Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 25, 2023 - The Adam King Show

01:07:30

EP023: Neil Gorsuch at War

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'd like to welcome everybody to a brand new edition episode 23 of the Adam King show.
	This is a very special episode.
	We are broadcasting from a brand new platform that we have not yet been able to play with.
	This is our first episode on the Restream platform, and Rock and I have been all over this app trying to figure it out, and this is our first show.
	We're very excited. I'm going to bring out Rock, and we are going to play with this New program and see if we like it.
	And there he is, the man, Rock Breath, who just lost.
	The Bills just lost. Yeah, thanks again for reminding me.
	I had almost forgot. Tell us how you feel about it.
	Football is dead to me until next opening day for the Bills.
	That's the truth.
	So I love these new camera angles we play with, with the new software.
	We could go in, we could go out, we could do this, we could do that, we could put you in the corner, we can move around.
	It's much easier than the whole Zoom interface.
	And we can do a lot more.
	And the best part about it is the meme segment that we're about to get to, but we got some really great guests.
	Today we're talking about the Supreme Court and all the shenanigans relating to the Supreme Court.
	But before we do that, let's get into some memes and play around with them with our new software!
	Alright, do it! Alright, so, my silly little life, me, and memes.
	Here we go. Alright.
	Mother of Living Things says, things that make you go, hmm.
	Athletes under 35 that suffered cardiac arrest, 1966 to 2004, 11,101.
	2001 to 2002, 1,598.
	Those numbers are staggering.
	It's sickening.
	It is. It's sickening.
	All right. Let's see something good.
	Some funny news? Yeah, exactly.
	This is the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
	I'm leaving you. Sorry to break your heart.
	I wonder if I could zoom in on the memes here, because you could see she's got her balls hanging out right on the Pfizer vaccine, like a little tranny she is.
	Anyone have an idea why the FAA is having so many problems?
	They're all out of maternity.
	Utah, here's a hero story, Rock.
	Utah doctor allegedly destroyed vaccines and gave fake shots to children.
	How cool is that?
	I saw that.
	I love that.
	Disney. This dispels itself, man.
	I mean, it's like...
	That's great.
	Me trying to ask the transgender clerk at Best Buy for a male-to-female USB adapter without smoking.
	Yeah, right. They're going to have to rename that one.
	I know, right? The last thing you see before being hunted for sport on a private island.
	That's terrible. That's actually terrible.
	You have to stop driving the cars.
	You're ruining my future.
	Oh. Not Jerome Powell.
	By the way, he's coming on the show.
	I just booked him. A dozen eggs is $10, and you see all the Biden and all the people laughing.
	Ironically, his name is Jerome Powell.
	Dear trans community, don't tell me I have to accept you for who you are when you couldn't accept yourself for who you were.
	Amen. Mic drop.
	Way to go, Scotty the Kid.
	Exactly. Synchronicity1111.
	Evolution, can you give me pattern-seeking brain to avoid predators?
	Yes! And then the monkey puts it together.
	Everyone in my life is from the CIA. Why is it that homeless people always think the CIA is following them?
	I don't know, but why does this one look like the little girl in the previous one?
	She is. That is Greta Thunberg as Shrek.
	We must eat the dogs to appease the weather gods.
	Oh, now I get it.
	Okay, here's one I want to highlight.
	Retired astronaut Buzz Alrin marries the longtime love of his life on his 93rd birthday.
	What a pimp!
	Look at him! Pimp on a blimp!
	What day was this? The 21st?
	Yeah. He'll be dead by February 21st.
	I didn't know he was so rich.
	No, no, don't buy that.
	Sorry, I got a dog here.
	I just adopted a dog and she's trying to chew at my cord.
	All right.
	Nadrone Powell says $3.99 for gas six months ago.
	$3.99 for gas now.
	So true. Nobody cares.
	World Economic Forum.
	Notice the 666.
	Oh. Yeah, it could be.
	Yeah, that could be. This one is so funny.
	Name this boy band.
	The Vac Street Boys.
	Oh, that's good.
	The Vac Street Boys.
	Pete Buttigieg defends his job by reminding everybody he's gay.
	Oh, God. Let's leave them there.
	Not. Exactly.
	Corporate pharma and the government.
	My favorite part of Winder is watching it on TV from California.
	Yeah, that's good. My mom got through one, a very severe one, 43 people died.
	And this is how we're going to finish.
	How guys who support gun control get drunk.
	Pass me the white claw, please.
	That's nasty.
