We've Made A Mistake

0:00Pennsylvania, the fifth largest state and the biggest swing state in the nation, is under attack by national progressive billionaires and millionaires. Why? Because as Pennsylvania goes, so goes the nation. That's what Nat Priyet explains in his new book, You Got a Wind Pennsylvania, a call to entrepreneurs to save America. Why entrepreneurs? Well, just look at America's history. Entrepreneurs founded this great nation. They were innovators, banding together to launch an unprecedented experiment in liberty and self-government. Now, 250 years later, the same entrepreneurial vision is what will save America. And in You Got a Wind Pennsylvania, Nat explains how Pennsylvania is ground zero in the fight for America. But he doesn't just give the problem, he gives the solution. And that's you. You can be part of what entrepreneurs in Pennsylvania are already doing to win Pennsylvania and save America. Check out You Got a Wind PA.com

1:04to learn more and get a copy of this eye-opening book on how the future of freedom and prosperity in America runs through Pennsylvania. That's You Got a Wind PA.com. Channel, Syria's XM-111. Welcome to Realty of Politics on the series XM for Wednesday April 1st, on Andrew Walworth. Joining me are RCP President, co-founder Tom Bevin, and Washington Bureau Chief Carl Cannon. President Trump is scheduled to address the nation tonight with what is billed by the White House as an important update on the Iran War. This as the conflict enters its second month with 13 U.S. service members killed, gas at $4 a gallon, oil prices up, and the president and his party suffering at the polls. And in a recent preview of what may end

2:08up being the lead headline out of tonight's speech, Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke to Sean Hannity on Fox News last night about what the war may mean for the NATO alliance. Here's just a little bit of what he said. So I think there's no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded, we are going to have to re-examine that relationship. We're going to have to re-examine the value of NATO and that alliance for our country. Ultimately, that's a decision for the president to make, and you'll have to make it. We're going to finish the job here, as I said, we're very, very close to achieving our objectives on all of these things that I've outlined, but I do think, unfortunately, we are going to have to re-examine whether or not this alliance that has served this country well for a while is still serving that purpose, or has it now become a one-way street where America is simply in a position to defend Europe, but when we need the help of our allies, they're going to deny us basing rights and they're going to deny us overflight. I think these are very legitimate questions that we need to be asking, and this are going to have to be very carefully examined after this conflict is over. So, Karl, Trump's sort of talk to reporters after that Rubio Sermarx

3:14kind of doubled down on them. So, is this going to be one of the big outcomes of this war? The US actually withdrawn or changing its relationship with NATO? Well, I wonder about that, Andy. I think the Secretary of State has raised an interesting question. He pointed out in that interview that he was in the Senate, he was one of the strongest supporters of NATO, but he's suggesting that NATO has changed and not for the better. I'll mention two countries because NATO has become a big alliance. But the first one is Great Britain. So, initially, Kierstormer there, Prime Minister, refused to help and said it's not our war and said, all the kind of things that the United States didn't say, for instance, when Britain invaded the Falkland Islands in the 1980s when Reagan was president and Margaret Thatcher was there. Alexander Hague flew from Buenos Aires. He met Galthe area, the ten horn dictator of Argentina. He went to

4:16Britain. He tried to negotiate a settlement when that wouldn't work. The United States, the Reagan administration supported Great Britain's claims to the island and helped at the UN. That's not, so in that period of time we see the difference. Stormer Ditheres, he looks like a deer in the headlides. He worries about domestic politics. But it turns out the Royal Navy couldn't help us if it wanted to. What's been revealed by this war when it comes to Great Britain? Andy, and you'll know this because you're a student of maritime power. They had six destroyers and four of them were unoperational. They can't fulfill their commitments to Cyprus. They can't do anything to help us. Another country mentioned Spain. That some of this seems to be aimed at Spain. The frustration with the lack of overflights and lack of not using the bases. Spain is now run by a lefty who

5:18caters to Hamas and to the anti-Israel faction and his party. It raises the question naturally. I wouldn't have said this six months ago. Does NATO need to be rethought? Is the United States getting what it needs out of that alliance? Is the alliance's aim formed to combat the old Soviet union? Notwithstanding you have this KGB thug running Russia. He's not going to be there forever. The Soviet Union is not still there. Is it time to rethink the entire enterprise? That's what the president said. I would have dismissed that because he just says that he ran him thought that comes in his head. When Marco Rubio says it, I think it's worth taking seriously. We should re-examinate. I think Marco Rubio is exactly right. This is whether you agree or disagree with Trump's decision to take action in Iran. Once that decision was

6:19made, you expect our allies to act like allies. They seem to have decided that they want to stick it to Trump. Joe Biden started bombing. I'm sure they'd be lining up. Come on, Tom. There's something else going on. These countries have turned slowly against Israel. I mean, it's a bigger problem here. Fair enough, there's the Israeli component to it. But to me, it seems like they're not denying Israel overflight rights. They're basically denying requests directly from the US administration, which is headed by Donald Trump. I just don't know that they do that if it was headed by someone else. It does raise questions about this relationship and what we get out of it and what we put into it. As Marco Rubio said, this cannot be a one-way street where Europe just expects us to fund everything and come to the rescue when they need it. But when we ask for something or we want something or we need something,

