups differently, and I think rightly so, you know, the treatment that Julius Kuhn got was correct. He needed a trial before he could be deported.

But I also think he was both supporting Hitler and had lied about his past and had committed crimes that justified his denaturalization after a full hearing to establish that before court. Lastly, when you say antithetical to our values, yeah. how how do we know you know I mean I like because I think this is a an important

thing for I think people to engage with at this point because so much of the what what five years ago or 10 years ago or 15 years ago was supposedly understood

we could say this is antithetical to our American values and that, you know, that would suffice. But we're in an era where I think those underlying values are in dispute. So what is, I mean, I suspect you and I agree, but I'm curious as like, what are the basis of those values? Yeah. So, so first of all, I hear you that I think we're currently in a period of contestant what our values are. But I feel very confident in the rock salad foundations of the values that I'm citing. So they come from the Declaration of Independence. They come from the language of the Constitution as amended by the

Reconstruction Amendments, which brought it in line with the Declaration of Independence. And here's those values that I see. First of all, of course, we have the First Amendment, which claims freedom of speech where the government can't penalize speech. So to the degree that people are being deported, losing citizenship based on speech, that's antithetical to that First Amendment in our Constitution as initially enshrined there, a value we've cared about throughout our nation's history. Second, of course, the very idea of declaring independence from Great Britain, from claiming we are our own country, that we, the people, lead. The government is chosen by the people with the consent of the people. We do not pick people based on their hereditary status,

and we are all equal. All men are created equal. And, of course, our Constitution prohibits things like titles of nobility or penalties based on corruption of blood. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. These are all enshrined in our Constitution. As a constitutional lawyer and law professor, I teach these, I litigate about these. These are not contested that those are the founding values. And to say to somebody, well, you're not a citizen because your parent did something that we think was illegal or your grandparent or your great-grandparent, or we're going to remove you from the U.S. because your speech criticizes our government. That That is, I think, very clearly antithetical to those founding values.

And, yeah, we're fighting about them now, but I hope we'll get back there. And I rest on my view that those are the founding values of our nation, and we have to keep fighting for them. Amanda Frost, Professor of Immigration and Citizenship Law at the University of Virginia, author of You Are Not American Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to Dreamers. And the forthcoming book on naturalized citizen or denaturalized, I guess. Yes, it's in flux, perhaps. Thanks so much for your time today. Really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, folks. That is the end of our free half of our program today. And we will move into the fun half, although someone suggested the, what was it, on Friday, the done half because we're cooked. It's a little fatalist. Yeah, and I'm not ready for that. So we'll still continue with the fun half And in the fun half, we're going to examine

The political leadership at this time That represents the opposition party Also, we might get into the big wrestling event That happened in Arizona Oh, you mean actually, sorry, it was a funeral Yeah, okay, I mean the, where is the Are we still talking about that? I don't have my

It was yes I have to say Donald Trump's performance And I do mean performance Was fantastic He really Really can dance Oh yeah

We will talk about that The Spectacle The In Arizona Will also I got We got a lot of stories

Oh Trump wants to I mentioned this on Friday But it seems to be getting, like, they're pretty serious about going in and, and reoccupying Afghanistan. Oh, the anti-warer ticket. We left a bunch of beautiful tanks. Too many tanks. I dropped a contact lens in Bagram and really wanted to get there. You know, we just don't have enough tanks in America.

So we have to recycle them. Somebody told me there was a P-Tape flying, buried in Bagram. So we're going to retake that base. We will maybe show a couple of hits from the T-PUSA event in Arizona. I mean, we've got a lot of stuff. I don't know what to tell you. And we're only six days away now,

eight days away from a government shutdown. And be rest assured, Chuck Schumer, desperate to avoid a government shutdown, willing to do anything. We will talk about that and more. Just a reminder, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can help this show survive and thrive by becoming a member at join the majority report.com. When you do, you not only get the free show, but you also get the fun half and get the free show free of commercials. I want to thank our members. It is very helpful and comforting at a time like this where, you know, you get a little,

there's a little bit of anxiety associated with doing this. TikTok was just bought up by a bunch of pro-Trump oligarchs. Like, we don't know what the future is, I think, for online media. They're already purging a lot of pro-Palestinians. anti-genocide voices from from tick talk and not to mention like the you know the uh there's a lot of talk out there about uh you know lunatics uh who are interested in you know trying to silence various people in various ways so it is uh with much appreciation that um uh we have for for our members who make the show possible every

day, you know, our viewers and listeners. I met somebody at a rest stop in Massachusetts. Right. He was a listener to the show. And that was nice. I mean, I wasn't, I was headed to a funeral,

but it was still nice. But much appreciated. Also, just coffee. Dot co-op. Fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code majority. Get 10% off. Matt left

or neckening Yeah Left Reckoning I did a short reading series on Tony Jets review of the Mirschimer

Walt essay on the Israel lobby that came out in the mid-2000s so people What did he say about that?

He basically said that people that were calling dismissing it as anti-Semitic were obscuring an important conversation

on policy in America and it might have bad consequences down the line and lo and behold Who knew? It's crazy.

Also, Devin O'Shea, we're talking about Vineland, a really great Thomas Pynchon novel, which is, which is apparently inspired a new... I'm seeing it in 70mm on the Saturday. Yeah, upcoming movie. What's it called, actually? One battle after another. I hear it's very loose. Yeah, the character names aren't the same, so I'm curious to see how close it follows a plow.

But the Pynchon novel that came out in 1990 and talks about, sort of the right-wing reaction to the 60s and 70s. It couldn't be a better time to come out with a movie based on that book. One of the more accessible pension novels. So that would be tomorrow at 7 o'clock Eastern. Subscribe to us on YouTube. We're like a thousand short of 50,000. So subscribe to us.

Quick break. Fun half. Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same. as it looks like in six months from now and I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now but I think around

18 months out we're going to look back and go like wow what what is that going on it's nuts wait a second hold on for hold on for a second Emma welcome to the program what is up

Everyone, fun, half. No, me, T. You did it. Fun, hack. Let's go Brandon. Let's go Brandon. Fun rap. Bradley, you want to say hello?

Sorry to disappoint. Everyone, I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today. Fundamentally false. No, I'm sorry. Women's... Stop talking for a second. Let me finish.

Where is this coming from, dude? But, dude, you want to smoke this? Seven, eight. Yes. Hi, who's me? Is this name? Yes. Is it me?

Is it me? It is you. It is me? I think it is you. Who is you? No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism. I'm going to go to life. Libertarians. They're so stupid, though. cents says of course gobbledygook we fucking nailed him so what's 79 plus 21 challenge met I'm positively clovery I believe 96 I want to say 857 210 35 501 1 half 3 8 8th 911 1311 1300 1300% 5400 $9,500 6 5 4 3 trillion dollars sold it's a zero-sum game actually you're making think less but let me say this poop

It's satire. On top of it all, my favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like everything you do. Without a doubt. Hey, buddy, we've seen you. All right, folks, folks, folks. It's just the week being weeded out, obviously. Yeah, sun's out guns out. I don't know.

But you should know. People just don't like to entertain ideas anyway. I have a question. Who cares? Our chat is enabled folks. I love it. I do love that. Look, got to jump.

I got to be quick. I get a jump. I'm losing it, bro. 10 o'clock, we're already late, and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulaw? Outrage. Like, what is wrong with you?

Love you. Bye. Love you. Bye-bye.