Trump Makes South African President Watch White Genocide Video Montage
40:56 Share

I want to take a second to remind you to sign up for the post. So daily brief, it is completely free. It'll be one email that's sent to you every day. You can stop the endless scrolling, trying to find out what's going on in your world. We will have this delivered directly to you totally for free. Go to human events.com slash post. So sign up today. It's called the post. So daily brief read what I read for show prep. You will not regret it. Human events.com slash post. So totally free. The post. So daily brief.

This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare. A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran. This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobiec. Christ is king. The Senate surprisingly passed President Trump's no tax on tips.

proposal. The bipartisan proposal is led by Senators Cruz and Rosen. It allows tipped employees to deduct tips from federal income tax capped at $25,000 for those earning under $160,000. I don't think the Republican Party has ever been so unified. It's become a much bigger party. You presided here, I think, for 32 years.

you presided over the destruction of the health of the American people. Our people are now the sickest people in the world because you have not done your job. Did you have a different standard based upon the color of somebody's skin? Would that be acceptable? Well, I'm not the one arguing that. Apparently you are because you don't like the fact that they're white. I'm just asking you to say that that would be unacceptable. That would seem to be a very easy thing to say. The United States has a right to pick and choose who they allow into the United States. Even based on the fact that they're white,

adopted a document which said South Africa belongs to all who live in it. But why wouldn't you arrest that man? That man said, kill the white farmers, kill the white farmers. And then he danced, and he's dancing, dancing, and it's kill the white farmers. I think, I'm not sure, but I think if somebody got up in Parliament and started saying kill a certain group of people,

he would be arrested very quickly. That man is going all over South Africa, and that's not a small party. That was a stadium that holds 100,000 people, and I hardly saw an empty seat. That's a lot of people. That's a lot of representation. And those crosses...

We have dead white people, dead white farmers, mostly. Turn the lights down. Turn the lights down and just put this on. It's right behind you. There's nothing this parliament can do with or without you. People are going to occupy land. We require no permission from you, from the president, from no one. We don't care. We can do whatever you want to do. Who are you to tell us what to do?

We are going to occupy land, so that we get occupied land. That's who we are. We will never be scared to kill a revolution. Demand that at some point there must be killing, because the killing is part of a revolution.

Good.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition Human Events Daily here live Washington, D.C. Today is May 21st, 2025. Anno Domini, President Donald J. Trump just went full clockwork orange on the President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, there in the Oval Office just about an hour ago. He's

He said, oh, you want to tell me that there aren't white families being killed and slaughtered on your farmlands? Put the lights down, everybody. Let's play something. And he rolled in

a TV and made the president of South Africa watch this and then said, how are you going to allow this? How are you going to allow this in your country? Why hasn't that person been arrested? Why do you allow this person to go around saying that he's going to kill white farmers at a time when we know white farmers being said, oh, it's not happening. President Trump started pulling out articles that he had printed out and prepared and said, what about this? What about this family? What about that family? Thank God.

God almighty, that someone is finally speaking up about the abject horrors and the white genocide that is going on and being perpetuated in South Africa right now. Look, President Trump understood this is the weak link of bricks. President Trump understands the leverage economically and geopolitically that it puts on everything. Elon Musk standing right there.

And I just got to salute it. Thank God someone is finally speaking out. Thank God. Understand what America first truly means. Welcome to the second American revolution.

Well, Jack Posobiec back live here. Human Events Daily, Washington, D.C., a day where the president of the United States just went in and absolutely spoke truth to the president of South Africa on the issue of white genocide that's going on in Africa.

that country and what they're doing to the white farmers and why the Boer are now being brought and allowed to receive asylum in the United States because of the brutal slaughter of them and their people and their families and their children for the crime of the color of their skin. And Big Marco, of course,

speaking truth as well in the well of the United States Senate or a Senate hearing room yesterday to Tim Kaine and other Democrats who also seem to have a problem with this. He said, why are you

Why are you talking about the color of their skin? And Big Marco responds, they're being killed because of the color of their skin. You're here live on Real America's Voice and the Salem Radio Network. I want to welcome in third hour of the Charlie Kirk audience as well. Folks, while the media is obsessing about Trump getting a jet, something big is brewing and no one is talking about it except right here on Human Events.

