← The Josh Hammer Show
Loading summary
Transcript25 lines
- [00:00]
A
You know what? It sucks to be bored. But when I get on my phone and play real casino games on spinquest.com, the time flies by. That two hour wait at the DMV seems like 10 minutes. Play your favorite slots, live blackjack, live craps with a live dealer, new players, thirty dollar coin packs are on sale for ten bucks. Play spinquest.com and you'll never be bored again.
- [00:24]
B
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [00:37]
A
I'm Josh Hammer and this is the Josh Hammer Show. Redistricting, that is the topic of the day and frankly, that is one of the topics of the next few months as we gear up for this monumental midterm election push this November. Ken Cuccinelli, the former attorney general of Virginia, joins us to talk about the latest when it comes to the Commonwealth of Virginia and their big referendum on redistricting that just happened over the past week or two. What is happening there in the Supreme Court and what can we expect when it comes to a possible ruling? Ken Cuccinelli joins us later in the show. Also later in today's show, Pete Hegseth is on Capitol Hill talking about the war with Iran. Is there any latest in Iran and many other topics. But for now, we are going to explore this redistricting issue at greater length. So I live in the state of Florida, as you likely know, and our governor, Ron DeSantis, any moment, any moment could be imminently signing a new map that just passed out of the Florida legislature yesterday on Wednesday, April 29th. This is a map that is going to give Republicans a likely, likely 24 to 4 advantage when it comes to Florida's 28 congressional seats. In fact, if you actually look at the map of the state of Florida under this new proposed map, you look at the tiny little four blue dots, it is a very, very red map. And DeSantis should be signing that momentarily. Meanwhile, over in Louisiana and Louisiana was the center of this whole conversation just yesterday when the US Supreme Court ruled in its monumental case. And yes, it was a truly, truly big ruling in the Louisiana vs. Kalais case. We cover that at great length on yesterday's show. Essentially, in case you missed the show yesterday, the United States Supreme Court saying that Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights act, which effectively says that if you are a state or local government, you cannot abridge the right to vote on the basis of race, it says that the way that this has been interpreted by gerrymanderers and map drawers for decades, essentially giving them carte blanche to draw these majority minority districts. That's how you get people like Jim Clyburn, SC, and Hank Johnson in Georgia and that famous black Belt seat in central Alabama. The Court's saying that that is all unconstitutional. Racial gerrymandering, in other words, runs afoul of the 14th Amendment. It's common sense. And frankly, it's tragic that it took the Supreme Court this long to say it, but it is good nonetheless that they did. Louisiana, though, which was the state that was a litigant in that very case, they actually have an upcoming primary. So another wrinkle in this conversation is that America famously votes on one uniform day in the general election, that's in November, every two years for the midterms, every four year for the general. But these states in America's elaborate constitutional structure is the states under Article 1 that have the near plenary power, the near absolute power to prescribe and establish the regulations, the manners, the times, and just the general ways that our elections are conducted. And one way that plays out is that the primary season lasts a very long time. So to give an example, Texas always has an early primary. Not always. They could just change it if they want to pass a law easily. But for now and for a while, they've had a very early primary. We actually just had that primary recently. That's why John Corn and Ken Paxton are going to a runoff in the U.S. senate race there in just about a month. That's why it's gonna be a runoff in the Texas Attorney General's race. They voted there in March. By contrast, my state of Florida doesn't have their primary for about five, five and a half months later, until late August. Virginia, which is where our guest Ken Cucinelli is from, also has a later primary. So all these things are happening. It's a very, very moving target. So taking us back to Louisiana, which was just fighting about its maps at the Supreme Court just yesterday. So they have a primary coming up just the next few weeks. And now the Supreme Court has basically said that their maps are unconstitutional because it includes one of these Jim Clyburn, Hank Johnson style, majority minority black districts. So the Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, is apparently set to announce tomorrow that he is actually suspending, suspending the upcoming primaries in his state, Louisiana, where people have already started, started voting, and he's going to redraw the map. So the big question there in Louisiana is what is