← The Josh Hammer Show
Loading summary
Transcript35 lines
- [00:00]
John Hichta
This is John Hichta with AARP and I want to talk to you about the money you pay into Social Security. With every paycheck, folks.
- [00:08]
Senator Mark Warner
That's money you earned.
- [00:10]
John Hichta
But special interests in D.C. are pushing to reduce your Social Security payments and annual cost of living increase. They don't get how much Americans depend on Social Security, but AARP is fighting to stop them. Go to aarp.org we earned it to join our fight paid for by AARP.
- [00:31]
Josh Hammer
More domestic terrorism in New York City focused on the immigration issue. The American left, the Democratic Party, they understand the stakes when it comes to the all important issue of immigration in America. Does the American right understand? Do Republicans understand? I'm not sure I know the answer. I'm Josh Hammer and this is the Josh Hammer Show. So another day ending in Y and another attempted terrorist attack. This happened on Monday in New York City. A deranged former US army soldier and National Guardsman tried to set off an incendiary device outside of a federal building in what seems to be an anti ICE terror attack. This happened on Monday. Thankfully, no one was harmed by this. He was described by the assistant director in charge of the FBI near field office as an anti American, anti government extremist. Sami, if you've heard this before, an anti ice, anti border control type of American anarchist. The very kind of individual, I would argue, that has had the fans flanked by talking heads on the left side of our political divide for months and months and months, really, for the better part of this entire administration. How many times have you heard that ICE are Nazis, that ICE are Gestapo, that ICE are here to do evil, that they are not fundamentally a source of law enforcement. And hold aside the debate, if it's even a debate, whether or not law enforcement is even inherently a good thing. After all, we're talking here about people who invariably believe that defund the police, police defund prisons, defund ice. These are all reasonably suitable public policy goals. It's beyond parody, but unfortunately it is where we are at here. Was border czar Tom Holman on Fox News talking a little bit more about this attempted domestic terrorist attack outside a federal building in New York City on Monday.
- [02:22]
Tom Holman
Well, first of all, I appreciate the comments from Mandami and Jeffries, but too little, too late. They spent a year attacking ice, comparing ice. Let's abolish ICE because they're fascists. ICE are Nazis, ICE are racist. ICE is a secret police. ICE isn't a real law enforcement agency. Fail to comply with ice. I see the signs. Every protest resist. So look they have educated people that they can resist ice. And the hateful rhetoric continues, which we've had some tragedies recently because people didn't want to comply with ice. So this is yet another example today of what happened in front of the federal buildings, another example of attacking ice. And I'm sure if you ask that person why he did it, he can repeat the talking points. I just said that you hear from Democratic members of Congress, the Democratic mayors and governors who simply want ICE to go away.
- [03:14]
Josh Hammer
And that ultimately is the proof in the pudding. When you hear the motives come out of the maps, oftentimes what they say is they are just mimicking and aping the talking points of, well, the left wing and Democratic Party people like those in the dsa, people like Zoramdani, people like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who invariably are calling for open borders or frankly for no border whatsoever. But I have to ask this. For the better part of two years now, you guys have been calling for no borders. You've been calling ICE Gestapos, Nazis, this, that what did you think was going to happen? Aha. Perhaps you knew this was going to happen. Perhaps you knew that you were trying to incite people who are easily riled up to do exactly the kind of things that this deranged former army soldier and National Guardsman tried to do in New York City on Monday. Maybe that's actually the entire point of this entire exercise. The same way perhaps that Democrats in some measure, in some non negligible measure, failed to condemn the assassination of the United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The same way that they failed to universally condemn the assassination of my friend Charlie Carter. The same way they have universally failed to condemn all sorts of acts of either real or attempted political violence. The same way that there are so many today who are still calling for the assassination of President Donald J. Trump. Perhaps by that same measure, this was an attempt, albeit an implicit silent one, to try to get some crazy person to commit some harm. Now, on the immigration front more generally, it is worth noting that the Trump administration is continuing to deliver results. So there was a new release from the Department of Homeland Security that came out last week on July 16, I actually just saw for the first time this morning. So last week DHS and CBP Customs Border Protection announced 14 consecutive months of zero releases at the southern border. That is absolutely, positively astonishing. Astonishing considering the depths of open borders depravity during the height the apex of the Biden Harris regime, where you had millions of people flooding across the border completely unvetted we had no idea who the heck they were. They were oftentimes criminals. They were rapists, they were transnational terrorists. We had no idea. Absolutely no clue. No clue. And in our estimation here on the show, that's one of the reasons why Trump won the election, was because of just how bad that border was. 14 months now, reports DHS and CBP of 0 of 0 releases at the border. That is absolutely astonishing. Bill Milligan, the intrepid immigration century reporter over at Fox News, also reporting on some new data from ice. This data came in just yesterday on Monday. So Bill Milligan put on new ICE data dump reveals the agency has carried out 356,389 deportations so far in fiscal year 2026, which began last October 1st. That averaged out to roughly 1260 per day. ICE currently has 65 and a half thousand people in ICE detention, nearly 40,000 of whom have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. So the average deportations comes out, as I said, to 