	Adam, you're funny.
	All right, so that concludes our meme segment.
	We're going to bring in our guest.
	That was great. That was great.
	We had some fun here.
	Adam, I will see you on the back side.
	You're going to be backstage, right?
	You're going to be now in the new...
	System. Rock can throw up graphics and do all sorts of crazy stuff.
	Yeah, I'm here for you. Like this one.
	The Adam King Show.
	This isn't a talk show.
	It's a battleground.
	On that note, I'd like to welcome both of my guests.
	I'm going to start with this mystery man over here in full...
	full...
	Get up, because he doesn't want to announce his name because he's afraid of losing his job.
	We're not going to tell which major production company he works for.
	But he wanted to come on the show, and we're going to call him Jobanon for this show.
	So Zorro, Jobanon, welcome to the show.
	Hello, Adam. And we are joined.
	Both of these guys are very good friends of mine to our audience here at Infowars.
	But both of these guys, I want to say, are brilliant men.
	But there is one guy who's joining us, Ted Siegel.
	This guy knows the Supreme Court's ins and outs better than anyone I know.
	And he reminds me of Darren Beattie.
	You watch Darren Beattie, right, Ted?
	I have. I work a lot of hours, so I don't have time to watch as much as I want to.
	You've got a very Darren Gaby vibe to you.
	You know, Darren was on the show.
	He's a great guy. He was on the show.
	You know, I'll tell you something about Ted, Zorro, Javanon.
	Is Ted ends up knowing...
	You guys are both extremely informed conservatives.
	And I'm excited for this show so that we can all get together and, you know, talk about it and chop it down and really get into the nitty-gritty of things.
	But, you know, this show I wanted to do about the Supreme Court.
	You guys are both very wise and understanding of the Supreme Court.
	Before we get started, I want to ask Ted, Ted Siegel, my long, dear friend and scholar in residence, to give us some overview of what...
	Before we get into the ATF bump stock, because that's really what I want to talk about.
	I want to talk about the ATF bump stock and how it challenges national norms on gun laws.
	And I wanted some experts to come in and talk about it.
	But I also want to go over the Alito leak.
	But before we go that, Ted, I want to hear what you think is on the dossier for the next three to six months on the Supreme Court – What are you excited about?
	What are you nervous about? In terms of cases, well, right now they are granting cert to certain petitions.
	So thousands of cases or their attorneys would love to be heard by the Supreme Court.
	But the Supreme Court is unfortunately only going to take a very small percent of them, far less than 1% of them.
	So a lot of people are going to be very disappointed in that.
	Today there was an interesting case.
	They turned down a person who fled the Holocaust and put what was back then a lot of money in the bank account and it's a Swiss bank account.
	It's appreciated over time and was passed on to his daughter who's now 80 years old.
	The IRS assessed them over three million dollars in fines and penalties.
	And the First Circuit Court of Appeals that's in Boston had said that this was a fair punishment because the woman had not properly declared a foreign bank account to the IRS. Neil Gorsuch said he wanted to hear this case and felt that $3 million, the account I think had somewhere around $10 million in it, give or take.
	But you said they rejected it.
	They unfortunately rejected hearing it.
	So the writ of sederari is in order for the court to hear it.
	So four out of the nine judges have to agree to hear the case.
	But as I said, they reject well over 99.5% of all petitions that appeal to the Supreme Court.
	So unfortunately, but rarely do you – a couple times per year you'll see justices object and say, no, this is something we should have heard, and they'll go public with their objection to the rest of the courts.
	So I want to get Jabin on in on this, Jabin.
	Jabinon, you know anything going on on the Supreme Court right now?
	Well, I have some friends who work in higher education and I did hear, I mean, this is nothing that I've seen that they've announced or anything, but I have a very close friend who's a big lawyer.
	I mean, this is very legit.
	I'm not like pulling your leg or anything, but I think there's been rumors that they might be bringing up affirmative action.
	I don't know, Ted, have you heard of this?
	So they have heard two cases in this term when it comes to affirmative action.
	One of them versus Harvard, which is a private university, and another versus the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which is one of our great public universities.
	And so people were wondering why they were hearing two different cases at the same time.
	So there was thought that maybe private universities could possibly have more room to have some sort of affirmative action.
	But that decision should come out sometime in the next few months, likely around June.
	And it is thought that they will limit affirmative action further, if not ban it in both cases.
	Adam, do you mind if I make some two interesting points that I thought?
