00:00:56.000Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.
00:01:06.000Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at NobleGoldInvestments.com.
00:02:07.000So, Bill, the big one that's getting all the headlines this morning, and we are going to go through all four of them, but But it is this decision about Watson v. Republican National Committee about ballots that are postmarked, apparently, day of the election, but they come in days after.
00:02:24.000Help us break this down, separate truth from fiction, because people are getting really worked up about it.
00:02:32.000Help us understand what this decision actually means.
00:02:35.000Yeah, well, it's written by Justice Barrett, joined by the Chief Justice and the three liberal justices of the court.
00:02:40.000It's written in a relatively narrow fashion.
00:02:43.000But obviously, it doesn't produce the result that conservatives had hoped for.
00:02:49.000And all the court really says is that there's a variety of election related statutes, federal statutes.
00:02:58.000And one thing that happened was Congress amended some of the statutes to cover what it refers to as the period of voting.
00:03:09.000And by describing something as the period of voting, they opened the door.
00:03:16.000To an interpretation of election day as something broader than just the 24 hours on the day in question.
00:03:26.000And the court specifically says that the question before it is narrow whether counting ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later violates federal election day statutes.
00:03:44.000And it says the plaintiffs do not challenge the general practice of absentee voting.
00:03:49.000The use of the postal service, so mail in votes, or common carriers to transmit ballots, early voting, or the counting and certification of votes after election day.
00:03:59.000The court also does not consider the scope of Congress's authority to regulate federal elections.
00:04:06.000Meaning, yeah, if you can muster the political support to further refine down Election Day and eliminate this period of voting aspect, then there's nothing that prevents Congress from saying Election Day is one day.
00:04:21.000But as federal law currently stands, there is not a requirement.
00:04:30.000In these election statutes, that all the voting, all the votes cast be in by a particular deadline in order to be validly counted.
00:04:40.000So, Bill, to make sure I'm understanding this right, Congress, maybe they could throw it into the Save Act or make a separate bill entirely.
00:04:47.000They could just pass a law that says all federal elections, you've got to have the ballots count.
00:04:52.000You can only count stuff that arrives by election day.
00:04:55.000Maybe even they could require count them on election day.
00:04:58.000They could pass that, but the court also didn't really rule if that's allowed.
00:05:02.000So, Whenever they do, we'll probably be back before the Supreme Court again, but on the left?
00:05:09.000I mean, but Congress certainly could pass it.
00:05:11.000The court's saying, look, we're not issuing an opinion that defines the scope of Congress's authority.
00:05:18.000We're just recognizing that there are election statutes, and some of those election statutes authorize what is referred to as a period of voting as opposed to simply a single day.
00:05:30.000So, when did those statutes get updated by Congress?
00:05:33.000You said that this was an update at some point, or was it even legislation?
00:05:37.000No, there was, you know, it's buried in the text of the case.
00:05:45.000There are a variety of statutes that have, over time, been modified to sort of accommodate sort of the modern practices, you know, absentee voting.
00:05:59.000I think one in particular is the statute involving military ballots cast from overseas and the time within which those are allowed to arrive after election day.
00:06:11.000So, you know, there's certain classes of voting.
00:06:15.000It's not a general rule, but just certain classes of voting, Congress has authorized or recognized that the period of voting extends beyond simply election day.
00:07:11.000Yeah, this is one that's been around for a long, long time.
00:07:14.000And I'm not talking about the slaughter case, but this controversy.
00:07:16.000Over a 1937 decision, I think, or 35, in Humphrey's executor.
00:07:23.000It's often referred to as Humphrey's executor.
00:07:26.000And in that case, a New Deal era case, the Supreme Court basically said that independent commissioners, and in that case it was the Federal Trade Commission.
00:07:35.000So independent commissioners are immune from termination by the president, even though they're part of the executive branch, except for cause as defined in the various statutes.
00:07:49.000And this runs up against the concept, the concept that's gained a lot of traction in the last 50 years.
00:07:55.000Of what's called the unitary executive, meaning there's one president under the Constitution, and everybody under the Constitution that exercises executive authority is exercising the authority given to the president, to the person, to the individual who's elected.
00:08:11.000And so the concept of an independent agency and independent commissioners runs up against the authority of the president to have his executive authority exercised only in ways that he approves of.
00:08:28.000Justice Gorsuch has a concurring opinion that really goes deep into the roots of the problem this created.
00:08:37.000There's this great clip the team just flagged for me, and it goes back to the first case that we're talking about here about election day as opposed to postmarked ballots that come in five days after election day.
00:08:48.000This is Justice Alito during, I believe, oral arguments on this case, SOP 36.
00:09:16.000So if we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase election day, I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place, or almost everything.
00:09:31.000A lot of common sense wisdom from Justice Alito there.
00:09:34.000I want to keep going through these cases here with you, but I also, we cut you off mid sentence on this Trump v. Slaughter case about the FTC.
00:09:47.000How much authority does the president have when it comes to removing, you know, FTC commissioner, for example, or I guess it would be the Fed board members?
00:10:01.000Well, the Fed Board is different, so let's set that one aside.
00:10:04.000But my initial read through the Slaughter case is it pretty much resets the bar back to pre Humphreys executor, pre New Deal, essentially expanding the president's authority to terminate executive agency officials, regardless of what independence Congress might have tried to write into the statutes for these agencies.
00:10:31.000And that's sort of where this dispute comes from.
00:10:34.000Is when Congress creates the agencies and gives them authority and either participates in or allows the president to appoint them, it's tried to insulate them, the commissioners, and make them independent of the president's judgments.
00:10:49.000And that's created a big problem over time because once people assume these positions with these protections Congress affords them, you can't dislodge them.