1,260 per day. That's pretty good. There's definitely some room for improvement, I would argue there, but that's pretty good as far as things go. Now, the politics of this are super interesting. Recall that last week as we discussed with our guest Will Chamberlain recently, last week there was a bit of this back and forth when it comes to the secretary of dhs, Mark Wayne Mullen. Mark Wayne Mullen initially bowed to pressure, bowed to political pressure from Maine and Texas. There were deaths as a result of crazy people trying to shoot ICE agents. And Mark Wayne Mullen said, let's stop the, the automobile pullovers, the detention in vehicles. And then Trump once comes over the top and says, actually no, that's capitulation to the open borders left. We're going to keep on doing this vehicular stops. So the politics of this start to get very interesting. More on that in just a segment. For now, folks, I want to tell you about our sponsor of today's show. And our sponsor is Angel Studios. You know, we're living in a moment when conviction is too often treated as a liability and silence is rewarded over speaking the truth. That's one reason Charlie American Martyr is such an important documentary. At its core, this isn't a political story. It's a story of a man whose faith shaped his public life, whose courage came from his convictions, and whose legacy challenges all of us to think more deeply about what it means to live faithfully. Charlie believed that our faith shouldn't be confined to the pews over the weekend, but it should inform how we engage the culture around us with conviction, humility and purpose. Charlie Kirk's life raises a question every believer should wrestle with. When our values are tested, will we stand firm? If you believe stories like this matter, go to angel.com/become an angel Guild member today. Watch Charlie Kirk, American Martyr. It's a new documentary out from Angel Studios. Again, folks, go to angel.com/help bring more stories of faith, courage and conviction to audiences around the world. Angel.com/join the Angel Guild today. Angel Studios is the sponsor for today's show. So another new initiative that is coming from the immigration apparatus of the Trump administration, this time it's actually coming from a doj, not from dhs. This was actually just announced on Monday, was a new press release came out from the Department of Justice on Monday that said, quote, the Trump administration continues the largest denaturalization effort ever. So the DOJ announced today that it filed denaturalization actions in various US district courts against 10 individuals accused of serious offenses, including sexual abuse of a child, health care and wire fraud, immigration fraud, and conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine. So they are pursuing denaturalization, which, as you can likely surmise by the name, means that you have a naturalized citizen and you're trying to strip them of citizenship. A lot of folks say this is a Nazi fascist tactic. Whatever. It's not. There's a statute on the books that has been authorized in this for a century or more. It is a very, very, very old statute and it frankly ought to be used. So there definitely are some indications that the administration is leaning into this issue. After all, you wouldn't have this press release coming out in the summer of a midterm election year. You wouldn't have DHS trumpeting the fact that the southern border is now deeply secure. But on the other hand, there are some worrying indications worrying us here on the show that is that maybe the administration and maybe Republicans in general are backing away from this issue. I just mentioned Mark Wayne Mullen's convenient flip flop after Trump came over the top to say actually we're going to continue to continue to engage in these vehicular detentions. When it comes to ICE officers, I see mixed signals more generally when it comes to elected officials on the Republican side of the aisle. When it comes to conservative consultants, the case tree class, those in and around the Beltway, there's a lot of debate and not all of it is on one side. When it comes to how much the Republican Party and conservatives on the outside should lean into the immigration issue this November. In other words, I see something of a mismatch. Democrats have their ducks all lined up in a row. They are totally in unison. They are in lockstep. They are in sync when it comes to messaging, the importance of this issue from their harrowing dystopian perspective. That perspective calls for no borders and for free migrants and for no ICE and for no law enforcement when it comes to enforcing immigration law. It's anarchic and it is dystopian. But they're very clear on their stance. The match to that on the other side of the aisle, on the right side should be crystal clear. It should be borders, security, rule of law, law enforcement ultimately oriented towards protecting the health, safety and flourishing of the American people and the American way of life. There's an even broader point to make here, and it is as follows. Demographics, in some cases, actually our destiny. Not all cases, but in some cases, demographics indeed are destiny. Demographics is doing a lot of the work here. I'm not saying that race is destiny, God forbid. But I am saying that if you are trying to maintain Americanism, cultural Americanism, into this next quarter millennium, now that We've celebrated our 250th anniversary, it is crucial that we only bring in new people here who not only love this country but have something to add, contribute, and will fit in seamlessly. Cultural compatibility is a sine qua non, an indispensable condition for the preservation of the American republic and the American way of life into the next quarter millennium and beyond. I don't hear many Republicans talk about this. Some do. Eric Schmidt, Missouri comes to mind. The senator, who's a quite good senator at that. Some of them do. Many of them don't lean into this issue. Hispanics came over to Republicans during the Trump era. That wasn't in spite of Trump's immigration stance. It was because of it. They were repelled by the open borders policies yesterday. They saw no difference. Run on bold colors, run on a stark contrast to the open borders left. Republicans might find out that if they do so, they will get much more success than a lot of the bedwetting casery consultants otherwise would think. We'll go to a quick break, folks. We'll be right back with more on the other side.
