← The Tony Kinnett Cast
The Tony Kinnett Cast
Ep. 506 - US Troops on Alert, Supreme Court Rejects IEEPA Tariffs, Trump Retaliates, Stocks Soar
01:49:26
US troops in the Middle East on high alert as Iran prepares a possible preemptive strike against the United States as rumors fly. President Donald Trump tears into the Supreme Court after a scathing and yet strangely disjointed opinion on the IEEPA tariffs. We bring the up-to-date details and new numbers, from the stock market soaring to the outrage.
Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:01]
Tony Kennett
So good, so good, so good.
- [00:03]
Ilhan Omar
New spring arrivals are at Nordstrom Rack stores.
- [00:06]
Tony Kennett
Now get ready to save big with
- [00:08]
Ilhan Omar
up to 60% off rag and bone, Marc Jacobs, free people and more.
- [00:13]
Elise McHugh
How did I not know rack has Adidas?
- [00:15]
Tony Kennett
Cause there's always something new.
- [00:16]
Ilhan Omar
Join the Norty club to unlock exclusive discounts.
- [00:19]
Tony Kennett
Shop new arrivals first and more. Plus, buy online and pick up at your favorite Rack store for free.
- [00:25]
Matt Davis
Great brands, great prices.
- [00:27]
Ilhan Omar
That's why you rack.
- [00:30]
Elise McHugh
Tony Kennett.
- [00:31]
Tony Kennett
Tony Kennett.
- [00:31]
Matt Davis
Tony Kennett.
- [00:32]
Scott Bessant
Tony Kennett.
- [00:33]
Tony Kennett
Tony Kennett.
- [00:33]
Scott Bessant
Tony Kennett.
- [00:34]
Elise McHugh
Tony Kennett, host of the Tony Kennett cast.
- [00:37]
Tony Kennett
Let's get down to business. You're listening to the Tony Kennett cast on 93 WIBC on CYTV, here on the Daily Signal. Good evening and welcome to the Tony Kennett cast here on the Daily Signal. Nationally syndicated, first on 90B. Don't worry, we will get to all of the tariff fistfights and shenanigans, but there is some news that needs to be covered first and foremost. First of all, if you work at the New York Times or perhaps at Fox News, you've had quite the busy afternoon. No, not because of the tariff stuff, because the New York Times and Fox News have been slapping each other back and forth over mysterious leaks and reports coming out of the Middle East. So unnamed officials. Ah, my favorite kind of officials, I guess. The kind who let all of the thuperthilia thecreth of the federal government in our military maneuvers in the Middle East. Well, it turns out that when you trust anonymous sources explicitly and you are so quick to run, according to breaking unnamed, unverified sources close to the second cousin of someone in the Department of War going to get burnt eventually. The New York Times found that out this afternoon again in which an official had supposedly told them that the United States was evacuating all of its troops from our bases in Qatar and Bahrain, that's in the Middle east and a little closer than comfort for those who like to keep a bit of a distance from Iran. And this immediately started spreading around social media. Oh man, the New York Times has gotten another big scoop. Turns out. Nope, not in fact the case. Speaking to someone actually at the Qatari based United States Air Force base Al Uday this afternoon I was able to confirm there was one troop movement flight and it's been on the schedule for months. Nothing at all like that. The Department of War through Centcom specifically made sure to point out that this was completely bogus. Fox News slapped down the source as well. The New York Times again, kind of walking away, tail between its legs. Things are getting more tense in the Middle East. However, the President of the United States, in the middle of the tariff impromptu press conference today, did take a question on Iran and kind of his general take on the situation.
- [03:04]
Donald Trump
They better negotiate a fair deal. You know, the people of Iran are a lot different than, than the leaders of Iran. And it's very, very, very Sad situation. But 32,000 people were killed over a relatively short period of time. They were going to hang 800 two weeks ago. Hang. Hang some by crane. They lift them up with a tall crane and they play them around the square. They were going to hang 837 people. And I gave them the word, if you hang one person, even one person, that you're going to be hit right then and there. I wasn't waiting two weeks and negotiating, and they gave up the hanging. They didn't hang 837. Supposedly they didn't hang anybody. But, no, I feel very badly for the people of Iran. They've lived like they've lived in hell.
- [03:54]
Tony Kennett
So as the United States forces get ever closer in full defensive posture for any kind of retaliatory ballistic attacks from Iran, the United States is preparing for what appear to be a couple of, I can't say, isolated rumors of an Iranian preemptive strike. Now, I can be clear about this. Any preemptive strike of any sort by Iran would be a fantastic Hallmark invitation to their own funeral. That would be a very bad decision by the mullahs. Hoping that Trump decides to do something else here, hoping that negotiations go somewhere completely different, seems to be the only means they have here other than giving the United States what they want. What is it that the United States want? Well, according to Mike Walls, Ambassador to the UN he has exactly what the US Wants on the table. Look, Steve Wyckoff, Jared Kushner, Secretary Rubio, have been very clear. All enriched, highly enriched uranium. There is no reason to have it enriched at 60 and 90% unless you intend to build a weapon or no enriched leverage or no enrichment capability.
- [05:05]
Donald Trump
So zero enrichment.
- [05:07]
Tony Kennett
Zero enrichment. There has been discussion last year of a. Of a pooled international ability that has appropriate monitoring and oversight by the IAEA inspectors, the missile program and their ongoing support for terrorism. And as you heard the President say today, you cannot have peace in the Middle east if Iran is racing towards a nuke. Now, I'm going to level with you. This is kind of a part and parcel style of diplomatic language here. So first and foremost, the United States is not only bearing down on Iran right now just because of nukes. That's not why. There is a big part of it that is because that Iran, after its main nuclear missile and nuclear enrichment development programs were wiped out, they still kept pursuing uranium enrichment. And, and they said, oh come on, let us have 1%, 3%, 5%. I mean come on, it's just for civilian nuclear power. Said one of the most oil rich countries in the Middle East. And the United States has the position of no, absolutely not. Also the regime of Iran. There is no rule that says the United States has to tolerate regimes that threaten and kill America and her allies, individuals. That's not a thing. And so if the Trump administration has decided that he would like Persia to be Persian again, then he definitely has the constitutional right to send a little sweetum strike into Iran. The question right now for the president of the United States and his cabinet is how and where and to what extent it's done. Now there is going to be a big theme for the show this evening that I wasn't trying to ham fist going into it of a lot of the Internet lawyers and constitutional experts. We have got a lot of them. I'm talking to people that asked Grok or chatgpt a whopping three and a half seconds before they wrote the tweet to briefly explain to them and five year old language how constitutional law and legal precedent and federal law in the United States works as to what the president can and can't do and what Congress can and can't do and what other countries can and can't do and the like. And there really is a smorgasbord, A jam packed golden corral special fiesta event full of garbage takes all over everywhere. You don't believe me, sign on to any social media platform. I don't care if It's Facebook x LinkedIn, some one of you boots up, dial up and logs onto MySpace through, you know, Netscape. Whatever you need to do, you're gonna find really awful. Takes for example from the and I'm, I'm a little surprised from a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. AEI's usually got like some pretty decent dudes on staff. Tim Carney decided to allege perhaps be the word today if you believe Trump can legally attack Iran next week without getting constitutional authorization. You need to explain why. Well, see, the War Powers Resolution gives the president the authority to do so. See, the cool thing about laws is that we have the date they were written and then we have the text that shows what they say. And according to the law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The President has the authority via text and then via shown precedent to carry out a military operation and then has to notify Congress within 60 days where then they have to approve, deny they can file or file some kind of alternate resolution kind of sections here. The President of the United States doesn't have to go to Congress for this. He doesn't. And there are a lot of people who believe that the President has to do extra special super duper alley hooper things regarding the economy or regarding the military or regarding all other kinds of stuff and they're not reading very, very basic precedent. Now I'm not saying this to you as someone who's trying to convince you based on a lot of the comments that we get quite often, I'm preaching to the choir as a Baptist, we're kind of good at that. And I'd like to encourage you that though there's going to be some of the goofballs this evening, I have been very encouraged to see a lot of individuals who simply aren't taking the bait of the despair of seeing a lot of people say dumb things and then suggest like Isaiah in the wilderness, oh, I'm all alone. It sucks. It's terrible here. It'd be Elijah, not Isaiah. And just, oh, things are awful and terrible. Oh, I wish I were dead. Yeah, I, I, I don't see that as the kind of prevailing narrative here. Now there are a couple of reasons that people in the country are mad news wise. Today there is yet another major fraud scandal unfolding in, you guessed it, Minnesota. Yeah, Minnesota. So you remember how we'd had all of the Medicaid and the Medicare fraud and the, the little business loan and business grant and the immigration fraud and then the wire fraud. Well, you may have thought that the education system was a little left out after, you know, just the Quality Luring center was, was really more about immigration fraud than education fraud. Well, boy howdy, we've got a little bit of major education fraud for you to dip your toes into. Check it out.
- [10:16]
Elise McHugh
State system is fighting a growing problem at colleges and universities.
- [10:21]
Tony Kennett
Ghost students are enrolling using stolen identities and they're racking up thousands in fake student loans. Now that's not Casper. Like, Casper's not, you know, showing up, you know, filing for id. We've got major and massive identity theft and fraud and then using that initial fraud to then take a bunch of state money through the education system. And again, in what better place than Minnesota?
- [10:46]
Elise McHugh
Gray joins us to explain how state lawmakers are planning to stop it.
- [10:50]
Ilhan Omar
Kallen
- [10:52]
Tony Kennett
the Minnesota state system tells us
- [10:54]
Elise McHugh
even in just the last few months these types of attacks have changed, telling us fraudsters in the fall were targeting two year institutions. Now they're looking at all colleges and universities stopping global attackers.
- [11:08]
Scott Bessant
These fraudsters are very well organized and are well financed.
