Sen. Mike Lee: Witnessing Biden’s Decline, and Obama Seizing Power From the Shadows
02:19:02 Share

For over fifty years, billington s legacy has been great deals on coats for all weather conditions. So before you caught unprepared for the winter weather had to burlington for name, brands, quality items and surprising fits for every family member. Sock up on coats, sweaters and accessory before the, so you can finally stop avoiding the elements and start living comparably warm up at your news, bringing location less than one mile away.

Fairlington deals brands, wow. The twenty twenty four f one fifty lightning drug gets dirty and runs clean with an E P A estimated range of three hundred and twenty miles with the available extended range battery, is the only electric vehicle that an f one fifty visit for dog comm lash. F one fifty lightning to learn more excludes black to miles p estimated driving range based on range varies with conditions such as internal environment vehicles, hc voltage, battery state.

Welcome the sucker rose and show us to become pretty clear that the mainstream media are dying. You can't die quickly enough. There a reason they die. They lie, lied so much IT killed them. We're not that talk across to me with the most honest content, the most honest interviews we can without fear or favor.

Here's the latest.

So did you read the the cyrus piece about how I was driven out of his job? yeah.

So I read a summary of IT I have not read the piece of.

so I just read IT this morning. Here's just here. Here's the Cliff notes. Obama colludes with Nancy polo cy in our king jeffreys in summer and calls sunday morning calls bindin says, you're done. Come on.

Is gonna twenty fifty amends you? You got to step and who places the call obama? Obama is so obama calls the sitting president and tells him you're down, then um tells I mess with pizzas, tells come on Harris okay you're gonna be um you're going be the nominee. But if you don't gain traction, if you're not popular, we're going to take you out too.

Um so if my .

question, I mean, it's all shocking IT sounds true. New york to washing post, by the way, while journal have not done any meaningful reporting on this. So this this is what we know so far, is that legal .

IT certainly presents a lot of legal questions that could be problematic. For example, if, in fact, the twenty fifth memory is worthy of being invoked, yes, if his condition is such that IT needs to be invoked and then they don't invoke ate, then they're leaving the country in a prettiest position of being LED by man, not in possession of his faculties.

If, on the other hand, it's not worthy of being invoked, then they've used an extortion threat, yes, to ask the guy was at the top of the ticket, who is the current income president? And that's not okay. I mean, I do I pretty sure that qualified in some way as extortion. But if it's not, extortion is just a very underhanded manipulation of the process.

But voters don't enter into the calculation at any point. So I know this is like a tired observation at this point, but the same people who've been lecturing as berating us, finger wagging for years now about democracy, just kicked the president out of the spot without any votes being cast at all. Ignore ing the votes of democratic primary voters like I I can't imagine a graver attack on democracy than what they just did right?

And they denied their own party faithful the voters who showed up in what was essentially an uncontested primary election and they've turned that into a shame because I am guessing I can't know for certain, but i'm guessing they have known for some time just as we've been able to tell for some time, that present brighter has problems.

Yes, they didn't do anything about IT all of a sudden when they decide the timing is right, perhaps because of this debate performance, which I suspect they had a hand in planning because they knew how I would turn out at some point. They said, okay, the time is right now. Now we're going to show the world that he can handle the job. But I find that difficult to believe .

that they didn't. So you think that is possible, but must set up.

Yeah.

yeah. They knew he was fAiling. They had to have a kind of vivid point to change the story. And that maybe why all the lackey, all the boot liker at CNN instantly pivoted as one from biden cheerleaders to biden then graters instantaneous.

Ly, in fact, a my wife sharing, you have met sharing. I were washing the debate together.

charming, cool woman. And I had .

thought to occur .

to me I was impressed.

Well, just thought i'd put that out the her immediate reaction when things turned. Remember when the CNN panel came on right after the debate ended? SHE said, this appears orchestrate.

This is all choreographed. It's like they were ready to do this. This has the feeling of being planned in advances.

They knew what was gonna happen and when else. Tucker, have you seen a presidential debate between two general election opponents occur? R.

S, that early in the year uku before either nominee has had convention before either nominee is technically fully the nominee, right? I can't recall a time when that has happened. And so why then? IT seems awful. Ly curious that the biden campaign team agreed to that. And the only rational explanation I can think of was the one that we're looting to here.

especially because they were telegraphing, sending signals that they might not debate trump at all, because he was at this point of felling and accused fell on. I mean, they were leaking this for months. You know, IT IT lowers us.

The sitting president should enough to debate a guide charged with crimes. They were saying that. And then in a day there is a second, of course, we going to have this debate, you know, really early. What is that?

Yeah, that is an indication. I think, I think the most rational explanation, there are other explanations that one could dry, I think, but the most logical explanation to me is that they know that they couldn't hide his condition much longer than media. And the White house staff had done a really good job hiding them, protecting him, explaining all sorts of errors, are wandering off the wrong end of the stage shaking hands with people who weren't there saying weird stuff that was unintelligible um but they realized they couldn't keep that contained much longer and so they said, all right, let's agree to a debate and if things don't go as um they should inevitably knowing that how things we're gonna, then we will do what we've got to do. My very first reaction, one of the first tweet that I sent, I think he was dragged my wife north because I was life tween commentary during the debate. One of my first tweet was IT looks to me like that given the wrong shot yeah because you know a lot of times when he comes in like to do the state of union, he's he's really, really up sort of like he's just consumed like six red balls at once and and amped up and kind of angry. He was really low energy from the very outset anyway, makes me wonder all kinds of things right down to how they prepare him.

IT does seem A A parallel moment to me because we've now seen the kidnapper's face. I mean, we've come shot s exactly how things actually work. Voters playing no role in IT.

It's donors and democratic party leaders like obama and humor and Jeffery and polis who make all the decisions. And they are not even pretending anymore. No.

not even pretending anymore because look, they have a very different experience in the political world than those of us who are republicans because they've always got this media bubble shield around them. It's like they've got this laser shield and that laser shield doesn't um leave them vulnerable to the same sorts of force is the the rest of us have and so um they can get away with all sorts of things. Tucker, can you imagine the kind of absolute vum that would be released against republicans if we pull a stunt like that? I can even begin to imagine how that would take us down, but it's not even touching them because the media choose not to report on is not even to mentally .

right because there, of course, their coconut irs. What did you think as a senator, prominent senator, for the proceeding three and a half years, where, you know, you have to deal with the weight? I mean, of course, just our process requires you to deal with the White house. Did you know that biden was impaired?

Yes, I could tell, just based on things that I saw from a distance, we lost my mother in law a few years ago to all summers SHE had had the disease for um nearly a decade. The doctors told us soon after he was diagnosed what sort of things to watch for and they said you'll know that it's starting to get a lot worse when IT starts to affect her posture, and particularly heard gate, when SHE starts shuffling, kicking her feet forward.

Yes, rather than walking in a fluid, smooth motion like he always has, you know that things are progressing quickly and that that is an outward manifestation of what's going on inside of her mind. I saw that same gate and posture in president biden during his first term in office. I don't remember exactly when I was in twenty twenty one that I noticed that, but I was some time during his first year.

Now obviously, there are other reasons why someone who could have that happen where I wouldn't necessarily be reflective of his cognitive decline. But then I saw plenty of reasons to believe there was cognate of decline happening as well. Yes um they kept him shield ded not only from the public and from non friendly press, but also from members of congress.

I remember okay, i've been in the senate for thirteen years and a half years. Uh i've i've served well. We've had three different presidents you know obama when by advice as vice president and know trump and now bite in this president.

We have seen a lot more of other presidents. Trump was a lot more rigorous. He was a lot more willing and ear to engage with ranking file members in congress if then obama was, but obama was still up on the hill, a fair amount.

I mean, IT one time in protect, I remember walking in the basement of the capital, is turning a corner and bumped right into present obama. And we had a great old child go, might just just for great, we run into him. H, he would call from time to time just to check in on things that we agreed on projects that we were working on together.

Trump, of course, with very active, uh, members of congress, could call limn and get him on the phone very, very quickly. He is very engaging with biden. IT hardly happens at all like they shield IT him for us um in some ways of my my my wife.

I think this was in maybe the first half of the first quarter of twenty twenty two went over to an event at the White house for senate passes posted by the first lady who was herself, although, you know, a long time member of the senate spouse's organization. And while they were there, president biden just kind of came wandering in. I think they were in one of the ballrooms kind of came wandering in.

He said, there, there is no secret service with him, no staff with them. He just kind of walked in SHE SHE said instinctively, I just said, all hello, mister president's good to see you. He asked her, do you work in the east wing and he said, no, no, mister present.

I'm sharing sharlee center Michael y's wife no, he or me into the senate twice, first in two thousand and eleven than in twenty seventeen, just before he left the vice presidency. And we had interacted with a malone. He thought that would take care of that.

He looks confused. Moments later, he said. What do you work in the west wing? And he was not quite there moments later, wow, moments later, someone came up, uh, to one of the other senate spouses.

I think he was a democrat and had a phone in her hand said, hey, my brother's in love is a big fan. IT is birthday. Uh, what you say? Hi to them.

This is bitten signature move. This is, he's really, really good at this. I remember when I first came to the senate, he would have dinner and other gatherings with senators.

He got pat tom y's dad on the phone when he found out he had had been scraped. And he was like, how and hello are is, is joe bog and understand you from screen by the end of IT pad to me's dad. And then vice president biden felt like they were .

old fortnit totally, I knew by then. And I member.

exactly good at, excEllent. This woman handed in the phone IT rang the woman's brother and law, answered hello. And then he got a confused look on his face, held up the phone, hanging up and handed the phone back. Now that for job bargain, that is very significant.

very. And this is sitting president.

And yes, yes. And this was, I believe you going to have to prefs slow more than two years ago. So we would see little snippets like this.

That's a big snipper.

And then we would see the the clips on TV, which in some ways were wars and still stunned that the media are did everything that a they could to minimize uh, the significance of this. But still they were caught on camera. They were out there and um they just sort of didn't comment on IT as if we didn't say anything about IT wasn't .

real ad is an amazing story. So that was almost three years ago, he said, I mean the senators only one hundred of you you know each other pretty well. I ve noticed um small as club in washington, which is a small city. Do people do people talk about this?

Yes yes. Um republicans talk about IT a lot. Of course, when we talk about IT with our democratic colleagues, there will sometimes be odds and statements to the effect that, well, you know there are a good days and bad days and then they try to move on as soon as possible. They didn't like to talk about IT. I suppose I understand why they don't want to talk about IT, but it's a thing that sometimes needs to to be talked about.

Well, especially since we're got a couple of wars going on that we're paying for her and very, very high stakes. That's right this moment.

And and if you don't have someone at the top who is a sentient being who who understand what it's stake and can make real time calculations after making an initial decision to say, I don't know, withdraw from afghanistan um by september eleven of two thousand twenty one. Even in the days and weeks leading up to that, there are all sorts of sort of warning signs that that might not be the best approach.