7:24that they are not willing to assist and provide for us. It'll be interesting to see how this works out in the medium and long term. I fully expect Donald Trump. He holds grudges. I suspect this is something that, you know, when this thing is over in what he say two to three weeks, there will be some lasting damage there, I think. Yeah, I remember at the time when he was asking them for help with the streets of our moves and they refused. I said at the time, he said, that is so bone-headed on their part and it's going to come back to haunt them. I didn't know what would happen so fast, but it certainly seems like, I mean, we'll find out tonight what he says. But I mean, Andy, let me ask you a question about- We're really talking about, oh, sorry, go ahead. No, about the streets of our moves. Let me ask you about your time, because it struck me that Trump's request was so half-assed and so belated. You know, they didn't quite know what to make of it. And so, you know, his odd communication method of communication may be part of the problem here.

8:32You know, when Starmer finally belatedly says, well, maybe we could help. Then Trump said, we don't need you anymore. The, you know, the war is over and then two days later said, we want your help. You know, it wasn't a formal request. It was just something he blurted out. I don't know that- It sounds to me a little bit- I think the United States government is like- The Markov Rubio is making those requests and other people are making those requests, Carl, you can't say that- If you recall, the original request was for mind sweepers. It was a pretty simple basic request. And even if they couldn't do it, they should have said, we'll be there as soon as we can, Mr. President. That would have been the proper response. They refused. Then they're- yeah, and then it came out that he had asked for a destroyer, I guess, before the war began. And they had refused. And then he stormed, recalled him and said, hey, you know, I'll send it. And it was- at that point it was too late. We had already pretty much wiped out the Iranian navy. So, no, I don't- I mean- I don't care. I buy your point that the president might not always communicate to us as clearly as we'd like.

9:36But I am pretty sure, at Tom's point, that behind the scenes, these guys, you know, we have- you know, military liaisons that talk to one another every day about this stuff at every level. No, I think it's a real problem. If we pull out, for example, US troops from Germany, I think overall, this is not a good thing for the world and for the United States. You know, at this point to be sure, sort of backing off from NATO. But I'm afraid that that may be where we're going here. Well, those troops stationed in Germany since 1946, they've led to tens of thousands of marriages between Germans and Americans. I hate to think that that's coming to an end. I mean, I think it sends a horrible signal to Russia and Ukraine. And I don't buy also that this would send a good signal to China because I don't think that, well, I mean, if you're Japan or

10:42the Philippines, you look at something like this and say, oh gee, well, they'll be- or if you're Taiwan, you know, the US will have our back when push comes to shove. So it's a- to me a very unfortunate situation and we'll see what the president says tonight. But overall, Tom, it does sound like the president has decided, I mean, if I were betting today, it doesn't look like we will have boots on the ground. It looks like he's trying to get out and get out quick. Well, yeah, the reports are, you said, this will be over in, you know, two to three weeks. And so let's just imagine that. Let's assume that's true and let's imagine what- so we're going to be sitting here at the end of April. And so it's- it's going to be May 1st and gas will be $5 a gallon by then, probably. Right? And- and that- that's the starting point when for the Republicans for the election,

11:45assuming we don't, you know, do you know anything with Cuba or whatever, if in fact Iran is over. And even if the administration declares victory and moving forward into the election, I mentioned this yesterday, I said, well, you know, we achieved all of our objectives. It was a huge military victory. They're going to be out there saying that, you know, Democrats are going to say Trump took a two-month detour, spent $60 billion dollars, and America is no better off, you're no better off, and gas prices are higher, and you know, things are still expensive, and Trump basically, and Republicans took their eye off the ball. That's what Democrats are going to say, and I think probably that's a- that is going to be a winning argument versus the Republican side, which is, well, we have this huge victory in Iran, but sorry, gas is still $5 a gallon, and now we're going to get around to try and making that, you know, lowering prices and making things more affordable. It's just a- it puts the Republicans in a- in a very tough spot, but-

12:46and that's if it- and- if it actually does end in- in three or four weeks. Yeah, I suppose it's possible, Carl, that this is all just a faint, and that, I mean, we do- we haven't stopped steaming U.S. troops to the Gulf, and we are prepositioning. If we need to strike Carl Gailand, or some other islands in the strait that looks like we're- we're still preparing to do that. Well, that's what I- yeah, this is what I'm wondering. Tom- Tom- Tom was making the point- the- the domestic political point. He's not saying it will be over in two weeks, but he's saying if it is what this landscape will look like, Tom, I'd say one thing. I mean, if the Democrats say he wasted $60 billion in Iran, I- I guess the rejuerner of that is, you guys waste that much on Medicaid fraud every year, so I- I don't know what you're talking about the budget for, but- but I have- I think there's a- I think there's a larger problem, and I think independent voters will- will wonder what- what this was all for. This is quite a precedent. You decapitate the leadership of a country,

13:49you kill a head of state, but you leave in power the revolutionary guard, the regime that produced him. There's be some other Iatola. These people are not- Andy, you and I have talked about this, Tom, the three of us, numerous times. It's not going to convince Iran they don't want an atom bomb. It's going to convince them they need one, and I think Tom, you said I wasn't on the show a couple days ago, isn't that- if the Trump administration says, okay, but when they start doing that, we'll attack him again. That's the very definition of it forever war. I just- I think that there has to be some resolution. I don't know that the president's in a position where he can declare victory and leave and have that be a credible foreign policy venture. Not if the straits are still closed. To your point, Andy, for all I know, the Marines are going to occupy a carg island next week, and Trump's just buying- Well, that would be the one. If Trump is trying to take control of their oil and the oil flowing out of there and turn the spigots on and move gas prices back down to