- [11:13]
Tony Kennett
All right, that's the key piece there. I wanted to bring to your attention because some of the individuals who are very, very upset that the federal government is investigating fraud with again a host of agencies in Minnesota, namely Ilhan Omar, who we'll get to in a bit, whining about operation Paris. When you hear Minnesota state lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, who are saying these fraud activities are very well coordinated. This isn't just some kind of a TikTok trend of hey, if, you know, you just scan the barcode enough times, really quickly, you can short out the system and make off with the cat. This isn't one of those kind of things. This would be an organized crime and fraud operation. At some point, at some point, the federal government really does need to take a look at why there are all of these fraudulent business operations that are highly coordinated in Minneapolis and it's not just there in Indiana, investigators are now looking into a series of neighborhoods around Indianapolis and kind of the secondary Donut counties. So those outside of that core ring of counties around Marion that are host to pockets of transportation businesses that are just way, way too many for the neighborhood that they're in. So a couple of particular neighborhoods that have been cited by independent journalists as well as a couple of lawmakers in the state of Indiana have shown 500 businesses which are registered in an area that maybe has 30 or 40 buildings. They're all foreign transportation companies or associated with those foreign transportation companies providing services to them. And they're in neighborhoods that aren't. They're not like the corporate, corporate park areas that all have the shipping and the loading docks for various semi and transportation. They are pseudo residential, half commercial neighborhoods. The kind of place where you'd see your local state farm insurance rep turning a house into an insurance office. So at some point you really do need to consider perhaps some kinds of foreign intervention to operate major fraudulent businesses on American soil. Because once you start asking those questions, you start, you need to start asking the question, what responsibility do foreign governments bear for encouraging and inciting fraudulent activity in the United States? That is a very serious question because it has to do, believe it or not, with this entire argument regarding the Supreme Court, the tariffs and what the Supreme Court alleged, and although Trump didn't particularly like, is a truism here, that the President of the United States doesn't just have a responsibility to bring terrorists before Congress, but if the President of the United States feels that there's a national security threat or there's slavery going on or there's something being used against citizens of the United States, the man can slap an embargo and say, I know that India thinks they're really hot stuff. They're, they're, they're pumping out their telemarketers and they're, they're foreign transportation companies. Maybe India would like to be embargoed. I mean. Yeah, that's a question that needs to be asked at some point by senior administration officials. I am pleased to say, though, that Transport Secretary Sean Duffy has come forward with a major plan that is going to change a lot, I'm sure, where you're about to see lawsuits, judges, from Paula Zinnis to James Boasberg to, you know, weep, moan, perhaps dress in a variety of sackcloth garments over this measure that is about to be proposed in official regulation by Sean Duffy.
- [15:02]
Sean Duffy
The work here is just beginning, and it has been a very thoughtful process. And again, I would love if I had the ability to change all the rules because we had all the power in the federal government. We don't. We partner with our states. And so the DOT has a role in having smart, good rules to protect the American people. But I also need the states to say this is not partisan, this is not politics that we're playing here. We can have a debate about whether Joe Biden should have had an open border or Donald Trump, which I would agree with, shut down and secured the border. That's a different debate. The debate really is, do you want well trained, well qualified drivers behind the wheel of a big rig driving on American roads? It's very simple. I think the answer is, every single American, no matter what your political stripes are, that's exactly what you want. That's what you'd expect from the federal government and the state government.
- [16:02]
Tony Kennett
So the reason he not only cites some updates to some regulatory changes from the Department of Transportation at the federal level, but he also signals to the states is that, for example, here in my home state of Indiana, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles under Indiana, it is under the authority of the Secretary of State's office. That's Diego Morales, who, by the way, since he has been in office, has already undertaken certain regulatory procedures that encourage legislation to keep individuals who are transgender from essentially committing fraud by lying about their sex on their id. So why can't we here in the state of Indiana ban foreign held CDLs or ban individuals from taking a driver's test in any other language except English? As I've pointed out before, that's the language that all of our road signs are on or in. One might consider at some point very basic policies that did these kind of things. But see, the problem is that these are accountability measures that voters in the states have to take into consideration. And people don't give a star spangled about their state legislatures. They don't care. They don't care their state representative, they don't care who their state senators are. They don't care about their assemblyman. They don't care about it. We get to situations like these and ask why couldn't we have primaried someone who is more focused on actually accomplishing some regulatory measures or passing some legislation instead of smiling big cheesy grins at the camera? That's the thing that Secretary Duffy is asking. He is right to ask. And again, this too flows into the conversation regarding tariffs. So we are going to pivot away quickly. We're going to pick up some folks from the commercial break. We'll be back in like I don't know, five, six seconds. And we're going to get into the big tariff fight Fiesta Fest today. It's Tony Kenneth cast here on the Daily Signal. Don't y' all go anywhere. I'm sorry, Ms. Jackson, I am for real. This is the Tony Kennett cast on 93 WYBC. The the Ms. Jackson bumper is one that we use whenever we talk SCOTUS because you know, Ketanji Brown Jackson, by the way, I know that Ketangi Brown Jackson has had a long day. I'm sure she's confused as to why the Supreme Courts had to ban President Trump building terraces on all porches around the country. And then I'm sure that Sotomayor or Kagan had to pull her aside and go, no, no, no, honey, we're talking about tariffs, not terraces. And then she nodded like very knowingly and then, you know, went back to coloring with the 48 pack. And by the way, I say that knowingly because given the opinions of the court today and my, oh my, this is probably one of the most disjointed opinions I have ever seen from the Supreme Court. When I say disjointed, it was a 6:3 decision but it wasn't as like six people were unified and then three people were unified oh, no, no. Catanja Brown Jackson wrote nothing. And she wrote nothing because one can only assume that she and Sonia Sotomayor were so completely out of their league, actually having to parse the etymologies of certain terms used, the statutes, how they apply, and also the realistic effects, the pragmatic understanding of these laws. Because if you think that Congress has been consisting, or excuse me, that Congress has been consistent, that's going to be a resounding. So regarding the opinion itself, this morning the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6 to 3 that the president's use of the IEEPA, that would be the International Emergency Economic Powers act, was not used correctly. That's not how he's supposed to use it, and that's not how the tariffs in, in this particular case are supposed to operate. And we'll get to the syllabus published by SCOTUS in a second because already we've got a lot of people posting online from the left, a lot of people posting on the right, a lot of populists, a lot of traditionalists, a lot of libertarians, a lot of people just talking before they've actually sat down and read just the syllabus. But when I tell you this is a disjointed opinion, allow me to explain. There is a feature on Wikipedia, if you call it that, in which you can see in wars and in court opinions how justices ruled or what the belligerents were and the defense groups were in certain sides of conflict. And there's a very famous example of a complete mess, the Nigerian civil war in the second half of the 20th century, in which the United States and the Soviet Union and Israel and France were on the same side of one part of the Nigerian civil war. And then on the other side was the UK and Australia and India and then also somehow Israel again and then China. It was very weird, right? It was a very strange everybody's fighting everybody kind of a war. This opinion is like that. So there is a majority opinion, there's a plurality, which means Gorsuch kind of agrees with John Roberts, but eh, I don't know. And then you have Barret, who did something else entirely, at least in the last part of the third section there. Then you've got Kagan and Sotomayor and Jackson, the liberals who wrote their own agreement with the majority. That was really weird. That was essentially just we don't like Trump, which is really funny because they want the executive to have all the power in the world. And then you had the dissent. Excuse me, you had the dissent. And the dissent in this particular instance was interesting because Clarence Thomas and then Brett Kavanaugh and Alito, who I'm very sad, Samuel, who I admire quite a lot, didn't also write a dissent here. Thomas dissent is totally different from Kavanaugh's dissent. So, in essence, you've got five different opinions on this one particular case, and we're going to go through it because I have no interest in gaslighting you. I'll tell you this right off the top of the bat. This is not worth getting frustrated over. This is not the end of the world. This is not the greatest thing that's ever happened, and this is not the spawn from hell. It's just not. And I'm actually going to flip rather far ahead in some of my stuff. This was the stock market today after the ruling. Now, there are a lot of people who are saying, wow, the Dow, like, skyrocketed and super soared after this announcement because the markets really wanted these tariffs slapped down. What you will see is that while the markets did end at a pretty nice place about where they had spiked initially, the markets played jump rope, the Dow played jump rope during the day, the Nasdaq played jump rope during the day, and the S and P played jump rope during the day. The reason I tell you that is that, guys, this second Trump administration is all about the drama. It's all about the kaboom. It's all about the press conferences and the really spicy dissents and the really incredible, you know, right in your face kind of majority opinion stuff. And American people are getting kind of used to it, the age of mean tweets and oh man, I got to sell the house and the kids and quick buy toilet paper and oh man, somebody throw the dog off the roof. That, that's really not here anymore. So that said, I want to dive into the opinion. We're going to talk about it and also the really bad takes that are coming out of it. So from the actual syllabus itself, which sounds like it should just be so boring, it's not. This is actually kind of interesting. So the majority syllabus here, the overview, essentially here is our decision. Quote, the question presented is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers act authorizes the President to impose tariffs. Shortly after taking office, President Trump sought to address two foreign the influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, China. That's Presidential Proclamation 10 886-and-large and persistent trade deficits. The President determined that the drug influx had created a public health crisis and that the trade deficits had led to the hollowing out of the American manufacturing base and had undermined critical supply chains. The President declared a national emergency as to both threats, deeming them unusual and extraordinary, and then invoked his authority under the IEEPA all about emergencies and president's relationships with them to respond. So then they outline what the tariffs are like, what it was that he levied out, and then the. The groups that sued him. This is what they. They held here at the. The end of the syllabus. The IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, in which case the Supreme Court is making it very clear there's not really a situation here in which we can say, you were very bad and stinky, Mr. President. You give all of this money back. That's where you're getting J.B. pritzker, who can maybe read the side of a little tykes sticker that just says little and tykes next to each other. He. He skipped all of this part. So again, right now you have people who haven't even read the very, very, very minimum, and it's nowhere near as big and as groundbreaking, and everyone's gonna die. Or, oh, this is so great. As is perhaps you're being told. So there are three different camps here. You have the originalists, that is, you have the. The leaders of the decision here. There'd be Chief Justice Roberts, of course, Neil Gorsuch, and then Amy Coney Barrett. They wrote the majority opinion that says, no, Trump, you can't do this, because Constitution, law, and our interpretation of why these statutes do the things. The second group are the people who are agreeing with the originalists so that they can spite Trump. That's. That's literally