By the way, why on earth we do tie the withdraw to the anniversary of a terrorist attack against the united states? There really borre, but there are all sorts of warning signs that he making that deadline ah what itself caused problems. Now I had been supportive for years of the idea of withdraw.

So me too, was present trump. And when present, trump was still in office. I talked to move about this a fair m out.

And he was national security advisor, a Roberta brian. And what they would tell me is, look, we ve got a really good plan to do this. We think we can pull this off.

But maybe the first or second quarter of two thousand and twenty one, you if this um reelected, there were some um there was some prep work that had to be done in the lead up to those months. Um they weren't able to pull out off twenty, but their plan involved making sure that there was not a single weapon that could fire of a left in the country. Uh, president trump, I think took IT even further.

He didn't want a single nail or a single screw left intact that any gun that couldn't be exported would have to have its barl melt or exploded and rendered unusable. He wasn't going to leave any weaponry behind that could be usable by the enemy. What would biden having made this arbiters decision to withdraw at the anniversary of the nine eleven attacks? He didn't back off. Now why is that? He's the commander in chief, of course, but once he made that arbitrary sion, if he's not in full possession of his faculties, might that explain why he had this dogged determination to proceed with that, even though there are all kinds of warning signs flash.

I mean, given what we saw the debate and now adding to that destroy you just talk about your wife's interactions with him at the White house, where he could not even talk on the phone. Mean, who's running the government that the who has been running the government for last four years, who's running and now he's still president, apparently.

Why do the good people have so much power? Because the bad people of money, where they get money, gave to by using their businesses, businesses that undermine this country and empower countries that don't seek the best for your family, trust us. But there is an alternative is called public square.

Public square is a network of over seventy five thousand independent business, small businesses in this country, from which you can buy guns and amo, fresh food, household goods that you said you need to live. And when you buy them, you can feel certain that you are not doing a bad deed, that you are doing a good deed that will make us a Better and more independent country and make your kid's future brighter. Public square dot com. We are honor. We are proud to have them as a sponsor of this show on junior.

Here guys are you're receiving letters from the IOS claiming you go back taxes as penalties. And the piled up the irs gives, you know, clear path to resolution. Don't speak to them on your own.

They are not your friends. To reach a team of licensed tax professionals that going to help you reduce, settle and resolve your tax matters, go to T N U, say that. Come and check out. Solve your test problems today. One hundred seventy eight eight eight eight or visit N U S A dot com that one eight hundred seventy eight eight 88。

Hills dale college offers many great free online courses, including a recent one on marxism, socialism and communism. Today, marxism goes by different names to make itself seem less dangerous. Names like critical race theory, gender theory and decontamination.

No matter the names, this online core shows its the same marxism that works to destroy private property and that will lead to famines, show trials and gulag. Start learning online for free at tucker for hills dale dot com. That's tucker F O R.

Hills dale dot com at a public urinal. IT just feels like you're standing there too long. We used to seem like a high pressure hose filling a bucket.

Now it's more like a trip is a weaker flow year and eight more often, sleep is interpreted by multiple trips to the bathroom, and IT is steadily gotten worse. I didn't think about going to a doctor for IT. They may call IT in large prostate or B.

P. H. I mean, no one talks about this supposed to suck IT up, right? That's what we do.

But we know we need to do something, or life is gonna be different. But what can you do about in large prostate? The good news, there is a minimally invasive procedure covered by most insurance called the year live system. Men forty five and older go to help B P H now dot com to find lift system trained doctor near you.

Most common side of extra temporary can include discomfort and urinating, urgency, inability to control the urge, public plus of including blading and infection may lead to a serious outcome and may require mention the year lift system may be an alternative to medications or invasive surgery. Go to help B. P, H, now, dot com to learn more and find a eulie system trained doctor near you.

Look, what we don't know is how come on those were we? We saw so little of him and see so little of him. But it's hard to say way whether those were able to what degree those were abara tions.

We all hoped and wanted to believe that maybe just maybe um sometimes he's got on a lot on his mind or retired or whatever and everybody has down moments. Maybe just maybe there are times when he's losted and those vastly out number of those that aren't now that seems to be contradicted by everything we saw at during that same time period. Uh from uh clips from the public but then again, sometimes giving species where he appeared to be sort of in control, not necessarily as sharp as he wants but aware of this around those are scripted yes.

so is so I mean, near the constitutional scholar. So this is a question, a statement. But my understanding is that under our system, the people rule that the fundamental point, and they rule through their elected representatives. And so the people who are elected have the power, because the people have power.

I think.

And so if unelected, exact unelected officials in inside the executive are making all the meaningful decisions that's illegal, that's on constitutional.

Isn't that yeah IT especially considering the fact that the way the constitution is set up, the president of the united states is the executive branch. Yes, with the exception of the vice president who has an independent status instead of responsibility, lies of the constitution. But they're fairly narrow. The president of the united states, if we were Operating in a manner truly consistent with the structure, text, original understanding question, the president of the united states would be in charge of the entire executive branch with the ability essentially to fire anyone for any reason or no reason at all. Um and so because the .

power resides in him.

because he person and so yes, very construction problematic to have others were not elected who are not him who are performing the executive role and not him now there's no way for any of us from the outside that kept him so shielded and so insulated. No way for us to be able to assess to what degree, like how many hours out of an average day he was on his a game. He was really lucent.

He is no way for us to know that. All we know is that in all these clippers that we saw, and then an anecdotal accounts from individual members talking to him, remember having one conversation with him on the phone where he was calling to tell me about, uh, his decision to do expand two national monuments in utah, a national monuments that together now, I think, larger than two delawares. He, a short, a short time into the phone conversation, I could tell he was reading from a script.

And not only reading from a script, t his voice would start to trail off at the end of each sense. And so yes, he he was scripted. So even was that I believe this was sometime perhaps in the fall of two thousand and twenty one, but i'm not sure this one could have been in twenty, twenty two.

That's I mean, I I knew because his sister value was telling other people that he had some kind of neural impairment during the campaign, during the twenty twenty campaign. So right. But what's in interesting, in infuriating and scary is that someone had to write the script for him. So anyone is writing a script for a boss to perform a phone conversation is obviously fully aware that that guy is impaired. Like, did you scripts for phone commerce?

Well, occasionally A U. S. Senator will have a list of calls demise. And center staff might say, here's what you want to cover here. What is this in this?

But the idea, but, I mean.

the idea there is to to read that and then say, okay, that's the stuff I say and a way you don't read from a script when you're having a phone conversation with a colleague or a counterpart in the house or something like that because people can tell there are all sorts of tel tail science that you're reading the way we pronounce certain words the word two in middle of a senate spoken colloquial english can be more about to than that is A E two you know there things like that that can um signal I am reading from a script and if you do that with a colleague or somebody you have to interact with a lot. It's not going to be a trust building exercise .

if they can feel not I mean, what does that leave us as citizens, a senator? I mean, do we have a right to know what the hell is going on with our government? Who's running IT? What's going with biden, who knew for how long this is a massive trade, is obvious.

Now the whole thing is fake. I mean, that's the conclusion i'm reaching. Don't we have a right to know the details? Of course.

of course we do, because we should be concerned because this potentially affects our national security, certainly affects all kinds of policy decisions, policy decisions. And we know one of the problems, of course, is that we've made the federal government as a whole more powerful than IT was ever designed or intended to be. Remember, you've got three lawmaking functions.

There are three functions of government. Rather, you've get the lawmaking functions performed by congress. Yeah, it's the most dangerous power. He was therefore given to the most dangerous branch under circumstances where that branch, the legislative branch, congress where I work, you can fire every member of the house every two years and one third of all the senators every two years, because we've got the most dangerous power. Then you've got the executive branch headed by the president, the whose job, that is, to enforced the laws.

And then you've got the judicial branch added by the spring, for whose job IT is to interpret the laws and resolve individual disputes that arrive about what the law put in place, either by congress or h through the constitution, means. So legislative powers, by far the most dangerous, but what's happened over the last eighty years or so, eighty five years, basically since the new deal era, washington, D C, got immensely more powerful, starting on April twelve, one thousand nine hundred and thirty seven. That's the day supreme court to decide a case called N L R B vers Jones of love and steel company.

I regard that as the switch time that saved nine. Remember, this is F D R S court. I read a book about this couple years ago called saving nine. Fd r court packing plan was moving forward, yes. And the justice is panic is two years to the date after they had moved into their new building, when they issued this decision in which associate justice O N.

Roberts joined the courts liberals and came up with a new definition of the commerce caused commerce laws gave congress the power to regulate inner state commercial transactions and channels and in the state the channels and instrumental ties of inner state commerce um all of a sudden n on April twelve thousand and thirty seven the supreme court, we rope that so that the commerce laws also gave congress the power to regulate anything. And everything that would measured in the aggregate, if is economic in nature, has a substantial effect on earth. State commerce now poker.

What that means is congress and regulate anything that wants. So all of us, some congress, went from a limited, narrow purpose legislative body to an open ended one, rendering a tenth moment, almost a note. Because if any of the eighteen articles of article once, section one, i'm sorry, article one, section eight, if any of those clauses are open ended and limitless, the tenth moment means nothing.

So congress found itself newly posted of the power to regulate labor, manufacturing, agriculture, mining, health, safety and welfare, not just in the district, columbia or on federal land with federal funds, but anywhere, everywhere, as long as they said the magic words and connected IT somehow to an impact on international commerce. Newly posted with this power, congress realized, oh gosh, we're going to be a lot of more accountable. We're going to do a lot more work.

So to a degree, they stopped passing laws and started passing a lot of platt tudes. We shall have good law in area x and we hear by delegate to agency or department why the power to make an interpret and enforce laws Carrying the force of the full force of the federal government to enforce them a uh in in area x and from that moment forward, we delegated all this lawmaking power over the unelected, unaccountable agencies. This made the presidency and the executive branch vastly more powerful than IT was ever intended to be.

So what we've seen here, tucker, is that the aggregation, the accumulation of power in the hands of a few, it's exactly why we have a constitution, and exactly what our constitution has, a belt and a set of suspenders, and another belt and another set of suspenders, in order to avoid. So powers been taken away from the american people in two steps, first, from the people to washington, dc, where we federalized previously non federal power. Then within washington, D. C, we've taken the lawmaking power, the most dangerous power government, away from the people's elected lawmakers, over to unelected, on accountable bureaucrats ostensibly serving under the leadership of the incumbent president.

all of whom, or many of whom have civil service protections that makes IT impossible to fire them. So that's permanent. Washington is not elected officials from the washington, permanent washington, and is literally permanent.

And by the way, at a time when, you know, getting pretty to find a job in the united states, the federal government is on a hiring spray like their expanding is. Everyone else is suffering. I mean, it's so.