00:10:58.000You can't get rid of them until their term ends.
00:11:00.000So a new administration ends up with commissioners on these various boards that Congress has created that are insulated.
00:11:08.000From the politics of the administration.
00:11:12.000This basically eliminates all of that.
00:11:15.000It basically says, Slaughter says Humphrey's executor was wrongly decided.
00:11:21.000And to the extent Humphreys, it's been chipped away at in several decisions over the last several years, but basically it says to the extent Humphreys executor exists as controlling authority, protecting agencies in any respect, it's reversed, it's done away with.
00:11:40.000Now, the second decision today is the involving Ford, federal board member Lisa Cook, and President Trump.
00:11:52.000Fired her from the board because of allegations about an investigation produced allegations of mortgage fraud.
00:12:00.000Now, in reading this opinion today, basically all this opinion involves is a request by the government to vacate a stay of her removal.
00:12:11.000In other words, the president fired her, wanted her removed.
00:12:14.000She went to the district court in DC, sought an injunction.
00:12:18.000The injunction was granted, basically saying she gets to remain on the board until the entire Firing process and her legal challenges in the trial court and then in the appellate court until they're all done.
00:12:34.000If ultimately the firing is upheld, then she gets removed.
00:12:38.000But between now and then, she remains a Fed board governor.
00:12:43.000The court today, all it said was, we're not going to disturb that decision.
00:12:47.000It did not decide the case on the merits, it did not decide whether she should be fired or she shouldn't be fired based on the allegations.
00:12:55.000In fact, as I read through it briefly, It's a relatively narrow decision that does not, in my view, give her a lot of comfort in the sense that the court basically said, look, she's entitled to a certain level of due process before losing her position.
00:13:17.000And if you recall, the facts were that an investigation was done, the investigation was announced, she was not charged.
00:13:24.000There hasn't been a criminal allegation, no criminal indictment filed against her.
00:13:29.000Just the allegations of potential mortgage fraud.
00:13:57.000So, Bill, I'm trying to distinguish something here.
00:14:01.000It seems, based on what we just said with this case overruling Humphrey's executor, why.
00:14:07.000Can't they basically say she gets her due process here, but also we just ruled that the president can fire all of these people so President Trump could go do that?
00:14:16.000This is one that's kind of difficult to explain, and I can't even tell you because I'm not intimately involved with the history of the Federal Reserve.
00:14:24.000But the court notes here, as it has done earlier, that the Federal Reserve is a little different than just an independent agency.
00:14:32.000It's structured to be a quasi public private entity, it's not just a federal government agency.
00:14:41.000It operates, it not only operates independent of the executive branch, it's funded independent of the executive branch.
00:14:47.000It doesn't get its money from the federal government.
00:14:50.000It raises money through fees imposed on banks and other mechanisms, but it's not tax dollars.
00:14:58.000And it was purposely created sort of in the aftermath of the first and second banks of the United States, which were government agencies.
00:15:07.000And there was an effort to say, well, you know, banking should not be controlled by the federal government.
00:15:12.000You know, other than regulations on banks, but the actual banking system should not be controlled by the federal government.
00:15:21.000It's controlled by the board of governors and the chairman of the board.
00:15:26.000Its structure historically is just a little different than a typical federal agency.
00:15:31.000Bill, that it feels like a distinction without a difference to Blake's point.
00:15:35.000And so I think in a lot of ways it is.
00:15:45.000Based on what we're just talking about, it is worth diving into the dissents here in some detail to see if they're pointing out the same inconsistencies, because I would assume that they are.
00:15:56.000I want to, with the time we have remaining, we've got about 90 seconds left, Bill.
00:16:00.000So tomorrow is going to be the last decision day of this term for SCOTUS.
00:16:05.000So we should basically all be bracing for the birthright decision, correct?
00:16:54.000Now, that doesn't answer the question of otherwise subject to the jurisdiction, which, you know, the phrase that comes after that is the one that's so controversial.
00:17:03.000I don't think the court's going to reach it.
00:17:05.000I think the court's going to say this is a matter of statutory interpretation.
00:17:10.000Congress has spoken and Congress can change it.
00:17:14.000If there's a political will to change it to, you know, eliminate birther tourism and, you know, the children of illegals born in the United States, Congress can do that.
00:17:37.000Hillsdale College, great books 101, ancient to medieval course, is an absolute game changer.
00:17:45.000I'm taking it right now, and you got to check it out.
00:17:47.000So before Charlie ever stepped into a debate stage or behind a microphone, he understood something important.
00:17:52.000If you want to lead, you have to first learn.
00:17:55.000Charlie believed that ideas shape character and conviction and courage.
00:17:58.000And that's why he spent so many years studying the classics, the American founding, and the Bible.
00:18:02.000And he did a lot of that through Hillsdale College's free online courses.
00:18:06.000These are real college courses taught by actual Hillsdale professors.
00:18:11.000They're amazing, the best academics in the country.
00:18:14.000One of those courses, like I just said, is Great Books 101 Ancient to Medieval, where you'll study foundational authors like Homer, Augustine, Dante, Chaucer, writers who shape Western civilization, and they still speak to the deepest questions about our human nature and courage and family and.
00:18:31.000The course includes Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, the epic stories of Achilles and Odysseus that have influenced the West for thousands of years.
00:18:38.000And this summer, Hillsdale College is releasing a brand new course dedicated entirely to Homer's Odyssey.
00:18:43.000Great Books 101 is the perfect way to prepare before the full Odyssey course launches in July.
00:18:49.000Charlie understood that learning isn't just about gaining knowledge, it's about forming the mind and character needed to face the challenges of life with wisdom and courage.