actually going to happen when it comes to, to the maps? There are six seats There at issue in Louisiana is Jeff Landry and the legislature going to going to give us a 6 to 0 Republican map. And for those of you at home who are thinking, can you actually do that? Can you actually just draw a map on fairly nakedly partisan grounds that gives one party a full monopoly on the congressional seats? The answer for federal United States constitutional purposes, certainly according to the case yesterday, might surprise you. The answer actually is yes. In fact, some blue states already do it. Look at a state like Massachusetts. I could be wrong. I don't think I am. I'm pretty sure that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not had a Republican member of Congress in some time now. It is an all Democrat congressional delegation. That's part of a broader theme of Republicans being a dying breed in the entire region of New England there. So no, there is nothing wrong at all with Republicans in Louisiana making an all Republican delegation. This takes us back also to the, to the similar dispute in Indiana last year. You might recall that Donald Trump was getting into it with Indiana Republicans who ultimately, well, they folded like a cheap suit and they did not give President Trump what he wanted in terms of an overwhelmingly Republican majority congressional delegation there in the Hoosier State. Trump is actually now vowing to seek revenge when it comes to a lot of the state representatives and state senators who folded there when it comes to Indiana. So there's just a lot of drama all throughout the country. California under Gavin Newsom, they passed this big redistricting in response to Texas, by the way, earlier this week we also had the Supreme Court rule on the Texas redistricting. The Texas redistricting is really what kind of got this whole thing started. Donald Trump leaning on Greg Abbott and Republicans there in Austin essentially saying, you guys better get your maps in order. It's kind of rare, to be honest with you, to engage in this mid decade redistricting. But the argument from Donald Trump and Republicans is that Democrats have gerrymandered the absolute crap out of their states for decades. I mentioned Massachusetts. Also look at the maps of Illinois and Maryland. These districts are like ridiculously drawn. You kind of get the idea just by looking at a sheer visual of the thing. So Trump tells Greg Abbott, work on this. Then Gavin Newsom responds as the biggest blue state in response to Greg Abbott in Texas, the biggest red state. And the race is essentially off from there. So I want to talk more of the law and the morality of this as well as actually who's coming out ahead, which in part depends on active litigation, including Virginia, which we will talk about. Soon. But for now, folks, I want to tell you a quick word from our sponsor of today's show, which is ifcj, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. Right now, our Jewish friends feel forgotten. There is a Jewish woman named Esther I'd like to tell you about. In her home in Israel, Esther is living through days and nights of fear. Sirens sounding, rockets screaming through the sky, blowing long stretches spent in a bomb shelter. 84 years old, Esther is elderly, fragile and alone. Imagine that. No help, no food deliveries, no medical care, no one knocking at the door in a war zone. But because of friends like you, Esther is not alone. Through the fellowship, you are there, bringing food, meeting urgent needs and reminding Jewish people like Esther you are not forgotten. In times of fear and uncertainty, your compassion brings hope and helps. Esther asks that you hear these words to those who give. You're doing a very great mitzvah, a good deed. You give from your heart. May God protect you. Friends, your gift to God's people is truly hope giving and life saving. Please don't wait. Call 888-799-IFCJ right now. That's 888-799 IFCJ or go to ifcj.org that's ifcj.org our sponsor today is the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. So a lot of states engaging in redistricting and I mentioned how Virginia is one of these states that is currently having their referendum that just happened over the past couple weeks is now being challenged in the courts. Lots of other states I mentioned, Indiana consider redistricting and currently they are not actually are doing it for better or as the case may be in the Hoosier state, for worse. So that takes us then to the million dollar question, which is who's going to, who's actually going to come out on top of. And it's something of a moving target because we need to actually make sure that the new maps here in Florida are signed into law and that they survive legal challenge. They really, really should. There actually is an amendment to the Florida Constitution, essentially calling it the Equality Amendment. When it comes to map making there. But the point that the Governor DeSantis has been making, and I think this is persuasive and accurate, is that this state constitutional amendments actually has federal