The Final Thoughts for the week in review. From President Trump musing about seeking a 3rd term, to accidental deporation to an El Salvador prison to Cory Booker's record Senate gallery speech to the tariff chaos to close out the week. It was a BIG week in America!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Oh lad with.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
From my final thought tonight, I really was unsure what
I wanted to talk about.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
I really really was unsure.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Sometimes I want to talk about politics, some things, I
want to talk about cultural, social issues, whatever happens to
be on my mind, and I try not to talk
about the thing that everyone else is talking about unless
I feel I can give you something that nobody else can,
will offer you something that you've not heard elsewhere, And
(00:45):
tonight I believe it's one of those nights. I'm actually
going to make a bet with you that what I'm
about to tell you tonight you haven't heard elsewhere, and
if you have, I'll just deny that you actually heard
it elsewhere. But I've heard it, You've heard it, We've
all heard it. President Trump fancies a third term and
he says he's not joking about pursuing it, and I
(01:06):
believe him. I absolutely believe him, and you should too.
Number One, Donald Trump doesn't have a sense of humor.
So when he says he's not joking, that's like Tuesday.
Everything he says is not a joke. And let me
be clear, he doesn't have a sense of humor because
he doesn't know what humor is he loves to insult people,
and you should not confuse insulting people all the time,
(01:29):
and you finding the insults funny as having a sense
of humor. He doesn't joke. He doesn't know what self
deprecation is. So when he says that he's going to
pursue a third term, regardless of whether he says he's joking,
regardless of what the Constitution says to the contrary.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
He means it.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
And so when we assess it, when we talk about it,
we should take him at his word. A number of
journalists have asked the president directly to him and those
close to him about exactly how he's planning to go
about pursuing this third term, to which no specifics are given,
just vague comments about quote unquote, we're working on it,
(02:10):
that's all they say. I was listening to Steve Bannon,
heard some comments from him. We're working on it. Let
me clear up all the mystery. I'm not a constitutional scholar,
but I've been really digging into this and talking to
my constitutional scholar friends about this. So it's based in
some actual knowledge, and I'm pretty sure I know what
(02:30):
the Trump team is planning to do at the end
of this term. So hopefully we'll have this on the podcast.
Sam will put it in the podcast so we can
refer back to this, because I'm pretty sure I'm right
about this, and I'm pretty sure you haven't heard this
from anyone else, and I'm kind of surprised because there
are only so many attack points to the Constitution. What
(02:50):
most people say is you can't become a president for
the third time, specifically because of the twenty second Amendment.
In fact, we heard it in the news break. That's
the audio that you hear it, twenty second Amendment. Here's
how the twenty second Amendment reads. Quote, no person shall
be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
And no person who has held the office of President
or as acted as president for more than two years
(03:12):
of a term to which some other person was elected
president shall be elected to the office of the President
more than once. There are two words, I should say,
one word which is repeated. That's the key to this.
The keyword in that passage is elected. No person shall
be elected to the office of the president more than twice.
(03:33):
I would bet dollars to donuts that the line of
constitutional attack will make the distinction between election and ascendants
to the presidency.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Here's what I mean. For example, let's say Vice President JD.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Vance and Ron DeSantis hypothetically are the ticket in twenty
twenty eight and they win.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
JD Vance becomes president.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Conceivably the Santus as vice president could resign for some
undisclosed reason. Could be illness, could be needs to spend
more time with the family, could be he needs more
time to buy shoe lifts. I don't know, but he
decides to resign and get this. Per the twenty fifth Amendment, quote,
(04:19):
whenever there is a vacancy and the office of the
Vice President, the President shall nominate a vice president who
shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of
both Houses of Congress. And as of this moment, the
Republicans control both the House and Senate. We don't know
(04:40):
what's going to happen in twenty twenty six, but hopefully
you could see where I'm going with this. The president,
then JD. Vance could conceivably choose Trump as his next VP.
There's nothing explicitly preventing that. Then Vance could either be
a figurehead president or could even resign himself, which would
(05:00):
then mean dunk da da duh, Trump is your next president,
not elected but has ascended.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Is it constitutionally sound? Maybe?
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Maybe not. That's what the Supreme Court is for. Oh,
that's right. A six to three majority. Do you actually
think you wouldn't get five votes? It clearly violates the
spirit of the twenty second and twenty fifth amendments. It's
a workaround schame some shit, but not the letter of
those amendments.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
So that's it.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
That's the strategy. Well, one of the strategies being considered.
Dollars sodonuts. I know I'm right about this. They're going
to challenge the word elected and not have him elected
because there's no way that an amendment could be passed
to circumnavigate this. Just in case you didn't know, a
proposed amendment must be passed by a two thirds vote
in both the House and the Senate, then ratified by
(05:56):
three fourths of the state legislatures or state convention. Not
happy now or ever in a world of such partisanship,
No way in hell.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
This is the only way in. There's your roadmap.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
He wouldn't be allowed on ballots otherwise, so it's not
about electing him.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
He wouldn't be.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Able to get on enough ballots on different states to
get enough Electoral College votes, he'll be easily disqualified. In
any election attempt, it would never get to the ballot.
