← The Tony Kinnett Cast
The Tony Kinnett Cast
Ep. 532 - Trump Executive Order on Mail-In Voting, Judge Blocks Ballroom, Supreme Court Kills "Conversion Therapy" Bill
01:28:49
President Trump signs a new executive order completely overhauling federal requirements for mail-in ballots and who is allowed to get them. Get ready for a federal judge to block this in about 3.5 seconds.
Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:00]
Tony Kennett
Tony Kennett.
- [00:01]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
Tony Kennett. Tony Kennett.
- [00:02]
Tony Kennett
Tony Kennett.
- [00:03]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
Tony Kennett. Tony Kennett.
- [00:04]
Tony Kennett
Tony Kennett, host of the Tony Kennett Cast. 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 93 WIBC. Every once in a while you have a couple of days where there doesn't seem to be a lot of news and then kicking you right in the face with a size 13 steel toed boot is all of the news breaking at once. So before I get to the rest of the news in sports and culture a little bit later, this is more of a pin for my thoughts than for yours. Tiger woods has just announced he is stepping away from golf completely to seek treatment and focus on his health. This is either right before the Masters of the US Open. I'm sorry, I'm not much of a golf guy, but that's a pretty big leave away. He said, quote, this is necessary in order for me to prioritize my well being and work towards lasting recovery. He says, quote, I'm committed to taking the time needed to return in a healthier, stronger and more focused place, both personally and professionally. Well, given that the last couple of times the man has had one shot, whether that be from your favorite prescription or non prescription drug of choice or whatever is from the bottle, then crashing any car he steps into. I'm glad that he's stepping away from this again. We'll get into some of the other news. The Masters is coming up here shortly. We'll get into some of this news a little bit later regarding some of the sports and culture. First of all, this afternoon, Reagan Reese, good friend of the show, the White House correspondent over at the Daily Caller, posted a scoop about the President of the United States with a new executive order about an hour before the president signed it, she said scoop Trump will sign an EO at 5, cracking down on mail in voting across the country. She said the executive order will require the administration to number one, create a list of confirmed US Citizens who are eligible to vote in each state. Number two, mandate that absentee ballots only be sent to those who are on each state's approved mail in ballot list. And then number three, that ballots will now have specific secure standardized envelopes with unique barcodes for tracking through the U.S. postal Service. The mechanism that's being presented here is that states who don't participate aren't going to get money. Now, some of you who have tuned into the show before, there's a little flag going up already, because whenever the Trump administration floats a, you better do this or you're not getting any extra money. Nope, the faucet's gonna be shut off. You know that a federal judge is about to bust into the room and lock everything up. Freeze, injunction, that kind of a thing. So, first and foremost, let's hear the outline of the EO in the President's office just a little bit ago.
- [03:00]
President Donald Trump (voice clip)
Mr. President, as you said, you have in front of you an executive order that deals with a number of issues relating to election integrity, as you've consistently identified. Two of the biggest problems we have with election integrity in this country are one, inaccurate voter rolls that allow ineligible people to vote in various federal and state elections all over the country. And secondarily, you've consistently identified that vote by mail in this country has become rife with fraud. People returning ballots who aren't eligible to return ballots. Ballots being sent to people who aren't confirmed to be eligible voters. So what this executive order is going to do is one, we're going to take federal data, we're going to ensure that each state's election officials are, are provided with a comprehensive view of who the eligible voters in their jurisdiction actually are, allowing them to properly verify that everybody voting in their elections is legally able to vote. And then it orders the Postmaster General, the U.S. postal Service, to take bold new measures to verify that ballots both being sent to people are being sent to people who are eligible to vote, and then that ballots being returned are being properly returned by eligible voters only.
- [04:11]
Tony Kennett
And we now, this started a major online kerfluffle. By that, I mean all of the legacy media outlets swooped in and started claiming that this was the end of the republic. It was all over, ladies and gentlemen, because this was Donald Trump trying to shove his face indirectly into the mail in ballot system. That's not entirely true here. So there are two groups who are really, really upset about this. Uh, there are five direct things that the EO does. It directs the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to get from states list of verified citizens over the age of 18 who can vote and who will then be transmitted to state election officials 60 days prior to federal elections. So this is a kind of workaround to some of the Save America act stuff right now. Whereas you will remember the Department of Justice, through Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dillon, had just released new evidence of the first Sweep of just 10 states Voluntary voter roll submissions to the federal government. They found 300,000 individuals in that first sweep of 10 states on those voter rolls who are dead. 300,000 people who are not even alive. They shouldn't be getting any kind of voter roll recognition. And at least 10,000, although the number is climbing with each passing sweep, as they also verify the data on the individuals who, who are illegal immigrants or who are not citizens of the United States, who are also on the voter rolls in just 10 of these initial states. So the Trump administration's bringing forward an executive order saying, in order to send out mail in ballots, you need to confirm with us that everyone who could be receiving a mail in ballot is first and foremost a citizen of the United States over the age of 18. It also instructs the Attorney General to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and local officials or private entities that issue, print, or distribute federal ballots to individuals who are not eligible to vote. So this would be an executive order opportunity for the President of the United States not to have to wait for an investigation and some kind of a grand jury indictment situation. But much like we saw with Georgia a couple of weeks ago, much like we just saw with Maricopa county in Arizona, now we would see the Trump administration sending Department of Justice, Homeland Security, possibly members from the Social Security Administration, the Department of the treasury, to individualized areas and jurisdictions where they're not careful with handing out ballots to those who are not citizens of the United States. It also does something that I think is not a bad thing. It orders the Postmaster General to propose rules requiring all outbound mail ballots to feature official election mail markings, postal service approved envelope designs, and unique tracking barcodes. Now, there are some contrarians out there, for example, like Stephen Richard, who tries to make the case that this is already stuff everyone does, he says, well, hey, I mean, you know, depending on how we define verify, there's already a statewide voter list of every state. I mean, hey, I mean, this is how every state does it. All states put all of the voters on mail in ballot lists. And also as far as secure envelopes, he says, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of jurisdictions allow for ballot tracking. Well, here's the catch. That's not entirely true. And it happens to matter which states do and don't require certain mail in ballot provisions. So going off of his last point where he says that, you know, secure envelopes and ballot tracking, when you look, for example, at states that suggest they have all of these requirements for mail in voting, specifically states like Illinois, Illinois doesn't allow you to track your mail in ballot once you have sent it in. So who knows if you can check whether or not you voted by mail. And this is only a map that I have on screen right now, which is Wyoming, Missouri and Illinois that allow, that are three states that don't allow you to track your ballot if you mail it in. Other states that do allow you to track it, don't have point by point registration and voting information to check if you have maybe been voted on behalf of, which is a serious concern. In states like Minnesota, which, as we've outlined on the show before you, one individual can vouch for seven other people who don't have voter id. Now, Howard Lutnick made it clear that this is also a mechanism of updating how the United States Postal Service interacts with these kinds of things. Here you go.
- [08:43]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
Voted by mail. You will have it on the envelope,
- [08:46]
Tony Kennett
obviously not on the ballot, but on the envelope. So we will know a million mail in ballots, there'll be a million envelopes and you'll be able to know exactly
- [08:54]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
correctly that citizens voted. And this came up.
- [09:00]
Tony Kennett
So the President of the United States understands and, you know, he's already, you know, joking, kind of tongue in cheek that it's likely to be struck down. And you can always tell, again, this isn't really a surprise. They know there are going to be some legal battles over these things. It's likely to start a kind of precedent moving forward. It's a creative way of doing this for sure. Here's some of the additional comments. At first, it just looks like Trump's joking about, you know, the signature's gotta look perfect. But what he says following that is a pretty good window into why the President is trying this particular maneuver.
- [09:32]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
Take some time and I'll make this signature absolutely perfect. So it looks very good. So far, so good. Okay, so that's a big deal. Very proud of it.
- [09:55]
Tony Kennett
Here comes the explanation.
- [09:56]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
I don't know how it can be challenged. I'll probably challenge it. You may find a rogue judge. You got a lot of rogue judges, very bad, bad people, very bad judges. But that's the only way that can be changed and hopefully we'll win on appeal if it is. But I don't, I don't see how anybody can challenge it.