But here's, and I say, say this with the respect, but i've never understood this. In the thirty five years I spent in, I saw congress get less powerful every cycle and the executive get more powerful under republicans and democrats. And you should to wonder, like, where's the self .

respect of congress? yes.

So one of they do something about that.

James medicine didn't force this particular feature. James medicine predicted in federalist fifty one, and I believed to some degree, in federal alist ten and and fifteen that power would be made to cateract power, that the natural incentives of people serving in each branch would cause them to defend their own perogue.

Exactly what I what I don't think he for song was this um um this process by which federal authority would be suddenly become open ended. Remember state legislators about only by their state construction in terms of what they can do. And broadly speaking, they are what we call general purpose legislative bodies.

They can legislation pretty much anything is lies, is not prohibited by their state constitution or the U. S. constitution.

They can just legislate because they feel the need to. We can, at least we're not supposed to. We're supposed be dealing with interstate and foreign trade or commerce.

Immigration laws, bankrupcy laws, uniform system of weights and measures are declaring work, granting letters of marking reprisal, laws governing the disposition and use of federal land, army, the navy, how coordinate national guards or militias as they're described in article one section aid and so forth. But there is no general purpose legislator power. There is nothing in there that says congress.

She'll have the power to enact laws to make life Better for the american people, or enact such laws as they deem appropriate for national legislation. Nothing of the sort. So we've drifted so far from that. And once we drifted from that, which I believe occurred sort of by the extortion threat of the court packing plan on April twelve, one thousand thirty seven um once we ceased to be a power, uh, a legislature body of of limited enumerated powers, the die was cast because congress new, we can't keep up with all that anyway.

And even if we try to remember tucker, you whenever you make a new law, a national law, especially, you're going to make one group of people happy, you're gona make a whole lot of other people very unhappy, right? And so this was an easier way toward the interest of the drive for perpetual or long term and compensate to make IT easier. So imagine, for example, you're one of the people who voted for the original iterations of the clean eric, which to put IT in over, simplify the terms, we shall have clean air.

What IT is gna vote against that. And we hear by delegate to the epa the power to make an interpret and then enforce laws Carrying the force of generally placable federal law regulations, caring the force of federal law, but decide what clean areas, what pollution is, how much you can pollute and how much you be. Fine, fine, if you do um years go by in the same people who voted for that, see the E P.

A come out with some crazy ruling. To one example that we've seen at times in my state, identify this region or that region of the state and say, here are your ozone limits in that area, you're going have a really hard time getting permitting of any sort if you're out of compliance with oil. But they'll set the ozone level a sort of below or at the rate where mother nature herself has set them so that it's impossible to comply.

Now a congress wouldn't do that. And if I did do that, that would be problems. People would be held accountable for that. But when E. P.

A doesn't, members of congress have this way of uh to their constitutions who come and say this is shutting down by business. We can't Operate this way. You gotta fix.

So have, yeah, you know what i'm going to do? I to write them a strongly worded letter. I want to tell me that I mean, IT, hey, guys knocked us off. It's like the Robin Williams used to described the the unarmed english bobbi who, being unarmed, puncture the commission of a crime, would yell on this very british x and stop, or all yet stop again.

Social media, great. They're important of the main way we communicate with each other there, where politics happen in this country. But one of the problems with social media is that the rules change.

People in charge don't want you to say something, they don't tell you that. And the next thing you know, you're without a platform. Well, now you have an option.

Parler, it's back. The original free speech APP taken off the internet by the sensors has come back in full force. Parler was the first big gap to be pulled off because IT was the first big APP to make free speech a top priority.

Now other platforms may be relaxing their policies and they change what, but parler will not change. Its distinct approach is here to state by paving the way for other apps, protect users, free speech polar is set the standard in the industry. IT is now watched on a hyper scale private cloud called parler cloud, and that means your data are secure.

Your words cannot be controlled by third party companies. It's uncancelled again. Piller has been cancelled.

They don't plan to be cancelled again, and they've taken extensive and very expensive steps to make sure it's not going to happen. Polar is not at the mercy of other companies that don't believe in free speech. And here's the best part, it's add free.

You are not the product on polar. Powler committed to providing a space where you can share an engage without interference of ads or invasive targeting. So it's more than just a platform, is effectively a movement.

And its goal is to keep the free flow of information open globally, where everybody can talk without fear of suppression. So it's upholding the values country was founded on free expression, open dialogue, also innovation. By the way, we're on parler at tucker carlson, and you can go there and find us sustain, formed about what's happening in the world.

So join a place that embrace your right to say what you actually think, and that Fosters connections between people. Without free speech, you can connect with other people were all just lying to each other. But parler offers you that a similar social media experience tailor to your need.

You can get power from the abstract google play or visit parler dot com parler. You are valued. You can say what you think, and you're awarded for doing so for over fifty years.

Burlington on legacy has been great deals on coats for all weather conditions. So before you caught unprepared for the winter weather had to burlington for name brands, quality items and surprising fits for every family member socked up on coats, sweaters and accessories before the so you can finally stop avoiding the elements and start living comfortably warm up at your news. Springton location, less than one mile away, burlington deals brands, wow.

The twenty twenty four f one fifty lightning drop gets dirty and runs clean with an E P, A estimated range of three hundred and twenty miles with the available extended range battery is the only electric vehicle that's an f one fifty visit four dot com slash f one fifty lightning to learn more excludes blatter miles PS estimated driving range based on the actually driving range varies with conditions such as external environment, vehicle use, vehicle maintenance, high voltage battery agent.

state bell tires.

Black friday sale is here. And here to tell us about IT is our spokespeople re tired man, bell tire, in case you don't speak tired, he said this, like friday, get up to two hundred and sixty dollars in savings rebates on a set of four tires. Bell tire, you said a tire man, right now you can get zero percent interest, bell tire, two hundred and sixty dollars in savings that so we changing tires bell tire store bell tired outcome for details, restrictions apply.

But I get maybe what medicine and the other framers never for saw when they set up a system that inherent power struggles like that yet point right? But I don't think they first saw that there are people who actually don't want power because IT comes with too much responsibility, account tables scary to them, and they d rather sort of past the book, pass the power to somebody else. I mean, that's what that looks like to me. yes.

yeah. And I think that is an accurate description of IT. And I think talker, there is is easy for that to happen once you leave the domain of limited legislative jurisdiction and you become an open ended lawmaking body, where this guy is the limit and where you've got a big country, the world's big ony, the world's most powerful military, are so many things to deal with. Its easy. I can even feel like the logical thing to do to delegate out this decision making process, or at least .

a lot of IT voters, that exactly.

it's the whole point. Remember the progressive dream for us. For those of us who love liberty, this is a nightmare. But the the dream of the progressives is government of by and for the experts, masterminds, those who could come in and say, worthy, very scientific elite ite experts, and we know exactly how the people need to be govern.

the totally useless class who actually could knock your jobs in any other place then gos and federal agency but talk .

these are experts and many of them have masters degrees and P H D highly specialized in their field and they really know .

their still conditioner.

No.

you can. That's exactly right to um how long I mean, just I didn't even realize you trace suspects in one thousand and thirty seven to the new deal. I didn't even know that um but that makes sense. How long before the united states senate becomes the roman senate and becomes just a useless appendage and then disappears? Look.

we're on that path. The more we strengthen the execute of branch them where that power, we take that away power away from the american people and from there are elected lawkins. The closer we get to that, I think we're on almost a parable curve in that direction.

We're getting closer and closer to IT. I I think there are still time to turn around, but we have to do IT. Let me give you some examples of why, you know, in my office in washington, come by sometime i'll show you my my monument to uh, the constitutional problems we face.

I keep two stacks of documents in my office in the rosell building in washington. One stack of documents is a few interest tall, and it's a few hundred to a few thousand pages long and consistent for laws passed by congress in the last year. Somewhat argued that a few hundred or a few thousand pages too many, but regardless, those are laws passed by congress last year.

Then there's the other stack. The other stack, which is printed on double sated paper, a very thin paper, very small print, is the federal register for for those people who are unburden by a knowledge with the federal register, is, I wish I didn't. I wish I weren't burden to buy IT federal registered is the annual cumulative index of federal regulations as they are announced, first for notice and comment, and then once they are finalized, they go out, you know, peasants prepared to be regulated, give us your your thoughts on this so as to replicate some sort of feeling of a democratic input process.

They don't really care at the end of the day, uh, uh, uh, what the public comments and response. And then they finalize all a hundred thousand pages, more or less that get issued every year, hundred thousand pages of federal regulations every year. Well, just regulations.

They sound softer than laws. Some cases maybe there are. But those hundred thousand pages are replete with a lot of things that aren't just law. They, they, they have all the incidents of law. Other than that, they haven't been enacted by congress.

but they're enforcement firearms.

Yes, they're enforced in almost every industry you can think of. Almost every aspect of human existence has an a federal agency, sometimes more of a regulating that area. The interesting story, a few years ago, a few of us on the judiciary committee, on which I said submitted a request to the congressional research service, help us answer a question.

The question was essentially tell us how many federal crimes around the books, how many provisions of federal law create a crime of the know that more or less the universe of federal crimes that exist? The answer took a while. When I came back, IT was stunning and said, the answer is unknown and unknowable, but it's at least three hundred thousand crimes .

crimes .

and a lot of that had to do with effect that this bus teen liberal of federal regulations, about one hundred thousand pages a year, uh uh, which initially go into this massive document, about one hundred thousand pages per year called the federal register. Ultimately, they'll be qualified into A A larger catalogue e known as the code of federal regulations. There are so many criminal provisions of those regulations that IT makes me very difficult count, but it's at least three hundred thousand .

and these are devised by federal employees who were not judges, correct? And they're not elected lac, correct. So I mean, again, you're the constitutional scholar, but I I don't see where they have the authority to do that.

but duck or their experts. How could you not trust experts .

living inside the fact that .

I wash masses in congress there .

like some of the light? I mean, I ve spent a lot, lot of time around them and a federal agency, I certainly very familiar with them. But even if they were impressive, which they're not, that still seems like an end run around democracy.

Yeah, and that's the whole point. It's the whole point is that you don't trust governance to the peasants. You've got to trust the government governance to the experts that is the progressive dream so ultimately, uh while progressives tell themselves as being incredibly democratic, actually quite the opposite yes, there are the most anti democratic species you're finding american.

Prosecutor coup against the sitting of supposedly elected president or got like several billion votes. Theyve told this for the past four years and they just took him out because they didn't like his .

his polling right and and they'll be the first ones to defend this. Now I there is a fix to this. And what is one that i've been pushing the entire time i've been in the senate, i've would now made IT my single most as top priority.

The closest thing there is to a silver bullet fix to this problem of lawmaking by executive branch agency is a proposal known as the rains act. It's R E I N S, is an acronym stamps for regulations from the executive and native screw. And what IT says he would require us to follow, essentially that the existing requirements of article one, section seven, remember, article one, section one, a very first Operative provisions of the conclusion, says that all legislative powers are granted shall be vested in congress.

