April 22, 2025 • 36 mins
In the first hour of today's edition of Ryan Schuiling Live, Ryan looks at how Democrats still haven't learned anything from the 2024 election and how they continue to pick the wrong sides on America's 80/20 issues.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So what you had it with, I.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Would say, we have a series of topics that I
think sometimes consume and the other topics that don't actually
get the attention that they.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
Should get, and we ended up fighting for the wrong things.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
We were really south on kitchen table issues.
Speaker 4 (00:14):
We're really good about the family room issues. Always disagree
with you.
Speaker 5 (00:18):
I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (00:19):
The only room we are the only room we do
really well was the bathroom, and that's the smallest room
in the house.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Such book that is a total book that.
Speaker 5 (00:27):
Is buying into the right wing media narrative. And I'm
so sick of Democrats like you selling out and saying this.
You know who talks about trans people more than anybody.
Maga Kamala Harris talked about home ownership, She talked about
kitchen table issues. Trump's over there droning on about Hannibal Lecter.
Are you kidding me? This is where the Democrats lose
(00:47):
because we're playing the game with the rule book.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
They've writ the rulebook.
Speaker 5 (00:51):
Up and a cramnet down. Everybody's throats are upset because
Joe Biden pardoned his said we kind of fight. They're
the gender of as the weirdos, not us we're want
to fight for social Security, Medicare, and yeah, we're not
going to bully trans people.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
We're not going to do it. Fine, my goodness, let
this continue. What you heard?
Speaker 6 (01:14):
There was Jennifer Welch, co host of the I've Had
It podcast, also featuring Angie Pump's Sullivan and they're a
far left, lunatic type of podcast. And her guest, well,
she didn't really treat the guests. Rob Emmanuel, former mayor
of Chicago, former chair of the DNC. This guy is
(01:38):
not a conservative by any means, but he's the type
of center left Democrat that used to kind of guide
the direction of the Democratic Party. And what we need
to hope for as Republicans as conservatives is populists as
libertarians who are looking to win elections and just want
a big, one, bigley in November of last year, we
(02:03):
have to hope that the people like Jennifer Welch continue
to win these arguments, dominate these conversations, virtue signal from
their ivory towers. I mean, Jennifer Welch is a perfect
example of an awful an affluent, white female liberal. I
didn't come up with a term, but it fits. And
(02:24):
at the shoe fits, she must wear it. There's so
many I don't. He is so detached from reality. I
don't know what's worth the complete lack of self awareness
that Jennifer Welch possesses. They don't know why they lost.
They still don't get it. Rob Emmanuel is right. I
(02:45):
hope they don't listen to him. I hope they don't
listen to Bill Maher. Heck, I hope they don't listen
to Gavin Newsome. Let's go off on that tangent for
a second.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
This is the distraction of the day, the art of distraction.
Speaker 7 (02:59):
That's tough case because people are really are they defending
ms R thirteen?
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Are they defending you know, someone who's out of sight,
out of mine in El Salvador.
Speaker 7 (03:06):
It's exactly the debate they want because they don't want
this debate on the terrace. They don't want to be
accountable in the markets today. They want to have this conversation.
Don't get distracted by distractions.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Canary in the coal mine.
Speaker 6 (03:19):
Gavin Newsome, of all people, getting it, realizing as he
looks at an electoral college map that one if he's
going to run for president, and two he's going to win.
He cannot win Flyover Country. He cannot win Purple States
with the policies that he helped oversee and enact and
(03:40):
enforce in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, California. He
has to moderate his positions. I don't know how he's
going to get away with it. I don't know how
he's going to fool people into believing that suddenly he's
this moderate, but he's trying. The fact that he's even
trying tells you where the Democratic Party is nationwide.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Now Colorado, it's.
Speaker 6 (04:00):
Thriving, and we see the fruits of that poisonous tree.
That completely defy what Jennifer Welch was saying. I mean,
we're the ones that are obsessed with the trans issue,
That's what she alleges. They're the ones, the Democrats and
the General Assembly of the Colorado House, that are advancing
(04:24):
a bill known as House Built twenty five Dash thirteen twelve,
which is looking to inflict with pain and purpose on parents,
a cudgel of gender affirmation, that they are going to
hold parents hostage with.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
That either you concede.
Speaker 6 (04:48):
And surrender to your child's gender identity and if you
even think to question it, we're going to take your
kids away from you. Now they try to backpeddle off that,
but that's what this is. In a court of law.
They want it to be considered. They just wanted to
be considered that a parent would be denying the gender
(05:08):
identity of a child. Well, what that's going to turn into,
as we know, as you play this out, is it
will absolutely not only be considered, it will be enforced.
It will be used as a weapon to remove children
from the homes of parents who refuse to give in
to the gender ideology madness that the left is all about.
(05:29):
They are running on this, and there was a Supreme
Court hearing for oral arguments today right along these lines.
Democrats the left are dying on eighty twenty hills on
the twenty percent side of them, if even that number.
Here's Representative Maxwell Frost claiming we are in a constitutional crisis.
(05:53):
I mean, please, Democratic strategists and advisors, you've got to
get rid of these trite, played out catchphrases like constitutional crisis,
or Trump supporters are all Nazis, or Donald Trump is Hitler,
blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
It's all white noise. People don't believe you anymore.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
We've been in a constitutional crisis how many times over
the last eight years, and how many times has it
actually been a constitutional crisis that was not of the
Democrat's own making, For instance, attempting to impeach and remove
a duly elected president of the United States first along
the false pretense that he was involved in collusion with
(06:37):
Russia to steal.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
The election from Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 6 (06:42):
We wasted all kinds of time, money, resources on the
slightly senile Robert Muller and his investigation, his report, the
hearings before Congress. Meanwhile, all the while, during that exact timeframe,
it was brewing at a Wuhan lab in China, and
(07:03):
we were not girded for that.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
We were not prepared for that because we.
Speaker 6 (07:07):
Took our eye off the ball and we're focused on
this absolute nonsense of the Steele dossier and the phony
FAISA warrants that the FBI procured on that basis.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
They spied on Donald Trump's campaign, all of that.
Speaker 6 (07:23):
So when they couldn't impeach him over Russia collusion, they
called an audible the line of scrimmage Peyton Manning style, Omaha, omaha,
and instead went to Ukraine and a phone call with
Volatimer Zelenski, and they impeached him over that they were
bound and determined to find a crime for Donald Trump
(07:44):
to remove him, because the end justified.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
The means find you a man, and I'll find you
the crime.
Speaker 6 (07:50):
That's from Stalinus, Soviet Union Times, but it applies to
the modern Democratic Party. Here's Maxwell Frost, Congressman, Democrat Florida.
Speaker 8 (07:58):
The main thing is that in this country, everybody is
entitled to do process, and we see that in this case,
but in many cases these folks are not afforded to
do process. And the problem is the Supreme Court has
handed down a decision to the Trump administration saying they
must facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia, and now they've
(08:20):
decided to completely defy that Supreme Court ruling, and so
we are in a constitutional crisis right now.
Speaker 6 (08:27):
That was not the Supreme Court's ruling. Had it been,
I'm sure they would have piped up by now. What
they ruled was that the United States would be required
to help facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia as
a native of l Salvador, should that country decide they
wanted to return him to the United States. Then we
(08:49):
would be obligated, according to the Supreme Court in this ruling,
to help facilitate that return. President mccayley says, I don't
want to return them. What am I gonna do? Smuggle
them in the United States? Now, I don't want to
do that. Which country, pop quiz is Kilmar Abrigo Garcia
a citizen of It's not the United States, It's El Salvador.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
He is where he should be. He is where he
is a citizen of said nation.