00:18:57.000So you can enroll today completely free.
00:19:00.000Visit charlieforhillsdale.com to start learning today.
00:19:43.000So we got to get into it here, sir, because I was getting all these angry texts.
00:19:48.000You went on Jake Tapper, and I think people interpreted what you were saying as you were encouraging these Haitian TPS recipients, where the Supreme Court rightly ruled that temporary means temporary, but you were encouraging them to apply and that they could stay.
00:20:05.000I read through the transcript, and so I texted you immediately.
00:20:08.000I was like, are people misinterpreting?
00:20:51.000There's no other place to go to change your status now.
00:20:53.000You're going to go back to your country you came from and change your status, or, and what I mean by change your status, reapply to be able to come into the country legally, because as of right now, TPS is ended and you're currently in the country illegally.
00:21:08.000So I'll give you a $2,600 check and an airline ticket to go back to the country you choose that will accept you or go back to your country that you came from.
00:21:17.000So if I'm a Haitian in Springfield and I've been there for, let's say, two years or whatever, Right now, I'm an illegal.
00:21:26.000And is there a legal process that I could pursue?
00:21:31.000Say, I go to some office somewhere, some immigration lawyer to apply to not get removed?
00:21:37.000Or is that option off the table for them?
00:21:39.000If you have current status change pending, say you filed it before the court ruled, you could stay while your court case is being heard or while you're going through the process.
00:21:54.000And then you have an option to appeal it.
00:21:57.000That's if you had the paperwork filed prior to the court ruling.
00:22:02.000The only, or yeah, before the court ruling.
00:22:07.000Now, the difference is if you're married to an American citizen and you haven't changed your status, but you've been married for, you know, not for the point of being legal or getting status in the United States, but you married out of love and you pass all the qualifications of it, you can at that point apply for what we call a family visa.
00:22:30.000But that's, But that's under special circumstances.
00:22:33.000And that special circumstances is because you merited an American citizen.
00:22:36.000Outside of that, very few options apply.
00:22:39.000The end of the day, the temporary status, which is temporary, and you got to emphasize that it was never meant to be permanent, even though the Democrats wanted, I don't know how they can finagle that word temporary when it was in TPS's own language.
00:22:55.000You have to go back to the country to reapply to come back in the country in a different legal status.
00:23:10.000If you did not pursue some other type of visa, and that's getting litigated and that's getting heard before this ruling, you are officially an illegal immigrant.
00:23:22.000How, yeah, how, what percentage of the Haitian population living in the United States is like, I mean, I don't know if you know this, but like, The base wants them all out, as you can gather.
00:23:36.000How many can we just immediately get out?
00:23:38.000And what is the process that DHS is now engaged in to identify, locate, and remove?
00:23:45.000There's a group that came in after the earthquake years ago, and then there's a group that came in underneath the Biden administration.
00:23:53.000The Biden administration, there is very little legal status that you can even pursue at this point because that was part of the whole TPS lawsuit to begin with.
00:24:06.000The ones that came in prior or after the earthquake years ago, there is a challenge that could possibly be made, like I said, if your status had changed by being married.
00:24:21.000But if you haven't changed your status, there is no percentage that can stay.
00:24:25.000If you were just here for TPS and you don't meet the special circumstances, you have no path forward.
00:24:35.000You have to go back to change that status.
00:24:37.000When you have status in the United States, say you come over on a vacation visa or you come over on an H 1A visa and you want to change that status, the way the statute wrote, which is this is Congress that wrote the statute, the way the statute wrote is written, is you will have to go back to the country that you came from to reapply to change the status to re enter into the country.
00:26:57.000Is there a goal maybe for next year that can even exceed what we've done this year?
00:27:01.000Well, it's there's a being successful also has a downside because you it's like the low hanging fruit you get the low hanging fruit accomplished, and then you got to go and really dig in and go find the people that are deeply hiding.
00:27:16.000So at some point, the self deportation number is going to start decreasing, and we're going to have to start rounding all these individuals up.
00:27:24.000When we start going after the worst of the worst, what we found out is the worst of the worst, these are individuals that have felony charges that the sanctuary cities and sanctuary states have let go.
00:27:34.000Or they have pending charges that once again, sanctuary cities and sanctuary states have let go.
00:27:41.000When we go find the individuals, we usually arrest an additional 4.3 individuals that are with that one person with a felony.
00:27:51.000And so, since we're doing a heavy focus on the worst of the worst, we're actually increasing our numbers on rounding up all the illegals that are here.
00:27:59.000And we expect that number to continue to increase, but we're probably going to hit a plateau sometime early next year.
00:28:05.000But we don't, we're really, we're, Every time we think we're about to hit a plateau, we continue to find another area that we can increase on finding the individuals.
00:28:15.000So, we don't have set speculations or estimates on next year's numbers yet because we're redefining our systems that we have right now.
00:28:29.000And I really do think that my goal is to double what we did last year, and I think we can get there.
00:28:37.000I know the American people would be very.
00:29:12.000Process up or in a court in a cooperation right now with DOJ to help them hire 1500 additional judges.
00:29:21.000But if they claimed asylum, we have to get their asylum case heard.
00:29:28.000The majority, not majority, by far, the majority of the individuals that come to in front of a court after seeking asylum, they don't qualify for it.
00:29:39.000In fact, a lot of the asylum cases, when we go and send them their new court date, They haven't updated their system, meaning they haven't updated in their system.
00:29:48.000So we don't have an accurate number on them.
00:29:50.000We don't have an accurate address on them.
00:29:52.000And when that happens, they immediately come and at that point, as they've broken parole.
