← The Josh Hammer Show
Loading summary
Transcript12 lines
- [00:01]
A
Grainger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners, lights about to fail, filters ready to clog H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Grainger for quality products, easy reordering and 24. 7 support. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [00:30]
B
Well, many of us are still licking our wounds from the grievous loss yesterday in the birthright citizenship case. And no doubt it is a painful loss. But we also won big on the transgender issue more generally. We are winning big time on transgenderism. What does that say about fighting the culture war more generally? Well, I'm Josh Hammer and this is Josh Hammer show. So we are gonna go back to the birthright citizenship issue. There's a lot more to discuss. I had a thought actually about a new step that Congress might take to remedy some of John Roberts not so fine handiwork. More of that a little bit later on the show. But for now, I do wanna talk about the transgenderism topic. So we talked about a little bit in yesterday's show. But as a reminder, what you had yesterday, the Supreme Court in a case that kind of almost got buried because of all the headlines about birthright citizenship, was you had a 9 to 0 top in a marquee transgenderism related case. So to recall, Idaho and West Virginia both had states, Idaho and West Virginia, very red states, two of the 27 states in America that have some law limiting or outright banning, as is typically the case, biological males from competing against biological females in athletic competition in elementary school, middle school, high school and at the university level as well. The question was presented to the supreme court. Does Title 9, the 1972amendment to the Civil Rights act, the foundational 1960s era civil rights statute, does Title IX prohibit the states from separating sports based on biological sex? And you might have thought that the liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the most left wing of them all, recalled that in response to a question from Marsha Blackburn at her March 2022 Senate Judiciary Committee congressional confirmation hearing. She refused to say what a woman she said, I'm not a biologist. I can't answer. But even she, along with her liberal colleagues, sided with the conservatives on the ultimate Title IX question. Now, they wrote separately on the fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause question, the details of which are A little bit neither here nor there for purposes of today's show. The point is that this was a straightforward victory when it comes to the transgender sports issue. But this is hardly the only legal victory. Zooming out a little bit that we have had on the issue of transgenderism we talked about on the show a little bit at the time that it happened. But there was a totally under the radar victory out of my home county of Westchester County, New York. Actually, this happened just January of this year. It was on January 30th. In a landmark legal judgment, a 22 year old biological woman by the name of Fox Varian was awarded in the Westchester County, New York Supreme Court a $2 million judgment for getting an irreversible double mastectomy when the biological woman was just 16 years old. So the New York court held Fox psychologist and surgeon liable for $1.6 million for past and future suffering and additional $400,000 for any future medical expenses. $2 million judgment in total, the first legal victory ever by a so called detransitioner when it comes to a medical malpractice lawsuit. That happened just this year as well, in January. And how can we forget that There was another, there was another big case at the Supreme Court just last term also on the topic of transgenderism. This was the case of Scremetti. It was a case out of Tennessee. And in the US vs. Scremetti case, the court by a 6 to 3 margin held that a ban on so called transgender surgeries, which really amount, as we know on the show, we refer to typically as chemical castration or genital mutilation because we're not trying to use all these left wing coded euphemisms. We just say it as it actually is. But the court held in the Scrometti case that there is no problem here because as Clarence Thomas reiterated in his concurrence yesterday in the case out of West Virginia, as we all saw in Scrimmetti, transgenderism is not a so called suspect class, meaning that state legislatures can basically make laws as they wish. They are only subject to the lowest tier scrutiny, what lawyers refer to as rational basis review. In other words, you can ban the crap out of genital mutilation, you can ban the crap out of chemical castration. You can do whatever you want here. Because this is not the same as discriminating on the basis of sex or race or national origin or religion or something like that. So from Scrametti to the medical malpractice suit to yesterday's big victory out of Idaho, homeless, Virginia. Legally speaking, we are very much winning on this issue. But more generally speaking, here's the thing, folks. This, this is not just making inroads at a legal level. We on Team Sany are also very much winning this at the level of culture. So one of the most recent major polls, and it's already over a year old, so we probably need some more recent polling. But there