So this is not about being elected. This is about
ascendency to the presidency. There is an open question as
to whether the word election also includes ascension. But either way,
(06:34):
Donald Trump is serious about a third term. Why because
he never jokes about anything. There's not a funny bone
in his body. He insults, but never jokes. This should
be taken seriously in every way. For k if I
am six forty, I'm mo Kelly. And here's my final thought.
(07:06):
Let's talk about the Constitution. The Constitution applies to everyone,
or it applies to no one. There's no in between,
there's no shades of gray. Let's get the easy ones, right.
I say it all the time. This is one of
the easy ones. The Constitution, meaning all of its amendments
apply to everyone, including Mark Stefan and even Nick me
(07:30):
or it applies to no one from the first Amendment
on down. Not just the amendments you like, not just
the second Amendment because you really love that one, Not
just the tenth Amendment because that's what you heard somewhere,
because those are the only two amendments you know without googling.
I'm talking about all of them, and I seriously doubt
most people even know the total number of amendments presently
(07:53):
that are in the Constitution, or what it takes to
ratify a new one. But that's just my personal pet
peeve because I'm real big on civics. But I also
find it odd when someone says they love the Constitution
yet can't tell me much about it, not in totality.
It's strange, I tell you. But I want to be
clear on this. The Constitution applies to everyone, or it
(08:14):
applies to no one, all amendments, all protections, or it
is meaningless. And yes, I'm about to talk about the
Maryland man with protected legal status who was sent to
that horrible prison in El Salvador following a quote unquote
administrative error, not to port it to the country in general,
but to port it to a prison having not committed
(08:36):
any crime while also being of legal status. His name
is Kilmer Abrego Garcia. And also according to our government,
this is what our government said. They said that they
don't think they have any way to get him back.
Whether that's true, or not. I don't know, but I
do know that Kilmore is just stuck in a prison
for no good reason, no crime, no due process, no
(09:00):
path back. The Constitution applies to everyone, or it applies
to no one. And I know what you're thinking. I
know what you're thinking. You're probably thinking, uh mo, the
Constitution only applies to American citizens.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
No, that's not true.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Part of loving the Constitution is actually knowing the constitution
Constitutional protections extend to all persons persons. It protects everyone,
not just citizens, and those protections extend to non citizens
who are within the United States. Those protections include due process,
I'll come back to that, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures,
(09:39):
the right to a fair trial, and the right to
counsel in criminal proceedings. If you think some of that
might apply to this, you'd be right. A person's immigration
status does not diminish their constitutional rights, and the Supreme
Court has consistently upheld that constitutional rights extend to everyone
living in the US, not just natural born citizens or
(10:02):
legal immigrants. I hope you heard that either the Constitution
applies to everyone or applies to no one. And according
to the actual Constitution and Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
It applies to everyone.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Some other arguments I heard were, well, what if that
person entered the country illegally, or how do we know
that this guy wasn't a violent gangbanger. Hello, that's what
due process is for. That's the whole fricking point. Is
the process which determines whether someone has broken a law,
entered the country illegally, or is subject to be punished. Accordingly,
you can't deport someone without determining their status. It's not
(10:39):
done by guessing. It's not just done by I don't know, hypnosis.
It's a very simple concept. Unless you think the Constitution
only applies to some people. Oh, look out, now might
step on some does, which would mean you neither know
the constitution nor do you love the Constitution all twenty
seven amendments. There's your answer, he has twenty seven amendments.
(11:00):
Or maybe you live in a community or represent a
community which doesn't and has not ever had to worry
about government agents rolling up on you with mass putting
you in handcuffs, stuffing you in a van, with no
due process. Maybe you've never been stopped while walking or
driving simply because you quote unquote fit the description. Maybe
(11:21):
you've never been pulled out of your car and put
on a curb in handcuffs while your car was searched.
Maybe you've had no experience with that, no reference point.
Maybe you've never had a gun place to your head
because someone thought that you had just robbed a bank.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
I have.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And none of this makes any sense to you. If
it's all unfamiliar to you, maybe you just don't care.
I get that, because it's not gonna be you. It's
not going to be your father, it's not going to
be your son, So it's not going to be your problem.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Got it.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Just stop telling me about the Constitution and how important
it supposedly is to you, because it's not. You're just
cause playing patriotism. This shouldn't be political. I mean, it
shouldn't be. It was then candidate Donald Trump who said,
we are a country of laws, and without laws, we
do not have a country. That's a quote he said that,
(12:11):
And I hope you know every single law, every single one,
is predicated upon due process, every single law. You can't
break a law unless you've had due process. Due processes
one of the main differences, not the only difference, but
one of the main differences between US and North Korea,
and US and Russia and US in China, Because moments
(12:37):
just like these is when you should be saying hashtag
all lives matter. Right now, this is the time you're
supposed to say, hashtag all lives matter. Not just the
lives that you care about, not just the people who
look like you, not just the people you like, not
just the people who agree with you, not just the
(12:57):
people who love like you do, not just the people
who happen to vote the same way that you do.