- [10:14]
Tony Kennett
That is the key phrase. I don't know how anyone could challenge this. But it's the only way we're going to get this through. We're going to talk about this because regarding federal judges right now in the Senate it really matters. Radio crew will see you guys on the other side of your commercial break. We're going to continue on the live stream because we don't do that commercial thing quite the same way here. It's the Tony Kenneth cast here on the Daily Signal. If you watch the live stream live here at 7pm Eastern on YouTube, we don't kick you guys to eternal commercial breaks. If you tune in later, then there are some commercial breaks that might be dotted through because YouTube does that automatically. We don't try to make that an inconvenience for those who are tuning into the live stream. We kind of like you guys and to be honest, I really like seeing the livestream chats, asking questions and clarifying things throughout the day. One of the reasons we do it this way. So this is where things get a little fun. The president of the United States is trying to institute a couple of executive order measures here regarding voting because the Senate isn't doing anything. They're not doing anything. And as our own producer, Josiah Lott has been following for the last couple of weeks, this is essentially wrapped up in this quasi sort of adjournment, sort of recess, merry go round from hell. That seems to be how a lot of Congress acts in this day and age. Congress has, in the last 50 years, abdicated almost all of its core functional duties to the United States outside of just slapping the budget. And the guy who told me this, the one who, the individual who said, tony, I'll never forget this, on a rooftop in Washington, D.C. at a Heritage foundation event. The first time I'd ever met the man, not the last time I'd ever get to speak to him. Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, the budget master himself, the man who cobbled together more budgets during multiple eras of the presidency, told me that Congress has become a largely worthless body because all it ever does anymore is pass budgets. It's supposed to keep the federal judicial regulated. It's supposed to remove and impeach judges. That is something that Congress used to do semi regularly. They're supposed to look into and investigate and prosecute malfeasance, not just in the judicial but also in the executive agencies. This is supposed to be a federal duty of Congress. But they've decided they're not doing any of this anymore. And so not only are we seeing an outsized amount of executive orders, not just from Trump's office, but from Biden's office and ice cream. And then from Barack Obama as well. George bush, George W. Mr. Mission accomplished himself, even Started slathering out executive order after executive order near the end of his second term in office. So what does this mean actually going forward? Well, it means the judicial is going to step up and try to be the counterbalance, bringing forward a bunch of rogue judges that truly are bringing some of the weirdest and most bizarre freezes, blocks, injunctions. Hang on there, hold up. Kind of rulings. We have two or three every week. Well, we had two or three today, so we gotta dig into them. First of all, U.S. district Judge Randolph Moss of Washington, D.C. he's an Obama appointee. He issued a ruling today that President Trump's previous executive order to end funding for the National Public Radio, NPR and PBS public media violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As a reminder, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution says that Congress shall make no law regulating speech here in the United States. It says nothing at all about the President of the United States withholding certain amounts of congressional funding to to media projects based on rulings that Congress has made in future funding. Essentially, if Congress says, hey, we don't want to give money to NPR and to PBS anymore because they've become political outlets, and then Trump says, all right, you know what? I agree. No more money. I'm going to sign this. And then also we're going to freeze things right here. The judge in this case has argued today, quote, the First Amendment right to free speech does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type of. It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the president does not like and seeks to squelch, end quote. So Judge Moss here is making the case that Donald Trump cut off funding to NPR and PBS because he didn't like the statements that the organizations were saying. That doesn't quite work here, though, because the President of the United States has the authority to push around certain funds that Congress gives him in an executive agency capacity and that grants don't have to be carried out. The president didn't make the case that if NPR only said things that were true and that they reported political perspectives, that he would give them money. See, that would then be that kind of viewpoint enforcement that doesn't quite work here. So that's the first of these particular cases. Then we get to the White House ballroom. The White House ballroom decision by a George W. Bush judge is where things go off the rails. We get to the bunker, the progress of the construction. Again, it's already all torn down. We're going to dig into this, it's the Tony knit cast. We got to bring the radio crew back from commercial. Don't go anywhere. Ton of news tonight.
- [15:37]
President Donald Trump (voice clip)
I'm sorry, Ms. Jackson,
- [15:41]
Tony Kennett
this, this is the Tony Kennett cast on 93 WIBC. It's tradition here on the Tony Kenneth cast that whenever we cover the Supreme Court of the United States, we have to play miss Jackson by outkast because Katanji never disappoints. Before we get to that, though, there's one more federal ruling today, again while we were writing the show that kind of turned some things on their head, but is laughable. And when an appeals court gets their hands on it, they're likely to flip this like Christ flipped tables at the temple. Allow me to explain. So a federal judge on Tuesday, this is according to cnn. You'll see why in a second that I am citing them. A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump from moving ahead with any further work on a massive new $400 million ballroom on the former site of the White House East Wing. Quote, the president of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of first families. He is not, however, the owner, end quote. That's according to Judge Richard Leon. Now, Judge Richard Leon, just in case you didn't know, is one of the strangest looking federal judges. He was appointed by George W. Bush and he is one of the first federal judges kind of in the modern era of shoving all of his emotions into his federal rulings. Not joking. This man has put forward all of the, the federal rulings that he can, can muster here into high emotional state. He's also got really weird eyebrows, but that's really not important at the moment. So his argument is essentially suggesting two things. Number one, that Congress hasn't approved the Trump changes to the White House and that he's actually demolishing a specific federal piece of property and he's not allowed to do that. The president's only allowed to make some changes, some upgrades and improvements to the White House. And he's saying Trump's not doing that. Trump's tearing something down. Well, there's an issue with that. The east wing of the White House, which are just crappy office buildings. I know this has been said by other pundits and analysts on the left, the right and the center. Guys, that's really true. I have had the privilege of being in the east wing of the White House. There was an old office building in Indianapolis that WIBC used to be at that had better cubicles into the abandoned parts of the building than the east wing of the White House had. There was nothing super duper special and magical about the east Wing. I mean, the east wing of the White House is essentially the eastern central Indiana Credit Union bank lobby of federal buildings. That would be the East Wing. So, no, not some historic monument. It does in fact fit within the president's right to change certain aspects of the building. And then he also suggests that Congress needs to rule based on its power of the purse authority in the Constitution in order to approve this project. And this is where CNN starts going down this long line of. Well, all of these other presidents went before Congress to get their projects approved when they wanted to do things with the White House. Here's why. Other presidents throughout history, Franklin Delano Roosevelt all the way through the modern era did go before Congress for updates to the White House to get money, to get a little of that.
- [18:58]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
Good, good.
- [18:58]
Tony Kennett
They went before Congress to say, hey, I'm a very fat president, Wouldn't you please build me a really, really, really big bathtub so that I'm not stuck anymore. That's the kind of stuff that the presidents would go to Congress in order to seek funding for. But that's not the case here because Trump raised all of the money himself. He brought forward the money. And so whether you want to call it a loophole or not, I'm sorry, boys, girls and squirrels, this fits the congressional and federal precedent and interpretation. But that doesn't stop this, this judge from going all out. Now there, there are two things that I, I've seen that do need slapped down. And I'm, I'm sorry. There is an argument that because yesterday the President of the United States pointed out they are enlarging, enlargement, they are making bigger, expanding the presidential military situation room and bunker below the White House. That this is why the judge is saying, well, this allows private contractors access to, you know, bribery for expanding bunkers underneath the White House. Guys, explicitly in the CNN piece as well as in the official opinion from the judge, I'm gonna read you this quote. Any above ground construction above ground that has nothing to do with the bunker over the next 14 days that is not in compliance with his ruling, quote, is at risk of being taken down depending on the outcome of this case. This ruling has nothing to do with the bun. Nothing at all. I've seen people all over social media making stupid and silly arguments. But as usual, it is the common sense. Americans who usually read things before they start squawking off on social media, it has nothing to do with the bunker. And yeah, that was probably funded way early on in classified portions of defense spending. You say, well, I don't like that. Too bad. I don't want other countries knowing the specifications of the bunker below the White House that the president and his staff might have to reside in, given any kind of a situation whatsoever, whether we're talking about a nuclear strike or some kind of war or a hurricane. I want the president and his staff to be safe, not really unrealistic. And also what I'm seeing here throughout this opinion is that if this was any other president in the history of this country, it wouldn't be as big of a deal. The White House ballroom designs, folks, I'm going to level with you. They're tasteful. You don't like it. I mean, I hear you, but it is, in fact, within the president's right to do this moving forward. So the president did mention this in the the summary today after the executive order. It's worth showing you this clip. Do you have thoughts on that? And also a judge just ordered you
- [21:36]
Producer Josiah Lott
to stop construction ballroom.
- [21:37]
Tony Kennett
Are you planning to stop?
- [21:39]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
Well, we'll appeal that, but it's not, I don't know. It's basically, I mean, I wrote, I wrote it a part of his opinion, but basically he's saying I need congressional approval. And he's so wrong. This is being financed privately. It's a donation that's being given by companies, very rich companies, very rich people, so that for 150 years they've wanted a ballroom here. We're going to have the finest ballroom, I believe, anywhere in the world.