constitutional problems. When it comes to the Louisiana case there, again, you can't take race into account. Partisanship you can take into account. And a lot of folks there then say, how, how is this fair? Well, you know, back when I was in law school at the University of Chicago, we used to joke that the actual true four letter F word is not the actual F word but is fair. Because fair is kind of the boogeyman when it, when it comes to, when it comes to constitutional people everywhere. You know, Anton Scalia, may his memory be a blessing. The late great jurist famously said once I'm paraphrasing that if you are looking at the Constitution and you think that all of your policy outcomes are required by the Constitution and all that you hate is banned by it, then you're probably not looking at it very fairly, which is kind of a roundabout, a roundabout way of saying that a lot of these issues are not justiciable. They're not for the courts. You can't bring a challenge. What's the remedy? The political process, the ballot box, the remedy? If you don't like what the bums Knoff is doing, the remedy is to vote the bums out. That goes for liberals living in red states. That goes for conservatives living in blue states. By the way, if you don't want to vote the bums out, you can always vote with your feet too. And by the way, that's happening. People are moving out of blue states, moving to red states in droves. More on that actually later on the show. When it comes to California anyway, who is coming out on top? So the California Gavin Newsom redistricting looks like they will likely add five new Democrat seats. This is per Ballotpedia, a great resource when it comes to all this. But Missouri looks like they are adding one Republican seat, North Carolina plus one Republican Ohio plus two Republican Texas in that Greg Abbott gerrymander looks like they're going to add five, five net Republican seats. Virginia if successful and more on that shortly. We can Cuccinelli if successful, Virginia is going to add four. It's going to go from a six to five Democrat advantage in the districts to a likely 10 to one advantage there. But there's a massive asterisk there. And in fact the Virginia Supreme Court has actually put a hold right now. So right now those maps are actually not going into effect. So if so, if so, they get plus four. But Florida, Florida is set to add four seats as well. It's gonna go from a 20 to eight GOP advantage to a 24 to four GOP advantage. And as I just briefly explained in brief, I believe that they are set to maintain that in the courts. Now, Louisiana is probably going to add up to two seats from a 4 to 2rd split to a 6 to 0 split. If Jeff Landry and Republicans actually do what they should do in the legislature. A lot of these other Deep south seats are probably gonna have to eventually get rid of these majority minority districts, Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina. So most of the states have Republican governors, most of them have Republican legislature. So in that in net, especially if Florida happens, which it will, and if Virginia is stopped, which it could be, Republicans are gonna come out ahead. So Democrats think that they have mastered the art of gerrymandering. Again, look at the maps in Illinois, Maryland. But in this fairly rare mid decade redistricting race, all signs right now point towards Republicans taking the advantage going into November. Folks, we're going to take a quick commercial break. On the other side of this break, Ken Cuccinelli joined us to unpack what's happening there in Virginia. You won't want to miss this. We'll be right back with Ken Cuccinelli. Welcome back. So the big theme of today's show is redistricting. We are nearing the end of this fairly rare mid decade redistricting war. Virginia is one of the states or really more technically one of the commonwealths that is at the epicenter of this grueling national battle. And we are joined now by someone who knows a thing or two about that. So Ken Guccinelli was the 46th Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I can editorialize for a second, he really should have been the governor of Virginia. But unfortunate for the voters, they went in a worse direction. Ken Cuccinelli is also the national chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative and he joins us now. So, Ken, thank you so much for joining the Josh Hammer Show. We really appreciate it. We talked about the Virginia redistricting referendum when and when it happened at the time. Essentially they're trying to gut the maps and put in this highly partisan 10 to 1 likely Democratic advantage. But you've been one of the most vocal people on social media and else you're pointing out that there were very serious legal challenges, legal challenges that were well known in advance of this purported referendum. And in fact, the Virginia Supreme Court actually had a hearing on this. I believe this is earlier this week, just on Monday. So what is the latest? What actually happened in the Virginia Supreme Court on Monday and what's actually happening there on the ground?