These are the moments you should be saying hashtag all
lives matter, because when you don't, it sure seems like
you're admitting that they don't. For KF, I am six forty,
I'm Moe Kelly. By now you've heard about New Jersey
(13:41):
Senator Corey Booker standing on the Senate floor for more
than twenty five hours speaking in critique of President Trump
and the Trump administration, a new record.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
If you happen to know the history, it meant.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Different things to different people and different constituencies. If you
don't know, standing on the Senate floor and talking ad
infinitum is not new from the late strom Thurman, the
previous record holder, to more recently Ted Cruz, who tried
to filibuster in the hopes of defunding Obamacare back in
twenty thirteen. He stood on the Senate floor for twenty
(14:17):
one hours. The question that most people have is simple,
or the assumptions are pretty predictable. What did Corey Booker accomplish?
If anything on substance, nothing on substance, absolutely nothing. It
doesn't impact what the Trump administration has done. It doesn't
(14:39):
likely impact what the Trump administration will do, in the
way that Senator Strom Thurman's filibuster did nothing to stop
the Civil Rights Act of nineteen fifty seven, and Senator
Ted Cruz did nothing to help repeal Obamacare. On substance
made no impact. But these are times in which symbolism
(14:59):
can matter, I said, can as impossibly the Democrats have
been lost in the wilderness my phraseology since November.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
Booker's twenty five hours.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Can galvanize a party and focus a party, I said,
can not necessarily will, But symbolism does have its place.
Some moments can lead to momentum, and momentum can be
turned into a movement. Elections in a national sense are
all about momentum. You can go from no momentum to
(15:30):
some momentum just because of one act. It could be
a speech, it could be an interview, it could be
a debate performance, and if you think about it, that
could go either way positive or negatively. Democrats will tell
you that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court election win last
night is a big step in the right momentum direction.
Maybe maybe not, but it's worth noting that in a
(15:53):
race that Elon Musk spent some I don't know ninety
million dollars and gave away million dollar checks to multiple individuals,
that impact of Elon Musk was negligible or nonexistent in
terms of swaying that election. So say what you want,
but that Republican loss, it's absolutely connected to why it's
(16:14):
being said that Musk will be leaving Doze or stepping
back in Trump administration duties in the coming weeks. Put
another way, that race mattered. That's how momentum starts. And
this is not about twenty twenty eight. This is about
twenty twenty six. Flip a few House seats and the
speakership goes to Hakim Jeffreys. No more blank check for
(16:35):
the Trump administration. More momentum has been generated and so on,
here's how I know, and we're going to use history
as a guide. Ted Cruz's twenty one hour filibuster in
the hopes of defunding Obamacare back in September of twenty
thirteen was on substance unsuccessful, but on symbolism and momentum.
(16:58):
In the twenty fourteen midtermal life just a year later,
the Republicans won sixteen seats from the Democrats, and the
GOP achieved their largest majority in the House since nineteen
twenty eight due to that Republican wave. Arguably, you can
trace the beginning of that red wave right back to
(17:19):
Ted Cruz's filibuster the year prior Cruz was mocked and
ridiculed by the Democrats. Sound familiar, not unlike the Republicans
who've largely have mocked and ridiculed Booker, questioning what it accomplished,
I hope you can see where I'm going with this.
The spark, while symbolic, is the point, of course, there
(17:42):
are other variables along the way, but every wave starts
with a droplet. It also bears mentioning that in the
way that Cruz used his filibuster to prime the pump
for his eventual presidential campaign, you should assume the same
with Booker. Lastly, the past is prologued and there are
any other meaningful parallels between filibusters and future elections. Ted
(18:05):
Cruz's twenty one hours on the Senate floor was one
year before a major red wave midterm and three years
before a Republican returned to the White House. Just in
case you're paying attention, So before you write off Booker's
record as just some meaningless stunt, look at the lessons
of Ted Cruz and that roadmap. Not everything needs to
(18:27):
have an immediate impact or a substantive reward for it
to matter. On substance, neither Ted Cruz nor Corey Booker
gained anything, but in the longview, don't overlook how symbolism
can be the spark that a party needs. For KFI
AM six forty, I'm mo Kelley, and tonight the show
(18:58):
started a little bit differently than usual. Usually it's like
ha ha, ha ha, jokes, all sorts of fun. But
tonight was a little bit different because today, earlier today
and throughout the day, it was a heavy moment and
maybe you didn't believe me. I was saying, we were
living through history. What happened with the stock market with
(19:19):
the tariffs, what might be happening in subsequent days. If
you've been following Dow futures, the stock market has continued
to go down even after the closing bell. This is
a very significant moment in our nation's history. And I
said that there will be responses from other countries. I
(19:40):
know that France has announced in the recent hours that
it's going to stop all investments and future investments in
the US pending some clarity on what the US is
going to do going forward. And there'll be other responses
from other nations. This is, I would say, the end
of the beginning. We are just getting into what these
(20:02):
tariffs are going to mean. But tonight I wanted to
close out the show just a little bit differently as
far as how I talk about these issues.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
And it's not going to be my voice.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
It's going to be the voice of maybe someone that
you more respect, someone that you more appreciate, someone you
more revere. And these are just a few voices who
articulate in opinion both past and present, which I think
are relevant, remarkable, and needed right about now. The first
one I wanted to play for you, This is Iowa
(20:37):
Senator Chuck Grassley, and this is from today, and he's
responding to the mayhem and the chaos which was going
on in our financial markets. He's made it clear that
he hasn't been a supporter of the tariffs, but this
is what he had to say given what was going on.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
If President Trump is successful in reducing traves in other countries,
I'm going to say, Amen, praise the Lord. But if
he's unsuccessful, I'll say I told you soul. That's Senator
Chuck Grassley.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
And if anything you can extract from that is that
he's making it clear that he tried to provide wise
counsel to our president.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
That's Senator Chuck Grassley. That's not me.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Here is our present Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. But
he wasn't obviously always secretary of state. Back in twenty sixteen,
he was running for president and then an opponent of
then candidate Donald Trump. This is what he had to
say about tariffs.
