President Bidens Inauguration and Executive Actions


Short with back and look into politics. Guys place for bipartisan. Rational and civil based on american politics policy. I'm michael baranovsky. I replogle science at northern kentucky university. I'm joined today by my conservative. Counterpart cleveland area attorney jay carson. Good morning mike. hey jay. how're you doing while. I'm feeling like a there was a headline that that read. I can't claim this for myself but It's it's the morning after in america. You go there you go. Yeah i am feeling as if a certain weight has lifted. We will be talking about that. I am. I am sure but before we do get to our nanny topics of discussion for today. We want to thank our newest patriot. Supporters jonathan david andrews surena keenan lee. Jodie marie woody emily matthew patrick and derek as well as joshua maggie sydney an joshu increased their patriots support for us. We really appreciate that as well as some new pay pal supporters edwin and very generous contribution from kelly. Thank you all. We means an awful lot to us. These are incredibly challenging times. Certainly and your support really helps us sort of keep on top of things and and do what we do derek. I wanted to mention wrote in to say. Thank you for all the hard work you put into this show each and every week. It's a breath of fresh air to hear civilized debate in a time of great division each and every podcast makes an hour and a half commute. Go by in snap. That's nice to hear that we are making your commute. A little bit a little bit better and of course if you wanna be a patriot supporter you get not only that second full length episode every week you also get free versions of all of shows as well as other things at different levels of support check it all out just the patriot dot com slash politics guys and if you'd like our weekly bonus show but she can't afford the sports show financially right now totally not a problem. Just send me an email. Mike politics guys dot com. I will make that happen. And of course we also have our pay pal support option and find out more about that. It was not much to find out about. But there is a link politics guys dot com slash support and one thing as always that helped us out enormously and that is absolutely free that we really appreciate is spreading the word by fearing episodes on social media. It only takes a few seconds and it is absolutely the best sort of advertising all right so with that. We'll start this week and about the place. You'd expect us to start with the peaceful transfer of power on wednesday january twentieth. Joe biden became the forty six president of the united states and it was inauguration day unlike any other certainly in in in our memory with the country in a ravaged by the pandemic two weeks after an attempted insurrection on the grounds of the very capital where president biden sworn in and it was also of course. The first inauguration not attended by the outgoing president in one hundred and fifty two years so j. What did you think about Well let's start with the inauguration ceremonies and then you know maybe move into president biden's inaugural address. So you know. I would say this is me speaking as a conservative republican. I think for the most part he he hit all the right tones in in the ceremony. And and truth be told. I didn't watch the whole ceremony. Just because i don't wanna got a day job but No i think it was was generally well. Well done well put together. I think there was a i. Think the nod to the lives lost in from covid Was was appropriate. I think in in some ways. I mean this this allowed Sort of a better easier less spectacular if you will inauguration just because you know the the crowd's going to be limited the security it was going to be limited both because cova concerns and and security concerns so generally i if we're looking at the overall production value of the show. I was was good on the the speech itself. I posted In our discord group. I think Really pretty quickly. After i thought i thought was was very good i think again. He hit all the right notes and he delivery. I think was was good. Also i mean there has been a lingering concern of of joe biden. Still have it and my my sense is that yeah. He delivered on on this speech. I mean you can if you wanna get into particulars or if you wanna give your overall view before we hit particulars. We can do that with your overall. Well i liked it i absolutely. I absolutely liked it. You know. I think the certainly it's a marked contrast to president trump's inaugural address the american carnage address. After which former president george w bush was reported to have said. That was some weird shit. You know pretty normal right. And i think the main theme of this one democracy has prevailed and the main policy themes in there where things that i would have expected. You know first and foremost as you mentioned the focused on the pandemic racial justice climate change and white nationalism. And those were things that i would have expected. President biden a hit and he did and there were many many calls for unity calls to respect the truth. And you know i'm i'm for. I'm for all that stuff. So yeah i. I felt it was a great address. Not the not the white supremacists. What's that yes. I thank you else so to be clear just to be clear on that. Yes so So yeah i don't. I don't think it's going to make any sort of a difference that the idea that we have presidential honeymoons anymore. I think has gone by the wayside certain way but it was the sort of address that i would have expected. And that's exactly what we know. Exactly what we got what i would say one of the reasons i i liked. It actually was maybe one of the reasons that you seem to like it. More my sense was there. There was not a ton of policy stuff in there which i think was appropriate because a look in an inaugural. It's it's not a state of the union right. it's not. Here's this program that program it's it's broader themes and it is more aspirational of of what we can do. As as a people and unity. And i i really think the unity message was particularly important. Now i mean more than ever. This is that to me if you wanna take out all the other actual issues before our country. That's that's the big one right. And i think he hit the right notes that something else that that struck me was the the frequent mentions of god and Prayer at which more so than you've seen in Any pass nargile. That i can. I can remember even going back to say ronald reagan and this struck me. And i think this was would be reassuring a lot of conservatives who who see Sort of the the left as a If if not anti-religious. Than at least sort of scoffing and there was it reassured. A lot of americans that that biden did not view them as someone who's bitterly clinging to their religion. I and i think that's that's that's really important in national healing. I think it's important in a bigger more philosophical way and so on the one house that look it's good politics but i think there's also something to be said of of everything we've been through in the last year and regardless of one's religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs. I there's a lesson in humility. there's only so much anyone can do. There's only a you know there are a lot of big problems that can't be solved by legislation or executive order or prevented by a legislation or executive order and acknowledging some higher power. There's some humility to that right that it's it's some things are out of our hands and we we seek the the ability to do the best. We can Where we are so i. I liked all that part of it. The start afresh again. That was a welcome statement right that it's not about seeking revenge over Now we'll we'll get into this later but you know it troubles me a little bit at one of the first places you wanted to start a fresh. It was at the general counsel's office but That's you know. That's that's that's a different sort of a piece. So but it. But generally i would i give them an a. All right wow one. I'm hardened to hear that. Certainly and again. I have some. I have some issues coming up with what he actually did. Sure after that. And that and that is my mic away from well i think a call for unity does not mean a call to just sort of give in to what the other side's policy preferences are certainly and that's why i think i again i. I think it's it's good that you felt that this was a good address. And you know kind of return this sort of normalcy that that sort of thing but but also i think from a practical standpoint it. It doesn't necessarily have much of an effect and that's that's too bad. President