- [22:10]
Tony Kennett
And there is evidence, by the way, based on the statements of previous presidents, that, yeah, the White House does need a place to do certain kinds of state dinners. The idea that when the president entertains foreign dignitaries, that either has to be done in front of the fireplace, yellow chairs and Marco Rubio and a thousand different outfits sitting on that couch, or they have to go out onto the lawn. Those are your two choices? How about no, there are those say the libertarian crew who's arguing this is too like, this makes the United States too imperialist. I'm sorry. No, I just don't share in that particular argument. Now, this brings us over to the Supreme Court of the United States. This is the, sorry, Ms. Jackson side of things. So the United States Supreme Court ruled today, eight to one, you already know who the dissenting judge was in Chiles versus Salazar, that the state of Colorado's ban on what Colorado described as conversion therapy, not conversion therapy for Minors violates the First Amendment. So first of all, there was this law from the state of Colorado that said you are not allowed to take a child to a therapist. And the therapist or counselor or youth group leader or pastor or whoever it is talking to the child in the family, that person is not allowed to tell the child. Transgenderism, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. And you are not this other gender. You are not. In fact, you are. You, the child in question, were created and you are a wonderful individual in the body that you were given the way that you are. You don't need to take a bunch of opposite sex level hormones. You know, if you're short on testosterone, we shouldn't be giving you estrogen. If you're low on estrogen, we shouldn't be giving you testosterone. We're going to dig into this case a little bit more. Radio crew, we're going to send you guys over to the commercial break and continue on the live stream. It's the Tony Knittcast here on the Daily Signal. So again, on the trans day of visibility, you know, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, no, Colorado Governor Jared Polis, you are not allowed to ban anyone out there from telling transgender kids, which, by the way, the rate is plummeting again because it was a fad perpetuated by really, really creepy people, mentally ill people. You're not that idea that you're not allowed to tell a child they may not be trans and then label it conversion therapy, as though you're gonna conjure up visions of Mike Pence and electrocuting the gays as the meme goes. No, that's not a thing. Eight to one, the Supreme Court announced, quote, the First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith and in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth, end quote. That's according to Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion. Like a lot of other Gorsuch opinions, it is just chef's kiss American as it gets. The court ruled, quote, laws like Colorado's which suppress speech based on viewpoint represent an egregious assault on both commitments, end quote. Excellent. That's Supreme Court of the United States acting as it's supposed to. Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor agreed with this because they've actually read books that weren't written by Dr. Seuss. So, you know, an incredible little bit there kind, kind of Good stuff. So as now that we get the adults out of the way, it's time to talk about Justice Katangi Brown Jackson, the champion of the left. Time to bring up her. So Greg Price, friend of the show, points out, quote, justice Jackson wrote a 35 page dissent about how it should be constitutional to ban counselors, pastors, therapists from telling a boy that he's not a girl. Her dissent was longer than Gorsuch's majority opinion and Justice Elena Kagan's concurring opinion combined. Katangi Brown Jackson, who, as we're going to get to, I mean, legal spaghetti to the nth degree. Not even Edward Scissorhands could untie knots like this, bent over backwards in a kind of mental gymnastics that we have not seen for ages. To argue in an opinion longer than the conservative and liberal majority opinion combined that you really shouldn't tell transgender kids or kids suffering from a mental illness. No, sweetie, you can't hear the toaster talking. Now here's, here's where things get interesting. Ketanji Brown Jackson last year dissented in the United States versus the Scrametti case. That's where she argued that states have no right to ban gender transitions for minors. Today, however, she was the lone descent the other way. And she argued that there is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the power of the states. Now, if you're tracking, that means that last year, Catanja Brown Jackson argued that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their children regarding decisions on transgender stuff, and then turned around this year and suggested that states have the right to ban parents from doing anything regarding transgender stuff and their kids. So if you haven't had a stroke and run for Senate in Pennsylvania yet, you may be wondering why on God's green earth she was ever put on the Supreme Court of the United States. Well, you already know the answer to that. So bizarre stuff for sure. Now, Governor Jared Polis of Colorado, he got out there to priss and to preen. He said, Colorado is for everyone, no matter who you are. Conversion therapy doesn't work. Can seriously harm you. Again, the idea that if you just tell a child, hey, you're not trans, that's the same as hooking someone up to car batteries. No, not the same. Don't be retarded. Jared Polis can't help it, though. This is, by the way, is supposed to be one of the moderate governors on the Democrat side of the aisle, so he's easy. He says he's evaluating the Supreme Court Ruling. Okay. And he's working to figure out how better to protect. Protect LGBTQ youth. Whatever. We're going to cut over to some of the other news. We got to bring the Raider crew back from commercial. Don't go anywhere. It's the Tony Kinit cast here on the Daily Signal. The Tony Kennett cast on 93 WIBC. All of this, all of this was going on on the precious Transgender Day of Visibility, which is one of 833holidays about being a certain color or gender or sexuality or something of that. Like, celebrated on one of the most insane and stress inducing calendars known to man. The Transgender Day of Visibility is where we are all supposed to stand together and go, trans people are real. Which, if you have to consistently tell yourself that a mental illness is just as real and normal and safe as those who are neurotypical. Yeah, I don't think that you're quite making the argument that you think you do. But, alas, it gave the Democrats of the country a chance to get up and preen socially. And so, of course, this means Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan declaring her support for the Trans Day of Visibility. Oh, exciting stuff.
- [29:41]
Governor Gretchen Whitmer
Today is Transgender Day of Visibility, when we celebrate the strength, resilience, and contributions of our transgender family, friends, and neighbors.
- [29:50]
Tony Kennett
Now, I've looked back over her previous social media and that of J.B. pritzker and Tony Evers. A lot of this in the Great Lakes region of the country, which seems to be where this is the last big push. I mean, I guess it probably has to do with trying to bolster support for Pete Buttigieg for president, but anywho, she has posted this exact same video about the strength and the resilience and the magic of the transgender community on a bunch of different days for every random holiday that has to do with lgbtq. Whatever. The only group I've seen push this crap harder than Gretchen Whitmer and other Democrat governors would be the NBA.
- [30:30]
Governor Gretchen Whitmer
In Michigan, everyone deserves to be seen respected and valued. But for too many trans people, we still see discrimination and policies that threaten their safety and dignity. You know, when I was elected in 2018, I made a promise to fight for all Michiganners, no matter who they are or who they love. And since then, we have put in the work to build a state where everyone can live openly and authentically. I'll keep fighting like hell to make
- [30:55]
Tony Kennett
sure every Michigan, you gotta get, like, the strong word that she's spicy. You go, girl. Oh, it's exciting. Of course, Tim Walls never to be outdone he also got out there and did kind of the same stuff. Really, really exciting, thrilling. Thank you, Governor Tim Walls, for, you know, all of your. Well, we can't legally call them contributions, but amid all of the fraud investigations and things, he got out there and signed a super duper proclamation on fancy letterhead, essentially said, whereas the trans day visibility recognizes trans and non binary communities, there's a non binary day of visibility too. I just, you know, whatever. Essentially it's this entire proclamation that says, you're not allowed to discriminate ever, because we love everyone and understanding. Exciting, stunning, brave, thrilling. Zoran Mamdani did the same kind of crap, which, you know, again, considering his wife is apparently strutting around Gracie Mansion saying the N word and supporting the Iranian Islamic regime, who hangs these particular individuals from cranes. Exciting stuff. He's getting blowback from the LGBTQ community as well. It's just all good fun. Tony Evers of Wisconsin posted a really poorly shot, like mumbly Old Man Biden clip of the same kind of garbage. You know, I'd love to have a. It's exciting. I used to work in that exact room that he was doing his little special signing. We actually got work done when I was in that office. Anyhow, then Governor J.B. pritzker took a moment from eating at the Golden Corral to hop on camera and express his support.
- [32:37]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
Hello everyone.