was a major Pew poll on all things transgender related back in February 2025, just about a month into Donald Trump's second term. And there were lots of interesting cross tabs. So by a 66 to 15 margin, for what it's worth, the American public favors or strongly favors requiring transgender athletes to compete only against individuals that match their biological sex. That's what the court affirmed yesterday. This is a 6615 or roughly an 8020 issue, give or take in the American public at large. By a 56 to 26 margin, according to Pew. Americans also favor or strongly favor making it illegal, illegal for doctors to provide minors with so called gender transitions, AKA gender mutilation or chemical castration. That's the Scrumetti case that the court decided last year as well. That is also supported by an overwhelming by a well over 2 to 1, nearly 3 to 1 majority of the of the American public. Similarly, by a 49 to 26 margin, favor or strongly favor Americans do requiring transgender individuals to use public bathrooms that match their biological sexual. And Americans also overwhelmingly opposed by 53 to 22 margin, requiring health insurance companies to cover medical care for so called transitions. And on and on we go. I can go further here. The point is that in virtually every crosstab, when you look at the actual polling on this topic, we are winning on this issue. We are winning on the issue of transgenderism. Why are we winning? Well, I want to get to that actually, in just a moment because I think it's a very keen insight. But for now, folks, just a word from our sponsor for today's show. Our sponsor is Angel Studios. You know, we talk on this show a lot about what has gone wrong in modern culture and the modern media and frankly, the way that American history is often distorted by many of the major media companies. And that's why I'm genuinely excited to talk about Young Washington, which comes out this Friday in two days. It is an Independence Day blockbuster. I have seen this film. It is absolutely fantastic. It's about a young George Washington before he was president, before he was the chosen man, before he launched this country into the stratosphere with his leadership and his insights, his judgment and above all perhaps his humility. This is about a young Washington out on the frontier fighting in the French and Indian War and all the lessons that he learned, and also about how there is the unmistakable hand of Providence guiding his path at each and every term. Let's be honest, Hollywood almost never makes these stories anymore. Young Washington really feels like the big patriotic blockbuster that we have been waiting for. And you can go ahead and check it out so you can join the angel guild for $15 a month, get two free tickets to young Washington plus streaming access and tickets to Future Angel. You can go to visit angel.com/sign up today. $15 a month for the Angel Guild. Check out Young Washington in a theater near you starting this Friday. I've seen it. It's fantastic. You are not going to want to miss this film. So why are we winning on the topic of transgenderism and what does it say more generally about how we on Team Sanity can and should fight the culture war with the aim of victory? Well, the reason that we are winning on the transgender issue I think is fairly straightforward. This is a viscerally obvious issue whereby the truth of the matter is on our side. I say that because one of the reasons that this sports case is now an A20 issue and has now been bestowed legal legitimacy by again on the statutory level, at least a 9 to 0 majority of the court. The reason for this is because the images, the actual sensory intake that you see when you look at this is shocking. I actually don't know if we would be here today were it not for those videos of so called Leah Thomas, the transgender University of Pennsylvania swimmer who was lapping, double lapping, the swimmers in the pool. You've probably seen those images, those videos. If you haven't, you should make sure to check it out because it is genuinely shocking to the conscience. Most Americans look at that and you don't even have to have a well informed sense of the law or this. There you look at that and any decent human being sees that, sees Lia Thomas on the podium with this masculine looking figure hoisting the arms, smiling and the actual women on lower rungs the podium who are looking all distraught and sad. There you can see these images and the mean American who just has nothing but pure unadulterated moral intuition. These good salt of the earth good faith Americans look at that, they don't have a fancy laundry or whatever and they say this is bs. This is garbage, this is unfair. It's a compelling way to tell a story. We know that A picture tells a thousand words and sometimes a video tells, I suppose, 10,000 or 100,000 words. That above all, I think is why we're winning on this issue. Because we have the truth on our side. We know as a matter of every realm of truth imaginable, scriptural truth, Genesis 1:27, male and female, he created them. Intuitive truth of just observing human nature, empirical truth, scientific truth, biological truth, the duality of chromosomal structure XX and XY chromosomes. We know every step of the way that on this issue, the truth is on our side. As Clarence Thomas wrote in his short but