37 Burst results for "Clarence Thomas"
A highlight from Michael and Thomas Pack
"Welcome to The Eric Mataxas Show. Have you heard that some people have a nose for news? Well, Eric has a nose for everything. That's why this is called The Show About Everything. Now welcome your host, who definitely passes the smell test, Eric Mataxas. Hey there, folks. Welcome to the show. It's The Eric Mataxas Show. I play the role of Eric Mataxas. In this show, which is nonfiction, I interview people, usually on subjects that are close to my heart or that I think are important. Today I'm talking to filmmaker Michael Pack, who's been on this show before, who is responsible for a brilliant documentary called Created Equal, Clarence Thomas in his own words, and other things, and also Michael's son, Thomas Pack. We are going to talk about something that is as close to my heart as anything could be. It's the idea of bringing, let's call them conservative values, although that's just a fancy way of saying truth and reality, into media. It is crucial. People of faith, people of Christian values have dropped the ball on this for, I don't know, about 100 years roughly. So whenever somebody is getting into this game, I want to do everything I can to get to know them and to bring them to you, the audience of this program. So Michael Pack and Thomas Pack, welcome and thank you for being with us today. Thank you for having us on, Eric. It's a pleasure to be back on your show. Well, as you know, Michael, I am hot to trot on the subject of what I just mentioned. Now, you just wrote an article at Real Clear Politics. I want to talk to you about that because you sort of summarize what I was just getting at or you explicate what I was just summarizing. Talk a little bit about that and you can mention upfront as well what Thomas is doing. So lead us into the conversation. Well, you're right. The Real Clear piece, which is a bit long, so I guess I explicate rather than summarize, but it tries to lay out what's happened in the culture war over the last at least 50 years, maybe you're right, closer to 100. And what we can do about it. I mean, the fact is, as everyone knows, the progressive left dominates the culture. And they have at least since the 60s where they announced a long march for the institutions and they said they were going to work to take over first the university and then other cultural institutions, and they have succeeded. But I say, Eric, that it is to their credit. This is a battle of ideas. And especially in the area of film and television, they're fighting for the ideas they believe in. You are quite right that we on our side have failed. They're to be commended for succeeding. They're fighting for what they believe in. I agree with you that what they believe in isn't right. So that's a negative, but they're commended for fighting for it. And over those years, they've built up institutions that supported and defended and make it possible. So I lay that out in the real clear piece, which people can also find on my on my Twitter page, Michael Pack underscore. But so I try to give how so over 50 years, the left has poured tens of billions of dollars into this process, and it is their right to do so. And we ought to say that they have allied themselves with a very powerful ally in the form of Satan. We don't need to we don't need to get more specific than that. But people need to understand that, you know, you're very gracious by saying, oh, they're fighting for their ideas. Their ideas are harmful to human beings, not to conservatives, not to people of faith, to human beings in general. And so you're right that they believe in these ideas. But I just have to say, speaking to you as a Jew, you know, Hitler believed in his ideas. So because somebody believes in their ideas, they get, oh, well, they've got their ideas. We have our ideas. I agree with you 100 percent. I know. No, of course, I know you do. And you're being gracious. So go ahead. But but the but but that's right. I mean, one way of looking at their ideas is they have a negative view of America just taking that one slice of it. And we have a positive, upbeat view of America. I mean, we we are documentary producers, and I think this is this left takeover of culture is both in drama, fiction and nonfiction and in the nonfiction realm. It's clear as a bell. The 1619 Project, which began in print, was now a multi -part Emmy nominated Netflix series. And and on like that is America based on racism and the defense of slavery, or is it based on the principles of the Enlightenment? Jefferson laid out in the Declaration of Independence and it matters for the country and the world which side you're on. So I agree with you. But their ideas are wrong. But given that they're wrong, they're right to fight for them. So we need to fight for ours. But but we have we have the model of what they have done and we need to just do it, too. It is not that hard. It's not that complicated. It was not a conspiracy on the part of the left. They announced they were going to do it. It's their right to do it. And they did it. I mean, I mean, even in America, communists, for example, have every right to promulgate their views, which I think is appropriate, given the First Amendment. It doesn't make their views right, but it does give them the right to promulgate them. And it's well, think of the irony, though, that the left is increasingly I mean, just to be fair, that it is because of biblical values, it is because of the values of the founders of this nation, that people on the left. On the wrong side, have the right, which we have given them to promulgate their views, it is why Nazis could march through Skokie, Illinois. It is right, so we believe in free speech. We believe in this kind of stuff. But the irony is that we're now living in a time where we're seeing the left having gained power, use it to squelch and censor voices with whom they disagree. So in other words, they were willing to ride the train of free speech as long as it helped them. And then now that they've gained the upper hand culturally and in other ways, they're suddenly deciding, you know what, free speech was nice. It was nice for a while. But now we don't want those conservatives to have a voice. So there's an irony here, which ought to be mentioned. There is. They're now the enemies of free speech. And in part, it's because, as you say, it's no longer convenient. But in part, it's because of the radicalization of liberalism, the sort of left liberal part of the Democratic Party. I mean, it used to be since the 60s, the new left has been an enemy of free speech. Herbert Mercuza and company never believed in free speech. But that was a minority view on the left. And now, as you say, it's increasingly popular under other rubrics like stopping disinformation and misinformation. And it is. Do they get that from Stalin? I'm always trying to trace these ideas back. I believe it was the Moscow School of Stalin. In any event, I think, you know, legally, you know, Karl Marx did not believe in human rights and individual rights. And he his whole worldview is opposed to that. If you believe in historical determinism and you know which way the world is going, why encourage freedom of speech? So both left and right, Hegelianism, Marx being left Hegelianism, was not really in favor of these kinds of freedoms, these Enlightenment freedoms. And in a sense, they were a reaction against it. I'm not an expert on this, though. Eric, you're going to get into topics too deep for me pretty soon. Well, obviously, we're not here really to talk about this exactly, but it's worth touching on. Well, look, the good news, the headline to me is that you and Thomas, whom we will let get a word in edgewise momentarily, are creating award winning, fabulous documentary films and trying to encourage others to do the same. It's it really is a wonderful thing, as you and I have discussed. I'm getting involved in that a number of media projects and yours have been done with such extraordinary excellence that, you know, even those on the left have had begrudgingly to honor you when we come back. I want to get into everything and I want to ask you, Thomas, about this kind of conservative incubator film project that that you're putting together. Folks, it's the Eric Metaxas show, ericmetaxas .com. Don't go away. Folks, have I told you about Moink? M -O -I -N -K. That's moo plus oink. I get all our meat and our salmon from them. M -O -I -N -K. Moink delivers grass fed and grass finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, sustainable wild caught salmon straight to your door.
Fresh update on "clarence thomas" discussed on Thom Hartmann Program
"The media as the Seinfeld shutdown, the shutdown about nothing. I beg to differ. This shutdown threat is actually something. The House Republicans released their continuing resolution this morning that will be voted on this afternoon to keep the government open for a couple more weeks. And it is stuffed chock full of goodies, including a fiscal commission designed to fast track cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The cat food commission, the Simpsons bowl, the Simpson bowl commission that they want to reinvent. And want they to try, you know, like back in 1983, Reagan put together this commission Alan Greenspan on it and Daniel Patrick Moynihan to figure out how to make Social Security last forever. And one of their solutions was to start taxing Social Security benefits. You know, another was to move the retirement age from 65 to 67, which just affect in the last couple of years. Well, now they want to put together another commission to figure out new ways to cut Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age, all that kind of stuff. Democrats And if vote to keep the government open this afternoon, vote and that is probably going to come in the next hour or two or three, if Democrats vote to do that, they will be for voting a cat food commission, for a death panel Medicare. This is getting wild. There's also a story over on Drudge as I recall, talking about how they also want a 30 % across the board cut, you know, some substantial cuts in basically all government programs. Now, whether that's part of this continuing resolution or that's whether something that will come out of the next Republican budget, I don't know. I'd say the details on this are a little fuzzy, but this is what's going on. They are going to use this shot that you say, they well, why shut did down the government? Yeah, they're going to use it to jam stuff through. This is leverage to get Democrats, you know, they know the Democrats don't want to shut down the government. They know the Democrats are reluctant to force air traffic controllers to work without force pay, the military to to work without pay, to shut down large parts of the government, to shut down the EPA and the IRS and everything else. They know the Democrats don't want to do that. And so they're going to say, okay, if you don't want to do that stuff, if you people who inflict that kind of pain in America. Give us our cat food commission. Give us security fiscal commission so that we can cut social for it. Two Santa Clauses again, by the way. There's a Democrat in the White House. time It's to force the Democrat to shoot Santa. Jude Wininsky laid this out in the seventies and here we are. Meanwhile, more than 40 good government groups, watchdog groups have asked, have petitioned to the chief justice, John Roberts of the U S Supreme Court to force Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito to recuse themselves from a couple of upcoming cases where the billionaires who have spiffed Alito and Thomas are funding these cases that are coming before the Supreme Court or will benefit from them if they vote in one particular way, which is to, you know, outlaw a wealth tax and outlaw taxes on foreign earned income or unearned income rather, to specific. This letter from these 40 groups says these new revelations, they're talking about the new revelations that Clarence Thomas also was the fundraising headliner for the Koch brothers fundraisers. So these new revelations only deepen the legitimacy crisis already plaguing your Supreme Court. To restore the integrity, at the very least, these justices must recuse themselves from cases in which they have conflicts. In another open letter, 50 House Democrats told Clarence Thomas himself, they wrote directly to Thomas that he should recuse himself from another upcoming case, Loper Bright vs. Raimondo. This is a case it's about of federal regulation that if Thomas rules the way that he clearly wants to would help Charles Koch's Koch network, this right -wing network that helps out Republicans. Now, earlier this month, Alito told Senate Democrats that he would not recuse himself from more of the US. And these groups, Democratic Action, Indivisible, Patriotic Millionaires, Stand Up America, back take the court action fund. They're asking for this to be forced. They're saying there are too many doses of cozy relationships between billionaires who routinely bring business before the court and justices themselves to ignore. Evidence of justices ethical violations continues to mount. Additionally, recently, reporting from public exposed new details of Justice Clarence Thomas's relationship with the expansive Koch network currently urging the court to undo the Chevron doctrine. Additionally, Justice Sam Alito has long standing ties to hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, who stands As to benefit mightily from the court striking down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is a case a CFPB versus Community Financial Services. The court will hear both of these cases this term they write. Therefore, we urge you to take appropriate action to ensure the conflicted justices recuse themselves from these cases and any others that involve the same players and interests. The president of Accountable US Carolyn Ciccone said it's far past time that Chief Justice John Roberts clean up his court and it's the very least the justices can do to restore some semblance of equality integrity. and Which raises the question are they going to? You know is the court going to go along with this? I'm not holding my breath for this So, you know, we'll see. We'll see how this all shakes up. It's anything goes weekend here. Anything goes Friday. Nancy in Elkhart, Well, hi Tom. I was thinking about things I try to compare, you know, each generation to the other. That's kind of what I've done and it's a terrible that thing I have to have my mind going like that. But we say that that we want to get the younger people to vote, but we keep talking or we're the older people because we're the ones listening to you. We keep thinking inside our heads. And when we say younger people, know, well, you we're talking about people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s. Um, they don't even watch TV. I talked to enough of those. I have them in my house sometimes as nurses. I'm 73 and after surgery. I get it Nancy. So what's the point you're making? The point is that not watching TV means that they're only on social media because we keep using the term fascist Nazi. And I know they don't know what that means. Yeah. And social media is trending right wing. I mean, you've got Zuckerberg having secret meetings in the white house with Trump. Uh, you got Elon Musk, uh, you know, yesterday down at the
A highlight from Does Donald Trump Support A Pro-Life Agenda?