- [32:38]
Tony Kennett
Governor JB Pritzker. Here in Illinois, we recognize March 31st as Transgender Day of Visibility. A reminder that our state welcomes everyone to live authentically and be treated with dignity and respect. Brought to you with a two month break until we get to the month long holiday where we do all of this crap yet again. So exciting and very, very, very gay. Speaking of very, very, very gay, Christine Ohm's husband, according to the Daily Mail, is leading a secret double life of a cross dresser. Now, we all remember the National Enquirer days, you know, where you would see, I married an alien baby and my cousin is a cow who grows moon lemons. We all remember those great hollow days. This report doesn't appear to be any kind of false to former Secretary of Homeland Security Christine Ulm, who is not really with her husband at the moment because she and Corey Lewandowski were having an affair and, you know, yelling at Tom Holman together. A weird decision. Well, maybe we have a little bit of insight now as to why Kristi Noem may not be super duper close with her hubs. So according to the exclusive Daily Mail report from Ben Ashford and from Josh Boswell Christy Noem's husband and oh, you know, I'm gonna get you a little bit of B roll footage so you can stare at this abomination like I had to. His husband is a cross dresser who dons quote, gigantic breasts and pink hot pants to chat with online fetish models. Slit my wrists and put me in the Grouch's garbage can. What a horrible, horrible site. So just yikes. I'm sorry, I had to get that off the screen. If you are listening and you're not watching this on the live stream YouTube.com daily signal, you should just picture the worst thing that you've ever seen and then multiply it by about three. That's kind of what's going on here. So essentially the scandal is that Kristy Noem's husband just is quite the degenerate. You say, well, what's the news story in this? People in positions of power get into really, really, really weird crap. And the point is that being a degenerate is not necessarily beholden to any one group or person. You should just really, really, really vet the kind of individuals that are in positions of leadership and their commitments to family and whatnot before you put them in positions of power. Just weird and wacky and just gross. The reason I bring this up is because we are in the middle of a bit of a cultural revivification battle at the moment where there is a group in the country, common sense, normal Americans who lived through the the 20th century and understand the values that family bring to the table, that understand the values that having kids brings to the table, that understand the values that going to church and expressing Christian values in theology, that kind of stuff brings to the table. And there's this weird sort of last gasp, very outraged, pearl clutching anger at anyone now who says anything to the contrary when the culture's already moved on. So former player for the Detroit Pistons and then now also formerly for the Chicago Bulls and Purdue alumnus Jacob Ivey, an excellent guard. I've heard different things about his stats and you know, his mental state at this point, but for all intents and purposes a pretty decent guy. I seem to remember. Again, I don't watch the NBA as much. I'm more of a college basketball fan. I remember my grandmother, who's the biggest Purdue fan on the face of this earth, going on and on and on and on and on about how this boy played. He was a number five pick to the Pistons back in 2022. Anyway, he got up in front on social media and just on his own Personal Instagram criticized the NBA's huge Pride Month push. Now, you've seen a lot of professional sports teams doing pride monthly things. So hockey team Nashville Predators got out there with a really weird rainbow progress flag logo, which everyone criticized because the Predators doing a big LGBTQ thing is maybe a little on the nose on the NBA side. However, Jacob criticized this. Here's the, here's, here's the clip of that. I think we have lined up for you
- [37:12]
Jacob/Jaden Ivey
that the world can proclaim lgbtq, Right? They have, they have. They proclaim Pride Month and the NBA, they proclaim it. They. They show it to the world. They say, come, come, come join us for Pride. For Pride Month to celebrate unrighteousness. They proclaim. They proclaim it on the billboards, they proclaim it in the streets. Unrighteousness. So how is it that one can't speak righteousness? How is it one that. How are they to say that, man, this man is crazy.
- [38:11]
Tony Kennett
So that's Jaden's statement. Jaden, sorry, I guess earlier I said, Jacob Jaden Ivey, there's a statement. Is there anything about that that is particularly offensive? Even as far as, like, statements go publicly for those with personal beliefs that they echo from public platforms, man, that is really more just run of the mill basic. Yeah, most Christians in the United States would. Well, most professing Christians of the United States would argue, yeah, I mean, going all in on. On pride stuff and LGBTQ plus 2 IA, whatever. Stuff that doesn't really values aligned. He had the gall to question that radio crew. We're going to send you over to the commercial. We're going to talk about the statement from the Chicago Bulls waving him here in just a second and the follow up from it, because this is where things get interesting. It's the Tony Knitted cast here on the Daily Signal. So the Chicago Bulls pretty much immediately got out and announced that he had been waived as the guard because, well, they just, they went ahead and waved him, dropped him because they said his conduct was detrimental to the team. Now, people have come out since and have tried to rewrite the history of this already and said, well, no, it's because his stats were really bad or, well, it's because he, you know, he was doing and saying a bunch of stuff like on the court, off the court, that was really terrible. There's not really any evidence for that. Again, when the Bulls make a statement right after he says, you know what, the LGBTQ Pride thing, it's not for me, the NBA puts a big amount of Emphasis on it. I don't, not a fan of that. Right after Jaden says that Chicago Bulls drop in and wave him from the team. Yeah, that's, that's rather on the nose. Now. He followed up with as he was getting on a plane, kind of a follow up statement after being waved and
- [39:57]
Jacob/Jaden Ivey
turned to Jesus Christ and gave up the world.
- [40:00]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
Finish our safety check.
- [40:01]
Governor Gretchen Whitmer
Please let us know if you have
- [40:03]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
any questions as we get ready for takeoff.
- [40:06]
Jacob/Jaden Ivey
The world ain' all for nothing.
- [40:07]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
There's nothing good. We appreciate you.
- [40:09]
Jacob/Jaden Ivey
Nothing good.
- [40:10]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
Thank you for flying with Delta. Nothing good in the world.
- [40:19]
Tony Kennett
But he continues by saying that, you know, he's not going to stand down. He's going to continue standing with the name of Christ. He also has a couple of, of videos up where he talks about his testimony. Look, as, as your residential indie Fundy Baptist, I really have no issue at all with a public figure getting up and making it clear what they believe. Again. Do you watch college sports at all? I mean, do you not see half of the guys out on the field or on the court that are doing a kind of a pregame prayer? It has kind of come in vogue again in college sports. Then they get drafted up into the NBA and the NFL. What do you think that all just disappears? Well, the NBA, who spends all of its time simping after China and doing all it can to go after the, the much, you know, really exciting LGBTQ +2IA whatever crowd because I guess that's the untapped audience that really wasn't getting, you know, pitched to. All right, I, I, I'm really not seeing it now. Now the coach of the Bulls, Billy Donovan, who might be in his, his last season as it is, he came forward after he was asked a couple of questions about it and, and just tried to kind of obfuscate around it. There's really not even much to the clip. He says. Well, I'm really not, you know, I don't really, I don't really know about that, you know, really. I've just been worried about him for some time. I haven't really seen enough on this to kind of get my final verdict. Other than that, it's very clear why the NBA likely encouraged the Chicago Bulls to immediately drop the dude because of that statement. Now we can talk endlessly ad nauseam about his stats, about how he plays. From what I've seen, he's a pretty encouraging guy to his teammates on the court. I haven't seen anything that suggests that he's acting in a manner that's a detriment to the team. Other than that if they're worried they're going to have a trans protest outside of of where the Bulls play. I mean I don't know what the arena in Chicago is called again. I despise the NBA. I guess that's what it is they're terrified of. They're about five years late on that particular move. So weird cultural stuff for sure. The ladies over on the left are losing their minds because a lot of young conservative ladies are talking about having kids. There's just a ton to talk about news wise tonight and the Iran stuff, let's not forget. Don't go anywhere. More news. It's the Tony Knittcast here on the Daily Signal. You're listening to the Tony Kennett cast on 93 WIPC. Welcome back to the Tony Knitcast here on the Daily Signal. Nationally syndicated first on 93 WIBC. If you like the show, throw a like and a subscribe over on the YouTube site YouTube.com dailysignal if you're listening on the radio or watching over on the cable TV side on some of our syndicates and affiliates and all of those greats, I'd recommend you hop over to the YouTube. Anyway, join the live chat. It's a great time. You get to see horrible, disgusting, disturbing pictures of former governors and secretaries husbands in fake boobs. Okay, not the best sale. But again, the news is the news. Just praise be to the Lord that the news is not the nudes. Sorry, I'll, I'll leave that there onto some actual news updates regarding Iran. The President of the United States has brought forward again right now the Brent crude oil prices are going up and then down. They skyrocketed. We actually had the worst thing that could ever possibly happen. We had Jim Cramer over from CNBC whose takes are about as welcome as tuberculosis. Get out there and say I think that Brent crude oil has peaked. It's reached the highest it's going to get. And that's terrible because anytime Jim Cramer says something regarding the economy, it's almost always wrong. So it hopped up to like 118 bucks a barrel, which is rather up there. And then it's dropped down to just over 100. There's a couple of reasons why it is going through these last phase spirals as we see some of the ending infrastructure. There's a new type of intercept technology that is being used instead of just the Patriot Thaad defense systems in the Gulf right now. Here's the President of the United States though talking about more Boats heading through the Straits of Hormuz. Just to kind of set this up
- [44:40]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
for you, we have emissaries, but we also are dealing directly. And as you know, they've agreed to send eight boats two days ago, and then they added another two. So it was 10 boats. And now today, they gave us, as a tribute, I don't know, I can't define it exactly, but they gave us, I think, out of a sign of respect, 20 boats of oil. Big, big boats of oil.