wonderful two page concurring opinion in the case yesterday, the notion that you can just change your sex and go from male to female or vice versa, is a lie. And it is a destructive lie because it undermines the integrity of, well, among other things, the English language. But above all, it undermines the integrity of God's design for mankind. I can't help but think about this, all this that we've talking about here when it comes to some of these other so called wedge culture war issues as well. For instance, let's think a little bit about the issue of abortion, an issue that is never far from my mind, being the lifelong pro life activist that I am. The right is winning slowly on the issue of abortion, but much more slowly than we are winning on the issue of transgenderism. Yes, we overturned Roe versus Wade. Yes, public sentiment at times is going on our side. At times it looks a little more murky. The reason this is a slower slog to get us back to this Lia Thomas imagery is because the very nature of the unborn child. Yes, we have ultrasounds. Yes, we have increasing ability to know what's happening in the womb there, but we don't have that shocking, shocking, visceral imagery. I think as the state of medical science advances, as we start to get better and better images, better and better videos out of the unborn children just staying in the womb there, I think that we will see public opinion go only more to our side. And don't, don't be a fool on this. The court, the judiciary, absolutely responds to no small extent to public sentiment. They try to get ahead of themselves more often than they should, but they pay attention to what Pew and Gallup say. Perhaps they shouldn't. In fact, they likely shouldn't, but they absolutely do. But on the transgender topic, for now, we should take a victory lap because we are winning. The truth is on our side. All you have to do is apply these same principles to these other culture fights. And God willing, may we see the same success we have seen thus far on the transgender topic. Folks, we can go to a quick commercial break. We'll be right back with more.
- [12:49]
A
Grainger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners, lights about to fail, filters ready to clog H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Grainger for quality products, easy reordering and 24. 7 support. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it.
- [13:22]
B
Welcome back. So we should also revisit the birthright citizenship case. So this was a massive loss. Any which way you look at it. We're not going to get into the legal analysis. We did that yesterday with our guest Elon Wurman, and we'll continue to do. We're actually going to bring on John Eastman this coming week as well. John is a longtime scholar, and I look forward to his thoughts to how his theory got four votes actually on the court when it comes to the 14th Amendment question. More on that with John Eastman early next week after the Independence Day holiday. But I do want to revisit this topic because there's a lot of confusion on this. So yesterday the court rules and there was a big question as to what the legal basis of the decision would be. So just as we were talking about in the transgender sports case, how there was a Title 9 statutory question and then also a 14th Amendment constitutional question, so too in the birthright signature case, was there a statutory and also a constitutional question? The constitutional question is the one we discussed here on the show more often. That is the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment and ultimately the meaning of what subject to the jurisdiction meant to the ratifiers of that amendment back in 1868. But there's also a statutory question. So beginning in 1940, Congress passed a statute for the first time that mirrored the language of the amendment when it came to bestowing citizenship upon the children of of those who are here in the country. More broadly, that language in 1940 was ultimately adopted into the Immigration Nationality act of 1952, which remains to this day one of the nation's most controlling and most expositive immigration statutes. So Brett Kavanaugh concurred at the Supreme Court yesterday in the birthright decision case, basically saying that at a constitutional level, it's a very close call. There's evidence both ways. Frankly, he says, I'm not convinced of the robust majority. I think the dissenters probably have it right. But he says when Congress drafted this language, when Congress drafted this language, he says, they understood this to apply to everyone. And your mileage may vary as to whether you agree with that. The point is there was a statutory and a constitutional question. So I say all that because there's now this whole great debate in the conservative world as to how we should respond to this opinion. In other words, if it is truly codified under the 14amendment, then a statute is insufficient because you have to amend the Constitution or propose constitutional amendment or do something of that magnitude. Nonetheless, you had Donald Trump post on True Social yesterday calling on Congress to act. And what I am hearing from my circles is that you have folks in the administration and the White House counsel office, lawyers close to the president who are doing exactly that. They are calling on Congress to