14:54four- So it's everybody but China and Russia? Yeah, exactly. That could definitely be a benefit that the Republicans could tout. Meanwhile, something else is happening tonight. I mean, the president is speaking, but America is going back to the moon, or at least close to it. This is Artemis II. It's scheduled for liftoff tonight. The weather looks good for the launch. There's 10-day mission. Here's former astronaut and current senator, Mark Kelly, talking about the launch. All right, folks. Hey, we're here at payah 39 Bravo at the Kennedy Space Center. That is a rocket ship that is going to the moon tomorrow. It's Artemis II. It's an SLS rocket with an Orion capsule that I used to work on here a long time ago, and I launched from this pad in the space shuttle, probably at least once or twice to the space station, but that rocket is going not to the space

15:55station, but it is going right there to the moon, not to the surface, but around the moon, 4,000 miles on the other side of the moon. So, Carl, there's Mark Kelly. I mean, there's a former astronaut. I mean, he really knows what he's talking about, but it's been 54 years, I guess, since we actually were on the moon last. What do you make the launch? And people say this may lift America's spirit a bit, I guess that's part of the agenda. Well, NASA's doing this. If, if, yeah, you say at 54 years ago, NASA was putting humans on the moon. There are six missions to the moon. I think two astronauts in every mission walked on the moon. NASA's saying, oh, but we've never been to the dark side of the moon, so this is better, but they're orbiting the moon. This is a technology then. We can't do now what we could do in 1969, in 1970, 1972. That's kind of

16:55depressing, actually, to me. What's exciting is that we're starting again. And I, Mark Kelly, we've criticized him on the show for sometimes how he's talked about Trump, how he talked about to the stupid state many made to the troops, but I could listen and talk all day about space. He's he's an evangelist for outer space, for space travel. So am I. He reminds me, he had other statements. He kind of echoed John F Kennedy's lines. You know, you know, we go to the moon not because it's easy, but because it's hard. There was a can do American spirit that was present, you know, from the turn of the century to the end of the Kennedy administration and an next administration that sometimes I think we've lost. So it's exciting. There's two things going on. We want to get back on the moon before the Chinese do. That's a competition before it was with the Soviet Union. And now it's with China. And the other thing is the manned the manned space landings on the moon may not be done by NASA. They may be done by Elon Musk's company or Jeff Bezos company and

17:57not NASA or in a partnership with the government. So you know, that's kind of exciting to to get private sector involved here. I'm digging it. I wish I was a down-and-keep canaveral for the launch. It's exciting, even though it's kind of sobering that we're behind where we were 50 years ago. Tom Michael Bluerr calls it a waste of money. He should know. He spent $500 million. Seriously, he didn't get a single delegate. I don't know that he's the guy to talk about wasted money. That was couch cushion change for him. But he said it's a $100 billion moon mission going nowhere. And so a lot of people have said, you know, this is propaganda. You've got these this crew. It's four people. It's the sort of right out of central casting. We've got a Canadian there. We're sending humans up there. When at this point we know robots and AI can do almost everything, including most of our jobs here on earth. Why they can't do our jobs in space. I don't

19:01quite understand. Are you fully on board? Are you shared? Do you share Carl's sort of Star Trek? I do. I do. I think space exploration is exciting, but it's also necessary. I'm sure there were plenty of people around in Christopher Columbus, Dave. Why are we doing this? This is stupid. Why are we funding this? You know, like that sort of mentality to me makes no sense. Elon Musk was fixated on Mars for years and years. And if you listen to him talk, but now he's actually changed shift his focus to the moon to making building a moon base and making that the sort of launching point for future. It'll give us a lot of learnings about how to operate in space. And that will be the sort of launching pad for future missions to Mars. But when you listen to him talk about, you know, humans becoming a multi planetary species and how important that is. It's it's I mean, it's almost like right out of science fiction, but it is the future. I mean, it is something that we need to do.

20:06And so I am all in favor, you know, $100 billion. I mean, as Carl said, that's, you know, I just like, yeah, that's like Somali fraud in Minnesota. I mean, come on. That's nothing. You know, well, bigger net. It's a little bigger net. Are you going to make Minnesota plus California and maybe plus Illinois, okay? But whatever. The point is in the grand scheme of things when you're talking about space exploration and to drop in the bucket. And so I'm with Carl. I'm going to watch this. I'm going to be excited about it. And I want to see more of it. And I do think, you know, NASA had sort of seeded ground to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and all these private companies. I think space exploration is something that the government should be involved in and should be doing. And so even as a, you know, public private partnership. So I'm excited to see them back in the game. And I will be eagerly awaiting the launch and all the reports, you know, as the transmission continues. Yeah. I agree. I guess you're going to make an unanimous. I think it's