Starting July 1st, 2025, under the Basel III international banking regulations, gold will be reclassified officially as a tier one asset. Now that puts it on the same level as cash and U.S. treasuries. Here's what it means for you. Gold is money again. In the first quarter alone, thousands of tons of gold were moved back to the United States from Europe, and central banks worldwide are quietly stacking gold at record levels. It's not a coincidence.

So if the most powerful institutions on the planet are hoarding gold, why aren't you? Don't wait. Call Allegiance Gold. These guys will help you out to secure real physical gold and silver delivered directly to your home or safely positioned inside your IRA or 401k. Now, I've been partnered with them for years because I trust them. Go to protectwithposo.com or call 844-577-POSO. That's 844-577-POSO.

You could be eligible to receive up to $5,000 in free precious metals. So you have everything to gain if you don't act soon and a lot to lose. Gold is freedom. Gold is sovereignty. Now gold is money once more. That's protectwithposo.com or call 844-577-7676 today.

Very excited now to and honored to have on once again, a FCC Commissioner Nathan Symington joins us here on Human Events Daily. Commissioner, how are you? Jack, great to see you as always. You know, it seems like it's nothing but good news from the White House. So it's inspiring times.

Well, we love good news days. They're all good news days because this is, as Scott Adams has said, this is the beginning of the golden age. And I think it's actually happening. So on that topic, there was a post that President Trump had made. It was sort of in the process of his Middle East trip. And he was talking about America being a world leader and very interesting tweet that he said that America should be, or I guess truth social post, I'm not allowed to call those tweets, I suppose, that

that America should be the worldwide leader in Wi-Fi, 5G, and 6G, talking about connecting every American to the world's best networks, offering up for free plenty of the spectrum, the 600 megahertz in the one big, beautiful bill. So I wanted to have you on to ask about the specifics

of this plan people have heard about 5g but i don't think people have really understood the difference between 5g this now talk about 6g how does wi-fi come into the play uh you know i'm still trying to figure out how to get my hands on my own personal star link so if you could help me out with that i'd really appreciate it um but but walk us through what president trump is uh is planning here

Yeah, 100%. So let's talk about Wi-Fi first, because that one's easy. America is already the world leader in Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi started out with the idea that we should be able to take what was then considered sort of garbage spectrum. It's the same frequencies that microwaves operate on, which is why your microwave sometimes used to wash out your router in the old days.

So it was sort of low value spectrum. And there was this thought that, well, you know, what if we just open it up and let people experiment? The Wi-Fi family protocols came out of that and thus a lot of home networking was born. And of course, we haven't remained idle in that one since. We've expanded Wi-Fi to much higher bands, to the five gigahertz and six gigahertz bands. And there's been very rapid adoption there. Now, the United States is the unquestioned leader in world Wi-Fi.

Because there are a lot of countries where the six gigahertz band, which is where Wi-Fi seven, the fastest, newest version of the protocol lives. There are a lot of countries where that band is used primarily for cell phones. That's the Chinese position that they don't want that band used for Wi-Fi. They want it used for cell phones and for 5G connectivity on cell phones. And so countries that are,

want some amount of American technology and some amount of Chinese technology, find themselves sort of caught in the middle. They have to make a choice. Some Latin American countries have gone with the primarily American model. Some Asian countries have gone with the primarily Chinese model. Some European countries have sort of split it 50-50 and divided the band into a Wi-Fi part and a cell phone part.

My own view is that Wi-Fi has proven very resilient, adaptable, and that our efforts to keep expanding access to Wi-Fi have been good. So we're already the world leader there, and I think the president's just acknowledging that fact. Let me take 6G now. People are wondering, hey, well, we got 5G. 4G is when we got broadband on our phones around 2012 to 2014. So what the heck is 6G?

I think right now 6G is more of an idea than an actual product that you can buy. So when the president is talking about opening up spectrum for 6G, he's talking about making sure that we have frequencies and power levels and contours mapped out so that when it comes time to get to the next wireless mobility protocol, we've got a place to park it so that we can get the receivers and transmitters configured appropriately and not run into other services with that.