act, which which raises the question as to how exactly Congress can act if this thing has been constitutionalized. How do we possibly square this circle? Now, one line of thought is that you could just try to legislate what Brett Kavanaugh says in his concurrence and basically say for Congress pass law and saying we here in the Congress affirm that the 1940 as adopted into 1952 Immigration Nationality act, this statute, when we said subject to the jurisdiction thereof, we did not mean the children of legal aliens. They could try to clarify that. But they only got one vote. They only got Brett Kavanaugh. You had five justices, unfortunately, led by John Roberts along with Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberals who decided to constitutionalize this thing under the 14th amendment. Here is the insight, though. Here is the insight. The insight is that they only touched on the 14th Amendment question. What if there are other parts of the Constitution that are potentially relevant here? It's a very interesting point to raise. And make no doubt about it, this decision is a huge deal. Same Alito said in dissent. He said this is one of the most important decisions in the history of this court. He says those are strong words. And Alito says that the court has made a serious mistake. Had the arch is the legal scholar did a thread on X yesterday and he was quoting his late professor, the great University of Chicago theorist Leo Strauss. And he said, to paraphrase Leo Strauss, the core majority quote may be fiddling while Rome is burning, though they may not realize that they are fiddling or that Rome is burning. The stakes of this are really, really high. Birth tourism is an absolute atrocity. Birthright citizenship to children of legal aliens more generally is an absolute atrocity. All of the worst incentives, all of the absolute worst incentives, incentivizing the cartels to traffic vulnerable pregnant women across the border with the promise of popping on a baby here and getting a passport, letting the Chinese Communist Party set up birth tourism mills. All that's been bestowed not just statutory but constitutional legitimacy. And look, ultimately my long time lifelong stance is that the court's judgment is only binding insofar as the parties to the suit. Ultimately, if the President chooses to enforce the court's understanding to other named parties, AKA to all the other children of those here illegally or here on short term visas there, if you want to be technical about it, this was Abraham Lincoln's understanding. You would only apply that judgment out of respect for the court. You are not actually bound to do so if you genuinely in good faith think that the court has made a grievous error. In theory, Trump should do that. I'm not sure that he will. But there is another possibility here. There is the so called invasion theory. It is undisputed that the children of those who are here as part of an invading army are not entitled to automatic citizenship. The case that was most cited in the opinion Yesterday was an 1898 case called Wong Kim Ark, which involves the children of Chinese resident permanent lawful aliens from 1898. But Wong Kim Ark, which is the gold standard for the birthright citizenship, anchor baby lobby, even though it doesn't actually apply to that, but it's neither here nor there. Won Kim Mark studiously methodically enumerated certain exceptions, certain, certain exceptions to the rule of birthright citizenship. As Josh Blackman, the law professor, blogged about for the, for the Civitas Institute. He wrote, quote, wong Kim Ark observed that, quote, the children of aliens within territory in hostile occupation would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign whose domains are invaded. As a general matter, Professor Blackman continues, quote, a successful invasion can lead to a long term occupation and the children of those invaders and occupiers would not be birthright citizens. Recently, a Maryland district court actually recognized that the children of occupiers would not be birthright citizens. So the question then is, does this apply to the modern context? Now you think about an invading army and you think about classic wars, wars like World War II, the Germans occupying much of Europe, praise be to God, we have not had a whole lot of genuine invasions from formal standing foreign armies over the course of our history. You would have to go Back at least as far as the Mexican American War, arguably as far back as the British burning the nation's capital back in the War of 1812. But what if, what we are currently experiencing when it comes to what's happening at the border, when it comes to the Bayern Harris regime of millions upon millions of legal aliens now, we, we don't even know how many are here. We think at least 14 million, potentially 20 plus million illegals hiding in the shadows, as their lobbyists and advocates like to say. What if this is an invasion? What if the cartel control of the border, which has gone way down, praise be to God, over the course of this administration, what if all this amounts to an invasion? Well, the Constitution actually references invasion. Many times there are repeated references to an actual invasion over the course of the constitutional texts. For instance, Congress has the power to provide for calling forth the militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. The United States has an obligation under Article 4 of the Constitution to, quote, protect each state's, each state against invasion. In Article 1, Section 10, the Constitution, it says that a state can engage in war if it is in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But a state does not need to consult Congress when it is, quote, actually invaded. So the notion of invasion is all throughout the Constitution. And we know from Wong Kim Ark that if there's invasion, the children of the invaders don't get birthright citizenship. These are separate constitutional grounds than the 14th Amendment question that the Roberts Court decided on yesterday. So what if Congress passes a clean statute? This will satisfy President Trump's demand. Congress passes a statute. We here in the Congress recognize that the United States is currently in the midst of an illegal alien invasion led by the Sinaloa cartel. List out the cartels, list out the actors, and, and then the statute, the common practice, can say, and we call and we call on these states and the militia, et cetera, to act appropriately. If that passes and the President signs into law, then even the Supreme Court would not be able to say that birthright citizenship applies. I think it's a very, very clever workaround. We'll see if a bill gets drafted on these grounds. I hope it does, because if this is ultimately signed to law, I can easily see a way, easy way, at minimum, for a grand legal showdown on this question. But frankly, in this case, the text, the law and the history would all be on Congress's side. May they act accordingly. Folks are going to go to another quick break. We'll be right back with more. In 2025Americans 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. Welcome back. Immigration is a hot issue, to put it mildly. It is, as I've long argued, the single most important issue facing the American people. Why is that? Well, it's the one issue that affects literally everything we do. Immigration affects our economy, it affects our culture, it affects our language, it affects our, our foreign policy, our national security, and most foundationally, it affects the quintessential, quintessential question in all politics going back since time immemorial, which is the foundational question as to who we are as a people. This Saturday we will celebrate Declaration of Independence, a document that is premised upon the consent of the governed, popular sovereignty, Republican self governance, themes that we will talk about at great length on tomorrow's show and on Friday's show. It was a build up towards this great celebration this Saturday. Even the Constitution itself, The document drafted 11 years after the declaration, begins with those three famous words, we the people. This is who we are. And this is the reason that we should care so much about the theft of our sovereignty, about the outsourcing of our sovereignty to the illegal alien lobby, to the cartels, to all those who seek ultimately nothing less than our destruction and our eradication itself. This was the point of the 91 page descent from Clarence Thomas who champions the Declaration of Independence. He champions the document more than anyone alive today. He spoke about it in a brilliant speech at the University of Texas just a couple of months ago. That's why he felt compelled to write what I believed to be the longest descent of his entire judicial career in the case. Just yesterday on birthright citizenship, Democrats haven't gotten the message that immigration matters and that illegal immigration matters. There was a bombshell headline worthy hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday. I was paying attention mostly to the Supreme Court and the fallout of that. But at the same time, around the same time, there's a bombshell hearing on in the Capitol on the question of sanctuary cities and sanctuary jurisdictions and just a lot, a lot of good stuff. So there was an angel mom. So angel moms, if you don't know the full nomenclature, an angel mom is the mother of someone who was slain by illegal aliens. And you had the mother of Sheridan Gorman, who tragically is one such victim. So Sheridan Gordon's angel mother dropped quite a truth nuke, you might say, straight to the Democrat members of Congress over the course of this hearing yesterday. Let's go ahead and watch that.
- [26:46]
C
I understand that you're here for a reason. I don't understand why it's only the Republican side that cares about our American children. And I know that you're a mother. I know that you're a father. I. I deeply value that. But basically what you just did, what you said was, I'm so sorry for your loss. I have a daughter, too. I have a son. I. I feel your pain. You don't. You don't feel my pain because the next words out of your mouth were, but.
- [27:12]
B
There's no but.
- [27:13]
C
When your child is in the coffin, there's no but. And I need you to understand that. And if you ever want to talk about it, I'm here. I'm going to buy you a bench. I'm going to buy. I can put that on the record. I'm going to buy Congress the bench. And they can come and sit and hold my hand and look me in the eye and explain to me why illegal immigrants are more important than my daughter. I really want to know it, because I don't understand.