- [12:39]
Professor Benedict Whelan
For nearly 3,000 years, Homer's the Odyssey has shaped Western imagination. It tells the story of Odysseus as he faces monsters, shipwrecks, false comforts and impossible choices on his long journey home. As one of the foundational works of Western literature. Homer's epic is more than mythology. It explores permanent questions about courage, duty, loyalty, family, leadership, temptation, and the search for home. In one of the epic's defining moments, Odysseus rejects the offer of immortality from the goddess Calypso, choosing instead the long and difficult journey home. His decision reveals one of the central themes of the Odyssey, that a life of duty, family and home is greater than a life devoted to comfort or glory. Achilles chose glory. Odysseus chose home. That's why Hillsdale College has released its newest free online course, the Odyssey. Taught by Professor Benedict Whelan. The course reveals why Homer's masterpiece remains one of the greatest works of Western literature. Find this free course at Hillsdale edustartnow the Odyssey from Hillsdale College. Go to hillsdale. Edu Start now.
- [13:42]
Josh Hammer
Welcome back. So ten nights in a row that the United States has now struck Iran. Now, there is an Iranian official who flew to Islamabad, Pakistan, to meet with Pakistani mediators. Stop me if you've heard this one before. Pakistani mediators trying to reach some sort of accord, some sort of equilibrium between the United States and Iran. Again, it's deja vu all over again, as the late, great Yogi Berra would have said. Nonetheless, despite the fact that Iran is meeting with some mediator, you've had 10 stray nights of United States and Iran engaging in mutual crossfire. Just this morning, actually, there was another blow. Quite literally and proverbially, you had another tanker reports trading Fox News, another tanker that was hit off the coast of Oman early this morning by the irgc, by the Iranian regime. And this tanker that was hit off the coast of Oman, the crew had to flee and abandon the vessel. Meanwhile, Iran continues to target American assets and some non American, just indiscriminate civilian assets all throughout the region. Places like Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, all remain under attack. So in short, this thing is not showing much of an off ramp at this time. And this is the pickle that Donald Trump finds himself in, is he wants this war to come to a swift conclusion. Apparently these rumors that we've been reporting here on the show that Trump is considering a dramatic escalation, trying to imitize an end by going really hard on the president to imitize the end. By the way, who could have gotten that crazy idea? Oh, yeah, you, the listener or the viewer would have gotten that idea here on the show if you were listening way back in March. We've been saying that consistently for four months. But apparently the, the rumors is that President Trump himself is now coming to that conclusion. So there's a possibility here of a, of a pretty dramatic escalation, we think, over the next, call it, week or two. It's very hard to put a timeframe on these things. But again, as we mentioned yesterday, there were a lot of American refueling planes that were sent to the region. It seems like there are chips on the board when it comes to potentially finishing this war on something remotely resembling a just and acceptable outcome for the administration. Meanwhile, Democrats are continuing to essentially make fun of President Trump. They see a president who, as we've concede here on the show, has been a little bit all over the map when it comes to his conduct and his waging of this war effort. So, for instance, here was Senator Mark Warner, who was on cnbc, who says that he thinks the president ought to declare victory and get out of this war with Iran. Here with Senator Mark Warner on cnbc.
- [16:18]
Senator Mark Warner
Well, I think the president ought to declare victory and get out of this war of choice because if you look at the four criteria he laid out at the beginning, regime change. Well, not so good. We got a crowd that's worse than ever. The enriched uranium, they've got it. It would take 15,000 troops on the ground, probably for over a week to extract it. I don't think anybody wants that. The missiles and drones, clearly they've got that capacity. And what was so crazy is this administration turned down the Ukrainian technology that has figured out how on a cost effective basis to shoot down Iranian drones. And hey, straight Hormuz gas is back at $4, diesel's above 5. And our image in that region, in the world is at an all time low. Back to China. A poll came out last week showing China viewed more favorably than America. Around the world, even amongst our biggest allies. A lot of this was due to this folly of this war of choice. I could tell you as a chair, former chair of the Intel Committee, there was no imminent threat from Iran. So it'll be embarrassing, but the president ought to declare victory and get out as smoothly as possible.