- [13:56]
B
So the case they heard on Monday was one they held in February. And at the time people thought they were ducking. But Virginia law says that the vote in the referendum is part of the legislative process, analogous to a governor signing or vetoing a bill. So the court would Never engage in reviewing work of the General assembly before the governor had acted on it. And they will no more do that here with a referendum. And so the referendum happened and they had a contingent briefing schedule in place. They got briefs only two days after the vote. And as you noted, oral argument four days after that. That happened Monday of this week. And three of the seven justices spoke at various times so that, you know, you didn't even hear from four of them. But the fact that they're going this fast tells me they're very sensitive to the need to have maps in place. And then Tuesday, there is a second appeal coming up with different constitutional and statutory problems where the judge enjoined the certification of the referendum, put an injunction in place, keeping the six, five maps, blocking the counting of votes to change those maps. And in the normal course of things, you would expect the Virginia Supreme Court to stay that injunction and just let the election officials do their job and so forth. Well, on Tuesday, the day after hearing oral argument, they denied the stay request from Democrat Attorney General J. Jones. That is very unusual. And I, and others, I think I've kind of broken the ice on this for people believe that that tea leaf suggests that the Supreme Court of Virginia itself intends to rule against the referendum. And so they don't see a reason to lift the injunction on the certification process. And they probably already have the votes and they're just writing the opinion. That's my view of it. And by the way, back in February when they held the case, they actually made a statement that said something like, you know, we believe there are very serious issues at stake in this case, etc. Sending a signal. That was sort of a kind of a look. And the for non lawyers, it is unusual for the court to say anything right when they're holding a case in place like that. And so to kind of launch this other sentence, in my view, they were setting expectations. And when I look at that tea leaf combined with denying the injunction request, I think they're going to eliminate this referendum as having been brazenly, unconstitutionally advanced by the Democrat General Assembly.
- [16:54]
A
And on that note, again, folks, we're chatting with Ken Cuccinelli, who is the national chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative. Follow him on X en Cuccinelli. On that note, Ken, I want to follow up actually on what the actual constitutional concerns are. So without getting too deep into the legal weeds here, this is a Virginia Commonwealth constitutional issue, as I understand it. There's an issue about how it came up in the special legislative session there Talk to us a little bit more about the actual issues here that the court is addressing.
- [17:20]
B
So there are three cases. There's what I'll call the 2025 violations, and that's what was heard in oral argument by the Supreme Court on Monday. There's the 2026 violations of the Constitution and law of Virginia. That was the injunction from the lower court that people expected the Supreme Court to stay, but they did not. They denied the stay. And the third case is about the maps themselves. It's in Richmond Circuit Court because the Virginia Constitution also has a compactness requirement. So this radical gerrymander is alleged to violate that. We won't get to the map case unless the referendum survives, because then the map won't survive. So the arguments heard on Monday were the 2025 arguments, including the one you just alluded to, which is that the Democrats did this on Halloween in a special session. So this is Halloween of 2025 and that special session began in May of 2024 to deal with the Virginia budget. And there's several issues. There's three issues. One, can they change the subject matter of the special session? Two, does the special session survive the annual regular session of the General assembly where you can do anything and there are no agenda restrictions on what you can do? And third, was a 2/3 vote required to change the agenda even if the special session survives? So there's three different issues, all of them significant issues by themselves related to the special session. Now, viewers should know in Virginia, the Democrats gave us a 45 day election the last time they had the House, Senate and the governorship back in 2020. And so voting started in Virginia on September 19th of 2025 in the election that elected Spanberger. And as I said, this amendment didn't pass until Halloween. Six weeks later, over a million Virginians had voted. And that's the issue in the second constitutional challenge of 2025 is the Democrats want to count that 2025 election as the required intervening election under our state constitution for purposes of advancing the amendment. Even though voting had been going on for six weeks, over a million people had voted and so forth. That, I believe is their toughest challenge is that constitutional issue. As was noted in the oral argument, no General assembly and has ever passed an amendment while Virginians were voting ever before in the history of the Commonwealth. And we are the oldest part of America and this has never happened before. So that's, that's how brazen the Democrat General assembly has been in trying to jam through this gerrymander amendment.
- [20:17]
A
So Zooming out a little bit here, especially considering what's happening here in my state of Florida. It looks like Republicans are set to come out on top overall in this redistricting battle. They will come out even more on top, frankly, if the Virginia Supreme Court ultimately rules the way that you seem inclined to think that they're going to rule. And Ken, if I understand correctly, I believe the primary is not until August. Very similar here to Florida actually. So there's a lot of time, actually. That's a lot of time. Politics, frankly. An attorney.
- [20:42]
B
It's three months, remember, with a 45 day election. That may be in August, but voting starts just after July 4th.
- [20:48]
A
Fair enough. No, I stand corrected. You're totally correct there. So just about a minute.
- [20:52]
B
It's the Democrats fault. There's no reason for a 45 day election. Their lawyer said in oral argument that if you vote early, you vote at your own risk. These are the same Democrats who hold this up as near religious. And you're racist if you oppose early voting. And they literally were flushing down the toilet over a million Virginia voters who took them up on their early voting offer. And yet they don't count. Amazing. Amazing. Brazen.