- [45:08]
Tony Kennett
So this seems to be the President's strategy to kind of try to ratchet certain things up, establish a more definitive level of security. This comes as Iran is losing its ability to fire rockets and drones into the Strait of Hormuz. So as some things are getting kind of more established, things are beginning to calm down. And the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, have made it clear they are negotiating with someone in the Iranian regime. And that because of this there, you know, there's a little bit of change in policy in the negotiation side of things. And this is why, I believe, based on the question from today, the President, after signing the executive order, talked about the end of the operation, Operation Epic Fury coming to a close here in the next couple of weeks.
- [45:56]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
I would say that within two weeks, maybe two weeks, maybe three, we're hitting them very hard. Last night, we knocked out tremendous amounts of missile making facilities. We, as you probably read or wrote, we knocked out. Excuse me, pardon me, interrupting.
- [46:13]
Tony Kennett
The US Will be gone or done with the war.
- [46:15]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
I think with two or three weeks, we'll leave because there's no reason for us to do this. Look, problem with this trade. A guy can take a mine, drop it in the water and say, oh, it's unsafe. It's not like you're taking out an army or you're taking out a country, or you. He can drop it, or he can take a machine gun from the shore and shoot a little few bullets on a ship.
- [46:35]
Tony Kennett
Now, I'm gonna level with you. This is the exact point that I was making when some of the think tankers were saying we don't have, like, true air superiority because Ahmed could go out with an RPG and shoulder it and fire at the sky. That's. That's not what counts as the kind of probable, predictable interference which removes air superiority in the same way here. Open passage through the Strait of Hormuz or naval superiority to kind of mixed terms here. If the United States has to clear away every single guy holding any kind of, as the President says, a machine gun or a rocket or every small and final suicide drone, well, then the Strait of Hormuz is never going to be fully operational. And again, one of the reasons you see traffic resuming is that as Iran continues to strike other countries oil, gas and water infrastructure, those countries are starting to get a little more aggressive in preparing some type of possible action moving through in the latter stages of this. Now, that's what the president wants. The president wants two things out of this before he moves forward and kind of closes things up here. And I'm not saying this based on kind of a commentary perspective, but on in an analysis of the President's calls from his office directly. So first of these would be the president wants Europe, who is buying oil and fertilizer associated with petroleum products, natural gas that ships through the Strait of Hormuz. The president wants Europe to take a direct hand in securing that portion of the world's transportation of petroleum itself. He wants Europe not just to give lip service, but actually to participate. Now, there's an issue here with Spain and with Italy, who are refusing access to the United States in certain military installations and that kind of a thing. But then that gets you over to the Gulf. The president wants the Abrahamic Accords to be brought forward. You do need to see the United States in order to pivot out of the region, as dad, the president needs the Saudis and the Israelis essentially to walk hand in hand, which is quite a tall order, and carry through in a joint bilateral way for the first time really in history, security procedures in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. And that is something that appears to be that is something that appears to be moving forward. Now, the President of the United States is also dispatching another aircraft carrier to the Middle East. There are some, there's kind of a shifting around of various supplies, troop movements, things like that. The President of the United States is going to be addressing the nation tomorrow night at 9pm Eastern. That's according to White House Press Secretary Carolyn Levitt a couple of minutes ago. So interesting to hear, I'm sure, what the President has to say about that. Now this brings us over to some of the updates in the Middle east today. The State Department has now called on all Americans to leave Iraq. Now, as a reminder, NATO also pulled some of its operations, almost all of them out of Iraq entirely. The reason I have to say almost is there is still one observation team that deals with the French because, you know, of course, that is all the way over in western Iraq, but that has, you know, more to do with, with Syria and I think a little bit with, with UNIFIL and Lebanon and that kind of stuff. So regarding the Iraq situation, as far as the United States stacking up a bunch of troops on the border of Iraq and invading Iran, I'm not seeing it because it's not happening. Now the reason the State Department is ordering the evacuation of American citizens is twofold. Number one, because IRGC backed groups successfully kidnapped an American journalist, Shelley Kittleson, in Iraq today. We're going to get into that footage outside of the broadcast air here in just a couple of seconds. And then additionally the Kurds are about to rise up and you're going to have some rather rough Iranian and Iraqi style, I don't know how else to put it. Shenanigans is too light a word, although that's probably what I would use. Going to see a little bit of chaos as Balkanization starts to take place. Whether or not you believe that the president of the United States has some direct pathway plan out in the next couple of weeks, A to B to C to D to E, it is clear that right now with the regime as destabilized as it is, the Kurds are going to rise up. It's just a matter of time. We have more news on that. We're going to get to it on the live stream Radio crew, take care. It's the Tony Knittcast here on the Daily Signal. All right now they're out to the commercial break inside of things. We'll let the president continue here or
- [51:09]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
maybe an over the shoulder missile, small missiles.
- [51:13]
Tony Kennett
There's the RPG comment.
- [51:14]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
That's not for us. That'll be for France. That'll be for whoever's using the strait. But I think when we leave probably that's all cleared up today. I heard tremendous numbers of ships we're sailing through. We're negotiating with them right now. They've been again, we have had regime change. Now regime change was not one of the things I had as a goal. I had one goal. They will have no nuclear weapon and that goal has been attained. They will not have nuclear weapons. But we're finishing the job and I think within maybe two weeks, maybe a couple of days longer to do the job. But we want to knock out every single thing they have. Now it's possible that we'll make a deal before that because we'll hit bridges and we've hit some. We'll hit some bridges. Got a couple of nice bridges in mind.
- [52:03]
Tony Kennett
The reason the president is talking about bridges here to be clear, again, just to give you the, the, the analysis track here, the President of the United States has kind of a final bargaining chip on the table with the leadership here, which is, hey, if you want all of the infrastructure, period, to be gone, period, like electric power plants, whether we're electricity generation in general, whether we're talking about desalinization, water plants, whether we're talking about the pseudo refinery facilities, and then, of course, the key refinery processing facilities on Kharg Island. If you want us, I don't think we're going to hit Carg Island. Like, I don't think that's going to be how that goes. I think that Marines are going to end up taking Carg island and a few others. The President seems to be offering kind of a last way out to the Iranians. There are some people who falsely are suggesting the President of the United States is trying to take an off ramp here. Not seeing this. I'm not seeing this. The President is doing what he always does. Here you go. Here's the last thing. Are you going to negotiate? Are you going to play ball? Are you going to be nice? And you see even the IRGC commanders trying to tamp down a little bit here, because if they don't have even a smidgen of negotiating power here, then that's going to be left up to the Kurds in Iran's western regions. And then of course, the other ethnic, I can't really say minority, but other than the Persians, the ethnic minority groups in Iran's east next to Pakistan and Afghanistan. So Iran's in a bit of an interesting place. Now, according to a couple of civilian sources from inside Iran, there seems to be a kind of waiting for some kind of signal for some kind of something from the United States. And you say, hey, that's really interesting. Why aren't we seeing anything there yet? That should be the key. If there was truly a flailing right now of the United States, like, I don't know what we're doing, everything's going terribly quick. Somebody call, call everybody. Call in the Avengers. I mean, if that was truly the case, then the civilians would already have been told, rally, go, take it. Go fight, win. That kind of a thing. That's not happening yet. That's not happening yet. That is not a sign. That is not an evidence of a lack of preparation from the White House or from the State Department or the Department of War.
- [54:16]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
But if they come to the table, that'll be good. But it doesn't matter whether they come or not. We've set them back. It'll take 15 to 20 years for them to rebuild what we've done to them. They have no navy, they have no military, they have no air force, they have no telecommunications, they have no anti aircraft systems. They have no leaders. You know, their leaders are all gone. That's why we have regime change. We have.
