← VINCE
VINCE
The Deadly Biden Scandal that has Dems Panicking | Episode 319
01:06:21
The Supreme Court delivers a string of blockbuster rulings on immigration and the Second Amendment; Dems renew calls to reshape the Court; all eyes remain on the still-pending birthright citizenship decision; Dem governor demands answers over the Biden administration's handling of fentanyl; Trump allies escalate the SAVE America Act showdown.
Loading summary
Transcript36 lines
- [00:00]
Vince
I wrote a little song to remind you. Choice hotels get you more of the experiences you value. The Cambria Hotel's got it all. A rooftop bar.
- [00:11]
Byron Donalds
Have a ball.
- [00:12]
Vince
Cocktails up here feel just right. It's Cambria. Amazing. All right, bring a date, your teen or even your mom. Book direct@ChoiceHotels.com See you on the roof,
- [00:30]
Stephen Miller
everybody.
- [00:31]
Vince
Welcome to Vince on a Friday. Great to have you with us. I start today with some amazing news. We got a bunch of great Supreme Court decisions yesterday or. But are we merely being fattened up for the slaughter? Yes, that's right. Are we about to get a big stinker of a Supreme Court decision? We'll see. I'll walk through all of the good news and the worry about the bad news coming up here on the program today. Also, we talked earlier this week about a very deadly Joe Biden led scandal that killed lots of American citizens. We're finding out more about this now, including the reaction from some Democrats who are saying they want criminal investigations in to the Biden administration. We'll discuss what's happening there and so much more all ahead on this Friday edition. Events as we get closer and closer. The 250th anniversary of our great country. Great to have you with us. Look at you all. Look at you all, the best audience anywhere. If you're listening to us live, listening to us rather, on podcast, you should join us live. Rumble.com Vince on any given weekday morning, 8am we do this show together and we've got the great chat gathering. It's so wonderful. So that's another option for you, something to do on a weekday morning, 8am in the morning. It'd be great to have you. All right. Let me thank one of the great sponsors who do make this show possible. Bone Charge. Bone Charge. We love Bone Charge in the colonized household. Bone Charge. The infrared sauna blanket has been wonderful for me. I first turned to that sauna blanket to help with muscle recovery, detoxification. It's been a total game changer. It's, it's easy to use. I just wrap myself up and let the heat work. It's perfect. It's a great relaxation thing and it's actually such a joy to have a sauna in the house. What a joy. I've noticed a huge difference. Now. I relax now I rejuvenate and how I feel afterward. Allison, she's got the red light face mask. She wears it every day. She loves it and she finds that it works really well because first of all, red light Therapy.
- [02:23]
Byron Donalds
Hello.
- [02:23]
Vince
If you look this stuff up, it works. It improves her skin's texture, reduces inflammation. She has seen fantastic results. It's like having a mini spa treatment right inside our home. So if you're thinking about trying either of these products out, you are in luck. Head to boncharge.com, b o n charge.com. use the code Vince at checkout. Get 15% off. Both of these products have made a huge impact on us and our wellness. I think you're gonna love them, too. Use the code vince@buncharge.com to save 15%. These statements and products have not been evaluated by the fda. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or condition. Boom.
- [03:05]
Stephen Miller
Yeah. Yeah.
- [03:06]
Vince
Oh, yeah. That's a good, good point, too. Juice McGroin says make sure to subscribe to the program. Yes, that would be wonderful while you're here. If, if this is the first time or if this is the umpteenth time you've joined us, but you're not yet subscribed. Subscribe. It'd be. Be worth your while, I think. Let me start today with the fact that Democrats that are now asking questions not about Joe Biden's brain, but the wisdom of allowing him to kill American citizens en masse. Interesting. Now, I will, I will straight up tell you right now that they're not using the word Biden, but it is all about Biden or at least the people who were pulling the levers inside of his administration. We go to the Democrat governor of New Mexico. Do we have anybody from New Mexico in the chat today? We have this. This woman, Michelle Lujan Grisham, who's just released a statement this week saying that she wants a criminal investigation into is. Yes, the Biden administration's decision to poison American citizens with fentanyl. Here's what she says. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham today issuing the following statement, quote, I'm appalled by reporting this week by the Associated Press and Albuquerque Journal that revealed federal authorities made a deliberate. Federal authorities. That's Biden made a deliberate decision to let hundreds of thousands of fentanyl pills flood into New Mexico communities despite knowing that fentanyl is so lethal that the White House has designated it a weapon of mass destruction. Let me say that again. The DEA watched as 74,000 fentanyl pills were delivered to a mobile home park in Albuquerque and they did nothing thing. And that's just one transaction. Shockingly, the federal government stood by while monitoring shipments, tallying exact pillow counts and watching as these deadly drugs hit the streets. Look, there's. This audience is going to know this story a lot better than. Than. Well, I would say most people, because we had Tristan Levitt on earlier this week from Empower Oversight. He. He represents whistleblowers, including the whistleblower who brought this story to the public. And the revelations are absolutely staggering. If you haven't seen the Tristan Levitt interview, just go back a couple of days here. We've got it. I know Tristan also shared it to his ex account, and in it, he and I talked about the fact that millions of these fentanyl pills were observed by the Biden administration coming into the country, and they did nothing to stop them. They let them go under this ridiculous notion that somehow this would improve the quality of law enforcement. No. Catch the guys before they kill American citizens. You don't have any room to play around with this. This is insane. And this is why we're calling it Fentanyl and Furious. It's just like Operation Fast and Furious, except far more deadly. In that case, the deadly implements, the guns, were being tracked by the Obama administration as they were going to the cartels in Mexico. One of those guns came back and was. And a cartel member killed a Border Patrol agent by the name of Brian Terry that led to an epic scandal during the Biden, during the Obama administration. Eric Holder would eventually be held in contempt of Congress related to all of that. Of course, he never faced criminal consequences because he was the Attorney general and didn't inflict criminal consequences on himself because he's above the law. But this story is huge. And now you've got the Democrat governor of New Mexico saying, we need a criminal investigation into the people who are killing American citizens. She's right about that. There are no words to describe how reckless and dangerous these decisions were. She says, make no mistake, the DEA knew that people would die if these pills made it into the New Mexico communities. And the agency let it happen anyway. The result, Hundreds of New Mexican parents burying their kids. Hundreds of New Mexican kids graduated, growing up without stable parents, all while the federal government stood by. If the justification for letting these pills flood our communities was that it would somehow make New Mexico safer, the results say otherwise. New Mexico now leads the nation in the increase in overdose deaths for the second straight year, despite deaths dropping nationwide. She says she's been trying to get in touch with a whole bunch of people here. You see, pay attention to the dates here, because only one references a Trump official. That's Attorney General Pam Bondi. She says in 2022, she sought information