- [21:22]
A
The brazen hypocrisy is astonishing. Look, early elections, I mean, I've been ranting about this one ever since I was in law school. It's an oxymoron, frankly, the notion of early voting. There is one voting day, or at least in theory there really ought to be. But Ken, just real quick, about 30 seconds left before I have to let you go, talk to us about that timeline. The timeline as you just allude to, is more truncated than I had even first thought because of this early voting. When can we expect some sort of ruling on this?
- [21:45]
B
So the court has already demonstrated the sensitivity to the need for boundaries with how fast they're going. I've never seen them go this fast before. I would expect a ruling before mid May. I would be absolutely astonished if it didn't happen before the end of May. But I think that it could be as you know, start watching as early as this Friday because in the original rescheduling of the primaries, Friday, May 1, tomorrow is when candidates could begin filing and qualifying. Now they can't do that now because that was contingent on the referendum which has been enjoined. But now the court knows every day that goes by they're impinging that schedule and you know they're going to do their job. Right. We have a less political Supreme Court than many other states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Montana, California, but, but they, you know, they still want to do their job well, they want to write a good opinion, etc.
- [22:48]
A
Okay, so potentially as early as tomorrow then. And folks can go ahead and follow Ken for all the latest on Xencuccinelli.
- [22:53]
B
Ken, yeah, I'll certainly be on it quickly and En Cuccinelli is the place to watch. And we'll, we'll turn it around very fast. Good to be here.
- [23:00]
A
Thanks for all you're doing, Ken. We really appreciate it. Folks, see what the subway quick merch wake. We'll be right back with more on the other side. So as we're saying at the top of today's show, it looks like Republicans are set to come ahead in this mid decade redistricting, especially when it comes to the midterm elections this year. In theory, it's possible for additional states to engage in further redrawing of the maps as we get closer to the census in 2030 and certainly when we get closer to the 2028 presidential election, which obviously will be a very big deal. But for now, when it comes to 2026 and the election that is immediately ahead of us, it looks like Republicans are set to come out ahead. And if you, if you take away one point from today's show, I want it to be the following point, which is that your objections about fairness do not matter in the slightest. Really. They absolutely do not matter. The Supreme Court did its job in, in the Louisiana case yesterday when they said that race cannot be a factor. We know that race cannot be a factor when it comes to mapmaking because our Constitution has been held over and over and over again is colorblind. Famously, famously, when they had the clause in the initial drafting of the Constitution to end the importation of slaves after the year 1808, they actually did not even use the word slaves because they were already planning. They were already planning there in 1787 when they drafted it for the ultimate eradication of slavery, a seed that was ultimately brought to fruition, of course, in America's great refounding with Abraham Lincoln and the Reconstruction Amendments. Our Constitution has been colorblind since day one. The 14th Amendment ratifies that, and that has been our lodestar ever since Jefferson penned those immortal words in 1776, that we celebrate the quarter millennium anniversary of this July 4, 2026. Any attempt to use race as an explicit factor to benefit any individual or to benefit any party is not just inconsistent, it is utterly anathema to America's Constitution, to America's mores to America's ideals and values and frankly, all that we stand for to our very core. So you cannot use race as far as whether or not you can take into account partisan advantages. You can, because this is an inherently political question. These are inherently political questions for political elected officials to decide, frankly, here in, here In Florida again, DeSantis is about to sign this 24 to 4 Republican Advantage Bill. Could happen as early as today, if not today, then almost certainly tomorrow. There are some folks at least in my orbit saying why not go all the way? Why not go 28 to 0? Look, you might think that's a little extreme, but the point, the point is, the point is that might strike you as not fair. Florida is not a 100% Republican state. It has moved quite a bit to the right over the past 10 years, that's for sure. But the point is that these are political questions. If you don't like what's happening, you vote the bums out. That is the solution in many, many, many issues in our republic. And that is going to be the case when it comes to folks, whether in blue states or red states who don't like the way that their elected officials are handling the question of redistricting. So speaking of blue states, speaking of political bums and speaking of redistricting, California is back in the news. I'm not sure if you saw where I was going there, but California states that we like to pick on on this show and for very good reason, because it is an utter insane asylum out there on the left coast of the United States. So