	Yeah, absolutely, go ahead. So the first thing I found interesting, so this was really where we're seeing The new Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson make her debut for this term.
	And she did a phenomenal amount of research showing why historically, under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, this type of affirmative action would have been allowed if you look at its historic meaning.
	It was very impressive. She's a brilliant woman, Harvard undergrad and law school.
	But what was also notable is that this is supposed to be a judge.
	And so, you know, when we hear complaints from the left that, oh, Kavanaugh's being a little biased, or Alito's being a little biased, well, this is a woman that, on her first term on the court, or one of her first cases that she heard as a Supreme Court Justice for life, did a phenomenal amount of research to support one side, and is pretty much already...
	So you're saying she's really like an activist judge.
	Oh, absolutely, absolutely.
	We all saw that coming with Jackson, Justice Jackson.
	Right, so anytime your friends argue that the courts are unfair because there are more Republican justices, realize that...
	I don't have liberal friends.
	Okay, but realize that the Republican justices don't do their job.
	I have a few left that didn't cancel me or block me on Facebook.
	Very few. And family too.
	I have some liberal family that blocked me also.
	Side note. I keep all my liberal friends.
	I have to, you know, I keep a little ecosystem.
	Well, you got to. You're like in the big media executive world.
	I mean, just appearing on the show.
	Ted, I want to tell you something.
	This man is going through danger to speak his mind because he believes in something.
	And when I asked Zorro over here if he wanted to come on the show, he said he absolutely wanted to come on the show, but he's so afraid.
	And he asked if I would mind if he came in disguise.
	I think it's even better.
	Don't you? Because it honors the point.
	This is what it takes to speak up when we're contained in this system.
	Ted, one thing I wanted to say about the affirmative action thing is the person who I know is a president of a private university in a major city and I was privileged to overhear a phone conversation he was having.
	This is someone I know just as a friend and he's not, you know, he's a very left-leaning person and he was discussing making plans for what happens once they You know, deem it unconstitutional.
	And it was funny to hear him talk about it.
	Like, oh, how do we get around it?
	Can we still do these things?
	And, you know, we'll just try to get them to enforce the penalties.
	Like, we can still do it.
	And this was a private university, not a public one.
	Mm-hmm. Yeah, that makes sense.
	For better or for worse, the affirmative action case will likely turn out similar to the Bruin gun decision where the court will have ruled, but that doesn't end the battle.
	That only, that gives us a lot of ammunition, no pun intended, but a lot of ammunition, but there will be a lot of court fights going forward to make sure that colleges enforce their terms.
	I want to take that word that you just said, Ted, ammunition, and I want to shift into our discussion on bump stocks on the Supreme Court.
	Originally, I saw two things that made me want to do this episode.
	First, Michael Cargill was on Alex Jones, and Michael Cargill is the plaintiff.
	And also, Judge Andrew Napolitano was also on Jones talking about This one court case and how, you know, overnight effectively the Supreme Court can rule that all bump stock that's,
	it's not, the real thing that fascinates me about this case is that it's not that The ruling, and this is why I want you on, Ted, because I want you to help clear this up.
	It's not that the ruling on bump stocks pertains to bump stocks.
	It's that these three-letter agencies, EPA, ATF, DHS, that the ruling is actually saying that they don't have authority under the Constitution to make laws.
	And that's what's fascinating because it has such vast implications, far greater than bump stocks and...
	Far greater than bump stocks and firearms.
	So what's your take on that, Ted?
	Yeah, correct. So let me, Adam, let me clear up the background a little bit.
	That might help you.
	So, the landmark decision was that deals with regulators.
	How much power does a regulator, an unelected regulator, have?
	That's called the Chevron decision.
	It was in the 1980s.
	A group called the National, a bunch of trial lawyers from out here, I believe they are from out here in Los Angeles, called the National Resources Defense Council, if you're a fan of Curb Your Enthusiasm.
	In the early years, Cheryl David, the actress that plays Cheryl David, like the real Cheryl David, Is a board member of their nonprofit.
	They're not an environmental group.
	They're a bunch of trial lawyers, despite their name.
	But they were involved in a lawsuit with Chevron.
	And the question is, how much power does a regulator have to reinterpret laws?
	This is important in many cases.
	And the Supreme Court is actually going to hear.
	There's actually many different interesting angles.
	So the conservative movement, and this is not just the populists or not just the Alex Jones types, but actually the whole conservative movement is an agreement that there needs to be less power for regulators.
	Where this really started was with a Reagan appointee to the EPA. You are correct.