Speaker 5 (21:43):
I think we need to be very careful with tariffs.
And here's why China doesn't pay the tariff. The buyer
pays the tariff. If you send a tie or a
shirt made in China into the United States, and American
goes to buy it at the store and there's a
tariff on it, it gets passed on in the price
to the consumer. So I think the better approach. The
best thing we can do to protect ourselves against China
economically is to make our economy stronger.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
That's what Senator Mark or Rubio, now Secretary of State,
had to say back in twenty sixteen. The next voice
I want to play for you is Kentucky Senator Ran Paul.
This is from just days ago.
Speaker 6 (22:18):
With regard to tariffs, Let's be very clear, tariffs are
simply taxes. Tariffs don't punish foreign governments. They punish American families.
When we tax imports, we raise the price of everything
from groceries to smartphones, to washing machines to prescription drugs.
Every dollar collected in tariff revenue comes straight out of
(22:39):
the pockets of American consumers. Conservatives used to understand that
tariffs are taxes on the American people. Conservatives used to
be uniformly opposed to raising taxes because we wanted the
private marketplace, the private individuals to keep more of their incomes.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
We were always for lower taxes.
Speaker 6 (22:54):
And yet now the mantra that's coming is we want
higher taxes. What happened all the same and give up
all the things we used to believe in as conservatives, I,
for one, haven't. I still think more taxes is bad
for the economy, more money taking out of the productive
sector of the private sector and given to the government
is a mistake. To those who still call themselves conservatives
(23:14):
but now support tariffs, let me remind them that Milton
Friedman said tariffs raised prices to consumers and waste our resources.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
That's Kentucky Junior Senator Ran Paul now Here's noted economists
and historian Thomas Soule.
Speaker 7 (23:31):
It's painful to see what a ruinous decision from back
in the nineteen twenties being repeated now in so far
as he's using these tariffs to get various strategic things settled,
and that he is satisfied with that.
Speaker 8 (23:51):
But if you's got set off.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
A worldwide trade war.
Speaker 8 (23:55):
That has a devastating history, everybody loses, everybody follows suit,
and all that happens is that you get a great
reduction and international trade.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
This is a very famous economics teacher you might have
heard before.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
In nineteen thirty the Republican controlled House of Representatives, in
an effort to alleviate the effects of anyone, anyone the
Great Depression, passed anyone, anyone a tariff bill, the Holly
Smoot Tariff Act, which anyone raised or lowered raised tariffs
(24:39):
in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government.
Did it work? Anyone, anyone know the effects. It did
not work, and the United States sank deeper into the
Great Depression.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
That was, of course actor ben Stein playing the economics
teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but it was relevant
to today.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
In the last voice, I want to leave with you.
You is why he doesn't really need any introduction.
Speaker 9 (25:05):
For those of us who live through the Great Depression,
the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing,
and today many economic analysts and historians argue that high
teriff legislation passed back in that period, called the Smoot
Hawley Tariff, greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery.
You see, at first, when someone says, let's impose tariffs
(25:28):
on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic
thing by protecting American products and jobs, and sometimes for
a short while it works, but only for a short time.