biden said the to look to listen to him to hear him out to to look into his heart or something like that. And i just don't think that unfortunately really happens. There are too many people who are undecided. At this point who are willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt weather that would have been president trump or president. Because that's the america we live in now. And that's that's unfortunate but i would. I would disagree. I think i think there are people out there. Look i'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt but You know look Inauguration speeches are aspirational and they. Are you know to some extent. Soft and fuzzy. It's it's not hard policy stuff So it depends on what happens next as to whether whether we view this speech as hey this was a a really moment of unity or it was just a you know saying the right things. Yeah i i mean i will say something that you know for two to jump ahead a little bit and and this will probably erase all the good points. I just earned with our our liberal listeners. Struck me was as he is speaking about You know god and starting afresh. And all this i and speaking these these really great words of unity and we're not enemies a at that same moment the the letters are being delivered to the place and saying get out of here by two o'clock or you're fired and those like you don't want the nlrb general counsel to be someone who's aggressively anti-labour. How do i get that. I get that but again this is someone who is. This is the first time in in forty seven years. This is ever happened and say what you will about donald trump. But he didn't do that. This is someone who still at ten months to to serve He had been confirmed by the senate but no the image. I sort of played in my head. It's sort of like michael corleone. The baptism right. I mean he's you. Reject satan and all his works then cuts to the so you saying what. President binded was unconstitutional or authority. I see it as authority in in as to the council. I think there's a. I think there's a good question on that i don't. I don't think it exceeded authority as to the Cfp be appointment. I think he does have authority to set is much. Yeah so i so. I think it's a little bit of a different situation. Where you have someone who is a senate confirmation and as has been confirmed for a certain term. I i would agree. Look and i've said this before in the trump administration. I'll say it again. Now that i think president certainly has the right and really the obligation to to put in his own team right. That's if we're gonna have representative democracy. That's that's how it works. And and the executive needs to be able to have his own policy people in these these key places that said where there's where there are limitations than you know than they those respected and again to me. It's maybe the timing is a little bit. you know this. This is the the first day you know you. Literally as he's being sworn in priority that that strikes me as being perhaps inconsistent with hearing everyone out and you know. I you know the the unity that we talked about well again. I think unity and hearing it went out. There's a there's a record of behavior and under under donald trump the nfl r b basically was as eager as it could possibly be to roll over the business and ensure that you know labor relations meant capitulating to the interests of business. And and that's you know that's I would say what the republican party believes. Not because they hate workers but just because they tend to see unions organizing as as a bad thing that hurts almost everyone whereas we on the left see unions organizing an incredibly important force for you know and so and so in that sense. I don't i don't see it. Certainly not a not putting a hit out. Wanted to just saying. Hey you know we're we're going to take care of labor because we believe we believe in that. And we're not gonna have somebody a general counsel nlrb who was anti-labour and if certainly if if he wants to challenge that remove. I don't think he actually is doing so. He hasn't yet. it remains to be seen. It is a it is. It is a gray area whether or not he can be removed. I think at this point nights. There's certainly not a a clear statutory authority to do that sort of thing. Yeah i'd agree on that. But i i'm just saying again. In contrast to the message of in let's let's couplings apart. The nfl are be is is a Sort of semiautonomous organization rain and it has a number of of commissioners who are appointed by various presidents approved by congress over the years. It's it's like the federal reserve right. It's it's semi-autonomous so it's the general counsel doesn't set policy for the for the it's an. He's an employee. So i mean. I think that's that's a distinction worth making and and you know the an rb. Makeup has to do with folks who had been appointed over the years. There was a dust up during the obama administration where He appointed tried to appoint Some extra commissioners While the as he said. The senate wasn't recess. The the problem was the senate was not in recess. So i mean. I'm just saying if i may Conservative out there. And i listen to the speech and say let's start afresh. We're going to have unity and we're gonna work together. We're not enemies And then fifteen minutes later It's you know this guy gets the note saying clear out your desk in an hour and a half or you're fired. Those messages seem to be the one could be. You can understand why some might see some inconsistency in in that message as opposed as opposed to list as opposed to the the more typical message of listen well for one thing. This guy had a term right. This is a term that goes through another ten months. Well and that's let let. Let's be clear on that. This is the gray area here because there is the supreme court precedent. Suggesting a statutory statutorily. I can say the word it's early for me. Fixed-term is is a limit on that person's length of service but not necessarily a limit on the president's authority to remove that person in fact even John roberts back when he was white house counsel or associate counsel sorry said that his in his view that the president had every right to remove the general counsel at the vienna. Larbi because that person serve at the pleasure of the president and so that's that's alive argument. Yeah exactly exactly but i. I hear a lot not too often. I hear what you're saying. Not org arguing. The legal point here. Arguing with the optics. Yeah i hear what you're saying. I think the optics are only gonna matter. I mean this is not this is not a high profile sort of thing right the only people who actually let me mix it all the more telling but go ahead. I'm saying the only people who would even know about this sort of thing are the people who are already pretty. I think so high information people who already have their minds more or less you know made up. I mean let's recall. I mean you said you're you're gonna you're willing to give. Joe biden the benefit of the doubt. But i don't really think that means anything and the reason why because just a couple of months ago you essentially said that joe biden was the road the socialism. I mean more or less and so giving everything has has has raised my concerns. You know again. i'm not. I'm not that may well be the case. So i'm saying give him the benefit of the doubt but can you. Maybe it would help if you could explain to me. What what that means to you in practice by saying giving somebody the benefit of the doubt. I'm not maybe i'm misunderstanding. So i i would say to me that means i am going to start with the assumption That he is intends to act. Not in a purely partisan manner But act For the best interest of the country as he sees it And in doing so. I mean consistent with his speech You can have political adversaries. But they're not necessarily your enemies It is not a matter of denigrating were or destroying your your opponents It's a matter of policy difference and just on this this little. Nrp example. i think you can. You know away that that could have been handled. You could have sent a letter saying listen. I'm the new president. I don't think our views are consistent. I'd ask that know. I'd like to have my own counsel installed. They're here is the the precedent on which would be relying in doing so. I'd appreciate it if you could give two weeks notice So i can start moving forward with us. That's that's a different kind of message than get out within an hour or you're fired. Okay so i mean i think. That's that's what i'm saying. Is i fully route. Respect the president's ability to pick his own people and like. I said. I think that's an