- [17:28]
Josh Hammer
So he is deeply exaggerating, Senator Warner, when it comes to this phrasing of so called war of choice. Iran's been trying to kill President Trump literally, quite literally. There is a Pakistani national currently sitting in a federal prison cell in New York City because he was duly convicted by a jury of his peers for trying to do exactly that, to assassinate Trump on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We know they've tried to take out members of the Trump family, including his daughter Ivank. They tried to take out various former top officials, people like Mike Pompeo, people like John Bolton. So this notion of a war of choice, I totally reject that. Our, our view here on the show is that Trump is trying to not start a new forever war, but trying at times, it seems to conclude the forever war launched 47 years ago by the radical, apocalyptic Islamist mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Other than that, unfortunately, there definitely is some truth to what Senator Warner is saying there. You only get so many bites at the apple. You have to start when you finish, otherwise you look like a paper tiger. He mentioned China. I think back to the earlier days of this war at the United States after we launched the decapitation strike against Ayatollah Khamenei and took him out the People's Liberation army, the army of China went a record breaking amount of time without sending any military aircraft or vessels into the Strait of Taiwan. In other words, they were subdued, they were scared. They're not scared anymore. That's a problem. On a similar note, here was Senator Chris Murphy, one of Senator Warner's Democratic colleagues, who said on Ms. Now that Iran is not really scared of escalation because they know the US Will likely stop before they stop. Here was Senator Murphy on Ms. Now,
- [19:13]
Senator Chris Murphy
there does not appear to be any path to passing another reconciliation bill in the Senate. Senate leadership on the Republican side has basically foreclosed that option. And it's obvious why. They do not want to put Republican senators on the record in support of this disastrous and unpopular war just months before the election. So there doesn't appear to be a path to replenish the funds. And you know, what you saw today was some administration officials starting to come out anonymously and say that this president's escalatory strategy cannot work because there has been so much damage done to US Infrastructure. They are running out of, of interceptors, that they're going to put a lot more troops in danger through this escalation because they can't protect troops any longer. And the reality is, Chris, even if we gave them a quick short term infusion of money, they can't replace these really complicated missiles and interceptors overnight. You know, we make 10 tomahawks a year, I think. So they're in a spot where even with new money, they have put our forces in really grave danger. And Iran knows that, which is why Iran isn't really scared of escalation. They know that the United States will likely have to stop far before Iran has to stop.
- [20:30]
Josh Hammer
Mr. President, don't you want to prove your Democratic doubters wrong? Don't you want that? Now, Trump, to his great credit, had what seemed like to me like a great meeting this morning with President Yosef Ayoun of Lebanon that was there in the White House. Trump deserves a lot of credit actually, for trying to broker this detente between the United States, well, really between Israel and Lebanon, with the United States doing the brokering. We've mentioned here on the show how this seems to be a bit of a side by side ancillary bit of diplomacy brokered primarily by Rubio and the State Departments that happened alongside the highly flawed Iran mou. It's really promising thus far what we have seen when it comes to Israel and Lebanon. So thus far, we've seen some Israeli troops that have withdrawn from these so called pilot zones, they're calling it these places where the Lebanese armed forces, the conventional military of Lebanon is going in. Ultimately, all this is trying to secure the area from Hezbollah. As Trump said this morning with Yosef Ayoun, ultimately it is on Lebanon to enforce their sovereignty, make sure that Hezbollah is not a threat. When it comes to the Iran issue, though, things could be heating up soon. So the Houthis this morning saying that they are opening potentially a new blockade when it comes to the Red Sea, that's in Yemen. So the whole region is escalating. A lot of this was easily foreseeable. Again, the easiest thing for the President of the United States to do at this particular juncture is to prove the haters wrong, prove the doubters wrong, define some goals and then work backwards to achieve secure those goals. And may it happen asap, because frankly, this has already dragged on too far. If you'd asked me back in early March whether we'd still be fighting Iran in late July, I would have said no. I did not, frankly, see that coming. So we're gonna have a very interesting guest for you after our next commercial break and it's gonna be a conversation primarily about Bernie Sanders and the left. So I wanna tee up that conversation by playing this clip for you. This is Bernie Sanders who was campaigning for a viciously, viciously anti, not just Israel, but anti American candidate, Abdul El Sayed in Michigan. This was happening earlier this week. Here was Bernie Sanders campaigning for, well, an Islamist sympathizing candidate for the U.S. senate out in Michigan.
- [22:39]
Joel Rubin
We must not give one nickel more
- [22:43]
Josh Hammer
of U.S. taxpayers to the extremist government in Israel. Not another nickel.
- [23:01]
Senator Mark Warner
Now, AIPAC may not like that, but that is what the American people want
- [23:06]
Josh Hammer
they want us to invest in education,
- [23:08]
Senator Mark Warner
child care, not in the Netanyahu government.
- [23:13]
Josh Hammer
Ah, yes. He says that while campaigning for Abdul El Sayed, a Muslim candidate so radical that he said he would not condemn Ayatollah Khamenei because it might offend his constituents. That's who Bernie Sanders is campaigning for. Folks, we're going to go to a short commercial break. On the other side, we're going to bring on a guest who has a thing or two to say about his former boss, Bernie Sanders. Joe Rubin joins us after the break. Stay with us.