21:10unanimous. Yeah. I'm all for it. I remember that photo of Earth from outer space. I always think of that. I think it was Apollo 8 when they took the picture of the Earth rise. And I do think it's good to remind people, hey, we are on this one planet, we're all here together, whether we, whatever our differences are. And this is something I think that all humanity should should participate in. I'm glad we've got a Canadian going with us on this trip. I'm happy for that. And, and yeah. So I guess, gosh, we all are into space. Here we go. Okay. Well, that's, you're listening to Real Clear Politics on Series XM. I'm Andrew Walworth. I've got Carl and Tom with me. And we're going to be back in just a minute. So don't go away. Welcome back to Real Clear Politics on Series XM. I'm Andrew Walworth. I've got Carl Cannon and Tom Bevin with me. And we're joined now by Paul Thacker. He's a contributor at Real Clear Investigations. And today, President

22:11Trump is making a historic field trip of sorts to the Supreme Court, where the justices are, just as we're speaking here, hearing, they're hearing oral arguments about birthright citizenship. This is Trump versus Barbara. And it will turn largely on how the justice interpret the meaning of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause. Here's Grazia Pastor. She's the associate White House Council, previewing the administration's argument last night on Fox News. Now, the Constitution grant citizenship to those one born in the US and two subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And what does that mean? Well, tomorrow, we're going to be arguing in front of the Supreme Court that history shows that it means that an individual owes their primary allegiance to the United States and not a foreign power. Pennsylvania, the fifth largest state and the biggest swing state in the nation is under attack by national progressive billionaires and millionaires. Why? Because as Pennsylvania goes, so goes the nation. That's what Matt Priert explains in his new book,

23:15you got a wind Pennsylvania called to entrepreneurs to save America. Why entrepreneurs? Well, just look at America's history. Entrepreneurs founded this great nation. They were innovators banding together to launch an unprecedented experiment in liberty and self-government. Now, 250 years later, the same entrepreneurial vision is what will save America. And in you got a wind Pennsylvania, Matt explains how Pennsylvania is ground zero in the fight for America. But he doesn't just give the problem, he gives the solution. And that's you. You can be part of what entrepreneurs in Pennsylvania are already doing to win Pennsylvania and save America. Check out, you got to winpa.com to learn more and get a copy of this eye opening book on how the future of freedom and prosperity in America runs through Pennsylvania. That's you got to winpa.com. So Paul, you wrote about this for our CP last year. What do you make of the president's case?

24:20How do you think it will fare on the court? Well, the one thing that's 100% true that no one can debate me on is I say this is going to end up in the Supreme Court. And it is. So that's the one thing I was indispeably right on. You can declare victory and go home. That's it guys. This is all right. I said it's got a Supreme Court. Here we are. You know, this is a really interesting article right about because I went into it thinking that this was total nonsense. And then the more I reported on it, the more I realized that there is something to be said about what he's trying to do. I think the problem he's doing is he's trying to do this with an executive order and I'll explain to you why. So you have to understand there's a hierarchy, right? We have the Constitution, then we have laws and then we have executive orders. So a law cannot defy the Constitution and an executive order cannot defy either the law or the Constitution, right? And what Trump's trying to do is he's trying to overturn a sort of a longstanding way we've dealt with immigration in America with an executive order. And I think the problem that he's going to run into, there's two ways I think

25:23the Supreme Court can handle this. One, they could actually get into the merits of the constitutionality of this issue or they could totally just ignore it all and say this is an executive order that is trying to overturn the 1952 law and immigration and executive order cannot overturn a law. And that law sort of put into practice the way the Supreme Court interpretation was, which is that illegal immigrants have a right to citizenship. That sort of put that into the law in 1952. Now what the issue is the constitutional issue centers on is a totally separate issue, which has to do with the main issue that gets down to is that the courts have never actually looked at whether the children of illegal immigrants are citizens. That has never been addressed directly in the law or in the supply Supreme Court. And the reason we know this is the one, the main Supreme Court decision, which is Archie Vuong, involves a Chinese immigrant who was born in San Francisco to immigrant

26:25parents, right? But they were actually there, they were not in the United States illegally, okay? And we know this when he was born in 1972, the believe it or not, the country had not even actually discussed whether someone is illegal or illegal in immigration until 1875. So three years afterwards. So they've never actually discussed this issue of whether kids born to illegal immigrants fall under the weight of what we determined to be citizens or not. So they were discussing it. They were discussing it today, specifically Paul. And the interesting thing is that you know, they were, they were, do children, why, do children, why is it only talking about the parents, not the children? Well, the answer, one of the judges, because children, you know, they don't have agency. So, so you're having to decide, you know, who makes the decision on behalf of those children? Well, I'm going to ask you about something that Contantu Jackson said today, she's, you know, she seemed to want to, they're arguing certain two

27:28things. The first thing is what you said, what, you know, the 14th Amendment just means this. And so, and the 14th Amendment, and the founders language was put in place so that Congress couldn't later change it. That's their first sign of fence, the, the liberals on the court. The second line of fence, though, is what you alluded to, even if you don't buy that argument, Congress has to do it. He can't be done by any, anyway else. That seems to me, and I was listening to Justice say, they seem, it seemed an uphill fight for the administration to get around that, the executive order aspect of this, right? Yeah, I mean, I think we'd be having a totally different discussion, if this is about a law that Congress passed, if Congress passed a law that said that kids born to illegal immigrants, that they are not citizens, I think this would create a totally different discussion. And, but we can just, you can really truncate the entire issue by saying, this is an executive order, whether right or wrong, we've passed laws that have basically, but what the laws essentially do is say that if you're an illegal immigrant, a kid born to illegal