from Chris Wray during the Biden administration, imploring the FBI to assign no less than 50 additional agents to New Mexico to stem escalating drug trafficking and violent crime. September of 2022, she reaches out to the Attorney General Merrick Garland, requesting Support. August of 2023, she writes again to Garland, renewing her request. September of 2023, she writes to Garland again reiterating her request. She's ignored. She said she finally was able to reach out to Pam bondi. September of 2025, that's she only. She merely mentions that she once again requested additional agents and resources. Well, I'll tell you what. During the Trump era, the fentanyl deaths have been going down. During the Trump presidency, the overdose deaths have been going down. There's a good story to be told, a better story, let's put it that way, a better story to be told about that situation now in the country continues to be a crisis and the Trump administration is working very hard on it. But keep this one in mind. You've got a Democrat governor. Let's see if this grows beyond the Democrat governor of New Mexico, because it should. It should. This is one of the biggest scandals of our lifetimes. And that put that in the pile of a lot of big scandals. From the COVID betrayals, the jab stuff, the shutdowns related to that, to the rigging of our elections, the hiding of really important information, the Trump Russia conspiracy hoax, the assassination attempts on President Trump. There are a lot of big scandals to deal with. But this one, this one's right up there. When you've got overdose deaths killing over 100,000Americans a year, yeah, you can, you can be damn sure this one's up there. So there you go, update on that, a quick update on that. But we also have some other big updates on the sovereignty of our country. The Supreme Court released a series of really important decisions yesterday that I found very encouraging. I found encouraging because they adhered to the Constitution and the rule of law. I always like decisions that do that. And I want to start with the one that we just got out of Hawaii. Now. Curious, anybody in Hawaii right now? In the chat, I'd be, I'd be a little shocked. Hawaii, I think, is six hours, six hours difference and everyone's, I think, in their beds at the moment. But in Hawaii, you know, the Second Amendment does apply to the state of Hawaii. Right. You wonder, you guys know this chat, this chat knows this. The Second Amendment applies to Hawaii. Yeah. Cuz it's A part of the United States of America. Well, the Supreme Court over the last decade or so has been releasing a number of really important, really the last two decades has been releasing a number of really important decisions that have sided with the Second Amendment. And they've made it all the more possible for people to have their Second Amendment rights protected. Here's the problem. Democrats hate the second Amendment. They hate an armed populace. They think the only people who should be armed and is the government so that the government can inflict upon you whatever tyranny the left devises for your life. Meanwhile, normal people would like to protect their families and would like to, if like to be able to be armed in order to do that. As you know, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. So being able to protect your family is an essential thing. And being able to carry a gun on you is also a great American right. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has routinely protected the rights of concealed carry. Americans, Americans who are carrying guns in a concealed fashion. Is it protected enough? Is that right protected enough? No, nowhere near enough. We need nationwide reciprocity. We need those gun rights protected. This idiocy about gun free zones is really just like shooting zones for criminals. But in their effort, in the left's effort to try and upend the Supreme Court and the protections of the second amendment in Hawaii, they had devised a law that said you are not allowed to conceal carry onto any private property that is accessible to the public unless you get affirmative consent from the property owner. You see, let me, let me break down that example a little bit more explicitly for you so you can understand what I'm talking about. In other words, if you are carrying a gun in a concealed way and you go to a gas station to fill up your tank in Hawaii, under Hawaii law, up until yesterday, under Hawaii law, it would be illegal for you to continue to conceal carry onto the private property of the gas station unless you sought and secured affirmative consent from the owner of the gas station. That turns the second amendment directly on its head. It deprives American citizens of their gun rights at scale in the beautiful state of Hawaii. And is it? So the court yesterday they came up with a decision really clear 6 to 3, saying that Hawaii's law banning licensed concealed carry permit holders from carrying guns onto private property open to the public is unconstitutional. Now the justice is right in this opinion yesterday. It's entirely possible for a property owner to forbid guns on their private property. So like you, if you, if you own your home and you decide that you don't want someone coming in with a gun, you can forbid them from doing that. That's your right as a property owner. That also is the right of a gas station owner who owns the property. They could say, hey, no guns on my property. They're allowed to do that. But this inversion where you're not allowed to carry a gun onto this private property if it's accessible to the public unless you seek affirmative consent from the owner in the first place. Yeah, that's not gonna fly. The Supreme Court struck that down yesterday in an important wind to the Second Amendment. So that battle continues. The battle to protect the Second Amendment continues. But meaningful victory yesterday as yet another attempt by the left at what you might refer to as malicious compliance. Oh, yeah, we're protecting the Second Amendment as they crap all over it. Yeah, that's not going to fly. So the Supremes striking that down yesterday, appreciative of that. We also have some big Supreme Court decisions when it comes to our border. And those are the screaming headlines from the day. Although I think the Second Amendment case is really important too. Let's talk about the border cases, shall we? This is how we do it. Let's see, we've got the Supreme Court yesterday ruling that President Trump, yes. Can turn away so called asylum seekers who arrive at our border, at our border. Just because you arrived south of the US Border, you're standing in Mexico and you start yelling, sanctuary, sanctuary, I claim asylum. Or whatever the, you know, incantation you think you need to use in order to get into the United States is cheap. Just because you utter the words does not mean you are entitled to come into our country and stay here forever. In fact, the United States could just turn you away and you are not entitled to stay. That is U.S. law. And that is of course, what the United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday in another 6, 3 decision. There's a difference between arriving at our country and arriving in our country. And the difference in those prepositions, well, it makes all the difference in the world. Listen to Justice Alito. This is back in March as he was pointing out that the left keeps trying to smuggle the people into the country by claiming that arriving at the border somehow entitles you to stay here forever. Watch this. That both you and Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson on several occasions have, have used the phrase arriving at. I think you said you arrived at your house, but that's not the term that is in the statute. Do you think there is no difference between arriving at a location and arriving in the location? Does a person Arrive in the house when the person is not in the house and is knocking at the door asking to be admitted to the house. Great question. No, those are two different things. If somebody arrives at your house, they're not yet in your house, and then they get invited in your house, that's a separate, separate step. And here's the