- [54:40]
Tony Kennett
Now that brings us over to the kidnapping of the American journalist in Iraq today. Armed men grabbing her in broad daylight. American journalist Shelley Kittleson, disturbing footage for sure. So you can see the, the men from the IRGC backed militia that are surrounding the vehicle. And then pulling her out. Now since then Alex Plitzas over from CNN has confirmed that right now the the State Department and is unaware of any of her whereabouts. Obviously there's a major search underway for Shelley. Not a ton else to relay at the time other than that the State Department has again used this as a confirmation. Again if you're in the Middle east you probably need to scoot out as quickly as you can so that stuff. An aside, as far as the Iranian war updates regarding the United States,
- [56:09]
Producer Josiah Lott
I
- [56:09]
Tony Kennett
would keep my eye out in the next couple of days for how much of the traffic in the Strait of Hormuz continues to expand and how much you see certain regime strikes against other regional crews, other regional powers, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain decrease. Now there's a question that has been asked by one Bahraini official whether or not the Iranian regime is able to maintain contact with the regional commanders of the IRGC in order to facilitate some kind of a stop to strikes against other infrastructure points. As you remember at the very beginning of this operation the Iranian regime said everyone, you're on your own. It's a yo yo card. You all have to make decisions in your particular provinces in order to act in a manner that, that keeps the IRGC and the besiege safe. So again there's a lot of questions right now as to, as to whether or not the United States is attempting to push this through further or whether or not the United States is, is trying to kind of lever type of final ceasefire. Maybe this is kind of a question as to whether they can reign individuals in. I'm not going to speculate on that right now but either way there are a couple of conflicting reports coming in again during the nighttime. Right now you're going to see those kinds of operations, the latest level, the latest wave of different kinds of drone and air strikes, those kinds of things. That aside, I do want to get into a little bit more news this time over on the Senate side. On the Senate side. So a lot of Americans have been asking if there is such broad support, such broad support for the Save America act, if there is such broad support for the funding of the Department of Homeland Security, again, getting it open. Americans are very upset about the long lines at the Transportation Security Administration right here, right now. Well, then what's, what's going on? Where are we, where are we going? Why isn't the Senate doing anything useful? Why am I seeing video of Lindsey Graham at Disneyland or posting pictures of himself going skeet shooting? Why am I seeing Adam Schiff? Well, I mean, you know the answer to that one for sure. It transgender, no Kings Protest Day kind of events. What's going on with the Senate? And to get into that, you have to talk to a guy who's really gone all in on the maddening nonsense of the Senate. So we're gonna cut away really quickly. When we come back, we're gonna talk to producer Josiah, who's been digging into a lot of this over the last couple of days, including talking with some senators in kind of public forum discussion to get to the bottom of what we actually need to see for Congress to do their job for once. Don't go anywhere. It's the Tony Knit cast here on the Daily Signal.
- [59:10]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
If you fall, I will catch you. I'll be waiting.
- [59:14]
Tony Kennett
You're listening to the Tony Kennett k cast on 93WIPC. Instead of going insane myself and subjecting my own psyche to the endless horrors of what the Senate fails to do, I've assigned producer Josiah to tracking the Senate over the last couple of weeks. So he's slowly been descending into sheer insanity. How you holding up there, my dude?
- [59:40]
Producer Josiah Lott
Assigned is a strong word for just me becoming obsessed with it because I realized how stupid everything is and you naturally being like, yeah, I'm just going to let you do that.
- [59:50]
Tony Kennett
So I think that at the first 2am message about the Senate both being at recess and adjourned, and I believe you also got a chance to talk to Senator Mike Lee of Utah a little bit as well about what it is that they're doing and why none of this makes any sense. Can you give us a little bit of the breakdown here?
- [60:09]
Producer Josiah Lott
Yeah. So the basics of it for the audience is that it is actually illegal for the Senate to be at a recess right now. If they were, which they're not, the Senate is adjourned for three days at a time, and then every four days they adjourn for three more days. If they were at a recess, it would actually be illegal because, and this is a weird thing that most people wouldn't think is in the Constitution, but it's literally in the Constitution. The maximum adjournment, it's in article one, Section five. It's three days. So every three days somebody walks into the Senate, sits in the chair and goes, we'll come back in four days. Three days. And then they go away for three days. And it's technically not a recess.
- [60:48]
Tony Kennett
I mean, beside the fact that that makes me want to stab full length office style scissors into my ears at just the kind of bureaucratic loophole mismanagement this. What is it that they are trying to avoid? I mean, just to address the elephant in the room, because it's not just one thing. Those out there might think we're just talking about a reconciliation process or they're just trying to avoid a vote on the Save America act or they're just trying to avoid DHS funding. What is it they are scared of?
- [61:16]
Producer Josiah Lott
Well, I think the big thing they're scared of is recess appointments. This is what this has historically been used to avoid. If the Senate is ever in recess and there is a federal vacancy which, the, which the Constitution designates as a presidential appointment, the President can do what's called make a recess appointment, which appoints as acting with all of the powers of a, of, you know, somebody who actually holds that office.
- [61:40]
Tony Kennett
Right.
- [61:41]
Producer Josiah Lott
An acting officer to any, even up to the Supreme Court. And then they are in that office until the Senate meets again, like twice. I think it's, I forget what the specific definition of it is, but they end up being in that office for a significant amount of time with all of the power. So the Senate really doesn't like letting presidential presidents make recess appointments when they don't like the president. Which makes what's happening now even more confusing because I'm sure if anybody in the audience has been on Twitter in the last two months, they've seen the statistics on recess appointments and realized that President Trump is the first president since we recess appointments are, were used to not get them.
- [62:28]
Tony Kennett
I mean, this is, this is one of the issues that I consistently find myself in, is that if John Thune doesn't like the picks the President makes, why are we even doing any of this in the first place? I'm sorry, what's the point of standing up in front of the country and saying, oh yes, I'm very for the American people? Oh yes, I'm very for, you know, working with this administration? Oh yes, I'M doing all of this X, Y and z campaigning on the back of whether or not you're aligned with the president just to turn around and do everything in your power to give Chuck Schumer the ability to run everything off the road just so that Donald Trump doesn't get recess appointments. It's bizarre.
- [63:03]
Producer Josiah Lott
I mean, it's not just recess appointments. And this is a totally different topic that would take a lot longer to explain. But there's also the blue slip process, which a lot of the audience, I'm sure, has heard. Right, but, but the blue slip process, which Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is allow, is allowing Democrat senators to just veto any of Trump's appointees. Effectively. A lot of Trump's judicial appointees are completely vetoed by single Democrat senators. 1. And Chuck Grassley won't overrule that. It's not in the Constitution. It is simply a, you know, quote unquote tradition of the Senate.
- [63:40]
Tony Kennett
Again, I don't understand why. We agree there are issues with the Judiciary and yet you have, and I have a lot of respect for Chuck Grassley and his, his desire to get out there and push a bunch of documents in front of the American people. But when he sits there and curmudgeonly holds onto like an angry, bitter old man, this one rule that is doing nothing for nobody just because they're part of the Senators club and they want to just keep these things in front of them forever. I mean, I really can't understand why we as a country decided, yeah, the direct election of senators is a great idea. Clearly this is working out in all of our favor because ever since it became a massive once every six years popularity contest with no recall system, just a direct election, poof, then you're done. It's been a complete and utter disaster. I mean, you see, you could have states in before the 17th Amendment that could recall their senators if the state legislature didn't think they were doing a decent enough job in Washington D.C. but then we changed it up.
- [64:40]
Producer Josiah Lott
Well, you have this system where a lot of Republicans want to still talk about states rights, but then if you say, hey, the number one way states rights used to be protected was that the states themselves had a representative in the government. It wasn't a representative of all the people in the state. That's not the point of the Senate in its original, like in, in, in its original.
- [65:02]
Tony Kennett
It's not just supposed to be a slightly fancier House of Representatives.
- [65:06]
Producer Josiah Lott
No, it's not the frequency representative of the state. That's why the legislatures picked them. And, and then you have this other problem. This is the thing I talked to Senator Lee about, and this is the problem that's really gotten me pissed off to the point that, like, you've just been laughing at me, lose my mind about this, is that at any time, because the Senate is not at recess. And I appreciate what Mike Lee is doing and I appreciate what Senator Katie Britt is doing and what Senator Rick Scott is doing opposing this on the national stage. But because the Senate isn't at recess, President Trump, we've called this Schrodinger's recess because President Trump can't make recess appointments, but he's supposed to be the one to call them back from recess. Well, if they're not at recess and he can't make recess appointments, he can't call them back from recess. Which means that, you know who should call them back from recess is any, any, any, any single senator can walk into the Senate chamber during one of these pro forma sessions where they're going, hey, we're going to come back in three days. Any senator can walk into that room and go, there aren't 51 people here. And they all have to come back. It's, it's in the rules. I like Senate Rule 4 1A and Senate Rule 63 through 4. It's in the rules. A single senator walks in that room and says, There are not 51 people here. They are all forced to come back legally.