00:29:57.000And so once you've broken parole, now you don't have a claim anymore and we can arrest you.
00:30:02.000So we're doing a tremendous amount of those cases.
00:30:04.000In fact, a lot of those cases are what we arrested this weekend.
00:30:17.000So we're going through the process and cleaning the books up right now.
00:30:21.000Yeah, Secretary Mullen, I just want to give you some due.
00:30:24.000You are getting the daily deportation numbers up.
00:30:26.000You're doing it quietly behind the scenes.
00:30:28.000I know the Haitian thing is charged, and a lot of people had an emotional response to that.
00:30:33.000But you are also working within a system that has been established before you, and you got to do it lawfully, and you got to do it the right way, or it could blow up in our face.
00:30:40.000Thank you for taking the time today, sir.
00:32:07.000And he's stuck within a system where he has statutes to follow.
00:32:11.000He has laws and rules and regulations that he's bound by.
00:32:15.000Some he can sort of trump and get over.
00:32:19.000Regardless, his messaging this morning was very firm and it was very encouraging.
00:32:23.000And I felt like it was a step in the right direction that they got to go.
00:32:26.000If you did not apply before this for some other, I mean, many of these people had years, decades, Blake, to try and stay in the country via a more.
00:32:35.000Long lasting route, and they did not, those people are got to go.
00:32:38.000And all these TPS people that are more newly arrived, they got to go.
00:32:42.000And I love that he kind of, at least from a messaging standpoint, course corrected there.
00:32:47.000I mean, people have fussed a lot about Mullen and a lot of other people in the admin because sometimes they will say rhetoric other than maximal, everyone's going to go deportation.
00:32:59.000And I understand why people worry about that because they've been around the block of having.
00:33:06.000Politicians who run on a really hardball message and then back off.
00:33:09.000But that's why it's so important to look at what is actually happening.
00:33:13.000And all of the last year and a half, what we have consistently seen under both Mullen and under Nome and in other departments run by others is they are consistently rolling back the regulations, rolling back the policies that allowed all of the open border stuff that flourished for decades.
00:33:31.000And they're getting the deportation number higher and higher and higher.
00:33:34.000As he said, I love that Mullen, he was frank and said, we may eventually hit a plateau, but we've blown through.
00:36:13.000All they did is they preserved the rules under which we won the 2024 election, under which we won the 2016 election.
00:36:20.000It's not a great rule, but we have this path.
00:36:23.000Congress could change the law, and I know that's a source of endless frustration, but I don't like doomerism on this sort of thing.
00:36:29.000And I feel the same way with Birthright.
00:36:31.000I don't think we're going to get a good ruling, but even any ruling at all is actually better than what we had before, which was just this universal presumption that they have birthright citizenship, that it was actually already decided when in fact it never was.
00:36:47.000Now we'll have a ruling, and that ruling can be a litmus test for every judge that Trump appoints for the next two years, for every judge that a President Vance or a President Ruby or anyone else, any Republican in the future appoints.
00:36:59.000It would just become a target for us to go after, and that's going to be.
00:38:08.000Uh, for this, and to your point, yeah, we have won elections like this, too big to rig all this.
00:38:14.000What we saw in Los Angeles, it's incomprehensible to me that what you saw with Spencer Pratt, what you saw with Steve Hilton in California, that there would be any other plausible outcome that would make any type of sense.
00:38:27.000But whatever, I understand we're not dooming, we never dooming, and a big lesson we're getting is we're headed towards the future, we need a real Congress again, and so we'll be discussing that, yes, into the future.
00:38:49.000And TikTok has always strived to build the kind of place that thrives on respectful connection, where curiosity fuels connection and we can share what's on our minds and learn from each other.
00:38:59.000When ideas meet respect, good things happen.
00:39:01.000On TikTok, you can find a mechanic explaining the why behind a problem most of us wouldn't even know how to name, or a father sharing a lifetime of knowledge with his viewers, viewers who listen, discuss, and then they respond.
00:39:12.000TikTok turns connection into community through small acts of understanding.
00:39:16.000You can feel it in the comments, in the thank you from a stranger halfway across the world.
00:39:21.000TikTok is a place where respect opens the door for discussion, and discussion helps us build something real.
00:39:29.000We have Orrin McIntyre, host of the Orrin McIntyre show at Blaze TV.
00:39:39.000So, Orrin, I love having you on because you're based on immigration, just like me, and you want maximal enforcement at every possible line there is imaginable, right?
00:40:16.000Just explain to our audience, because you're very good at this, the implications, the consequences, why this is so critically important to the future of America and thereby all of Western civilization.
00:40:33.000With our current setup, and unfortunately, what will probably be the ruling from the Supreme Court right now, anyone who stays in America long enough will have children, and those children will have birthright citizenship.
00:40:44.000The fact that also the Democrats are pretty good at laundering ballots, and they now also just receive basically a pass to do, you know, count a ballot for a month or two if they need to.
00:40:54.000This means that election fraud is very easy.
00:40:56.000And so the more illegal immigrants you have here, or even those that are here under some form of legal protected status, like Haitians, They will ultimately end up becoming dedicated voters for the Democratic Party, or they will end up producing dedicated voters for the Democratic Party.
00:41:11.000And this is a fundamental shift in what democracy is supposed to be.
00:41:15.000Democracy is supposed to be a reflection of the positions of the people, the popular sovereignty.
00:41:21.000But if you swap out all of the people, if you introduce new people constantly who will always vote one way, then you are rigging that game.
00:41:28.000You are changing the fundamental nature of elections.
00:41:31.000You are undermining the authority and legitimacy of elections.