28:31immigrants, you're a citizen. And so, this executive order cannot push aside these laws, whether those laws are right or wrong, you know? So, I think that that's one way to cut it off, but they could actually, I mean, here's one possibility to come up with. They could say, this executive order, is not going to work because the 1952 immigration law basically said that kids born to illegal immigrants are citizens, but that law itself might be unconstitutional, right? So, that could, that law itself could actually be challenged by another law, you know? But, you know, again, it's executive order. So, I just, I think there's so many ways, I think to me, it's not so much what the court decides, I think it's the reasoning they're going to use, which is really going to tell you what's really happening here. It's not so much what they're, what, whether they're going to be for against what Trump's trying to do. It's the reason they use to come to their decision. I think it's going to be really important. Paul, do you think, regardless of, of what happens here, that, that this is an issue that is going to be with us now and debated in the future and be part of our poll, like,

29:35people will advocate, if it comes down to the fact that we need a new law, that, I mean, Republicans could, could say, make that part of their platform in, you know, 2028. Or do you think this is an issue that will be decided and then we'll sort of be settled and go away? That's really, I don't really know. I mean, I, I, you know, the thing you have to understand is that the whole intellectual basis for even creating this argument in the first place is, is fairly new. It's only been around, I'd say, I think maybe 20, 30 years. So, we haven't really discussed this much. We just kind of accepted the fact that kids born to legal immigrants, they're citizens because no one really actually asked the question, is that true or not? You know, it was just accepted and this is why it's done. And again, this is one of the other things. Well, there was a logic to it too, Paul. I mean, so what's, what's citizen would they be a country of a country that they'd never been lived in and they don't speak the language of it? It almost, there was a logic to it, as you say. What, what the solicitor general was saying today in court, and I, I didn't, we had to, we had

30:38to start our show. I was probably still making this point so I didn't hear it all, but he, the, the, the new wrinkle since, you know, this is a reason as an issue, Paul. And you mentioned this in your story was this, um, advent of tours, you know, birth tours, birth tours, it's exploitation of the, of the laws and the constitution. Right. And, and, and I, I think he was suggesting such that Trump's executive order was tailored towards something that the law, the previous law, nor the, nor the 14th amendment never contemplated. And he was asked how many people you're talking about? He said like a million people. That's, that seems almost like a winning political argument. I don't know the legal ramifications. Well, the law, the law that constitute the amendment never considered illegal migration either at time, right? Because when that 14th amendment was passed, we had not even passed the law on immigration at the time. This happened many years. Now it was, it was aimed to make sure that people understood freed slaves were citizens in its states. That's, that was the context, right? Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. So I don't know. I think it's a really interesting issue. I mean, again, when I first started reporting on this, I thought this is crazy

31:41and nuts. And then the more I started talking to people, the more I realized, you know, there is a really interesting intellectual question here, there's not been answered. Um, but I think the one thing also working against Trump is the fact that, I mean, this is how we've been doing it for, you know, I mean, since 1952. So now we're looking at like almost 75 years, we've basically been saying if you're going to illegal immigrants, you're a citizen. And it's, it's very hard, I think, for Supreme Court to say that the way we've been doing something for 75 years is wrong. And we're just going to do something different because, you know, when we looked at the fine print of the law, we found out this other thing, you know, I mean, I just, I think they're, they're, they're doing it on a board. This is how we've been doing. Yeah. Hey, we're listening to, uh, you're listening to political politics and we're talking to Paul Thacker. Uh, Paul, I want to ask you this. I mean, the, you know, maybe the, the, what we'll remember today for is the fact that he's the first president, Trump is the first president, uh, to go up and actually listen to, uh, Supreme Court hearing. I was sort of surprised that, uh, that hadn't happened before. I mean, I figured everything sort of happened

32:46at least once, uh, couple, uh, presidents have argued cases in front of the Supreme Court before they became president. Um, but this is the first time a, he's, someone's actually just gone up Pennsylvania Avenue and sat, sat in. There was never anything including them from doing it. But what, what do you make of that and what are the politics of it? Well, I mean, I can see, I can imagine, so was it known that he was going to show up or is the that just happened? We just found this out today. I don't know. He announced yesterday he was going on his plan. I know. But have we, have we, have we, have we, have we seen the New York Times editorial yet saying that he's trying to, and I'm Julie in points, Supreme Court, and that this is a violation of the separation of the, you know, the three branches that I'm waiting for that one to come. Like that's, that's, that's at least going to be in Vox, right? That'll at least be in Vox. I, I'd be, I'd be receptive to arguing it myself, Paul, because it reminded me of that scene in the Godfather where they bring the cousin from Italy. And it just sits in the center hearing him. He doesn't say anything. Right. Right. Right. Right. I completely shuts up and realize the