Article one, session seven makes abundantly clear that there is only one way to make a federal law. You have to have my camera passage of the build text house and senate most the time IT doesn't matter in which order unless it's A A revenue build and has started the house, but all that as a matter in which order the house and senate have to pass the same text, and then you presented to the president for signature, veto, or active essence as the only formula by what you can make a federal law. We've been disregarding that for a long time.

So what the rain ax says is that if there is a federal regulation, on the one hand, that Operates internally, doesn't have not a major rule, meaning IT doesn't impose a formative of legal obligations on the part of the american public and is an economically significant, maybe IT determines what time the lights go on and off in the department of commerce, the rains that ouldn't worry about that, but for the outward facing, a formative of legal obligations, economically significant or otherwise, qualifying as what we call a major rule, those rules, those regulations, wouldn't be self executing. They couldn't take effect automatically. They couldn't take effect, in fact, and lessor, until congress affirmatively enacted that regulation into law.

And so that that way, we know for those who are concerned about making sure that we preserve the expertise that we've got on these federal agencies, we're not discarding that. We're actually giving them probably more of an advantage than they should have even one of the rains act, uh, by virtual effect of these things would be considered uh, on a fast track basis. But the american people would be in charge because they couldn't become law unless both houses of congress enacted IT into law.

I've been trying to get this past for a very long time. When trump took office in twenty seventeen, I I put in in the overdriven, went to a bunch of my democratic colleagues, member by member, saying, I know you must be concerned about this presence, cy, because it's all I talked about. And if you are not concerned about IT, you really want to look into the rain act, because look at all the control that this president has over regulations.

This is something that should not be partisan IT should be just a republican thing, even though almost everybody who supports the rains act happens to be a republican to a person. They all said essentially the same thing. Mike, we need the expertise of those agencies to which we still have IT. We still have IT as just we would .

be the ultimate federal employee. And there is, but there are some good federal employs. But in general, you know, people can be fire, don't perform as you'd hope.

I mean that imagine that it's pretty media OCR. So what? okay. So bidens now, or biden takes and he exists, the people who are controlling by and are making noises about reforming the supreme court. What is that that is a baldface .

attempt form to and run what he himself said in the early one thousand nine hundred and eighty as A U. S. Center was, I believe, one thousand nine hundred eighty two or thousand nine hundred and .

eighty three when he describes on the .

judicial committee on the usual committee I think he was chairman at the time but then he said he was a bone headed idea. When F D R proposed packing the court, he appears to be going back on that now we he's kind of um soft pedal his way into court packing uh little by little he's getting there keeps talking about supreme court reforms been increasingly fluctuated with the idea of court packing ah he's trying to impose this new set of ethical standards, one branch to set .

up what is continue to define court packing .

yeah hope word packing consists of something that is technically allowed by the constitution because the constitution doesn't prescribe the size of the spring court that is set by statute. Uh but for um you know over one hundred and fifty years we have had nine justices on the court. There have been times when that number has been higher.

There been times when the number has been lower. But we've had more than a century and in a half where it's been consistently at nine justices. My view and the view of of most people, including joe biden until a few years ago, including um um the late um social justice ruth beter ginsburg uh just not too long before SHE died, acknowledge that is a bad idea to change that number.

Even those constitutional eny were allowed to do IT by statute because what you'd end up with docker to end up politicizing the court, whatever administration that decides to do this would only do IT most likely with a congress and a senate willing to put in and a president willing to put in justices of that parties political ideology such that people would stop to, uh, stop seeing a the court as an adjudicated body and much more as a political one, especially since once we start this, you'll set off a nuclear chain reaction. Now i've always been opposed to court packing. I think all republicans have, all democrats have until very recently.

But if democrats take this step is, let's imagine not on what let's hope this doesn't happen. I don't think it'll happen. But if somehow in this year's election, democrats were to win the White house, keeps the majority in the senate and bread even expand the majority, and and and went back the house, have no doubt, but that they would pack the court, meaning expand the court, they would increase IT, probably by four justices taking IT from nine to thirteen.

Now just imagine the next time when political forces are a such that republicans take IT back, you think republicans could possibly decide? Now that's fine. We're not going to do this.

That would be immense political pressure on us at that point. Republican lawmakers to add an additional four, five, six or seven, and the pendulum would swing back and forth. And as IT song, each time song, you would see additional appointments made to the supreme court. And before long I would start to look like the inner collective s senate on .

the star wars move yeah, the brazil supreme court, you know. But can I ask, I mean, if common Harris gets elected president and the senate in the house faul to democrats, senate majority expanded, mean they are they're never going to be another republican government after that means one party state at that point, they are not gna go through this again.

are they well um that that is of grave concern because if that were to happen, there are some changes to the law that I fear they would would true um these voting rights bills that they keep talking about wanting to pass uh or among .

them so they pass these .

voting rights really have voting rights we we do but uh they keep touting them banner of civil making uh all americans able to to vote. They want to subject any state law decisions regarding legislation or redistricting thing within the state to preclinical by political appoints, within what the invasion as a democratic presidential administration so they would have to come to the federal political appoints and say, mother, may I adopt this legislative redistricting plan or this or that set of reforms to the way we conduct our elections and those would have to be preapproved.

They also want to a essentially divest the power to draw legislator uh, boundaries from the state legislators and give them to non partisan independent commissions, thus further taking away the power from elected lawmakers, putting into the hands of unelected, unaccountable experts. These sorts of things, coupled with what I fear they would also do, would enacted another law, uh, bring the desert of columbia into the family of states, making D, C, A state. And and perhaps porter I, O is a statistic included. Porter, eo and dc would be reliable.

I mean, as longer you're picking up readily disfunctional territories incapable of governing themselves.

why not hate to? Why not? Well, hate isn't currently, you know, U.

S. territories. So there would be the biggest distinction.

A lot of your life in the district, colombia, a lot of good things to say about, and I put my whole life there. But there, there's no self government. There are not capable of self government. No more of the city. I mean.

that's craze. And more of the point, tucker, it's really small, is geographically compact. But perhaps of most importance, the founding father's set aside this idea of an independent district.

What we came, the dish of columbia for the purpose of warning and independent, uh neutral place that could service the seat of our national government. And so they they had land donated roughly half and half from maryland and Virginia thick. The maryland on side was a little bigger.

Uh, decades later, maybe a century. So later, some time of late eighteen, hundreds of believe they decided that the Virginia portion of IT wasn't necessary for the seat of national government. So that was given back to the state of Virginia. And now early ton. And and then what remains of IT was the mayor and contribution.

So the remedy here, if they want to be a state, if they want to have representation, boating representation in the house and two centers in the senate, the way to do that is to give the maryland portion of dc, or at least that portion of, uh, that's not deemed necessary to the independent functioning of the national seat of government, back to maryland. This was part of a state from the beginning. And IT should not be its own independence.

A pure power. M, it's a power RAM. Because they want to pick up four of what they would regard is consistently, reliably democratic senators. So if they adopt those reforms and then these voting rights reforms, we could see the democrats finally achieving their goal.

I've never heard them articulated like this, but I think they look at other countries and they crave what other countries have been able to do. Take, for example, our southern neighbor, mexico. For close to a century, mexico was governed lock, stock and bail by one political party, IT.

But deal revolutionary institutional acp, right? It's interesting when you think about IT, by the way, how can a party be at once revolutionary and. Progressive.

what do I have noticed that most of us will actually, all of us go through a daily lives using all sorts of quote, free technology without paying attention to why it's quote, free, who's paying for this and how think about IT for me. Think about your free email account, the free mechanical system used to chat with your friends, the free either weather APP or game APP. You open up and never think about.

It's all free, but is IT. No, it's not free. These companies are developing expensive products and just giving him due because they love you.

They're doing IT because their programs take all your information, think who for up your data, private personal data and sell IT to data brokers and the government. And all of those people who are not your friends are very interested in manipulating you and your personal political and financial decision. It's scary as hell, and it's happening out in the open without anybody is saying anything about.

This is a huge problem. And we've been talking about this problem to our friend, eric prince, court year. Someone needs to fix this.

And he is partners have and now where partners with them and their company is called unplug. It's on a software company. It's a hardware company.

Actually make a phone. The phone is called unplugged and it's more than net. The purpose of the phone is to protect you from having your life stolen, your data stolen. It's designed for a privacy first perspective. It's got an Operating system that they made us called messenger or other apps that help you take charge of your personal data and prevent you from getting passed around to data brokers and government agencies that will use IT to manipulate you, unplug game minutes to its customers, they will promise you.

And they mean that that your data are not being sold or monetized or shared with anyone from basics like its custom libert s Operating system, which they wrote, which is designed from the very first day, keep your personal data on your device. IT also has believed IT on a true on off switch that shots off the power actually disconnect battery and ensures that your microphone and your camera are turned off completely when you want them to be. So they're spying on you and see your bedroom, which your iphone is.

That's a fact. So IT is a great way, one of a few ways to actually protect yourself from big tech and big government to reclaim your personal privacy. Without privacy, there is no freedom. The unplug phone, you can get a twenty five other discount when you use the code tucker at the checkout, so go to unplug dot com slash tucker to get yours today, highly recommended.

That party governed mexico within iron fist for Better part of a century. And I suspect that something like that is what they would like to do, and something like that is what they would be able to achieve if they swept the house and the senate and the White house this year. I think theyve got an ambitious to go in .

that direction. That's what, together, an and they step back on is in jail. Right now, a bunch people I know have gone to prison.

You know, well, final dealers remain in. Tens of millions of illegals are, I mean, obviously that their goals to teledata rule. But I wonder if it's possible this cycle, like what do you think could come here?

Win SHE could win. There is no question about IT, and republicans would make a huge mistake by discounting her. Uh h if by discounting her there is something we don't have to work that hard to defeat, few things we know about comella heroes she's .

the I mean techland the head of the body is .

seven yes she's the president of the senate um commoner herr's despite her gaffe that we've seen when she's Operating on script and she's got when she's got good staff preparing her material and SHE sticks to that material, she's actually pretty a good now I disagree with almost everything he said, of course. But when he stays on script, SHE can be a compelling the speaker far more compelling than president biden.

I mean, by enough yesteryear get a Better job than he's done in the last few years. But she's a much more compelling speaker than others. And I think she's going to be very carefully is scripted over the next few months. So yeah, I think we should be very worried about IT. We've already seeing the media sponsored apotheosis of koala heroes and I we think about this great um the great mirror um I guess it's a fresh code technically uh the top of the capital rotunda, the inside of a done you've ve got this a beautiful painting by concentrate centro medi I an italian born american immigrant um and is called the apotheosis of George washington IT shows George washington um uh sending into heaven following his death is surrounded by these thirteen Angels each representing one of the original ones and is surrounded and that there are two other Angels right next to him one of which represents liberty and the other one represents the majesty of governmental or something like that and it's he's being gLori fied and almost deified there is a very familiar ring connection between that painting and what the media is trying to portray of koala herri.