What eventually occurs is first homegrown industries start relying on
government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop
competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes
(25:52):
they need to succeed in world markets. And then while
all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High
terraf inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the
triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and
more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, in less and
less competition. So soon, because of the prices made artificially
(26:14):
high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people
stop buying. Then the worst happens. Market shrink and collapse,
businesses and industry shut down, and millions of people lose
their jobs. The memory of all this occurring back in
the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington
to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity. Now,
(26:38):
it hasn't always been easy. There are those in the Congress,
just as there were back in the thirties, who want
to go for the quick political advantage, who risk America's
prosperity for the sake of a short term appeal to
some special interest group. Who forget that more than five
million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export
business and additional millions are tied to imports.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
For k IF, I am six forty. I'm mo Kelly
Oh lad with.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
From my final thought tonight, I really was unsure what
I wanted to talk about.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
I really really was unsure.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Sometimes I want to talk about politics, some things, I
want to talk about cultural, social issues, whatever happens to
be on my mind, and I try not to talk
about the thing that everyone else is talking about unless
I feel I can give you something that nobody else can,
will offer you something that you've not heard elsewhere, And
(00:45):
tonight I believe it's one of those nights. I'm actually
going to make a bet with you that what I'm
about to tell you tonight you haven't heard elsewhere, and
if you have, I'll just deny that you actually heard
it elsewhere. But I've heard it, You've heard it, We've
all heard it. President Trump fancies a third term and
he says he's not joking about pursuing it, and I
(01:06):
believe him. I absolutely believe him, and you should too.
Number One, Donald Trump doesn't have a sense of humor.
So when he says he's not joking, that's like Tuesday.
Everything he says is not a joke. And let me
be clear, he doesn't have a sense of humor because
he doesn't know what humor is he loves to insult people,
and you should not confuse insulting people all the time,
(01:29):
and you finding the insults funny as having a sense
of humor. He doesn't joke. He doesn't know what self
deprecation is. So when he says that he's going to
pursue a third term, regardless of whether he says he's joking,
regardless of what the Constitution says to the contrary.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
He means it.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
And so when we assess it, when we talk about it,
we should take him at his word. A number of
journalists have asked the president directly to him and those
close to him about exactly how he's planning to go
about pursuing this third term, to which no specifics are given,
just vague comments about quote unquote, we're working on it,
(02:10):
that's all they say. I was listening to Steve Bannon,
heard some comments from him. We're working on it. Let
me clear up all the mystery. I'm not a constitutional scholar,
but I've been really digging into this and talking to
my constitutional scholar friends about this. So it's based in
some actual knowledge, and I'm pretty sure I know what
(02:30):
the Trump team is planning to do at the end
of this term. So hopefully we'll have this on the podcast.
Sam will put it in the podcast so we can
refer back to this, because I'm pretty sure I'm right
about this, and I'm pretty sure you haven't heard this
from anyone else, and I'm kind of surprised because there
are only so many attack points to the Constitution. What
(02:50):
most people say is you can't become a president for
the third time, specifically because of the twenty second Amendment.
In fact, we heard it in the news break. That's
the audio that you hear it, twenty second Amendment. Here's
how the twenty second Amendment reads. Quote, no person shall
be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
And no person who has held the office of President
or as acted as president for more than two years
(03:12):
of a term to which some other person was elected
president shall be elected to the office of the President
more than once. There are two words, I should say,
one word which is repeated. That's the key to this.
The keyword in that passage is elected. No person shall
be elected to the office of the president more than twice.
(03:33):
I would bet dollars to donuts that the line of
constitutional attack will make the distinction between election and ascendants
to the presidency.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Here's what I mean. For example, let's say Vice President JD.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Vance and Ron DeSantis hypothetically are the ticket in twenty
twenty eight and they win.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
JD Vance becomes president.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Conceivably the Santus as vice president could resign for some
undisclosed reason. Could be illness, could be needs to spend
more time with the family, could be he needs more
time to buy shoe lifts. I don't know, but he
decides to resign and get this. Per the twenty fifth Amendment, quote,
(04:19):
whenever there is a vacancy and the office of the
Vice President, the President shall nominate a vice president who
shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of
both Houses of Congress. And as of this moment, the
Republicans control both the House and Senate. We don't know
(04:40):
what's going to happen in twenty twenty six, but hopefully
you could see where I'm going with this. The president,
then JD. Vance could conceivably choose Trump as his next VP.
There's nothing explicitly preventing that. Then Vance could either be
a figurehead president or could even resign himself, which would
(05:00):
then mean dunk da da duh, Trump is your next president,
not elected but has ascended.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Is it constitutionally sound? Maybe?
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Maybe not. That's what the Supreme Court is for. Oh,
that's right. A six to three majority. Do you actually
think you wouldn't get five votes? It clearly violates the
spirit of the twenty second and twenty fifth amendments. It's
a workaround schame some shit, but not the letter of
those amendments.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
So that's it.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
That's the strategy. Well, one of the strategies being considered.
Dollars sodonuts. I know I'm right about this. They're going
to challenge the word elected and not have him elected
because there's no way that an amendment could be passed
to circumnavigate this. Just in case you didn't know, a
proposed amendment must be passed by a two thirds vote
in both the House and the Senate, then ratified by
(05:56):
three fourths of the state legislatures or state convention. Not
happy now or ever in a world of such partisanship,
No way in hell.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
This is the only way in. There's your roadmap.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
He wouldn't be allowed on ballots otherwise, so it's not
about electing him.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
He wouldn't be.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Able to get on enough ballots on different states to
get enough Electoral College votes, he'll be easily disqualified. In
any election attempt, it would never get to the ballot.