important part of democracy but that's not unreasonable. I see what you're saying because it was. It was a sort of a a very quick ultimatum. Saying yeah if you don't if you don't quit today you'll you'll be fired so so sure i. Yeah i just could have been made to say. Hey you know take take a few weeks that sort of thing and it's not like as you pointed out it's the it's the general council. It's not a policy position per se. So yeah i think you're right on that and i'll i'll sort of. I won't say have retract. my. I don't know if i've got being pugnacious but yeah i think you're right on that i think the same same way with the cfp. Right and again i. It's it's just a matter of if we are going to. You know to quote lincoln right that we've moved forward with with malice toward none and charity for all. Well they see that right. do i say that. is it the other way around. That's right but but but to see if things a little bit different. Because i mean there's a pretty clear statutory stetch policy making. I absolutely agree with the the statutory because this is something that that trump fought right. I mean the the issue. Last time was the head of the f. b. b. richard cordray stepped down and trump tried to appoint someone the cfpb said. No we're going to appoint our own person which is if you think about it. Really kind of kind of ludicrous. But not chris. I'm going to push back on that night ludicrous. because it wasn't open question. Given the given how the legislation how the enabling legislation for the cfpb was written and the court actually concluded that there was a there was a defect in in that in that language. And so but saying that. it's ludicrous. i think would be going too far. Let me back then. How about instead of ludicrous. Let me say inconsistent with the principles that i just chunk set forth about the that in in our government you know throughout these various agencies There ought to be some sort of political accountability. Eventually whether that's with you know congress who appoints or dismisses where president who appoints than an agency. You can't just run. its own. Show independent of congress or the presidency Yeah but my point. My point isn't To whether he has the power not to do it. Because i think he absolutely does. But the if you're going to handle at the manor which it's it's being handled in this case the the head of the cfpb. Did you know step aside and said yeah absolutely jogo hadn't and appoint you're on person. You know one other thing. I wanted to mention something that didn't happen. There was a lot of word that or concern that there would be these big protested state capitals which were seen as much softer targets in a way not protected by massive show of force at the nation's capital and yet that fizzle about as badly as any of those things. There are some instances where i think in in sacramento and albany. There was like one guy who was there with zayn. And and i'm wondering i mean it was. It was sort of a happily. You know you could be happy at how pitiful that was but it also some people might say well. What does that mean about. White nationalist extremism is it. You know is it as big of a deal. Do we need to worry about this. Sort of domestic terrorism. And i wanted to get your take on that because of course you know our our state capitol here. Columbus was one of those places that there was thought to be the threat of some sort of real action and like in pretty much everywhere else. It just didn't happen. Gutty america that goofball show. So i mean look this is kinda where i've i've always been on this this whole big You know outright white supremacy question is there just. Aren't that many of them out there. And i really think am i. This goes back way. Way back when you and i went to protest the clan in washington and this was twenty five years ago now Thirty years ago now god. It's not even think about how many years ago but there was the idea. The clan is watching. Mike and i were both students living in washington at the time and it. We're going to go down there and tell these guys they weren't welcome and also part of it was we were young and we're just there for the spectacle and it all turns out. I mean there were there were. I don't know thousands tens of thousands of protesters anti pro anti klan protesters and maybe about a half dozen clansman actually showed up. We never actually saw any actual clansman same thing has happened in other. Those kind of marches protests and there were some in columbus Back when i work there and the typical result was you got just literally a handful of of these folks who are going out and showed up charlottesville which was the big unite. The rights Big big piece of this if you if you go back and look at the actual numbers they when when you look at big mass movements in mass marches they. Aren't that big. I mean it's not to say this is insignificant. Right if you have you know a thousand people who are who are angry. Violent white supremacists. That's that's one thousand too many in any given place but but it's not. It's not for example. The you know the the films that you see from like the nineteen twenty s of the clan marching washington of tens of thousands of these folks. The same goes for the the the insurrection of two weeks ago. there were certainly people among that crowd and among the people smashing into the capital who were white supremacists. There were also a whole bunch. Were crazy queuing nonbelievers. They were there are a bunch of i think folks who are just just not there were some who are angry over over any any number of issues and the left has this this instinct to paint everything and and as a white supremacy play. This is racism and for. I don't know for a number of reasons. one is that it sells politically. But i don't think that's the case. And i think sometimes Particularly as we're looking at at the trump Trump voters that's That that's been a weakness right it sort of the hillary deplorable sort of thing. If you just write off all these people is just crazy. White supremacists I think you're really missing something. And i think the actual number of rural white supremacists out. There are fairly few and far between again. That's not to say that that number is zero or that. It's it's acceptable in in any way shape or form. But i i. Don't you know there was such this idea of this is a white takeover push kind of thing and i just don't think that that jibes with the facts. Well i hear what you're saying. And i think it is important not to lump everyone under one label but i also think that as you point out some of the people who are the most extreme and the most dangerous even if there are a handful of them. That's a handful too many saw. What happened in michigan before this. And and you know the capital there and the plot to the the plot to kidnap and do harm to the missions michigan's governor and this and so you know even of course in the trump administration's own Homeland security department said that white extremism white. Nationalism is the greatest domestic threat to the homeland. And it's clear that president biden in the biden administration is taking that very seriously not just rhetorically in the inaugural address but also in order to really ramp up investigations of this sort of thing because it is even though i agree with you. It's certainly a very tiny number of people given the size of the country but they can certainly do an awful lot of damage. And i think it's good that we're going to see a serious focus on that right and i would compare it and all of this i mean. Let's let's look at islamic fundamentalism Terrorist right and and to say that There are islamic fundamentalist terrorists in his country. Yes that's absolutely true. Is there a large rowing of them. no it's it's It's people here and there at small cells. Those are absolutely dangerous and they need to be investigated and shut shutdown and the same goes for white. Supremacist domestic terrorists. So i i guess that's sort of you know i can draw a line between people who are truly criminals and criminal intent versus a lot of folks who are just kind of angry and disaffected Yeah i agree. I agree so it sounds like we're we're more or less on on the same page on this. I would say yeah ok well on that. Let's just take a quick break and then we will be right back and talk about joe. Biden's not his words but his excecutive actions. I remember back. When i was in my late twenties and i began to notice the first signs of hair loss. It really surprised me indefinitely. Not in a good way you know. Almost nobody is hoping to go ball but the fact is that two out of three guys will experience. Some