In the last few days, you've seen the complete erasure of any reference to commute here as being the borders are which didn't go well, has been an effort to sustain fairly successful effort by the media to array the fact that he was widely regarded as one of the most, if not the very most uh progressive liberal member of the united states senate. There's been this rebirth of kala Harris as this a great warrior who is um ready, willing and able at a moments notice to take the rains as america's chief executive and they're scrubby thinks she's said in the past crazy statements she's made from defunding the police uh to aggressive radical climate change policies uh Green new deal stuff uh and that's just the tip of the iceberg. They're papering over all of that. So yes, commonly heras a threat because she's got this media industrial complex, it's completely behind her.

How much since he is the president senate and you've in a senator for thirteen and a half years, how much contact well could he served in the senate of her yes. Um what what you .

like SHE is she's a lot like how he seems on TV. She's got a funny playful side to her um she's when he is on script SHE can be very um emotionally compelling in her speech but he is very very liberal and especially when he went off script in the senate judiciary committee, you could tell that you you could tell and and often .

on the shot .

down on the committee where we we work together in the senate for four years. So SHE was elected in twenty sixteen and he remained in in the senate until he became vice president.

So so what was he like in committee?

SHE was five day. You definitely one of the most four left members of the committee. Um SHE did not hesitate to take 5。 I thought we're very aggressive attacks against a trump p era. Remember the entire time that he and I were in the senate at the same time, the entire time he was in the senate corresponded precisely with Donald trumps time as president. Um SHE was uh one who never hesitated to take really aggressive and sometimes cheep pot shots at president trumps judicial nominees and to many times badly mischaracterize the doll trb his positions and his personnel.

Did you get a sense that he regarded the constitution as sacred or even important?

Well, she's certainly one who would pay lip service to the constitution to channel the inner asia to draw near to the constitution with her lips. Well, your heart may have been far from IT because SHE didn't seem to acknowledge y core limitations on the constitution. I never saw from her an acceptance or an understanding of the twin structural protections of the construction, the vertical protection we call federalism leading most of the power of the states and low canalized or the horizontal protection, uh, that we call a uh, separation powers, never saw that from her. And I saw a hyper obsessiveness on focusing on certain rights that were invented .

out of portion. And I think even if you think of yourself as pro choice, which I definitely don't, but you know, what are good people do think of themselves as pro choice. It's hard to understand.

The fanaticism is sort of crazed. A wild died enthusiasm for abortion from her. What do you think that is?

Yeah well part of this I I suspect he may be product of her training, her education, her upbringing and her political coming of age. Um american law schools, uh with very few exceptions, tend to induct rate for whatever reason. You rovers s way in the things it's like more fundamental than magnet to to many is more fundamental than the bill of rights.

I mean, these people who don't think you have the right to say what you think travel or you want to travel, associate with you associated core human rights are stored by they do not acknowledge, defend yourself but you do every right to kill your child like what is what is .

that yeah it's a weird thing. I've never seen anything like IT and whenever have a chance with with a progressive colleague, if you ask them, um what exactly is that in the constitution that does that then they'll then they have to go through.

why are the obsesses like, look, if you make the case, you know, thirteen year old girl raped, you know, once to have an abortion. Even people post to portion like I kind of get why you feel that way, you know, right? But the idea that abortion makes you happy, that is the only in a country that does or not a replacement birth rates. So like the one thing we need to do is like have more abortions. Like where the hell does that come from there?

It's weird. It's become instead of being safe, legal and rare as the sort of the clinton era democratic party, solving abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Um it's now a sacrement and you've got people being encouraged now to share their stories, women who had abortions being incurred to share their stories of uh, why IT was such a good thing that that they had one which seems really awful of, uh.

so awful it's what seems to me just like your conventional human sacrifice call that every civilization has had, doesn't m matt I mean, I never thought that because I grew up in a world where people made arguments in favor of abortion and opposed to abortion on the basis of science. They're understanding of IT or in the basis of extending circumstances like rape. Um you know miners being party, okay, I get IT, but I never imagined the world where the treasury secretary would be like the one thing you can do to help american and economies have more abortions. As jane yan said, that's just religion.

Yes yes IT is in there has to accept IT as if A A religious article of faith. I still remember the first time I learned about Robert is wade. I was ten years old.

Um my dad had just been appointed by present region as the solution general of the united states, the chief of pallet advocate for the U. S. government. Before the spring, ford and I was asking him some questions about his job and he mentioned rovers, his weight and he said, do you know what that is and I just finished the fourth grade and I said, no, not really wants that and explain IT to me.

And he said, what do you think of that? I said, well, i'm not sure that I see this is seems like a legislator decision rather than a judicial one. So that's one problem.

The other problem is I don't see anything in the constitution that makes this a federal issue. This seems like one that maybe how to be hired out more by the states. I don't think i'd ever seen my dad more happy to know that one of his children had listened to his is discussions about federalism, separation powers and that sort of thing. But if that was evidenced.

kind of funny you having in this conversation. And fourth.

great. Well, all families have conversation about that age, about separation. And so exactly cause over potato .

es and cowered the bengal. I think IT .

was thirty before. I realize not every family talks about that, but anyway, if that was evident to me as a fourth trader and is not like we were talking about that all the time, we talk about IT more than other families did, because my dad was a professor of construction law and the soldier general of united. But, but that was evident to me, just based on the face of IT.

This was never something that should have been shoved down the throats of american people. This is a fundamentally legislative decision because it's a choice as a policy choice that is nowhere directed, required or commanded by the constitution and because there's nothing about IT that makes IT federal IT is the kind of policy decision that needs to be made with some of exceptions like for now, where federal funding is involved, federal territory, federal, personal or whatever, by state policymakers rather than national ones. And yet, when they undid roll two years ago, you had all these people.

One of my favorites was prince Harry. Of all people, prince Harry came out with this station. All this is bad for democracy.

And my response that was, number one, it's rich being lectured on democracy by an actual prince, A A literal lenie descendant both through his mother and his father of kingdom's. The third. But secondly, there is nothing democratic about rovers. I democratic think we've seen could .

we deport prince Harry .

theory if he does something wrong? Well.

I mean, I think he cross the line just with just .

tell and knowing yes.

So did you detect income Harris, just in the extensive time me um as a colleague, I can set of principles, things that in red lines SHE really cared about authentically.

Look, she's a progressive, progressive a if there was an opportunity to expand the size, scope, reach and cost, the federal supported those things.

If there was an opportunity to expand what he would describe you for reproductive rights of SHE was in favorite of those things raising taxes um making the heavily graduated income tax system even more graduated stickit to the rich he was in favor of those things so yeah, her consistent threads, somewhat predictable in that regard. He had a fairly coherent legislative strategy. SHE would always do the thing that the progressive .

democrats really their power. So, uh your morning part of the L D S church joking are that your really about me related everybody know everybody um and so you been in, which is a religious minority in this country. And so you've been an advocate, I think, for a religious liberties. So you got there. Uh, do you notice hostility tour Christianity increasing at the in washington?

interesting. Um I think there is increased hostility a toward Christians, toward organized religion in general in washington, within the senate itself. There is a um a pretty healthy culture of respect of um individual religious beliefs and backgrounds uh and um weekly player breakfast brings together republicans and democrats of every political stripe you can imagine and every religious stripe you can imagine in those context.

There is very much an atmosphere of respect. But i've started seeing a couple of things that are disturbing that I never thought I would see just the last few years I remember uh, during the trump s administration, we started to receive, for the first time ever, a couple of my democratic colleagues, including some of the official committee, who would say things like this. I'm not comfortable with this nominee because I fear that the dogma lives loudly within her.

This was, I believe, center diani steine. Speaking of then circuit judge nominee amy ony burd, um SHE was afraid that he was too catholic and that the because the dog, the catholic dog mr. SHE put IT lives too loudly.

I yeah I .

thought that was a little unsettling on another my friend and colleague, mazy rono, democratic s center from why made a comment during a uh judiciary committee markup that SHE was concerned that um we were seeing too many traditional nominees coming through the committee um who had extreme religious beliefs and I think there was at least one other member of the committee a who charmed Christian belief uh yeah I mean there were typically Christian belief SHE wasn't saying i'm the word that there two bos their tubes rastriya almost always, I think, in the context of someone who was a Christian of one's type or another and so I felt the need to weigh and at that meeting because sometimes we need to do that in order to cept the record and to give the the member and opportunity to pay IT back that i'm not sure what he meant.

Not sure he realized exactly how far he went and saying that and that's a very collegial way of doing. So I shown that. I said, just, I need to set the record straight here when you be very careful when you talk about they are at least two, maybe three, maybe more provisions of the constitution that I think cautions against an more appropriately prohibit us from imposing this kind of filter from opposing a religious test, from discriminating against someone based on their free exercise of religion um and so we need to not do that so you can find the religious beliefs unusual or you might find them um to be candidates that you don't want to support for some other reason.

But I don't think their religious beliefs should be on trial here in fact constitutes can't I thought at that point he would back down, or at least clarify her, narrowed her statement instead, SHE said, no, but I meant what I said and I said what I meant. A lot of this lot is just too extremely the religious beliefs. And i'm going to calm out. I am opposed every one of them. I think there are religious beliefs are too extreme.

I in a lot of these famous that you don't have to comment, he said she's refer but major and was not considered by the outside world genius but I wonder um to put a model but I I wonder if they see there are software enough to know that they're the religious financial .

well yeah yeah and by the way, I sometimes we get a to enter the rhetorical florist that we use on the center of floor my friend you called the distinguish position.

But no workers .

look relative to um not just the founding generation but pretty much all generations of americans until very recently um those who are hostile toward Christian beliefs or tored any belief system when IT comes to somebody's worthiness to serve in government that's historical aberrational that's extreme and it's culturally also throughout most of our history we have been a religious nation. We are still a religious nation that um yeah I don't .

think you get way of saying the person's too jewish for me.

I don't think .

that would work exactly exactly .

how the hell do you get away? I really don't know. Other the media want go after you because they share the view if the media shares that view, which in many cases they do. No friend, mentor and and church leader of mine gone into nail max, well, died a few years ago, had this great line. This stuck with me over the years.

He said, if if india is the world's most religious ous nation and sweden is the world's least religious nation, that amErica can adequately be described as a nation of indians governed by sweets, sometimes those in our government don't necessarily reflect the religious beliefs and the religious sensitivities of the people as a whole. And that's one of many reasons why I have distinguished differentiate between america, america, the country and the united states government. There are two different things.

It's one of the reasons why I, brussel, every time with anyone of either party, refers to the president of the united states or to congress as, quote, quote, running the country, run the country. The present, the united states certainly doesn't run the country. Present the united states happens to be the chief executive officer of the united states government and the commander and chief of the U.

S. Armed forces. IT runs a large orange zone with immense power, to be sure.

I don't want to integrate the office, but he hasn't run the country. The country itself consists of the american people. He's not running.