- [23:36]
Aura Commercial Narrator
In 2025, Americans lost more than $21 billion to fraud and identity theft. That's why so many people are turning to aura. AURA helps protect your identity with fraud alerts, dark web monitoring and up to $5 million in identity theft protection. And if you become a victim, Aura's 24. 7 US based support team is there to help. Don't wait until your identity is stolen. Start your free trial today@aura.com safe that's aura.com safe safe.
- [24:09]
Josh Hammer
Welcome back. So the longtime followers of this program know that we typically engage in conversation with folks from the right side of America's political spectrum, but today we're going to mix things up because our guest today is Joel Rubin. So Joel Rubin, a name that any of you probably are not familiar with, but Joel is, among other things, a former deputy assistant secretary of state. He also was on the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2020. Yes, we're bringing on a Bernie Bro on the show today. That is definitely a change of pace from our usual fare. We're bringing him on for a interesting reason. Joel is someone who I have come to respect because like me, he shares a passion for calling out anti Semitism wherever it raises its ugly head. And Joel Rubin, that is the main topic of our conversation today. Welcome to the Josh Hammer Show. We're very happy to have you here.
- [24:51]
Joel Rubin
Thank you so much, Josh.
- [24:53]
Josh Hammer
So you are in the news today because you gave an interview from the Aspen Security Forum, if I have the conference name correctly, and you were engaged in conversation with a media outlet out there, the Jewish insider, and you essentially came swinging, just clubbing your former boss, Bernie Sanders, for fanning the flames of anti Semitism. So I don't want to take your thunder away. Go ahead and tell us what you told the media outlet.
- [25:19]
Joel Rubin
Yeah, look at this conference, there was a lot of discussion about American foreign policy, national security and America's role in the world. And it was on the heels of this real bloody internal fight we had in the party over Graham Platner up in Maine. And for me, watching the main dynamic and how essentially Bernie Sanders and the Sanders operation created Graham Platner and then pushed him forward into the Democratic lane even after a Nazi tattoo was revealed, was extremely distressing. And I've been publicly condemning it. We saw so many Democratic members out there advancing and advocating for him. I thought, you know, really like to have these kinds of people right now, this crisis moment in time for the United States, domestically, for our role in the world, our relationship with Israel, all of that. To see the progressive base essentially honing in on supporting candidates who are deeply hostile to Israel and American Jews is just a bridge too far. And I think it violates the principles of the Democratic Party, of the progressive movement historically, as I understand it, and of course is highly offensive to me as an American Jew whose family's been here for over a century, to a party eat its own right now. And I believe that Senator Sanders is leading the charge. And I feel like it's time to speak out aggressively about this now before it's too late.
- [26:42]
Josh Hammer
You can follow Joel Rubin on X oelamaru. He's also the author, by the way, of the brand new book Saving Democratic Foreign Policies. And go ahead and check out his new book as well. Joel, I guess one question that comes immediately to my mind is what exactly has changed between 2016, 2020 and now? I think back to 2020. I always viewed Bernie Sanders as being very anti is. I always viewed that socialist wing of the Democratic Party as being very anti Israel. Admittedly, it's come a bit further in the post Zor Mamdani age, the age of the DSA going mainstream, et cetera. But what exactly has changed? Because clearly it was palatable to you back in 2020, and nowadays you're saying it's not palatable.
- [27:20]
Joel Rubin
Yeah, no, I'll lay it out for you. And I think there were robust and incredible policy debates between the left and the right within the Democratic Party, and then, broadly speaking, between Democrats and Republicans on issues like Iran, American diplomacy with Israel. But where there wasn't any separation was on the idea of combating anti Semitism and having red lines about who should and should not be participating in our public life and what they should and should not be saying, and the willingness to call it out. And so I remember when I served as the liaison to the Jewish community for Senator Sanders In 2020, I went into that operation on the heels of a robust hostility publicly by Sanders supporters towards Jews and towards Israel. And I was brought in in many ways to try to manage that and fix that and straighten that out. Because in my view, the goal is peace, right? And the goal for the Sanders operation, progressive foreign policy and progressive policy overall, is to try to come up with peaceful solutions. But what I've seen, and I'll be very direct about this, especially since October 7th, has been a desire not to promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but to punish the state of Israel and to make American Jews feel suspect and insecure and nervous about participating publicly in ways where they are also saying that they support Jewish life in Israel. And that's what's different. And that's what I'm saying right now. Maybe it's like a whistleblower type dynamic, but it has gone way beyond too far. And I'll close with this. For me, it's such a desperately sad moment to watch Sanders and other allies who know better, who are not laying down the line and saying we can't have that kind of speech in our party. And these kinds of candidates, like a Platner, we don't include, we reject them instead, there are no lines. They've let the whole line slip away. And it's putting American Jews in particular in the Democratic Party at real risk. And frankly, it's an attempt to push us out, which only harms the party and the country.