So this is not about being elected. This is about
ascendency to the presidency. There is an open question as
to whether the word election also includes ascension. But either way,
(06:34):
Donald Trump is serious about a third term. Why because
he never jokes about anything. There's not a funny bone
in his body. He insults, but never jokes. This should
be taken seriously in every way. For k if I
am six forty, I'm mo Kelly. And here's my final thought.
(07:06):
Let's talk about the Constitution. The Constitution applies to everyone,
or it applies to no one. There's no in between,
there's no shades of gray. Let's get the easy ones, right.
I say it all the time. This is one of
the easy ones. The Constitution, meaning all of its amendments
apply to everyone, including Mark Stefan and even Nick me
(07:30):
or it applies to no one from the first Amendment
on down. Not just the amendments you like, not just
the second Amendment because you really love that one, Not
just the tenth Amendment because that's what you heard somewhere,
because those are the only two amendments you know without googling.
I'm talking about all of them, and I seriously doubt
most people even know the total number of amendments presently
(07:53):
that are in the Constitution, or what it takes to
ratify a new one. But that's just my personal pet
peeve because I'm real big on civics. But I also
find it odd when someone says they love the Constitution
yet can't tell me much about it, not in totality.
It's strange, I tell you. But I want to be
clear on this. The Constitution applies to everyone, or it
(08:14):
applies to no one, all amendments, all protections, or it
is meaningless. And yes, I'm about to talk about the
Maryland man with protected legal status who was sent to
that horrible prison in El Salvador following a quote unquote
administrative error, not to port it to the country in general,
but to port it to a prison having not committed
(08:36):
any crime while also being of legal status. His name
is Kilmer Abrego Garcia. And also according to our government,
this is what our government said. They said that they
don't think they have any way to get him back.
Whether that's true, or not. I don't know, but I
do know that Kilmore is just stuck in a prison
for no good reason, no crime, no due process, no
(09:00):
path back. The Constitution applies to everyone, or it applies
to no one. And I know what you're thinking. I
know what you're thinking. You're probably thinking, uh mo, the
Constitution only applies to American citizens.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
No, that's not true.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Part of loving the Constitution is actually knowing the constitution
Constitutional protections extend to all persons persons. It protects everyone,
not just citizens, and those protections extend to non citizens
who are within the United States. Those protections include due process,
I'll come back to that, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures,
(09:39):
the right to a fair trial, and the right to
counsel in criminal proceedings. If you think some of that
might apply to this, you'd be right. A person's immigration
status does not diminish their constitutional rights, and the Supreme
Court has consistently upheld that constitutional rights extend to everyone
living in the US, not just natural born citizens or
(10:02):
legal immigrants. I hope you heard that either the Constitution
applies to everyone or applies to no one. And according
to the actual Constitution and Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
It applies to everyone.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Some other arguments I heard were, well, what if that
person entered the country illegally, or how do we know
that this guy wasn't a violent gangbanger. Hello, that's what
due process is for. That's the whole fricking point. Is
the process which determines whether someone has broken a law,
entered the country illegally, or is subject to be punished. Accordingly,
you can't deport someone without determining their status. It's not
(10:39):
done by guessing. It's not just done by I don't know, hypnosis.
It's a very simple concept. Unless you think the Constitution
only applies to some people. Oh, look out, now might
step on some does, which would mean you neither know
the constitution nor do you love the Constitution all twenty
seven amendments. There's your answer, he has twenty seven amendments.
(11:00):
Or maybe you live in a community or represent a
community which doesn't and has not ever had to worry
about government agents rolling up on you with mass putting
you in handcuffs, stuffing you in a van, with no
due process. Maybe you've never been stopped while walking or
driving simply because you quote unquote fit the description. Maybe
(11:21):
you've never been pulled out of your car and put
on a curb in handcuffs while your car was searched.
Maybe you've had no experience with that, no reference point.
Maybe you've never had a gun place to your head
because someone thought that you had just robbed a bank.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
I have.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And none of this makes any sense to you. If
it's all unfamiliar to you, maybe you just don't care.
I get that, because it's not gonna be you. It's
not going to be your father, it's not going to
be your son, So it's not going to be your problem.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Got it.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Just stop telling me about the Constitution and how important
it supposedly is to you, because it's not. You're just
cause playing patriotism. This shouldn't be political. I mean, it
shouldn't be. It was then candidate Donald Trump who said,
we are a country of laws, and without laws, we
do not have a country. That's a quote he said that,
(12:11):
And I hope you know every single law, every single one,
is predicated upon due process, every single law. You can't
break a law unless you've had due process. Due processes
one of the main differences, not the only difference, but
one of the main differences between US and North Korea,
and US and Russia and US in China, Because moments
(12:37):
just like these is when you should be saying hashtag
all lives matter. Right now, this is the time you're
supposed to say, hashtag all lives matter. Not just the
lives that you care about, not just the people who
look like you, not just the people you like, not
just the people who agree with you, not just the
(12:57):
people who love like you do, not just the people
who happen to vote the same way that you do.