Finally, with 5G, that's really the $64 billion question. I say that billion with the B advisedly, that number is probably too low because American companies have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the necessary licenses and equipment. It's the same in Europe, although they're a little behind on spending and their 5G connectivity is not as good.

But China has put huge investments in this in industrial applications where we haven't yet really caught up. So I think there, when you look at what the president wants to do with reshoring industry and with strengthening our defense sector, as well as getting to next generation defense technologies, it's obvious that this road runs through 5G smart manufacturing. Also an aspect of international...

competition because if we want to be able to compete against China in port development projects and other large-scale international industrial projects, we're going to need 5G as the networking protocol because that's become the worldwide standard. And so the idea opening up is that companies will be able to then bid for this various space as it becomes open. Is that the idea?

Yeah, that's a great point, Jack. I'm glad you focused on that part because the technique that we pioneered in the United States for figuring out who should be allowed to use wet frequencies was simply to auction them off. The idea is that if you have a business plan and you can convince a bank to lend you the money to buy the licenses,

and some other fellow can't get a loan to acquire the licenses, then the banks have more confidence in your business plan than the other guys. And we've just used that pricing mechanism to figure out what the public is most likely to benefit from.

So this concept of spectrum auctions is about 30 years old. And there was a Nobel Prize awarded for it to an American professor in 2018. Spectrum auctions are here to stay and they've been adopted the world over. The alternative is for the government to pick winners and hold beauty contests where they decide just on the basis of some proposal,

what frequencies to allocate to what players. The thing is, first of all, that's inefficient. Second, it leads very often to corruption because if those licenses have a higher use, better use that's worth more, then the incumbent will flip them and pocket the proceeds. And they shouldn't be doing that because the spectrum is a public trust that belongs inherently to all Americans.

That's why when the president says we're going to sell this 600 megahertz of spectrum and commercialize it, that's another way of saying he's going to make the wireless industry bid on it for access and then return the money to the treasury.

Well, that's actually very interesting. And so, but he's look, folks, President Trump is looking at our natural assets as a business asset for the United States of America. This is what happens when you put a businessman in the Oval Office. We'll be right back. Jack Posobiec, Real America's Voice, Salem Radio Network. We're on with the FCC commissioner, excuse me, Nathan Simonton. Quick break.

Today, you know, they talk about influences. These are influences. And they're friends of mine, Jack Posolik. Where's Jack? Jack? He's done a great job.

All right, Jack Kosopik, here we are back, Human Events Daily, here live, and you're on Real America's Voice and the Salem Radio Network. Want to give a shout out as well to our folks watching on the live stream, the Rumble Chat, the X live stream, Getter, and wherever else you may be watching. And even to you podcast listeners, yes, I know, not everyone gets to watch live, so sometimes you got to tune in a little bit later. But

Very honored to have on the FCC Commissioner Nathan Symington with us. And Commissioner, so we were talking about 6G in the previous segment and

We were talking about also President Trump's big, beautiful bill, and there's a number of outlays that affect telecommunications and others in this bill. Is this something that you view as supportive of what President Trump's efforts are, not just for innovation, but also for freedom of speech online and some of these various other issues from your position at the FCC?

Yeah, absolutely. So as far as, you know, we've already talked about the spectrum commercialization part. Jack, just to go back to your question, when you can get a Starlink, well, you know, the 6G standard may well stitch together cell phones and satellite internet once we finally have one. So, you know, the idea that you'll just have to have different device modalities might be a relic of the past. Hopefully we'll get there soon. Yeah.

Anyway, but getting back to the big, beautiful bill. So freedom of expression online is a real challenging issue at the FCC because we're extremely protective of the First Amendment. I think this is something that has to be underscored over and over and over because people will say that this White House is seeking to restrict freedom of speech. First of all, I disagree on the merits. But then second, I think there's a larger point to be made that in terms of practical freedom of speech, the ability to

to publish and say whatever you want online, the United States is clearly far, far in advance of all the other industrial developed countries. And the simple reason is that the First Amendment together with the very broad readings that the courts have given to Section 230 make it virtually impossible for any federal agency to step in and impinge in any way on anyone's speech online, except of course, unless there's some sort of backdoor coordination, such as was alleged with the prior administration,

or on the other hand, if the speech is illegal for other reasons, such as such as consisting of an imminent threat, that would be that would be a criminal act under any means of communication, whether online or not. So in short, the president has very little ability and certainly no desire to impinge on anyone's free speech. And we have to begin the discussion with that acknowledgment.