Supreme Court saying, President Trump has every right to say, no, thanks, we're having dinner and sending you away. The president can do that. Also, to be really clear about this asylum stuff, you understand how ridiculous it is that we have people from all over the planet who are claiming asylum in the United States. You know, under international asylum principles and laws that you are supposed to claim, seek, seek asylum status, rather, in the first safe, third country you arrive at. Like, once you get out of the place where you say you're being persecuted, attempt to claim asylum at the first place you arrive at, that's not the United States. How many Chinese nationals have flown into South America and then transited the Darien Gap and come all the way up into the United States? Tens of thousands, by some counts, over the course of the Biden administration, of illegal alien Chinese nationals pouring into our country in this way, not just Chinese nationals. How many people from countries everywhere on planet Earth, from Asia, from Africa, from Europe, from South America, just all pouring through our borders under the Biden administration, many of whom claim some ridiculous, quote, credible fear and then never show up for their asylum hearings because they know at that point they're home free, they can just stay in the United States forever. So the president has been shutting down these routes whereby foreigners invade our country. This has been one of them. And the Supreme Court said yesterday, you. You have every right to do that. In fact, you have an obligation to do that under the law. So the president, it can do that. That's. That's great. Another one for you. You ready for another big Supreme Court case? So I've gone over two. Here's the third from yesterday. Yesterday, the Supreme Court sided with the President of the United States. And, yes, he can end temporary protective status for Haitians and for Syrians. It's at his discretion whether or not that status continues to be extended. And because it's temporary, it means at some point, you've got to go. And yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed with President Trump. You've got this power, therefore, they have to go. More on that in just a moment. And also the screeching the left is doing over the fact that foreigners who are supposed to be here on a temporary basis don't get to stay here forever. They're going crazy because they're the left. It's typical stuff. All right. More ahead on this edition of Vince. Want to thank one of our fine sponsors today. That's Shopify. You know, starting something new is not just hard, it can be terrifying. Terrifying. And even before we started this program, I did wonder, I was like, is this gonna work? Am I gonna be able to do this format? But taking that leap, man, it changed everything. And having tools that simplify the process to take leaps, it makes it so much easier. Trusting yourself is the first big step forward. And this is where Shopify comes in. Shopify powers millions of businesses worldwide and about 10% of U.S. e commerce. From global brands to first time founders, you can build a beautiful storefront with ready to use templates that match your style. No coding needed. Their built in AI helps write product descriptions, headlines, and even improve photos, saving hours every single week. Plus, you can create email and social campaigns in just minutes so your brand reaches customers everywhere. And when questions pop up, 24. 7 support has your back. It's time to turn those what ifs into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com Vince go to shopify.com Vince that's shopify.com Vince. All right, let's see here. Yeah. So the Supreme Court yesterday said, yes, the president can end temporary protective status. That's well within his powers. And no, just because you're upset about it doesn't mean you get to litigate and stay inside the country forever. You've got to go. So let me give you some context, ladies and gentlemen. Who here, anybody in the chat know what year Haiti Haitians were granted temporary protective status right here in the United States. When was this designation done? Does anybody in the chat know? It's okay if you don't. I had to look it up to verify myself. What year did this? It's. I'll give you a hint. It revolved around a devastate, a devastating natural disaster. A devastating natural disaster. Now, it's not quite, quite so far back as the 1990s. This. There we go. Corey. Nailed it. Corey. 1215. It was 2010. It was 2010 that this took place. It was a. There was an earthquake in Haiti on January 12 of 2010. On January 21, before the end of the month of that year. Now, 16 and a half years ago, the United States government created temporary protective status for Haitians who are fleeing the devastation. Sixteen years ago. Sixteen years. So if you can Stay in the United States for 16 years and then just keep on going. At what point do we say it's not temporary anymore? Kind of seems permanent, doesn't it, if you're going to stay here for decades? Similarly, in Syria, that designation was conferred in 2012. That would have been 14 years ago. That designation was not for an earthquake. It was for the Syrian civil war. And since then, Basar Al Assad is gone. Assad has been dethroned. He's unseated. And so the Assad government, which was involved in the Syrian civil war, is now gone. So the point is, go back to Syria. You were here on a temporary basis. Now you can go back and this temporary protective status thing, understand what this says about the United States. It's. It, first of all conveys the most obvious thing, which is, we are a very generous country. We are very generous. In fact, we will open our doors to taking people on a temporary basis until their country can get back on their feet and then send them back on their way. Go on back. Get back to your home. That's a very generous thing for us to do. But at one point, does our generosity become utterly suicidal? Because it seems to me that the cruel thing to do is to take advantage of our generosity and then to abuse us, despite how good we've been to places like Haiti and Syria, at least the people of Haiti and the people of Syria, that seems like the cruel thing. So when the Supreme Court comes out with this decision yesterday, it's on the side of the rule of laws, on the side of decency. It's like, hey, look, you had a good run, but now's the time to go home. That's all wonderful. This is something that Democrats are raging about. They are furious about this. Yesterday, Chuck Schumer was calling it very cruel that these Haitians and Syrians have to go back to their home countries. Now, Seth Moulton, whoever the hell that is, was whining that President Trump. He said it was President Trump. It wasn't President Trump. It was the Supreme Court. He said, Donald Trump's Supreme Court has ended legal protections for tens of thousands of Haitians and Syrian migrants. Rather than protect the hardworking families that contribute to our communities, Trump's justices are sending them back to the same places they fled. Democrats need to. You see this? Democrats need to reform the court to preserve our rights and protect TPS families. So here's a Democrat congressman speaking on behalf of all the other Democrats who are saying the same nonsense in the last 24 hours, saying that the Real people that they're there in Congress to protect are foreign nationals who have overstayed both their welcome and our generosity, who have gotten every benefit imaginable from the people of the United States and should go home. That guy is fighting harder for the foreigner, for the abuser, for the person who wants to just stay here forever than he is for any American citizen. Can you imagine if these Democrats fought half as hard for Americans as they fight for these people? What a, what a great country this would be if we could get these, these guys in Congress to fight half as hard as they do for foreign nationals. It's wild. And watch as he dresses up. The language here is like, hey, do you have a moral obligation to sell out your own country? You have a moral obligation to be taken advantage of. No, I don't. To hell with you. I have a moral obligation to tell