Speaker 6 (09:17):
It's only a constitutional crisis when we go down this
primrose path of extending full constitutional rights to people who
are here illegally against our immigration laws, people that are
here on a work visa.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I mean, there's all kinds of shades of gray here.
Speaker 6 (09:36):
People are here legally on vacation with the passport, they
decide to stay, they don't want to go home.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
They just get constitutional rights.
Speaker 6 (09:42):
I mean, they're citing a nineteen ninety three ruling by
antonin Scalia that he led the opinion on, and I
haven't really dug into the weeds on that, but there
has to be the slippery slope argument for who receives
United States constitutional rights? Is it just anybody who happens
to end up in our land by accident or on purpose,
with intentions to deceive our American government that if you
(10:06):
just show up on dry land in the United States,
in our territory and are inside of our borders, you
are automatically afforded all constitutional rights privileges thereof extended to
American citizens.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
I don't buy it.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
That's the constitutional crisis if there is one. So all
four of these Democrats came home. Even though one of
them from Oregon claimed she was going to stay there
until Brago Garcia was returned.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
She lied, and then there was this case today again.
Speaker 6 (10:36):
These two, these two fronts that the Democrats are woefully
on the wrong side of. Gavin Newsom cited the majority
of Americans. There's been subsequent polling on this, not just
the CBS News poll which was sixty three percent, but
in the upper fifties of a percent from a newer
poll that shows again, this is very carefully worded and
(10:58):
how it's the question is for related and how it's
responded to. It's not just criminal illegal aliens that Americans
want deported, No, all individuals that are here illegally. The
majority of Americans support deporting them. Sheriff Steve Reeams filled
(11:19):
in for Dan Kaplis yesterday and had a similar position
as Dan. But a lot of you listeners pushed back,
and I think rightfully so, to say, oh, they they're
here illegally and they didn't do anything else wrong. Shouldn't
we extend to them some No, you cannot open that door.
That's called asylum, but it's beyond that, it's amnesty. If
(11:41):
you're offering amnesty for everybody that came into this country illegally,
you're simply inviting more of it.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
The only way to get.
Speaker 6 (11:49):
Through this, and this is a crisis, is to enforce
our border laws. And for those that got here illegally, Sorry,
you don't pass go, you don't collect two hundred dollars,
go directly to the border and try again. And here's
the key part. Wait your turn in line. You don't
have a right to be here, and we have every
(12:10):
right to show you the door. Play stupid games like
Kilmar Abrigo Garcia did win stupid prizes. You come here,
roll in the dice that hey, I'll just do it illegally.
I'll cut the line. Don't be surprised that when you
get found out you get got and you're gone. But
(12:31):
the other issue is the indoctrination of children as young
as kindergarten in Maryland. Now we're seeing a lot of this,
of course here in Colorado, and we'll have a conversation
about this coming up a little bit later out in
the show as well. But I wanted to present to
you the genius of justice, Neil Gorsich from Colorado, of course.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
And what is being argued here is that a school that.
Speaker 6 (12:56):
Is presenting LGBTQ ideology in the form of books and
teachings and discussions and also in commentary from teachers, this.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
Is a belief system.
Speaker 6 (13:09):
It is inherently therefore a dogma a religion. Just because
it's not an organized religion in the sense that Islam
or Judaism or Christianity as doesn't mean that these teachers,
who may be atheists, who may be hostile toward religion,
(13:29):
and you'll hear that too, that they don't have this
belief system that they're trying to inflict upon children who
are students, their students without regard to the parents of
their preferences and whether or not these parents might want
to opt out of certain controversial subject matter that is
in conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs. Justice Neil
(13:53):
Gorsich initiates. He does this so well. He sets up
little mouse traps for the attorneys in KSE is like this,
where you hear oral arguments and they always, always, without fail,
walk right into it.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
On that score, the exposure the lot versus coercion line
that you've asked us to draw, how does that play
out in the case of the Mohammed image for a
Muslim student.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
I didn't see you answer that in.
Speaker 9 (14:18):
Your brief, so I think we do answer it in
the brief. But to answer the question directly, assuming that
the prohibition is on viewing a visual depiction of the
prophet Mohammed, in those circumstances, the school is coercing an
individual to act contrary to or religious But.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Even though just being exposed to the image the exposure
there is coercion in your.
Speaker 9 (14:39):
View, I think it's the difference between exposure to ideas
an activity that coerces you to engage in conduct that
is in violation.
Speaker 6 (14:46):
Of your belief, so to parts through coercion versus merely
exposure an image versus an idea. Where Gorsich is going
with this, and it's brilliant. Is the depiction of the
prophet Mohammed in any form pictorially is forbidden within the
Islamic faith.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
South Park created.
Speaker 6 (15:08):
An episode early on in their run that had a
cartoon image of Muhammad, and it ended up there was
so much heat, so much blowback, so much pressure on them,
that they blocked out that image throughout the episode. So
what Gorsich is contending is, well, if a teacher had
a book that portrayed pictorially the prophet Muhammed, would that
(15:29):
not be coercion on that basis? And this lawyer, you know,
God loved him, but wow, is he terrible. He is
really bad at this. His last name Schoenfeld. I know
that Alan Schoenfeld, and now Gorsich is pressing him on
this idea about what is conduct by the teacher. It's
a real fine line that shoan Feld's trying to draw.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
Here.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
The idea is the image of the prophet.
Speaker 9 (15:56):
I think the image is the image. In other words,
if there were a book.
Speaker 3 (15:59):
So it's an image makes a difference rather than an idea.
Speaker 9 (16:01):
I think it's conduct that makes the difference. And I
think this is an important distinction. So if there were
a book that described someone drawing an image of the
Prophet Mohammad, I don't think a parent would have the
ability to object, even given the religious prohibition at issue
on simply being exposed to the idea that people might
depict the image of the Prophet Mohammad. Being required to
(16:22):
view the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in contravention of
religious objection is being required to engage in conduct.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
Well, thel was sitting passively and the teacher's just reading
a story book.
Speaker 9 (16:33):
I think if the storybook features the depiction of the
Prophet Mohammad, that is a compulsion to engage in conduct
that violates your religious below. Now again, I think what's
important here is that this goes simply to the question
of whether the right is being burdened.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Very hard to understand that, okay, but it's very council.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
I do understand that.
Speaker 6 (16:51):
Norse, it cuts them off because Sean fall just give
up the game right there, if you simply again constance
and variables, if you replace the variable of it's the
Prophet Muhammad.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
He just said.
Speaker 6 (17:00):
But yeah, that would be coercing an Islamic student based
on the conduct of presenting this story and depicting Muhammad
in an image that would be coercive conduct against the
student for which a parent could remove the student from
the classroom. Insert LGBTQ ideology instead that is also against.
(17:22):
This is difficult for the liberals. How do they navigate
this one because they want to be like Prohamas, pro
a Muslim, pro all that, But in the Muslim faith,
the LGBTQ stuff doesn't fly. So when you see queers
for Palestine, that's idiotic and ridiculous. They would be thrown
off of rooftops over there in Gaza and killed for
being lgbt or Q. But he's trying to buifur kate
(17:42):
on this conduct when it comes to the prophet Muhammed.