To the extent that there is illegal speech out there such as defamation, it shouldn't get special deference just because of the medium by which it's distributed. But on the other hand, the idea that there would be some sort of anything for Americans to worry about in terms of freedom of expression online or in broadcast media or in any other medium, it's simply impossible to support. And it's very notable that the people who complain about this kind of stuff would never complain

about much more active control of the media and is the presence of state-sponsored media in, for example, Canada or Western Europe.

And this is huge, by the way. That's something that, of course, I know my colleague Charlie Kirk is over there in the UK right now talking about freedom of speech issues. J.D. Vance, the vice president, went over to Munich and was talking about these freedom of speech issues. I recently had a long layover in London and I was sort of joking around with saying, oh, I wonder what I can post on Twitter while I'm here in London without running afoul of Keir Starmer and

And this is a serious issue in many parts of the world. It absolutely is. I mean, we've certainly seen people who's in the United States who've gotten into some kind of trouble in their lives over tweets. But I recall seeing that in the UK, there are about a thousand people a month arrested over tweets. If that's a real number, that's amazing. Because of course, with the UK, you've got a population about a sixth or a seventh less than the United States. Imagine.

Imagine if we were arresting 6,000 people a month, 7,000 people a month for tweets. My gosh, that would be about 84,000 people a year. It's unthinkable. It's crazy. This just has no place within our political culture. So the idea that people operating in that kind of media environment where you can literally go to jail for a tweet, some of which seem pretty innocuous to me,

And in any case, very few of which are threatening the Brandenburg standard in the United States to be illegal speech. The idea that people in that environment are complaining about us, it just seems totally backward.

No, it's completely ludicrous. Commissioner, I thank you for your stance on this and for speaking up on this very serious issue. We are just out of time. Thank you so much for being here. Go follow him on X and various platforms. The commissioner, I keep saying chair, I keep wanting to promote you. Maybe next time around. The commissioner of the FCC, Nathan Symington. We'll be right back here. Jack Posobiec, Real America's Voice and Salem Radio Network. ♪

And Jack, where's Jack? Where's Jack? Where is he? Jack, I want to see you. Great job, Jack. Thank you. What a job you do. You know, we have an incredible thing. We're always talking about the fake news and the bad, but we have guys and these are the guys who should be getting policies.

All right, Jack Posobiec, we are back live here, Human Events Daily. Wanted to bring you up on the Salem Radio Network as well as on Real America's Voice. And today's just an incredible day with President Trump there at the White House, what he's done with South Africa. Just truly remarkable, truly remarkable, and really amazing.

And this is only being done because of President Trump, this unique individual with his unique constellation of supporters, colleagues, and the cabinet that he has put together is able to do this in a way that I really don't think anyone else would have ever been able to. But one of the big issues, now, of course, we're talking about the issue of immigration. It still comes to pass that we face a lot of, and the Trump administration is facing a lot of these legal challenges to the deportations.

And so I wanted to bring on Will Chamberlain of the Article 3 Project to walk us through quite a bit of this, including a recent motion, or I believe it was a ruling put out by sort of response by James Ho.

to the Supreme Court that, Will, you were talking about last night. Will, walk us through the merits of the case. Walk us through what's happening here and what was this really just a rebuke to the Supreme Court all about. Right. So about a month ago, the Supreme Court, in a case relating to the Alien Enemies Act, put out an injunction saying that the

government needed to not deport a certain class of people under the Alien Enemies Act. They certified a putative class. This was a really bizarre ruling, and it was really bizarre because no underlying court had yet ruled when the Supreme Court stepped in to issue this injunction.

The Supreme Court didn't actually have jurisdiction because it's a court of review. It's not a court of first view. So they need to have some underlying opinion before they actually get to do anything if it's not a case involving one state suing another state over water rights or something like that.