the truth. That's the moral obligation I have. I have a moral obligation to my family. I have a moral obligation to my God, and I have a moral obligation to my country. And in the interest of all of those things, I'd like the rule of law back, please. I'd like order back. I'd like America to be for Americans on our terms, not people who violate our laws or take advantage of our generosity. So Seth Moulton says that. But that key, that one I just highlighted for you. Democrats need to reform the court. He says this is the game plan. Notice how he starts the post. He says it's Donald Trump's Supreme Court. And then he says Democrats need to reform it. In other words, Democrats need to pack it so that their policy preferences are just absolutely rammed down the throat of the American people. It's not about the Constitution. It's not about the rule of law. They're not interested in. In people who are going to look at the text of the Constitution and the law and render wise judgments on that basis. They're looking for people to invent left wing laws directly from the bench. That's what they want. And also it's to be, again, clear. This is an obvious warning sign to Republicans in the Senate. What are you doing with the filibuster, dude? Get rid of it. All of these Democrats are going to get rid of it the second they can because they want to pack the Supreme Court in order to make permanent their disgraceful policy preferences, which involves selling out the American people. Are you not seeing the writing on the wall? Are you not seeing the writing on social media? Are you really that dense that you don't perceive what's about to happen next. Crazy to me. Absolutely crazy. So, you know, one, I got one more Democrat spazzing out for you, and then we'll get to Stephen Miller. It'll be Miller time. I can't wait for the Stephen Miller stuff. But first, one more Democrats spazzing out. This is, this is a woman who's on a network called Ms. Now. You guys know about Ms. Now. Ms. Now. This Miz now, kind of like a lesbian cable network or something. They've got a woman on there with resting Democrat face by the name of Nicole Wallace. And she was really upset yesterday that all of these Haitians and Syrians would have to leave the United States of America. Now, if I had to venture a guess, Nicole Wallace doesn't live anywhere near where the Haitians and the Syrians are. In fact, she would probably be the first to, you know, make sure that the Haitians and Syrians can't live in her community, wherever that is. But here she is yesterday whining about the Supreme Court decision and saying that a poem on the Statue of Liberty says that you're supposed to betray your country. Listen to this Supreme Court making a mockery of the words emblazoned on the Statue of Liberty. Quote, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free is where we start today, A poem on the Statue of Liberty. That poem was written by a woman called Emma Lazarus. The New Colossus is the name of the poem. It was affixed to the Statue of Liberty many decades after the after the statue was was put up and dedicated. And that little tiny line inside of the poem has been used by the left as some sort of declaration of what America's laws are supposed to be, that your borders are supposed to be wide open and that America is not supposed to be for Americans. That's the position that the left routinely takes as a justification for betraying our sovereignty. Now, notice she doesn't use another phrase to refer to immigrants in that poem, which is wretched refuse. So if, if we're going to go ahead and use the poem as some sort of, you know, gospel of truth about immigration, is Nicole Wallace saying that immigrants are wretched refuse? Has she read the poem? It's also stupid. Anyway, the point is, the poem is not US Law, the poem is not US Law, and the left will once again routinely use it as a means to pretend it is. Just in case you're wondering what that was about. All right, in a moment. I've got a palate cleanser for you. The great Stephen Miller reacting to this big decision yesterday. There's nothing like Miller time. We're going to get to that in just a moment, but first I want to tell you something. It's funny how sleep changes as you get older. When you're young, let's say you're early 20s, that's young. You can stay up too late, get four or five hours of sleep, grab a coffee, somehow still function the next day. But somewhere in your 30s, that sleep, it stops being optional. And you feel it when it's off. You get the brain fog, the shorter patients, the sluggish workouts. You're annoyed at your coworkers. You're, you know, needlessly cursing at Josh. Well, I'll tell you what. For me, falling asleep was never the issue. It was the staying asleep that became the issue. And this is why I started using Beam's Dream Powder. It gives you real restorative sleep. Dream is made up of a powerful blend of all natural ingredients. Reishi, magnesium, L theanine, apigenin, melatonin. Beam's already improved over 30 million nights of sleep, helping people all across the country wake up and feel their best. If you're in that stage of life where you can't just push through bad sleep anymore, this is precisely what you gotta try. Go to shopbeam.com VinShow Use the code VinShow Take advantage of my exclusive offer for up to 40% off of Beam's Dream Powder. Seriously, think about it. How much would you pay for a truly great night of sleep? Doesn't have to be that much, not with my discount. Code vinshow go to shopbeam.com vinshow today. Also want to thank Native Path Collagen. Just been a joy. It's been so helpful to me. I think you'll get something out of it too, you know, because as we all get older, we talk about getting older and the effects of that. It's the little things you start to really notice. The waking up stiff or your skin doesn't bounce back the same way. It turns out there's a reason for that. And this is why I love Native Path Collagen. Collagen helps support everything from joints, bones, skin, and hair. And after you turn 30, your body starts to make less collagen every year. You know about this? And by age 60, people lose about half of it. But Native Path collagen helps replenish that protein and helps you support the parts of your bodies that help you stay active, vital, and more like yourself. And another thing I love about Native Path. If you don't feel that difference like I have in your health, you get your money back. There's no questions asked. So. So give it a try. Plus, I'll get you over 50% off free shipping. Go to getnativepath.com Vince that's getnativepath.com Vince. These statements or products have not been evaluated by the fda. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease or condition. Consult with a healthcare professional. All right, you getting ready for Miller time? You ready for Miller time? So Stephen Miller reacting yesterday to all of this news. I've got. Let's see. I wanna make sure I got the right clips here. Josh, I've got. You've got two Stephen Miller clips in here for me. I know I've got a third one. Let me see. Stephen Miller. Here he is. All right, Miller time. When it comes to deportations, let's go with this one. This is a cut 3 on whether President Trump can deport Haitians. Watch this. Does the administration consider Haiti a safe country for Haitians?
- [32:33]
Stephen Miller
Absolutely, yes. So for. I mean, yes, Haitians live in Haiti. It's not our position that Haitians should leave Haiti. I mean, it would be. It'd be crazy for us to say that Haitians couldn't live in Haiti. It's their country. Of course Haitians should live in Haiti. There's no viable asylum, or use a technical term here, cat claim or withholding claim for any Haitian seeking relief from going back to Haiti to their homeland. The fact that there might be pockets of Haiti where there's higher crime rates, guess what? There's pockets of Chicago with crime rates just as high. Right. There's pockets of cities like St. Louis with crime just as high, pockets of Los Angeles crime just as high. It has never been the case that having communities that have high crime rates is a basis for asylum. Never has been, never will be. Thank you all. Have a great day. There will be more.