"Cable news, noisy, boring, out of touch. That's why Salem News Channel is different. We keep you in the know. Streaming 24 -7 for free. Home to the greatest collection of conservative voices like Dennis Prager, Jay Sekulow, Mike Gallagher, and more. Salem News Channel is unfiltered and unapologetic. Watch anytime on any screen at snc .tv and local now channel 525. All of the time he has to spend in core rooms really hurt his campaign because so far hasn't really hurt his campaign. Yes, I would have had another 22 ,000 votes. Are you saying you needed those votes in order to win? Are you acknowledging you didn't win? I'm not acknowledging no. I say I won the election. When we ask people how they feel about getting this rematch, they said that they think that means politics in the U .S. is broken. Now from the ReliefFactor .com studios, here's Mike Gallagher. Boy, we live in a broken world, don't we? The weekend was chock full of bad news. A Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy was apparently ambushed as he sat at a red light. Somebody assassinated him. They pulled up next to him and shot him in the head. A video was released of two kids in Las Vegas murdering a retired police chief, a guy on his bike out for his morning ride in Las Vegas. These two kids thought it would be funny to mow him over to kill him and they did. According to Charlie Kirk, one of the two perpetrators is right now free. They don't even have both of them behind bars. The two punks, the two cowards, the two monsters who murdered this guy in cold blood. And also, of course, we might as well get this out of the way. We got President Trump with an answer to Kristen Welker on NBC's Meet the Press and her debut as the new host, which gave a lot of ammunition to Trump haters who want to hurt him and try to wreck his chances of becoming the nominee in 2024. This is an interesting dilemma that Republicans have. Here's the dilemma. Pro -life is a centerpiece, is a foundation of the Republican Party fighting for the sanctity of those unborn babies, the sanctity of their lives, the sacredness of the innocent. That's a centerpiece, that's foundational for the Republican Party. And whether we like it or not, this particular debate that we're having in America is over abortion crushing us at the ballot box. And Donald Trump, I believe, was trying to address that with Kristen Welker on Meet the Press. Let's get it out of the way. I've been dreading this all weekend. Well, it wasn't all weekend. I mean, this first broke, I think, Saturday. They gave a little preview of his answer. I don't love his answer, but I also don't love the way Trump critics are pouncing on him, claiming he's not pro -life. I got into a big knockdown drag out, as I expected I would with my friend Mark Davis in Dallas, because Mark is now hell -bent on proclaiming that Donald Trump is not pro -life. And he's saying that because of this exchange with Kristen Welker yesterday on Meet the Press. So for the first time in 62 years, I'm not going to say I would or I wouldn't. I mean, DeSantis is willing to sign a five -week and six -week ban. Would you support that? I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake. But we'll come up with a number, but at the same time, Democrats won't be able to go out in six months, seven months, eight months and allow an abortion. Now, there are people like my friend Mark Davis who took that answer and that proclaimed Donald Trump is not pro -life, like it's important to proclaim or make some kind of declaration that he is not pro -life. And here's what Mark tweeted over the weekend. The heartbeat bill is, quote, a terrible thing and a terrible mistake, unquote. Mark said, I loved every day of his presidency. Thank God he beat Hillary. And if he's the nominee, I'll walk through fire to help him beat Joe Biden. But Trump is not pro -life. Now, as expected, Mark and I had a pretty solid disagreement only because I believe it's ever a ten the march for life. The guy who promised to get Roe v. Wade overturned because that was terrible federal. That was a terrible federal ruling and appointed Supreme Court justices who did just that to claim that Donald Trump is not pro -life is preposterous. It's absurd. It's virtue signaling. And perhaps it's just the opportunistic way you chalk up some points for Ron DeSantis, because clearly Team DeSantis is pouncing on Donald Trump over this remark. I believe two things can be true at the same time. You can be pro -life and you can acknowledge that this issue is killing us at the ballot box and we're losing elections. And here's what Mike Cernovich, who's a conservative influencer on social media, here's what he tweeted or posted on X. He said, if you want to be pro -life, no exceptions, good for you. Lose every election, have no political power, then see what life looks like in a Bolshevik hellhole. Will you feel good because you didn't compromise as your children starve? That's the alternative. And I really do appreciate his point. I am pro -life. I'm proud to tell you every day about Preborn. I want you to support an organization like Preborn. I want women to see ultrasounds and see what that baby inside their womb looks like, because the chances are that woman is going to choose life. I have fought and represented the life movement for many, many years, but I'm also realistic enough to know that if we lose election after election after election because too many women are turning against the GOP over additional abortion restrictions, we're never going to have any Republicans in office to prevent more carnage against the unborn, because we may never win another election. And that's the dilemma. I truly believe that Trump was answering the question on Meet the Press with that in mind, that the reason he thinks it's a terrible idea is he thinks it's costing us elections. Is he pro -life? Of course he is. Was it a clunky answer? Perhaps. Should you want to score points by declaring that Trump is now somehow some wild -eyed pro -choice Democrat? I don't think that's fair and I don't think that's reasonable, but I'm going to turn it over to the smartest audience in America. That's you. Here's the PhD weight loss and because you probably followed this controversy over the weekend. I want to get your take on it. I want to get your reaction. I heard from my pal, Joey Hudson. A lot of people in South Carolina were shocked at what Trump said, very disappointed in his answer. Do you feel that way or do you recognize he is trying to navigate the challenge of winning elections so that we can continue to have the kind of pro -life presidency that he delivered? Am I wrong? 800 -655 -MIKE. Press one to come on air. Press two to leave a voicemail or text us your comments on the MyPillow text line, which is also 800 -655 -MIKE. 800 -655 -6453. And yes, I survived wisdom tooth surgery. Not too bad at all. I might have over -exaggerated a little bit. I know you're shocked. I was perhaps a bit melodramatic heading into the oral surgeon. Doing just fine. 16 past the hour in the Relief Factor Studios. Let's try to tackle this. Let's dive in. Okay. Head first. 800 -655 -MIKE. 800 -655 -6453. Left -leaning activists are attacking Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Read The People's Justice Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories That Define Him. On sale now from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. A year ago, I was well over 50 pounds overweight, but I needed a simple plan that worked with my lifestyle. I found that and so much more with PhD weight loss and nutrition. I'm 53 pounds lighter than I was, and I feel better than I have in years. The program is super simple. Dr. Ashley Lucas and her team customize a plan for your body to make it simple because weight loss shouldn't be hard. They even provide 80 % of your food at no additional cost. They treat the entire person. Dr. Ashley believes that all change starts with the mind. She'll help you change your behavior and think differently about food and the way you eat. You'll never gain the weight back. Best thing about this program, they have an 85 % success rate of their clients maintaining their weight loss for life because they have a lifetime maintenance plan to keep us on track. And maintenance, best part of all, it's absolutely free. If you're looking to lose that weight and you're looking for a job, go to myphdweightloss .com today. Sign up for your consultation. Better yet, give them a call straight away. 864 -644 -1900. 864 -644 -1900. They'll answer all your questions. Tell them my calendar sent you. Call 864 -644 -1900 or go to myphdweightloss .com.
Fresh update on "clarence thomas" discussed on Stephanie Miller
"Stephanie Miller. Give it up for yourselves L .A. sexy liberals. It should be called the stuff they air between Viagra and Cialis ads. Come on. You're the kind got of good black white folks babies. who Yes. And not because they're cheaper. I have a lot of liberal friends who love this country enough to vote almost every other election. And you can catch this show live and streaming for only twenty dollars. Stephanie Miller, sexy liberal show live from L .A. in the Subodh theater, October twenty first after the game keeping you up with the unprecedented unfolding events of twenty twenty three liberal sexy streaming October twenty first tickets now at sexy liberal dot com. The Hal Sparks radio program. Ladies, gentlemen, Clarence Thomas has been getting these free trips, some of cost them at the of five hundred thousand dollars. He was a guest of a man named Harlan Crow. Sounds like,
A highlight from Will You Ever Comply With Mask Mandates Again?
"Cable news, noisy, boring, out of touch. That's why Salem News Channel is different. We keep you in the know. Streaming 24 -7 for free. Home to the greatest collection of conservative voices like Dennis Prager, Jay Sekulow, Mike Gallagher, and more. Salem News Channel is unfiltered and unapologetic. Watch anytime on any screen at snc .tv and local now channel 525. Joe Biden's like that grandpa that you love. Would you give this grandpa a high -stress job for six more years? Liberal ideas are amazing and they're beautiful. As long as you never do them, they were actually impossible. When they were implemented, you have misery. They're demolishing the election. The deep state, the fourth branch of government, doesn't want the people to be able to have the voice. Now from the ReliefFactor .com studios, here's Mike Gallagher. JD Vance, the senator from Ohio, came so close in trying to stop the government from forcing masks on Americans. But don't worry, the Democrats blocked it. Massachusetts pride and joy, Senator Ed Markey shut it down. JD Vance was trying to advance a bill that would prevent the federal government from imposing mask mandates in places like, you know, airline, the airline industry or trains or buses. They're going to bring it back and they're going to bring it back because they want to impact the outcome of the election in 2024. And we can talk about not complying. I got a lot of response yesterday to my question, are you going to comply or not when they start forcing and imposing mask mandates? You know, let me give you a pragmatic example. I have to travel a lot for my job. What am I going to do, take a bus? I mean, I'm taking a train Monday for our big event Monday night in Philadelphia, but I can't exactly take a train from Tampa to Los Angeles. I got some challenges here. You think I want to get on another airplane and wear a mask? What do you do? What if you go to what if you have to go to work on the bus and the and the local transit authority makes you wear a mask to get on the bus? What are you going to do when you go to work and your office says you got to wear a mask to walk into the building? I don't know why I keep having this flashback to this screaming match I got into with somebody at my at my office in Florida when somebody said you got to wear a mask to walk, you know, 30 steps from your car to through the empty building into your empty studio. I said, this is insane. You better do it or we're not going to allow you in the building. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed at the time. And the consensus, not that I'm any big deal, I'm not trying to brag here, but the consensus was if Mike doesn't wear a mask, we're not going to wear him wear a mask. But see, I'm in an unusual position. I'm in an unusual place. I'm fortunate and privileged to be in a position where I kind of get to do that. Although I suppose if my company really wanted to be hardcore about it, they could have said, Mike, you want to lose your job over this? OK, but nice knowing you. And listen to the way the Democrats brag about it. Listen to the way the Democrats are so they love they want these mask mandates so badly. This was something called the Freedom to Breathe Act, which would have prohibited any federal mask mandate from being imposed on an airplane, a public transit system or school. J .D. Vance introduced it on Wednesday. Democrat Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts intervened and he shut it down. Here he was. This is, I believe, from the floor of the Senate, if I'm not mistaken. But this is audio and video from C -SPAN, where Ed Markey proudly shut down the Freedom to Breathe Act. It would silence and hamstring public health experts who have guided our nation out of the one hundred and thirty nine thousand people in our country in three years. Well, where's your mask, dummy? Why are you standing there without your mask on since you worship at the altar of the mask? Incidentally, if you're watching that video clip on Salem News Channel, there's some dingbat sitting behind him with a mask on. You see that? I don't know who she is. She's got a nice big black mask on. Look at me. I got my mask on. I'm not going to give or get covid. I mean, these people are just clowns. I saw one this morning. Driving into work. On a bike. Pedaling with all the prerequisite bike stuff that bicyclists, you know, the spandex and the helmet and everything. And the and the the, you know, Tour de France get up guy had as he was ready to go. And he had his mask on. Nothing's going to happen to him. He ain't going to get covid. He's got his mask on while pedaling down the West Side Highway in New York City outside with nobody around. Man's wearing a mask. So I don't know. I mean, I hate all these flashbacks. I was talking to my producer, Derek, about it earlier. And he said, you know, I'm you flashback to all the covid memes. One that one of the memes that Derek loved said, I'm more afraid of a Democrat in the White House than I am covid. I'd second that. But what do we do? Where do we go? I'm serious. I want to ask you an honest to gosh question. What are you going to do? If your company, if your local transit system, if your kids school tries to impose a mask mandate, let's flood our Ph .D. weight loss and nutrition phone lines with your phone calls. Eight hundred six five five. Mike, this is Friday. This hour. I want to I want packed lines. It's always a bit of a challenge this time on Friday every week to get people revved up. And back into the swing of things. So let's go. I just want you to give me your pragmatic answer. What do you do if you're confronted with a mask mandate? Because I need you to prepare yourself. It's probably coming. And it's coming because not because of any pragmatic, scientific approach. They want to scare you because they want to change the election rules again in time for 2024. That's what's happened. I'm convinced of that completely. So what do we do about it? Give me some answers. I got the smartest audience in America ready to go. One eight hundred six five five. Mike, that's the Ph .D. weight loss number. Press one to come on air. Press two to leave a voicemail or text us your comments on the MyPillow text line. Eight hundred six five five Mike. Eight hundred six five five six four five three. Hope you join us. Left leaning activists are attacking Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Read The People's Justice Clarence Thomas and the constitutional stories that define him. On sale now from Regnery Publishing. MyPillow is having their biggest sheet sale of the year. You've helped MyPillow become one of the most extraordinary success stories in America today. Well, now Mike Lindell wants to give back exclusively to you, a Mike Gallagher listener. The Percale and Giza dream bed sheet sets are available in a variety of colors and sizes, and they're on sale now for as low as twenty nine ninety eight with our listener promo code Mike G. Order today because when they're gone, they're gone. The Percale and Giza dream sheets are breathable. They have a cool, crisp feel made from the finest cotton on earth. Comes with a ten year warranty, a sixty day money back guarantee. Don't miss out on this amazing offer. There's a limited supply, so be sure to order today. Get them while they're hot. Call eight hundred nine two eight six zero three four eight hundred nine two eight six zero three four. Use the promo code Mike G or call eight hundred nine two eight six zero three four eight hundred nine two eight six zero three four or go to MyPillow .com. Look for the Mike Gallagher radio special square. Click on that box and with anything you order, be sure to enter the promo code Mike G. MyPillow .com. Promo code Mike G. MyPillow .com. Promo code Mike G or call eight hundred nine two eight six zero three four like we love to sing. For the best night's sleep in the whole wide world, visit MyPillow .com. Promo code Mike G.