So I'm going to try to make sure I'm translating for the listeners. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court, of course, has the ability to take up cases on appeal and has the ability to make substantive rulings after the process has worked its way up the ladder, so to speak, to the highest court in the land. But this was a case specifically where none of those rulings had yet to happen.

And yet the Supreme Court was sort of making the first ruling in a in an instance where none had been made at a lower court. Correct. And that's that's the problem, right? The Supreme Court. This is what's called original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction is the right to hear a case in the first instance. The Supreme Court doesn't have that. They have appellate jurisdiction.

except in a very few number of circumscribed cases where the Constitution actually says cases about this topic or cases between these parties can be heard by the Supreme Court. The Constitution famously, as you just said, says when it's a state versus another state over something like...

Like, right, I'm from Philadelphia, and there's constant fights over, you know, who has to pay for dredging and who has to pay for the harbor and who's going to get the jobs, who is this right or that right, even, you know, between the tri-state area, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Or, you know, there's also been fights, I think, over Liberty Island. Is Liberty Island, you know, New Jersey or New York? You know, it's one of these types of things because, you know, it sort of sits –

equidistant from the various states. How was it that New York got Staten Island and not Jersey, for example, and all of these sort of quirks of history? But right, that would be something that would be taken up directly at the Supreme Court. Correct. And so Judge Alito pointed this out, Justice Alito pointed this out in his opinion almost a month ago, where he said, I don't think we have jurisdiction here, guys.

And then a week ago, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its injunction and explained itself. And it said in this opinion that in its view, the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had been slow in how they had responded to the plaintiff's request for an injunction. Meaning the plaintiff said, these guys are going to be deported immediately. You, the courts, must act ASAP. And the Supreme Court agreed that the lower courts were too slow.

and therefore had constructively denied the motions. And so therefore the Supreme Court had jurisdiction. And Judge Ho, in today's opinion, I mean, the substance of this opinion doesn't really matter. The Fifth Circuit today, all they did substantively was acknowledge that the Supreme Court had made a ruling and said that the case now needed to be heard again by another Fifth Circuit panel. So there's nothing substantive occurred.

But James Ho wrote a concurring opinion where he basically pointed out to the Supreme Court that under their logic, it is now, basically they are now expecting district court judges to be not just having their courts open for documents to be filed 24 hours a day, but rather they need to be following what's happening 24 hours a day. Because the Supreme Court said, well, the district court waited 14 hours and 38 minutes before resolving this case.

They started the time at 12 in the morning, at 1230 in the morning, so just past midnight. So they're basically saying to all these district judges around the country, like, if you don't get to an injunction and rule on it first thing immediately, we can treat it as though you were lazy and didn't bother to hear the case and we'll hear it anyway.

And Judge Hope points out, that's crazy. We're not a Denny's. We're not open for business in the same way 24 hours a day. It's literally in the opinion. He literally says we are not. Right. And so it's funny that, you know, and this has sort of been, I suppose, a trend now on both sides, you know, sort of like liberal justices making references to like heritages.

Harry Potter and things that we've seen now. And, and in this, you know, where, you know, this, this type of language isn't typically included in, you know, legal documents. They're, you know, they're known for being very dry. They're being very, very straightforward. But I think that, you know, and, and, you know, you, you tell me what you think, but to me, it speaks to just the complete,

aberrant nature of the Supreme Court coming in and essentially picking favorites when it comes to plaintiffs like and by the way, doing so for trend day, a ragwa members rather than say, oh, I don't know, a U.S. citizen, a U.S. citizen doesn't get to get the fast track like this. And that's basically what Judge Ho is saying here.

Exactly. And if you look at the way Supreme Court justices in prior opinions, people like Justice Barrett, have talked about the emergency docket, which is where this is all happening, right? The emergency docket is when you have these emergency injunctions going up to the Supreme Court.

All those opinions are about, you need to give the district court time. They need time to make a reasoned decision. We want decisions to be made by the lower court, district court and the circuit court. So we have the benefit of their consideration and their reasoning. There's all the, you know, you have opinion after opinion like this. And then the moment the defendants are trendy or raw with terrorists, they're like, oh my God, we need to act immediately.