- [33:22]
Marco Rubio
I.
- [33:22]
Vince
That's true. High crime rates is not a basis for asylum. That. That bears repeating. High crime rates, not a basis for asylum. Not in any way under the statute, a basis for asylum in the United States. So what an interesting Q and A. I love that the guy's like, do you think Haiti's safe? And Steven Miller goes for Haitians. Yeah, that's why we're sending them back. That's why we're sending them back. And the truth is, the safety question is fundamentally not actually the asylum situation. Just because you have a high crime rate somewhere in the country does not justify asylum here in the United States. So good. Always good to see Stephen Miller out there. I think he should take up. Don't you think he should take over for one of these Caroline Levitt maternity leave press conferences? Wouldn't that be great? They had. Marco Rubio's done a wonderful job. JD Vance has done a wonderful job. A bunch of these guys have shown up to answer some questions. I know Dr. Oz did it at one point. Stephen Miller to do the press briefing. Can we get. Can we get an amen in the chat on Stephen Miller doing the press briefing? I would love to see that. I think that'd be phenomenal. I think that'd be super great. Anyway, we'll. We'll see. And even when Caroline's back at the. At the lectern, I. I still think that Stephen Miller should fill in every so often. That'd be good. Yeah. We got some amends.
- [34:43]
Stephen Miller
All right.
- [34:44]
Vince
All right. The chat's on board. Yeah, Good. All right, well, we'll let the White House know. T for Stephen Miller to do the press briefing. It'd be great. Let me see here. I've also got more for you from Stephen Miller.
- [34:55]
Marco Rubio
But.
- [34:55]
Vince
But first, I want to dwell on the wins here. The wins here. So the Supreme Court gave us a couple of great decisions yesterday, in particular when it came to protecting America's sovereignty and, you know, cleaning up our immigration system, which the left has been abusing. But I don't know about you, chat, but it's making me a little nervous that we're getting all these good decisions and we still haven't received the big enchilada yet. You know what I'm talking about? Birthright citizenship. The birthright citizenship case still sits before the Supreme Court next week. We're expected on Monday. We'll begin to get some of the remaining opinions, and we're expected to have the rest of these opinions over the course of this next week. And that birthright citizenship case, oh, boy. If this doesn't go the right way, it's going to be some real chaos. It's going to be some real chaos. So you've got. The court is considering right now whether or not somebody who just blitzes into our country and has a baby suddenly has an American citizen on their hands. That's the question before the court right now. Now, any decent American, anybody with two eyes, two ears, and two brain cells to rub together, knows that you should not be entitled to American citizenship by putting a toe on American soil and having a baby here like What? We had years of Chinese birth tourism going on where you had wealthy Chinese nationals flying into the country to have babies to make them American citizens and then bringing their babies back to China as newly minted American citizens. What is that system? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And I guarantee you there's no way the founders ever intended for citizenship to be conferred on people under circumstances like that. If you're an illegal alien to our country, if you break our country's laws and then have a baby within a day or something of your arrival, it doesn't matter what time frame, that doesn't entitle you to an American citizen child, by extension tethering you to the United States, which is why we use the phrase anchor baby. In fact, a lot of the welfare American taxpayer money that's taken by illegal aliens is taken by way of their unearned American citizenship children. That's just the truth. Now, has this system been broken for a while? Yes, it has. But the length of time that it's been broken should not be a justification for allowing this abuse to continue. The court's already said all of the oral arguments on the subject have already indicated, by the way, nobody's going to have their citizenship revoked even if it was gotten in this ill gotten way. It's about every person going forward. That's what this is about. So if the court rules in on the side of decency, on the side of the American people next week, that it's going to affect every case going forward that no, an illegal immigrant can't come to the United States and then, boom, have an American citizen child. In fact, the claims about birthright citizenship emanate out of the 14th amendment. A mangled reading of the 14th amendment. And we should be really clear about what the 14th Amendment is about and why it was set up in the first place. It was set up to address freed slaves, former slaves and their children. It was meant to establish once and for all that anybody who was ever in a condition of slavery in the United States or their children, these are American citizens. They are a part of the American story. They have every right to dictate the future of this country on the basis of that citizenship. They enjoy the blessings of American citizenship. That's what the 14th Amendment is about. In fact, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are all dedicated to welcoming former slaves into the full fabric of the United States of America. Now what would ensue after all of those amendments, of course, were many attempts by Democrats to continue to prevent black Americans from having their voting franchise from being able to participate in the United States of America. No doubt that history continues to exist, but this is the point of the 14th Amendment. It was meant to get us to that more perfect union. It wasn't meant to be, to make us imperfect, to break us, to introduce chaos. And yet that is precisely what the left has used the 14th amendment to do. It's amazing. It's amazing. So this, this needs to end. And I'm worried that, and I'm not alone, I know there's a bunch of people who are worried about it, that the court is releasing all of these opinions right now to essentially soften us up for the death blow that, yeah, we're going to keep this crappy system set up where people can just steal American citizenship.
- [39:56]
Stephen Miller
What?
- [39:58]
Vince
That's insane to me, and I hope it doesn't come to pass, but I'm nervous it's about to. And on and on this front. Let me, let me share something with you. Here's a Mike Davis post on the subject. The Great Mike Davis Article 3 project. We love Mike, and here's what he says. The Supreme Court just issued two good six three decisions on immigration, tps, and asylum. Don't let the timing fool anyone. Soon the Court will likely issue an egregiously wrong ruling. The Court will pretend that Chinese birth tourists, trend terrorists, Islamist invaders and and other illegals get automatic birthright citizenship. We the people, the sovereign citizens of America, never agreed to this. Not at our founding, not after the Civil War, not in any subsequent Congress. Never. This will serve as the most serious violation of our most crucial sovereign power controlling who comes and who goes and who becomes one of us. We the people, never agreed to this judicially sanctioned invasion and replacement. He's right about that. He's right. You know, there's also all sorts of evidence to be really clear that the 14th Amendment didn't just give blanket citizenship to any person who was born inside of the territorial borders of the United States. It's not true. In the case of foreign diplomats, it's. It's well accepted that foreign diplomats are not entitled to American citizen children just by giving birth here in the United States. Those children are citizens of the countries that that diplomat comes from. So. Well, wait a second. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to that kid. Why? What happened to equal protection? Equal protection? The equal protection clause is found in the 14th amendment, too. Oh, it doesn't apply to. To foreigners. That's interesting. In fact, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas yesterday wrote a very interesting concurring opinion in the case involving temporary protective status. So I just told you about that case where President Trump can get rid of all these Haitians, all these Syrians. Time to go home. You've stayed long enough. Yesterday, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion for that. For that opinion. Meaning this is. He shares the opinion of the majority, but he's got one extra thing he'd like to say. Sean Davis took a screen grab of it. We love Sean. And here's what Justice Thomas wrote. Quote, I joined the opinion of the court in full. I write separately, separately to address two more fundamental problems with the Myott respondents suit. First, their equal protection claim, while meritless under the court's precedence, was also beyond the district court's jurisdiction. Second, and this is the most important part, even assuming jurisdiction, the equal protection claim fails for the additional reason that aliens have no equal protection rights against the federal government. You got that? Aliens have no equal protection rights against the federal government. In other words, aliens don't have some sort of equal claim to US Citizenship just because their babies are born here. That doesn't make any.