the only reason why you've got Kagan and Elena. Kagan's opinions are interesting in this case. This is a really convoluted opinion from her. But Sotomayor and Jackson, who struggle with refrigerator magnets, didn't write anything. They just. Kagan told them to raise their hands. And so they were like, oh, yeah, I'm here. I'm here for class. And then last but not least, you had two different dissents, one from Clarence Thomas and then one from Brett Kavanaugh, which was long. It was a book. The man dropped the novel Harry Potter and the ieepa and, like, threw down a novel. And then Alito agreed with him. So that said, that's probably the longest part of this particular segment from this point. It's kind of easy to parse. So first of all, the actual opinion slapping down these IEEPA tariffs from President Trump, the core holding is that that law does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, which immediately poses a problem. The immediate problem it poses is that Chief Justice John Roberts has previously argued that laws with similar language, in which case the executive is supposed to be able to regulate the import of products and how those are given access to the American market, the American citizen. He previously ruled that the President of the United States could totally do something like that with Obamacare. But now he says, well, no, the President actually doesn't have the authority or the ability to impose any kind of attacks, which is very strange. He has done a 180. Now, I believe that especially when you look at Neil Gorsuch, his particular statement, there's a little bit more to it. But the constitutional grounding that Roberts is relying on and that Amy Coney Barrett echoes, he says, look, the power to levy taxes and duties is vested in Congress, not the executive. Regardless of the fact that Roberts in this way is a pretty hefty hypocrite, he is correct. He's correct. The President of the United States should not be leveraging long term policy through tariffs because you pay part of the tariff. Now, I'm not saying you pay all the tariff. I'm not saying that sometimes that's not a good thing and in a long term strategy, as the President of the United States believes, but there is objective, reciprocated, repeated, constant evidence that says you do pay, and I do pay a part of those tariffs. And because of that, the Supreme Court considers them to be a kind of tax which are granted especially in the way the Constitution was written, in the way that they're listed as something Congress is supposed to pass or, or deny. Now the real issue with this is that that entire system is broken because of how the world operates. Now we'll get to that. So again, Roberts, right off the top of the bat, he said, while the court rejected the claim that the individual mandate. Sorry, this is back from his Obamacare statement. So he ruled in favor of Obamacare saying while the Court rejected the claim that the individual mandate was within Congress's commerce power, the mandate was found to be constitutional as a tax. In other words, they said as long as you call Obamacare a penal and not a tax, it's good. But John Roberts is saying, well, just because you call it a tariff and not a tax doesn't mean it's not a tax. So we seem to be Playing footsie with semantics here, which to be fair, it's a big reason the Supreme Court is around, but it's, it's kind of a weird, goofy football in this particular instance. What do you need to know about the statutory interpretation, which is the whole point? The phrase regulate and importation does not historically or textually include tariff setting authority, meaning this. The President of the United States has not historically been able to throw under the IEEPA a bunch of tariffs on various products as permanent long standing policy. Because that is in fact something that you, the Americans do pay. Now other Americans can pay them for you like the company you're buying the product from. But a lot of those individuals are still American companies. When President Trump says Costco or Walmart or, or another carrier or big box store or distributor is going to pay part of the tariff and eat the cost, that's still an American who's paying the cost. He doesn't have the long term authority under the Constitution to do so. Now there is another underlying very, very big issue in this particular Supreme Court case that is not getting enough attention. And Roberts and Amy Coney, Barrett Gorsuch and then Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito all agree on against the liberals. This is the question of the major questions doctrine, which means this. If there is an executive action that a President wants to take and it has vast economic and political consequences, then it needs to have congressional approval. Meaning this Congress can't suddenly just get tired of governing and actually give authority over to the executive branch. That is a very, very big deal. And it has nothing to do with tariffs. Not a thing to do with tariffs. The question of major questions doctrine is going to be pussyfooted around and sidestepped and glanced at and blown kisses at through this entire legal opinion. This will be a major Supreme Court case over the next year. It will change everything about the federal government of the United States. Everything. Because since the middle point of the Cold War, really, since the beginning of the Wilsonian era, but it really kicked into overdrive during Jimmy Carter's administration, Congress decided, I'm kind of tired of governing. And they started letting all of these executive agencies do their work. So instead of Congress doing the job of the bulk of the Department of Education, you know, all these Congress people don't have time to learn how education works. So they're gonna trust the Department of Education with the authority to make rules and regulations about federal education rules and in all of these other areas of the economy. Now there's an argument that is made that because tariffs have to do with foreign policy, the President automatically gets authority. Guys, that's not how that works. I've seen that argument all over social media today that just because tariffs and foreign policy are like a tariff is a foreign policy act, therefore the President has authority over it. That ain't how that works. Guys. The executive branch makes it clear how every. Excuse me, the judicial and the Constitution make it clear how the executive, how the legislative and the judicial interact with foreign policy. So that alone is not a panacea. In this particular instance, the idea. Well, it's foreign policy. He gets to do whatever he wants. No, and by the way, I'm one of the people who is very strongly advocating for the President of the United States to be trusted on foreign policy. It's why he's elected. But when it doesn't just affect the other country, but it also affects you via your rights and property. Again, major question doctrine here. The President can't levy attacks on you. And again, as is an example that is made later on in the decision, President Alexandria Ocasio Cortez would not have the constitutional authority to drop into office, declare climate change emergency, and tax every single one of you on vehicles and fuel and everything else. Now, that said, again, before you get ahead of me here, I want to talk to you about Neil Gorsuch. His agreement. So his approval of the opinion here, his agreement with the judgment here. So he spent all of his time on this question of the major questions doctrine. And he emphasized that courts should not infer sweeping delegations of power from ambiguous statutory language. So Neil Gorsuch, he makes it very clear, you know, what, Congress writes sucky laws. They're very ambiguous and they're very vague. And a Democrat will come into office and the Democrat will say, I believe that this actually means that the founders wanted a lot of LGBTQ and abortion stuff. And everyone will look at them kind of stupidly, but that's their argument. Gorsuch is saying, I don't like it when anybody does that. And we're doing a lot of nitpicking here. But there is one particular in text statement that I think is the best because Gorsuch doesn't say whether tariffs are good or bad. He doesn't say whether or not these national emergencies should be national emergencies. He doesn't talk about whether the trade deficit is good or bad. Here is his statements. The one of the best paragraphs in the entire decision and opinions from the Supreme Court. Quote, for those who think it is important for the nation to impose More tariffs. I understand that today's decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people, and including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs, are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people's elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There. Deliberation tempers impulse, compromise, hammers disagreements into workable solutions. Going a little overboard there. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day. This is the point that he's making. It is unworkable as a country to essentially have an on and off switch being played with by a caffeinated toddler. And that's not a dig at the President by the United States. That is executive policy in its fullness. When the President of the United States, who you don't, you don't know what his agenda is for the day as a normal, average American citizen, he comes into the Oval Office, whether he be Biden, Bush, President Trump, Obama comes in, signs an executive order, all of a sudden everything is different. Not supposed to be that way. It's not supposed to be that way. That's one of the key points that Gorsuch is making now. That upsets a lot of people because Congress sucks. The issue is not with the Constitution, because there are a lot of online pundits all over the media sphere today, all over the media sphere today who have told you, who have promised you. Congress is broken. We need to throw it out. We'd IMPEACH THE SEDITIOUS 6. The Supreme Court is terrible. How could. Everything's awful. No, no, no, no. The issue with the United States, and I'm going to level with you, I was going to talk about this later. We're doing this right now. The issue with the United States is that its citizens do not care. Its citizens don't care. The concept of a republic is that you and I will elect people to go and represent US in Washington, D.C. and craft laws. And supposedly we will pay attention to and we will hold accountable those that we send to the federal government. The most direct mandate from the American people has been and should be the Congress of the United States, the problem is that people don't care and people send in a bunch of people who have no business being in office. It is not enough in the case of voter fraud to just wipe it away and say, oh, well, it's all voter fraud. That's why Congress is wrong. Voter fraud is not ruining every single seat in Congress. It's not. Now, is voter fraud a problem? Absolutely. Pass the Save America act today. Wholeheartedly agree. However, the idea that the United States has outgrown Congress and so therefore what we need is a good king, and again, has nothing to do with Trump or whether tariffs are a good or bad policy at all. Constitutionally, the legislative branch is what has been set up. That is what is supposed to be the chief governing producer of new statutes and regulations that directly affect you. The executive is supposed to enforce those laws. The executive isn't supposed to issue a ton of laws. And the executive is not supposed to use the levers of foreign policy or the execution of certain laws as a way to get around legislation in Congress. This is a huge problem with Biden. This is again, why I have complained consistently on the show about prosecutorial discretion. The idea that an executive just says, I don't want to. I don't want to execute that law. No, thanks, and then ignores it. No, that's not right. And so when we're talking about these particular major Supreme Court decisions, not even getting to the reaction portion yet, but just this decision by the Supreme Court on the very basis of their argument in this case, they're not wrong for the iepa. And by the way, what Kavanaugh alleges later is supposed to be kind of a gotcha, I believe, from how I read it to the majority opinion. No, I think it's an accurate, very decent and correct portrayal of the power of the president. So I'm going to skip over the Kagan, Sotomayor, Brown, Jackson opinion in which they said, well, the president should have unlimited authority, just not Trump. That's literally their opinion. If it was Biden or Obama, let him do whatever he wants because it's Trump. So they're, they're garbage. I'm moving on. Now we get to the dissent. So I love Clarence Thomas, love Samuel Alito. Brett Kavanaugh wrote the longest dissent, and then Clarence Thomas wrote his own. Clarence Thomas is easy. He says Congress already gave president the power of the tariff. I disagree with that interpretation, but that's okay. You don't have to agree with me that I disagree with him there. That's fine. I hear Him. He's saying that the President already has the authority of the tariff. So why are we even here? I disagree. Because what is being struck down as the IEEPA specifically, and the Trump administration decided to use the IEEPA when they did this, which I don't think they should have. I think the President of the United States should have come in and issued embargoes, which is his constitutional right. So now my. Now my actual thoughts are revealed. The issue that I have with tariffs is that according to the IEP A, it's a broken system trying to negotiate. Nonsense. The President of the United States should issue embargoes. He has the authority under a series, a series of laws. Section 232, international security, section 301, unfair trade practices, section 122, balance of payments authority, section 338, the response to foreign discrimination, of course, section 201, this was a big deal during the 90s. Imports threatening domestic industry. And then last but certainly not least, Section 891. That's