The Left Hates Clarence Thomas Because He's Black
"Having that, said thank you very much. I want to leave that out. You know, I'm sitting there, I'm getting ready for the show and I'm reading these just again, countless, relentless attacks on Judge Clarence Thomas, one of the greatest living Americans, one of the greatest Americans ever. And I keep thinking to myself, what does the left hate this guy for? And the answer is just obvious. They just don't like him because he's black. Why does the left hate black people so much? Why do they do that? Anyone have any answer? Oh, mechanics. Thank you, Rose. That's a good one. I want to leave a video. But why do they hate black people so much? Why do you think about it? Right. What is not to love? Forget about like about Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas, one of the greatest jurists in the history of the United States of America, one of the most intelligent, kindest, nicest guys you're ever going to meet, grows up under de facto and de jure segregation, right, is treated horribly by a lot of people, overcomes all of this, becomes a Supreme Court justice and one of the finest in American history, one of the few actually understands the Constitution, can relate to it and write about it in an informed, engrossing kind of manner, right, overcomes all of this to become this living legend and the left hates him, why they hate him? They hate him because he's black. They hate him because he's black. Do you think about it, right? Do you see the body of attacks? Now, don't listen, make this mistake. You're probably saying yourself, no, Dan, they hate him because he's a punk. Jim's like, what? What? No, no, no. They hate conservatives, yes, but that's not why they hate Clarence Thomas. Sam Alito is a conservative. Has there been a 30 -year effort daily? No, they attack Sam Alito a lot, too. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to undersell that, but who is the subject of the left's ire for
A highlight from Guest Host Kevin McCullough On Our Fight To Save America From Destruction
"Lots of channels. Nothing to watch. Especially if you're searching for the truth. It's time to interrupt your regularly scheduled programs with something actually worth watching. Salem News Channel. Straightforward, unfiltered, with in -depth insight and analysis from the greatest collection of conservative minds. Like Hugh Hewitt, Mike Gallagher, Sebastian Gorka, and more. Find truth. Watch 24 -7 on SNC .TV and on Local Now, Channel 525. This Music. is your source for breaking news. And what to make of it all. This is The Mike Gallagher Show. The thing about Karen Bass, just a couple of years ago, she was talking about how great it is that Los Angeles is a sanctuary city. So this continues to be the political own goal of the decade. Well, Biden said COVID shots are coming back, like it or not. People want someone they know can already do the job. President Trump has done the job. We have the best economy of my lifetime. Everyone was doing better. The border was secure. And now, in the ReliefFactor .com studios, sitting in for Mike today, here's Kevin McCulloch. It is an honor to be back for my good friend, Mike Gallagher, a colleague here at the Salem Radio Network, and also someone who cares very much about what is happening to our country. Kevin McCulloch is my name. You can find me on the Salem News Channel and many of the same radio stations on Saturday nights at 9 o 'clock Eastern with that Kevin show. If you're local in the New York area, you can listen to me on AM 570 each weekday afternoon at 3 o 'clock, AM 970 the answer each weeknight at 7. And we have a lot of fun. My handle across all social media at that Kevin show. Please be in touch with me. I love to interact on the top stories of the day. We've got a lot to get to this morning. Yesterday, one of the judges in the federal trials that is the former president is going to face in upcoming months set the trial date for March 4th. This is in the special case against President Trump that Jack Smith is bringing the U .S. District Judge for the District Tanya Chutkin. Remember that name? It will live in infamy. She's rejected a proposal by the Trump defense team that the trial began in April of twenty twenty six long after the election. She instead set the date far closer to the one proposed by Smith and the government who wanted it on January 2nd. And if you happen to be a criminal attorney, please dial me eight hundred six five five Mike eight hundred six five five six four five three. I'd love to have some validation on this, but one of the one of the broadcasts I do here in New York for AM 970 the answer focuses on litigative issues every Thursday night. And we just talk legal stuff. I'm not a lawyer. I'm fascinated by the law. I think that lawyers that that proves a faithful service to their clients and to the government are are valuable people in our society. But I think it's interesting to see this chess match being played to the public in a way as though lawyers wouldn't know what was really going on here. So let me kind of break it down for you. You had the indictment and the the perp walk and the cuffing and the fingerprinting and all the stuff that they wanted to do to try to embarrass forty five. They had their moment in the in the sun to do that. And then they come back and they say, oh, we're we're going to go to trial quickly. We're going to put you on trial on the second of January. And Jack Smith said, Judge, you've got to put them on trial on the second of January. And the Trump team said, no, we're going to ask for twenty twenty six. And the judge comes back and says, no, no, no, no, we can't give you that much time to prepare. We're going to make sure that you're ready for trial by March the fourth. Now, of all the dates and all the calendars in all the world, March 4th is the day that she just happened to land on. I'm just I'm just looking at this calendar and I'm just seeing of all the choices and options that I have here. And you know what? I'm going to go with March the fourth for no reason whatsoever. Except that March 5th happens to be Super Tuesday. And there's however many states, twelve, fifteen, sixteen states in it. I forget the number. It's one of the most important days of the election calendar. This judge, Tonya Chutkin and and the prosecutor in the in the in the Georgia case are both embarrassing themselves. Fannie Willis and Tonya Chutkin are both embarrassing themselves because their behavior begets kindergartners on day one of preschool. Like it's they're not even in the in the class yet. And they're already like goofing around. Here's what happens between now and March 4th of next year. The Trump team will do a number of things in all of these cases, but they're going to they're going to be filing mainly, especially in the in the state cases for a couple of things. They're going to want those cases moved out of the Georgia state realm and they're going to want to put them into the federal realm because the federal system will be one that's easier to to manage and to and to kind of go through. But beyond that, there are a boatload of motions that will be being entered into the record between now and then that they are going to do everything from filing a motion to dismiss to filing an extension for discovery. And let me just let me just tell you on this on this alleged interference in the 2020 federal case that Jack Smith is doing out of D .C. It's my understanding that there are more than 12 million documents. That will be entered into the evidence, and this Tonya Chutkin joke, this this judge, this this joke of a judge laughed yesterday when told by the Trump team that for proper discovery to be allowed, there's no human way that they could sit and read 12 million pages between now and March 4th. And she just kind of giggled like, ha ha ha. Well, you've already you already know a bunch of the stuff that's in there. Ha ha ha. Friends. We talked about this yesterday. The left is trying to systematically dismantle America and they're starting to let the evil be seen. Right. That was my theme yesterday on the show. We talked about it for three hours. This is another example of that. There's there's this kind of open knowledge that this judge is dismissing. The normal procedures that what would be accustomed to any other criminal defendant, they're not going to allow President Trump. Why aren't they going to give him the same rights and the same protections that they would give a serial killer or a gang banger or anyone else? They're going to have to. And if the judge continues this kind of embarrassing behavior, chuckling at the people that are involved, chuckling at the requests that are made. She's there's a there's a there's a circuit court that oversees this court. And those judges have authoritative roles that they play over the over the sitting judge. That's that's in the court. That is Tonya Chuck him. And if they don't want to be embarrassed, if they don't want to have their circuit embarrassed, they will advise their underling to comport herself differently. But I just find it amazing that we're supposed to buy all of this. This is this is the great lie. They sit here and they pull this stuff and they and they set these unrealistic dates. And by the way, I'm going on the record. They would not have made a January 2nd start date. They're not going to make a March 4th start date. You had it is law. His he has a right to an informed defense. He has he has a right to have his defense know every piece of evidence that's going to be introduced as it's introduced before it's introduced. If the if the prosecution has had twelve point eight million documents in their possession and the defense is just receiving and being made aware of what they're going to introduce. They have to have time legally to not only understand what every document says, but they have to process it and comprehend the implication of what that document has to do with within the case. And then they have to have the right to prepare proper defense of those facts. This isn't a kangaroo court. We're not in a kangaroo nation. There are still laws. And I know these Obama judicial appointees and the Biden administration and the Justice Department all think it's hilarious. What's going to be hilarious is when they get their teeth slapped back at them by their their their upper judges and maybe eventually the Supreme Court, because they're such lunatics with how they're proceeding at current pace. Eight hundred six, five, five, Mike, eight hundred six, five, five, six, four, five, three. Take your calls right now. Eight hundred six, five, five, Mike, eight hundred six, five, five, six, four, five, three. Do you think that Trump will be in court on March 4th, the day before Super Tuesday next year? By the way, some of his fellow Republicans think that he will be. Chris Christie, the shameful, shameful behavior of Chris Christie in recent days coming right back. It's the Mike Gallagher show. Don't go away. Left leaning activists are attacking Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Read The People's Justice Clarence Thomas and the constitutional stories that define him on sale now from Regnery Publishing. You know. As central banks in countries like China, India and Australia begin transitioning to a digital currency, the Federal Reserve has been contemplating the same for the U .S. With the digital currency, the government could track every single purchase you make. Officials could even prohibit you from purchasing certain products or easily freeze or seize part or all of your money. These are some of the reasons concerned Americans reach out to Birch Gold Group. They want to have a physical asset that's independent from the U .S. dollar. Gold held tax sheltered in a retirement account. I buy my gold from Birch Gold to make sure I'm diversified. You should, too. Find out if gold is right for you as well. Text the keyword Mike to 98 -98 -98. We'll send you a free info kit on gold. With an A -plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers like me, countless five -star reviews, Birch Gold Group can help you diversify into gold. Text Mike to 98 -98 -98 or just go to MikeForGold .com. MikeForGold .com. Claim your free info kit on gold. Because if a central bank digital currency becomes reality, it'll be nice to have some gold to depend on.
A highlight from John Zmirak
"Folks, welcome to The Eric Metaxas Show, sponsored by Legacy Precious Metals. There's never been a better time to invest in precious metals. Visit Legacy PM investments dot com. That's Legacy PM investments dot com. Welcome to The Eric Metaxas Show. I shouldn't tell you this, but Eric hired someone who sounds just like him to host today's show. But since I'm the announcer, they told me, so I'm telling you, don't be fooled. The real Eric's in jail. Hey there, folks, welcome to the program I have as my guest this week and every week, the great John Zmiraq, John Zmiraq. Thanks for everything you write and for being a regular guest. The only regular guest that I have on this program, certainly the only guest that I have every week. You've written an article. Most of your stuff appears at the stream stream dot org. And I say over and over and over again, homework for people who listen to this program. You need to go to stream dot org, print out John's articles, leave them around the food court at the mall, get your homeschool kids to read them, send them. And I'm quite serious. You need to send these articles to people, post them on social media because they're they're not just vital information on how to process what's happening to us in this country and around the world. But they are usually extremely well -written, always extremely well -written and often brilliantly funny. John, you wrote an article. I couldn't wait to talk to you about this. The title of it is Trump and legal team indicted for witchcraft, heresy and Sabbath breaking. A lot of us are struggling, but not often brought in federal court. These are usually state charges. Thank you. Thank you for your sarcasm. It's such a level of sarcasm that only dogs can hear it. It is really kind of an amazing level of sarcasm. But again, I mean, I've talked about this earlier in the week. What they're doing to Trump, ladies and gentlemen, ought to be sobering for everybody. Naomi Wolf, who is no fan of Donald Trump, wrote a piece on her sub stack that I posted on Twitter. And by the way, I hope you follow me on Twitter or I hope you're on Twitter just to follow me because I'm reposting John's articles and a lot of other stuff that you're not going to see anywhere else. But she wrote an article very, very wisely saying, listen, you don't need to be a fan of Donald Trump. What they're doing to him ought to scare you because it is unprecedented and it is eroding what liberties we have in this nation. So it's it's it's hard for a lot of us to process that this could happen in America. So, John, thank you for taking on the subject in your article. It's hard to know where to attack this. But first, let me tell you, stuff like this has happened in America before. President Woodrow Wilson imprisoned Eugene Debs, the leading critic of American involvement in World War One, put him in prison for years for violating the Sedition Act. He languished in prison for years as if he were a German spy for simply saying he didn't think Americans should be drafted to go fight in World War One, which Woodrow Wilson had run for president promising to keep us out of. So this kind of abuse has happened before. And no surprise under a Democrat president who was called a progressive. Well, let's be clear that as evil as that is, as evil as that was and as comforting as it is to think that we have been there before. The idea that they're doing this to a man that was at least once elected by the American voter to lead the country and that was probably elected twice and is beloved by scores of millions in this country. It is a chilling thing that things have become so politicized that that they would do this. And and, you know, the charges, I mean, you're mocking it in your article at Stream .org by saying he's indicted for witchcraft, heresy and Sabbath breaking. But what it might as well be that, you know, let's get into that, OK? First, I want to ask a question and see if you have an answer to this. When Kamala Harris went on television and said that the George Floyd riots wouldn't stop and she thought they shouldn't stop. And when she put a bail for people arrested for arson in those riots, why was she not charged by a federal prosecutor for inciting insurrection? There's there's an answer. Do you know what the answer is, Eric? Um, she's a she's a light skinned pseudo black woman. Oh, no, no. The First Amendment to the Constitution. Oh, oh, the First Amendment. I forgot that that's still in effect. I'm sorry, John. Yes, well, I take back my previous answer. Yeah, well, it still applies to Democrats. That's the point of a narco tyranny. A narco tyranny is that the whole complex of constitutional and civil rights exists you're if on the side of the people in power. And we have all sorts of laws that can be minutely applied and used to prosecute people. But they will not be used if you're allied to the people in power. They will be used if you oppose the people. Excuse me. Let me let me clarify. It it doesn't have to do with the color of a person's skin, because we know how the left hates Clarence Thomas. Right. And how they hate others. In other words, it has to do with what's in your mind. It has to do with what you believe. And if your beliefs are not consonant with what they believe, they think of you as an enemy and they will come after you. And that's basically why they're going after Donald. So it is it really is the ideology of the mafia, the ideology of a of a Latin American drug cartel. If you are on our side, we will protect you. We'll go a long way to protect you like they protected Jesse Smollett. At some point, we might throw you under the bus like Michael Avenatti, because we don't need you anymore. But you can get away with a lot. If you're doing it on behalf of the Biden regime and if you're doing it on behalf of the deep state on the other, you can burn down cities. The rioters who attacked various cities across America are winning legal judgments against the police because they rough them up a little trying to get them to stop burning the city down. Meanwhile, they tried to send Kyle Rittenhouse to prison for life or first degree murder for defending himself. They hounded Jake Gardner, an American combat hero, to suicide for defending himself and his elderly father from rioters attacking their business.