just this past Sunday, California announced, or at least certain Californians announced they had, that they had gathered enough signatures to actually get a direct ballot initiat on the ballot for Californians this November. And this is the, this is the so called billionaire tax. So the way that this tax would work is it is an alleged one time, so one bite only 5% tax on individuals with $1 billion or more in wealth to their name. It would hit essentially all of a billionaire's assets, including their trusts, potentially even equity stakes or capital gains that have not been cashed yet. The morality of this, I would say is very complicated. I would argue, speaking of fairness, I would say it's not exactly fair, Frank, to go after someone's equity or gains have not even been realized yet. Anyway, according to the wording of this initiative, it affects billionaires who are California residents. And again, I'm sure there'll be litigation as to what is a resident, is it six months in a day et cetera you have to be a resident as of January 1st of this year. And by the way, if you think back to December of 2025, that is why you actually saw a flurry of high net worth Californians announced that they were getting the heck out of Dodge. So Peter Thiel for instance comes to mind. Peter Thiel has made his primary residence in California for a long time. For a long time he was in Silicon Valley. Then he moved to Los Angeles maybe about seven, eight, nine years ago, give or take. He's had a place here in South Florida in the Miami area. But he announced in December that he was making his permanent residence from California to Florida likely to avoid this, this wealth tax. Now the morality of this, as I already allude to, is highly dubious. The legality is likely fine under California law. It's noteworthy that the federal government cannot do this. Okay, A so called wealth tax on, on US Constitutional grounds. If the federal government were to try to do this would all but as surely be unconstitutional because there is a direct requirement that the government can only levy direct taxes. That that is the actual adjective is direct. And again it's not actually a settled issue. The courts never had a chance to litigate this. But most constitutional people think, and I am among them, I think that a direct tax means a direct tax on real taxable income or on property value. Things that you can't get into speculation and the notion of a wealth tax inevitably gets into asset speculation and things like that. There's anyway probably can't do this, almost surely can't do this under federal grounds, state grounds, likely constitutionally, okay, but the practical consequences regardless would be and frankly already are actually catastrophic. So a visiting fellow at the California Tax foundation by the name of Jarrett Walshock, he estimates in a brand new paper that reported departures from California already total $777 billion. People that we know have left so almost a trillion dollars. Some folks actually are estimating even higher than that. Actually some folks are saying that the overall wealth tax exodus in total could result in over $1.2 trillion leaving the states of California. $1.2 trillion. That is a lot of money to put a mildly there. And if you are a true believing socialist or Marxist, you might say whatever. I don't care about, I don't care about that. I don't care about these rich people there. Get them out of here. Well, you people do realize that in any progressive income tax system in America, and especially California, these blue states have highly progressive income tax systems. It is wealthy people who are Paying the overwhelming majority of the taxes that ultimately go to the state's coffers and fund. Oh, I don't know, like literally everything, like bridges, like highways, like public transportation. I mean, who do you think's funding that more generally? To make a fairly rudimentary, nonetheless important point, who do you think is, is creating jobs? At the risk of saying the obvious, I don't think that someone who has no income and no savings, or frankly even someone who's living paycheck to PayCheck, which roughly 2/3 of Americans are, I don't think anyone living paycheck to paycheck is necessarily, at least at that time, creating additional employment opportunities and additional jobs. No, that person is trying to get by. You need wealthy people. You do. Some level of income variation, some, some level of asset valuation is not just natural and obvious. It is what any growing economy or any state needs. But the idiots out in California don't particularly care about this. Speaking of idiots out in California, I saw this ad and my jaw just dropped. So this, this is Spencer Pratt. There is a mayoral election happening in Los Angeles there. And Spencer Pratt is one of the candidates there. This video from his campaign is quite, quite galling. Go ahead and watch this.
- [31:37]
C
This is where Mayor Vass lives. You notice something? Or here, where Nithya Raman's three million dollar mansion sits. They don't have to live in the mess they've created. Where you live. This is where I live. They let my home burn down. I know what the consequences of failed leadership are. That's why I'm running for mayor for my sons and, and the rest of us Angelenos that want to stop these corrupt politicians from destroying our city. We are going to get the golden age of Los Angeles back.