33:51presence of a, of a certain person can be intimidating. Right. Right. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know if these guys, I don't know if these Supreme Court jests are intimidated by anything. I, we know, they're in there from life. No one's going to do anything to them. I don't think they care. Once they're in, I mean, they, they'll say what they have to do to get in. But once they're in, I mean, look, we've all like read things that I'm saying goofy things. You know, I mean, there's, there's probably some, some reporting tomorrow about something goofy that was said, you know, during, during these arguments today. So yeah, I don't know. I have no clue. I honestly, I don't think he's going to win on this. But I, I do think it's going to be very interesting to see the arguments they make and how that might guide, you know, future decisions. It's also, I, I don't, I also, I don't really see, you know, the thing that I think would really be challenging would be if there was a law that said explicitly and signed by the president that the children born in the illegal immigrants are not citizens. That would be very interesting to see if that happened. But I just don't see that happening right now. I mean, immigration is so weird. I mean, I'm sure you guys have seen on

34:54X these videos of Democrats, Pelosi, Schumer, everyone talking about how we need to stop the immigration and now both parties have switched polarities. It's like another thing. It's like switch polarities where the Democrats were saying one thing 20 years ago. Now they're saying totally the opposite. You know, Republicans are the same way. So immigration has always been a very weird thing to me because, you know, I just thought for a long time it was, we were kind of at a date, taunt. You know, they would argue about it. No one really wanted to do enforcement. I think the one thing it's really interesting about Trump is he's actually trying to enforce, he's actually trying to push illegal immigrants out of the country, which I don't think we've ever seen that, not in my lifetime, like when you actually really trying to do something about it. So I don't know what's good the sentence is going to come out. But I do think that the argument is going to be the thing to look at. And that might determine future actions by either political party, but I just certainly think so. I don't think that there's, I don't see Republicans really wanting to push this very much. I think a little bit from the margins, but you know, there's that whole part of the Republican party, you know, that's run by wealthy hotel owners and the ag industry and all that kind of stuff.

35:59And they love illegal immigrants driving down wages, you know, the thing that the Democrats complained about in the past, but now they don't complain about is the thing that, you know, the big corporations love. They love, you know, access to cheap labor, you know, and it's always been that way to always be that way. I'm being probably overly cynical, but this is one of those issues that, you know, you can see the three liberal justices. This is like it. The way Democrats have gone to the mats for illegal immigrants, you know, over the last couple of years. And they're absolutely, so they got three votes absolutely, like locked up and then you've got maybe you know, three votes on the Republican side or on the conservative side. And then it's down to, you know, Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts and those are what's happening? Kevin or maybe, yeah, but those are the those are the two swing votes or three swing votes that are going to actually decide this case. And I don't, you know, to your point, Paul, I think,

37:01I don't know if they're going to be swayed by the Trumpian argument, sort of if they're going to do more of an embrace of sort of the status quo or kick it back to the legislature. Yeah, but Tom, what Paul's saying is that they could they could they could split the baby. They could say the government does not guarantee birthright citizenship on people, the children of illegal immigrants, but Trump can't do this with an executive order. Exactly. No, that could be up. That's a possibility. That's a real possibility. I think it happened. Yeah. All right. They could they could they could they could address the constitutional argument, but at the same time, to Smith which Trump's doing because it's, you know, you can't overturn law with executive order. You simply just can't. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Paul, we're going to have to leave it there. Thanks for joining us. Paul's coming us from Fallencius, Spain. So if you're watching, that's why he's outside. I'm out of his vacation. Yeah. Appreciate it. But it'd be beautiful spot there. Anyway, you're listening to real politics. I'm Andrew Wall. I've got Tom McCarle with me and the three of us will be back right after this. Don't go Pennsylvania. The fifth largest state and the biggest swing

38:03state in the nation is under attack by national progressive billionaires and millionaires. Why? Because as Pennsylvania goes, so goes the nation. That's what Matt Priet explains in his new book, you got a wind Pennsylvania called to entrepreneurs to save America. Why entrepreneurs? Well, just look at America's history. Entrepreneurs founded this great nation. They were innovators, banding together to launch an unprecedented experiment in liberty and self-government. Now, 250 years later, the same entrepreneurial vision is what will save America. And in you got a wind Pennsylvania, Matt explains how Pennsylvania is ground zero in the fight for America. But he doesn't just give the problem, he gives the solution. And that's you. You can be part of what entrepreneurs in Pennsylvania are already doing to win Pennsylvania and save America. Check out you got to winpa.com

39:04to learn more and get a copy of this eye opening book on how the future of freedom and prosperity in America runs through Pennsylvania. That's you got to winpa.com. Well, welcome back to Real Clear Politics on Series XM. I'm Andrew Wallworth. I got Carl Cannon and Tom Bevin with me. We've got some political news out of the sports world. NBA Guard, Jayden Ivy, has been released by the Chicago Bulls. He was a top NBA draft in 2022. He played for the Pistons, but he was added by the Bulls. And they now have decided to let him go after he released some social media posts that they called, quote, conduct detrimental to the team. Tom, these posts had to do with Ivy's Christianity and his views on LGBT issues, especially the leagues promotion of Pride Month. So here's Ivy's reaction to getting fired. They said, my conduct is detrimental to the team, right? Why don't they just say, uh, we don't agree with his stance on