And here's where Gorsicch goes in for the metaphorical kill shot.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
I have a decided different question, and you say this
is only about exposure, but we also have in the
record some guidance materials for teachers, and one of which
if his students says that a boy can't be a
girl because he was born and born a boy, the
teachers to respond that comment is hurtful and we shouldn't
(18:08):
use negative words to talk about people's identities. Is just
is that exposure or is that something else? For three
to five year old So.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Two points on that, Your Honor.
Speaker 9 (18:20):
The first is that the record is seriously underdeveloped on
whether and how these support materials are used. These were
recommended potential answers for questions that students might pose. There's
nothing in the record about whether any.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Teacher, let's say a teacher does is instructive though and
uses that. Is that exposure or is that coercion?
Speaker 9 (18:41):
In your world, I think that, as Your Honor has
recited it, it is exposure to particular ideas and teaching
students to be civil in the classroom. There are certainly
circumstances where use of that script in a particular context
could give rise to a claim of coercion.
Speaker 6 (18:55):
And that is the case that Goresi just mapped out
in his hypothetical, that there was a valued judgment assessed
by the teacher inflicting his or her own beliefs on
a student whose beliefs were in conflict with the teacher.
Jane set match corsage, But that's no surprise. Stay tuned,
aj Rice joins us next, I think.
Speaker 9 (19:21):
The distinction between exposure and to Wershona is one that's
quite familiar to the court. The court undertook precisely that
analysis in Kennedy and in Town of Greece for a
psychic talk.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
About Kennedy and maybe Masterpiece a little bit too. Where
forget about Yoda and substantial burden. The court focused on,
particularly Masterpiece, the statements of those involved in the policy.
And here we have some statements from board members suggesting
(19:53):
the students who are parenting their parents parenting their parents
and Dogma, suggesting that some parents might be promoting hate
and suggesting that it was unfortunate that they were taking
a view endorsed by white supremacists and xenophobes. I didn't
(20:13):
see you directly address those comments in your brief, and
I just want to give you an opportunity to do
so here and ask you, does that suggest a hostility
toward religion akin to what we found in Masterpiece? And
why wouldn't that be enough to trigger strict scrutiny on
its own?
Speaker 6 (20:33):
Justice Neil Gorsitch, once again putting on display his rhetorical
skills and the ability to set traps, and the Masterpiece
cake Shop wrote case that he references, of course, is
that of Jack Phillips right here from Colorado. A landmark
case in so many ways, and it sets a precedent
(20:54):
those that would be hostile toward the religious views of
a business owner.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
And in this case, are you before the Supreme Court today?
Speaker 6 (21:03):
Parents, Parents who have to send their kids to public schools,
they might not have the option to take their kids out.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Of schools and homeschool them or send them the private schools.
Speaker 6 (21:14):
And so what the public schools have done taken upon
themselves and the reason I'm getting into such detail on
this several one the masterpiece reference there that's local Neil
Gorsich Colorado does such a good job at this, but
that we are facing these very same issues, the war
on parents. It's unfortunate. I hate that it's the case.
(21:35):
I wish that it were not. But it is from
public schools and their belief that their dogma, their ideology,
trumps anything the parent might have, and in particular as
it comes to the LGBTQ ideology and instructing those as
(21:56):
young as kindergarten on matters that inherently involves sexuality for
which they are not equipped to be hearing such things.
Chief Justice Roberts made this point about five year olds
and what is reasonable to expect from five year old
kind of sorting through what a teacher tells you and
taking or leaving something as gospel or something else as
(22:19):
merely the teacher's opinion.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
You can set that aside.
Speaker 6 (22:22):
What a five year old can discern versus what a
fifteen year old, a sophomore, let's say, in high school,
can discern, are two very different worlds. And Roberts was
looking for answers on this, he did not get them.
Schoenfeld instead decided to obuscate Coulse.
Speaker 10 (22:37):
You said that nothing in the policy requires students to
affirm what's being taught or what's being presented in the books.
Is that a realistic concept when you're talking about a
five year old. I mean, you want to say that
you don't have to follow the teacher's instruction, you don't
have to agree with the teacher. I mean that may
be a more dangerous message than some of the the
(23:00):
other things.
Speaker 9 (23:00):
Well, there are express directives in the support materials that
Montgomery Cantley provided along exactly those lines. But your honor,
I would point the court to Barnett, where the kids
were young. They were eight and ten, and the Court
made a distinction between being required to pledge allegiance and
a firm a belief and a graven image in that case,
and merely being required to remain passive during the pledge
(23:21):
ceremony and being instructed on what the pledge was, what
the flag was, and what it meant.
Speaker 6 (23:26):
It's not even remotely the same thing. And Justice Chief
Justice Roberts points out the apples and oranges nature of
that particular argument.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Well, that's a particular ceremony which I think I would
sort of put aside where we're talking about the basic
construction here.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
You know, read this or this is what it put.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
It shows on an issue that presents serious religious objections.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
For the parent.
Speaker 11 (23:51):
I mean, I understand the idea when you're talking about
a software junior whatever in high school. You know where
the point is you want to sort of push back
some of this, But I'm not sure that same qualifying
factor applies when you're talking about five year olds.
Speaker 9 (24:07):
Well, so if that's relevant to the question, your honor,
then I think that the line that we advocate between
exposure and coercion is the relevant one. And there may
be circumstances where, given the age of the student. We're
given the particular presentation of information in the classroom. A
plaintiff may be able to make out a case that
their child is being coerced, but the court, I think,
has to accept Montgomery what Montgomery County sort of represents
(24:30):
as the basis for the presentation of this curriculum and
what's in the record or directives to say, For example,
I understand that is what you believe, but not everyone
believes it. In any community, we'll always find people with
beliefs different from our own, and that's okay. We can
still show them respect.
Speaker 6 (24:44):
But that's different from a teacher presenting a topic as
if it were gospel.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
And I use that word very specifically and.
Speaker 6 (24:52):
Intentionally, that the acceptance that boys can be girls and
girls can be boys LGBT and when I'm not talking
about just the homosexuality and that nature of it, although
I would contend that a five year old's not maybe
prepared to engage in that type of discussion.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Again about sexuality.
Speaker 6 (25:15):
Why is it that so many of these administrators, instructors,
staff members want to sexualize children at such a young age,
to have them have their eyes ripped open to that
rob them of their respective innocence at that age. Some
things are just better left and you just wait, and
(25:36):
you allow a child to be a child, but no
got to get to them before they get too entrenched
in their own views and values that might be instilled
into them by their own parents, by.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
Their places of worship.
Speaker 6 (25:50):
And if you wait until they're ten, eleven, twelve, and then,
according to maybe these leftists who are in our public schools,
it's too late then, or it's not as easy to
a doctor. There is a motivation, a clear one, as
to why you would want LGBTQ themed books in elementary
school libraries presented to kindergarten five year olds at that
(26:12):
early age. And that is for the purposes of indoctrination
to mold young malleable skulls full of mush, as Russellnbaumy
have once said, and Gore sitch again, he is chipping
away at a key element here. And this is just
a clear deconstruction and destruction of the argument before him.