- [32:07]
A
Okay, so he's shooting that latter most shot, I believe from Pacific Palisades. So that's what happened there. Karen Bass, the mayor of the Palisades fire, you know that story by now. But the broader point is this going to the home. You know, Mamdani's done the same thing in the inner city. He goes to the homs for this piederra, this second home tax. They go to homes. Oh, Ken Griffin lives here. Oh, this billionaire lives here. The envy is gross. The hatred, the envy, it's awful. And I would argue again, furthermore, it's actually, it's actually evil. It's coming from a place of genuine envy. When the cardinal sins. This is frankly not how good faith people behave. Unfortunately, it's how California politicians have behaved for my entire adult Lifetime, which is why people like Gavin Newsom and perhaps even Spencer Pratt ultimately get elected. Folks, one more commercial break. We'll be right back after a short break. Stay with us. Welcome back. So California is not the only left coast state that is engaged in confiscating wealthy people's taxes. In fact, Washington state, a little bit north there on the Pacific Coast, Washington state has actually signed into law what's known not as the billionaires tax, but the millionaires tax. Now, it is less punitive. It is not necessarily a pure, pure wealth tax, but essentially says that if you have income over a million dollars, over a million dollars there, then your taxes are essentially going to skyrocket. And sure enough, you've had a lot of people, including some liberals, including Howard Schultz, who was the former CEO of Starbucks, Starbucks famously founded in Seattle, Washington. Howard Schultz has said sayonara. He came here to South Florida, which by the way, is where Ken Griffin came after he fled Illinois. Ken Griffin, the head of Citadel, the hedge fund. He was the wealthiest person in Illinois. He came here to Miami. Howard Schultz apparently came here to South Florida. It's not rocket science. It's not rocket science. If you're going to make life miserable at some point, people are going to leave. Now, a lot of the liberals don't seem to particularly care about that. Actually, this is one of the more ironic details of this. So, for instance, the mayor of Seattle actually was just laughing, like openly laughing at reports of wealthy Seattle people, much like Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks, just getting up and leaving Washington state. Let's go ahead and play this video. I think the claims that millionaires are gonna leave our state are like super overblown. And if the ones that leave like, bye. So. Yeah, you get them, you get them. What could possibly go wrong? What could possibly go wrong? As if Seattle doesn't have a big enough unemployment problem, as if Seattle doesn't have a big enough drug addict problem, as if Seattle doesn't have big enough, oh, I don't know, like a million problems. Wealthy people are not the bane of our existence. Do wealthy people do a lot of bad things? Of course they do. Do a lot of poor people do a lot of bad things? Of course they do. You know, the Bible is actually very clear on this. We're just reading this parsha, this portion of the Torah. Actually, very recently in our annual reading of the Torah portion, it says, and I'm paraphrasing, but it says, you shall neither favor nor the wealthy nor the poor. And now the verse is talking there about law, about being in a courtroom setting there. But you can, you can think about that as applying more generally to morality. You shouldn't have a universally rosy or dim view of wealthy people. You should judge them on their merits because we are all children of God. We are all fundamentally, we all have that divine spark and we're all different. So take everyone at his or her own actions, merits, deeds and words. Nor, on the other hand, of course, should you universally view all poor people as good or bad, as having a rosy or a dim view. No, the individualism that is core to the Anglo American tradition, especially to the American experiment, means that you don't speak in sweeping broad brushes like this. You don't say the wealthy or the poor. You don't say the blacks or the Hispanics or the Jews, as the case may be these days. You take everyone at his or her own on the actions, on the merits, on the words and the deeds. But taking us away from ethics and morality and just back to the practical consequences, this is not going to end well for Washington State. It's not going to end well for California. How do I know? And New York State's daylist, by the way, again, under Zoe Hamdani, a man whose approval ratings are actually going into the toilet in real time. Really. He's actually hemorrhaging black and Hispanic support, AKA his base. But the data on this are already clear. We know that California has actually just lost states. They just lost states in the last census in 2020 for the very first time since California became a state, became a state. People are leaving these overly taxed, overly regulated, draconian, censorious, cold blue climates. They are leaving in droves and they're heading to red states. I want to talk also a little bit about an interesting moment that happens on Capitol Hill yesterday as well, before we run out of time for today's show. So Pete Hegseth has been on Capitol Hill this week. So he was appearing yesterday before the House Armed Services Committee. And today he's appearing before where he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He's talking about the budget for the Department of War coming up as Congress engages in its appropriations process in advance of the end of the fiscal year expiring this September 30, is also there to talk about the war more generally with Iran and how and how it is going. And there was a very interesting moment, I thought, and a moment that I think a lot of people probably overlooked. So you had this Democrats, who is an obvious liberal, a congresswoman by the name of Sarah Jacobs. And she obviously hates Trump. And she's talking about how, oh, how do we know that Donald Trump is mentally fit for office? And Hex, as you'll see in a moment here, does a great job firing back. Great job. But then the congresswoman did something which, to her credit, is kind of smart. She cites some interesting people for the proposition that maybe Donald Trump is actually not mentally well. You're probably a little confused, but let's go ahead and play this clip, and then we'll unpack.