form of male pattern baldness by the time. They're just thirty five and the best time to take action is before your hairline. Looks like some sort of sad little peninsula in a barren scalps gape thankfully. Now there's keeps the simple and easy way to keep your hair with keeps. You can visit a doctor online and get hair. Loss medication delivered right to your home. They make it easy and deliver your medication. Every three months you can say goodbye to pharmacy. Checkout lines and awkward doctor visits keeps offers generic versions of the only two fda approved hair loss products out there and while you may have tried them before probably never for this price so find out why keep has more five star reviews than any of its competitors and more than one hundred thousand men trust. Keep with a hair loss. Prevention medication keeps treatment. Started just ten dollars a month. Plus for a limited time. You can get your first month free. So if you're ready to take action and prevent hair loss go to keep dot com slash politics guys to receive your first month of treatment for free that's k. e. p. s. dot com slash politics guys so as expected the biden administration began with a bunch of executive actions and they focused on a lot of things. Don't pandemic response immigration and border security climate. Lgbtq writes the standard freeze of all pending regulations by the previous administration. And i thought the place we could start is the main focus of executive action so far and that's pandemic response. There were a bunch of orders in this area from president biden. Include things like masks on all federal property federal workers and contractors maps their ports expanding testing increasing treatment access data collection guidance on reopening and keeping worker save using the defense production act fill supply shortfalls bringing the us back in the world health organization creating a national covert response coordinator extending those addiction in foreclosure moratoriums extending the federal student loan repayment pause increasing food aid and that commitment to one hundred million shots in one hundred days which looks to be pretty much on track at this point. There's a lot there. j. So what to start with your general reaction to the covid related executive orders. Well i i would say as you might expect some of those. I like better than others. I'm sure some of them. I think are are really sort of symbolic as opposed to accomplish anything. My my sense is that most federal building. The most federal property people were already required to wear masks. Know just by the building by the state order by. But as you know if you've got an executive order that that sends a message to although there was a really fun exchange with Press secretary jen. Jen psaki later in the week. regarding that but things like the eviction moratorium. I i was. I didn't like it when trump did it and i. I'm not crazy about it now. Just because i don't know that that's within the president power of the president to unilaterally suspend contracts for people you know across the country nationwide and i'm not arguing that it's bad policy but but my point is i don't know that that's something that President can you just do stroke of a pan more something. That's being donder public health shirt and their public health emergency powers right which which again to me. Kind of it's i think it's i think it's a stretch and i don't think it will really be challenged right but nonetheless. Look if you're if you're somebody like me who who thinks a lot about. What can the government do. And what can it do. I think it's a. It's an important question that's it i. I would agree. That state governments could could certainly do that. State courts could do that. But that's another that's another issue on the a million shots and so many days i That strikes me as one of those sort of aspirational orders of okay. Well i'll i'll you know the president can't just order things into reality can set goals and hopefully that that happens if it doesn't. I'm not sure what the consequences would be. And he's getting some pushback for making that goal not ambitious because right now it seems like well yeah. We're pretty much on track for that. So why not increase it on. I think because if you don't if you don't if you get the million charge you can there you go. Yeah yeah absolutely and say. Look i did it. I said i wanted a million shots. Sign the sign the order million shots and again you know so so i look at those things as i don't think there was ever an earning sense of You know let's let's slow down the shots beforehand so regardless on on on some of the other issues again i. I don't have a big you know. There's no real objection to be. Had a lot of stuff that was was being done already so on the coded front i. I don't have a lot to complain about her argue about other than what i just pointed out with the rental thing i think. Some of this is outside of the health. Power of the Of the president but at to me this is what a real national response looks like and it would have been great to see something like this. You know eight ten eleven months ago And so better late than never i suppose. Certainly it's pretty clear that that joe biden in the biden administration treat this with all the seriousness that it deserves to be treated with. And that's of course in marked contrast to the previous administration at least at the very top where the president was. Well he he. He was who he was on that on that issue. And so you had. You had dr fauci a few days ago. Saying it's kind of nice to be able to say what i say. Say what i think. Science says as opposed to feeling like. I'm being you know squelch. And and that sort of thing and so i i certainly applaud. This and i think this is particularly important given that it seems very likely that we're going to hit. No half a million deaths from kovic within the next month or so we've already surpassed that four hundred thousand and and to me this goes and we'll talk about this if not on this show on the on the bonus show about the trump record and for all the good that some people may argue. He's done in some areas. I wouldn't be one of those people. But i know some people can make a not unreasonable argument about that. I would say when you look at the covid response and united states compared to other rich developed countries. It just. it's it's grim. You know what really is in-depth per capita where the eleventh worst in the world right there between north macedonia and bulgaria You know Fifth worse of the thirty seven oecd countries. You know compare us to say canada which is fifty second worst. That's more where you wanna be and cases per capita. Were really bad so and you know not. All of that is part of that is Something's things like population density and so forth. Oh two and when. You're absolutely but i don't think there's anyone who would realistically look at the response by the trump administration and say job job. Well done fellas you know folks. And so i'm i'm really happy that the biden administration is doing what they're doing and i think it's going to matter. I think it's going to save lives somebody. I didn't mention a second ago. Were other things that that you had mentioned about guidance to schools and so forth that Again i wouldn't put that in the category of I'm not it's a little troubling In terms of i guess is this is a i think. There's there's a very good argument that kids should be back in school as soon as possible given the relatively low risk of transmission and serious consequences of the kids versus the the high risk of being out of school both educationally socially and for a lot of those students who who depend on schools for for a variety of of other services and are are not well equipped at home to to learn at And so agrees with you and that. And that's you know. Part of the part of the push there also is that push toward increased. Testing certainly is going to help. And so i think getting i think everyone just about everyone agrees on the importance of opening schools and having school for in person learning as as soon as is possibly not everyone but most. That's why i said almost some some teachers unions that would disagree with a quite vociferously on on that. I don't think they disagree on that. I think they would disagree on what constitutes a safe environment fair enough so so yeah but why don't we. Why don't we move on because it seems like you have some niggles on this and you know issues about state park for the most part you looked at the president's actions on covert and you're like okay. That's that's a good summer all right. So let's