the retaliatory tax. He has these means. But when you have Howard Lutnick and Peter Navarro saying, oh, use the ieepa, guess what? Howard Lutnick and Peter Navarro are wrong consistently. Peter Navarro, who wanted to do the IEEPA since the beginning, didn't read to the end of the piece of legislation and recognize that's not what this law is for, that's not what it's here for. Peter Navarro needs to get over his fetish for national emergencies. That's the issue. There were better means to do this so that we'd have to go through all of this hullabaloo. But to Brett Kavanaugh's particular opinion, because I do think he has a pretty decent outline here, although it was really, really long. So first of all, he argued the IEPA's authority to regulate importation historically includes tariffs. And I didn't see anything that he was citing that showed that historic regulation of importation includes tariffs. Because, again, tariffs don't just affect the goods imported to the United States and the person selling the goods here. It affects you, the consumer as well. And I, by nature, a tariff is still an agreement making it a tax. He asserted the court improperly substituted its judgment for Congress's policy choices. There is absolutely a measure of truth in that he rejected the use of the major questions doctrine in national security and foreign affairs. This is where some of you guys are very likely disagreeing with me right now. You're saying, hey, the President does have ultimate authority over national security and foreign affairs. Not according to the Constitution. Now, if the law is vague and when that border is crossed, that I think needs to be specified and illustrated more specifically. That is a fault of Congress. Absolutely, he did. And then this is one of my favorite things. He noted that other statutes could still authorize tariffs with additional procedures. Yeah, absolutely. Wholeheartedly, completely. Now, this is kind of the big paragraph, the big context here. He said, quote, the plaintiffs in the court acknowledge that the IEEPA authorizes the President to impose quotas or embargoes on foreign imports, meaning that a President could completely block some or all imports, Correct? Absolutely. But they say the IEEPA does not authorize the President to employ the lesser power of tariffs. Note the term lesser power there. It's important. The President didn't like this either. He mentioned this today. It's because of the $1 remark. Specifically, he said, as they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China, but cannot order even a $1 tariff on the goods imported from China. This has been shared, especially by a lot of my friends from the Federalist who I admire and I think are excellent individuals. I disagree with them here, though, because again, the problem with the tariff is that it does not guarantee China pays the tariff in its entirety. That's the issue. The issue is that no foreign country has the ability, because of the executive, to be let into the country. Now, because of their framing of this, I think this brings into question the idea as to whether or not there could be damages sued for against the Biden administration. Because under the same cognizant argument by the majority here saying that, well, if the President allows people into the country to charge Americans or to be act inappropriately to take away their rights and property, in essence, and be a threat to them, cause damages, then they should have a method of legal recourse to sue the administration for not coming to their aid. Now, the big issue here is that tariffs are broken. Tariffs are broken. They don't work. And the reason they don't work in the term of the statutory law, when I went, by the way, when I say I don't work, hey, easy. But hang on for a second before you get to the keyboard. When I say tariffs do not work, I mean this. Tariffs are a negotiatory tool. They're a negotiation tool, meaning that we don't like something that a foreign country is doing. And so we are going to impose a tariff, meaning that it is going to be more expensive for the goods that that country sells here so that Americans will likely purchase other products when they go to the supermarket or construction business, import, etc. The issue is that as a negotiation tactic, which is how tariffs are effective, right? They are meant to be a cattle prod toward behavior. They're not meant to be. This is one of the reasons that they were kind of shunted to the side as an original funding mechanism for the United States. The reason they were useful as a funding mechanism for the early United States is that it took a month for countries to find out the negotiations from Congress. By that which time Congress was already done negotiating it and setting their hard limits and lines for a lot of those sessions were closed door anyway. Now imagine I own a business and I have. I'm going to do some negotiations with you, all right? And in order to decide these negotiations, how far I'm willing to compromise, what I'm willing to concede, you know, what I'm going to put on the table, I'm going to meet with my board. And while I'm meeting with my board, you stroll into the boardroom and you sit in the corner and you pull out your tape recorder and you start recording the entire boardroom meeting. All of the conversations that I'm having with my board are now useless, pointless, and a big waste of time because you are going to know what our hardline is, what, why we're doing the negotiation, what we want out of it, and it completely takes away the potency of what it's supposed to do. This is the issue with tariffs. China, Russia, anybody you on C span can tune in to Congress to hear them debate what it is that's going to come in or out of the tariff. Which means that tariffs can only functionally work in terms of their output based on the decisions behind closed doors of the President and the executive agencies of the United States, because they don't have to sit in front of you and discuss why they're doing the tariff or what for the point of tariffs and how they were originally set up. It's broken. It doesn't, it doesn't work anymore. The mechanism isn't there that functions. And again, and Kevin o' Leary pointed this out earlier today as well, realistically what we're debating are a VAT tax here. We're debating import taxes. And realistically here, tariffs are not just supposed to be a very common, just blanket that tag. It's not what, that's not how that's supposed to operate here. They are supposed to be negotiatory measures, which again, as I've already cited under several other very important statutes. The President of the United States does have the authority and is now by the way, imposing a 10% global tariff. Now under Section 122, the President invoking those tariffs again as a national security measure. Here's the part. Because it's a national security measure in between 100 and 180 days, I think Congress will have to approve it. Congress will have to approve or deny and therefore allow to expire those particular tariffs. So that said, now I want to, I want to talk a little bit about some of the overcurrent conversation regarding what the President actually should do. Because I've said before, when the President of the United States uses tariffs as a short term immediate pressure point of leverage, that is a thing that works and I very much approve of as a long term policy, tariffs on bananas from Madagascar. That's not useful. It's not useful. And the trade deficit language is, as some in the administration have pointed out, in contrast to Lutnik, really, really overblown as its, its contrast and impact on the American economy divide despite the fact that, you know, the word deficit sounds really, really bad. So what is the President to do? What, what should he do? The President should embargo. Yeah, the President should embargo. He has the constitutional authority to restrict imports from certain countries. So embargo them. Yes, absolutely. That's the answer. The idea that we're going to let your goods continue into the country so that you make money, but now we're going to make Americans pay more for them and so therefore less of your product will be sold. Why are we putting a band aid on cancer? I, I don't, I don't understand that. Yeah, the President should embargo. The President should use the full constitutional authority that he has absolutely this kind of soft handed elitism that we need to use these goofy daycare playground kumbaya manners to execute certain policy I very much disagree on. I don't believe the tariffs are strong enough. I don't. If China is big enough as a threat to levy tariffs on, then they should be big enough to embargo and bring to the negotiating table for future terms. And if Congress doesn't want to do something regarding long term economic policy by levying a tax or a tariff on a foreign country based on certain practices that they believe have to be compensated for or accounted for, again outside of the national security direct means regarding steel, automotive and some tech, putting those aside, then that's on us to throw those congresspeople out and elect Better people. And if we can't get enough people to do that again, that is on us. That's why I'm doing this. Hopefully God willingly there is someone who listens to this and goes, yeah, you know what? I'm going to go vote in the primary. I'm going to get involved in the primary. I'm going to encourage people that I know to go vote in the primary. I'm gonna make life a living hell for these individuals over here or there who aren't doing what I want them to do, who instead of doing things that are useful, are whining and complaining every single day about everything except for issues the Americans, by polling data, care about. And vote no on everything though I'm in the party that's trying to pass some of these key pieces of legislation like certain representatives in Kentucky for example, that is still an onus on the American people. The idea that we can fix this by just giving the executive more and more and more authority. No. Every single republic that has ever given national emergency unilateral authority to the executive has fallen and has fallen by that very sword. No, because Congress sucks. Is not Congress's fault. You sent them there. I sent them there. I didn't vote for my particular Congress person in the primary. The next primary. I'm going to work harder for me, Tony Kennett in the Indiana Congress, Congressional 6th to hopefully put a better person in office than the person who is currently there. That's the point. That's how that is supposed to. It's supposed to be a marathon. And again, that particular, that particular thing aside, I do want to tackle through some of the responses today cuz again there were some really good ones that the President immediately jumped to a huge conversation, big press conference, said some interesting things and then we got some really silly comments from the left who took a victory lap that was a little strange for him. And then of course some on the right who have gone nuclear over things that just aren't worth going nuclear over. We're going to dig into them. It's the Tony Kinnit cast here on the Daily Signal. Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back. It's the tony kennett cast on 93 wypc. The President of the United States, after the stocks immediately started playing jump rope, got up in front of the country and announced, I mean unsurprisingly that he really wasn't particularly pleased with these results from the Supreme Court of the United States.
- [52:51]
Donald Trump
And great, again, they also are a frankly disgrace to our nation. Those justices, they're an automatic no, no matter how good a case you have it said no. But you can't knock their loyalty. It's one thing you can do with some of our people. Others think they're being politically correct, which has happened before far too often with certain members of this court, and it's happened so often with this court. What a shame having to do with voting in particular, when in fact they're just being fools and lapdogs for the Rhinos and the radical left Democrats. And not that this should have anything at all to do with it. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the court.
- [53:46]
Tony Kennett
So he finishes out that particular frame by saying that he doesn't believe what the court did was right or appropriate, that it was a very personal decision. Um, again, a lot of people started freaking out, saying, oh, how could he, how could they got out the pearls, you know, oh, he, he called the courts a disgrace. Oh, no, it's so terrible. Yeah. I mean, Donald Trump says what he thinks more at 11. I, I, I'm not upset. Of course he wasn't gonna be pleased by this particular court case. The people who have, have made that a big point of the day. Oh, he said, oh, Trump said that they, they, they were foreign influenced. Oh, it's so how could he allege such things? That here, here was here was that. What will you say to foreign nations who seek to renegotiate their deals? And what did you mean a moment ago when you said that the Supreme Court has been swayed by foreign interests?
- [54:31]
Donald Trump
Well, I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence. They have a lot of influence over the Supreme Court, whether it's through fear or respect or friendships, I don't know. But I know some of the people that were involved on the other side, and I don't like them. I think they're real slime balls and got to do what's right for the country. You got to do what's right for the Constitution. That's why I respect so much Justice Thomas and Alito Kavanaugh, because they not only dissented, their dissent is so strong, when you read their dissent, you know, a lot of times you'll read a dissent and it's like, well, you don't know. It could go either way. There's no other way. The good news is it's like Justice Kavanaugh said very strongly, said, you have other ways you can go. You don't have to go that way. You can go other way. There are numerous other ways you can go. And frankly, this should have been done by presidents many years ago.