- [66:28]
Tony Kennett
And then. Please share with the audience what it was when you brought this up that was given as the, the reason, the excuse for why this would not work, this clear legal statute, the rule the Senate follows again, the same kind of legal statutes and rules that we are told as the people of the United States for all of the other. So. Well, there's this one rule that exists here from 1912 where it's slimity Jiminy from who gives a crap said, well, we gotta do this forever now. And Chuck Grassley's over there clinging to it like a child to a security blanket. Tell me, what is this? The reason that you were given why we could not move forward with this rule.
- [67:05]
Producer Josiah Lott
I know you listened to it, so you can give your interpretation of what was said, but my interpretation of what Senator Lee told me in this Twitter space, and this was public, so it's not like I had a conversation with Senator Lee and then sent it to Tony. This is, this is a public Twitter space. That, so that's the only reason that we're talking about it. My interpretation Basically, he said because the Majority leader is not the one objecting to there not being a quorum, he believes that everyone would ignore it. So it seems to me that he is saying that, yes, the rules we operate under, that we are say, we're trying to protect, set up this specific process, and the Constitution sets up this specific process where we're not technically at recess, not legally at recession, but also, as soon as it wouldn't benefit us or as soon as it would benefit the American people, everyone would ignore it and there would just be no consequence. I mean, that is what it sounded like, what he said to me.
- [68:03]
Tony Kennett
I mean, I listened to it. I came to the same conclusion that, yes, it would make sense to use these rules. But the leadership currently of Senator Senate Majority Leader John Thune in the Senate and the leadership delegation who follows behind him, a lot of the senior senators from various states, for example, they understand they are choosing, they are picking which rules to honor and follow and rules that they really don't want honored and followed, they don't care about, they're just ignored. And they're like, wow, that's just some kind of role. We don't actually really follow that. So when you are told out there as the American people, hey, these rules are very, very important. The Senate leadership literally just chooses which rules to follow because the Congress, or excuse me, the constitutional framers, did not believe that our Senate would turn into this bastardized, bickering group of bureaucrats because there's no legal, there's no legal mechanism here for the vice President to, for example, say, all right, Senate, you guys are being ridiculous and you're not following any of the rules. So we're just going to reset everything. There's no mechanism to do that because Congress, the original Constitution, Constitutional Congress, didn't think that was a possibility.
- [69:11]
Producer Josiah Lott
If any of you didn't know this and you're now like, what the heck? The number one thing you can do that we talk about all the time in the, in our, in our work chat, we talk about this all the time. You don't call your senators enough unless you are calling your senators once a week, both of them, once a week. You, as a, you as a viewer are not calling them enough. Like, and that's not an exaggeration once a week. If you're into politics, there's something happening in Congress that you're upset about. And if you're posting about it online and not calling them, you're not doing enough. So on Thursday, on Thursday at 7am there's going to be another of these pro forma sessions where the Senate will and I've been very clear about this and I'm not going to back down from using this language. The Senate will engage in a collective lie to the American people that says we are here while telling everyone else that they're at recess. At 7am on Thursday, April 2, the Senate will engage in a collective lie to the American people. If you object to that, I'll put on. I'm going to. I'm the one who edits this video. Here's the number for the Senate switchboard. You call them and say, hey, I want you to walk in and go, There are not 51 people here and ask for a callback. Ask them to explain to you why they will not do that.
- [70:20]
Tony Kennett
Now, I have a slight, a slightly different restriction. As the host of the show on FCC regulated air, my guests can say as they please and I definitely didn't order you to say that. So I mean, you know, you can look in the show notes. That's not there. I can say that. As for me, I have already sent text messages to both of my state senators on this particular matter. So I very much again encourage all of you to again engage with the legislative processes. Producer Josiah, thank you very much for joining us and we'll catch you real soon. I hope that we, you get a little bit of rest because this stuff is, is beyond maddening.
- [71:00]
Producer Josiah Lott
It's, it's, I appreciate it, Tony. And I hope the audience will, will engage in the legislative process. That's our hope.
- [71:06]
Tony Kennett
All right, before we go for the evening, I do want to get to a little bit of good old mail time. Mail time on the Tony Kennet cast best way again because we are beyond thrilled that so many of you do type in the live chat. It's not always easy for our producers to grab every single question from there. There's two primary ways to throw a question in for mail time. Number one, you can do so via there's a link in the discord to the discord for our show in the description. And then also over at the website tonykinnit.com there's a form there to submit a question in a couple of these and I think one is really, really important and we have a clip ready for it just happened to be the right thing for the right time. So in no particular order though, from Ink and Rock, Tony, is there any way to overturn a Supreme Court decision? Yes, there is. And that is the Supreme Court of the United States has to write A new decision. Now, theoretically, Congress can go through the procedure of impeaching Supreme Court justices who then are replaced with new Supreme Court justices. Again, you heard Josiah talk about how there are the president can appoint in a Senate recess, not an adjournment, up to and including Supreme Court justices as acting. If the Congress impeaches Supreme Court justices, which Democrats have already talked about doing well, yeah, then you can have a new Supreme Court. Or if you pack the court, they can just say, hey, the previous crew read the Constitution wrong. Or there are new things that have come to light in this new lawsuit that has been brought back before us that we've agreed to take. We're going to reverse it. That's what happened with Roe versus Wade. So yes, you can overturn a Supreme Court decision. It's not really something that the founders envisioned as being a light switch to turn on and off all the time, but it is absolutely possible. From Sjackca question those who aren't loyal to the irgc, the ordinary resident of Iran, any thoughts about the need for humanitarian aid with the destruction there? That may have included infrastructure. So so far we know the infrastructure damage has been pretty limited. It's a marvel of modern warfare that the United States and Israel have been able to effectuate this to the degree that they have, obviously. In contrast to the Iranian regime which has only targeted civilian infrastructure in their retaliations over the last couple of weeks on that line, by the way, on February 28th, the Iranian regime fired 170 ballistic missiles toward its its west, toward the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, including Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, parts of Syria, etc. As of today, March 31, the Islamic regime fired only three ballistic missiles in that direction. So they're losing quite a bit. But as for humanitarian aid, I think that this should be something that private charities take up. I hear all the time, I hear all the time the importance of the Catholic Church and all of these NGOs that are supporting all of these immigration NGOs. Why don't they stop for just a few minutes? All of this funding, getting people into the United States and instead why don't they fund a lot of aid and resources after this conflict is over into the people of Iran? It sounds reasonable, makes sense to me. I do think there will be some kinds of humanitarian aid because the United States is, depending on how the regime shakes out, probably going to try to kick start a little bit of the regime via, for example, a couple of things to shore up communication system, that kind of a thing. And some of that aid will come in the form of assisting in the restoring the restoration of certain electricity. That's one of the things the president of the United States has argued needs to be something provided by the other Gulf states and paid for, like Saudi Arabia, for example. So that aside, another question along those lines from Lisa W. Over in the Discord said, why in the world did we allow Russian oil to go to Cuba? We did. We allowed a, I believe one, maybe two tankers of oil. The response from the president was it's just a tank or two of oil. Just, it's not going to make any difference. I believe the president of the United States doesn't want to be forced into some type of action in Cuba while we're still dealing with Iran. That seems to be the reason this is kind of a temporary measure. Okay, well, you say that if we don't let things through right now a little bit, that all of the people are going to die. I think the United States is very well aware the regime is going to take that oil and not use it for the betterment of the population of Cuba, but also doesn't really want an open revolt right now, while, again, we're busy somewhere else. And I think that given the United States plans and movements, there is a bit of strategy to that. Like that's not going, you know, a boat or two of oil not sold, but just delivered to Cuba that isn't going to do anything for Putin. It's not like Cuba's holding a bunch of rubles ready to go and hand over to Putin or a bunch of dollars or gold bullion. I don't, I don't think that's, I don't think that's necessarily in the cards there. Next question from Chris Girish. What are your thoughts on the recent protest in Philadelphia where a group of what appeared to be Islamic extremists were proclaiming bringing America to its knees to celebrate any and all American soldiers deaths? I have had a thought on this since we aired that clip on the show. I believe that all of those individuals who were present at that protest, who were cheering for the deaths of US Troops, who said, as the individual in front of that protest said, every American soldier that comes home in a casket, we cheer. And then he stopped and waited for all of the people at that particular rally to, waited for all of them to start cheering for dead American soldiers. I believe if any of those are not citizens, right off the top of the bat, just to start right up front, all of those individuals who are there who are not United States Citizens should be immediately deported. Immediately. Their visas, if they have any that are legal visas, should be canceled. The State Department has full authority over that. You don't have a right to come into this country and cheer for foreign enemies. That's not a First Amendment right. Additionally, there's really quite a question as to whether or not you, as an American citizen, have a right to cheer for the deaths of those here in the United States. Like to cheer for a foreign power. This has long been argued, and there's a lot of different federal cases that have gone different ways. Now, to be honest with you, to level with you here, those that have cheered for such things in the past, those that have argued, cheered, supported foreign countries, have just found themselves disappeared by, let's say, local community members. Now, this is why I, not caring what the, you know, backlash might be suggested, that if someone in Philadelphia happened to know who this was and this guy happens to be kind of a good old boy, that if he took care of it himself, you found the guy who was chanting that and that he just wasn't with us the next morning. I mean, I, I wouldn't shed any tears. I think you should act lawfully, but would I shed any tears if that was the next headline, that that guy had been found and had been acquainted with quite a few tires on the roadway? You know, those kind of things? Who knows? From Stephen. So there, there are two questions that I do want to answer that are kind of more to the technical part of the show, but first, from Michael Seger, he says, mealtime question for Tony. Now that it's the Department of War instead of the Department of defense, is our DD214 going to be a DW214? The answer to that is no, because Congress has to officially change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, then it becomes the dw Then, yes, then the designations would change. Right now it is a presidential directive that that be changed, but Congress has to go in and kind of stamp it behind the President and then it has to be judicially upheld. So you do need Congress to actually shuffle in and do something in there on the back end. Otherwise the next administration is probably just going to change it back. And so, yeah, I mean, again, given that the Department of War in the history of the United States has been far more effective to the nth degree than the Department of Defense. Yeah, I would like to see that change. Congress actually has to do that. Okay, two kind of technical questions before we finish out here for, for the day here from Stephen Vaughn Sand. I tune into YouTube during the few minutes before let's have a show and I'm fascinated by the background music playing during your pre show chatting. What is it? Who is it? Where can I find it? Thanks. So the music that plays during the. Well, the beginning. Tony Kennett.