- [27:38]
B
Powerful stuff. Genuinely hard sometimes you fathom how a Democrat who supports open borders, who supports blanket amnesty, who supports blanket birthright citizenship, any of these things. Hard to get yourself into the mentality, frankly, of someone who could look this grieving painstricken mother in the eye and tell her that that individual cares because the policies, frankly, suggest something completely to the opposite. Congressman Mike Lawler from New York State also was having a bit of a time at this hearing. He's Republican, to be clear, but he caused Jamie Raskin, the very, very far left Democrat from Maryland, to go utterly berserk after Raskin was called out for being complicit in the murder of American citizens by legal aliens. Here was that clip from yesterday as well. The same outrage you feel about Renee Goode and Alex Preddy. You feel about Sheridan Gorman and Lake and Riley and every angel family in this. This country. I do feel that outrage. You do not. Because if you did, you would still support the outrage about Alex. You should be ashamed. You should get the hell out of this. You don't understand the rules. You don't understand the Constitution. Say one word about get rid of Alex. I wrote a whole New York Times I. Not bad about it. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Sanctuary policies that resulted in their daughter.
- [29:10]
C
The committee will be in order. Mr. Chairman, I. I just want to say we, we will not allow for. Thanks to Mr. Lawler's outrageous outburst.
- [29:18]
B
Okay, so things got pretty heated as you can see. And in my opinion, good for Mike Lawler. Good for Mike Lawler for, for getting this admin. This is, this is a. An important issue, to put it mildly. These are the most important issues facing the republic. Really. They actually are, bar none. Mike Lawler, by the way, is in a total swing district and it takes. He deserves credit frankly for being as outspoken on a so called wedge cultural issue in a swing district. Historically you saw more Republicans be outspoken on the immigration topic when they were in deep red districts when they were from perhaps Oklahoma, Wyoming, maybe less so Westchester county or Rockland County, New York. So good for Congressman Lawler. But these are extraordinarily important topics because again they affect everything that we do in politics, including the most foundational questions as to who we are. Who are we the people in the we the people that we celebrate when we talk about our consent, govern and popular sovereignty, declaration, independence, constitution and all of that good stuff. Pramila Jayapal, you might recall her, she is a load of crap in congresswoman form, you might say. Well she essentially told the parents of those murdered by illegal aliens that she has better things to do. At the time she wouldn't phrase that way, but that's basically what she said. Go ahead and judge for yourself, I guess.
- [30:43]
C
Unfortunately this hearing is. It's the fourth time in this committee that we've had a hearing on sanctuary cities. The fourth time. And there's many other things that we could be doing other than this.
- [30:58]
B
Okay, so that's one way to phrase it, Congresswoman. She's saying that she rather do. Like what? Like name a new post office, give yourself a salary raise to fund Iran, defund Hamas to fund transgender mutilation surgeries, to fund abortion on demand. What is more important than this? What is more important than defending the American people against invaders? To get back to our previous statement, against invaders. That's what this is. After all. It's an invasion. We've never seen this much illegal alien crime in America ever. It's unprecedented. Why? Simple. On the one hand there are more of them, there's a larger sample size. On the other hand, they're not being properly penalized and prosecuted for it. Especially in these deep blue jurisdictions with all the Soros prosecutors in places like Mamdani's New York City in places like Brendan Johnson in Chicago, Karen Bassett's Los Angeles, and on and on and on. Larry Krasner, the whack job D A in Pennsylvania who was just reprimanded by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is controlled by his own party, by Democrats. They're not prosecuting illegal aliens. Someone has to stand up for the voiceless. Once upon a time, the Democratic Party thought of itself as the party of the working men and women. Those who don't have a voice back in the day, the old school Democrat pro lifers, especially those old school, blue collar, Catholic, Irish or Italian Democrat pro lifers. And there were a lot of them. There were a lot of them from back in the day, 19, 19, 50s, 60s, 70s, they would think of themselves as trying to speak for the unborn because they were speaking for the voiceless, for those who don't have a voice, who cannot speak for themselves. Well, in theory, that same logic should apply to the victims of illegal alien crime. Democrats no longer do so. But fortunately, conservatives for the most part are doing so when it comes to speaking for the voiceless in the context of abortion, when it comes to speaking with voiceless in the