- [55:27]
Tony Kennett
Hey, there it is. So this is an acknowledgment from the President of the United States. So Brett Kavanaugh said, hey, the President has other means to do this that are constitutional. Yeah, wholeheartedly agree. Please do not take what I have gone through, the court's decision under the IEEPA as some kind of a rote condemnation of certain actions of the President. I have criticized Peter Navarro because he has no idea what he's doing when he reads laws ever. Howard Lutnick is hit or miss. Scott Besant is pretty reliable on this particular thing. Besant has been making this case for a very, very long time. In fact, Besant has been so consistent on this, he didn't even change his notes when he talked about the decision for the first time today.
- [56:14]
Scott Bessant
I would also like to take a moment to address today's Supreme Court ruling. And I would note that I did not change a single word in my speech post the ruling. President Trump will always put our national security in Americans first. And as I have said before, the president has multiple tools in his toolbox. Let's be clear about what today's ruling was and what it wasn't. Despite the misplaced gloating from Democrats, ill informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the court did not rule against President Trump's tariffs. Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even $1 of revenue.
- [57:02]
Tony Kennett
That's correct. That's correct. That that is what they had ruled.
- [57:07]
Scott Bessant
This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEPA tariffs. We will be leveraging section 232 and section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges. Treasury's estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.
- [57:40]
Tony Kennett
Now, here's why that's important, because what do the markets really like? Stability. The markets like stability. What did Besant do when the market started going jump rope territory started looking like an ekg? Beson stepped forward and said, hey, nothing's really changing. This is clearly what. And this is why I did the entire reading of the Supreme Court thing. I'm not trying to bore you. I'm not trying to give you like a standard lecture, you know, section, you know, 232 and 307 and 86753. Darn it. I should have played the Jenny bumper. You know, you just kind of have to look at the stuff that's there. Instead of the social media accounts which are telling you things that are ridiculous. I'm seeing left and right leaning accounts today. They're like, oh, the Supreme Court needs to be tried on treason. And then the left going, oh, Trump is gonna be sent to jail. No. Quit giving these people your clicks and your time. It's fine. And the markets responded in the manner of it's fine. Because after Bessant got out in front and said very clearly now, again, Besson didn't like the decision. We'll talk about that in a minute. But when Bessant clearly outlined what was going on, what was happening again, the Trump administration was anticipating this decision coming down for months. They enacted their new tariff policies, the same tariff policies, the 10% global tariff policy that Trump really wants because he thinks it's really going to be effective for the economy. Everyone told you that it was going to be the best thing ever. It was going to surges forward. That didn't happen. Everyone told you we were all going to die and it was going to crash the economy. That didn't happen. It hasn't metered out yet. So in the process of that, like in that particular context, Well, I mean, I'm just a little confused. It kind of, you know, the shock and the awe today. I mean, we've been watching this one fly in for a while here now. There was something that upset the President of the United States. He, he, he, Trump really enjoys the lows and the highs and makes for a good story. It's why he's again, the storyteller when it comes to entertainment. You know, I could cure every disease. I could cure the most debilitating. I could cure cancer. And they would not stand and clap for me. Would you look at you shaking your head? You wouldn't clap for me. That's Trump. Right? So he makes the same case today from the dissenting opinion by Brett Kavanaugh and kind of rallies it this way. You can kind of hear him holding this idea in his head and just kind of looking at it. It's just interesting to see from the
- [60:01]
Donald Trump
president to show you how ridiculous the opinion is. However, the court said that I'm not allowed to charge even $1. I can't charge $1, can't charge a dollar. I would have used one penny. But we don't make the pennies anymore. We save money. Can't charge $1 to any country under IPA. Not $1, I assume to protect other countries. This must have been done to protect those other countries, certainly not the United States of America.
- [60:32]
Tony Kennett
Now again, going from the beginning because again, this is where he'll go in and say, oh, clearly because it didn't benefit the United States, there was foreign asset. You know, Trump not particularly pleased with this, but he contrast said I'm not allowed to charge China a dollar, but I am allowed to embargo them. So the answer to that is yeah, because China's not paying the entire dollar. China's not paying the entire dollar. China, depending on how he enacts the tariffs, China may pay 60% of the dollar, China may pay 80% of the dollar, but China doesn't pay the entire dollar. And because you and I will inevitably pay part of the dollar, he doesn't have the authority under IEEPA to do it. Now again, he can embargo China. Absolutely. And there are a number of different ways the legal language matters here because long term policy negotiated in a manner that messes with your rights and property is kind of off limits. It's supposed to be off limits. And so again, I wholly agree. The President of the United States is trying to do a lot of things with the negotiations. He has used tariffs in certain ways to negotiate the end of wars, some of them before they started. Thank God he was able to negotiate between India and Pakistan by threatening to buy tariffs, cut them off from the international market. That is a major achievement. Absolutely. But also again, some of the 10% global tariff stuff under the law that he was told to sign it into being under. No, some of this stuff belongs in other sections. Now you can say, well that doesn't really matter. Well, the tariffs went back up today, so there you go. Didn't matter. And it got flipped around real quick. Now you know, as to the, you know, this is all like a really huge kind of long game conversation. I, I, I, I would, I'd very much caution you against the, oh well, this was all meant to happen. They put it under the IEEPA so that this could be overturned and they do something. I don't think so. I think that Peter Navarro thought he was slick and the groups that were supposed to catch these kinds of things at the think tank for that administration goofed and it was kind of asking for it. And I mean, you know, again, interesting to see, you know, regarding Roberts, things like this, uh, there, there is one thing that I really did enjoy. It's Trump recognizing that again, because now Trump is not going to be dancing around with ipa, but he is going to essentially be using more national security based tariffs. And I sure hope to have an embargo, please. It'd be awesome. The idea that we have to treat something like we're gonna like gently talk down some foreign dictator. Please, just. By all means, yeah, do some embargoing. It's excellent stuff. But anyway, Trump did the Emperor Palpatine thing today, Episode three Revenge of the Sith, when you know, Anakin cuts off Windu's arm and then Palpatine goes. Power, Unlimited power. Incredible, incredible stuff. Trump did that today and I loved it. I couldn't stop laughing.
- [63:36]
Donald Trump
In actuality, why? While I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court's decision today made a president's ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear rather than less. I don't think they meant that.
- [63:56]
Tony Kennett
So regardless of, you know, Trump saying he didn't think they meant it. That is true. That is true. The Supreme Court made it clear. Here's your yes, here's the no. That's one of the things that Supreme Courts are supposed to do. One of the amazing superpowers of the Supreme Court is to remind huge swaths of the American populace of facets of American law and precedent that they forgot existed. That is truly Clarence Thomas a superpower. That man knows former court cases like my ex knew other guys phone numbers. You know what I'm saying? I'm just joking. I. In this particular context, I, I think that there is a lot of truth that if the President of the United States is going to do peace through strength, if he is going to carry the big stick, then he should carry the appropriate stick. That's fine with me. Again, this is why I'm not saying, oh, this is the worst thing ever or oh, this is amazing. Oh, ha ha ha. Now we asked it. But no, there are people in his administration who tell him stupid things. I don't want the stupid people next to him. I want the competent, smart, always on the ball, ready at a moment's notice. People in the administration. That's who I want next to him. I want Scott Bessant to be directing policy when it comes to. I want Marco Rubio directing foreign policy. Absolutely. Now, there were some other takes of this as well. J.D. vance, as much as I love him, and again, as his doppelganger, you know, I'm obviously quite a fan of the vice president. His Take on the Supreme Court I didn't particularly care for. Today he said, quote, today the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the President the ability to regulate imports, didn't actually mean it. No, Mr. Vice President, love you. Think the world of you. That's not what happened. He said this is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. It's not. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the President to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency. So here's the kind of populist, isolationist idea is that, oh man, now that all these tariffs are gone, all of the companies that invested in the United States, they're all going to go away. I'm gonna let you in on a little bit of a secret. If you go back to the press conferences in which the major industries that announced huge investments in manufacturing into the United States, listen to their speeches, seriously listen to what it is that they praise the President for. Two thirds of it nothing to do with the tariffs. Two thirds of it has to do with deregulation and encouraging certain aspects in integration into the new United States economy and bringing forward and cutting out certain permit and regulatory process. You know the stuff that J.B. pritzker is currently crying about, that's what got them to stay. Because guys, you think the terrorists were going to stick around through the end of the Trump administration if a Democrat takes office and the company doesn't know that? Only the companies that were waiting knew that. Not the companies that made big investments like Mercedes Benz, I guess. Apparently has a bunch of idiots working for him that didn't know that the terrorists probably weren't going to be here forever. Of course they knew that. Some of the best work the Trump administration is doing, yes, in part due to his negotiation skills with tariffs, most of it due to the amazing people he's appointing, looking at the deregulatory processes that allow them to get their foot in the door, which Biden wouldn't let them do, and put roots in the ground here again and allow them to develop tech for automation so they don't have to go to Southeast Asia and hire a bunch of unreliable slave wage labor. That's the key success. And it continues to be the key success. Score port. Scoreboard. Scoreboard. And so yeah, I'm, I am unashamedly optimistic. Unashamedly. I, I, I, I read the entire supreme, even Gorsuch saying, look, I know people, a lot of people, they, they really like tariffs. Congress should be passing long term tariffs. He's right. He is. And how, how do I know he's right, because Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio got out today and said, you know what? We need to, through the reconciliation process, pass a bunch of these tariffs into law. Yeah. If that's what the American people want, then that's what they should get. Now here's the fun part, because, guys, what are we in primary season? If you get through a bunch of tariffs and all of a sudden you have a bunch of people in the House and in the Senate who don't pass these tariffs that you, the American people want, you can go to the primary and elect someone who says, oh, yeah, I'll vote in the tariffs. And then if they get in and they don't vote in the tariffs that you wanted them to, then you grab them, coat them in tar, stick some feathers on and find your nearest Norfolk Southern rail to ride them out on. It's kind of cool. Good times, fun for the whole family. Get yourself a bucket of KFC chicken. Make it an afternoon. So, all right. So that the President, the Vice President's particular response. Besant did have another criticism of the decision that I think was different in this instance and a little bit more telling. This was to Will Kaine, good friend of the show this afternoon.