40:08LGBTQ? Why didn't they say that? Well, how is it? How is it conduct detrimental to the team? What did I do to the team? What did I do to the players? I did nothing, but, but, but practice with them, play with them, pass the ball to them. Good teammate to them. Said, good job. Good shot. So, uh, few of his fellow athletes have come to support. Um, what do you make of the story and, uh, what do you make of his question there? I think the NBA just made a huge mistake. I mean, they really, really in their, well, I should say the Chicago Bulls made a huge mistake in their, sort of, fervor to, you know, rush to support LGBTQ. Um, again, he's right. They could have said we disagree. They could have suspended them. They could have done a lot of things other than cut him and let him go. Um, and as you've said, now he's gotten support from other members on the Chicago Bulls, he's gotten support from other pro athletes and other sports, Travean Henderson from the Patriots

41:10and others. And it's, it's just, it's shocking that all he did was say that he thought this was unrighteous. That's the word that he used. Um, meanwhile, you know, in the NBA and the NFL and all these other sports, you know, you see these stories all the time, Stefan Diggs is accused of, you know, choking out his chef and their players have been accused of, you know, hitting their girlfriends or their wives or whatever and they get suspended for 10 games, 20 games, 30 games, whatever. Um, they don't get cut necessarily, but he did. And so I think it's a, it's a massive double standard for this guy is just, there's freedom of religion in this country. We can disagree about these things. We don't have to be canceled and, and, and, and his livelihood basically taken away because of his opinion about, uh, you know, how the NBA goes about promoting LGBTQ issues. Mm-hmm. Carl? Well, Jayden Daniels pulled off what I've been trying to pull off. You know,

42:14I, I badmouth Trump hoping that. Jayden Ivy. Jayden Ivy that, who did I say? Jayden Daniels. Oh, he's a quarterback of Redskins, uh, excuse me, commanders. I don't want to be canceled. Anyway, let me start that, let me start holding over. He's working on it though. This guy, this guy here is, he's, he's a good basketball player. His salary is $10 million a year. The Chicago Bulls have decided that, you know, the NBA is a woke league. It's not just progressive. It's, it's a woke and this comes really straight from the commissioner's office, the current commissioner and the previous commissioner. Some of the players are in some are. Um, this player, the Bulls player, Jayden Ivy, you know, some, some times called the preacher. I mean, he's, he, you know, he's a little heavy handed. And he talked about his Christianity, but it's, it's a brand of Christianity. It's fundamentalist. It's a very, you know, he's, he said the Catholicism is a false religion. He's asked for a portion of interviewing him. If they found Jesus, he's asking if they fornicate, you know, he's kind of a strict adherent to the old time religion. And you can see that

43:21there might be, um, some friction cause. But what he said about his game, you look at his points, his assists, you watch him play on the court. He's a team player. This seems to me to be, I, I agree with Tom, it's an extreme overreaction and somewhat troubling. And I just, you know, um, why should, you know, pride month is a, you know, it's, it's started as a day, a week, it's not a month. You know, some people think it's, it's excessive. And this guy said so. And I just, the idea that you know, fire him from his job because he said that it, you know, it's a private organization. The NBA, it's not the government. It's not, it's not a violation of the first minute. It's certainly censorship and it's cancel culture. And I, you know, it's, to me, it's the, it's this idea that we're going to silence people we don't agree with. And I, I find that troubling. I, I also, you know, I just hate like sports was supposed to be, is supposed to be, our ref

44:21huge from politics and ideology. And I just hate all this shit with like, you know, we got to have the pride month, we got to do all stuff. Just play basketball or baseball like don't get involved in any of that stuff. And, and these franchises and these leagues refuse to do that. They have been, I was going to say bullied into this. But maybe some of them have gone willingly to Carl's point. Uh, it hasn't been that, that hard for them, uh, or that difficult for them. The bulls to live in that jury, let's get, let's get politics out of sports all together. And, and just enjoy it. Wouldn't that be, wouldn't that be refreshing to go back to the days when, you know, basketball was just basketball? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I, I, I, and Carl, I mean, the idea that he's being canceled in part because of his anti-catholic views is just fiction. I mean, I just threw that out there. I was trying to, I was trying to get Tom was trying to rail it. Tom was. I did not take the bait. As I'm being confirmed on, uh, Easter vigil on Saturday. And so

45:24that's one of my, you know, trying to be a good Catholic. You got to, you know what, you know, it's um, you gave up fast food for a lit. I wish you had given up cussing on our show for lit. Can you try, can you do that next year, maybe? He's tried. He is trying. And I, I think he has been better than the, I appreciate it. I don't know about our viewers and listeners, but I like the new, new cleaned up Tom Bevin right these days. Um, hey, I want to talk about Hassan Piker for a second. He is getting some attention. He is, uh, what is now called a political streamer, uh, which is a great new term. He has a show on Twitch, which is the gaming platform. He's reported three million followers who turn in according to what I read every day. Um, um, these are mostly Americans in the 20s and 30s. He's a, and now he's appearing with Democratic candidates. Um, the center left of the party is not all that please. The, uh, leaders of the think tank, the third way have attacked him as anti-American anti-women and anti-Semitic. Um, Carl, what should the Democrats do about

46:29Hassan Piker because they want those young folks anti animal because he shocks his dog. If you watch this, yeah, I know I was thinking of a Hassan Piker. There's also an editor for, uh, what's that progressive magazine that the left that started by Madaglacedus and his friends, uh, and the progress, maybe it's called the progressive. Um, and she was talking about how she like, like admits guiltily listening to Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and I, and I thought of Hassan Piker and Candace Owens and Tucker and, and I realized that we're going around the dark side of the moon. That's where this, what I said been earlier. That's where this Artemis II is going. And I think they may be able to find the place. The pod gestures. Yes. We're Hassan Piker and Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and this mode woman from the progressive where they meet and plan out how to be, run down America and run down Israel and get their story, these far left and far right.