He's saying this idea that it is a slapback and it's a rebuke. And honestly, I think that there are certain members of the Supreme Court that probably appreciate his words.

Yeah, I think, I mean, certainly Alito and Thomas, who were in dissent here, appreciate his words. And I think also it'll be a wake-up call for Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, who, you know, maybe were, you know, I mean, all this stuff is happening so quickly and they're so busy, maybe they really didn't think hard, which they should have, but they didn't think hard about the consistency of how they approached the emergency docket across cases.

And that consistency is a big part of their legitimacy. If Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett weren't bending over backwards to let people open their businesses during COVID, they weren't bending over backwards to allow people to go. There's so many instances, like Integrity, others, where they would say, oh, no, no, we don't want to weigh in. We don't want to weigh in. We want to let the process play out. We want to let the process play out rather than –

But we do weigh in when it's a trend de aragua member. And I'm sorry, but when you tie that to Chief Justice Roberts' interview, the very rare interview that he gave recently, talking about how it is the role of the judiciary to curb the excesses of the executive, it seems to me like it's very clear they're playing politics. They're just playing politics.

Right. And that's wrong. What Justice Roberts said is wrong. It's the judiciary is not standing above the executive curing, looking for problems to cure. Their job is to affirm the law and affirm the executive when it is acting in a lawful manner.

And this is a huge issue, Will, because it's been something where, and I know our mutual friend Mike Cernovich has talked about this recently, where there is a check on the judiciary, and it's supposed to be called impeachment. It's in the Constitution. I think it's been used like once or twice at higher levels. But we really have come up into a system now where

and this is the wider process or wider problem, I think, is that Congress like doesn't really do very much anymore. You know, you kind of get him to put up one of these CRs every once in a while, but at the end of the day, all of the power in the country right now is centered within the presidency, the bureaucracy, which is like technically supposed to be part of the presidency, but you know, it's not for a lot of reasons. And the judiciary. So because Congress,

Power has been separated throughout these areas. We've we've come up with this strange system, which is not the founder system, by the way, where we treat the judiciary as if it's literally the supreme highest governing body in America. But that's just not right. It's not the system as it was designed, is it?

No, and it still isn't the system we have. I mean, they might want it to be that way. They might be trying to encroach on the other branch's power. But we're a system of co-equal branches of government, of the separation of powers. So...

the judiciary is co-equal to the executive and the legislative branch. And it's not that the judiciary gets to check the other branches. It's rather that all the branches have the ability to check each other in the performance of their roles. So the legislative branch, for example, can check the judiciary by changing the law based on their rulings, or they can also defund the judiciary. The executive branch can defy the judiciary's orders and refuse to obey them. That's part of the

part of, I mean, Marbury versus Madison, if you'll remember, you know, that's a big case that established the concept of judicial review. But one of the things that happened in that case is that prior to the issuance of the ruling, Thomas Jefferson said that if we lose this case, if the Supreme Court disagrees with me, I don't care. I am not going to rule and give this guy a judicial commission under any circumstances. So this interplay between the branches is something that's a part of our constitutional fabric since the founding.

Right. And it's it's been there. And yet we act as if it's not. And unfortunately, what's the actions of this court, the actions of Roberts, the statements of Roberts threatened to perhaps up and this sort of gentleman's agreement between the presidency and the judiciary. We're getting into real thorny constitutional issues here on Human Events Daily. But that's why you tune in. Will Chamberlain and Jack Posobiec right back.

Jack is a great guy. He's written a fantastic book. Everybody's talking about it. Go get it. And he's been my friend right from the beginning of this whole beautiful event. And we're going to turn it around and make our country great again. Amen. At Turning Point USA, what we are doing every single day is we are dedicating ourselves and our staff and our students and our actors for a full revival of America.

Get ready to launch into the future of freedom at the largest student event in the nation. SAS is back. Join thousands of fellow students ready to pioneer a bold new era for America at our Student Action Summit. And we're bringing in the biggest voices in the movement.

Featuring Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Dr. Ben Carson, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, Brandon Tatum, James O'Keefe, Benny Johnson, Jack Posobiec, and more. From July 11th through 13th in Tampa, Florida. Register now at SAS2025.com.