A highlight from IRS Whistleblower Testimony Exposes Biden Family Corruption
"The Mike Gallagher Show. They're teasing you with, oh, if he's befuddled and confused and muttering and stumbling, that somehow that is charming and that's actually evidence of his effectiveness. Most people watching this don't think that Joe Biden could be running a McDonald's, much less being the president of the United States. And I think more and more Democrats are realizing it. In the ReliefFactor .com studios, here's Mike. Governor Ron DeSantis has changed his campaign tactics. Now he's given interviews to a lot of people, including Jake Tapper over at CNN, and he always does a great job. I mean, he should do more interviews. And obviously the campaign strategy now is to try to get more and more people acquainted with him. Of course, everybody knows President Trump, and the other night at the Turning Point event down in Florida, President Trump said that DeSantis is neglecting his home state of Florida while out on the campaign trail as insurance companies are fleeing Florida. Trump said at the Turning Point Action Conference in West Palm Beach, we are totally dominating DeSantis right here in the state of Florida. So we want him to get home and take care of insurance because you have the highest insurance in the nation. Now this is going to be a campaign talking point for Trump. He's going to go after DeSantis over what Trump claims is an insurance crisis, a homeowner's insurance crisis in the state of Florida. Is it correct or not? Is it true? Well, I thought we'd bring in a veteran newsman, the great Roger P. Shulman, who has done news in this market for many, many decades, had the opportunity to have lunch with Roger a week or so ago with our old buddy Steve Hall, who's another legendary newsman and radio personality in Tampa since retired. Hey, Roger, let's catch up on a couple of things. It's great to see you and great to have you back on the show. I was reading an article over at PolitiFact that says that Trump is actually correct that Florida has the highest homeowners insurance rates in the United States. And as a Floridian, you and I are both Florida guys now, I can confirm the homeowner's insurance issue in Florida is a real mess. It's even worse than that, Mike, because we lost our insurance at my home, farmers just left the state for the most part, and they're just going down belly up by the dozen. And what the problem is, let's say you lose your home insurance, you have to get another company. Well, another company is going to require a four point inspection. That inspection will include the roof. And if your roof is more than 10 or 15 years old, the new company won't accept it. So you may have to spend twenty thousand dollars on a roof just to get your home inspected properly to get the insurance. So a lot of people are actually leaving Florida. Suddenly they were paying a reasonable mortgage, reasonable insurance. Now they're paying massive home repairs and massive new insurance payments. So, yes, this is a crisis and people are actually leaving the state. And I can, you know, from my perspective, I can confirm it's happened to me as well. My insurance agent a couple of weeks ago told me that my homeowner's insurance is going to more than double. So, and this is happening to homeowners all over the state. Now, the question becomes, and it is a mess, I think you're right, crisis is the right word to use. I get emails and text messages and calls from Floridians all the time saying, I don't know what I'm going to do, seniors who are on a fixed income. This is a real, real crisis for many, many people in Florida. The question then becomes, is it a reasonable talking point or is Trump justified, do you think, in blaming Governor DeSantis? Is this a Governor DeSantis -Florida legislature problem? What could they be doing? What could the Florida legislature be doing, in fact, to fix it? Jaw -boning these insurance companies, making possible guarantees that if it goes over a step in, there's a lot of things they could be doing. It's not totally under their control. We have these hurricanes that come in here and cause a few billion dollars worth of damage. The insurance companies say, we can't handle it. We can't do anything about the hurricanes, but we can do something to make it more safe for some of these insurance companies to stick around. Something can be done, but it's not totally under the state's control. Well, it's going to be a legitimate talking point in the campaign, and Governor DeSantis is going to have to defend Trump's criticisms and attacks. But I think you can confirm and I can confirm this problem is real, and it's not an easy fix to be sure. There's another issue I wanted to talk to you about. I have, again, on a personal note, a personal story to share. I've got a property where I'm having yard work done. I want to have a little irrigation system installed, and I want to have yard work done, landscaping created, right? This has dragged on for months and months and months. First of all, there was the process to get a water meter and irrigation meter and all that, but that isn't really the issue. But there's this issue. I called my landscaper guy yesterday and said, what's taking so long? He goes, the holdup is the irrigation company. I said, well, what's the holdup? He said, Mike, Florida's immigration laws have created a collapse in that industry in Florida where the workers, he kept calling them the immigrants, the immigrant labor is fleeing the state because of Florida's intense scrutiny of companies and illegal immigration. I said, so they're leaving? He goes, Mike, the company that I work with to do the irrigation has an 80, they have had an 80 % exodus. They've lost 80 % of their workforce because they are, in his words, immigrants who have fled the state, likely headed for Texas. Roger, does this have to do with DeSantis' crackdown on illegal immigrants and the E -Verify system? The E -Verify system is part of it. Any business that hires more than 25 people have to E -Verify all of them, whether you're Americans or an illegal alien or whatever. That eliminates a lot of them. A lot of the driver's licenses from other states are not being honored here if they're held by illegal aliens. This is a big problem. 2 .7 million immigrants work in Florida, 26 % of our workforce as of a couple of years ago, and hospitals have to verify. Now, I was just talking to some strawberry growers. We have a great strawberry crop and plant city. They're having a massive problem with their harvesting and tomato growers. It's affecting agriculture, tourism, and the hospitality industry. A lot of the people who clean the rooms and do the work in the kitchens, many of them are illegal immigrants or immigrants who don't speak much English and they're scared by this situation because they're getting conflicting information. So, a lot of them have decided, the heck with Florida, we're going to Texas. Wow, fascinating. And again, when he told me that yesterday, I couldn't believe it. I wanted to bring it up. Roger P. Schulman, great newsman, extraordinary. And we had lunch over there with Steve Hall in Plant City. Where do we go to, Fred's? Fred's Market. If you're ever in Plant City, Florida, Fred's Market, one of the best places to eat in the world. Home cooking. It is the real America over there. Buffet style. Jason Aldean could have shot his country music video right outside of Fred's Barbecue. I loved it. I loved it. I loved it. Great seeing you, Roger. It was good. And the company was fantastic as well. Thanks, Roger. Roger P. Schulman, newsman here on AM -860, The Answer in Tampa Bay, and again, been in this market for many, many years. So this brings me to an interesting dilemma, honestly, because I'm very impatient. I want this yard work finished. And I asked the guy yesterday, I said, well, first of all, I'm not really excited about the fact that you work with an irrigation company that has 80 percent illegal immigrant workforce. And he said, Mike, that's everywhere. He goes, there's not a whole lot of companies that are in this field that don't use immigrant labor, as he kept putting it. And of course, he really means illegal immigrant labor. And it gets back to that question, progressives love to ask this, who's going to cut our lawns? Who's going to mow our yards? Who's going to clean our laundry? Who's going to clean our houses? And so I guess the question I'd ask for you, I'd pose to you is, if it's between getting the work done or not, would you use illegal immigrant labor? I mean, there's two interesting issues. And listen, Trump's going to have to contend with the illegal immigrant, and you know where he is on that. I mean, he's hardcore. This is a Florida problem. And you know, some would say as Florida goes, so goes the rest of the country. But I want to ask you about both of those issues. First of all, flat out, there's no way around this, the homeowners insurance issue in Florida is a crisis. It is a catastrophe. And there are Floridians who are leaving the state. They can't afford it. In some cases, the homeowners insurance premiums are higher than their mortgage. And DeSantis is going to have to address that. No way around that. And I really suspect that a lot of this is out of his control. I mean, let's face it, you do have hurricanes in Florida, but we're not the only state with bad weather. This has got to be addressed. And number two, again, me being an impatient guy, I'm like, come on, let's get going. Let me get the irrigation system installed. Well, when you lose 80 % of your workforce because they fled the state to go to Texas, where I guess that the state is Texas is friendlier to illegals than Florida is. What do you do? What would you do if confronted with that? Would you because I would say that on principle, you should reject using illegal immigrants to work in your home or on your in your yard. But it's one thing to say it. It's another thing to practice it. What do you think? 800 -655 -MIKE. I'd like to get your reaction to this pair of issues that Floridians are facing. And it might be an issue around the country as well. Do you have the same experience in your state? Let me hear from you. In the ReliefFactor .com studios, 800 -655 -MIKE, 800 -655 -6453. We have one open line. I hope you join us. Left -leaning activists are attacking Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Read The People's Justice Clarence Thomas and the constitutional stories that define him. On sale now from Regnery Publishing.
Whoopi Goldberg to Justice Clarence Thomas: 'Could Your Parents Vote?'
"What Democrat? The line's too long. I can't even name them call? You know Biden, your hero? Yeah. Karen, you're listening? That's why you're a moron. Biden stood with the men who are opposing the Voting Act. You idiot! Karen? You still there, Karen? I may call you Karen. What's the other crap's name? Sonny. Oh yes, women run around with the name Sonny all the time. They're they call themselves Sonny. Sonny? I thought there was a pejorative. here, Come son. Come here, son. Hey, who you talking to? Uh, what's your name? Go ahead. The 14th amendment actually had us on equal footing. They would have been able to vote. And why you know that changed? Hold on, let's hear why it changed. People got out and made it change. If we didn't have to, no one would do it. Who passed the 14th amendment? Hey, sis, who passed the 14th amendment? Who wrote it? Republicans.
Why Is the All-Women 'The View' Panel Upset About Diversity?
"Grouping may I say. And they all have a leg up. May I say that too Mr. producer? Because the views only hiring women. I do notice however there aren't any Asian women on the view. Have you noticed? Is there an Asian woman on the view? I don't believe there is. So they're perfectly fine with this. Isn't that amazing? We The Democrats and their Marxist allies do not. Freedom of religion. The Democrats and their Marxist allies. You can write down the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms. The Democrats defend the right to bear asses in front of little kids but bear arms no. Due process. Federalism? No unless it works in their favor. I hate the Constitution all together last time I checked unless they can use it against, you people. But here's where we go where on a bigoted panel that doesn't have a single man. Not one. It's genitalia centric. I want to also sort of read something that Clarence Thomas apparently said. Oh gosh he doesn't know what diversity is. Oh gosh. O .G. Wellikurs. You know he is a
Mark Levin Calls Out Sunny Hostin for a Discussion on 'Racism'
"But listen to this sunny Houston He ignores systemic racism in America I'm mister producer I want you to contact her people at the view and ask her to come on the program Well we can have a short discussion About America and racism Okay I'm quite certain None of these people will come on the show So maybe she will In the clarence Thomas syndrome look at the hatred Look at the hatred That's why the view only exists because what is it ABC Syndicates of mister produce something like that So in other words ABC one of the major corporations in the world I guess it's is it still part of Disney I guess it is So it's the same corporate environment And so these people at ABC and Disney they provide a platform Like this these are haters These are nasty people It's like over at MSNBC They're provided a platform by Comcast Who rips you off every month By Comcast And they bring us the joy reeds of the world There's nothing joyful about joy Reid She's a nut Fact she's worse than a nut She's a bigot Am I humble opinion
Julie Kelly Exposes $100 Million Racket Led by Matthew Graves' Wife
"Ways that influence is exerted is through spouses. And you know, this is an attack baseless, by the way, that they tried to go towards clarence Thomas on. But meanwhile, Matthew graves wife runs this racket. I mean, I'm looking to this website, Julie, and I mean, it has a $100 million organization that almost no one's ever heard of. I mean, it's the national woman's law center. I mean, we were just marveling in the break. Just how much money that some of these groups have. We've never heard of them before, right? By the way, we have one of the clips up on the screen of their Twitter account. Abortion always is one of those things. Then they have another, again, Matthew graves wife runs this racket. Just let kids play is another one of their initiatives, which is all about having trans kids place, it's amazing. Julie, tell us about this connection, is there a conflict of interest? Why is this important to know? I think there are definitely is a conflict of interest. Look, she's the CEO and president of this very well funded nonprofit. This group is working hand in glove with people like senator White House. And other activist groups who are demanding the resignation of clarence Thomas, this group is behind the smear campaign against clarence Thomas and his wife. So how can you have the chief prosecutor who were supposed to believe justice is blind and he's treating people suspects and defendants all the same when we know that he's not have his wife who is such an outspoken activist trying to remove a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice working with Democrats in Congress to do that and create this smear campaign against him, she also has choice words and has about Donald Trump and his supporters. She referred to white women suggested that white women who voted for Donald Trump in 2020 people like me are racist and are only supporting a systemically white racist system in America. This is the sort of thing that she has said and her activism role.