- [43:20]
Marco Rubio
Then.
- [43:20]
Vince
No, absolutely not. And you have Justice Thomas, this is not the same opinion. Obviously they haven't released the birthright citizenship opinion, but he's making it really clear in his concurring opinion, no, foreigners don't get the equal protection rights of Americans. That's insane. Why would the Constitution ever say that? Let me give you an example in a different context. You know that under current federal law, although it's very poorly enforced, obviously under current federal law, it is illegal for illegal aliens to receive almost every single category of welfare. They're not entitled, they're not even allowed to collect welfare. Now, as I pointed out a few minutes ago, oftentimes illegals will smuggle welfare through their unearned American citizen children. That often happens. And there's all sorts of other ways that illegals tap into taxpayer resources and exploit our system. But on this core point, which is like, hey, can you get food stamps? Are you entitled to welfare of any kind? No, it's illegal under federal law. Now if the equal protection clause applied to illegal aliens, that wouldn't stand. It'd be like, no, actually they're entitled to welfare too. Equal protection. That's insanity. This is all insanity. And the idea that it's even possible that the court could side with illegal aliens having American citizen children is nut job stuff. It's completely both ahistoric and totally rejects the law in the Constitution. And yet we may see that decision from the court because not only do we have three left wing lunatics on the court, we also have some judges with some very weak knees who collapse under the slightest bit of pressure from the New York Times and these other establishment hacks. So be on guard for that and continue to pray for the right outcome. This thing's not out yet. Who knows, maybe you and I will be celebrating a proper decision next week. We'll see. But as always, pray for your country. Now, if this doesn't go our way, one way or another, we've got to fix this. We've got to fix this problem. In fact, here's Stephen Miller unloading on this notion of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. Watch this cut to what is your sense of where the court will go on birthright citizenship?
- [45:37]
Stephen Miller
Well, look, I don't know where they're going to go. I'm not going to forecast it. Here's what I can say. Anybody who has read even 30 seconds of American history understands the Reconstruction Amendments after the Civil War were to ensure that the children of slaves would be free, disenfranchised in the United States. The author of the 14th Amendment was clear in saying it did not apply to aliens. There should be a 90 ruling in a functioning democracy. The idea that you can have a country where you just set foot on US soil and any child you have gets to be an American citizen and vote in our elections, collect our welfare, sit in our juries, sit in judgment of our fellow men and women is such an outrage to the idea of having a country, it defies description. I don't know what they're going to do, but here's what I can say. If this country doesn't, one way or another end birthright of citizenship, this country doesn't have a future. Citizenship has to be sacred and precious. And as we stand here on the 250th anniversary of America's founding, the idea that we wouldn't have in this country respect and sanctity for citizenship for the voting franchise is such an insult to generations of Americans who spilled their blood for our freedom in battlefields here and all across the earth.
- [47:05]
Vince
Will. Yeah, he's totally right. One way or another, the only way we're going to preserve this country is if we restore order. That's it. That's it. So what do we do? Well, I'll tell you what. If the court rules against American citizens next week, there is absolutely no question that we have to amend the United States Constitution. And I know, I know that's a heavy lift. You might already Be thinking like Vince. Is that even possible? We can barely get these guys to do a speaking filibuster. I know, I know. But what other recourse do we have? We have to make it crystal clear what the 14th Amendment actually means. A clarifying amendment to the Constitution. I can't believe we have to clarify it. The people who drafted the 14th amendment were clear. Stephen Miller was just very clear. But if you need us to say it more loudly and more clearly, we will. America is for Americans. It's not for people who invade it. It's an amazing thing. It's. It's an amazing. But be on guard for this because we've got. We've got a big story coming in the next week, one way or the other. Let me get to some other news, though. There's some other important things going on. I told you this week. And actually, over the course of the last two weeks, there's a lot of people that are attempting to sow division between the Vice President of the United States and the Secretary of State for some reason. I think this has to revolve around 20, 28 preferences. People might either like Marco Rubio better or JD Vance better, whatever it is. And the funny thing is, like, you hear from these guys and they're constantly conveying that they're on the same page on what's going on with Iran, constantly. They're even telling everyone. They're both telling everybody, read the Memorandum of Understanding. Like this. All this, like, nonsense that's being spread around it. Read first. More reading, less talking. It's always good life advice. Do a little bit more research first. But here's Marco Rubio being asked questions in yesterday about, why is JD Vance more prominent than you are in the Iran negotiations? And Rubio responds to this woman that she's. She's being a moron, basically. He's a little nicer and says he's the Vice President of the United States. He's the second most powerful person in our government. What are you talking about? Watch this. As the country's top diplomat, do you not want more of a direct role in these talks, which have been, until now, really led by the vice president? And, well, we have.
- [49:31]
Marco Rubio
I think, like any. I think that's just a silly analysis. The vice President is the second ranking person in our government. It just shows you how seriously we take that endeavor. And we have a team of people that do work. I mean, I'm here today because they were overseas last week. We all have a role to play in this regard. So I mean, I'm here. I've been here for three days. This is a key component of that. So. But I think that's a really silly question. The Vice President of the United States, other than the president, is the second most powerful person in our government. The fact that he's directly involved in this tells you the importance that our administration has given to this topic. So I think it's a very positive thing that he's involved in it.