move on to immigration and the The president's actions on immigration include rescinding the border wall emergency halting new construction op. Preserving and fortifying daca i. We'll talk about that. I'm sure ordering that. All residents of the united states regardless of citizenship status be counted by the census which is what has been done in the past but anyway let's see what else ending. Discriminatory travel bans on entry to the united states. And the big one here introducing buddy creating other travel bans when book to that introducing legislation that provides enhanced border security infrastructure in in line with. And here's the big part legal status in the path the citizenship for the ten half million or so undocumented immigrants cranley living in united states so i get the sense. I'm betting j. They're going to be some things. We're going to disagree on a little bit more here. So what what's your take on the patterns. Look look what. I disagree with some of these. From a policy perspective yes church but but the executive order giveth and executive order taketh away. At least that used to be the way it was Than i think it probably should go back to that the normalcy of it but so the the The travel ban from certain countries Is your call. I was never a particularly big fan of that. In the first place In terms of of its efficacy my sense when trump did it was. It was sort of political capital right to do that right out of the gate so i even on policy grounds have a big issue with that. No not not terribly. Do i have an issue with the border wall funding again Data whatever policy difference on. Because i think border security is important. And i think it's going to be much more important if we're going to have a path to citizenship. I think it's sort of what you know the cynical known to a path assistant. Jeff is you have to secure the border. And this is the argument that that People have been having since the eighties. Right as you know can i think there are plenty of republicans who support a path to citizenship. But i would say let's secure the border because otherwise it it just isn't going to work and and there is a a caravan on the way from guatemala. Right now that all the caravans. Yeah you know. I'm not making this up. It is and biden said. Hey hey guys stay. Stay where you are until we get this worked out now. That's that's exactly my you know the problem is if we don't have border security and you just open the doors and then say okay we're gonna have a pat citizenship That that creates a very bad. I've been talking to trump in santo for for illegal border crossing as opposed to an orderly assimilation and moving people in getting them setting them up as citizens. So that's that's the policy piece of it on. The executive order does the authority to do what i think he does. Well i would. I don't know if that i disagree with you. But in general. I think the question is what. What do we mean by border security. And there's the rub. I certainly think that we need much. Expanded border crossing point infrastructure. At which has been. I think very much neglected lot of things. That are all the infrastructure. Yeah well i think yeah. I think more effective than than walls and You know that that's been the focus right. Build a big beautiful wall and i think that that's unfortunate because that's sort of symbolic type of thing has made it harder. I think for a lot of people to really consider. Well what what sort of border. What sort of border security. What sort of protocols do we need for a safe and orderly process of people doing things like applying for asylum and being able to enter into united states in an orderly and legal way. And those are important. Amen no and i think you and i are lockstep on that and all although i mean i would. I would argue that the infrastructure to some extent it has there has to be some sort of physical barrier in some places Right i mean. That doesn't mean a border long. Fifty foot high beautiful but but otherwise. I think it's a fool's errand. just say. Okay here's your place where you're supposed to report and folks dressed rather not sure you know. Yeah i don't think. I don't think the biden administration's gonna tear down all the border wall. It's there right. So i mean because you know under democratic and republican administrations there have been border wall areas. And i don't. I don't see that changing for good reason right so i think one thing though we're talking about executive orders and you seeing that. The president has the authority to do these things. I think one thing we will both agree on is that president biden doesn't actually have the authority to preserve and fortify daca absolutely. Yes i mean. We've been talking about this. Since the obama in mid the end point of the obama administration at the very beginning of this. You know when we started this podcast saying that. Hey maybe we. Maybe we believe in i. I believe certainly as a matter of policy that dreamers. That kids who came to this country is certainly shouldn't just be summarily tossed out and should have some sort of legal status path to citizenship. But saying well we're going to exercise prosecute prosecutorial discretion and not bother prosecuting. Any of them is essentially ignoring the law. And that's not okay for a president to do and so president obama decided he would push the envelope and and do that and president biden not surprisingly is doing the same thing but i. I agree with the intent behind it but i agree. I agree with the trump administration on this that that actually is goes further than the executive can go. And i expect that when this gets to the supreme court and i think it will. There's a case in texas right now in the district court i think. The supreme court will rule that this is actually unconstitutional exercise of executive authority. I think that's the right ruling. And i would agree with you and the good news. Is that kicks it back to congress which is where that actually ought to take place and and i think there is and has been for years a potential deal out there where i think there are plenty of republicans plenty of conservatives who would support docker type a path to citizenship program provided adequate border security. And i think that's going to be the tough thing because already there's a lot of signals that what what president biden has introduced is just not going to fly in the senate and i hope it's just sort of initial stages of a of a negotiation and not just the. We're not going to do this full. Stop and because. I think you're i expect you're onboard with the general outlines of that path to citizenship. That the proposal outlines but again it's a question of well and admittedly the border security part of it is much while it calls for enhanced border security. It's very fuzzy on that. It's much clearer on the On the path to citizenship. And i would expect that you and republicans in the senate would want something much much clearer and probably much more in the initial proposal. Yeah that's that's that's correct. I'm ca- speak for the senate. But i mean that's that's really my sense of it. And and i guess the issue that again gives a lot of conservatives and republicans pause is when this debate always happens There there is a sense on on the right of. Hey we're willing to do at assistant chapman. Yeah this looks pretty reasonable but but yet there's always opposition on the border security piece which is troy it makes us will will. Why if this is really the the intense then then. Why not. Secure the border. Yeah who wouldn't want to secure the answer but not at all not at all but do you think that there will be a deal on this. Do you see this as being a Something that is a real possibility that there could be. There could be legislation on this. Here's here's the problem. And i will put on my my cynical political hat. Would sometimes you like. Sometimes you don't is. Democrats hold most if not all the cards on on this issue. And that is you know there was. There was a potential deal. Back in the bush administration on this issue and the guy who tanked it was barack. Senator barack obama There were numerous potential deals throughout the The the trump administration And every time my sense is democrats would much rather have the issue than have a solution and and by by doing this you know they can get it. Republicans can't vote for something That doesn't have some sort of You know robust border security in the canton. They shouldn't vote for it. And in fact Bush got pilloried for that lateness. His administration so the democrats have sort of in on on both sides. They can beat up republicans. Were