(26:34):
He cited, as we go back to this point, the
Masterpiece cake Shop case and the statements from board members
and the Montgomery Public School Board of Education which were
inherently hostile. We hope that you don't take on the
same beliefs of your parents. You're parroting what they're saying,
and it's hateful speech. They're left no room for interpretation or,
(26:59):
as the the attorney's Shounfeld claims, for things to be
taken out of context. So Gorstich once again tries to
redirect on that point.
Speaker 9 (27:07):
In the first place, the question of whether there's a burden,
I think is a relevant starting point, and so I
don't think we get to well, of.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
Course, be found in Smith, and you know in Smith,
if you're not neutral, if you're expressing discrimination towards religion,
and Masterpiece, if you're expressing this kind of hostility toward religion,
you go to strict scrutiny. And we don't need to
get into all the rest of these coercion versus exposure
and doctrine about what constitutes a substantial burden.
Speaker 9 (27:38):
Respectfully, I think those cases there was a clear burden
in each of those cases. So as the question comes
before the court and how you define the burden, I
think that still needs to be answered before you get
into any of the anterior parts.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
So you take the view that even if you have
a non neutral policy, even if it was motivated by
hostility toward religion, and even though the parents claim at Burton,
you still have to somehow meet an additional objective, substantial
Burton test.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
I think correct.
Speaker 6 (28:12):
Well, there's more to this and we'll get to it
as we go to the top of the hour. In
our conversation with Brad Bergford of the Illumine Legal and
he's an attorney for them. He has worked on behalf
of Aaron Lee and this issue is near and dear
to his heart as well. We'll talk more about that
with him coming up at the top of the hour.
(28:34):
We'll take this time out get to some of your
texts five seven, seven, three nine, and we do hope
to be joined by aj Rice on the other side
of this time out. You're listening to Ryan Schuling live.
Speaker 4 (28:48):
It's an amazing thing when you're when you're looking at
the media and you listen to them, and you listen
to some of Hollywood and some of academia. Here in
the United States. They want all criminals, whether they've come
here the first time and deported second time, have been deported,
they want them all brought back. They want they see
future voters, some might say current voters, and I mean
(29:09):
I think I think Ukli handled himself, you know, fantastic.
You know, the left is is not quite sure here
in the United States what to do with some of
these populist Latin leaders like in Argentina and l Salvador.
They're they're used to the types of leaders like the
Castro Boys, right, like Hugo Chavez, like Daniel Dagel Ortega,
(29:31):
right like Eva Morales, these uh left wing Marxists that
remind them of their romantic days when they were in
journalism school.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
That is aj Rice.
Speaker 6 (29:42):
And I've dealt with him on multiple levels as the
CEO of Publius p R. And he's also an author,
and we're trying to connect with him right now, I
might need to punt this to three point thirty three.
You're just having some difficulty connecting on the communication side
of them.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
For that, I apologize.
Speaker 6 (29:59):
But what he's saying they are twofold is equally accurate
and equally important in that the Democrats continue to shill
for illegals like kilmar Abrego Garcia, make a spectacle of
that which Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, has warned against.
And then the left wing media is confused on the
(30:19):
other side of the same coin, how to handle a
populist leader like President Bukeley down in El Salvador or
Javier Mile and Argentina. These are Latin American leaders who
are not the typical kind of cookie cutter communists that
the left for years has been a little too comfortable
in covering and dealing with. You might remember Barbara Walters
(30:42):
doing a sit down, expose interview with Fidel Castro, and
the left wing media types like those even back then,
trying to tell us, oh, he's not so bad, and
then these he gives his people free education, and like,
oh my god, have you seen Cuba.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
They don't have a vehicle.
Speaker 6 (31:02):
More modern than the nineteen fifty seven Chevy. Aj Rice
joined us now on Ryan Shuling Live. Aj loved the
points that you were making on those two equal fronts.
The Democrats are just kind of lost in the sauce here,
continuing to die on this hill, shilling for illegals like
Kilmar Abrego Garcia. And you made the point that left
(31:23):
wing media doesn't know how to handle these new world
leaders in Latin America that are very much aligned politically
and ideologically with President Trump, I don't think you heard
me there, So again, just dealing with some technical issues
(31:44):
behind the scenes, and we'll get to a text here.
And why don't we go ahead and do this, Zach,
go ahead and tell aj if he can join us
at three thirty three. That'll give us some more time.
We're just running out of time in this segment. Of course,
the heart out at the top of the first hour,
and we appreciate his time and yours, and get what.
We apologize for these communication mix ups. They do happen.
It is live radio, and we try to minimize them
(32:07):
to the degree that we can. Stephen Lyttleton, retired law
enforcement officer, Texas the following, This country is already suffering
a lack of assimilation by immigrants and appears to be
becoming Balkanoi. And I's a good word with the expected
bad consequences.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
Well, what's happening is an.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
Erasure in an erosion, Steve of what it means to
be an American. And this is why I was so
heartened by Sheriff Steve Reheames and his conversation with the
first generation American Mexican immigrant himself and representative in the
Colorado House in the General Assembly about how much patriotism
being an American citizen means to those that it was
(32:46):
not guaranteed to, at least not initially, but that they
come to this country legally, they pledge allegiance to the
flag of the United States of America. They assimilate both
in terms of culture and language, go entirely of where
you came from. I mean, those are your roots. I
respect that, and you can bring that to the table.
You can bring that to the melting pot and submit
(33:08):
it into the mix of what makes America great.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
But you must become an American.
Speaker 6 (33:15):
And want to be an American and want to live
the life of an American. And there has been I
think to your point, those that would come here that
want to have their cake and eat it too. They
want all the benefits of living in America with their
hands out, and we've seen a lot of that. But
what are they willing to contribute to our society in
(33:36):
terms of work input, blending into the fabric of our
culture and becoming part of the community, our community, our
American community, and not just withdrawing into their own kind
of niche orients. And I know that when my grandparents
came here is the example that I know that I
have sure there's going to be there's one Serbian Orthodox
(33:57):
church here in Denver. There were Serbian Orthodox churches, several
of them in suburban Detroit and Chicago, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh.
And this was a place where on a weekly basis,
and this froze from a position of faith that these
immigrants could go and kind of reconnect as part of
that community. And yet it was important that there would
(34:20):
be a balance for each of my grandparents, my grandfather
living in Saint Louis, my grandmother living in Detroit, that
they become themselves part of whatever locale, whatever neighborhood that
they lived in, and continue to pursue that American dream.
And they both did that, and I admire them highly
for it. But it cannot be taken for granted. And
(34:43):
you can't go by half measures kind of wading into
these waters without that intent on committing yourself to the
American way. And sometimes it's going to sound to some,
especially on the left, is jingoistic or overly patriotic or sentimental,
but I think it's a real point that you make, Steve,
that those who do not do that, who come here.
(35:06):
They don't really appreciate what America represents and what their
place is in it, that they are really endowed by
our creator with inalienable rights as are.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Guaranteed in our Constitution.
Speaker 6 (35:19):
But then also when you become an American citizen, especially
those who did not experience that before, there has to
be meaning and substance behind that, a commitment to it,
a reverence for it. And I think by and large,
those immigrants that come here legally they get it.
Speaker 1 (35:34):
They understand it.