- [80:01]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
Tony Kennett. Tony Kennett.
- [80:03]
Tony Kennett
Tony Kennett. You know what I mean? That beginning section of the show. Let's get down to business. Sorry. The music is set to play automatically when that timer reaches zero. During that section there is a. Essentially the instrumental theme from Limitless. So Limitless, really, really great movie that I have quite an, you know, affinity for. 2011 film Bradley Cooper that is composed by Paul Leonard Morgan. So he's an Emmy nominated Scottish composer. He also did some pretty great music arranging in the the Cyberpunk 2077 video game. Just a really excellent composer. So I definitely highly recommend his stuff. There. There are loops that play kind of the Limitless theme as it progresses. So that would be. That would be that side of it. If you're asking about the intro section to the show itself, that is the song esp. That is by a wonderful Filipino artist who shared that with us directly, gave us permission to use it. We're particularly thrilled about that. It kind of gives off a little bit of the radio ish broadcast vibe that I can't seem to let go of. That aside, there was one other question kind of along those lines and pull this up over in the mail time from Riley Barker says I'm dying to know what version of the Paramore song that you've been using on your bumper tracks is. Said I haven't been able to find it on my own and it's eating me up, loyal listeners since episode one here in Houston, Texas. Well, first of all, that is very, very, very kind of you to stick around that long. And first of all, all of the bumper tracks, all the intro bumpers for the show, those are all mixed by yours truly. A lot of them you have suggested it is an arrangement, it's a mashup of what is called Plastic Fun. So there is a Japanese city pop song from the 80s called Plastic Love by Maria Takechi. Phenomenal song. And then Ain't It Fun by Paramore which is, you know, a little bit from. From my teenage years. Here's what that sounds like. This is the tony kennett cast on 93 wibc. So it's Ain't It Fun's vocals layered over the song Plastic Love. So that's where you can find it on. On YouTube you can find it. It's just called Plastic Fun. Paramore X Maria Takeuchi Mashup I love mashups and mixes. Other than that, you'll find a lot of bumper songs for the show, which are just songs that I grew up with a lot of Duran Duran, the Police, that kind of a thing. Things that stick to me and that are often stuck in my head. That said, there was one final question before we end things this evening, asking me what I thought about the Irina Zarutska mural. That was. And I don't have the name of the person here who asked the question. I'm sorry, but Representative David Morales, a Democrat, of course, got up in front of the media after Providence, Rhode island, intervened to keep a. A mural of Irena Zarutska from being painted on one of the sides of the city's buildings. And he makes this particular case. So I do want to get this aired. Yeah, I think this is in. In segment four, here is David Morales.
- [83:42]
Guest or Co-host (possibly a commentator or analyst)
It's.
- [83:42]
Tony Kennett
It's a really gross comment from this guy. Ultimately, we want to make sure that every community member that calls Providence home feels safe. And we can both agree that this mural behind us does not reflect Providence's values, nor does it reflect the creativity that we want to see in our city. Okay. When you are an elected representative and you have murals that are going up in the city. Again, we've talked before about individuals who didn't want the Hezbollah terrorist to have a street named after him in Dearborn, Michigan. And the mayor got up in front of everyone and started screaming, I hope you leave. I don't represent you. I hate you. You're an Islamophobe. Because he didn't want, again, someone who is a confirmed terrorist who killed people to be a street named after him in Dearborn, Michigan. But again, I think that the entire city of Dearborn, Michigan, should be deported entirely. And that's really discriminatory. Yeah, I don't care. Get rid of it. Just start over. Just scrape that entire. I mean, you literally have Senate candidates for Michigan who are caught on air saying that they didn't want to talk about Al Khamenei's death because a lot of people in Dearborn were sad about it. Again, Gretchen Whitmer can't call that out. That's why she's garbage. Just. No, no. No matter how many times she, like, pretends to kind of work with Trump, I think she's just hot trash without the hot part. Anyway, aside from the. The Wicked Witch of Mitch, regarding this particular representative and this. This Kind of as electoral representative, I understand that there are needs to have some standards in cities and if you would make the case for some reason, look, I don't think the city should be funding the murals of individuals that maybe don't have to do with local matters to that. Like for example, if you were an elected representative in Omaha, you said, I don't think there should be a George Floyd mural up there. Obviously because, you know, he was a fentanyl wife woman beater. But you know, other than that, you would be, you'd be able to get out there and say, well, this isn't really local. That's a Minneapolis thing. You want to get out there now. Murals for that, I guess. Okay. But you know, here in Omaha, we don't need to be doing murals to this effect. You could make an argument that, well, we don't. Providence, Rhode island, funding a mural for Rena Zarutska in Providence doesn't really make sense. That's a bad argument. But it is an argument. It is the weakest argument you have. The issue that I have is that he didn't go with this argument. He didn't lead with this. He's like, well, it doesn't reflect the values. What values? A young lady that was slaughtered by a repeat offender let back out onto the streets again and again and again and again that it offends you that someone might want to honor her. And I'm also finding information that it wasn't like a Providence, Rhode island funded mural and they're just intervening in this particular instance. The golden rule of politics on the culture side is that you don't need to comment on every single little thing. This is a great example of that. Now we do have far more on the illegal immigrant and the repeat violent offender stuff to discuss tomorrow on the show. The lieutenant governor of Indiana announcing that a new Indiana law is kicking in midnight tonight that into Wednesday automatically invalidating all commercial driver's licenses held by non citizens who can't prove they have a valid approved work visa. And a ton of other things. Excellent stuff there. There's also a new string of illegal immigrant stabbings and other violent actions that we're going to have to get into. We wanted to cover them this evening. We just didn't have the time. You know, you see, we've been half an hour over into the bonus tonus portion of the show. So before we go, thank you very much for tuning in. If you would consider you really like the show, throw a like on it before you leave. It really helps us get the show out there. And we do really read through all of the comments. Even if you tune in later and we're no longer live, I do scroll through those. You'll often see a Daily Signal reply with a little TK at the end of it. That would be me. We love and are quite honored that you guys would choose to spend a bit of your evening with us. Stay safe, touch grass. God bless and we will be back tomorrow, 7:00pm Eastern. Same great time, same great place. It's the Tony Kinnid cast here on the Daily Signal, nationally syndicated and first on 93 WIBC. Y' all take care. This is worth knowing. TikTok Shop helps you discover good value products and surprise deals fast. No endless searching, just Smart finds. Download TikTok now.