context of illegal alien crime as well. This is an issue that I really, really hope Republicans lean into this fall. The polling continues to be on the GOP side on this issue. And especially in the aftermath of the stink bomb of a decision on birthright citizenship, it has never been more important for the Republicans to lean into this from a policy level as well. Increase deportations, increase removals, all of that. That has to amp up if you want to really, really, really show the median voter, the voiceless voter, the suburban mom, the Sheridan Gordon moms of the world that you care. Take a stand on this issue. Don't listen to the naysayers. Don't listen to those who say, oh, you're going to a third rail topic. No, you're not. You're standing up for the most vulnerable. And ultimately you're standing up for the rule of law. And isn't that worth it in this America to 50 celebration year? We're going to one final break, folks. We'll be right back with some more thoughts on the other side. Welcome back. So as we've been discussing on the show for the past few weeks, especially going back to just a week ago last Tuesday, where the dsa, the Democrats, Social America, had a massive evening in Zormadani's New York City. Make no mistake about it, Zormadani is the leader. He is the leader of the Democratic Party. He literally is. Think about it. Who else could it possibly be? It's not Joe Biden. It's not Kamala Harris. It's not Hakeem Jeffries. It's sure as heck ain't Chuck Schumer. It's Mamdani. He is the leader of the Democratic Party today. Gavin Newsom might think he is, and he's the only one who might be in the conversation, but it's really Mamdani. So the DSA sweeps in New York City and since then, the big question would be how will this brand of Democrat play out a little bit more across the country? Will this same brand of Democrat that triumphs in deep blue precincts in Queens and Brooklyn and the Upper west side and so forth, will this actually play in flyover country? Well, we got a little bit of our answer. On Tuesday evening there was this very, very closely watched primary in Colorado. So Colorado is a state that once upon a time was red states, then was a purple state. Now it's a light blue state. But like a lot of the Rocky Mountain west, it has a moderate streak, a more free spirited, independent, rugged frontiersman sort of streak. And a lot of the major Democrats in Colorado tend to reflect this. So Governor Hick Hickenlooper, now Senator Hickenlooper, one of the more moderate voices in the Democratic Party, Michael Bennett, similarly one of the more moderate voices in the Democratic Party, even Jared Polis, who a lot of conservatives love to bash, tends to be more moderate than a lot of other Democrats from his party. So there was a very closely watched congressional primary where you had Diana Deget, who has been in this seat in Colorado's 1st congressional district for 30 years. She's a 15 term incumbent. She was going up against a 29 year old DSA Democrat socialist by the name of Mela Quiros, who was born in Ethiopia, who was fired from her Tony White shoe law firm, Sidley Austin, a major law firm. She was fired from them in New York City. Get this. After October 7, 2023, a lot of the major law firms saw this explosion of Jew hates and law schools. And while the law firms wrote a, they combined to write a joint letter to the deans of these law schools saying you guys have a problem. Please crack down on your anti Semitism on campus. So this woman, this Ethiopian born socialist named Kiros comes out blasting them for having the chutzpah to condemn anti Semitism and for saying that she was fired by her law firm because apparently she supports anti Semitism that's the only logical conclusion. And she basically ran on this issue. To be clear, Diana Deget has a 98% progressive voting score, says Matt Whitlock, a long time congressional operative. She has a 98% progressive voting score according to at least one major progressive voting rubric. She has high ranks on powerful committees. And this is all about the topic of Israel. So the Sunrise Moon, which is, which is one of these horrific Chinese Communist Party adjacent greeny radical environmentalist movements that is in cahoots with the DSA and the Sordos and the Tides and all these other far left groups. The Sunrise Movement had this video that went viral on left wing Twitter that was from, from March 19th and it's a video of Diane DeGette getting heated with a constituent for pressing her on why she voted to send to vote for weapons shipments to Israel during the course of their war against Hamas. So this was the issue, this was basically the only issue that Kiros ran on. And sure enough she won. She knocked off a 30 year old incumbent in one of the most moderate blue lean states in America. It's probably Colorado and Virginia, right, the two most moderate blue states you might say these days. And she won essentially just on the Israel issue, which has become a bread and butter issue somehow some way for the whole DSA burn all down anti Western civilization crowd. And it didn't stop there. I mentioned Michael Bennett. Well he is a senator and he was trying