Dems Silent As Nonviolent Offenders Languish in Jail
"They've already been in jail two and a half years. But I thought I thought that the Democrats favor that even if you are alleged to have killed someone, you should be free until your trial. It's just these people who are in prison. I've interviewed people like John millis on my show a number of times from prison. He has not even had a bail hearing in now I guess two years. Not a bail hearing. And this doesn't trouble a single person in the Democratic Party. Half of this country actually probably celebrates this. They do. It also doesn't bother a lot of people in the Republican Party. I will say that there's no reason why. House Republicans should not call a judge like Tim Kelly. I mean, look at what the Senate is trying to do to clarence Thomas and Republican conservative judges on the Supreme Court. Why are we not calling? So let's say they did. Let's say they call judge Kelly to testify in Congress. What would they do? What would you like them to do? I would like for judge Tim Kelly to explain his decision to repeatedly deny bail to nonviolent offenders with no criminal record. So he can tell America it's because they were involved in January 6th of domestic. Why are the Republicans in Congress in the house not doing this? They control the house. They do. I've suggested it privately and publicly. Many times. And nothing has happened so far. But I would call Tim Kelly. I would call judge beryl Howell, who was the chief judge. I'm sure you're familiar with her name. She
Kayleigh McEnany: Media Should Focus on Hunter Biden, Not SCOTUS
"Kaylee a couple thoughts at first you're right about the Supreme Court We've had a number of substantial wins on faith on firearms on Chevron deference which is a big deal I mean the regulatory bureaucratic state These are big issues They may not sound like it but they are I mean we effectively have the bureaucracy running the country right now I'm going to ask you quite a kind of already know the answer to it but I just want your thoughts You think that's behind me recent attacks air quotes on Clarence Thomas with these nothing burgers to he took a vacation with a rich guy My gosh everybody in Congress basically any human being with any connection ever would be out of a job if that were a crime That's what they're trying to do Discredit the Supreme Court because they can't use it anymore 1000% I mean that's what the media does They pick someone who's a successful conservative I mean I'm sure I know you've had this in media I certainly had to ask press secretary If you are succeeding in making a difference with your voice they will call you every name under the book They will make up things against you They will investigate clarence Thomas but of course they won't look at Sotomayor Kagan or ketanji Brown Jackson or anyone else They're only going to look at Thomas and Alito and Roberts in the like When meanwhile they should be focusing on where the smoking gun is And of course I'm talking about Hunter Biden and the Biden family But no journalism there instead the New York Post who hasn't done the only journalism there really they are left out of a White House event That's how it works You don't subscribe to the mob mentality URLs
"clarence thomas" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"That's the accusation. You're too generous, clarence Thomas. Your friends are too generous. Meanwhile, while we're on the topic, someone who has never held accountable for not recusing themselves, justice Elena Kagan. Remember when she had to rule on the ObamaCare decision? When there were some very suspicious connections between her and her husband regarding companies that had business in front of the court. And that's the other thing. Is that Harlan court never had any business in front of the court? Not to mention, did you know that Sonia Sotomayor took $3 million from a book publisher and did not recuse it from case its cases, and they did have business in front of the court. So the clear thing is this Thomas never broke a law and this could have been targeted earlier. Why is it coming out now? Ideological motivations. The left obviously had a strategy meeting earlier this year, and they said, we got to start taking people off. And they've tried and they try. They were successful in Tucker, Tucker's been temporarily muzzled. They've indicted Donald Trump and they're probably going to indict him federally, of which is going to create a whole mess of things. And I'm not even sure how that's going to end up. Take out James O'Keefe, veritas way to effective. And they know they're probably going to be unsuccessful in taking out clarence Thomas. So then what is the secondary or third or fourth reason they're doing this? They're doing this to try to make an example that if you dare be courageous, if you do not tow the party line, we're going to try to ruin your life. We're going to obliterate you. We are going to put you on display the same way clarence Thomas predicted it during his confirmation hearing as a high-tech lynching. They're just trying to do it all over again. But do not underestimate the racial component here. They want to try to tar and feather and smear and slander any black American that speaks out against the American Democrat dominance over the urban community. Clarence Thomas represents a different way for black America. He represents a different path for black Americans. Play cut one 18 sunny hostin from the view speaking about clarence Thomas play cut one 18. It's interesting. Cornyn, who is a Republican, says basically is a racist attack, which is what they said when he was appointed to the supreme court. It's just not true. And I think the worst part of the fact that they're using the black heart in that way is that it lessens the real degradation when it happens to African Americans in this country. And so I think that's, you know, that's just smoke and mirrors. Yeah, just smoke and mirrors. You see how uncomfortable she gets though? She's not as articulate as soon as you use the race card against the left and you call them bigots which they are. They get unreal and comfortable footing. Same with the black only calculus course at Evanston, high school..
"clarence thomas" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"Okay, let's get actually down to the substance of it, right? So there are accusations, the big one that they are throwing at clarence Thomas is all about payments. Okay, so ProPublica has a hit piece against clarence Thomas. It's all about tuition payments. This whole thing is super bizarre. So clarence Thomas, being a good Christian, a very devout Catholic, by the way. Fostered his grand nephew Mark taking custody of him and essentially raising him from the age of ten. As part of that, he sent them to hidden Lake academy a boarding school in Georgia. Dallas based Republican donor and a good man Harlan crow paid for two years of tuition at that school and once again, the complaint is that Thomas did not report this as a gift. That's just nonsense. It's well known that Harlan Kron clarence Thomas are very good friends. Harlan Crowe, for anyone that knows this, he's an incredible collector. He loves American history. And he has a friendship with clarence Thomas. Are you not a lot of friends? If you're on the Supreme Court, the only statement Thomas has made is that he and his wife are very close friends with the crows. That's well known. And then his understanding was that he wasn't required to report any of these things. And on both points, he's correct. There's no evidence of any bribery or corruption. But they're coming after him hard. They want criminal investigations. They want indictments. They want the whole thing. Mika brzezinski on payments to clarence Thomas wife because then it somehow involves something around Ginny Thomas. They're going after the entire family, everybody. Play cut one 16. We're going to talk now about the new reporting on payments to the wife of Supreme Court Justice clarence Thomas. Citing documents, it reviewed The Washington Post reports that conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo paid Ginny Thomas tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work, but gave specific instructions that her name be left off the paperwork. The same year the nonprofit judicial education project filed a brief to the Supreme Court challenging a landmark civil rights law aimed at protecting minority voters. That's the real key, isn't it? They don't like how he votes. They don't like his decisions. They don't like his opinions. You see, one of the reasons they hate clarence Thomas so much is they thought over a period of time with all of these nonsense attacks, he would moderate his positions. They thought that clarence Thomas would become like John Roberts, kind of vanilla squishy in the middle. They're coming after him because he's effective and he's persuasive. And his clerks are actually going on to make a massive impact. They view him as someone who never should have been there in the first place. I think we underestimate the power. Of scoring political animosity. Joe Biden was defeated. In the confirmation of clarence Thomas, and Joe Biden and his allies, they don't forget. They look at the judicial branches striking down his vaccine mandate, striking down, ruling by Fiat, and they want to find somebody to blame. The New York Times has come out regarding these accusations saying, enforcement actions for any failure to comply with the disclosure law have another's constraint. There's generally a four year statute of limitations for civil actions under federal law. The tuition payments fall outside that window, in his statement, mister Paola indicated that mister Crowe has paid for mister Mark Martin's tuition at the Randolph Macon academy in Virginia in the 2006 2007 academic year. Oh wait, so let me get this straight. The accusation is that clarence Thomas had a friend be generous towards a person in need? That was not his son..
Why the Left Hates Clarence Thomas
"ProPublica has a hit piece against clarence Thomas. It's all about tuition payments. This whole thing is super bizarre. So clarence Thomas, being a good Christian, a very devout Catholic, by the way. Fostered his grand nephew Mark taking custody of him and essentially raising him from the age of ten. As part of that, he sent them to hidden Lake academy a boarding school in Georgia. Dallas based Republican donor and a good man Harlan crow paid for two years of tuition at that school and once again, the complaint is that Thomas did not report this as a gift. That's just nonsense. It's well known that Harlan Kron clarence Thomas are very good friends. Harlan Crowe, for anyone that knows this, he's an incredible collector. He loves American history. And he has a friendship with clarence Thomas. Are you not a lot of friends? If you're on the Supreme Court, the only statement Thomas has made is that he and his wife are very close friends with the crows. That's well known. And then his understanding was that he wasn't required to report any of these things. And on both points, he's correct. There's no evidence of any bribery or corruption. But they're coming after him hard. They want criminal investigations. They want indictments. They want the whole thing. Mika brzezinski on payments to clarence Thomas wife because then it somehow involves something around Ginny Thomas. They're going after the entire family, everybody. Play cut one 16. We're going to talk now about the new reporting on payments to the wife of Supreme Court Justice clarence Thomas. Citing documents, it reviewed The Washington Post reports that conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo paid Ginny Thomas tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work, but gave specific instructions that her name be left off the paperwork. The same year the nonprofit judicial education project filed a brief to the Supreme Court challenging a landmark civil rights law aimed at protecting minority voters. That's the real key, isn't it? They don't like how he votes. They don't like his decisions. They don't like his opinions.
"clarence thomas" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"It could be roe versus wade. And then they have a big table. No clerks allowed. And it's just 9 people. And they talk. And they have coffee and then they talk. And they debate. One of the reasons they hate clarence Thomas is that he's unbelievably charming because he's a great person. Let me say that again. He's a good person. And they're attacking him for being a generous good person. For basically helping out his nephew to go to college or a friend of his in Dallas, clarence Thomas is a good person. And guess what? So he's in this private room. 9 people and maybe he's able to win over John Roberts a little bit more. Maybe he's able to de radicalize Sotomayor and Kagan might be not that effective. Their vote, their votes have been terrible. But they hate clarence Thomas because this is what's important. He took the philosophical tradition from Scalia and continued it and carries it forward. You see, clarence Thomas has not done the John Roberts thing where he gets flimsy and goes to the middle. Clarence Thomas is actually holding down the conservative opinion. They look to him as a thought leader and they should the guy is objectively brilliant. So Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch come on, he's almost like The Godfather of the originalist viewpoint. The guy so well read, he's so deep, this is one of the reasons why the left hates him is because he impacts those dialogs in those discussions and those private 9 person and they can't control that. The administrative state is not able to impact them..
Exposed: Radical Left's Strategy to Destroy Conservatives
"Number 13 in the rules for radicals. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it. And polarize it. Rule number 8, keep the pressure on rules for radicals. Is one of the many, let's just say pieces of literature that radical left wing activists considered to be their gospel, how they operate. It's more of the technical side than the philosophical side. The philosophical side we've gone through, but the technical side of how they operate can be best explained through rules for radicals, amongst many other pieces of literature. But I think this is really important. Pick the target freeze it personalize it and polarize it. That's what they're doing right now to clearance Thomas. They've done that Tucker Carlson. They've done that to James O'Keefe. They see the movement makers on the right. They see the people that are willing to be effective, courageous, bold. You notice that they don't go after John Roberts? You notice that? John Roberts is not a big point of controversy. I don't know about Neil Gorsuch. Yep, but clarence Thomas is number one. And let's just be honest. The reason why they hate clarence Thomas is the same reason why they refuse to put clarence Thomas in the black history museum brought to you by the Smithsonian right there in downtown D.C.. It's because they consider clarence Thomas to be a race trader. That's how big it did these people are. They consider clarence Thomas to be a traitor to the black race and its white liberals that largely believe this because they believe they can control black people the same way that Democrats control black people through poll taxes and segregation, which they're doing again. And also through slavery, they just control black people differently through government handouts and goodies and voting for the Democrat party while white liberals remain rich and powerful, blacks continue to line up to vote for the American Democrat party. The whole thing is a scam. Candace Owens, Brandon Tatum are doing a great job of exposing that scam.
"clarence thomas" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"Oh, you should have cut it, Ryan, ah, the best part of that C-SPAN footage. You know the best part of that C-SPAN footage? The degenerate Joe Biden is like this with his hands. You got to find the screen grab. I've seen that video probably 50 times. And then Joe Biden is just staring at him. That message was delivered right to Joe Biden, but guess what? Joe Biden's not involved in this current attack, but his allies are. They're striking back against clarence Thomas. And I'm going to walk you through all of it. They're trying to take this guy out. The same way they took out James O'Keefe, the same way they took out Tucker Carlson the same way that they've indicted Donald Trump. They got their eyes set on clarence Thomas. Look with all the danger out there in today's world, many people are concerned about the very real possibility of food shortages. That's why I urge everyone to secure a long-term emergency food supply while you can go to my patriot supply dot com that the nation's largest preparedness company and right now they're offering a special deal when you buy their three month emergency food kit, which lasts up to 25 years in storage, with each kit you order, you'll receive a bonus of crucial survival gear worth over $200 for free. The three month emergency food kit guarantees your family will have peace of mind during a disaster and the survival gear will help you be even more prepared. The kit includes breakfast lunch dinner drinks and snacks over 2000 calories a day. Best of all, this food is tasty. Your whole family will love it. To get your emergency food and your free survival gear worth over $200, go to my patriot supply dot com. That's my patriot supply dot com. We are 9 meals away from anarchy. What have you done to be able to protect your family against societal collapse, bedlam, chaos?.