The economy is why presidents shouldn't go too far in over promising a, uh, what they are going to do for the country. I am going to create this many jobs, or to create, to climb credit for jobs have been created. Presidents can do that.

We've we've gotta get back to a proper understanding of what government is, and more importantly, what IT isn't. Governments, not there to be your rich uncle, your best friend, your fun and it's not there to make everything fair. No government exists for the purpose of protecting life, liberty and property, making sure that um we don't fall victim to those who would take that which is belongs to us or or do us harm either from the inside or the outside.

Preserving our freedoms pressure our enemies, foreign, domestic.

right, exactly life, liberty and property to further field. You get from that talker. The more you run into problems, the more removed anything in government is from the protection of life, liberty and property and within the federal, and it's even narrowed other governments to have us to protect life, liberty and property in specified, enumerated, limited ways, immigration, bankrupcy laws, weight and measures, tradeMarks, copyrights and petts interstated, a foreign trade 点， commerce and southworth.

We've got so far a field to that, that we we try to make government, the all powerful nitin, nitin benevent lent decider of all things. If that is wrong, that's always going to set that government up for failure. And it's always going to show civil discord among the people because we've assigned two government attributes that are incompatible with the mortal human condition .

in a world increasingly defined by deception and the total rejection of human dignity. We decided to the tucker cross network, and we did IT one principal in mind. Tell the truth, you have a god given right to think for yourself.

Our work is made possible by our members. So if you want to enjoy an adv experience and keep this going, join T, C, N. At tucker cross. In dot com slashed podcast stocks across the dog.

Com slashed podcast.

Yes, and one of the hallMarks of a dis functional government in a illegitimate mocs acy, in my opinion, is a leadership class that doesn't represent the people who elected them. Someone ask about two specific cases, one in, you know, where you work and other where you live. So first, where you work, the united states senate.

IT doesn't seem like the leadership of the senate. You know, in some cases, MIT can specifically doesn't seem like he shares the views of republican voters, which is a huge, like a legitimacy problem. How did that happen?

okay. So first, if mr. Mcconnell here, he would tell you that he does, that he very much is on board of files, and he would describe all the things that he's done, all the ways in which he, you really resonates with the words of a raging and the objective of limited government and lower taxes. And so after regulations, he'd say all of those things. But which mca, who's who's spend the republican leader in the senate now for a record period time, going a little century, couple ple century since then, least since the ward here working twelve .

in that range.

he would say very much on board with all republican party principles. But that misses a few points in the when you're the leader for that long, you've consolidate and taken every opportunity to accumulate power. We've already seen the secretion of power.

Remember the only reason why we have the confusion, the only reason for any confusion is the limit government, and the purpose of our U. S. Constitution, in particular, is to protect the american people, protect their life, liberty and property by preventing the protecting against the excessive accumulation of government power in the hands of the few.

So what does these along two axes, one vertical, which is federalism. The other horriston o which is about separation of powers. But we've mess with both of those.

Since the late one thousand nine hundred thirties, then there's been a corresponding accumulation of power within congress, within each house of congress, and within each caucus, republican and democratic, of each house of congress, where there has been an accumulation of power. Now this is especially pointing and impactful in the united states senate, where the whole thing was designed around the principle of equal representation among the states. It's the one constitutional amendment that is preemptively, itself unconstitional and therefore impossible to bring about.

You cannot amend that part of the constitution that allows and requires equal representation among the states. In theory, you could adopt a constitutional moment giving every state a different number of representative, but every state would have to be equally represented. And our senate rules reflect that understanding and our traditions.

Our presidents reflect that. There isn't a vast distinction under the senate rules as they are written in, as they've historically been applied between any other member and the current minority or majority leader on our presidents. Even the only technical distinction is that what's called the right of first recognition, if multiple members are seeking recognition at the same time and one of them is the majority leader, then the majority leader gets recognized.

But we built this up to several last couple of three decades, started maybe when L B J was in the senate prior to L B J, the the floor leader, as IT was once called, I believe, but the majority minority leader of each party wasn't that significant. L B J, started building up the position, but it's really blossomed over the last twenty years or so where we've now got all this power in each caucus built up behind the law room of summer and mcconnell pectin. ly.

And so once that happens, I call up the firm, the law firm of summer macon's and jeff s. Once they get into that position, if they share this mindset, the accumulation of power within their conference, within congress is a good idea. They start to Operate as their own constituency, as with a hive mind, particularly on spending bills.

So the law from of summer marconnet Johnson and Jeffery's will get together and they'll figure out what's gna be in the expanding bill they released IT predictably foresee ably um with only days, sometimes hours before the exploitation of a spending period you to be a couple thousand pages long contain hundreds of earMarks uh uh often a lot of things um bara faint, but distinct resembLance to the home states of members of the firm. How special benefits for this or that stage industries that are popular there. The firm then becomes the proxy, the leader of what I call the unit party.

They bring that to the floor. And what happens? These spending bills brought forward with too little time to amend them. They tell members, look, they got to take or leave this. We don't have time to amend them because we make sure that, uh, you can vote against IT.

But if you vote against IT and IT doesn't pass the government gna shutt down, we will blame you for a shutdown. So we recommend you just voted against IT. Now i've done this, voted against IT have voted against them basically every time they do this, and on occasion to resulted in the shift down, have been playing for sheep towns is not pleasant. But this is what happens. They become much more about the accumulated power and and about maintaining the parole natives .

of accumulated later serial. I mean, you get elected. Stay wide.

A new toy every six years, three times now, I guess, and I don't know, that's not a small thing, right? And then you show up in the senate, and you can even get a copy of the spending bill, like a month out. I could sult right, right? I drive you insane.

absolutely insane. IT is the single most frustrating thing. You know, when I was running for the senate, IT was a live matter to be talking about.

Nancy polis, reference to the obama bill. You got pass IT to find out what I assumed that that was elaboration, that that was unusual. What I found this is not terribly unusual, doesn't happen all the time.

but IT happens.

But four leaders to do that too. Yes, exactly.

Do you ever say to him? Hey much, mcconnel snapping turtle wanted you. Why can I? What are you doing to me? I have more yal to you more than own republic .

members lost account of number of times that i've raised the issue they in and with the conference as a whole with senate republicans. And for the first six years I I was in the senate, we were always told this feature or that feature is not in line yet. So we're going have to go along with this, meaning we don't control the majority of the senate publication rol, only the house and obama's in the White house. Finally.

once we get more power, be great, right?

And then we got the majority in the senate and in the house, we still on a democratic president, but lot of us made the case, were driving the ship. Now we should build the right on the la, the obama to, finally, we get to seventeen. And I really empt up the discussions and internally within the conference and set right at this point.

From this point forward, the spending bills need to be on the floor. I don't you know supposed to have twelve different spending bills of each according to a different functioning of government. So if that not everything can be tied together and we even done in that way in a long time, is that that be ideal? But even if you can do that, if you want to do IT in one bill and you've got ta give us at least a few weeks, maybe a month or so to debate and discuss IT.

And most importantly, in the senate, the opportunity to amend IT unlimited debate. And a mets are supposed to be the norm and historically worth the norm in the senate. That's collegial.

And it's how our rules Operate. And those rules reflect back what the constitution contemplate. Um and we were told you opportunities. We Operated with continuing resolutions more or less for the first year of the trumpet administration, just punting the ball forward every couple months.

Finally, IT wasn't until I think he was a march twenty third two thousand eighteen when we were finally at about that point where I knew we would have to pass something, but we had a few weeks love. But the wednesday night, ah maybe eight thirty five, eight thirty six pm, on a wednesday night we got this email from our majority leader colleagues, dashes, spending mail may come up sometime you have to become familiar with him. Every alarm bell and me went, went off IT.

And I opened the thing up instantly in my heart was pounding, thinking, okay, this is our big opportunity. We got to make sure that we're ready for this. To my surprise, this was two thousand, two hundred and thirty two pages long.

So I immediately scrambled the jets within my office. I got every available legislative staffer, my team of pulling, essentially all nighters. Uh, because we one of the mature, we are ready. We had no idea what the schedule would be.

I really hoped that as we have been promised, we would have the opportunity to debate them, discuss them, offer a means pull out this or that, earmark special benefits for their bread race orses or the stars of of kentucky burbo or whatever IT was. Tucker, the house of representatives passed that bill without a single memory before lunch the next day. The senate, despite my protestations, wasted at about three in the morning.

Ah later that night he was too late right then to call president trump, but and want to wake him up so I call them first thing in the morning to advise him to veto IT because this was quite contrary to you know what he thinks is good government. His staff, White house staff at the time screen out the call. They didn't give the message until after he had already signed the bill.

By that time I was a friday night, I got on the plain friday evening was flying back to you top, maybe half an hour into the flight, and seat forty three fox truck, very back of the bus. I flying back to you tub was the one part of the flight where liberty was quiet and my secretary texted me saying the presents trying to reach you. And I wish you d call me earlier, but I am want to play now.

I obviously won't able to talk to, and i'll beyond the ground and maybe four hours and next thing I knew, I saw these delta flight attends looking um sort of dissembled walking down the center isle with a bright a sort of neon orange had said with an equally brightly on cord that stretched the entire length of the fuselage the plane they walked all the way back to roll forty three um um back to the plane where I was and said, excuse me, we have the White White house situation room on the phone the presence of united states would like to speak with you you looking up like what you and brought me back to the galley show me how to work IT push the button when you ride to talk I still felt this is an elaborate practical joke but hello, this. Mike awa, this I had designed at congress and left town, there was no other way around, shut kinds of problems, and congress wasn't there. And I said, mister present, we would all do respect your staff is not shooting straight with you.

They're lying to if they told you that we were still in town, we still could have done something. We still could have past a short term stopped up measure to keep us folded for another and around seventy two, ninety six hours or or um perhaps a week or two as we debated and discuss that um the the the the connection wasn't stable and cut out a short time later, they sent back a message, OK, i'll call you when you get on the ground, that will never happen. He hope he's busy.

Sure enough, soon as I landed in salt like city, I don't even got them with a curbed or my car before I gotta call from him. And he wants to talk. We talk for, like an hour.

And I explained to him what had just happened to him and that IT couldn't happen again. I said, if that does happen again, if your staff tricks you, end of this again. And if what I now refer to as the firm does this, do you again? I fear what I could do to our base that expects something different out of us.

And I fear what could happen in the november two thousand and eighteen midd term elections that we could lose the majority. We lose the majority as sure as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. They're going, na, imp, automate what for? But don't make something up. And if that happens, IT could really cause problems for you. So I just not do this again.

Let turn out to be present.

Didn't IT did he did a president in a way that I hope that wouldn't be?

Um but why would get us? Why would his staff block your message? Why would they want him to sign something like that?