00:41:34.000But of course, it goes much deeper than just elections.
00:41:37.000It also impacts our cultures, our neighborhoods.
00:41:40.000People who come into the United States had to, at some point, assimilate through the years, but they tended to be people who were closer to the founding stock.
00:41:50.000We found different populations that were more assimilable, less assimilable, and we worked with them as much as possible.
00:41:56.000But even when it came to assimilating, say, the Germans, which many people think of as very American today, there were a lot of challenges there.
00:42:07.000And so we have to recognize if it was hard to assimilate, say, Germans, then Haitians and other people from third world countries that are very, very different from our own, they are only going to be more difficult.
00:42:17.000They are going to break down the characteristics of neighborhoods, the continuity of tradition and heritage and culture.
00:42:26.000And when we bring in so many people from so many places that are so hard to adapt, we fundamentally make it impossible to have a high trust society.
00:42:34.000And that's something that every American really relies on, even if they can't say that out loud, even if they can't.
00:43:06.000I'm suggesting that we pay Americans a wage that will allow them to raise families and have homes and earn a good living, even if they're not working in the highest end of the information economy.
00:43:17.000We have to have a society that allows for people who are not going to have.
00:43:22.000Some kind of job rearranging information on a screen to still have a good life.
00:43:27.000And that means we can't import a bunch of foreign labor to undercut the wages, to drain, or rather to flood the labor pool and make it impossible for average Americans to earn a good wage at that price.
00:43:38.000It's also going to increase things like housing prices, reduce the quality of things like education or medical care.
00:43:44.000So that cheap labor comes with an extreme cost.
00:43:47.000Yes, there are some benefits to different corporations and maybe even some consumers that get a cheaper product.
00:43:54.000But there is a larger society wide cost that is hidden inside those lower wages.
00:44:01.000You know, one of the things that I find interesting too is that there does seem to be, and sorry, I'm not playing devil's advocate here because I just agree too much.
00:44:09.000The point is that when you bring in millions and millions and millions of foreigners from foreign cultures, there does seem to be this depressive impact on the native born population less kids, less self confidence, less of an enterprising spirit, less of a pioneering spirit.
00:44:26.000I don't know what that is, but there is something that transacts and transpires when you bring in an invading force, millions upon millions, where the native population loses their verve.
00:44:38.000And it's hard to put a finger on it, it's hard to quantify it, but it is so evident.
00:44:43.000It is so visible if you're looking for it.
00:44:47.000And once you see it, you can't unsee it.
00:44:50.000I don't know if you know what I'm trying to say here, Oren, but it is impossible for me not to see it at this point.
00:44:56.000Yeah, the sociologist Robert Putnam put out a book called Bowling Alone, and it's one of many times he's had to kind of suppress for a little while, then ultimately succumb to the fact that his data keeps showing something that liberals don't like.
00:45:09.000Putnam himself is no radical right winger, he's very much a center left figure, but he kept discovering that this diversification of cultures creates huge problems in social cohesion.
00:45:20.000People are less likely to trust each other, people are less likely to spend time outside in public, people are less likely to meet and talk to their neighbor.
00:45:29.000And they are less likely to have children.
00:45:30.000They're less likely to see a vision for their future.
00:45:34.000We, whether we like it or not, have to have a shared identity.
00:45:37.000I know the left has made the word identity toxic, but it is actually a critical function of human society to create a shared vision and identity that people feel like they can be a part of.
00:45:49.000If you're going to have children, if you're going to have a future, if you're going to form a family, you need to know that those children are going to continue something that is valuable to you, that they will grow up in a society that was much like the one you grew up in.
00:46:02.000The desire to reproduce and grow is something that comes from a recognition of who we are as a people.
00:46:08.000And if all we are as a people is an economic zone, if we're just a bunch of economic opportunities that people can come and take advantage of and leave whenever they feel like, and we don't owe anything to each other, we don't have a shared vision of the future, then even again, if people won't say it out loud, they slowly shrink away from forming families, from having children, from making the sacrifices that allow civilizations to thrive.
00:46:31.000No one is going to sacrifice for an economic zone.
00:46:35.000Yeah, Oren, I love what you just said there because it got me thinking of a fact that really stood out to me.
00:46:40.000They just had a presidential election in Peru, and the right wing candidate barely won.
00:46:45.000And it seems she barely won because voters from America who are allowed to vote in proving elections voted for the right wing candidate.
00:46:53.000And we know that this is a pattern we see in country after country that immigrants to the U.S. will vote for left wing causes here because it seems they don't value the United States as a long term thing.
00:47:19.000And that sounds a little scary to people, but you have to look at the third world and recognize how they interact.
00:47:24.000You might have been raised in this deracinated society where you were told that any idea of collective identity was terrible, that you need to act as an individual.
00:47:32.000And maybe that even works when everybody in the country believes that.
00:47:35.000But when you start importing a bunch of people who still have very tribalist mentalities, still have these very hardcore, what is often considered third world, but is really just often traditionally human organizational patterns, they will not behave that way.
00:47:48.000When they enter into your society, they don't suddenly become these free individuals.
00:47:52.000They maintain those tribal clannish patterns.
00:47:55.000And so you cannot maintain a system of some kind of free and open liberal democracy while importing a lot of people who are specifically going to come in and vote in ethnic blocs to improve their lives while taking things from you.
00:48:09.000Again, it sounds like something we should be able to lecture people out of.
00:48:22.000Hard for me not to instantly think of Zorhan Mamdani in New York City when you're talking about that, Oren.
00:48:29.000It's just New York has been such a five alarm fire.
00:48:33.000Listen, guys like you and I have been very awake to this, Blake as well, for a long time.