How Democrats Changed the Game for Supreme Court Nominations
"Left has hated clarence Thomas since the moment George H. W. Bush to his credit, nominated him to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, remember, Supreme Court hearings used to not be very contentious. Used to be 98 nothing and 72 ten kind of boring, you know, okay, great. Passerby. But then the Democrats decided across the Rubicon. The Democrats decided to derail one of president Ronald Reagan's nominees. The great Robert bork. Robert bork should have been on the U.S. Supreme Court. He was an unbelievable writer. He knew the constitution through and through, but they went after him, and they went after him very, very hard. They, not just condemned him, they mocked him. They made him seem like a radical, which he wasn't. He was a thoughtful, reasonable person. And the term borking, a nominee, was born. That you could derail a nomination. And they tried to do this Kavanaugh, by the way, and they were unsuccessful. And basically they were able to consolidate 58 Democrats to 42 Republicans to reject a Supreme Court nominee the first of which in over 50 years to be rejected by the U.S. Senate. Joe Biden was the instrumental person. He was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and derailed Robert bork's attempt to go on the U.S. Supreme Court. Play cut one 19. As a nationally known jurist and legal scholar, Robert bork was a mainstay of conservative jurisprudence for more than half a century. Those views fueled a Titanic struggle over his 1987 nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, a fight that became a seminal moment in altering the process for all future nominees. Bork's Supreme Court confirmation hearings unfolded in September 1987, and heralded a historic struggle over the ideological composition of the federal courts. The judges responsibility is to discern how the framers values defined in the context of the world they knew. Apply in the world we know. Brilliant, Ted Kennedy, who was an evil person. How many times can you say chappaquiddick? Was involved. Joe Biden was involved. The same cabal. They never go away.
The Woke Totalitarian Arsonists Hate the Constitution
"We have known for a while that the totalitarian arsonists that are trying to take over the country. You could call them the woke, the Marxist, the American Democrat party. They hate the constitution. We know that. The constitution is the greatest political document ever written. This is exactly why they're doing everything they possibly can to abolish the Electoral College to add new states to give them the power to be able to have HR one. They've been engaging in a hundred year project to destroy the constitution. The promise of the founding fathers. They don't like the idea of separation of powers consent to the governed and independent judiciary. They don't like that. And they especially want the third branch of government, article three of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court to act and absolute lockstep harmony with the administrative state. You see, Congress largely does the bidding of the administrative state. You want a war in eastern Ukraine. You want the borders wide open. You want to have the military go totally trans. You'll find enough legislators to kind of just turn a blind eye. The executive branch is the administrative state. That fourth branch of government. But the Supreme Court largely thanks to president Donald Trump, by the way, president Donald Trump winning the 2016 election giving us Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, running the table. Three Supreme Court Justices that have largely done a great job. I mean, there's been some decisions I don't like, but it's been a great job. Has changed the game. Now all of a sudden there is a counterbalance to this nonstop blitzkrieg on our freedoms and liberties brought to you by the unchecked fourth branch of government. You see the Supreme Court striking down roe versus wade, reconsidering the Chevron decision, reconsidering the lemon decision, their restoring the constitution as the bedrock authority for the American government and the left doesn't like that.
"clarence thomas" Discussed on THE NEWS with Anthony Davis
"Has heightened police presence in subway stations in an attempt to curtail crime, while endorsing involuntarily hospitalizing people experiencing homelessness with mental illness and using police to remove people suffering from mental illness from subway stations. But even as Adams touts future investments in mental healthcare, the city has reduced services for those experiencing such challenges. Advocates argued that the circumstances surrounding Neely's life and death is struggles with homelessness, food insecurity and mental health reflected long-standing failures to provide social services to impoverish New Yorkers. The murder took place on Monday afternoon, a 24 year old former marine whose name and identity was not immediately publicly released, held nearly in a choke hold while other riders restrained him on the floor of a train, a four minute video captured by a freelance journalist shows. Police questioned the former marine placed him in custody and then released him the same day. On Wednesday, the city medical examiner confirmed that Neely, who witnesses say, was yelling at other riders on an F train heading to Manhattan, died from compression to the neck. His death was ruled a homicide. As of Thursday morning, no arrests had been made, and no charges had been filed. The response sparked protests at subway stations and on the streets in recent days, over what they say was an act of vigilantism that killed a man experiencing homelessness and mental health challenges. Investigations have established that deaths and killings among homeless people have surged in recent years. Homelessness advocates and city officials condemned Neely's death and the city's inadequate response to people experiencing mental health crises and homelessness. You can subscribe to the 5 minute news Patreon for bonus videos, commentary and more go to Patreon dot com slash 5 minute news. Hello. This is Gary shehan. Welcoming you to check out the French history podcast. Our main show covers the history of France from the first humans until present. If you liked Mike Duncan's the history of Rome and wanted a similar program covering the land of beauty, culture and love, we are exactly that. We also host world renowned scholars who have delivered guest episodes on their specialties, including 18th century pirates, revolutionary booksellers in 20th century Paris, the special friendship between the Marquis de Lafayette and Thomas Jefferson and numerous others. Learn what you love and listen to the French history podcast today.
Sonia Sotomayor Took $3M From Book Publisher While Ruling on Case
"Well they're going to have to call another hearing because it's been revealed that Sotomayor took in 3.6 million As reported by the daily wiring and excellent story 3.6 million From a book company that did have business before the Supreme Court at the time Greg price points out on his Twitter Sonia Sotomayor received over 3,000,003.6 for her books from penguin Random House publishing and then didn't recuse her stuff from the case In which they were involved before the Supreme Court where the company stood to lose money What did clarence Thomas do again In 2010 she got a $1.2 million book advance from doubles day group a part of the conglomerate 2012 she reported receiving two advanced payments from the publisher totaling 1.9 million That's a lot of money For advances on books and I guarantee she hadn't sold anything close to what I've sold Now that sound you hear is every Democrat who demanded Thomas and Gorsuch resign suddenly running away from any discussion of Supreme Court ethics While the accusations against the conservative justices were salient shallow there's actual meat on the bone regarding what Sotomayor did The publishing company in question actually stood to lose money depending on how the court ruled Yet she took millions of dollars from it anyway and then did not recuse herself from the case
"clarence thomas" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"But how has it been presented inside the beltway, Molly? Well, I'm glad that you mentioned, first off, about how these attacks on justice Thomas have been going on from well more than 30 years. Yes. In the beltway, there is a report from a left wing media group that says that justice Thomas has a very wealthy friend who has taken justice Thomas on trips and holidays together and that he has failed to report this. As required by the law, the problem being there's absolutely no such requirement of any of this or hasn't been for the entirety of his time as a justice. And that these types of trips have been taken by other justices. I mean, I think justice brewer took like 235 such trips that weren't reported. I mean, reported officially. And so it's trying to make is trying to impeach an unimpeachable character, which is what I would say about justice Thomas. Well, he is unimpeachable. As is Jenny Thomas, but there is a continual conflation of any insinuation innuendo and a bare fact here in the Harlan crow is a very wealthy man. Harlem Crowe is extended generosity to the thomases. Everybody in Washington, D.C., and I mean everybody takes care of the justices and other judges who are district court and federal court judges. Everybody does it as well for members of the clergy. Everybody does it for journalists, Molly, and there is no ethical breach moreover article three judges are independent of Congress and this insinuation never ends. Does it? It doesn't. And yeah, that's what they're trying to say. They're like, there are rules for other people that if they were to have a friend like this or have relations like this, they might have to report some aspect of it. If they're in Congress or if they're a federal bureaucrat. So therefore, justice Thomas is evil and wrong. Well, that doesn't mean that Supreme Court Justices have such reporting requirements. He actually put out a statement saying that when he had this friendship that had this type of aspect to it, he talked to advisers about what he needed to report what he didn't need important was told he could make reports. But it's not really about this anyway. None of this is about justice Thomas having a super wealthy friend. I want to just make one other point though. Justice Thomas is probably one of the least wealthy Supreme Court Justices in history. He's known for, in fact, taking his RV around the country when he goes on vacation and parking it in a Walmart parking lot because those are kinds of people he likes to hang out with. The idea that this guy is corrupted by having like one wealthy friend is ridiculous. But again, it's not about that. It's about the fact that justice Thomas is very clear in his legal reasoning that he's an important presence on the court in a manner that liberals would like him not to be. You know, Molly, I also think there's a larger agenda at work. They want to smear him as his work gains incredible reputation for its clarity. Now, I don't agree with the justice on his particular approach to substantive due process and his anti incorporation. Many, many things in the law. I don't agree with him. But if I want someone to understand originalism, I give him his opinion in McDonald versus city of Chicago, because it's completely fairly articulated there. The animus is race based. That's why they hate clarence Thomas. Am I correct? Oh, it's not even, you know, I don't think anyone even disputes that. I think you might even have many people on the left, admitting that. This is, this is a black man, and he very much even his even probably some of the disagreements that you have, such as on substantive due process, are related to his care and concern for certain provisions as they relate to the history of black Americans. And he comes out very differently than how white liberals would like him to come out. And they tried saying for years, if he didn't do anything. And it turned out that he was having so much effect on the court shaping its jurisprudence so much that that became a laughable why. And now they're just trying to tear him down and get rid of him. They've done a bit of obsessed with wanting to get rid of him. Since he was first even hinted at as a nominee. And this doesn't surprise me and it's timing. Not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm all the par has a new book coming out. Judge the parr has a brilliant new book about clarence Thomas coming out about how he always identifies with the underdog in these cases. He's always aware of like in kilo. Who's getting screwed by government. And he's very much onto the facts of that. And so they've got a great well research book by one of the most respected federal judges out there, district court judge, nominated by Trump to the 6th circuit he's on the 6th circuit now. And a superstar and he's right in this book, and now we get this ProPublica nonsense, and I just I weary of whether or not we're ever going to change the culture of Washington, D.C...
"clarence thomas" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"As the Jew hater category was too small for Facebook to run an ad campaign, quote, Facebook's automated system suggested Second Amendment as an additional category, presumably because its system had correlated gun enthusiasts with anti semites end of his quote that's not just my addition. All right, well, so that's not a big shocker there. The correlation between the gun nuts and the anti semites. But okay. Yeah, so I think this argument, I mean, why I called it clever. Is designed to reach beyond the scope of just the right wing, right? So judge katzman's concerns like they overlap a lot with the concerns that you and I have, right? Considered a quote from the decision. Congress could not have anticipated the pernicious spread of hate and violence that the rise of social media likely has since fomented. Nor could Congress have divined the role that social media providers themselves would play in this tale, mounting evidence suggests that providers designed their algorithms to drive users toward content and people the users agreed with and that they have done it too well, nudging susceptible souls even further down dark paths. By contrast, when the CDA, that's the communications decency act became law, and thus gave a section two 30. The closest extant ancestor to Facebook and it was still several branches lower on the evolutionary tree. Love that aside, was the chat room or message forum, which acted as a digital bulletin board, and I like this a good argument and did nothing proactive to forge off site connections. So ultimately, the cat's been argument is that algorithmic decisions are self created content. And thus beyond the scope of section two 30, and that would put the onus on Congress to pass a new law extending section two 30 to algorithms, and that would mean, you know, doing nothing because Congress broke it, right? Right. And that's the middle ground that the government tried to argue at oral argument before the Supreme Court last week. And again, I mean, I'm curious your thoughts, Liz. Look, I mean, if you are concerned about the fate of the Internet and we both clearly are section two 30 is an issue that doesn't neatly or at least only divide along the left, right political spectrum. So, for example, judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, clearly a liberal, asked a lengthy question in which she opined that section two 30 was designed to protect ISPs that restrict offensive content, but is being used in here instead to promote offensive content. So then she asked, how is that even conceptually consistent with what Congress intended? And meanwhile, supreme good point, right? So meanwhile, Supreme Court reporter Amy Howe noted that even clarence Thomas appeared surprisingly sympathetic during oral argument to the idea that section two 30 protects recommendations as long as the provider's algorithm treats content on its website similarly. So his question is, if the same algorithm that recommends ISIS videos based on a user's history and interests also recommends cooking videos to someone who is interested in cooking, how can Google be held responsible for those recommendations, which I think I don't personally disagree with that, although I think that you should not do it. I mean, I think it may be morally reprehensible in a bad business decision, but I do take the point, yeah, I think the larger social question about YouTube and other algorithms is really one that we have to grapple with as a society, right? Like the idea that the feedback loop is designed to maximize engagement, right? That's what we have. YouTube wants people to spend as much time on YouTube as possible. And so it feeds them via the algorithm, videos that are designed to keep them on YouTube, and that can have the secondary effect of, oh hey, you seem ISIS curious. Here's a whole bunch of ISIS videos. You seem to be interested in conspiracy theories. Here's the Alex Jones show, here's a bit about how the earth is flat. Right. Like connecting QAnon people together. There would be no QAnon without these algorithms connecting these people, right? That is one of the things that we have to learn to deal with in this society. But I think part of the problem, if you're asking, I think that we anthropomorphize these algorithms and to