- [29:19]
Josh Hammer
And by the way, there's definitely a dynamic on the right that is trying to make Jews, Juden Rhine on the right, make the American right free of Jews as well. See this in not so subtle fashion from people like you've experienced it directly. I have, and that's why I want to bring you on the show. Because just as I call out these voices on my side of the aisle, I respect the fact very much, Joel, that you did the exact same on your side of the aisle. I guess one follow up question, there are definitely some folks in the Democratic Party, some elected officials, people like Congressman Gottheimer from New Jersey, Moskowitz from here in Florida, where I live, who are pushing back very hard against this, but the polling shows that they are in a pretty, pretty substantial minority. It depends on the poll, but it's looking somewhat grim, I guess. I'll say. So how do you assess the chances of the Democratic Party, of your party riding the ship and not necessarily getting to where I personally am on these issues, I don't expect that. But at least getting back to a place where there is something of a cordon sanitaire, where there is something resembling saying that certain viewpoints are Just totally, totally not in play here. Is there any chance of getting back to that paradigm?
- [30:25]
Joel Rubin
Well, you know, Josh, right now we're in the middle of that fight, and it is becoming very clear publicly, and it's getting bloody. I think, for the party writ large, the idea that we can win in competitive races in purple districts with extreme candidates that are repulsive to a chunk of the Democratic Party itself is laughable. And we're going to see that tested across the country. I do believe the American people want a broader, centrist kind of policy, and they want candidates and people who don't speak with terms that are rooted in hate. And I gotta say this quite bluntly, to me, as an American Jew, again, someone who's been here five generations, served my country in government, served my country overseas in the Peace Corps, worked on progressive politics, to see the kind of vitriol that's being directed at Jewish Americans, in particular, those of us who support the right of Israel to exist, including those of us who've been advocating for peace for Middle East. In the Middle East. I find it completely antithetical to the vision of America and the United States. And we need two healthy parties. So for Democrats right now who are fighting for what I'm advocating for, we are in a real bloodbath. We are in a fight. It is bloody, I should say. Josh Gottheimer is won, but there are many. And Hakeem Jeffries recently spoke with Senator Sanders, it was reported, and they got into a shouting match. And Hakeem basically said, get out of my primaries. You're putting these people in that are undermining my members. And so it's a real fight. It does matter to the future of the party. The party cannot go the way of Jeremy Corbyn in England, where it just descends into hatred and antisemitism. There is no healthy political movement in the world that has gotten rid of their Jews. Let's just restate that. Any political movement that kicks out the Jews is an unhealthy, dangerous political movement. And we need to make sure that does not happen. But right now in the party, that's the risk. And I think it's very dangerous to the country as a whole.
- [32:25]
Josh Hammer
You know. Final question for you, Joel. And again, folks, we're chatting with Joel Rubin, former liaison for the Jewish community for the Bernie Sands campaign, who is now coming out swinging against his foreign boss. Joel, just about 60 seconds left, but I wanted to ask you, I think back to a friend of mine who went to law school around the time that I did. And he's a Jewish guy, but he was very progressive in his politics and he told me that he was besmirched just about a decade ago. He was besmirched by his classmates for being a PEI progressive, Accept Israel, like that was the acronym pei. So this is already happening a decade ago and now we're a decade removed. I guess the question is for you, is there such thing as an intellectually stable and consistent progressive politics that does not encompass some deep skepticism, at minimum, of the state of Israel?
- [33:08]
Joel Rubin
Well, hey, I've been a public critic of policies that I disagree with. The Netanyahu policies over the years supporting settlement expansion in the West Bank. I've been very critical of, I believe there needs to be Middle east peace. I was and am a fan of the left in Israel and I think that's healthy and that's relevant. Look, Israel is an American ally. It is a state of over 10 million people in the heart of the Middle East. It is a recognized member of the United Nations. It's not going anywhere. And we as a strong ally of Israel have an obligation to talk to that country about the policies that it's pursuing and the long term prospects for peace based on those policies. But where it's now off the rails is that the conversation in the base of the Democratic Party is about whether or not Israel should even exist. That's preposterous. It's genocidal language. It is offensive to American Jews. It's offensive and should be offensive to all Americans who care about our role in the world and maintaining our alliances. And so I think we just need to be very clear on who is and who is not participating.
- [34:08]
Josh Hammer
Honestly, unfortunately, we're out of time. But you've been very clear and we appreciate that clarity tremendously. Folks. Go ahead and check out Joel's new book, saving Democratic Foreign Policy. Follow him on xol. MartinRubin Joel, keep up the good fight. We really appreciate what we're doing here. Thanks for coming on the show today, folks. We'll be right back after a short break. Stay with us.