All right, Jack Posobiec, we are back. Human Events Daily final segment. We're with Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel over at the Article III Project. And we're talking about how because of sort of the, for a variety of reasons, polarization, the abrogation of power to the bureaucracy, that it really is the executive and the judiciary where we're seeing a lot of the action and a lot of the fights

between President Trump and his policies. Also, when you look at President Trump's policies, everything that he has done in his first hundred days and really up until this quote unquote big beautiful bill, it's all been executive action. We haven't really seen Congress playing a huge role other than in the approval of the cabinet or in various appointments. But when it really comes down to it,

it is this interplay between the executive and the judiciary. And Will, when we left the last segment, we were touching on, it's a sensitive topic, but I think it's something that does need to be brought up, that in our original system, there was no idea that the judiciary would be supreme over the executive, that they would be, hold on, let me just say it, separate and co-equal branches. So if they were meant to be co-equal branches, this is like co-equal,

constitution 101 kind of stuff around here on human events daily. Well, if that was meant to be, then the question is, what do you do when you have a judiciary that keeps stomping all over the actions of the executive? Well, there are remedies and I think they should be explored. Jurisdiction stripping is one, which is to say that over a certain subset of cases, the courts lose their jurisdiction.

You can abolish judgeships if you can simply say like merge courts into different courts. The only court that is mandated by the constitution to exist is the Supreme Court. All the lower federal courts, those are creatures of Congress and Congress can alter them, change their jurisdiction, reduce the size of them, increase the size of them, just totally up to Congress.

So I think all those options should be on the table. But really, I think it's just time for the Supreme Court to understand the problem and to understand the legitimacy crisis that they're facing here. I think we were talking about Judge Ho's

Sorry, Judge Ho's concurring opinion. And what Judge Ho's pointing out, again, is it seems like the Supreme Court is more indulgent of the problems of illegal alien gangbangers than they are of their own citizens. And that just needs to change. And so, you know, this really has become the flashpoint of so many of these issues when I mean, think about it.

The American people have voted again and again and again for some sort of relief on border and immigration issues. It consistently comes up. It polls as an almost 80-20 issue. It's seen in case after case. And yet it's becoming now that the last and prior to the current administration, the prior Trump administration, the impediment to any actual action there was

uh, Congress, particularly in the Senate with the likes of McConnell and McCain at the time, not wanting to fund any of these things. That's why, uh, well, I remember you specifically during the first admin were one of the first people that came up with this idea of using the emergency order declarations to be able to, uh, to free up some of the money, which is by the way, done day one of the second administration now, by the way. And yet, uh,

And yet it's the judiciary now. It's the courts that seem to really be blocking all of this. And by the way, when the left and the media say, oh, they need due process, you know what, due process, that's not what you're talking about. We all know the truth. The truth is you're not worried about due process. It's that you don't want President Trump actually deporting illegal aliens. That's what this is about. That's what this is all about. And that's why they'll fight for these people, these abject scumbags, because they know that

that it's something that President Trump is trying to do and they just have this pathological response to it.

Yeah. It's actually a substantive debate with a procedural sheen. That's a good way of thinking about it, right? The procedural sheen is this due process argument. The substantive debate is about whether or not we can deport illegal aliens at all, because the Democrats understand that if they can throw enough gum in the works, if they can enough sand in the gears, if they can impose a certain number of process protections, well then the 10 million illegal aliens that came across during Joe Biden's term can't be returned. Uh,

And I think that the problem that the judiciary needs to understand is that there's a democratic legitimacy problem if they do that. Because if what one president did lawlessly cannot be reversed by another president, then the Supreme Court had the opportunity to stop what President Biden was doing and didn't.

but they're going to stop President Trump fixing the problem, that just doesn't work. That is illegitimate from a Democratic perspective. And, you know, they can't get around that fundamental problem. Not at all. No, they can't. Will Chamberlain, we are out of time. Appreciate your insights and analysis. As always, work with people who follow you.

Will Chamberlain on Twitter and check out what the Article 3 Project is doing at a3paction.com. We've got a lot of places where you can let your senators know what you think about various issues in a couple of clicks. Check them out, folks. Ladies and gentlemen, as always, you have my permission to lay a short.