Speaker 6 (35:35):
They went through the process. It was not easy, It
was not just given to them. It was not an
entitlement mentality. They were not entitled to be Americans, but
they feel damn lucky that they are. We'll take this
time out, we'll try to get our stuff organized in
our number two, and in so doing we'll have a
conversation with Brad Bergford from Illumine Illegal. The Supreme Court
(35:55):
arguments heard today on the Maryland case involving parents in
schools
So what you had it with, I.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Would say, we have a series of topics that I
think sometimes consume and the other topics that don't actually
get the attention that they.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
Should get, and we ended up fighting for the wrong things.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
We were really south on kitchen table issues.
Speaker 4 (00:14):
We're really good about the family room issues. Always disagree
with you.
Speaker 5 (00:18):
I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (00:19):
The only room we are the only room we do
really well was the bathroom, and that's the smallest room
in the house.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Such book that is a total book that.
Speaker 5 (00:27):
Is buying into the right wing media narrative. And I'm
so sick of Democrats like you selling out and saying this.
You know who talks about trans people more than anybody.
Maga Kamala Harris talked about home ownership, She talked about
kitchen table issues. Trump's over there droning on about Hannibal Lecter.
Are you kidding me? This is where the Democrats lose
(00:47):
because we're playing the game with the rule book.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
They've writ the rulebook.
Speaker 5 (00:51):
Up and a cramnet down. Everybody's throats are upset because
Joe Biden pardoned his said we kind of fight. They're
the gender of as the weirdos, not us we're want
to fight for social Security, Medicare, and yeah, we're not
going to bully trans people.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
We're not going to do it. Fine, my goodness, let
this continue. What you heard?
Speaker 6 (01:14):
There was Jennifer Welch, co host of the I've Had
It podcast, also featuring Angie Pump's Sullivan and they're a
far left, lunatic type of podcast. And her guest, well,
she didn't really treat the guests. Rob Emmanuel, former mayor
of Chicago, former chair of the DNC. This guy is
(01:38):
not a conservative by any means, but he's the type
of center left Democrat that used to kind of guide
the direction of the Democratic Party. And what we need
to hope for as Republicans as conservatives is populists as
libertarians who are looking to win elections and just want
a big, one, bigley in November of last year, we
(02:03):
have to hope that the people like Jennifer Welch continue
to win these arguments, dominate these conversations, virtue signal from
their ivory towers. I mean, Jennifer Welch is a perfect
example of an awful an affluent, white female liberal. I
didn't come up with a term, but it fits. And
(02:24):
at the shoe fits, she must wear it. There's so
many I don't. He is so detached from reality. I
don't know what's worth the complete lack of self awareness
that Jennifer Welch possesses. They don't know why they lost.
They still don't get it. Rob Emmanuel is right. I
(02:45):
hope they don't listen to him. I hope they don't
listen to Bill Maher. Heck, I hope they don't listen
to Gavin Newsome. Let's go off on that tangent for
a second.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
This is the distraction of the day, the art of distraction.
Speaker 7 (02:59):
That's tough case because people are really are they defending
ms R thirteen?
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Are they defending you know, someone who's out of sight,
out of mine in El Salvador.
Speaker 7 (03:06):
It's exactly the debate they want because they don't want
this debate on the terrace. They don't want to be
accountable in the markets today. They want to have this conversation.
Don't get distracted by distractions.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Canary in the coal mine.
Speaker 6 (03:19):
Gavin Newsome, of all people, getting it, realizing as he
looks at an electoral college map that one if he's
going to run for president, and two he's going to win.
He cannot win Flyover Country. He cannot win Purple States
with the policies that he helped oversee and enact and
(03:40):
enforce in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, California. He
has to moderate his positions. I don't know how he's
going to get away with it. I don't know how
he's going to fool people into believing that suddenly he's
this moderate, but he's trying. The fact that he's even
trying tells you where the Democratic Party is nationwide.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Now Colorado, it's.
Speaker 6 (04:00):
Thriving, and we see the fruits of that poisonous tree.
That completely defy what Jennifer Welch was saying. I mean,
we're the ones that are obsessed with the trans issue,
That's what she alleges. They're the ones, the Democrats and
the General Assembly of the Colorado House, that are advancing
(04:24):
a bill known as House Built twenty five Dash thirteen twelve,
which is looking to inflict with pain and purpose on parents,
a cudgel of gender affirmation, that they are going to
hold parents hostage with.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
That either you concede.
Speaker 6 (04:48):
And surrender to your child's gender identity and if you
even think to question it, we're going to take your
kids away from you. Now they try to backpeddle off that,
but that's what this is. In a court of law.
They want it to be considered. They just wanted to
be considered that a parent would be denying the gender
(05:08):
identity of a child. Well, what that's going to turn into,
as we know, as you play this out, is it
will absolutely not only be considered, it will be enforced.
It will be used as a weapon to remove children
from the homes of parents who refuse to give in
to the gender ideology madness that the left is all about.
(05:29):
They are running on this, and there was a Supreme
Court hearing for oral arguments today right along these lines.
Democrats the left are dying on eighty twenty hills on
the twenty percent side of them, if even that number.
Here's Representative Maxwell Frost claiming we are in a constitutional crisis.
(05:53):
I mean, please, Democratic strategists and advisors, you've got to
get rid of these trite, played out catchphrases like constitutional crisis,
or Trump supporters are all Nazis, or Donald Trump is Hitler,
blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
It's all white noise. People don't believe you anymore.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
We've been in a constitutional crisis how many times over
the last eight years, and how many times has it
actually been a constitutional crisis that was not of the
Democrat's own making, For instance, attempting to impeach and remove
a duly elected president of the United States first along
the false pretense that he was involved in collusion with
(06:37):
Russia to steal.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
The election from Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 6 (06:42):
We wasted all kinds of time, money, resources on the
slightly senile Robert Muller and his investigation, his report, the
hearings before Congress. Meanwhile, all the while, during that exact timeframe,
it was brewing at a Wuhan lab in China, and
(07:03):
we were not girded for that.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
We were not prepared for that because we.
Speaker 6 (07:07):
Took our eye off the ball and we're focused on
this absolute nonsense of the Steele dossier and the phony
FAISA warrants that the FBI procured on that basis.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
They spied on Donald Trump's campaign, all of that.
Speaker 6 (07:23):
So when they couldn't impeach him over Russia collusion, they
called an audible the line of scrimmage Peyton Manning style, Omaha, omaha,
and instead went to Ukraine and a phone call with
Volatimer Zelenski, and they impeached him over that they were
bound and determined to find a crime for Donald Trump
(07:44):
to remove him, because the end justified.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
The means find you a man, and I'll find you
the crime.
Speaker 6 (07:50):
That's from Stalinus, Soviet Union Times, but it applies to
the modern Democratic Party. Here's Maxwell Frost, Congressman, Democrat Florida.
Speaker 8 (07:58):
The main thing is that in this country, everybody is
entitled to do process, and we see that in this case,
but in many cases these folks are not afforded to
do process. And the problem is the Supreme Court has
handed down a decision to the Trump administration saying they
must facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia, and now they've
(08:20):
decided to completely defy that Supreme Court ruling, and so
we are in a constitutional crisis right now.
Speaker 6 (08:27):
That was not the Supreme Court's ruling. Had it been,
I'm sure they would have piped up by now. What
they ruled was that the United States would be required
to help facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia as
a native of l Salvador, should that country decide they
wanted to return him to the United States. Then we
(08:49):
would be obligated, according to the Supreme Court in this ruling,
to help facilitate that return. President mccayley says, I don't
want to return them. What am I gonna do? Smuggle
them in the United States? Now, I don't want to
do that. Which country, pop quiz is Kilmar Abrigo Garcia
a citizen of It's not the United States, It's El Salvador.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
He is where he should be. He is where he
is a citizen of said nation.