	Her name, you may have heard of this last name.
	Her name was Ann Gorsuch, and she was from Colorado.
	Her son, of course, is on the Supreme Court.
	And they have so far said...
	The Supreme Court ruled...
	I said, we're tying the deep state of the Supreme Court together.
	Okay. So the Supreme Court made a rule, it's called Chevron deference, that gives a lot of power to regulators.
	And this made conservatives very upset.
	They said that if a law is written in a vague way, that regulators can give any reasonable interpretation that doesn't contradict the law.
	That's a lot of power to the unelected.
	And recent Supreme Court decisions have limited that back somewhat, but conservatives are, again, not just us, but libertarians, corporate, you know, Republicans like the Mitt Romney types are all in agreement that this needs to be scaled back.
	So recent court decisions have done so, but the bump stock ban is an opportunity, even if You know, Mitt Romney's probably not the biggest fan of bump stocks, but this is an opportunity to say, no, you can't come up with any ridiculous interpretation at all.
	You have to see what this law, what was the intent of this law, and try to see what was the best interpretation of it.
	And in case you're wondering, This is also an argument being used in this Supreme Court term, in the most important case of the term, Moore v.
	Harper, where Democrats are arguing that they can interpret election law in a valid vote to mean whatever they want it to mean.
	That's extremely dangerous.
	Did this have anything to do with that case of the EPA deeming certain residences due to water?
	There was...
	Yeah, so there was an EPA case, and that's been going on for probably close to 20 years now, where a couple in, I believe it was Idaho, could have been Montana, somewhere in the Upper West, they drained what we would call a puddle.
	Unless you're in Manhattan, it might be a river.
	Like a Minnesota puddle or a Manhattan puddle?
	It was a large puddle, but they tried to say that this can be regulated as a body of water of the United States.
	And the Supreme Court has certainly limited the EPA in that sense.
	However, their rulings have been very narrow.
	So that case is going back before the Supreme Court because the lower courts have been very narrow.
	Narrow meaning that it can't be applied to other things.
	And we want it to be wrong. Correct.
	Correct. So we are looking for a good case.
	This would be a good time for me to talk about the bump stock case, probably, and if you want me to talk about more, I can as well.
	So the bump stock case is an opportunity, even if you hate bump stocks or hate guns altogether, this is an opportunity for even the Mitt Romney types to say, look, The regulators can't just make up their own law from scratch.
	They have to follow what the reasonable law was.
	So what has happened? Adam, maybe you could explain, or will your viewers know what a bump stock is?
	Yeah, everybody on Infowars knows what a bump stock is.
	Okay, so the question is, does a bump stock turn a...
	But you want to know something for the beta cucks on YouTube?
	Why don't you explain what a bump stock is?
	I work in the industry.
	I'm not a gun guy. I don't know what a bump stock is, really.
	There you go. It makes a gun go shoot faster or something like that.
	Essentially, it's an automatic rifle into an automatic rifle.
	There we go. So, and the question is that, can this be regulated then as an illegal gun under existing law?
	So we have in our country, we have many, we have several different circuits, which are called, the names for appeals court.
	We don't have to get into why they're named this, but they are appeals courts.
	The federal courts you have The trial courts, also called the district courts, then you have the appeals courts, sometimes called the circuit courts, and then finally you have the one Supreme Court.
	So we have 12 appeals courts plus the DC appeals court, etc., etc.
	But what happens when the appeals courts disagree and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet?
	Well, So that's what's been happening.
	So far, every circuit court has ruled that these bump stock bans, Trump's bump stock ban, is constitutional, including the most recent one, or most recent upholding of the regulation from the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati.
	Now, despite it being in middle America and what you would think gun country, the Sixth Circuit, Has not been the most friendly place to Conservatives.
	It's been maybe center right would be the best way to put it.
	Whereas it went to the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit has long been the Conservatives' best friend, okay?
	So the Fifth Circuit struck it down and said that no, a bump stock ban is unconstitutional.
	So we actually have different laws and different federal regulations in different states, which I do believe actually they put a stay on their ruling, meaning it's not enforceable, meaning the bump stock ban is still in effect until a higher court will review it.
	And that's usually what it takes to get the Supreme Court involved, to have several different circuit courts disagree with one another.
	And if the Supreme Court does uphold it, hopefully that they will say that, no, that's an abuse of power by the regulators.
	What do you think are the chances that this law is going to go through and we're going to be able to leverage this to regulate some of these extraneous organizations like DHS and EPA and all the other three-letter bureaucratics?