- [34:26]
Aura Commercial Narrator
Did you know there's an investment account that's been around since 1888 and most people have never heard about it until recently. Recently, it's not stocks, it's not crypto. It's a trust that was created over a century ago and it's been averaging 29% returns for the past 25 years. To put that into perspective, it beat Apple, it beat Amazon, it beat Microsoft. Over that same period, BlackRock has over $2 billion parked here, JP Morgan, bank of America, some of the biggest banks in the world have been quietly using this for decades, and they've never mentioned it to regular people. There are no commercials, no billboards, nothing. And literally anyone can start. You just need a few hundred dollars. There's a free video that explains exactly what it is and how to access it, and it's 100% worth your time. Go to my account29.com to check it out. That's my account. The numbers29.com my account, 29.
- [35:30]
Josh Hammer
Welcome back. So a few weeks ago on the show, we had Dr. John Eastman as our guest. We're going to get John back on, hopefully sooner rather than later. I have known John Eastman for years, and I have been very, very outspoken over the years in his defense, because I think that this is a man who has been unjustly targeted, unjustly persecuted, and that he has been made the poster boy, the poster boy of conservative who are pro Trump and also conservatives who just happen to be attorneys who are in the legal profession, because, among other things, as you know, I am also an attorney. So John Eastman has been punished for, well, many reasons. He was punished in a bit of groupthink many years ago when he first started developing the theory of birthright citizenship that ultimately attained four votes at the U.S. supreme Court in the most recent case, Trump versus Barbara. So definitely a partial vindication for John in that respect. But most recently and even more vehemently, he has been punished profusely when it came to his legal representation of Donald Trump during the 2020 election. I need you to understand this very simple basic point. John Eastman was a lawyer. Donald Trump was his client. I took legal ethics when I was in law school. One of the most basic rules in legal ethics, even the liberal aba, the American Bar association, they would readily admit this. One most basic rules in legal ethics is to zealously defend your client. The word zealous is a word that's oftentimes tossed around in this context. You have an obligation to do that. What have they tried to do to John Eastman just for zealously defending his clients when it came to his arguments about the electors and the slave electors, January 6th, etc. Oh, yeah, they have literally tried to destroy his life. He has lost virtually every job. He had his academic perch. He's lost every job other than his perch at the Claremont Institute, which has nobly and admirably honorably stayed by John. And most recently, they have stripped him of his law license in the state of California. Yes, that's really a thing that happened. It was a case working its ranks through the administrative courts of the California bar for years. And now they've gone ahead and they have actually done it. They have done the deed. They have stripped John Eastman of his license to practice law. He has been disbarred. For what? For defending his client. It's absolutely ludicrous. It's absolutely preposterous. There is a new op ed over at the Federalist that came out earlier this week from the Sekulow brothers, Jay Sekulow and Jordan Sekulow of the aclj, the American center for Law and Justice. They are representing John Eastman in a first amendment challenge to the United States Supreme Court. So they're making a legal argument here that the first amendment prohibits the government from imposing professional discipline on attorneys for advancing legal arguments on constitutional questions. Seems to me to be a pretty straightforward open and shut case. We will see if the court goes ahead and grants this writ of certiorari and agrees to hear this case. Because right now they're just trying to get this case heard. It has not been accepted yet. It'll be a very interesting test case, frankly, for the justice. It's the so called rule of four where you need four of the nine justices to vote to hear a case. That's how you get a writ of cert. That's how you hear the case in the first place. Many years ago, Johnny's been clerk for Clarence Thomas. I would assume Clarence Thomas will be a vote to grant cert. Probably Sam Alito, probably Neil Gorsuch. Then you'll probably need one more vote. Who will that be? Will it be Kavanaugh, Roberts or Barrett? I don't know really. It should be all nine because again, this is a fairly open and shut case. To me the broader argument is as follows. Think back to the civil rights movement in America. I think back to a case called Alabama vs. NAACP, a case three to the Supreme Court out of Alabama, as the name would imply in the late 1950s at the heart of the segregation desegregation battles. It was admirable at the time for lawyers to represent the naacp. Now that organization has gone away to the left in recent decades, but back then it was a noble civil rights organization. And the attorneys back then were scorned. Many of them were scoffed at by polite legal attorney society. But imagine what happened if they had been disbarred from representing a quote unquote unpopular client in that case the naacp and in that case black people in Alabama.
- [40:12]
Senator Mark Warner
Imagine that.