These are the moments you should be saying hashtag all
lives matter, because when you don't, it sure seems like
you're admitting that they don't. For KF, I am six forty,
I'm Moe Kelly. By now you've heard about New Jersey
(13:41):
Senator Corey Booker standing on the Senate floor for more
than twenty five hours speaking in critique of President Trump
and the Trump administration, a new record.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
If you happen to know the history, it meant.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Different things to different people and different constituencies. If you
don't know, standing on the Senate floor and talking ad
infinitum is not new from the late strom Thurman, the
previous record holder, to more recently Ted Cruz, who tried
to filibuster in the hopes of defunding Obamacare back in
twenty thirteen. He stood on the Senate floor for twenty
(14:17):
one hours. The question that most people have is simple,
or the assumptions are pretty predictable. What did Corey Booker accomplish?
If anything on substance, nothing on substance, absolutely nothing. It
doesn't impact what the Trump administration has done. It doesn't
(14:39):
likely impact what the Trump administration will do, in the
way that Senator Strom Thurman's filibuster did nothing to stop
the Civil Rights Act of nineteen fifty seven, and Senator
Ted Cruz did nothing to help repeal Obamacare. On substance
made no impact. But these are times in which symbolism
(14:59):
can matter, I said, can as impossibly the Democrats have
been lost in the wilderness my phraseology since November.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
Booker's twenty five hours.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Can galvanize a party and focus a party, I said,
can not necessarily will, But symbolism does have its place.
Some moments can lead to momentum, and momentum can be
turned into a movement. Elections in a national sense are
all about momentum. You can go from no momentum to
(15:30):
some momentum just because of one act. It could be
a speech, it could be an interview, it could be
a debate performance, and if you think about it, that
could go either way positive or negatively. Democrats will tell
you that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court election win last
night is a big step in the right momentum direction.
Maybe maybe not, but it's worth noting that in a
(15:53):
race that Elon Musk spent some I don't know ninety
million dollars and gave away million dollar checks to multiple individuals,
that impact of Elon Musk was negligible or nonexistent in
terms of swaying that election. So say what you want,
but that Republican loss, it's absolutely connected to why it's
(16:14):
being said that Musk will be leaving Doze or stepping
back in Trump administration duties in the coming weeks. Put
another way, that race mattered. That's how momentum starts. And
this is not about twenty twenty eight. This is about
twenty twenty six. Flip a few House seats and the
speakership goes to Hakim Jeffreys. No more blank check for
(16:35):
the Trump administration. More momentum has been generated and so on,
here's how I know, and we're going to use history
as a guide. Ted Cruz's twenty one hour filibuster in
the hopes of defunding Obamacare back in September of twenty
thirteen was on substance unsuccessful, but on symbolism and momentum.
(16:58):
In the twenty fourteen midtermal life just a year later,
the Republicans won sixteen seats from the Democrats, and the
GOP achieved their largest majority in the House since nineteen
twenty eight due to that Republican wave. Arguably, you can
trace the beginning of that red wave right back to
(17:19):
Ted Cruz's filibuster the year prior Cruz was mocked and
ridiculed by the Democrats. Sound familiar, not unlike the Republicans
who've largely have mocked and ridiculed Booker, questioning what it accomplished,
I hope you can see where I'm going with this.
The spark, while symbolic, is the point, of course, there
(17:42):
are other variables along the way, but every wave starts
with a droplet. It also bears mentioning that in the
way that Cruz used his filibuster to prime the pump
for his eventual presidential campaign, you should assume the same
with Booker. Lastly, the past is prologued and there are
any other meaningful parallels between filibusters and future elections. Ted
(18:05):
Cruz's twenty one hours on the Senate floor was one
year before a major red wave midterm and three years
before a Republican returned to the White House. Just in
case you're paying attention, So before you write off Booker's
record as just some meaningless stunt, look at the lessons
of Ted Cruz and that roadmap. Not everything needs to
(18:27):
have an immediate impact or a substantive reward for it
to matter. On substance, neither Ted Cruz nor Corey Booker
gained anything, but in the longview, don't overlook how symbolism
can be the spark that a party needs. For KFI
AM six forty, I'm mo Kelley, and tonight the show
(18:58):
started a little bit differently than usual. Usually it's like
ha ha, ha ha, jokes, all sorts of fun. But
tonight was a little bit different because today, earlier today
and throughout the day, it was a heavy moment and
maybe you didn't believe me. I was saying, we were
living through history. What happened with the stock market with
(19:19):
the tariffs, what might be happening in subsequent days. If
you've been following Dow futures, the stock market has continued
to go down even after the closing bell. This is
a very significant moment in our nation's history. And I
said that there will be responses from other countries. I
(19:40):
know that France has announced in the recent hours that
it's going to stop all investments and future investments in
the US pending some clarity on what the US is
going to do going forward. And there'll be other responses
from other nations. This is, I would say, the end
of the beginning. We are just getting into what these
(20:02):
tariffs are going to mean. But tonight I wanted to
close out the show just a little bit differently as
far as how I talk about these issues.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
And it's not going to be my voice.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
It's going to be the voice of maybe someone that
you more respect, someone that you more appreciate, someone you
more revere. And these are just a few voices who
articulate in opinion both past and present, which I think
are relevant, remarkable, and needed right about now. The first
one I wanted to play for you, This is Iowa
(20:37):
Senator Chuck Grassley, and this is from today, and he's
responding to the mayhem and the chaos which was going
on in our financial markets. He's made it clear that
he hasn't been a supporter of the tariffs, but this
is what he had to say given what was going on.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
If President Trump is successful in reducing traves in other countries,
I'm going to say, Amen, praise the Lord. But if
he's unsuccessful, I'll say I told you soul. That's Senator
Chuck Grassley.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
And if anything you can extract from that is that
he's making it clear that he tried to provide wise
counsel to our president.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
That's Senator Chuck Grassley. That's not me.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Here is our present Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. But
he wasn't obviously always secretary of state. Back in twenty sixteen,
he was running for president and then an opponent of
then candidate Donald Trump. This is what he had to
say about tariffs.