pretend that YouTube knows something or to pretend that Facebook knows that you want to make friends who want to blow shit up. No, it's not. It's a bunch of mathematical formulas that were cooked up and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't, but they are not, they're not YouTube trying to do something. Facebook isn't trying to play matchmaker, it's trying to provide you with sticky content to keep you on the website so it can continue to show you ads. It's so I think anthropomorphizing it and pretending that this is like Mark Zuckerberg's plan is silly and not a particularly sophisticated or effective way to deal with these laws. I think that's a really excellent point that I haven't heard anyone else sort of make that lucidly. So I really appreciate that. What's your prediction as to where the Supreme Court is going to go on this? I mean, I think that they're not going to blow the Internet up. I agree with you that taking a maximalist position that would kind of gut two 30 in ways that would make the Internet not work. I mean, because the Internet runs on you to start generated content. So, you know, if they got rid of, if they made platforms, you know, uniformly liable for user generated content or even the algorithm, you know, the algorithmically generated content. The Internet wouldn't work. There'd be no social media. So I think that they're not going to take that maximalist position. And it was pretty clear from oral argument that that wasn't where anybody was really headed. Yeah, what do you think? Well, I am feeling optimistic today. And I guess I would say, you know, you say not the maximalist position, that would leave intact, you know, some version of the government's argument. I could see in a ferment, right? A kind of a weird alliance between Kagan and Sotomayor and perhaps some of the howler monkey contingent on one side, and then a Thomas Jackson descent, which may be the only Thomas Jackson. We get in the history. I don't know. I mean, usually you bet against just a straight affirmance, because typically speaking, the Supreme Court doesn't take cases to go, yep, you got that exactly right, 9th circuit. Good job. But I could see that happening here, right? Like I could see, okay, we took this to try and figure it out. We read the briefs. We heard oral argument and yeah, we're persuaded the 9th circuit got it right. But I have to say, because we just had oral arguments, our bet is going to have to wait four to 6 months before we can resolve it. The Internet as we know it lives to fight another day. Great. And that's going to be our show for today. Thank you so much, Liz, for being here. Cool. Really fun. Yeah. And we will see you tomorrow. You got into Harvard
"clarence thomas" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"This is in the law, quote, provided by another information content provider. So in Thomas's view, editing, that's something like flagging on Twitter. Hey, this comment has been flagged as hateful, right? Would be actually editing the content rather than editing how we're choosing how that content is displayed. And so therefore you could sue Twitter if you were a Nazi for putting up label saying, hey, this is a Nazi. Yeah. And you know what? That whole editor distinction is really big in conservative circles. So we talked about the desantis law the other day that the Florida law, the Florida defamation law, has specific provisions about editing because that's just one of the conservative bugbears. I mean, it's less ridiculous than the rest of it, but it still pretty clearly contradicts the plain language of two a that immunizes content providers for any action, voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to objectional material. I mean, I'm pretty sure any still means any even to clarence Thomas. Probably. Yeah, no. That's a really, really good point. And I don't know how you can square that, right? Putting up a Nazi warning restricts access to Nazi content if you don't want to click on Nazi. Anyway, but clarence is not done. He wrote again about section two 30 in April of 2021, and procedurally this was a little bit different. This was not a denial of cert. This was a GVR. We have talked about that on the show, but again, just to remind the listeners, that's when the Supreme Court grants certiorari V vacates the lower court's decision and are remands the case back down to the lower court with instructions, right? So they take up the case all at once, they say, we're granting cert, we're overruling the lower court and we're sending this back with instructions to do it over. And you get GDRs really in two situations, right? You either get it when the law changes while the cert petition is pending. And at that point, the court sort of very sensibly is like, oh hey, yeah, the lower court got this wrong, but they couldn't have known that they were getting it wrong because the law changed, and we had announced it yet. So let's give a chance to do a do over, right? We're going to remand it back and say, hey, now the law's X do it over. Or in this case, when you have munsing wear Vaca tour. And if you don't know what Munson wear Vaca tour is, you need to go all the way back to episode one 81. It is a fun story about wartime profiteering during World War II and 1940s underwear. It's great. Anyway, the point is I'm staying off the rabbit trail. You should be proud of me less. The point is that GVR are another largely ministerial activity, right? Like the court is just saying, hey, we need to do that. And Thomas, once again, use that as an opportunity to just blow V8 at length to his fellow justices. So this case was called night institute versus Biden. That is another case. We broke down back when it was happening. This time in episode one 76. And the question in that case was whether Donald Trump had a cause of action for being blocked on Twitter and the answer is of course not you idiot. Unless you are clarence Thomas, who came up with outlook. Here's the actual quote. It's too stupid. I gotta read it. Quote, is the analogy between common carriers and digital platforms is correct that an answer may arise for dissatisfied platform users who would appreciate not being blocked. Laws that restrict the platforms right to exclude. Now that is dumb and terrifying, but also, since when does clarence Thomas think it's the Supreme Court's job to pass laws? And by the way, since when does any sane person think that blocking trolls on Twitter should be legally actionable? No answer to that. So look, when you hear that Thomas wants to overturn section two 30, that's not entirely correct, at least not from a judicial perspective, right? Like I'm sure his favored legislative and presidential candidates also want to write it out of. Look, the reason we went down that in terms of understanding this case is understanding that clarence Thomas wants to read all sorts of exceptions into section two 30s broad grant of judicial opinion. It's not a narrow thing no matter how often clarence Thomas says it no one else ever has. You pointed that out. And so companies like Google have argued and I think pretty persuasively that, you know, if the court starts wading into this area, that would undermine the entire point of section two 30 because once companies like Google are responsible for some content that their users create. You have to put a system in place to monitor content and you might as well just monitor everything. Why would you then exempt some stuff, but not others? Right, exactly. So most people covering this case have focused on Google's arguments, but of course the Internet companies would like to be immune from lawsuits because getting sued sucks. And of course the maga crowd wants to burn everything to the ground. But what we're really interested in is what the Biden administration is advocating. So let's go back to the facts of this particular case. Yeah, yeah, no, that's exactly right. So this is a good illustration of that Oliver Wendell Holmes aphorism that hard cases make bad law. Put another way, right? Like, this is one where the facts are really, really sympathetic to the plaintiff. And as we're going to see that that provides some looking at this issue, doesn't neatly break down on left right grounds, right? So this is a case, the underlying facts are about the 2015 ISIS terrorist bombings in Paris that killed a 129 people. One of those 129 people was a 23 year old woman named nohemi Gonzalez. She was a U.S. citizen studying abroad in Paris. She had the misfortune of just eating at a bistro in Paris when, as part of a coordinated series of attacks, three members of ISIS opened fire into the bistro the whole point was just to kill a bunch of people. And that left Gonzalez left her family without any serious recourse either for justice in any meaningful sense, or for civil compensation, right? Like, you can't practically Sue ISIS. You can't sue suicide bombers, right? Like, so I understand why they sued Google, right? Because that was someone they could sue. Google owns YouTube and the allegation was that YouTube violated the anti terrorism act, which is 18 USC section two three three three. Right, so that's the law that makes it easier for victims of international terrorism to sue anyone involved with that terrorism. And the crucial provision here is subsection D two, which has at liability may be asserted as to any person who aids in abets by knowingly providing substantial assistance to the person who committed the act itself. So the argument is, yes, ISIS coordinated the attacks, but YouTube aided and abetted those attacks by knowingly permitting ISIS to post on YouTube hundreds of radicalizing videos, which incited violence and recruited potential supporters to join ISIS to conduct a terrorist attacks. So the complaint alleges that YouTube affirmatively recommended ISIS videos to users by selecting the users to whom it would recommend ISIS videos based on what YouTube knew about each of the millions of YouTube viewers targeting users whose characteristics suggested they would be interested in ISIS videos and this is one to contemplate now that we're talking about AI because YouTube doesn't know anything. YouTube's algorithms know everything, which is like the AI, so it's just a thing to keep in mind here. Yeah, no, that's a really insightful point.
"clarence thomas" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Has nothing to do with the constitution, which none of us knows anything about anyway. Okay, Liz, our main story, this episode is going to be classic O 8 deep dive. Because we have a case that was just argued in front of the Supreme Court, Gonzalez versus Google, and a lot of people are talking about this. A lot of people have talked about it from a lot of angles. We're going to try and give it the unique OA take. And I think we have some interesting things to add. So a little bit of a background, right? This is a case about section two 30 of the telecommunications decency act. It's the one that our buddy LegalEagle just put out a video and called the case that could destroy the Internet. I love a good clickbait title, but does spoiler alert? I don't think so, but look like I understand why people might have that take, right? And those reasons go beyond like the Roberts court destroys everything, right? If you're about to tell us that the Roberts court does not in fact destroy everything, I think that's going to be a candidate for the fastest Andrew was wrong in the history of the show. I don't know. There was the one that I recorded in Italy where the judge cannon's order got came down, replacing the register disorder in the middle of the recording. But yes, yes. Your point is well taken. But I want to be more precise. So first things first, we've talked about the history and the importance of section two 30 twice. First on episode three 90, then again, on episode four 51. So I'm going to link those in the show notes. If you want the deep dive on the telecommunications decency act, those are really a great place to start. Okay, but if you want the cliff notes, here they are, 47 USC section two 30 gives two protections to quote an interactive computer service, meaning not only ISPs, but social media platforms websites and anyone who provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server. And yes, that definition is left over from the 90s. Those two protections are one that they will not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any content for defamation purposes, and two that they will not be liable for any effort to moderate or control their content to remove quote material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. That's exactly right. And here's the thing. That law really did, though, there'll be an unintentionally create the modern Internet that we know now. And there is no doubt in my mind that repealing or effectively repealing section two 30 would indeed absolutely crazily radically change the Internet in ways that we can't even begin to predict. So this isn't going to be a LegalEagle was wrong episode exactly, but it's more thinking about what the Roberts court is and does. And you know, how to be scared of them in the right way. Yeah, good. It's good that we're going to give the listeners an instruction in the appropriate manifestation of terror. And we're not afraid to be service at OA. Yeah, right. So first, while the Roberts court does not give a good damn about ripping up long-standing legal principles that protect individual reproductive freedoms or radically restricting the rights of workers to organize or, you know, all the stuff we've talked about on the show for 7 years now, the Roberts court does remain small sea conservative when it comes to radically rewriting rules that could affect business. Yes, and I get it. The Trump wing of the Republican Party is no longer sort of uniformly big business, right? Like they hate big tech. They're wildly protectionist. They've got a bunch of other stuff that would drive Richard Nixon Ronald Reagan both George Bush's yet crazy, right? But the Republican Party actually take a position on anything these days. Isn't it, isn't it basically like whatever we liberal think, but like the opposite? I mean, these are the people who just decided that Vladimir Putin is their hot daddy, 'cause Democrats support arming Ukraine. I mean, they don't really stand for anything. Big business or otherwise, but okay, like to your point, there is a more obvious reason to think that the rapper scores isn't going to burn the Internet to the ground here. And it's that this case does not ask the Supreme Court to reinterpret a judicially created rule or like a long-standing interpretation of a provision of the constitution. What this case is about is about construction of a congressionally created statute, right? This is a law passed by Congress. And so inherently, the court has fewer options for creative mayhem or creative writing. They're interpreting this law. They're not making judicially created doctrine here. Yeah, that's a really excellent point. So let's draw that out a little bit. If you ask the Supreme Court to determine, I don't know, question like whether you get a lawyer at a custody hearing, for example, that now we're in Fifth Amendment territory. So the Supreme Court has to decide if that's a custody hearing that could take away your child, would be a deprivation of your liberty, and if so, whether you had due process of law, which means long-standing a way listeners know, figuring out what's a process and how much of it you're due. And that's why those individual liberty cases feel like they're so much up for grabs with this court because, you know, this court has been absolutely untethered to any sense of history and prior case law if it interferes with how Sam Alito reads the Bill of Rights, which spoiler alert is very, very narrowly. Except the Second Amendment is all encompassing. Go no. Oh gosh, that New York pistol and rifle association case of the right at common law to bear a musket under your cloak when King Henry the 13th. So now we can all carry a rocket launcher. Awesome. Yeah, exactly. So, okay, that's the Supreme Court interpreting constitutional provisions, which are, as we have long said on the show, written in expansive language and designed to be interpreted in that way. But think about it on the other hand, like if Congress passes a law that says no cars can go over 65 mph on an interstate highway, right? Okay, the court still has a little bit of wiggle room to interpret that, but not nearly as much because laws tend to be written differently than the Bill of Rights. So let's again take the classic example of the trope of driving your pregnant wife to the hospital. You're exceeding the 65 mile an hour speed limit. You get pulled over. Suppose this time you actually do get the speeding ticket under this new law. And you challenge it in court. I know, I know. And bear with me for purposes of the hypothetical that having been the pregnant wife of this scenario. Try it. Just try it too. Go ahead. Let's imagine that it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, okay? Right. Well, the scopes monkey trial was over a $100, so okay, we'll play along. All right, fair enough. Okay, so a liberal court might take the plain language. Assuming the law just says no cars could go over 65 mph and I'd understand highway. And the liberal court might say, okay, the law doesn't have a written exception for Liz's pregnant and you better not stick to 65.