- [40:13]
Josh Hammer
What that would have said for a whole generation of civil rights attorneys, you can't do that. It's un American. The entire premise of America's adversarial system of litigation, the way law operates in this country is you have adversaries offering competing visions, competing legal arguments in a case or controversy, and you have lawyers who defend those clients and advocate zealously. That's the whole shebang, as they say. It's the whole operation. That's how it works, or at least that's how it ought to work. So God willing, Supreme Court hears this case involving John Eastman gain disbarred out of California. We will try to bring John back on for the show sooner rather than later, as you can hear about his latest travails. Straight from the horse's mouth, as they say. So in other domestic news, Senator Darlene Graham, who is the sister of the late Lindsey Graham, she gave her first full length interview. It was with Sean Hanney on his program on Fox News on Monday evening. Darlene Graham initially was just tapped by President Trump to fill out the remainder of this term because Lindsey Graham was up for reelection this November. It was to be the start of a new six year term come January 2027. And when Trump reached out to Darlene Graham and said, Darlene, it'll be nice for you to keep up your brother's legacy, fill out the rest of this term, she said yes. And now she has changed her mind and she's told Sean Hannity that she intends to run for a full term. Now, to be clear, she doesn't have it yet. There's actually an upcoming primary on August 11 in the Palmetto State. She's gonna face challengers. There are other Republicans who have thrown their hat into the mix. Thankfully, Nancy Mace is not one of them. Nancy Mace, who is one of the worst congressmen in the entire Republican caucus, who just finished a decent fifth in the gubernatorial primary in South Carolina, has said that she's not running for Senate. I can't imagine why. Literally no one wants her to do so. Nonetheless, there'll be others who will throw their hat into the ring. So Congressman Russell Fry is one whose name is bandied about quite a bit, potentially the attorney general, potentially the lieutenant governor to the governor, Henry McMaster. We will see. Darlene Graham is going to have challengers. I don't like the fact that she is likely going to win this. I presume that she will probably win this seat. Trump is endorsing her. I'm not entirely sure why. We don't really know a whole lot about where Darlene Graham stands on the issues. Now, she did give one soundbite where she said that her focus will be more on kitchen sink bread and butter issues rather than her late brother. Lindsey's focus, really, above all, on foreign policy and national security. And I totally respect that. I'm not opposed to that at all. But other than that, we just don't know. I mean, where does she stand when it comes to immigration? I have no idea. Lindsey Graham was a squish in immigration, okay? Like, he probably would have been the first to admit that. So is Darlene Graham gonna be a hardliner? Is she gonna be with the hardliners in the Senate when it comes to immigration, or is she gonna be part of the squish caucus? I have no freaking clue. Don't we deserve to know that before we go all in for her? Well, I would like to think that the answer would be yes. Unfortunately, I just have no idea really what the answer is going to be. Incidentally, the generic ballot for this November seems to be tightening a little bit. So according to. Which tracks this on a essentially daily basis, the generic congressional ballot 2026 currently has Democrats at 46%, Republicans at 43%. That's a very narrow margin given how the administration's prove earnings now, President Trump's prove ratings have been generally going in one direction and not for the better, for the better parts of a few months now. So it's still a very, very tight race on the congressional ballot. And the basic explanation for that is that the brand for the Democratic Party is in the freaking gutter, in the toilet. Insert your analogy of choice. If anything, Democrats are actually even more unpopular these days than Republicans and President Trump. And this is why the art of negative campaigning absolutely could be the saving grace of Republicans this fall. Make the argument that these guys are crazy. Make the argument they are inspiring domestic violence. Make the argument that they are championing failed socialist policies that have destroyed countless countries, Venezuela, Cuba among them, right in our own hemisphere and have led to the deaths of ultimately 100 million or more people. That's communism. Chiefly those deaths coming in the Soviet Union and in Mao Zedong's Communist China. Those are the arguments that could actually win you the election. Make the case on economics. Make the case on immigration, as we said earlier to lead off our show today. And above all, make the case that Democrats are freaking crazy because they're letting people like, let's see, Abdul Al said in Michigan, Adam Homaway, the friend of the blind sheikh from the World Trade center bombing. He's going to be potentially in Congress from New Jersey's 12th congressional district. These people are freaking bat crap crazy. Make that argument. And no matter what your woes may or may not be Republicans, you may find yourselves still in the majority come January 2027. Folks, have a great rest of your evening. We'll be right back. As always, tomorrow.
- [45:30]
Aura Commercial Narrator
Did you know there's an investment account that's been around since 1888 and most people have never heard about it until recently? It's not stocks, it's not crypto. It's a trust that was created over a century ago and it's been averaging 29% returns for the past 25 years. To put that into perspective, it beat Apple, it beat Amazon, it beat Microsoft over that six same period. BlackRock has over $2 billion parked here. JP Morgan, bank of America, some of the biggest banks in the world have been quietly using this for decades and they've never mentioned it to regular people. There are no commercials, no billboards, nothing. And literally anyone can start. You just need a few hundred dollars. There's a free video that explains exactly what it is and how to access it. And it's wonderful. 100% worth your time. Go to my account29.com to check it out. That's my account. The numbers29.com my account29.com.