- [38:50]
D
On the other side, as you know,
- [38:53]
A
he governs an auto pen. When a secretary of defense who went AWOL for a week, I came on for 10 days.
- [39:00]
D
I will reclaim my time, ladies.
- [39:02]
B
Time reclaimed it.
- [39:03]
D
So, as Mr. Jimenez said, we should be taking leaders at their word. So is there a reason that we should not be taking our leader at his word?
- [39:11]
A
Iran should not underestimate the will of President Trump and the United States military to achieve our mission.
- [39:18]
D
Okay, well, I want you to know this is not a partisan thing. In fact, many, many Democrats have had many, many Republicans have had these same questions. Marjorie Taylor Greene said he's out of control and he's gone insane. Candace owens said the 25th Amendment needs to be invoked. Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, who used to work with Alex Jones, Stephanie Grisham, the list could go on. So how do I explain to my constituents that while they are in harm's way, their commander in chief is posting these unhinged posts?
- [39:49]
A
Ah. Oh, yes, those people. We've described these folks on the show before as a fifth column, and I believe they are a fifth column to America and to Western civilization. But in this particular context, playing out in real time for the whole nation to see. What you really see, at a bare minimum, even holding aside the broader national conversation, is they are providing ammunition to people like this congresswoman. When Tucker Carlson rants about Donald Trump. He recently actually speculated that Donald Trump might be the Antichrist. Yes, he literally said that. He actually, literally speculated openly that Trump could be the Antichrist. When you have Marjorie Taylor Greene questioning his mental sanity, Candace Owens saying that he's just a puppet of the Jews or whatever else she's saying. I don't really pay attention to what she says, to be honest with you. Yes, you are definitely giving a lot of boosting to America's geopolitical enemies in the world stage. You are essentially propping up Beijing and Moscow and all of our various enemies. You're also propping up the Democrats and Trump's domestic political opposition so you have to fundamentally ask at some point, whose side are these people on? And frankly, sometimes they actually give away the game. So another Democrat in Congress, Chris Murphy of Connecticut over in the U.S. senate, well, pretty recently, he said awesome in response to the news that Iran was actually violating the US Naval blockade on Iranian ports. He literally, quote, tweeted and said awesome. And then he came back and said that he was just kidding, tongue in cheek. No, you weren't, dude. You know, the same way that no one buys for a second what Jim Comey is saying about how he's walking beach and, oh, I magically saw 86%. Oh, my God, what a coincidence. Oh, my God. I had to send it to Instagram the same way that no one buys that crap for a second. No one buys for a second, for a freaking second the notion that Chris Murphy was joking around in saying it was awesome that Iran is breaching America's naval blockade. But taking it back to the unfortunate individuals that Sarah Jacobs named there, to Pete Axseth, the takeaway is this. We know whose side the left is on again. Sometimes, like Chris Murphy, they let the mask drop. They say they're with America's enemies. The relevant question for the right is do we have the control and discipline to make sure that our side is unified when it comes to being on Team America, comes to being on Team Sandy and Team Western Civilization, Donald Trump, to his great credit, is now engaged in settling all the family business. He's doing a great job so far, Mr. President. Keep it up. And frankly, may everyone else in your cabinets in the public sector, and indeed those of us here in the private sector, may we all help you as you engage in this very necessary work. Folks, have a great rest of your evening. Josh Hammer signing off. We'll be right back. As always, tomorrow.