Well, I think about of this way, they face a lot of the same pressure that convinces most members of congress from both political parties, uh, to go along with him. Nobody wants to be accused of causing a shop down, but the firm, the firm gets together and decides what is an acceptable bill.

What about the total destruction of the united states, which this is bringing about? We're bankrupt, and that can be very obvious. And if we d lose our status issue of the world's reserve currency, which is on its way well, on its way, well, on its way, thanks to the very specific .

misdeal .

ih second rush s done, the I hope i'm wrong, but I don't think I am. But with the point is, when that happens, we're going to be imposed shed and all the things that we take for general will be gone. And the people who signed to bills like that and voted for bills like that are responsible is there does anyone in our governing bodies like acknowledge that in private.

we talk about IT a lot. In private, those who feel like I do and there are a number of us who do, including some who sometimes vote and explicate for these things. Um many of us do talk about IT in private and there is usually some type of general agreement, but it's followed up by sort of a cognitive this so like alcoholism.

like you wake up on what you would would know because you're moment, but like those of us used to drink too much, you wake up on Sunny like I gona stop the shit. This is terrible again.

baby. It's like that.

right, right?

Perhaps it's that it's like my wife hates IT when I use this term, but it's a the local term um I think you originally came from the book of I like a dog to its vomit yes A A dog to its vomit at refers to what happens when people return to that which is familiar even though it's not necessarily a good thing and maybe a bad thing or a disgusting thing.

You do IT because it's there it's it's the decision before you and unless you decide in advance um I don't always cook rush lyrics are in in in media interviews but the quote free will by rush if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice that's right. Unless you decide at the outset i'm not going to vote for something that I have not red or have the opportunity even to read that I have had no opportunity to vet with my staff and get input from constituents. I will vote no every time.

But in fact, that was a, uh, campaign promise that I made from the first time I ran for the center. Is the first office ever randa the first public office ever sought in two thousand and ten. And I stuck with if, if, if they don't give me the of my ignorance.

I didn't realize, eventually run for one office IT was the U. S. senate. You one? Yes.

never expected by almost anybody to win.

Craze was changing .

a three term comb. I remember.

remember him very well.

And so, uh, people were shocked, uh, when I want, but anyway, good. Unless you decide in advance i'm not going to do that.

I'm not kind of vote for a bill that I haven't had the opportunity to vet at a minimum, IT needs to be something that i'm able to um consider with enough time to have uh few staff members pour over IT and help advise me on what provision is what you get to remember talker, these bills that build back in two thousand eighteen, march eighteen, two thousand and two hundred and thirty two pages long yet. Remember, these do not read like a fast pace novel. They're full of cross references.

And IT takes an army of very well trained people who know what they're doing to recognize where they are going and what to understand IT. If you don't have the opportunity to at least um meet with your staff and scrutinize this thing and then have the opportunity to amend IT and then have the opportunity to to improve IT and get feedback from your constituents, you have no business voting for IT. But here's what's happening. Here's what is frustrating to me most about the firm and the uniquity that is generally managers. I've explained what the firm is.

The new party, as I conceive of IT, is that apparatus which manifests itself most obviously and frequently in the form of these massive arabs spending bills um that blurs the distinction between the two parties in those areas which is again most acute ly observed in the spending bill context and the firm puts the bill together the four of them are the only ones who really seen the whole thing maybe a couple of appropriators from both houses and their staff. S but most of the members have seen nothing about IT. But then when IT comes forward, something quite consistent usually happens.

Most or all democrats will tend to vote for IT, and then enough republicans in both houses will join most or all democrats in order to get this over the line, to make a look by partisan in the senate, to make sure that IT passes the sixty vote closure standard. Whatever takes simple majority to pass legislation, typically, but the most legislation in order to get to final passage on a simple majority, you first have to satisfy closure. You have to bring debate to a close, which take takes three fish or sixty votes to get there.

And so republicans .

end up supplying the difference to over and over and over again, even sometimes were in the majority you have spending bills that unite most or all democrats. And then anywhere from ten or twelve to maybe one thousand nine and twenty is twenty, is twenty five or so republicans will join with the democrats.

So then I guess what you're saying, the terminal party will show you all the time isn't really accurate. It's probably more precise to say you have the democratic party, which is being served by a lot of powerful republicans as well because this is I mean, this what they're doing is consistent with the values and views of the democratic party. It's inconsistent with those the republican party. So you just just one of working for the democrats.

That's what IT looks like to me yeah and in so far as the democrats tend to want to spend more money than republicans, I think that's that is a and .

assessment have more s and the signature um the signature aims of the democratic party.

He's on both of them if they were here, members the univerty or of members of the firm were here, they would say, well, look, but these also had our reMarks in them. These also had some of our priorities, and we had to take the bad to get the good. There are things in here that, uh, really helps defense and ways.

Republicans are all about defense, and we needed to get that a the defense part of IT the military industrial. And it's a lure. It's the gateway drug for republicans to join the united party.

Can you say that one more time? I just want everyone the right who's listening to this. If you make at this further conversation, this is the key. Please write this down and put on your fridge.

The military industrial complex is a highly addictive substance that serves the gateway drug to progressive spending bills. In other words, they throw in special handles for the pentagon um and bring in the i'm pro national defense crowd and that's how they get them to vote for spending bills that help perpetuate the two trillion hour annual deficit and that's why we're thirty five trillion dollars .

not working or not safer at all. The motor is not stronger. We can to do the who, these whoever they are. And so it's actually having the opposite, as things often do, the opposite of the advertise effect, right? And no one noticed is that.

Is anyone think the military stronger now has got more funding than ever? Is IT stronger because it's once weaker.

a lot of people think that is stronger. And there are some metrix for that. We have got more sophisticated weapon reason we have in the past. But on the other hand, um uh our and strength seems to be suffering by virtue of the recruiting experiment that this administration has inflicted upon itself a the way they're presenting themselves the weather running the the pentagon to pursue wk ideological of a agenda items uh is itself a turn off to a lot of the target audience IT .

even just judging by its effect, judging the tree by its fruit. We went to work in the taliban in two thousand, one where they Better armed than, or now mining .

the taliban ye're .

Better ARM. Now the these most americans, including me, had not heard the term hooky five years ago. And now they're closing a key shipping lane with like childish drones against the U.

S. navy. So like what that is not success.

It's not. And I remember the exact moment in twenty fifteen I was speaking at some event, and I I want I heard about what was going on in yemen and immediately a gosh, I really hope that we don't get involved in a proxy war here. And we did a and it's it's now blood into three different presidential administrations.

And IT has LED to um yemen being even more of a leverage point for iran, exactly being able to ARM the others and having incentive to do so. This is one of the things that happens when we get involved in proxy wars generally. One of the reasons why you know federal sixty nine um Alexander hamilton comments that one of the distinguishing character, our model for our government really is based on the british system in many respects.

We've got a big camera legislature. We've got a chief executive. One of the british system is health and points out in federal sixty nine, the king, the chief executive, have the ability to take the country to war independently unliterary.

The constitution, by contrast, requires a declaration of war by congress. Now, we never passed an A, U. M, F, or a declaration of war with regard to you. And they regard all kinds of other existing authorities, from the o 1NO2， A U M S to inherent article to power in the presidency. It's all unpersuasive in my mind, but to authorize all this.

So i've i've been opposing this ever since two thousand fifteen because I believe that this was first and foremost about benefiting the industrial, military and industry complex and that IT would tend to be one of these in tAngela affairs that gradually escalated. And it's been exactly that is interesting. I i've found some unlikely allies on that.

Here's a picture from a couple years ago mayon, bernie Sanders, ARM and ARM just after uh passing one of the first successful efforts at using the world powers resolution um uh to get us uninvolved in the conflict in yemen. He was veto and we weren't able to override the veto at the end of the day. But that's how we get involved.

And we get involved by degrees. And they've redefined what war is to the point now. Or in effect, the executive branch has the ability to get away with fighting war without anyone ever authorizing IT or declaring IT in congress and because we've redefined what war is.

But I just wonder without again calling any of your colleagues out by name. But I know a lot of them, super nice people, some impressive people. You know there are degrees, but there are definitely smart people on the senate um on both side.

But do they ever just stop to say the effects of what we're voting for are not good? Our festival situation is really dire. The the military that we fund is not achieving the desired outcomes. Do they ever like a look .

at the results sometimes, yes, but you understand one feature to her. The military. Issues or to us kind of its our own microcode sm of what progressives experiences everywhere else. So for republicans, we've regard republicans far too many have concluded that this is conservative like making sure that we have a military strong enough and foreign icy dedicated enough to ensure that the world is safe for democracy.

Gender and do they have, do know that partment does. Republicans don't like .

that part, but they like the making the word safe for democracy and they like the um so called rules based international order, in effect, more less since the end of world world. They love that stuff. And so you'll actually find republicans, without realizing at parenting the same reasoning as progressive generally, progressive generally when the particular government program doesn't work their instant is always to say we just didn't give IT quite enough fuel if we had just given a little bit more money, more resources, if we have invested more and event.

that will work. Communism is a great idea.

This has have been tried in .

they're all about I mean, I am not just one one question. So like the rules based order thing, I couldn't be more for rules based doctor. I think i'll orderly, people are for rules based daughter, are you to live in a country that had want? But the rules space order advocates supported the theft of billions of dollars in personal property of the so called russian alleged money from a poos post. Putin had nothing to do with the invitation with queen zero and we sp back and allow the by administration to steal all their stuff because they had russian last named. That's not the rules based to order that stuff.

That's right. That's right. And we'd legitimized the very rules based international order that we claimed actually protecting.

made everybody cynical about the american project.

And in the meantime, we have really presented the first major threat that you and I have seen in our lifetimes, uh uh to the U. S. Dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yes, because you know in all of this we've driven um we've driven russia and in some ways are wrong into the loving embrace of china. And you now have turkey.

the gulf states, actually malaysia, like the the parts of the world, they are getting richer and stronger or fleeing from us. That's not good.

I know a guy who is a lawyer who works in the petroleum um industry and is the guy who handles of the legal implications of the contracts that rapidly developing contracts that are written when there's A A petroleum supertanker. Yes, travelling irons out the details of how things could be dominated like twenty years ago is explaining to me that these are all no matter where you are in the world, these are pretty much transacted in us.

Dollars is just one of the uh, unifying forces beyond IT. It's starting to not be the case, I know anymore. And that's very chilling because that we've all benefit from that to a very significant .

party hangs on IT.

So in the name of a uh protecting the rolls base international order with weakened IT in the name of maintaining economic and military security for the united states, we have made ourselves more vulnerable. And so one has to ask, at what point will the american people, and more importantly, they're elected representative in congress, get wise enough to say we've been listening to the wrong voices. We've got to stop deferred to the military experts. Um we will always .

have incentive to tell us that they OK. It's just speaking of curious ironies, my my last question. I think about this solve the time, but i'm not an expert.