Speaker 6 (09:17):
It's only a constitutional crisis when we go down this
primrose path of extending full constitutional rights to people who
are here illegally against our immigration laws, people that are
here on a work visa.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I mean, there's all kinds of shades of gray here.
Speaker 6 (09:36):
People are here legally on vacation with the passport, they
decide to stay, they don't want to go home.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
They just get constitutional rights.
Speaker 6 (09:42):
I mean, they're citing a nineteen ninety three ruling by
antonin Scalia that he led the opinion on, and I
haven't really dug into the weeds on that, but there
has to be the slippery slope argument for who receives
United States constitutional rights? Is it just anybody who happens
to end up in our land by accident or on purpose,
with intentions to deceive our American government that if you
(10:06):
just show up on dry land in the United States,
in our territory and are inside of our borders, you
are automatically afforded all constitutional rights privileges thereof extended to
American citizens.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
I don't buy it.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
That's the constitutional crisis if there is one. So all
four of these Democrats came home. Even though one of
them from Oregon claimed she was going to stay there
until Brago Garcia was returned.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
She lied, and then there was this case today again.
Speaker 6 (10:36):
These two, these two fronts that the Democrats are woefully
on the wrong side of. Gavin Newsom cited the majority
of Americans. There's been subsequent polling on this, not just
the CBS News poll which was sixty three percent, but
in the upper fifties of a percent from a newer
poll that shows again, this is very carefully worded and
(10:58):
how it's the question is for related and how it's
responded to. It's not just criminal illegal aliens that Americans
want deported, No, all individuals that are here illegally. The
majority of Americans support deporting them. Sheriff Steve Reeams filled
(11:19):
in for Dan Kaplis yesterday and had a similar position
as Dan. But a lot of you listeners pushed back,
and I think rightfully so, to say, oh, they they're
here illegally and they didn't do anything else wrong. Shouldn't
we extend to them some No, you cannot open that door.
That's called asylum, but it's beyond that, it's amnesty. If
(11:41):
you're offering amnesty for everybody that came into this country illegally,
you're simply inviting more of it.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
The only way to get.
Speaker 6 (11:49):
Through this, and this is a crisis, is to enforce
our border laws. And for those that got here illegally, Sorry,
you don't pass go, you don't collect two hundred dollars,
go directly to the border and try again. And here's
the key part. Wait your turn in line. You don't
have a right to be here, and we have every
(12:10):
right to show you the door. Play stupid games like
Kilmar Abrigo Garcia did win stupid prizes. You come here,
roll in the dice that hey, I'll just do it illegally.
I'll cut the line. Don't be surprised that when you
get found out you get got and you're gone. But
(12:31):
the other issue is the indoctrination of children as young
as kindergarten in Maryland. Now we're seeing a lot of this,
of course here in Colorado, and we'll have a conversation
about this coming up a little bit later out in
the show as well. But I wanted to present to
you the genius of justice, Neil Gorsich from Colorado, of course.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
And what is being argued here is that a school that.
Speaker 6 (12:56):
Is presenting LGBTQ ideology in the form of books and
teachings and discussions and also in commentary from teachers, this.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
Is a belief system.
Speaker 6 (13:09):
It is inherently therefore a dogma a religion. Just because
it's not an organized religion in the sense that Islam
or Judaism or Christianity as doesn't mean that these teachers,
who may be atheists, who may be hostile toward religion,
(13:29):
and you'll hear that too, that they don't have this
belief system that they're trying to inflict upon children who
are students, their students without regard to the parents of
their preferences and whether or not these parents might want
to opt out of certain controversial subject matter that is
in conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs. Justice Neil
(13:53):
Gorsich initiates. He does this so well. He sets up
little mouse traps for the attorneys in KSE is like this,
where you hear oral arguments and they always, always, without fail,
walk right into it.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
On that score, the exposure the lot versus coercion line
that you've asked us to draw, how does that play
out in the case of the Mohammed image for a
Muslim student.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
I didn't see you answer that in.
Speaker 9 (14:18):
Your brief, so I think we do answer it in
the brief. But to answer the question directly, assuming that
the prohibition is on viewing a visual depiction of the
prophet Mohammed, in those circumstances, the school is coercing an
individual to act contrary to or religious But.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Even though just being exposed to the image the exposure
there is coercion in your.
Speaker 9 (14:39):
View, I think it's the difference between exposure to ideas
an activity that coerces you to engage in conduct that
is in violation.
Speaker 6 (14:46):
Of your belief, so to parts through coercion versus merely
exposure an image versus an idea. Where Gorsich is going
with this, and it's brilliant. Is the depiction of the
prophet Mohammed in any form pictorially is forbidden within the
Islamic faith.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
South Park created.
Speaker 6 (15:08):
An episode early on in their run that had a
cartoon image of Muhammad, and it ended up there was
so much heat, so much blowback, so much pressure on them,
that they blocked out that image throughout the episode. So
what Gorsich is contending is, well, if a teacher had
a book that portrayed pictorially the prophet Muhammed, would that
(15:29):
not be coercion on that basis? And this lawyer, you know,
God loved him, but wow, is he terrible. He is
really bad at this. His last name Schoenfeld. I know
that Alan Schoenfeld, and now Gorsich is pressing him on
this idea about what is conduct by the teacher. It's
a real fine line that shoan Feld's trying to draw.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
Here.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
The idea is the image of the prophet.
Speaker 9 (15:56):
I think the image is the image. In other words,
if there were a book.
Speaker 3 (15:59):
So it's an image makes a difference rather than an idea.
Speaker 9 (16:01):
I think it's conduct that makes the difference. And I
think this is an important distinction. So if there were
a book that described someone drawing an image of the
Prophet Mohammad, I don't think a parent would have the
ability to object, even given the religious prohibition at issue
on simply being exposed to the idea that people might
depict the image of the Prophet Mohammad. Being required to
(16:22):
view the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in contravention of
religious objection is being required to engage in conduct.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
Well, thel was sitting passively and the teacher's just reading
a story book.
Speaker 9 (16:33):
I think if the storybook features the depiction of the
Prophet Mohammad, that is a compulsion to engage in conduct
that violates your religious below. Now again, I think what's
important here is that this goes simply to the question
of whether the right is being burdened.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Very hard to understand that, okay, but it's very council.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
I do understand that.
Speaker 6 (16:51):
Norse, it cuts them off because Sean fall just give
up the game right there, if you simply again constance
and variables, if you replace the variable of it's the
Prophet Muhammad.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
He just said.
Speaker 6 (17:00):
But yeah, that would be coercing an Islamic student based
on the conduct of presenting this story and depicting Muhammad
in an image that would be coercive conduct against the
student for which a parent could remove the student from
the classroom. Insert LGBTQ ideology instead that is also against.
(17:22):
This is difficult for the liberals. How do they navigate
this one because they want to be like Prohamas, pro
a Muslim, pro all that, But in the Muslim faith,
the LGBTQ stuff doesn't fly. So when you see queers
for Palestine, that's idiotic and ridiculous. They would be thrown
off of rooftops over there in Gaza and killed for
being lgbt or Q. But he's trying to buifur kate
(17:42):
on this conduct when it comes to the prophet Muhammed.