00:48:38.000But how do you not look at what happened in New York and just think, what the hell is happening?
00:48:42.000So, Oren, tomorrow we are expecting to get the birthright decision.
00:48:47.000And we are expecting them to rule against what guys like you think is patently obvious, common sense.
00:48:55.000Nevertheless, I do expect that to be a narrow ruling in keeping with the character of this court, trying to say, hey, this statute, Congress can redefine it, whatever, but it's probably not going to go our way.
00:49:07.000That's every indication that I've heard.
00:49:13.000The moment after that ruling hits, and we're all disappointed, what do we do?
00:49:17.000Well, clearly, we have to address things at the minimum with the SAVE Act.
00:49:20.000And it's been embarrassing that the Republican Congress has not put more emphasis on this.
00:49:26.000You would think, obviously, that this would be in their favor.
00:49:29.000We know that election meddling, election integrity, it's key because if you don't stop the Democrats, they are a machine at this.
00:49:37.000So every Republican, in theory, would have the self interest, even if they don't care about the country at all, just to keep themselves getting elected to put something like the Save Act in place.
00:49:48.000Ultimately, what we really need is some kind of amendment that addresses American citizenship in a permanent way.
00:49:55.000The 14th Amendment was never meant to grant a Permanent idea of birthright citizenship.
00:50:00.000It was a specific amendment written to address a post Civil War disparity when it came to black citizens who had been born in the United States, but it wasn't clear since they were slaves whether they were actually citizens.
00:50:13.000The 14th Amendment clarifies yes, they are.
00:50:16.000It was never meant to grant citizenship to every child who is born on American soil, even if their parents are illegal.
00:50:22.000But that is what it has been interpreted as and what it will probably continue to be interpreted as after.
00:50:47.000It's such a, it is an absolute affront to, and by the way, I think to the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, if you look at their arguments from the Senate floor, they never imagined a world in which illegal immigrants and their children would be granted such wide, broad sweeping benefits of U.S. citizenship.
00:51:12.000Blake, I know you have thoughts on this.
00:51:13.000Sorry, I want to make sure you get a chance to chime in here.
00:51:16.000I'm looking at my friend of mine who is watching, and he says if we're given any leeway at all by the court, where if they say, for example, that there's just a statutory opening here, throw that into the Save Act.
00:51:26.000Force, at the minimum, force every Republican to vote and say they actually want to define citizenship as children of people who are actual U.S. citizens, not every birth tourist, not every illegal.
00:51:39.000Force them to get on the record about that.
00:51:41.000So, that's a great idea from a friend of mine.
00:51:46.000You were saying before that this becomes a litmus test for every jurist that could come in the future.
00:51:53.000And by the way, our two oldest are our two best, which is just heartbreaking because replacing Alito and Clarence Thomas, if and when that time comes, is going to just be fraught waters because getting somebody as reliable as either of them will be difficult.
00:52:06.000But this becomes the litmus test for anybody that you want to elect in Congress.
00:52:10.000We need to get them on the record saying, Will you redefine the statutes?
00:53:12.000We are literally talking about the future of the country.
00:53:15.000People will tear themselves and the rest of this country apart if they cannot trust our elections.
00:53:20.000And really, after 2020, There's already too many questions about the legitimacy of our elections.
00:53:26.000If people know for sure that illegal immigrants can simply get citizenship or get the ability to vote in the United States simply by having children over time, this is going to eventually destroy everything we believe in the country.
00:53:41.000So we should hold Republicans' feet to the fire.
00:53:43.000We should make this the central issue for judges.
00:53:46.000We should make this the only question when it comes to any kind of primaries, any kind of continuation.
00:53:52.000The only problem is that so many of the Republicans.
00:53:55.000Have continued to push back against this.
00:53:57.000I mean, we still have Republicans out there openly pushing for amnesty.
00:54:27.000And I just like to flag that because I know it's frustrating, but it's also worth remembering how far we've come that the Amnesty Party was the default 20 years ago.
00:54:36.000And we're getting better on this and a bunch of other issues.
00:54:39.000We've gotten better on guns, gotten better on life, gotten better on a lot of things.
00:54:42.000You see that John Kasich video where he's like, Haitians need to stay in Ohio.
00:54:54.000I mean, Ohio just has a knack for getting crappy Republican governors.
00:54:58.000Or, yeah, we have a situation where we absolutely need to make this the next abortion.
00:55:02.000One of the reasons that the abortion issue, the pro life issue, was so successful is they made it.
00:55:07.000The key thing every candidate knew they had to stand against abortion.
00:55:11.000Every judge knew that if they wanted to get confirmed by conservatives, they needed to have an openness to something like overturning Roe v. Wade.
00:55:18.000And that's why that program was successful.
00:55:21.000Immigration has to be exactly the same, just as important.
00:55:24.000My new litmus test is going to be immigration moratorium for anybody that gets in.
00:57:41.000So, for example, the most famous paper on this, the one that is cited the most often because it is from the most prestigious venue, this Lancet paper, has been used to claim that 14 million people have or will die by like 2030.
00:57:53.000And It's based on modeling an intentionally kind of ridiculous scenario where practically every country involved in USAID or any sort of aid distribution of the sorts dealt with in the paper cuts off everything.
00:58:19.000And then it's modeled incorrectly as well.
00:58:21.000And they knew it was modeled incorrectly because they had the model diagnostics.
00:58:24.000And it turns out that the choices they made.
00:58:26.000Really, really exaggerated the numbers upwards.
00:58:29.000So, we end up with a scenario where you essentially have fake numbers for statistical reasons and fake numbers because the scenario you're modeling didn't even come remotely true.