	Well, I do think that there is a much better chance now, thanks to the Fifth Circuit.
	I think there's a much better chance.
	And would they have to be ruled on an individual basis, or could there be one overarching ruling that says that three-letter extraneous government organizations and bureaucracies cannot...
	That's why you need good lawyering.
	You need someone to get in there to be a very good lawyer to get a very broad ruling.
	And you also need an organization that can fund lawsuits all across America so that many different circuits...
	Oh, I know one. Open Societies.
	So... That's George Soros.
	Yeah, well, Soros is very good at that.
	Soros used that very well against Trump.
	Yeah, I mean, George Soros put in $40 million into district attorney races across the United States.
	He's a smart guy. That's part of it, but what he also did is he...
	Oh, yeah, it was a brilliant strategy, but it ended up backfiring again, no pun intended.
	Is he still alive? Or are they, like, spending him on, like, a bad...
	What's the story with George Soros?
	Is he really alive? I mean, he hasn't made a physical appearance in 10 years.
	He just makes comments and stuff.
	Yeah, but my grandma's in her 90s.
	She's not making any physical appearance.
	They just came out with a new magazine.
	And George Soros just came out with a new magazine.
	It's called New World Order Press.
	Really? Yeah.
	It's not on Alex Jones this morning.
	That's a little on the nose.
	I know. It's like, hey, you don't want to hide it anymore, you know?
	I'm coming out of the closet.
	I'm trans, everybody.
	I'm trans. He should do that.
	Jobbing on what were you trying to ask me?
	You were saying it backfired.
	How did it backfire? So it backfired because the Supreme Court was much more willing to use something that the left named the shadow docket.
	And so what they did is that they said...
	Let me actually give you the background.
	So George Soros would fund lawsuits all across the country in federal courts.
	It's called form shopping or judicial shopping or judge shopping.
	And the idea is you pick places you think you're going to get...
	So, San Francisco is an obvious place.
	Seattle. Honolulu, because one of the federal judges there, it's a much smaller jurisdiction, but good chance you'll be in front of Derek Watson, who is not just a Democrat, he's Obama's old friend.
	So he has struck down a lot of Trump things.
	Your knowledge on this stuff is just not even second place.
	I want my audience to understand this.
	Ted is a Wall Street trader turned educator.
	Who does this for his own...
	This isn't a job for Ted.
	Hopefully he'll get some more speaking gigs after appearing on The Adam King Show.
	But this guy just loves this material.
	I'm so fortunate to have a friend that's obsessed with this material like this.
	Thank you. It's great to be your friend too, Adam.
	I want to pause for a second, guys.
	I want to pause for a second and give a brief word from our sponsor.
	I want to motivate everybody to click this link right here.
	Please go to Infowarsstore.com and buy something from our sponsor.
	Help keep Infowars on the air.
	And please enjoy this commercial from Infowars.
	Good Morning America is brought to you by Pfizer.
	CBS Health Watch sponsored by Pfizer.
	Anderson Cooper 360.
	Brought to you by Pfizer.
	ABC News Night Live.
	Brought to you by Pfizer.
	Making a difference. Brought to you by Pfizer.
	CNN Tonight. Brought to you by Pfizer.
	Early start. Brought to you by Pfizer.
	Friday night on Aaron Burnett out front.
	Brought to you by Pfizer.
	This week with George Stephanopoulos is brought to you by Pfizer.
	Today's countdown to the royal wedding is brought to you by Pfizer.
	And now a CBS Sports Update brought to you by Pfizer.
	Meet the Press. Data download brought to you by Pfizer.
	This portion of CBS This Morning sponsored by Pfizer.
	On how to find the hidden sugars in the American family diet.
	Sponsored by Pfizer.
	Bill Gates' advice on how to combat mistrust in science at 60MinutesOvertime.com, sponsored by Pfizer.
	You really need to get vaccinated.
	You know, COVID vaccines are now available for children five years and older.
	And the more people who get them, the better we're gonna be able to help stop the spread of COVID. Okay, and we're back.
	Please, again, go to Infowarstore.com.
	We are joined again by...
	Ted Siegel, who is a Supreme Court historian, buff genius.
	And Jobanon, who is actually a high-level media professional who's afraid he's gonna lose his job if he doesn't come in disguise with a fake title.
	And I gotta say, Jobanon, it is so cool that you did this.
	And I hope more people are inspired by your effort.
	To speak out.
	I hope one day we don't have to fear these kinds of things, you know?