to become the next governor, next governor of Colorado and he actually lost in his primary to the Attorney General Phil Weiser who was running to his left. So this leftism is now all the rage all throughout the country. It's not just happening in New York state, it's not just happening in bright blue precincts, it's happening even in moderate blue states, much like Colorado. And I guess to an extent, why wouldn't it? After all, if you look at the polling, if you look at the polling, Democrats are a socialist party. There was this clip this week of Adam Schiff, Schiffy, Adam Schiff on the late night shows and they asked him, are you okay with open socialists in your party? And he said yeah, the more ideas the area, bring them all in. I guess that's one approach. On the other hand you have James Carville, the old Clinton strategist who's using the S word saying it might be time for a full on schism, AKA socialist. Get your own party. But what if James Carville is actually the minority? If you look at the polls on this and we have some Recent polling from Gallup on the question this is from September 2025. The percentage of Democrats who have a favorable, favorable view of capitalism is right around 40%. How about the percentage of Democrats who have a favorable view of socialism? 66%. So by 66 to 42 margins, specifically, Democrats favor socialism. That is not a winning issue, by the way, for Democrats. Independent, according to the same poll, independence by a 51 to 38 margin, favor capitalism. Republicans 74 to 14. Frankly, I don't know a single socialist Republican. I, I would say Tucker Carlson, but even Tucker is now saying he's not a Republican anymore. In fact, just this morning, Tucker apparently confirming what I've been saying for years, that he's going to start his own third party, which is mildly terrifying. And I'm sure it will just be a fascist and horrific Islamist, pro Russia, pro transity. More on that perhaps on another episode. But the point is that this brand of socialism is, this is what, this is what they stand for. This is who they are. There is no way around that. There's no way they are the past, the present and the future. The young kids who were inspired by Barack Obama era, hope and Change, who were so eager to vote for the great saint of Chicago to knock off Hillary Ron Clinton in the 2008 primary and then were so inspired to vote for hope and change in 2008, those guys who were the college kids back then, they run the show today. They're the ones who are getting elected to Congress. The Darieliza Chevaliers. Frankly, she's actually too young even to have voted for Barack Obama in 2008. But you get the idea. The ones who were kids then, they're now the adults in the room now. And frankly, the Obama era looks positively moderate compared to some of this rhetoric that we are seeing now from people like Kiros in Colorado, Chevalier in New York City and so forth, they're not hiding what they believe. They believe in seizing the means of production. They are proudly quoting Marx and Engels and the Communist Manifesto. They're doing it openly, publicly, without even the tiniest bits of second thoughts or remorse or apology. They are owning it. So this too is going to be a winning issue for Republicans this fall. How can it not be? A lot of folks say go back to immigration, that, oh, if you run so hard on immigration, you're going to repel a lot of the voters who voted for you in 2020 and 2024. Oh, really? Why? It's not like Trump and Republicans were going soft on immigration on the campaign trial in 24. No, on the contrary, Trump in 2024 promised to execute the largest deportation operation in American history. And he still got a historical share of the Hispanic vote here. But if you really want to make sure that you get those voters locked in to vote for you, especially here in a midterm election year, in an off cycle election this November, the economy comes immediately to mind. Yes, inflation is a little higher than it should be with 4.2% in the most recent month over month metric. Yes, other things, supply chains are maybe not quite where they should be as well. But guess what, the other side are literal fire breathing commies. And sometimes, maybe oftentimes, American politics boils down to not necessarily who you want to vote for, but who you rather vote against. All these years later, that remains the likeliest reason that Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the first place. In 2016, Hillary Clinton was one of the most unpopular candidates in modern presidential history. So yes, call them socialists. You want to win. The Venezuelans who fled Caracas, call them socialists, you want to get the Cubans and all the other South Americans and Central Americans who fled failing social regimes, call them socialists. It's not a lie. It's accurate. It's harrowing, it's scary, it's evil, frankly. But it's accurate. They're owning it. So call it like it is. That will be another recipe to success on the campaign trail this fall, folks. Have a great rest of your evening. We'll be right back tomorrow with our first of our Bats back American Witch 50 themed episodes. We will see you then.