- [69:00]
Scott Bessant
Today was at a loss for the American people because by taking away President Trump's instantaneous leverage using the IPA authority, the American people have suffered a significant setback. Think to this time last year when President Trump put on the fentanyl tariffs against Mexico, Canada, China for the precursor chemicals. And then we saw a rapid decline in fentanyl deaths. If that's not an emergency authority, what was on October 8th when the Chinese government said that they were going to put a worldwide export control on any product that had 0.01% Chinese rare earths in it. 24 hours later, President Trump said that he would impose 100% tariff on China if they did it. They immediately came to the negotiating table and we were able to negotiate a one year extension. So in terms of the direction of travel, national security, how we will get there with these deals, revenue, nothing has changed. But what has changed? The Supreme Court has taken away the President's leverage. But in a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconians because they agreed he does have the right to afford full embargo.
- [70:14]
Tony Kennett
Correct. Here's the real rub. This is essentially USAID for the right. This is USAID for the right. USAID was the presidential slush fund through the Cold War so that John F. Kennedy could get something for you by Bribing someone away from the Soviets, that was the point of usaid. And then it became a bastardized nightmare. As far as this particular instance regarding these, you know, the tariff policy and such, the President of the United States no longer has the ability to just declare national emergency under the ieepa. He has to use other sections. And there has to be a bit more of an official announcement, making it a bit slower. But this allows the groups to come in and do a little bit of strategy and high policy. And again, yes, a little bit more draconian. Yeah. Because sometimes other countries don't respond to the nice Kumbaya style of things. So that, you know, last but not least on this, that brings us to Kevin o' Leary on CNN with a really good take and then from JB Pritzker, just an awful take. So first of all, we'll do the awful take from Pritzker. We'll finish on a good note here. The Supreme Court just confirmed what we already knew. Trump's tariffs are illegal. Not what they said. He did it without the support of Congress or the voters. Also not true. You could have said without the support of Congress. That have been true. But without support of the voters. According to the polling data, there was an initial surge of support for the tariffs and you paid the price. He illegally took seventeen hundred dollars from every American family. That is not true. Suggesting that a rough estimate of averages that Americans have theoretically paid if we all bought the same foreign based products, means that all of us would have probably kind of got $1,700. Letting it. No, because what is he gonna do? He's gonna then say that Trump owes you a check for 1700. That's a tax on working people.
- [72:10]
Matt Davis
Donald Trump now owes you a refund.
- [72:12]
Tony Kennett
There it is, every dollar of it. No, no. And by the way, the Supreme Court kind of made this case. We can't really give the money back to anybody because some companies ate part of the tariff, you ate part of the tariff depending on what products you bought, depending on where it's imported from and when. Some people don't like some of the foreign brands that are coming in, they're buying from. Some really, really enjoy some of those foreign brands. So they paid more into it. There's no record of this. There's no way to mete it out. It's not a thing. You can't just go seventeen hundred dollars for everybody. It's not. No, that's not a thing. Stupid, stupid. Kevin o' Leary though, by the way, again, if we're gonna get into semantics. The VAT tax thing that Trump is proposing, the 10% global tariff, I think is a much better manner of saying it. And again, I think he does a pretty great job, especially as a pretty decent mind on the economy to say so. So do you think in the big picture fewer tariffs are going to be better for the world? Because I understand you're talking about this specific situation, but do you think reining in the president, preventing this from happening again under some other president in the future will prevent more of these types of messes? No, it was just these tariffs opposed as a penalty. There's nothing wrong with reciprocal tariffs. If a country adds a 10% VAT tax and we don't call it VAT tax in the US we'll just do a 10% tariff. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the stable tariff negotiation that's gone on forever. But you've got situations where punitive tariffs were used during this period. The Supreme Court looked at and ruled on, you know, this morning and said, no, you can't do that. That's a tax. And Congress wasn't consulted. But no one. Again, the question is who pays the tax? But he's correct here. The idea that the 10% tax crashed the global economy, as I've said before, the entire world economy is built on the United States. The entire thing. It is honest to God, the mastermind move of Richard Nixon because up to a certain point in history, that being from the end of the Second World War, middle of the Second World War really. But the end of the Second World War through today, the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe, sustained Africa from falling into eternal disease and then through usaid, kept south and Central America mostly out of the Soviets pockets. Everyone likes to talk about all of the coups the CIA did in Central America. Have very little idea of how awful it could have gotten with Soviet satellite states full swing here in our hemisphere to a size and scope they could have been. Look at how much trouble Cuba was, for example, and then China through Nixon opening it up and making China reliant on the United States economy and I mean it is glued to our economy means that now whether you're in brics or if you are in the rest of the kind of the free Western trade world, your economy's dependent on ours. And again, Trump does understand that. So he does have leverage to use the economy at a time when the military may not necessarily be necessary. You say, Tony, you're kind of saying some things that are maybe a little in disagreement with some of the earlier stuff you said. Well, yeah, I mean, it's a complex issue and I'm talking it through here. If you think I'm reading from a script. No, I'm, I, I have like bullet points and then some of the tweets and things I'm reading. I'm talking this out with y' all because it deserves talking about. There was a question that came in during the, the show. I realize it's, you know, 8:21 now from Bobby B. 9:12. Was this ruling worth an entire show? Yeah, absolutely. It was worth an entire show. It's worth an entire show because it impacts you. It's worth an entire show because there are a lot of people just bold face lying to you about it. I don't care for that from the left or the right. And then last but certainly not least, I kind of like walking through some of these things with you. It's interesting. I mean, it is good. A more informed populace. Not from some NPR drone telling you what to think, but just kind of walking through some of these things. It's useful, it's beneficial. I will move from that particular thing to one very last because right before the show, Trump did officially sign in the 10% global tariffs back into existence. This little CNN exchange with Jake Tapper today did give me the giggles. CNN's Vanessa Yurkiewicz is here. Vanessa, give us the reality check. Can President Trump impose these new tariffs? Yes. Yes, he can, Jake. It's funny. It's funny. Everything's all over. It's the end. Oh, it's not relaxed. Friday, February 20th. Nah, things are fine. We're having fun. So those things aside, I've got a little bit of Ilhan Omar and this may be just a smidge longer for a bonus tonus this evening, a little announcement, a special announcement from our Elise McHugh. I told you I liked good people in the administration and so we're sending them one of ours. We're going to get to that here in just a minute. Don't go anywhere. Tony Kenneth cast here on the Daily Signal. This is the Tony Kennett cast on 93 WIBC. Welcome back to the Tony Kenneth cast here on the Daily Signal. Nationally syndicated, first on 93 WIBC. Ilhan Omar is really unhappy. She's really unhappy. And she's unhappy for a couple of reasons. She's pretty bummed because the federal government is continually investigating fraud. Now that, that, that upsets her. Um, she's, she doesn't like this investigating fraud stuff, whether it's, it's Ghost student accounts that are fleecing money from Minnesota schools and universities, whether that's Medicare, Medicaid fraud. She doesn't like it when people look into that fraud because she says there is no fraud and it doesn't exist and they're not actually doing any investigation here. She was yelling about this today outside of an ICE facility.
- [78:21]
Ilhan Omar
When Operation Paris was announced in January, we knew that use US CIS would have a hard time finding fraud.
- [78:33]
Tony Kennett
We knew that US Customs and Immigration Services would have a hard time finding fraud. Are you kidding me, homie? We have found more fraud in Minnesota under every rock, tree and lake then we have found acne on your local Burger King fry cook.
- [78:58]
Ilhan Omar
Refugees are among the most vetted people in the entire world.
- [79:03]
Tony Kennett
As a little bit of a fact check there, up until a few weeks ago, the United States outsourced the vetting of every single Somali immigrant to Kenya, one of the most corrupt countries in Africa. I'll say that again. She says the refugees most vetted. All of the refugees from Somalia, including Ilhan Omar, was not vetted by the United States, was vetted by Kenya, a foreign government. We did not vet her. We do not vet or did not vet people from Somalia. We do now because Marco Rubio said that's retarded to vet people through foreign countries. Bold face lie.
- [79:41]
Ilhan Omar
People wait years, even decades to get through the vetting process of the FBI and dhs, Defense Department and multiple security agencies.
- [79:52]
Tony Kennett
Again, a lie. People are deciding they want to come to the United States. They're showing up here, they declare I'm refugee and then they're just allowed to stay forever. There's no 14 stage agency walk through. Get out of here. You're such a bad liar.
- [80:07]
Ilhan Omar
There is absolutely no reason for Trump to claim there is a rampant fraud in the refugee system because we know this isn't about fraud. This is about targeting people from black and brown countries.
- [80:20]
Tony Kennett
Simply black and brown. What are black and brown countries?
- [80:24]
Ilhan Omar
Bully. Because Stephen Miller doesn't want us here.
- [80:27]
Tony Kennett
Again, I love the constant anger at Stephen Miller because he's just very pointed about his position. I would love to let you in on a little bit of a secret. There are a lot of people in the United States who feel certain ways about immigration, whether it comes from a country, you know, red and yellow, black and white, they don't care. They, they really don't like the fraud. You guys see the protest in the United States over the illegal Europeans who were deported? Oh, you didn't. Oh, it's cuz. It doesn't matter. What color they are. People want the illegal activity in the United States to stop. But why was Ilhan, you know, there anyway? Why is she so worked up? Well, she's so worked up because she showed up to this ICE facility to. To visit with these illegal immigrants that were being shipped on home. And by the time she got there, they were already gone.
- [81:18]
Scott Bessant
Thank you.
- [81:19]
Elise McHugh
When did you give notice?
- [81:21]
Tony Kennett
And I just want to make sure you did not see any detainees. No, we gave notice eight days ago. We got confirmation yesterday that we were going to be allowed in, and the last detainee was taken out at 11:30am
- [81:42]
Matt Davis
30 minutes before we were set to arrive.
- [81:48]
Tony Kennett
Oh, the pain. It's so funny because now they're mad. What are you yelling at them for? They had their due process. They had their removal orders. And you think that just because you're Congressman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, I get to meet with that? Why? No, none of that works. Again, see, this would be the legal authority going the other way. See, the legislative has no ability or authority to drop in and go, I'm a congressman. Let me in. No, that's not how that works.
- [82:23]
Donald Trump
What about the children are released in
- [82:25]
Tony Kennett
T shirts on Wednesday?
- [82:26]
Ilhan Omar
And we also did ask, you know, how many. How many people came through today?
- [82:33]
Tony Kennett
So she ignores the question from, like, the reporter, and she's like, oh, and also we asked how many people if leaving Pittsburgh at 46 miles an hour and leaving Cleveland at 21 miles an hour, when will they meet in Poughkeepsie?