- [50:04]
Vince
Isn't it funny? So what he's really saying is it's a sign of President Trump's commitment to this process. That's what he's saying, that he sent his senior most lieutenant to handle it. Like, what are you talking about? That I would be mad that JD Vance is on this? I'm not mad at. This is great. In fact, one of the reporters asked yesterday more explicitly, tell me about your divide with J.D. vance. Okay, here we go. Watch this. Cut six. How wide is the divide between you and the Vice President?
- [50:39]
Marco Rubio
On what issue?
- [50:39]
Vince
On any issue.
- [50:41]
Marco Rubio
This administration, let me tell you something. Everyone here is aligned behind the President of the United States. Every single one of us. The President of the United States makes the foreign policy of our country and our job. We obviously give advice, we give counsel, we give opinions. But when the President of the United States is the one who is elected by the people of our country to conduct our foreign policy, the President makes these decisions. And all of us on his team, every single one of us, works in lockstep very closely with one another to execute on the President's foreign policy. Everything we do is because the President has made a decision that it's going to be done. And one of the things I'm very proud of, I can't speak for every element of our government because I'm not involved in other aspects of our government. But one of the things that I'm the proudest of is that when it comes to foreign policy and national security, we have no drama. We have no games. We have a group of people that work very well together and closely to execute on the President's directives, which is why I think we've had good outcomes and good achievements, and we're going to continue to have good outcomes and good achievements. Everyone has an important role to play, and everyone is playing that role and doing it in a collaborative process. And I think that serves the President well and I think that serves the country. Country well. Of course,
- [51:45]
Vince
we have no drama. We have no games. That's interesting because the media wants to create drama and they love Playing games. That's what that was. Tell me about your division. We don't have the vision. We've got a team. We've got no drama. We've got no games. We're working on the president's vision. Wow, what an improvement over the first administration, by the way. Remember all the people who were inside who were, like, constantly trying to subvert the president, working against him, undermining him, trying to rein him in? Oh, you can't do this. You can't do that. Wait, hold on a second. Who got elected? Who's the guy who got elected to this gig? That's President Trump. Who do you work for? That's President Trump. Whose agenda are you fulfilling? That's President Trump. And most importantly, the Trump voter. That's the agenda you're fulfilling. So if you're opposed to it, leave. But if you're on board, thank you. Thanks for being in the fight. Good, good answers from Rubio yesterday. I just love, just like, you know, don't fall for the garbage. There's, like, people out there. Oh, Rubio is keeping his head down. He's really embarrassed by all this. Really? Because he keeps answering all these questions. He keeps telling you suckers to actually read the MOU and that he's happy to be a part of this great team. So, you know, who am I going to believe? The people are making up crap or the guys who are actually in the thick of it? I know. I know the answer to that question. Let me. You guys want a quick Save America act update? I've done a lot of Save America act this week. I thought, you know what, maybe we could. We could shrink Save America just a little bit today. Although it is so important, in order for us to do Save America, though, we got to do. We got to gavel into it a little Save America act update. You want some hot rage on the Save America Act? Good. Me, too. Here we go. Byron Donalds is my spirit animal this week. Here's Byron Donald's going absolutely ham yesterday. Cut 10. Watch this. Byron Donalds.
- [53:44]
Byron Donalds
Man, the Senate sucks. I'm just going to come out and say it. They suck.
- [53:49]
Vince
True.
- [53:49]
Byron Donalds
This is not hard. 80% of the American people want the Save America act to pass. Not 80% of Republicans, 80% of the American people. And the only organization that refused to act is the United States Senate. Everybody else is saying this is common sense. We should do common sense things. Let's make sure only Americans are voting in our elections. Makes sense, right? Let's protect the franchise of the American people. Let's make sure that people who are sent to Washington are, are being voted on by Americans. Who the American people choose is up to them, but we have a responsibility to secure that franchise and to secure that process for the American people. And what is happening in the US Senate is laziness. And quite frankly, it's disgusting. What? The Senate Democrats don't want to have voter ID in America. Why? Because they want to maintain their power. Senate Republicans don't want to do the right thing and actually have a true filibuster on the floor and debate the matter on the floor because it would take them away from their precious meetings that they have to conduct. I'm sorry. They have a responsibility to open up the Senate floor and debate this issue in front of the American people. I agree with chairman Harris 1000%.
- [55:10]
Vince
So Byron Donald's totally right about that. What we really are dealing with is the affliction of laziness going on in the United States Senate. They just don't want to do it. That really, honestly, this is like, you know, Occam's razor. It's like the most obvious explanation for why a lot of these Republicans are just not doing it. They're too lazy. They're too lazy. You know, the reality is, I don't know if this will come as a shock to you. A lot of these guys just enjoy being called Senator. That's it. They just like, you know, patting each other on the back. I'm a Senator. They're perfectly content. A lot of them being in the minority, they don't. In fact, the less they have to do, the better. The less that you can even get them to do the better. As long as I'm a senator, it's fine. And then they can enrich their friends and vote on corrupt backroom deals and not have to spend too much time really thinking about the purpose of our country and their role in trying to hold it together. Because if they did care about that, you know, we wouldn't be 37, 38, $39 trillion in debt right now. You know, if they did care about that, then this wouldn't be an issue. We wouldn't have to worry about, you know, pleading, begging, cajoling them in order to establish election integrity. If they did care about that, they wouldn't be on recess right now. And yet the Senate is. They're on recession. They work two and a half days a week. Is it. Anyone else in this chat have a two and a half day workweek? I don't have a two and A half day workweek. I don't know what that's like. In the Senate, they've got a two and a half day workweek. And then they give these long lectures insofar as they ever stand in front of a microphone doing anything about how they're working so hard for the American people. Two and a half day work week. Hey there. I'm Paula Pan. I help people make the smartest money decisions possible. If you don't control your money, it controls you. You're not in control of your finances and you have to look outside of yourself to live the life that you want. You're not in control of your life. Like, what is it that you actually want? Money should follow the dreams and goals because sometimes we make the dream and goal the money. And you've overworked yourself and you've exceeded what you've needed for the actual thing you want. Sometimes we forget, like, what's the actual thing you want? Afford anything. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. What are you talking about? I work harder than the senators. You think, Josh, I'm trying. He said, I'm putting the work in. I'm trying. I'm trying. I feel like I've got a better grasp of how the freaking Senate works than a lot of these senators. These guys, A lot of these guys seem to be caught off guard by the fact that they're even allowed to stand up and make a case in order to get something passed. Wait, we can do that? Oh, that sounds awful.