47:32I've said before they meet on the dark side of the moon and now we're going to have proof. I hope that Artemis II can take pictures and find their caves where they're meeting. Uh, Tom, be that as it may. The Democratic Party does the Democratic Party have a, have a, a problem here because it's one thing for him to be out there sort of, you know, saying what he says. But it's another thing for him to meet with the candidates and endorse them up here with them. And that seems to be where the rubber is meeting road, the road right now. Yeah. He's fully integrated into the, you know, he's appearing on stage with, you know, members of the bull work and progressive candidates and he's invited all these events and he's showing up. He's, he's sort of a, you know, rising star. Meanwhile, you know, there were these articles that there was one and I think the Washington Post and Politico about Nick Fuentes talking about, oh, well, the, the right is, you know, there's rot in the right because of Nick Fuentes and a, a, nobody on the right will meet with

48:34Nick Fuentes ever. He's not invited to any of these things and B, Nick Fuentes is like urging people to vote for Democrats now. I mean, he's practically, you know, he's supporting Gavin Newsom now. So it's this, this whole thing is bizarre to me and, and Hassan Piker is, he's obviously, he's got a following, he's popular, you know, he goes to China and, and, and is, is what's that? In Cuba, I think he went to Cuba. Yes. I don't know. I just remember going to China and he was, you know, getting let around by the CCP and streaming from there and I mean, you know, why I don't understand how these people get these kinds of followings and these platforms, but there's certainly a market for it. But, you know, and the Democrats are so desperate to tap into like the podcasting and the, you know, get the, the find their new Joe Rogan. And I mean, if they think Hassan Piker is the new Joe Rogan, like, good luck with that. That is the sort of deal with the devil here, isn't it, Carl? Because this is Rokana. He's told

49:40Politico this. He's a, of course, I disagree strongly with some of his statements and point that out, but canceling people or shaming people like Sun Piker, Sean Ryan or Theo Vaughn is not the answer. And there's Bernie Sanders. He says, I've talked to his son. I think he's doing in many respects a good job. We've got to speak to people. It's, it's really, it's, you know, if you're a devil, serious, certain age, these, this seems to be the only condo you have to reach out to people under 30 and they, they're, you know, they, they, little, little, listen, little anti-semitism, no problem. Yeah, not to tattoo, no problem. Right. Oh, criticize LGBTQ rights. You're absolutely canceled 100%. Right. Well, it, it, I agree with Tom. It is a double standard. It's also Faustian bark. And, and I just, I think that when it comes to anti-semitism, you have to air on the side of, of, of rooting it out and denouncing it. I'm, I'm not saying censor anybody, but these Democrats who campaign with them, they're telling us who they are. And I think the answer is to vote

50:44against him. Um, he did go to Cuba. Um, yeah, as you pointed out, I mean, he was part of that trip and got some criticism for, I guess he wears expensive clothes and he's a, he's a good-looking guy. Well, he's a very expensive hotel, but that's not expensive hotel. So, down there, what's the, what's he down there with that communist front group? Yeah, yeah, yeah, distribute eight to the greater, greater couldn't make it. So, he, greater thing was going to make it. So, he should have a big trip. Yeah. Well, yeah, the code pink private jet, charter jet, but, but let's, but we need to keep saying this. Code pink has become, it didn't start out that way. It's a communist Chinese Communist Communist Party front group and, and Cuba is a police state. And these people should be called to account whether, you know, they're supporting Hamas, they're supporting Iran, they're supporting Cuba. And they're supporting the most repressive regimes on the, in the world. And, and you have to, you have to ask them why? And the answer seems because they're in opposition to America. Is that, is that really what the Democratic part,

51:47is that the message the Democratic Party wants to send in an election year? Carl, maybe. Yes. Well, quiz, what was the name I'm forgetting of the original code pink woman Cindy something who protested outside George W. Bush's ranch for like 40 days. I interviewed her. She was, her son died in the war. Well, and she said Bush wouldn't meet with her, turn out he had met with her. It was Cindy something I'm, I'm liking her last name, but she was the first, that was the first I might have heard of code pink. It was, it was a start of it. Yeah. All right. Well, guys, we're going to have to leave it there. That's our program for today. If you're listening on the podcast apps or watching on YouTube, be sure to subscribe, like, send us a comment. We do read them. It's great to hear from you all. If you're listening on the Megan Kelly channel on Series XM Stick around, Megan's coming up right after this. We are not with her today. We were with her yesterday and you can find those clips of our discussion. They're on YouTube and online. I'm Andrew Wallworth on behalf of Tom Carl. Everyone here at RCB. Thanks for joining us. We'll

52:50see you back here tomorrow. Have a great day. Cindy Sheen. Cindy Sheen. Cindy Sheen. There you have. There you go. All right. Bold No BS news. This is the Megan Kelly channel. Series XM 111.