"clarence thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Founder of colony capital, took the stand in his own defense and testified that his support for his longtime friend Donald Trump proved disastrous for him and his company. And Supreme Court Justice clarence Thomas gives Republican senator Lindsey Graham a reprieve from testifying before the special grand jury investigating criminal interference in the 2016 election in Georgia. Republican senator Lindsey Graham has been fighting a subpoena to testify before a special grand jury in Georgia since July. Now he's asking the Supreme Court to intervene and justice clarence Thomas has done that, at least temporarily. Graham is arguing that the constitution speech or debate clause shields him from having to testify. But a federal court rejected his arguments and ordered Graham to testify before the grand jury investigating whether then president Donald Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in the state. That order was a firm unanimously by a three judge panel of the 11th circuit Court of Appeals that included two Trump appointees. Fulton county district attorney Fannie Willis wants to question Graham about two phone calls he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad raffensperger in the weeks after the election. Raffensperger told CBS he took Graham's questions about absentee ballots as a suggestion to toss out legally cast votes. During our discussion, he has to balance clean match back to the envelope. The absentee ballots be matched back to the envelope. I explained our process after it went through two sets of signature match at that point they were separated. But then senator Graham applied for us to audit the envelopes and then throughout the bouts for counties who had the highest frequency error of signatures. And that I tried to help explain that that's because we did signature match. You couldn't tie the signatures back anymore. You know, to those ballots, just like with if you voted in person, my name is not on my ballot. And so it can't be tied back to me. It's really something that's been around for over a hundred years. The secret ballot. Graham has dismissed that interpretation as ridiculous. No, that's ridiculous. I
"clarence thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"At least a possibility. The difficulty is that that would take 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. Right. Or one of the two democratic senators who have made clear that they don't want to change the filibuster, Joe Manchin and Christian cinema, would have to both change their mind on that. And that seems unlikely. I think it's actually more likely if there is to be national legislation that the next time we have a Republican Congress and a Republican president, we might see a national abortion ban in which case, abortion would be illegal, not just in those states that forbid it, but throughout everywhere states like New York, California. Wow. We have so much to figure out here. The president and speaker Pelosi have suggested that this opens the door could set precedent to overturn other rights, same sex marriage, a contraception even. Is that an extreme view, Michael, or is that in fact possible? Justice clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in the case saying that he would like to do exactly that. He says that the constitutional rubric under which the court had recognized the right to abortion, what is sometimes called substantive due process. Should be abandoned across the board. And he singled out the court's rulings that protected a right to same sex sexual relations, the same sex marriage, to contraception. He left open the possibility that in his view, those rights might be protected under some other provisions. That seems very unlikely. I should say just as Alito in his majority opinion says that you don't need to worry about that. He doesn't intend to do that, that that's different. But as the dissenters point out and as I think the logic of justice Thomas concurrence says, it's not clear that he'll hold that line. So I think there will be a concerted effort, at least to bring to the court cases that provide the possibility of overturning those other rights. If I had to bet, I would say they won't do it. But it's not because it doesn't follow logically from the opinion. But it's not a false conversation for us to have right now though. Correct. Last minute here, Michael, I really appreciate your expertise as we hear from Democrats about moving forward with legislation. How would that look? We understand that this could be tied up in court. What is the legislative answer to this if Democrats have the numbers? Well, of course, at the state level, it's the abortion right is already protected for the most. Yeah, how about in Congress? Right. So Congress would have to pass a law. As I said, it would have to, this is not a budget bill. So it can't be done through the so called
"clarence thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Inducing drug and that can often sweep in some of what most people consider contraceptives So it would not surprise me if at least some states sweep in some forms of contraception in their abortion bans because I think unbeknownst to most Americans there's a live battle for some time about what abortion means not just whether it should be legal Does Alito's reason a name that other constitutional rights that to quote him are not deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition like gay marriage could be in jeopardy We've seen some signs of it in part Samuel Alito and clarence Thomas has already very publicly argued that the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage was wrongly decided The reasoning of the draft could easily apply to any of the court's jurisprudence on a substantive due process right to privacy including same sex marriage So I think it's a question of Juan do states do something that would give rise to a case and he does the court really want to take down the entirety of substantive due process Jurisprudence and I don't think the answer to that is yes today but I think if you're looking 5 or ten years down the road I imagine you get a different answer Finally you referred to this but do you think the 5 justices who allegedly voted for this knew the can of worms they were opening and how this would further divide an already divided country or did they just not care I think that they don't care is a fair reading at least of the draft the drafts more or less says they don't care So the draft essentially says our job is to interpret the law and if that destroys the country along the way that's really not our problem The irony of course is that one of the arguments the draft offers for undoing roe is that it polarized the debate and deepened the country's divide And so it's strange to say the least that the court seems disinterested in whether it's about to do that again in this decision Thanks Mary That's professor Mary ziegler of UC Davis law school Coming up next Trump's favorite attorney at least for now This is Bloomberg.
"clarence thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Abortion inducing drug And that can often sweep in some of what most people consider contraceptives So it would not surprise me if at least some states sweep in some forms of contraception in their abortion bans because I think unbeknownst to most Americans there's a live battle for some time about what abortion means not just whether it should be legal Does Alito's reason a name that other constitutional rights that to quote him are not deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition like gay marriage could be in jeopardy We've seen some signs of it in part Samuel Alito and clarence Thomas has already very publicly argued that the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage was wrongly decided The reasoning of the draft could easily apply to any of the court's jurisprudence on a substantive due process right to privacy including same sex marriage So I think it's a question of one do states do something that would give rise to a case and two does the court really want to take down the entirety of substantive due process Here's prudence And I don't think the answer to that is yes today but I think if you're looking 5 or ten years down the road I imagine you get a different answer Finally you referred to this but do you think the 5 justices who allegedly voted for this knew the can of worms they were opening and how this would further divide an already divided country or did they just not care I think that they don't care as if they're reading at least if the grass more or less says they don't care So the draft essentially says our job is to interpret the law and if that destroys the country along the way that's really not our problem The irony of course is that one of the arguments the draft offers for undoing roe is that it polarized the debate and deepened the country's divide And so it's strange to say the least of the court seems disinterested in whether it's about to do that again in this decision Thanks Mary That's professor Mary ziegler of UC Davis law school Coming up next Trump's favorite attorney at least for now This is Bloomberg Cyber technology.
"clarence thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Says it sent humanitarian aid the ambassador to the U.S. says China is working on getting the fighting to stop Russia has now demanding Ukrainian surrender in mirepoix has delivered an ultimatum Ukraine has rejected it out of hand Ukraine says Russia has used hypersonic missiles U.S. says not a game changer Turkey is now saying that Moscow and Kyiv are close to agreements on key points Hong Kong chief executive Carrie lam says COVID cases may have peaked She says they're way down now over 14,000 reported out yesterday The lowest in three weeks second day in a row under 20,000 briefing this morning at 11 in Hong Kong Shenzhen has lifted a citywide lockdown Shanghai reporting a record high of new COVID infections and U.S. Supreme Court is announcing that justice clarence Thomas has been hospitalized with some kind of an infection They say flu like symptoms In San Francisco I'm at Baxter this is Bloomberg Paul All right thanks very much We're joined this half by George bull He's chairman of Sanders Morris Harris and George and I know you holding more cash than you might normally otherwise sit on Why is that And where would you be looking to deploy that Well we need to remember that markets are emotional and markets are amoral The investment situation today has a number of expectations factored into it that can be very brittle one way or the other So it's a good time to invest but to invest differently than one normally would A 60 40 investor would a quiet time Probably hold 5% cash Cash is the great risk If you have cash when markets plummet if you have opportunistic cash you can take volatility and uncertainty and turn it into profits And so today I would both personally suggest that people should have ten to 20% of their investable assets in cash waiting you can say that inflation is bad for cash But over the very very short term over the several month period inflation really isn't a factor Keep a lot of cash flow now it can be which a marvelous way to make money in volatile times Would you put some of that money into cryptos Yes I would I have been a pro crypto investor in speculator for probably a year and a half right now What's happened with Russia with the sanctions with embargoes with Russians unable to convert what they consider to be deposits or assets into cash and vice versa The appeal of the blockchain the appeal of cryptocurrencies as a investment harbor and for speculative purposes is very high I think that you can do it conventionally through one of the greystone trust through Ethereum through Bitcoin itself But I think that the harbingers are that cryptocurrencies are going to be legitimate and to be popular and therefore they're a good thing to put a small part of one's portfolio into How about bonds That's a traditional safe harbor What do you think in that space at the moment Well I think the right phase is that bonds are fulls bargain The probabilities of interest rates going higher are extremely high The duration risk and bonds right now where you can lose 10% of your money if interest rates go up 1% are such that only longer term bonds high yield bonds US Treasury bonds guilt anything like that Is something that is not particularly rational and a 60 40 investor to own 25 to maybe 30% conventional bonds and no more at this time On cash companies like Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse are worried about the dollars supremacy But brandywine global investment JPMorgan asset management and others say a replacement is very tough Your.
"clarence thomas" Discussed on The Erick Erickson Show
"Use our servers so you've got gotta go use a foreign country servers or some other less robust system because The woke target amazon and make amazon. All it's actually really damn hard now You can't just go build your own thing. You've got to go build your own internet and you build your own internet because ultimately you require access to the existing internet and the existing wires. You can't force a company to connect to your internet with. There's already an internet it becomes controlling and what we're finding is that the woke are using private companies to do whether they can't get the government to do and now you've got another decision in the supreme court that's come out. Where clarence thomas in the concurrence of case is saying we may need to treat some of these big tech companies like common carriers where a private company can discriminate. A private company can censor because the first woman doesn't apply to them but if they're common carrier than the rules become a little more unique and this was a case about Donald trump blocking people on the internet and the supreme court rendered moot because the president was order. The president and his account has been deleted from twitter and thomas and his curse essentially says how can twitter delete the account of the sitting president of the united states. How can discriminated against. These people and thomas may be on something here because as he points as he points out. You could potentially you you can if the railroad won't let you cross the river on the train and the toll road company won't let you cross the toll road. Will you could of course swim across the river. But we decide with common carriers. You can't discriminate among americans and say you can't cross the river unless you swim we're gonna have to come up with something. The supreme court. I think got the google oracle case right because we should allow innovation through copyright and patent. Trolls have made it very difficult to innovate and software this country. But thomas maybe right in this other case that we're gonna have to start doing something with big tech companies who are increasingly a behavior as a private police force for the left in this country censoring conservatives for example there's a growing movement to allow for example Radio over the internet apple has a radio button. you will notice. That apple has gone down the road of of talk except for. npr doesn't want to risk having a conservative. Like me on apple. And that's fine abbas. Want me that's fine..
"clarence thomas" Discussed on The Erick Erickson Show
"Could fairly use a small subset of someone else's code to make something different and more unique with the supreme court essentially said is that Java had a code that allowed a visual user interface window and google built off of that and made the android operating system sun microsystems that came up with java never had a cell phone operating system. This is something completely new different and it fairly used a snippet of coat. The way it used to work is that you could build off of someone else's code with the exception being if the code was solely designed and uniquely designed for a particular piece of hardware so for example. Apple's macintosh apple controls both the hardware the software. You cannot copy apple's code to then run your code on a macintosh because apple owns both the hardware and the software but with windows for example windows operating systems is can be run on any windows compatible hardware with an intel or amd chip and so people could take parts of windows code and they could not make an operating system but they could make other software that used parts of microsoft code to make it possible than to run their software on top of the overall operating system and it allowed an innovation in windows operating systems A apple allows people through the use of api application programming interfaces to build software that runs on top of apple's operating systems and you get all sorts of innovation until you get into well you swiped right and i've got a pat on ukiah swipe right therefore shut down role operating system. I'm gonna shut down your whole software price Allowing the patent trolls in has screwed up. Software this company in this country and hampered innovation so the supreme court. It's being assailed by some conservative groups. Who hate google because of its ruling on in goolsbee half but the overall actual litigation and process. It got to the right outcome. Even if we all hate google the google is a menace the overall outcome of the supreme court case benefits innovation in this country and frankly it will allow other companies to innovate around google without google. Being able to stop them. There is a side problem to this that we gotta discuss here. I used to be. And if i if philip is listening in your cutting videos and stuff all this stuff here. Here's one you need to do. I used to believe that if conservatives didn't like something on the internet go build your own thing it makes some sense you know. You don't like this website. Go build your own website. You don't like this blog. Start your own blog. You don't like this app. Go start your own app but the parlor situation after the january sixth stuff on capitol hill shows that. You can't really do that anymore. And it's been going on a little bit before then in it's escalated sits You build your own app. Well now the app store. Google and apple say well you're not allowed in our. You're not allowed in our app store. Well you can't be on an iphone unless you jailbreak an iphone which people don't want to do so therefore parlor is precluded from being on your iphone because apple controls the app store so you can say go build your own. But if apple doesn't let it to the store it's a private company actually controlling the first amendment. The government doing it. It's apple doing it or you do let parlor in but then amazon's web services is will you.
"clarence thomas" Discussed on The Erick Erickson Show
"System the multi-storey house everything on the inside but they borrowed you're snippet of code. That designed the steps in courtroom said. Well that's fair use. You didn't you didn't really you didn't build steps and say hey it's mine. With their code you built entirely different made more manifest in greater than just that code. Well oracle is a software. Company oracle bought a company sun microsystems. That that invented something called java. You're very familiar with java java. you may not realize you're using but it involves graphical user interfaces among other things and google took a eleven thousand lines of code from a java interface. Now we're talking eleven thousand over out of millions of lines of code and then made something that became the android operating system Sputtered off essentially made something more. Glorious made more manifest made something more deeply elaborate. Then what oracle is overdone or what sun microsystems has done. A federal court ruled that it was Copyright theft the supreme court and six to decision has said. No actually this was fair. Use a lot of conservatives in. let's be honest. Your some conversations were getting money from oracle to attack google. Some of them deeply google because they feel it. Google is a progressive minutes. Some of them feel like google's monopoly and so they were on the side against google so a lot of conservative commentary is actually opposed to. I myself wanna a break google part into multiple pieces i think google is a progressive. Minnesota society It is a monopoly and it sold. Employees believed that google's rhythm can be used to silence diverse voices but are perfectly happy using algorithm to silence conservatives. I think. Google is a dangerous company. But i don't think we should side with oracle in this case in the supreme court got it right clarence thomas and sam alito wrote descents. And i understand there since. But i think they're wrong here now. Why do i think the wrong software in this country since we've gotten to the days where we use patents and aggressively punish each other For coming up with with. Jim ideas that someone says. Well i patented that. You can't use my idea. They're doing it more with software and what we're seeing is a stifling of innovation. What we need to do in this country is go back to an era where you no longer patent software processes the general rule before we allowed people to start patenting process software processes was..