Speaker 5 (21:43):
I think we need to be very careful with tariffs.
And here's why China doesn't pay the tariff. The buyer
pays the tariff. If you send a tie or a
shirt made in China into the United States, and American
goes to buy it at the store and there's a
tariff on it, it gets passed on in the price
to the consumer. So I think the better approach. The
best thing we can do to protect ourselves against China
economically is to make our economy stronger.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
That's what Senator Mark or Rubio, now Secretary of State,
had to say back in twenty sixteen. The next voice
I want to play for you is Kentucky Senator Ran Paul.
This is from just days ago.
Speaker 6 (22:18):
With regard to tariffs, Let's be very clear, tariffs are
simply taxes. Tariffs don't punish foreign governments. They punish American families.
When we tax imports, we raise the price of everything
from groceries to smartphones, to washing machines to prescription drugs.
Every dollar collected in tariff revenue comes straight out of
(22:39):
the pockets of American consumers. Conservatives used to understand that
tariffs are taxes on the American people. Conservatives used to
be uniformly opposed to raising taxes because we wanted the
private marketplace, the private individuals to keep more of their incomes.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
We were always for lower taxes.
Speaker 6 (22:54):
And yet now the mantra that's coming is we want
higher taxes. What happened all the same and give up
all the things we used to believe in as conservatives, I,
for one, haven't. I still think more taxes is bad
for the economy, more money taking out of the productive
sector of the private sector and given to the government
is a mistake. To those who still call themselves conservatives
(23:14):
but now support tariffs, let me remind them that Milton
Friedman said tariffs raised prices to consumers and waste our resources.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
That's Kentucky Junior Senator Ran Paul now Here's noted economists
and historian Thomas Soule.
Speaker 7 (23:31):
It's painful to see what a ruinous decision from back
in the nineteen twenties being repeated now in so far
as he's using these tariffs to get various strategic things settled,
and that he is satisfied with that.
Speaker 8 (23:51):
But if you's got set off.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
A worldwide trade war.
Speaker 8 (23:55):
That has a devastating history, everybody loses, everybody follows suit,
and all that happens is that you get a great
reduction and international trade.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
This is a very famous economics teacher you might have
heard before.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
In nineteen thirty the Republican controlled House of Representatives, in
an effort to alleviate the effects of anyone, anyone the
Great Depression, passed anyone, anyone a tariff bill, the Holly
Smoot Tariff Act, which anyone raised or lowered raised tariffs
(24:39):
in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government.
Did it work? Anyone, anyone know the effects. It did
not work, and the United States sank deeper into the
Great Depression.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
That was, of course actor ben Stein playing the economics
teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but it was relevant
to today.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
In the last voice, I want to leave with you.
You is why he doesn't really need any introduction.
Speaker 9 (25:05):
For those of us who live through the Great Depression,
the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing,
and today many economic analysts and historians argue that high
teriff legislation passed back in that period, called the Smoot
Hawley Tariff, greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery.
You see, at first, when someone says, let's impose tariffs
(25:28):
on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic
thing by protecting American products and jobs, and sometimes for
a short while it works, but only for a short time.
What eventually occurs is first homegrown industries start relying on
government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop
competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes
(25:52):
they need to succeed in world markets. And then while
all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High
terraf inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the
triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and
more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, in less and
less competition. So soon, because of the prices made artificially
(26:14):
high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people
stop buying. Then the worst happens. Market shrink and collapse,
businesses and industry shut down, and millions of people lose
their jobs. The memory of all this occurring back in
the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington
to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity. Now,
(26:38):
it hasn't always been easy. There are those in the Congress,
just as there were back in the thirties, who want
to go for the quick political advantage, who risk America's
prosperity for the sake of a short term appeal to
some special interest group. Who forget that more than five
million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export
business and additional millions are tied to imports.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
For k IF, I am six forty. I'm mo Kelly
Later, with Mo'Kelly News
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
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
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!