- [82:50]
Ilhan Omar
Which is why it felt convenient that no one was there. They said 10 when. When we first got there, and 10 were gone. And then they said there were another five. And so I circled back and I said, can we go and see the five that are here because we have privacy release forms? And they said, no, we cannot permit you to go into the cell to see the detainees. And I said, well, we don't need to go into the cell. We can, you know, put the forms.
- [83:21]
Tony Kennett
The woman next door is like, put the interpretive dance,
- [83:26]
Ilhan Omar
slide them in, and then we can look through the glass and see what their conditions look like. And then they oohed and ahh for a little bit. And then conveniently, as they were taking us towards the cell, someone said, there's not a single person left. And they took us into an empty cell.
- [83:44]
Tony Kennett
Now, that's funny. Now that's funny. So they essentially, they're doing, like, the slow walk, and. And then, you know, they get to the cell and it's like, oh, my good, great. Scott Jimothy, you've taken us to the wrong cell. This one isn't the right. Oh, that's because it's at the other end of the cell. So then they walk all the way through the facility. Other end. And he's like, goodness, Jimothy, you've done it again. This cell is empty. There's no one here. Oh, it's great. Oh, it's great. I love it so much. A big, you know, a big just cheer for Ilhan Omar. Yeah, just real great, real special. May your day to become denaturalized and deported come soon enough. So, I mean, you know, we have Somalis in Minneapolis who are now demanding you give them even more money. The last 18 billion, 19 billion wasn't enough.
- [84:35]
Ilhan Omar
So, you know, leave programs fits into our criteria. Somalia of small business owners, not Those who makes 200,000 and above.
- [84:46]
Tony Kennett
We don't make that much a month. And we have been suffering since the crisis of ice. We also demand an immediate help to evictions so families are not pushed to homelessness during the crisis. I do like how you couldn't really understand what she said until we got to the demand money part. Then that was enunciated in perfect English. I do enjoy that. That's always, that's always fun. So exciting things from Minneapolis in encouragement. Apparently there's a lot of outrage that a lot of the drawdown of ICE in Minneapolis from Tom Homan has now apparently meant that they're just moving to the surrounding suburbs. And it's really upset a lot of people because, yeah, a lot of them aren't in Minneapolis anymore. You got it. Your wishes are command. We'll just go to the circle of areas surrounding the twin cities, which I don't know. Again, just the sense of irony that leaves a smile on my face. So again, speaking of the Department of Homeland Security, now I'm gonna bring it over to, well, I'd say a rather sad thing for us here. So don't go anywhere. One little more back in the break and it's the Tony Kennett cast here on the Daily Signal. This is the Tony Kennett cast on 93 WIBC. We now have the bittersweet pleasure of for the last time going over to Elise McHugh, my colleague over at the Daily Signal, co host of The Tony Kennedcast 2024 election coverage, where we gave our editor in chief a heart attack by tearing into two 20 ounce ribeyes on screen. Elise, how's it going?
- [86:46]
Elise McHugh
You said it exactly right, Tony. Today is bittersweet. And when I'm thinking about all the times that I had great memories here at the Daily Signal, top of mind was flying out to Indiana, getting away from D.C. during Donald Trump's historic sharing a steak with you, and getting chewed out for having a water bottle on your table.
- [87:05]
Tony Kennett
That's true. But it was a phenomenal evening. Excellent stuff. And now you are preparing to work in that exact administration coming off the heels of that victory. So I don't believe anyone at the Daily Signal yet at least has heard what exact role you're going to be performing in the Trump administration. I'm going to ask very, very kindly what you're going to be doing there, Tony.
- [87:29]
Elise McHugh
I am giving you a Tony Kinnick cast exclusive. I am so excited and proud to announce that I will be joining the Department of Homeland Security in the role of Assistant Press Secretary. It's extremely bittersweet to leave the Daily Signal, but I am overjoyed to get to join the Trump administration.
- [87:45]
Tony Kennett
Excellent stuff. Thrilled to see it. I know there's a lot of different moving parts right now, and that means that you probably want a press secretary who actually keeps an eye on, on the various bits and pieces of news that are flying around. Different administrators, whether they're undersecretaries, whether they're border czars and all of the various regions. That's one of the things that at least when you worked with us here on the Tony Kennett cast side of things or with the Daily Signal more broadly, you always really excelled in keeping a hand on the pulse. And it has to be a hand. There's no, no finger on the pulse shenanigans here. You have to keep your whole hand hanging on for dear life. To the various stories coming out from either DHS actions in Los Angeles all the way up to Minneapolis, of course, the developing situations that we see regarding violence around the country, keeping a talented and a perceptive, a circumspect head when it comes to press secretary roll, something we know you are going to excel in and we're really excited to see it. Also. Now I get to, you know, anytime I have an anonymous story that I want to make up, I can just attribute it to you.
- [88:47]
Elise McHugh
Oh yeah. Well, make sure that you say senior DHS official and don't attribute my name, but call me something really fancy.
- [88:56]
Tony Kennett
Just a thought here to pick your brain because obviously everyone gets out and they make the LinkedIn style announcements. You know, I'm humbled, honored, humbered to announce I'm going that kind of a thing. When you Got the offer for this particular role. What's the first thing that went through your mind? Just out of sheer curiosity here.
- [89:15]
Elise McHugh
The first thing that went through my mind was, oh, my gosh, do they think I'm Latina and that's why they want me there?
- [89:28]
Tony Kennett
No.
- [89:28]
Elise McHugh
But in all seriousness, this does feel like an opportunity I never could have dreamed that would come my way. I always thought I was going to be in journalism as well. You know, after my mom said, you can't go to theater school, I then thought I was always going to be in journalism. So to get this amazing, historic opportunity to work in the most historic presidency of our lives, I'm just gonna say it. It really is. We're never gonna see anything like it. And, you know, my parents have never seen anything like it before. To get this opportunity, I knew I just had to jump on this train and not look back. And, you know, I'll be looking at the Daily Signal now as a fan instead of a producer. But I'm really excited to get started.
- [90:04]
Tony Kennett
Very proud of you. Thrilled to see what you're gonna do. And I think I speak for all of us when I say we're gonna miss you very much, Tony.
- [90:10]
Elise McHugh
I'm gonna miss you extremely much. But I'm so excited to keep tuning in every single night.
- [90:15]
Tony Kennett
All right, little time here just at the end, but a mail time. Couple of questions that came in that I thought are particularly good for answering before we head out to that weekend, which, again, yet another weekend in which we're looking at the situation developing in the Middle East. If we do get wind of the sound of Tomahawk missiles and JDAMs, we'll be back online. Even if I have to be shaken awake, we'll cover that one when it comes in. So those things aside, some really kind questions that came in that I. I wasn't particularly expecting, but from Omega Sparrow. Good question. Said, I'm thinking, why would we go to war when that's not our mess and the UN should be the one talking or negotiating? Why us? I thought America first. Okay, so two things. First of all, yeah, that's our mess first. So that would be the first and foremost, the Straits of Hormuz. Also Aden. A lot of trade does go through that region. Number two, we have a lot of interests and assets that are in the region that have, in fact, killed Americans. And the idea that the Iranian mullahs get to do what it is that they do, and we're restricted by some international law that doesn't exist to not, like, throw A JDAM down the throat of this dude. Why would be my counter? Why not? That'd be more my take. I'm a very Teddy Rooseveltian American imperialist. I think that the dumbest thing the United States ever did was giving up Cuba and the Philippines. And don't get me started on Panama. So, you know, I mean, as far as America first. Yeah. Having Persia instead of Iran, that's America first. It absolutely is. Because it's better for us. And if we can do that without some big nation building nonsense, whatever, then great. I mean, I've been promised Iraq 2.0 37 times in a row at this point. It hasn't happened once again as the Midwesterner scoreboard. So, yeah, I mean, that's. That's just my particular take on. On that one there. So a couple of questions tonight that asked it as a Hoosier, if I'm excited to gain the Chicago Bears in Indiana since they're building their stadium up in Hammond, the answer is, I really don't care. I've said. I mean, I'm sorry I've said it before. I really love college football. Love it. Love college basketball obsessively. The only professional league that I follow is the mlb. That's really it. Other than that, I prefer college sports almost to a T. So I don't really care about the NFL. I don't. I hate the Bears. I don't really care for them at all. I just like. I mean, I love the super fans. I like the culture around it. Yeah, sure, grand. But I really think my favorite part of this whole thing is that Chicago is weeping and gnashing their teeth in the tears. That's. That makes me happy to see people from Chicago upset. I mean, that, I mean, is a Hoosier. That almost makes me as happy as Ohio being turned into a lake and being called lake inferior. I'm teasing. So, yeah, I mean, great. Yeah. Business opportunity. Way to stick it to Brandon Johnson and J.B. pritzker. Neat. Great. Okay, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm not exactly excited. From sj. From S. Jack Cat. Whatever happened with Ilhan Omar's apparent cider vinegar attack at her town hall? That faded quickly. Yeah, I mean, it wasn't necessarily like a huge, huge deal anyway. Crazy people do in fact be crazy. The real answer is everyone's tired. That's a real secret. A lot of Americans are just exhausted of this news cycle. We have been in the same general news cycle and sludge, really, since about halfway through December of 25. And so since we've been in that mire, even events that might get a little more attention, there are a lot of people that just are now accepting the new normal, that chaos is the rule. You know, that's, that's, that's kind of my, my take there from Drops Homestead. Do you think Congress should pass a law saying if you don't build it here, you don't sell it here, and then make very few exceptions until you can? No, I don't. I think that Americans should be able to benefit from international trade. Absolutely. I, I don't think the idea that, and, and autocracy, where the United States has to make everything here, that doesn't work for any country that does it. I don't, I don't. In, in the modern day and age, I don't, I don't necessarily think it particularly works. I think that we should work to make our country incredibly seductive for other businesses to set up shop here. And then I think that we should take countries that participate in things like slavery and embargo them. That's, that's kind of my, you know, kind of do or die kind of tough guy stance on it, supposedly. So, yeah, those things said. Last question here from Goat Slobber Tony. I get mail from local colleges with names not my own, and colleges won't talk to me about potential go students. Your thoughts? I mean, honest, Honest to goodness, if you're getting mail to your address from colleges and doesn't have your name or anyone that's. That's registered there at that address, reach out to us over@tonykinnit.com T O N Y K I N n e t t.com share some of that stuff with us and we can at least forward it to some of the journalists who are currently looking into this because, yeah, maybe