00:58:40.000And it just seems like this is a common statistical trap.
00:58:43.000We're falling for a left wing scam here where it seems, I even saw it speculated, they kind of knew this was bogus, but they're colluding on this.
00:58:51.000It's sort of their way of you can have, if the real stats are on your side, great.
00:58:55.000But if they're not, you just sort of make up stats to bring about the reality that you want.
00:59:00.000And this just seems like a top example of it.
00:59:03.000It's also just a fundamentally broken way of doing things.
00:59:17.000I just want to make sure everybody's clear because that is the accusation right now.
00:59:21.000On lefty Twitter and like Blue Sky and all the Reddit chats, they are without any sense of shame claiming that Elon Musk is a genocidal murderer.
00:59:36.000It's really extreme and it's really unwarranted.
00:59:38.000And fundamentally, the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense because what they're arguing is that if you don't spend certain amounts of money, you are killing people.
00:59:47.000And you can always spend more money to save more people.
00:59:50.000If you cut any program, some number of people will die.
00:59:52.000Do we ever actually do this whole death attribution game with anything else?
01:00:23.000If you're cutting anything and reducing economic activity, any downturn in the economy will kill some considerable number of people, but it's a very diffuse effect.
01:00:32.000And we don't play this genocide-mongering game about all this stuff.
01:00:35.000And we don't play it about the counterfactual money people aren't giving.
01:00:38.000Why aren't you donating all of your money to charity?
01:00:49.000I was having this up because we're also talking about.
01:00:50.000So, yeah, you can say you cut USAID, you killed millions of people.
01:00:54.000Okay, well, Mackenzie Scott Bezos, they're highlighting her.
01:00:57.000She's given away $28 billion, but I'm looking at her top causes racial equity, LGBTQ rights.
01:01:04.000She's donated to early childhood education.
01:01:06.000It seems like you could go up to her and say, Mackenzie, because you were donating to those things instead of this charity in Africa, you basically committed genocide.
01:01:15.000Yeah, she's like, you guys know about effective altruism?
01:01:20.000I don't think our audience has heard too much about it, but yes, this idea.
01:01:24.000It's basically moral blackmail to say you are killing people unless you donate to the specific thing I believe is most important right now.
01:01:31.000In some sense, I mean, the basic fundamental idea is just we want to give money where it's most effective.
01:01:37.000But Mackenzie Bezos is effectively the opposite of that.
01:01:41.000The money she gives does like the least amount of good, she gives it to the most ineffective possible charities you can imagine.
01:01:48.000Just things that make no sense and are actually, in a lot of cases where you look at it, they're quite harmful.
01:01:54.000Like, she donates to a lot of DEI things.
01:01:56.000And it's like, it's just, what is your reason for doing this?
01:01:59.000How could you possibly believe this is a good idea?
01:02:02.000Do you really not have any advisors coming to you and telling you, hey, there's actually this alternative where you can give money effectively?
01:02:08.000Like, if you want to save a bunch of lives, you could do it.
01:02:27.000But we also wanted to talk about, you were very excited to talk about stuff going on with HHS, with RFK Jr.
01:02:37.000And every time we have you on, you're laying out all these ways that they're making big health leaps and gains in the Trump administration.
01:02:46.000So, the big thing I want to focus on today, and there are a lot of things going on at HHS all the time, there's all sorts of really cool stuff.
01:02:50.000They're doing clinical trial reform, they're doing IV reform, they're doing a million really cool things that they just need to be able to get some lawyers and engineers in there to.
01:02:58.000Finally, finish it up, wrap it up, make it actually happen.
01:03:01.000I'm really excited about pricing transparency, but the big thing I want to talk about is called Q Star.
01:03:06.000Q Star is this really awesome way to make it so broadened right to try laws.
01:03:11.000And right to try laws are these laws that make it so patients, like a potential patient, has the ability to access a drug that might not be through its phase three trials, might not be approved by the FDA yet.
01:03:25.000They allow people to access therapies early before they're actually on the market so that they can, if they have like a debilitating condition or they have.
01:03:32.000Or they might die from cancer or something, they can actually get drugs that might save their lives.
01:03:38.000I think everybody I talk to supports them in some way or another.
01:03:41.000But some states also have like expanded versions where you can get stem cell therapies.
01:03:46.000You can get those in Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming.
01:03:51.000Some states have extremely broad right to try laws where you can access stuff that's gone through a phase one trial.
01:03:57.000That's like New Hampshire and Montana.
01:03:59.000And some states have like a right to personalized treatment.
01:04:02.000And altogether, if you threw together all the states that have these expanded right to try laws, You'd find the majority of states have their laws that allow people to access this stuff, which is awesome because you want patients to be able to access drugs that might save their lives.
01:04:14.000But unfortunately, these laws don't really work because the FDA has not made clear if they're going to prosecute drug manufacturers if they provide people with these drugs, which is kind of crazy to think about.
01:04:25.000What I'm saying here is that if a patient says, I'm dying of cancer, please let me access the cancer drug that might save my life, the FDA has not made it clear if they're going to sue that company if the drug doesn't actually work.
01:04:39.000You might be on like putting it out, putting everything on the line to try some drug, and then the FDA still hasn't made it clear if you're allowed to access it.
01:04:49.000And so, Q star would be basically I don't know what it's short for, but it basically would be RFK Jr. would come out and say, This is the new policy, and states can run wild.
01:05:01.000What he would essentially say is that manufacturers are allowed to put all the liability for the drug, working, not working, having bad side effects, not having bad side effects, anything on the patient.
01:05:27.000So I want to say I'm broadly supportive.
01:05:29.000I'm just wondering, you know, these are big corporations.