And here's where Gorsicch goes in for the metaphorical kill shot.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
I have a decided different question, and you say this
is only about exposure, but we also have in the
record some guidance materials for teachers, and one of which
if his students says that a boy can't be a
girl because he was born and born a boy, the
teachers to respond that comment is hurtful and we shouldn't
(18:08):
use negative words to talk about people's identities. Is just
is that exposure or is that something else? For three
to five year old So.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Two points on that, Your Honor.
Speaker 9 (18:20):
The first is that the record is seriously underdeveloped on
whether and how these support materials are used. These were
recommended potential answers for questions that students might pose. There's
nothing in the record about whether any.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Teacher, let's say a teacher does is instructive though and
uses that. Is that exposure or is that coercion?
Speaker 9 (18:41):
In your world, I think that, as Your Honor has
recited it, it is exposure to particular ideas and teaching
students to be civil in the classroom. There are certainly
circumstances where use of that script in a particular context
could give rise to a claim of coercion.
Speaker 6 (18:55):
And that is the case that Goresi just mapped out
in his hypothetical, that there was a valued judgment assessed
by the teacher inflicting his or her own beliefs on
a student whose beliefs were in conflict with the teacher.
Jane set match corsage, But that's no surprise. Stay tuned,
aj Rice joins us next, I think.
Speaker 9 (19:21):
The distinction between exposure and to Wershona is one that's
quite familiar to the court. The court undertook precisely that
analysis in Kennedy and in Town of Greece for a
psychic talk.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
About Kennedy and maybe Masterpiece a little bit too. Where
forget about Yoda and substantial burden. The court focused on,
particularly Masterpiece, the statements of those involved in the policy.
And here we have some statements from board members suggesting
(19:53):
the students who are parenting their parents parenting their parents
and Dogma, suggesting that some parents might be promoting hate
and suggesting that it was unfortunate that they were taking
a view endorsed by white supremacists and xenophobes. I didn't
(20:13):
see you directly address those comments in your brief, and
I just want to give you an opportunity to do
so here and ask you, does that suggest a hostility
toward religion akin to what we found in Masterpiece? And
why wouldn't that be enough to trigger strict scrutiny on
its own?
Speaker 6 (20:33):
Justice Neil Gorsitch, once again putting on display his rhetorical
skills and the ability to set traps, and the Masterpiece
cake Shop wrote case that he references, of course, is
that of Jack Phillips right here from Colorado. A landmark
case in so many ways, and it sets a precedent
(20:54):
those that would be hostile toward the religious views of
a business owner.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
And in this case, are you before the Supreme Court today?
Speaker 6 (21:03):
Parents, Parents who have to send their kids to public schools,
they might not have the option to take their kids out.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Of schools and homeschool them or send them the private schools.
Speaker 6 (21:14):
And so what the public schools have done taken upon
themselves and the reason I'm getting into such detail on
this several one the masterpiece reference there that's local Neil
Gorsich Colorado does such a good job at this, but
that we are facing these very same issues, the war
on parents. It's unfortunate. I hate that it's the case.
(21:35):
I wish that it were not. But it is from
public schools and their belief that their dogma, their ideology,
trumps anything the parent might have, and in particular as
it comes to the LGBTQ ideology and instructing those as
(21:56):
young as kindergarten on matters that inherently involves sexuality for
which they are not equipped to be hearing such things.
Chief Justice Roberts made this point about five year olds
and what is reasonable to expect from five year old
kind of sorting through what a teacher tells you and
taking or leaving something as gospel or something else as
(22:19):
merely the teacher's opinion.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
You can set that aside.
Speaker 6 (22:22):
What a five year old can discern versus what a
fifteen year old, a sophomore, let's say, in high school,
can discern, are two very different worlds. And Roberts was
looking for answers on this, he did not get them.
Schoenfeld instead decided to obuscate Coulse.
Speaker 10 (22:37):
You said that nothing in the policy requires students to
affirm what's being taught or what's being presented in the books.
Is that a realistic concept when you're talking about a
five year old. I mean, you want to say that
you don't have to follow the teacher's instruction, you don't
have to agree with the teacher. I mean that may
be a more dangerous message than some of the the
(23:00):
other things.
Speaker 9 (23:00):
Well, there are express directives in the support materials that
Montgomery Cantley provided along exactly those lines. But your honor,
I would point the court to Barnett, where the kids
were young. They were eight and ten, and the Court
made a distinction between being required to pledge allegiance and
a firm a belief and a graven image in that case,
and merely being required to remain passive during the pledge
(23:21):
ceremony and being instructed on what the pledge was, what
the flag was, and what it meant.
Speaker 6 (23:26):
It's not even remotely the same thing. And Justice Chief
Justice Roberts points out the apples and oranges nature of
that particular argument.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Well, that's a particular ceremony which I think I would
sort of put aside where we're talking about the basic
construction here.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
You know, read this or this is what it put.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
It shows on an issue that presents serious religious objections.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
For the parent.
Speaker 11 (23:51):
I mean, I understand the idea when you're talking about
a software junior whatever in high school. You know where
the point is you want to sort of push back
some of this, But I'm not sure that same qualifying
factor applies when you're talking about five year olds.
Speaker 9 (24:07):
Well, so if that's relevant to the question, your honor,
then I think that the line that we advocate between
exposure and coercion is the relevant one. And there may
be circumstances where, given the age of the student. We're
given the particular presentation of information in the classroom. A
plaintiff may be able to make out a case that
their child is being coerced, but the court, I think,
has to accept Montgomery what Montgomery County sort of represents
(24:30):
as the basis for the presentation of this curriculum and
what's in the record or directives to say, For example,
I understand that is what you believe, but not everyone
believes it. In any community, we'll always find people with
beliefs different from our own, and that's okay. We can
still show them respect.
Speaker 6 (24:44):
But that's different from a teacher presenting a topic as
if it were gospel.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
And I use that word very specifically and.
Speaker 6 (24:52):
Intentionally, that the acceptance that boys can be girls and
girls can be boys LGBT and when I'm not talking
about just the homosexuality and that nature of it, although
I would contend that a five year old's not maybe
prepared to engage in that type of discussion.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Again about sexuality.
Speaker 6 (25:15):
Why is it that so many of these administrators, instructors,
staff members want to sexualize children at such a young age,
to have them have their eyes ripped open to that
rob them of their respective innocence at that age. Some
things are just better left and you just wait, and
(25:36):
you allow a child to be a child, but no
got to get to them before they get too entrenched
in their own views and values that might be instilled
into them by their own parents, by.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
Their places of worship.
Speaker 6 (25:50):
And if you wait until they're ten, eleven, twelve, and then,
according to maybe these leftists who are in our public schools,
it's too late then, or it's not as easy to
a doctor. There is a motivation, a clear one, as
to why you would want LGBTQ themed books in elementary
school libraries presented to kindergarten five year olds at that
(26:12):
early age. And that is for the purposes of indoctrination
to mold young malleable skulls full of mush, as Russellnbaumy
have once said, and Gore sitch again, he is chipping
away at a key element here. And this is just
a clear deconstruction and destruction of the argument before him.
(26:34):
He cited, as we go back to this point, the
Masterpiece cake Shop case and the statements from board members
and the Montgomery Public School Board of Education which were
inherently hostile. We hope that you don't take on the
same beliefs of your parents. You're parroting what they're saying,
and it's hateful speech. They're left no room for interpretation or,
(26:59):
as the the attorney's Shounfeld claims, for things to be
taken out of context. So Gorstich once again tries to
redirect on that point.