You are and that's about your state you know, IT is an amazing place, lovely place. Most conservative state was always thought to be just because of its population, heavily O D S, inherently conservative people, prosperous, family oriented. Just great in my happening. Um how did a state like you talk wind up with the governor and letters ic governor who are just like open out of the .

closet liberals like, what is that right? Let me me speak broadly. I mean, I don't know that I would care raise the way you have did, but I understand .

the point me.

First of all, well, I believe that the people in my day, the state of view of to I think we are one of the most conservative state. I've I think we're naturally skeptical of government yeah or naturally inclined to respect the constitution and understand the need for limitations on power. Actually the only faith that i'm aware of that has is a matter of of doctoral belief, the fact that the U. S. Constitution was written by wise men, raised up by god of that very purpose.

but also more constitutional. And just as an observer of mormons my whole life, there is not a basic level, their conservative. They believe in so and faith ness.

They don't like that. Working hard is like a precept of the religion that seems true. So if they're in on the most basic level, their .

conservative. Yes, so getting back to the newly max world that I gave you a minute ago, yeah about amErica being a you talk for being one of the most conservative states. Culturally, economically, historically, we have no conservative media establishment to speak up. We've sure we ve got some great a people on, uh, radio station or two who provide competing voices. But as far as I two statewide print media outlets, desert news in the world, like tribune, both a liberal.

how can the desert news, I think, was always own by the l this church is IT. So yes, he is. Well, how does that work?

Well, that does. Red news seems to be defining deviancy downward, defining how IT is in in reference to where the sol attribution goes. And as the selective robien is more further and further to left, the does write news, from my vantage point is more less track with IT and gotten by by saying, look, we're not as bad as they are were the conservative ones and in many respects they they still maintain elements of conservatism. They are um their conservative in the sense that they will always advocate benefits of the rule of law, not gna call for the defunding other police. They are pro religion, pro god, pro family and that sort of thing.

And so in that respect they their their able to portray themselves and I think genuinely view themselves as you has more conservative paper but they ignore the fact that um outside of those areas where are consistent with the desert news ownership and the also the ownership of the broadcast media entity that is also owned by the church K S um even though they uh are themselves defenders of religion, of families and of some conservative values, they're run by the journalistic profession. The guilt soda speak up and the guilt, as you know, journalist bio, large or liberal. Now there are a lot of professions that are like that.

My profession, a lawyer, the lawyers lean left also. But i'm not aware of any profession that leads more consistently to the left than journalists. And so these journalists maybe still see themselves as the more conservative paper, but in their heart. And if they're writing and of their broadcast messaging, they learned left, at least far to the left of where most of you tell population .

goes Spencer cox, really your governor. He seems again, you know him, it's your state. I don't no one but just looking at us like that guy should be governor vermont or california or new jersey or some sort of failed state like that. Why you I I wouldn't .

put him uh, in that category certainly um but there are those who have concerns with him. There certainly policy decisions that he's made that I haven't agreed with. I think what you're getting out is sometimes utan tend to elect people who um their first elected speak more like conservatives and then behave a little bit less like conservatives over time.

And some of this goes back to this point that uh while we are a conservative state, we have no conservative media establishment to speak of other small contract of very effective um uh radio personalities but the print media statewide and the state wide broadcast entities, radio and television lin pretty consistently to the left and that has an impact. So too, we've got a lot of universities in you to my but ten of them and they, like most academic institutions, have tended to lean left. Now, not as far as left is what you see, you know, harvard and a printer and and Frankly, most universities in america, but definitely much further left than they used to be and much further left than most you tons are. Those things are having an effect, and it's causing problems that does cause me concern. So you wanted her.

my theory. Yeah, I think you tell us, too nice and has been too nice for too long. And the people who live there, I said, this is a native californians. I saw this happen.

They've glove side of the central truth in life, which is IT takes a long time to build something functional and beautiful, and IT can be destroyed very, very quickly, very quickly. California v ously. Greatest state this country ever produced.

And now it's in some ways, the worst. And that happened in a generation of my lifetime. And I just don't think the people of utah understand how quickly they could stay, could become a slum. California has become a slum. And that could happen because, you know you're like you're comfortable, your prosper is you like, you know we've been to mean like putting people in prison for rape, like maybe we shouldn't do that like and you don't understand that the second you allow disorder slovenliness debt, like you, the whole thing can disappear right in ten years.

right in and in a place like, you know where the republic lan party has been dominating. Ominous for most of my lifetime. M not all that, but most of IT. Um there is sometimes an assumption that if they're republican, they are going to do conservative things now when in the meantime there are a lot of people who will push agenda items that are themselves a very carefully disguise ed A A progressive drink pieces for example.

Uh, there is a voter initiative push through a few years ago that tried to take away some of the redistricting legislative redistricting authority from the utah legislation and put in an independent, uh, bipartisan or non partisan commission. You see where this is going in any time you put IT in the hands of unelected, unaccountable experts. The way the thing works, particularly conservative status, is going to move you for the to the left.

Uh, so IT passed. So one of the reasons i'm not a big fan of voter initiatives, I we've got a republican m of government. We shouldn't delete IT with he've got legislature for a reason. I think it's Better to have them do IT.

But regardless is a loud under a state constitution in in past, well, our legislature as well IT needed to modified what they did so as to keep the legislation more or less, you know, still in charge of the ultimate product. Are you to supreme court five members on IT? All five of those members have been appointed by republican governors and confirmed by our u to states senate republican dominated for many decades.

All five of them recently agreed that the legislatures modification of the original uh redistricting reform um was on constitutional under our state constitution. This is how we get brought into a progressive system bit by bit by bit, by the appeal of the the the lure of the scientific expertise and the use of the left. Cutch words like the partisan Jerry Mandarin and the rigged legislative districts is still all point is since the founding. It's been understood that this is how IT works. The legislative body is a political alone can make this law.

But I I mean to you tize successful and conservation because of population, because of its this is my view. It's the dominant religion in the state is in my view, is inherently conservative. And no, not political on partisan way, but just or car, do not, don't recruit debt.

Stay married has IT. There were some people who said, when california a began to collapse, you guys need to build a wall on your western border to keep the californians out. You didn't do that.

I think IT was a mistake, but now the even flood with california, is there any discussion of instructed a probation ary period before you let them vote? You you come to our state from your failed state. It's almost like we import criminals from you can't vote right away. Why do you allow californians to vote right away when they come to utah? One not a cooling off period of a couple decades?

Yeah, I don't know that conceptually we could get away with that much about the controls of that have not been entirely clear. But generally speaking, there is an understanding the under the conclusion that U. S. Citizenship means that you can move from .

one state to what is california. You're moving literally from you know west L. A. To sow lake, and you get to bring your values with you. What that can be because some of that happens.

but some of that has been surprising. Now I was last reelected this year, half close to two years ago now. And we did a lot of polling during that debate um during that the campaign and that election process. And when we drilled down on the cross taps and we evaluated those who had moved in from out of state, including a whole lot had moved in from california, we were shocked at how conservative they were many, if not most of them were more conservative, more supportive of me ah then um than a lot of people who had lived in youtube for many decades like cuban .

exile yeah I think .

the birds of a feather flock together. And if if you've seen the failures of california and you see that um some of those failure, some of those problems are related to the fact that the california spending in toxic um by the progressive of lies, the false promises of a progressive navona, you're not necessary going to choose you talk you're next place to live if what you're seeking is another progressive navona and so they tend to be self selecting their voting with their feet and those who you choose to go to, obviously with their exceptions. But by large, those who have chosen to move to utah from california recently, I believe, live more conservative.

Even I ve been in a bunch of other places, jack warming, for example, dallas people who leave california liberals because, honest, they hate diversity. That's part of IT. They want to live in a wider place. That's just a fact. I know some of them moved to bowmen anny.

How that works, right? IT should be illegal.

By the way you vote to define the police you should be required to live on for the rest of your life. But, but then they do. They they come with their creepy White guilt there. You know, terrible attitudes about government, just the kind of decade nyi st. Views that does happen.

Yeah, IT does. And IT reminds me if you ever, ever read a book called the naked communist. No, I I read this recently.

So this was writing, buy a gun. Clean front of my wife's family. Exactly at our our wedding I I didn't didn't know until our wear David, the Marks, his father, yeah yeah exactly. Marky cousins father, a great man as is mark. Um I somehow didn't realize my wife family was really close to cleanse until our wedding day. He introduced himself to me the temples just before ceremony started that was like, wow, the clean on goin is here he was asked recently but gain family to speak at a at a gathering of clans and fans and family members um honoring his life and in preparation for that I read one of those books that I hadn't previously read. Read a bunch of his other books, but I I read the naked community st a book that he he wrote I think first back in the fifties and then continued to update IT periodical until around the time of his death.

But he outlines the he outlines the plan by which are those who wanted a more progressive form of government were influenced by marxist philosophy, uh, generally and one of the sort of in quote, a lot of that into the united states, I think we underestimate uh as americans the extent to which we have been marinating in progressive messaging which has elements of Marks as philosophy built into IT from the time we could crawl from the time we end kindergarten, whether you went to public school or private schools, even many religious schools um and regardless of whether you where you attended university, unless you want to hills tail or a couple of other places, more likely than not you received a lot of conditioning with progressive idio logy so much so that we almost don't have adequate language is part of our lexicon to communicate the true purpose and function of government and I think that's how we end up with this mess where we're thirty five trillion hours in debt, adding two, three of two trillion dollars a year with no plan to get out of IT because we bought locked stock and barel. This idea that government's job, the federal government's job, is open ended. It's there to write all the wrongs, to make everything fair, and it's all a big lie.

And that's how we get stuck in IT. But if we can reinvigorate this idea that the constitution and the limited government that guarantees us is our birthright and that liberty is good, the government expense only of the expense of individual liberty will be Better off. We've got a real opportunity with this election.

People love to say every time this year's election is critically important. I think this one is is Better and especially important inflection point. In addition to the presidential election, we've got one of the most liberal, progressive and Frankly, lawless presidential administrations in U. S. History, the senate on the line.

I think republicans have a real shot at recapturing the majority that's happening at the same time when our current a senate republican leader who is in as eighteen th year a world record a in the senate for either party b is going to be stepping down as leader, we'll have the chance to elect somebody else. And I hope I expect pushing messaging to my colleagues constantly. Let's focus before we get to the whoo, let's focus on the what let's talk about what IT is that we envision for this position.

We want somebody who will Foster uh and promote the kind of atmosphere in which individual members and the states they represent, the respective voters can have a voice because that voice has been narrowed. It's been narrowed a very small choke point, and IT has not enough to the benefit of the american people. It's Frankly one of the reasons why were thirty five trillion dollars in that.

I I just really, really hope that you're driving the reforms. I know you will be very micky if you taught. Thank you for spending all this time.

Thank you for. Thanks for listen and tuck across and show. If you enjoy ID IT, you can go to talk or cross in the calm to see everything that we have made. The complete library, tr croson .

dcm.