01:05:33.000Sometimes their motives are obscure, sometimes they're malign.
01:05:37.000Is there any downside that could, you know, you just let these companies run wild with this stuff on these treating human beings as, you know, Experiment labs?
01:05:51.000At the end of the day, like, if somebody says, you know, I want to take the drug and the drug company says, I would love to supply the drug, then what's the problem here?
01:06:22.000It's a major part of doing this in the first place is making sure patients know exactly what's on the table for them so they're not exploited, so they're not, you know, fooled into thinking that they found some miracle cure and that it's going to work.
01:06:34.000It's either like if it's a kid, it's the parents that have to do all the good sense about that.
01:06:52.000Threatening your free speech in every sphere, from classrooms to counselors' offices, and even online.
01:06:58.000Unborn babies are dying as abortion drugs continue flooding states nationwide.
01:07:02.000Parents are being cut out of kids' critical decisions for their lives.
01:07:06.000Your best gift by June 30th will help defend courageous Americans like Frank Konepa, a counselor facing nearly $90,000 in fines just for sharing his Catholic faith.
01:07:18.000Rosalie Markozic, a young woman whose former boyfriend coerced her to take mail order abortion drugs, killing her unborn baby.
01:07:25.000And Dan and Jennifer Mead, Parents whose 13 year old daughter was socially transitioned in secret at school, every dollar you give today will be doubled by a $1 million matching grant only while funds last.
01:09:55.000What's going on and how common and prevalent is this?
01:09:58.000So it's not very prevalent in the West yet.
01:10:01.000It's increasingly prevalent among rich families.
01:10:03.000They go to a Pediatric endocrinologist, a baby hormone doctor, a kid home run doctor, and they go and get them HGH, and they end up up to about three, possibly sometimes even four inches taller if they take it for long enough and they take high enough doses.
01:10:19.000And there don't really seem to be any downsides besides any of the general downsides associated with height.
01:10:23.000So, like, nothing in, like, they don't grow weird.
01:10:43.000Like, very, like, meaningful percentages of the parents are looking into this option.
01:10:47.000And I think it might end up being, Kind of like the equivalent of sending your kids to Hagwon, the like after school schools they send kids to to do additional studying.
01:10:56.000And it might be like almost a universal thing in Korea, like a generation.
01:11:02.000I mean, higher rates of cancer for something like this?
01:11:06.000You can get acromegaly, and to the extent that larger people get more cancer, you should expect that as well.
01:11:11.000But it's not going to be meaningfully elevated, and I think probably totally worth it in most cases.
01:11:15.000So, like, would you rather live your life six foot two versus like five foot nine?
01:11:20.000Or would you, like, even if it came with a little bit of cancer risk when you're 70?
01:11:24.000I mean, like, the answer is probably you'd go for the six foot two with a slight bit of cancer risk.
01:11:29.000I could see it becoming a Red Queen's race in Korea where it's just, and now suddenly everyone is six two and you have to be six five to stand out.
01:11:37.000And it's just, you know, it's just all over if you're a normal height.
01:12:18.000This is like Western democracies saying we don't want you to actually get married, which seems like a really poor decision to be making for the sake of civilization.
01:12:28.000Like, if you were theoretically trying to reduce the rate of coupling in the UK without looking like you were trying to reduce the rate of coupling, what alternative policies would you do?
01:12:37.000This seems about like what you would do.
01:12:39.000It's effectively instituting like common law marriages at a more meaningful scale and giving more protections to people in the sense that like you can claim more of your partner's assets.
01:12:48.000So it disincentivizes people living together, cohabiting, et cetera.
01:12:52.000And reduced rates of cohabitation lead to reduced rates of marriage.
01:12:55.000Finland has done something similar to this, apparently.
01:12:57.000I haven't looked at this actual paper yet, but there's an economist who commented to this effect.
01:13:01.000Saying that when they did something like this, it did reduce rates of cohabitation or reduce rates of marriage as a result.
01:13:05.000So it's probably a policy that works exactly as we think it does, and it's going to be quite harmful, unfortunately.
01:13:13.000I just loved because, like I said, when we have you on, you're always telling us all these other good things that are going on with health.
01:13:18.000So you mentioned that Q star thing, but what's some other stuff that's been going on in the world of HHS and the world of health that we should be aware of?
01:13:28.000Well, I mean, a lot of the focus right now is on trying to get ahead of China.
01:13:31.000A lot of the reforms you'll be seeing, such as, for example, this really cool Bayesian clinical trial thing they did late last year, what it does is it allows you to run a clinical trial with a non standard configuration of the control and treatment arms and various different ways of treating the groups.
01:13:50.000But it allows you basically to accelerate the trial and run it for less money.
01:13:53.000And a lot of reforms are basically how can we out deregulate China and get ahead of them, which is really neat.
01:14:03.000What QSTAR does that's really important for the beating China race in biopharma in drug production is it allows us to demo drugs that have had their phase ones where they've shown that the drug is safe so that they can start gathering data to show that the drug works, which is the phase two thing you have to start showing.
01:14:20.000And they can also raise money to fund a phase two trial so that they can actually start funding more drugs without having to immediately go full mass market.
01:14:32.000It'll allow more drug companies to survive and get their research done and get the research funded.
01:14:38.000And basically, everybody wins in this.
01:14:40.000I mean, like, patients get more access to drugs and we get more research data.
01:14:44.000And that's what a lot of what the HHS is doing they're trying to figure out ways to make everybody in the ecosystem win so that we can do more innovation, save more lives.
01:14:54.000Maybe make it so there's no cancer to even worry about when you're 70 and you've grown three edges from HGH.