saying you're mean to the daca kids you hate immigrants you're racist etc and if any of them sort of move towards conciliation without some kind of border security. They're going to get it from from. I would say not just their right wing. But but i think really from kind of the center of of the party there are a whole lot of republicans who are just law and order republicans. Right and then they don't have any particular animus against immigrants in fact many of them are children grandchildren of immigrants but They're they're Four parents came here through whatever the legal processes were. They expect that everyone else ought to. And i think that's that's a not insubstantial number people. So that's i think it's. It's tough because the democrats can keep playing this. You know all all the time and until Also filibuster or or or get get sixty seven votes so so then your view on this is that this would have been done done deal. If only if only the democrats would stop playing politics with it and republicans are playing politics with it now i think. Republicans are playing. Okay i i. That's why because i think you can make the same argument the other way around instead of instead of saying you know the you hate immigrants well you just want open borders and so i think both sides to a certain extent. See the value of having this as as a live as a live issue. But i ask there is some value but i think the democrats hold more cards and for the reasons i i just i just Elucidated well i certainly question is why. Why wouldn't you want more border security. Well i guess it depends on what to what extent you know to what extent you're talking about right. I mean in terms of obviously the wall type issue. Yeah and i think you're right that there are some people on the left to just reflexively say well any border security is bad in. There are some people you know someone left. You are a Openly open board and just like there are some people right who say you know what keep america you know white and we don't want those we don't want those the brown people from from down south and so but they're not representative of a lot of republicans. You know right but so some of the open border folks. I think do have a larger say in the halls of congress. Certainly than than you know these folks you you would describe as nativist. I don't know. I think there are plenty of well. We'll we'll see. I am less. I am optimistic about any sort of a deal happening. Maybe than you are. But i. I certainly hope i certainly very optimistic at all. I'm saying i'm even less optimistic. So well tell you what. Let's just take one more quick low break and when we get back we'll talk about the president's orders on lgbtq protections which some on the right are having some real problems with most everyone wants to eat better but it can be hard especially now when even a trip to. The grocery store can be a stressful experience. Which is why. I love gobble. It's a meal delivery service designed for real life gobble pre portions and preps. Fresh ingredients creates hasty spice blends includes mouth-watering sauces. So with cobble. No matter how crazy you're schedule is you can get any vicious delicious homemade dinner in around fifteen minutes seriously you just pick meals from gobbles extensive dinner menu. Each week i mean. They've got classics global recipes. Even vegetarian options. Plus a line of low calorie low carb lean and clean recipes. You'll find more than just dinner. They got weekly menu options. Like breakfast soup salad desserts. it's you name it. I mean my most recent gobble meals garden vegetable putin esca with penny pasta and cashew tofu. Stir fry me just thinking about them. Now is making me hungry. All over again and gobble is really flexible. You can easily skip delivery weeks or cancel the service at any time. Best of all politics guys listeners. Get a great limited time deal six meals for just thirty six dollars. Plus free shipping. That's dinner for two for three nights for just thirty six bucks. This deals only available if you go to my special. Url that's gobbled dot com slash politics. Guys that's gobble dot com slash politics guys for six meals for just thirty six bucks. Okay so yeah. I wanted to get into this. I mean many cultural conservatives were very upset with president binds order on lgbtq protections and. That doesn't actually change existing law in any way because of course it can't executive order but it's more of a i guess i'll characterize it as a broader interpretation of the of titles seven of the civil rights act one thousand nine hundred. Sixty four which prohibits discrimination because of sex and that's the phrase now in in bostock versus clayton county georgia. This case supreme court decided in twenty nineteen. The court in a six three decision held that with new gore search writing the majority opinion and the decision was that an employer who fires someone just because they're gay or transgender dozen fact violate heidel seven of the civil rights at now. The trump administration's that okay. But that's as far as we're interested in taking it. The biden administration with this with. This order is is signaling. Pretty strongly that they're taking it further and this also title seven also applies to things like restroom. Use locker rooms school sports participation healthcare and housing discrimination as well and as i said a number of cultural conservatives are pretty upset with that j you consider yourself i think in a lot of ways a cultural conservative so i guess you're probably a bit. You have some pretty upset about so why don't you. Why don't you explain. Well look looking back first of all. I mean i was not a huge fan of the boss decision for a number of reasons. We back then. It's really kind of gorsuch writing it. But it's still sort of tortured logic to get to. Where he he got on that question. And i think the much better result would be. If congress wanted to amend the title seven congress could just amend title seven but that ship has sailed and in bostock itself the court still recognized limitations on its its own ruling and said look. We're not making any rulings as to restrooms accommodations. Locker rooms Sports all that stuff. They spelled it out in the opinion. And when you say the executive order is a law well yes no. It's it's not law yet but is it is sort of a directive to federal agencies that they can seek to enforce this as law and you know it depends on what the courts are going to say so opens up a lot of organizations to to federal sued federal intervention. With what they're doing so. I think it's it's bad from that standpoint. Just on the basis of getting the federal government involved in all sorts of of local a local local governments. And let me say i say i agree with you on that first point you made. I think the ideal outcome here would be if title seven were amended to say because of sex or gender and gender oriented or some you know words to that effect congress can spell it out and have all the definitions and make it much clearer in. It's not just this fuzzy examined by. Maybe they won't. And this is a conversation that you and i have a lot and we we invariably that legislative Legislative action is better than a regulatory agencies interpretation. And so that's exactly that. And so i agree with you that while the biden administration is not changing the law. They're taking a very fuzzy set of words very fuzzy phrase in interpreting it in a broader way because proceed at your own. Risk is faster because if you say well. Here's here's i think a lot of folks on the left. Look at if you say. Well this prohibits discrimination because of sex and if bisects you also mean for lack of a better more fitting term gender orientation then if that if if if if that means discrimination in employment will then it also should mean discrimination in any other way because of sex and so are the logic is well. Why would you limit that. And i think that gets to your point about the torture what you saw tortured logic logic and the decision right. So why would you. Why would it be limited there. Well there's no there's no real reason if you say because of sex really means sex also include this idea of sort of your own your gender orientation again for lack of a for lack of a better term here. So yeah i i think that. That's that's the correct. That's the correct interpretation. Given given that interpretation if you say because of sex means also gender and gender your gender role that you a uc and so but but i think it will be challenged. And i expect that the court well actually overturn some of these things because of just for the reasons you