you found something. Would you expect me to just brush that off? No, absolutely not. We really like that you guys send those kind of things in. Last question from Danetta518. Here is Bad Bunny a byproduct of Epstein Island? I don't, I don't think so. I, I think that he is just a product of like, mediocre musicians and there's really not a lot of great music that's being produced today. I think that's a big part of it. Maybe that's a big, you know, kind of a, you know, wow, you know, kind of a thing. We've, we've moved into the age of individualized creators. Instead of people getting together with others in their garages and creating things and while maybe there are a lot of benefits to this particular way of doing the creative market, there's also a lot of negatives to it as well. And I think that some of the Clash thrown together style ideas that are elevated that come out of it, especially in the form of music. It's kind of a. It's kind of a big loss. We talked about this a lot. I used to play in a jazz orchestra, and this is a conversation we. We got into quite frequently about the jazz standards becoming really old and stale. And then in the modern age for us right now, I should say kind of the postmodern music age, all of the jazz standards are just written in difficult time signatures and made to sound kind of new age, or it's the most basic interpretation of a pop song to be played in jazz. I'm sorry if I'm starting off a Christmas jazz concert breaking my wrist, doing the Mariah Carey G chord at the beginning. That's not breaking any ground. That's not really new. So I think that's one of the things that's kind of suffered a little anecdote you didn't ask for. So what did I play? Oh, I do play piano and then vocals. So piano is my favorite. And then the reason the piano and the vocals is perfect pitch. I can hear notes and tell you what they are kind of that, that whole shebang. So. Oh, another. I already said last question, but why not? Okay, who is my favorite musical artist? Tony? I, I. It would be difficult. Probably one of the. The artists that cover the bumpers that you've heard, I'd argue. I mean, my favorite jazz group is probably a modern group called Snarky Puppy. I think they're really, really good. I love mashups and mixes. My favorite mashup mix artist who takes a lot of songs, chops them together, uses samples and creates new songs is probably the artist Pogo, who no longer really creates a lot of music. I believe Steven Crowder used a lot of his stuff. I really like a lot of. A lot of his things. Artists that you would know. I'm still stuck in kind of the 80s, 90s and early aughts for a lot of my music. I mean, you guys have heard the stuff that I listen to. Police, Duran, Duran, Fleetwood Mac, essentially, whatever my dad had on the radio when I was a kid is what I still listen to. I mean, just a lot of that. I mean, I mean, that kind of a thing. If you're talking over in the. The, the theologic, like the Baptist side of Things like what I, you know, like. I despise contemporary Christian music. CCM. I hate it. Unless it's Rich Mullins from the 90s, I despise CCM. I think it's really garbage regurgitated content. I love, you know, kind of like a lot of old hymns whenever, you know, we're talking like church style music. But my favorite artist, I don't know, I can't really say there, there's anybody that, you know, I have to, you know, go to a concert for them. I'm not much of a big concerts kind of guy for, for the music side of things. But again, if you, the people that I, that I've listened to and love the most you have, you have heard here is. Is bumpers on the show. I pick all of the bumpers out so that. Oh yeah, Phil Collins, absolutely. 10 out of 10 from km. All right, fine. I know that my team is probably exhausted and tired of it, but I'll take. How did I end up in journalism? I used to be a teacher and got to very useless waste of money master's degrees and tried to write. I was like an up and coming education theorist. No, I don't have that book here on the shelf. And I wrote in to Education Week and to Chalk Beat, which are two education publications. And they both turned me down. I wasn't even a political article, but they stated that it was too conservative of a piece to run in their publication. And it was so wild and I was so mad that at CPAC 2020, producer Lou and I decided that we would start our own publication which we called Chalkboard Review and we would just do it ourselves. And so Daniel Buck, who's now over at AEI and then producer Daniel, who is now obviously on this team like producer Lou, we started this education publication that was around for a few years and just started writing articles, just started writing in education, writing about parental rights and the things that were actually going on from a teacher's perspective, like the coddle your student gentle parenting thing, I hate it. And you know, kind of got that out there, started writing in different publications and then eventually that turned into whistleblowing on the school that at that point I hadn't been teaching, I wasn't teaching anymore. I was an administrator and whistle blowed our critical race theory stuff in Indianapolis in 2021. That's right. Because it was right before Youngkin's election in Virginia. And then did Chalkboard Review for a bit. And then the Daily Signal hired me after that and they've been Doing this ever since the radio show. How that became like the radio show broadcasting journalism thing, that was kind of a lark. Guy in Indianapolis was running for mayor. Really good dude needed someone to guest host his Saturday show. I found that I loved doing this thing, so I took it over for a little while while he ran. After he lost in the primary, a lot of really kind people in Indy emailed into the station and said, hey, can Tony have a show? And so they gave me a little one hour show in Indianapolis and then it's syndicated, which to this day shocks the hoots out of me. And then my Daily Signal president Rob Louie said, you investigative columns are good, but what if the Tony Kinnickast was like your whole job? And then we made it the whole job. And we hired producer Lou and then producer Daniel and then producer Nick was with us for a while after he finished with college. And then after he left the show, producer Jen and producer Josiah joined the team. That's like the whole story. There you go. I think that's also the shortest I've ever told that story too. So it's kind of a milestone. Do I make more money than a teacher? That for sure. I made nothing at Knightstown, Indiana. I made like 34,033. I made nothing for a teacher at the time I was putting in Lawrence North. I made a little bit more. The master's degrees helped at IPS Indianapolis Public Schools. I actually made pretty little for an administrator. But the way to make money in a big school district like that are the bribes and the embezzlement. Oh, yeah. Oh, oh, yeah. Pearson tried to bribe me for 75 grand worth of finances and goods when we had, like, I did textbook adoption and they sent me all kinds of things. Said that I would win a BMW in a contest and stuff. That was where to make the money. And the honest to God reason, like, the biggest reason that I didn't take that, not only because obviously I find it morally reprehensible. Even more so. Anytime I ever tried to do something as a kid, I always got caught. Always. And if there is anyone, I'm very cognizant of, like right now that I'm in the point in the career where a lot of people get caught for really, really stupid things. And all you really have to do to keep going is just not not do stupid things. And so that's what I'm trying to do. Yeah, that's pretty much it. One of the comment questions says, hey, where's the discord link in the description? There's A Discord link and you can join there and kind of chat over over there. That kind of a thing. I'm a Cracker Jack at this. I have no idea what that means. If that's like a common. Yeah, Cracker Jack of this. Bob. Well done. So thanks to Morris Knowles over for that. Who are your role models in this industry? Sorry, I know I'm really gonna upset my team by staying on and just talking with you guys for a few minutes here. My role models in the industry, I mean, if you haven't guessed it by now, you probably will. Ben Shapiro is a pretty big influence. It's weird. I. I'm on more of a first name basis with a lot of people who used to be like way, way up at the top. And so they're, they're still. To me, they're still my heroes. Even if some of them would call me like their colleagues and friends, Michael Knowles would be one of these people who is very, very kind. I still look up to him. I was just texting him the other day because we're getting ready to redesign the set. And so his set, Ben set, Steven Crowder's set, one of the news sets. And like how they do the Chirons over at NTD News, I've admired them. So I'll message him and I'll say, well, hey, you know, send me a couple of pictures of your set because I'm curious and I'm like thinking of some things. Charlie was a good friend, who of course used to be a bit of a role model. Still will be in a lot of ways. I. Clarence Thomas is just the man. He's a role model in this. On. On the writing side of things, like writers that I write. A lot of the people that I really enjoy their writing and their political takes, like, have pseudonyms. So over on X he goes by Bonchi, Bonchi Red State. His profile picture is just Jerry Seinfeld going, that's a shame. He is a phenomenal political theorist. I think he's a great finger on the pulse for what's going on. Victor Davis Hansen is a great example of someone who. I'm on a first name basis now, who has told me to call him Victor. And I say, no, thank you. Not gonna address you by your first name, that kind of thing. I mean, you end up working alongside people that you've. You've loved and respected your entire life, that kind of a thing. So you know, that side of things. Am I my right handed or left handed? I'm right handed. Yeah. I'm I'm very, I'm very much right handed. So that side of things. All right. If there are no other, you know, no other questions, I think we might kind of wrap things up. I really appreciate all of the comments. I, I, you know. Tony, what are two of your favorite colors besides white? What I'm a fan of, of, of like a cobalt blue and I don't know, like an olive earth tone green, I guess. Weird question, but not bad. That's not why I chose the color scheme for the show, which again is getting ready to change. And with the colors question, I'd say what's your blood type? There you go. Yeah, we're good. That's enough for tonight. I'd say have a wonderful weekend. Hopefully if we do see you again over the weekend, it is to report of a brilliant and amazing success of some breaking news. And it's not at 2 in the morning. Wish you guys all a great time with your families. We'll see you back here on schedule Monday at 7pm Eastern. Tuesday's our State of the Union address. Producer Lou has outdone himself. We've got all kind of guests, I believe. I'm not going to tell you who they are because that's a great way to jinx them from coming on the show. So with that, you guys have a wonderful evening, take care and we'll see you real soon.
- [107:43]
Matt Davis
I'm Matt Davis, CEO here at Maranatha Baptist University, and I'd like to invite you personally to Maranatha's fourth annual Leader to Leader conference on March 5th and 6th here in Watertown, Wisconsin. This event, sponsored by our school of Business, offers two days of practical insights, valuable connections and leadership. Leadership development that will impact your career no matter your field. This year's conference includes keynotes from Ken Barbik, a Maranatha graduate and former Senate confirmed assistant secretary of agriculture and currently serving as a senior lobbyist and Advisor to Fortune 500 companies. My friend Tony Kennett, another Maranatha grad who now serves as a national correspondent and syndicate dedicated radio host for the Daily Signal. And Adam Morgan, president of Majesty Music and a former member of South Carolina's Legislature. Becoming a more intentional, effective leader starts here. Take the next step in your leadership journey and join us March 5th and 6th for two days of learning, networking and growth that will set the tone for the rest of your year. To learn more, visit mbu. Can't wait to see you here on Maranatha's beautiful campus. March 5th and 6th for the 4th annual Leader to leader conference.