Speaker 9 (27:07):
In the first place, the question of whether there's a burden,
I think is a relevant starting point, and so I
don't think we get to well, of.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
Course, be found in Smith, and you know in Smith,
if you're not neutral, if you're expressing discrimination towards religion,
and Masterpiece, if you're expressing this kind of hostility toward religion,
you go to strict scrutiny. And we don't need to
get into all the rest of these coercion versus exposure
and doctrine about what constitutes a substantial burden.
Speaker 9 (27:38):
Respectfully, I think those cases there was a clear burden
in each of those cases. So as the question comes
before the court and how you define the burden, I
think that still needs to be answered before you get
into any of the anterior parts.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
So you take the view that even if you have
a non neutral policy, even if it was motivated by
hostility toward religion, and even though the parents claim at Burton,
you still have to somehow meet an additional objective, substantial
Burton test.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
I think correct.
Speaker 6 (28:12):
Well, there's more to this and we'll get to it
as we go to the top of the hour. In
our conversation with Brad Bergford of the Illumine Legal and
he's an attorney for them. He has worked on behalf
of Aaron Lee and this issue is near and dear
to his heart as well. We'll talk more about that
with him coming up at the top of the hour.
(28:34):
We'll take this time out get to some of your
texts five seven, seven, three nine, and we do hope
to be joined by aj Rice on the other side
of this time out. You're listening to Ryan Schuling live.
Speaker 4 (28:48):
It's an amazing thing when you're when you're looking at
the media and you listen to them, and you listen
to some of Hollywood and some of academia. Here in
the United States. They want all criminals, whether they've come
here the first time and deported second time, have been deported,
they want them all brought back. They want they see
future voters, some might say current voters, and I mean
(29:09):
I think I think Ukli handled himself, you know, fantastic.
You know, the left is is not quite sure here
in the United States what to do with some of
these populist Latin leaders like in Argentina and l Salvador.
They're they're used to the types of leaders like the
Castro Boys, right, like Hugo Chavez, like Daniel Dagel Ortega,
(29:31):
right like Eva Morales, these uh left wing Marxists that
remind them of their romantic days when they were in
journalism school.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
That is aj Rice.
Speaker 6 (29:42):
And I've dealt with him on multiple levels as the
CEO of Publius p R. And he's also an author,
and we're trying to connect with him right now, I
might need to punt this to three point thirty three.
You're just having some difficulty connecting on the communication side
of them.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
For that, I apologize.
Speaker 6 (29:59):
But what he's saying they are twofold is equally accurate
and equally important in that the Democrats continue to shill
for illegals like kilmar Abrego Garcia, make a spectacle of
that which Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, has warned against.
And then the left wing media is confused on the
(30:19):
other side of the same coin, how to handle a
populist leader like President Bukeley down in El Salvador or
Javier Mile and Argentina. These are Latin American leaders who
are not the typical kind of cookie cutter communists that
the left for years has been a little too comfortable
in covering and dealing with. You might remember Barbara Walters
(30:42):
doing a sit down, expose interview with Fidel Castro, and
the left wing media types like those even back then,
trying to tell us, oh, he's not so bad, and
then these he gives his people free education, and like,
oh my god, have you seen Cuba.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
They don't have a vehicle.
Speaker 6 (31:02):
More modern than the nineteen fifty seven Chevy. Aj Rice
joined us now on Ryan Shuling Live. Aj loved the
points that you were making on those two equal fronts.
The Democrats are just kind of lost in the sauce here,
continuing to die on this hill, shilling for illegals like
Kilmar Abrego Garcia. And you made the point that left
(31:23):
wing media doesn't know how to handle these new world
leaders in Latin America that are very much aligned politically
and ideologically with President Trump, I don't think you heard
me there, So again, just dealing with some technical issues
(31:44):
behind the scenes, and we'll get to a text here.
And why don't we go ahead and do this, Zach,
go ahead and tell aj if he can join us
at three thirty three. That'll give us some more time.
We're just running out of time in this segment. Of course,
the heart out at the top of the first hour,
and we appreciate his time and yours, and get what.
We apologize for these communication mix ups. They do happen.
It is live radio, and we try to minimize them
(32:07):
to the degree that we can. Stephen Lyttleton, retired law
enforcement officer, Texas the following, This country is already suffering
a lack of assimilation by immigrants and appears to be
becoming Balkanoi. And I's a good word with the expected
bad consequences.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
Well, what's happening is an.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
Erasure in an erosion, Steve of what it means to
be an American. And this is why I was so
heartened by Sheriff Steve Reheames and his conversation with the
first generation American Mexican immigrant himself and representative in the
Colorado House in the General Assembly about how much patriotism
being an American citizen means to those that it was
(32:46):
not guaranteed to, at least not initially, but that they
come to this country legally, they pledge allegiance to the
flag of the United States of America. They assimilate both
in terms of culture and language, go entirely of where
you came from. I mean, those are your roots. I
respect that, and you can bring that to the table.
You can bring that to the melting pot and submit
(33:08):
it into the mix of what makes America great.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
But you must become an American.
Speaker 6 (33:15):
And want to be an American and want to live
the life of an American. And there has been I
think to your point, those that would come here that
want to have their cake and eat it too. They
want all the benefits of living in America with their
hands out, and we've seen a lot of that. But
what are they willing to contribute to our society in
(33:36):
terms of work input, blending into the fabric of our
culture and becoming part of the community, our community, our
American community, and not just withdrawing into their own kind
of niche orients. And I know that when my grandparents
came here is the example that I know that I
have sure there's going to be there's one Serbian Orthodox
(33:57):
church here in Denver. There were Serbian Orthodox churches, several
of them in suburban Detroit and Chicago, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh.
And this was a place where on a weekly basis,
and this froze from a position of faith that these
immigrants could go and kind of reconnect as part of
that community. And yet it was important that there would
(34:20):
be a balance for each of my grandparents, my grandfather
living in Saint Louis, my grandmother living in Detroit, that
they become themselves part of whatever locale, whatever neighborhood that
they lived in, and continue to pursue that American dream.
And they both did that, and I admire them highly
for it. But it cannot be taken for granted. And
(34:43):
you can't go by half measures kind of wading into
these waters without that intent on committing yourself to the
American way. And sometimes it's going to sound to some,
especially on the left, is jingoistic or overly patriotic or sentimental,
but I think it's a real point that you make, Steve,
that those who do not do that, who come here.
(35:06):
They don't really appreciate what America represents and what their
place is in it, that they are really endowed by
our creator with inalienable rights as are.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Guaranteed in our Constitution.
Speaker 6 (35:19):
But then also when you become an American citizen, especially
those who did not experience that before, there has to
be meaning and substance behind that, a commitment to it,
a reverence for it. And I think by and large,
those immigrants that come here legally they get it.
Speaker 1 (35:34):
They understand it.
Speaker 6 (35:35):
They went through the process. It was not easy, It
was not just given to them. It was not an
entitlement mentality. They were not entitled to be Americans, but
they feel damn lucky that they are. We'll take this
time out, we'll try to get our stuff organized in
our number two, and in so doing we'll have a
conversation with Brad Bergford from Illumine Illegal. The Supreme Court
(35:55):
arguments heard today on the Maryland case involving parents in
schools
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.