cited is that the court did in fact say well. We're limiting this. Even though i don't necessarily think that logically follows then then going to the policy piece of it again to me. It's it's troubling. And that's i. I think to to a certain extent when you when you look at Especially in you're talking about Education and kids. And there's there's a lot going on and there are a lot other a lot of other concerns that schools need to address beyond just any certain students gender identification right and I think parents could be rightfully concerned about Hey is there a someone who's a biological male using the same locker room as as my daughter in some cases take. Those concerns are overblown. But but i think they're not they're not irrelevant and this this sort of leads these sort of cultural wars. Where when when the left is kind of sneers at all you you a backwoods with with your again clinging bitterly clinging to these stereotypes. I think that's an issue Women's sports i think is even a bigger issue and especially at the collegiate level. Because i will say it at the risk of of all the hate. That's gonna come my way. Men and women are are biologically physically different and and men are on average stronger and faster than women. And and i do think it's going to be a a real hit two Girls high school sports and more so to women's college sports where parents are gonna watch your daughter playing against playing soccer against someone who's a biological male soccer's a tough sport My kids played for a number years with plenty of knock towns and i. So there's that and there's also the question of do women want to pursue these sports when they know they they may face competition from biological men who they will never be able to beat and and that's that's a fact of life and it's occurred. I think in in college sports already to some extent you've had transgender athletes who are biologically male who have broken all kinds of records and as you might expect and and sometimes it's just i think that's that's bad for if our goal is to empower young women through sports which i think is a great thing to do. This really sets that back. I agree that these concerns shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and that anyone who raises these concerns shouldn't just be labeled as anti anti gay or or what have you. I think that's absolutely fair because these seem to be. You know things that need to be considered. But also i think as you pointed out that sometimes these concerns can are overblown for various reasons. Right i mean there. Are i think at least sixteen states that for a while now actually have allowed have policies that allow full inclusion of transgender students in in high school sports at least and that has seemed to have gone off at least not horrifically hasn't been isn't the phrase. I think some people using racing women or something like that and it's that sort of rhetoric. I think that's that's that makes this more difficult to navigate this issue and i think there needs to be an acceptance that you can't have legitimate one. You know one thing that was raised. As let's say you're you're survivor of a rape or some other sort of some sort of violence and you can have. If you're a woman who survived that you can have no legitimate issues with say having biological males in your you know your restroom and i think we need to be sensitive to these issues and not just assume that whoever is on the other side of it must just be you know either. Anti women are anti-gay or something like that right. Yeah no that's yeah. And that's that's the the trouble is you know i think with with this Federal bureaucracies are generally not good with subtlety. And that's that's the sort of their job not to be good at subtlety right. It's their job. Is the big the big hammer into. And that's that's why. I'm not not at all enthused about those those orders. That is the problem in the i mean. The order itself is pretty pretty vague directing agencies and that sort of thing but it is difficult to craft these things and this is another conversation. We've had more than a few times in a in a better world what what happened. Is that if there say were this is just off the top of my head example. If they're worse a a student who a male student who identifies as female. You know that that student would be able to let the the folks at the school no and they try to work out some sort of trauma dacian and so forth but then there are issues of well. Why should this student have to broadcast. You know kizer her harvard. That that person identifies never pronoun there. Identification when others don't and these are. These are fraught issues you know. And so. you're right that to sort of a one-size-fits-all solution runs the risk of really trampling over legitimate concerns on both sides and i wish there were good answers to this and there are certainly a good answer to. This isn't just saying well. You know what men are. Men and women are women and you just need to suck it up if you have access then you need to go to the bathroom. And that's that's not okay either. Yeah and again. That's not really what i'm proposing. No no not saying my concern with the again with executive orders it would have been easy for president biden and whoever wrote up the executive order civil rights folks To say we direct All federal agencies to comply with the bostock decision except that they believe he goes further now extra but they're going for the extra and there's a reason for it and and i think we will see within the next couple of years there are going to be some some some big suits on this and i i. I'm sure you're right. And i think that their reasoning for that is i mean. I agree with the logic. I agree with the reasoning but again in a in a better world that there. There would be less ambiguity about this. But that's still wouldn't that's still wouldn't change the fundamental nature of the problems that we're talking about the real world problems whether or not this is our interpretation of because of sacks or if it were just simply well the law were changed to because of sex or gender orientation. you'd still have the same real world. Problems would just from a legal standpoint clear issue. Well you'd also though you'd have if it went through different Get more democratic channels. There would be the sense of of others voice. Were sure that works both ways right because as you said earlier in the show you know executive order give it the executive order. Take and so yeah. We're i think we're definitely in lockstep on that. And then then finally. I just want to mention as i said the sort of standard whenever a new administration comes in they freeze all of the all of the regulations. That aren't have gone into effect from the previous administration. We we expect that. Certainly that's no. That's no big shock. And one other thing that i should mention is in addition to this. I expect that democrats in congress will quickly use the congressional review act and for people who don't know this allows any regulations that have been promulgated during the last sixty legislative days of the past session of congress to be rescinded by a simple majority vote. It's not a it's not subject to a filibuster and that basically works out to any trump administration regulations that went into effect after at went into effect after around june. First of your point. Twenty and also once regulation is rescinded through this no substantially similar regulation can be reintroduced unless it's authorized by law. So not not that one would expect there would be right right so this is but this is just another mechanism by which as again as we see. When there's a new administration disagrees ideologically and so we're going to i. I'm sure you agree that that's going to happen right. Yeah that's gonna. There's there's game playing that that people ought to understand too and that something that the outgoing administration will do will issue a lot of orders on policy pieces that they really like and would fire up their base and then sort of force the other side of the vote on it right so there's a lot that went on in in the obama to trump transfer for example. I mean you know. President obama declared. I mean half of the west national park and trump them rescinded it and the democrats. You know. we're able to fight back and say look he. He hates parks. There's some of those that are out there and some of those you'll see. There are two other orders. I wanna hit on his real quick young and one is sort of policy of significance and that's the keystone pipeline that the president has Can rescinded that forever. My gosh yes. This guys