- [57:50]
Marco Rubio
Yeah.
- [57:51]
Vince
Then get out of the job. Let's get somebody who can stand on their own two feet and talk. That's all we need you to do. Standard two feet and talk and then vote and restore integrity to America's elections. You know, John Cornyn was this week before they went on recess, he took a screen grab of his talking points about why he can't do anything for you. He actually has talking points. Somebody on his staff wrote talking points about why he's not able to do his job. It was the SAVE act, talking filibuster issues. This is the talking points they wrote for him. And it's a series of excuses for why we can't use the talking filibuster to get this passed. Now, of course you can use the talking filibuster to get it passed, but let's very quickly go through it. He says the two speech rule, meaning that Democrats will get two chances for speeches during a filibuster, applies to every debatable action in the Senate, including procedure, amendments, and underlying Bills. Yeah, this happens all the time. This happens when you're doing the budget, when you're doing the reconciliation, the vote. A rama. This happens all year long. So like what? It wouldn't be new for the SAVE Act, Save America Act. It's the same thing that happens all the time. There's constantly attempts by Democrats to extend debate and disrupt things. That's going to happen no matter what you do. So you may as well be pursuing something worthwhile. He goes on. He says Democrats can force unlimited tough votes on any subject that divide us anytime on any issue for months and months. Again, this happens all the time. And Republicans can get enough votes if you can actually get your asses together and do something for once to table all of the nonsense. He says Republicans must maintain quorum at all times, including nights and weekends. Or Democrats can seize control over the floor. Should, sure. But as Rachel Bovard points out, and by the way, I'm cribbing a lot from Rachel Bovard here as I assess this because she wrote an amazing ex post on this subject. You should go to my. Go to my X account or just go right to Rachel's X account and find it. It's amazing. It's a great takedown of John Cornyn's lies here and excuses. But she writes about this and she says, you know, a quorum is only maintained through senators registering their presence via a live quorum. It works like a vote. They come in, they raise their hands and then they leave. So yeah, they need to be near the floor. They don't have to be on the floor. They don't have to be. And once a quorum is present, Democrats need to speak the whole time or else a vote happens. So if Democrats aren't speaking, what happens? Chat. A vote. A vote on the bill, on the legislation. This is achievable. Here's another one. John Cornyn. This is like these are all self defeating talking points. He says it becomes impossible for members in cycle to go to their states. We can't go out of session or control the timing of key or hard votes. Okay, so you can't go campaign in a fraudulent election. What if, here's a brilliant idea. What if you just busted your tail a little bit and delivered for the voters and made them enthusiastic to send you back to Washington in the first place? And we had credible elections. Could you imagine what kind of tailwinds you would get from that kind of effort? Here's another one. Democrats can drag the process out so late in the year, the SAVE act cannot be Implemented before the election. Okay, don't fall for this strawman. This is nonsense. It's irrelevant. Fundamentally, you and I would love to have the Save America act before the midterms, obviously. But even if we don't get it before the midterms, shouldn't we have it as quickly as humanly possible? We should. The midterms are huge. But if the question is, do we get the Save America act after the midterms or never, I'll take it after the midterms. I just want credible elections going forward. That's what I want in this country. So this is a nonsensical excuse.
- [62:06]
Stephen Miller
Wow.
- [62:07]
Vince
We won't be able to do it in time. Do it at all. Mail ballot restrictions. Trump wants mail ballot restrictions. We don't have the votes for that. Even at 50. Okay, first of all, you should debate it. You should try. But if you can't add that to the House legislation, fine, then give us the House legislation that says photo ID is required to vote, that you have to prove you're an American citizen when you register, and that noncitizens will be removed from the voting rolls and that elections officials who violate our laws will be held accountable for it. That's what the Save America act currently says. So if we don't get the mail in ballot provisions that President Trump wants, would that be. Would that be something we should obviously pursue? Yeah, absolutely. But if you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes. You have the votes for everything else, though, so why don't you try? And he said at the end of the process, we may not even have the votes for the bill because of amendments, change views, process fouls, etc. You have to freaking try, dude. You have to try. The Civil Rights act was passed in this way in the 1960s. The Civil Rights act did not have enough support in order to reach a supermajority. And so a filibuster began. They only had 40 votes for the Civil Rights act originally. By the end of the filibuster, they secured cloture with 67 supporters. It was two months of a talking filibuster. And then at the end, the Civil Rights act gets passed. And you can thank Republicans for that. It was a filibuster. People needed to be convinced to support it. In the end, they were. That's because they had the debate. These guys are arguing about whether or not and how they can end the debate. We're just asking you to freaking start it. That's it. Let's start with Step one, baby steps, start the debate and then eventually pass this thing because the future of our country depends on it. Man, oh man, we're going to stay focused on this. Thank you. Barb says thank you, Vince, for all you do to save America. I am just standing here shoulder to shoulder with you, Barb. That's it. I just, I think that is if we can show up every day and stay focused on the things that matter and then have a little bit of fun in the process and appreciate this great country and the legacy that we have and the blessings that God has given us. I think if we can do all of those things, then we can keep moving in the right direction even in the face of this kind of insanity. I hope you have a great American weekend. I know I should tell you, for those of you who don't know, I will be filling in for the incredible Dan Bongino on Monday, which means if you enjoy this program, let's see if you enjoy five hours of me. It's a real big test. Will you enjoy the podcast and then the damn Bongino podcast? And then I've got the big national radio show each day. That's three hours starting at noon Eastern. Rumble.com Vince, you'll see us live at one o' clock each day on the radio show. We've got the all of our amazing affiliates across the country. I highly recommend you check them out and support them and go to the VIN show.com to get your local radio listings. Dan's show is 10am this morning. Rumble.com Bongino Haley Caronilla is on at noon Eastern. Rumble.com Haley. Haley with two Y's. Why? Because she's great and you are great as well. God bless you. What a great country, what a great audience. I can't wait to do it all again with you Monday, The Dan Bongino Show. It's our movement, okay? It's ours. We built it. Hard truths. There are a bunch of people out there pulling you into an information vortex, dumping the dead pig in the well, hoping you jump in. Don't jump in the well. It's a trap. Find a way out immediately. This is the nothing is happening trap. And it is an inverted sense of reality. If we don't correct it and your kids believe it. I'm sorry, this show's for nothing. The Dan Bongino Show. There's only one choice, man. Follow and listen on your favorite platform.