like come on and to me. That's that's troubling in that. Listen the obama administration approved this five times and came to conclusion again. This is the obama administration that the actual the pipeline is better for the environment Than than transporting this oil by either train or or truck and and yet here we are It's going to cost a lot of jobs. Union jobs steel jobs in ohio or not ohio in well in ohio but throughout throughout the country and for for really what i think most would say sort of a sop to the environmental left who hates fossil fuels under under any circumstances. And i think there's a lot of problems also we can talk. All we want about solar wind and renewables but for the time being we're we're still operating with fossil fuels and i'd much rather have a source of that Either in the us or real close in canada then depending on on people like the saudi arabians The other piece that. I think this is going to be an issue going down down. The road that we're going to see is to the extent we we push on this solar stuff. The whole lot of the elements that trace minerals that are needed to make. Solar equipment are found Just like the oil is in. Saudi arabia are found in china. And i think that's that's going to be problematic and we'll talk about that later. But i think a lot of folks also viewed the keystone sign off and the firing sort of offsetting right to the extent that biden upset labor without he tried to. He did a make up with getting rid of the general counsel. So i think there's something there the other say the keystone before you get the other one i. That's that's an order that i certainly provide. I think it's a sign that the abide the administration is going to be to the left of the obama administration. And i'm i'm okay with that certainly as well and so. I think that it shouldn't have been approved in the first place. I think there's significant environmental con negative environmental consequences. Do it and so. I think that that was very very good. Move and i was happy to see that. But i just wanted my two cents on that you mentioned the other order the the other order and this is something we should really special show on some some point. President trump had created what was called the seventeen seventy six commission which was kinda. Give a report on on the status of of the teaching of american history in some somewhat response to the new york times. Sixteen nineteen project Which you know. The the basis of of that is that america is founded on and because of slavery and really takes a views everything in american history through that that racial land is so trump. Went together this group. The panel had some folks who are notably conservative. Larry arnn of hillsdale college. I think was the chair. But you also had a you. Know minority representation. You had folks. From various ivy league schools and and princeton stanford historians who weighed in on this and they they put together a report and the report will be able to get through the government but biden on the first day took it down and disbanded. The commission and that to me is a little bit of a troubling A statement right again if this is We are we are now all about unity and getting along and sharing our our our. Our commonalities outweigh our differences If you're either the seventeen seventy six report and also copy and you can still get at the heritage foundation It's it it comes across is really kind of noncontroversial. I don't think. I don't think there's anything that you would say. Oh gosh yeah. I mean absolutely plenty of historians would disagree with that. I believe one of the things just off. The top of my head is one of the big challenges. It said of a to america's principles in this report along with slavery and fascism they mention progressivism as a challenge to america's principles. I i have a pretty big problem with that. Or is there are plenty of historians and there weren't a lot of historians on this panel. Have a lot to point out a lot of problems with logic and reasoning here and that not just that i was just the idea i i would think that as somebody who cares about the state's rights and is concerned about big government trying to tell us what the thing that the idea that there should be some sort of national commission to direct patriotic education. That that's creepy to me and very troubling so take a look at what the take a look at. What the progressives did i would. I would think the the folks who were jailed for passing out pamphlets opposing world. Where one might disagree that that progressivism wasn't a in in Opposition to some some fundamental american principles. But but that's why we maybe we need to save this for a bigger day. Yeah i pretty. I pretty strongly. I strongly feel that the seventeen seventy six thing was was just a a travesty at a horrible idea at i certainly understand why conservatives may take issue with sixteen nineteen project but i also. I think there's a huge difference between a private media organization like as donald trump like the failing new york times puts out its own little series as opposed to the weight of the federal government behind some sort of national patriotic education thing. Which boy if that doesn't just that doesn't give you a little shiver fascism. I don't know what does it have you ever again. I'll send you the report in. you should read it. I mean because we should talk about this. Because i and you can just sixteen nineteen project. Then we'll talk about it. Yeah absolutely i will. But i because again the idea that And to be clear. I i was i. I am a little bit Put off by the government saying. Here's here's what's patriotic been. Here's what's not but keep in mind. I think the government has an ability to respond and to to criticisms and into things lake the continuing. Focus that we're having on on race and gender identity politics right. I think that's something that is really toxic to to our system. And i think there is some good beneficial government purpose in pushing back against it and have you ever been to the smithsonian s massoni national american history museum. Oh yeah oh yeah. of course. of course. The government participates in setting forth statements about about its history. If you go to any you know any civil war battlefield arrate. I mean there goes the government. The park service is telling you. So i don't i don't see it as as fascist as as you do to say. Here's here's some folks who are giving their outlines about how they think history ought to be taught and criticism of of You know the current vogue. So i then you're right. This really kind of what should be its own. It's own full segment or showing. I think it would be something that's worth that's worth doing a greater length and and i'll just say that i understand the argument about identity politics and so forth but i feel that for hundreds of years it's white identity politics that's dominated and i think after just hundreds of years of of systemic discrimination now that now that it's time to sort of look at a lot of these things but again i get into an entirely different conversation where i think we have some pretty significant disagreements that would be. That would be good to you know that they are out all right well while this was an extended show and you know we didn't even get to some really important things like for instance president trump's pardons and there was a lot going on with that as well as these are things we're all going to get on the midweek show by the way president. Trump's pardons his farewell address how we see the trump administration. Now that it's it's over finally at least from my point of view and also maybe a little bit about the post trump republican party will. Will there be a patriot party. I don't know but anyway we're gonna be talking about all that stuff on the midweek supporter show so if you are a supporter you can expect to see that in your feet on wednesday and if you're not just gonna patriot dot com slash politics guys to sign up and as always if you can't afford to become a support and you want contact us. Email me mike. Politics guys dot com. I will get you all set up with access to that. And there's also are pay pal and you can find out politics dot com slash support and well if you want to get in touch with us for general reasons. The comment criticism. Whatever critique mail at politics guys dot com or also on facebook and twitter and you can find the link there in our show notes special thanks to our executive producers. bruce. Johnson will moreno massacre daniel. To- chris wilkerson and nathan says now ski back with a new show next week. We hope to join us.

Coming up next