	I do too, but I imagine that there's a ton of people in Hollywood just like you who want to say something, are at their wits end, they don't know what to do, and so we on the Adam King Show decided to create a mock position called Jobanon.
	Job and honest for anybody who wants to appear on the show, who's afraid to lose their job and need to come in full disguise.
	So thank you for coining that.
	I want to get back to our discussion before the break.
	We were talking about the Supreme Court, and Ted Siegel was in the middle of going into something.
	I want to pick up where we left.
	Sure. Sure. Sure. So, Adam, when these judges from, you know, let's say Derek Watson from Honolulu would make these rulings that were just very much wrong, the Supreme Court, as well as circuit courts, would hear these cases on what's called the shadow docket.
	So that's a nickname that actually the left came up with, and I think it's appropriate.
	We'll take it. These cases are being ruled on without a full hearing.
	Without a full hearing, if it's just they're obviously wrong, judges can do that.
	They do it especially if a case is just obvious one way or another.
	There's no reason to have a full hearing, just make the ruling in effect immediately, and then hear the case fully later, just after they make their initial ruling, to put a law on hold or strike it down.
	Or something like that. So even the Supreme Court has gotten into the act, and they have the original Texas heartbeat abortion case was ruled like that, for example.
	They've just said that this is so obviously okay, this can be put into effect from day one, that we're not going to allow these lower courts to put the law on hold pending litigation, pending the outcome of litigation.
	We're going to say no. It is very likely okay.
	It's very likely constitutional.
	So we're going to order you courts to say that this law is okay.
	Now, sure, once you're done hearing the entire case, if you believe otherwise, then sure, that's fine to strike it down.
	But we're going to overrule you.
	And we're going to make that ruling having heard no arguments other than the briefs they've submitted, the paperwork arguments that the lawyers have given to us.
	So the Supreme Court has been willing to do that, and that's a huge victory in our favor.
	So it well overcompensates for the left shopping for biased judges that will strike down Trump regulations.
	And that shopping around has been called the shadow docket?
	That's what that's been called?
	No, shopping around is called judge shopping or judicial forum shopping, judicial forum shopping.
	The shadow docket refers to when a court makes a ruling having not heard the case.
	And the courts are increasingly doing that.
	And I don't like it.
	I don't like the fact that appeals courts are doing that.
	But it's in reaction to these by George Soros and others.
	Look, the right does it too.
	The fact is the right has copied George Soros' tactics in many ways, including this one.
	So that's in return to forum shoppers who go pick out a judge that might be a little biased and have an appeals court or the Supreme Court just overturn this guy immediately and say, no, no, your ruling's not standing.
	We're putting your ruling on holding for now, and then we're going to hear the case, the full case later.
	We may change your mind going forward, but generally they don't.
	So, Ted, do you think that this ATF bump stock thing is the number one thing happening in the Supreme Court right now, the most important thing?
	No, I think Moore v.
	Harper, it's not being talked about.
	Moore v. Harper is the most important case right now.
	Tell us about Moore v.
	Harper. Sure.
	Unfortunately, I need to give a little bit of background to make it all make sense, and probably more than a little bit.
	So North Carolina was a longtime Democratic state, all right, controlled in all branches like a lot of southern states.
	They were segregationist Democrats until really the Tea Party came around.
	I mean, they would vote nationally for some Republicans, but until the Tea Party came around, they would vote Democrat at the local level.
	There's one last thing actually until this past election a few weeks ago, I guess it's two months ago now, that the Supreme Court was controlled by Democrats by a narrow 4 to 3 margin, but their state houses were controlled by Republicans.
	What year was that? I don't remember the year exactly, but it was after the Tea Party.
	Seven judges. Yeah, so there's seven judges.
	There's a four to three Democratic margin.
	But at one point, Republicans controlled all three.
	In other words, the governor's mansion as well as both houses.
	Now they have a Democrat in the governor's seat, but the Republicans still control both houses.
	And I don't know a nice, polite way to put this, but the state Supreme Court essentially said that the legislature is now illegal and we're ignoring basically everything that they've done.
	Interesting. So they said that the legislature was elected via a gerrymandered map.
	And so the state Supreme Court is now ruling that any major law they passed, and they get to decide according to them what's a major law and what's a minor law, that any major law, like say the law says you have to show your ID to vote or things like that or minimum wage changes, those are all void.
	Anything they think the Democrats would have, or another state house would have passed, like say, funding the libraries or something like that, that's okay to go through.
	The librarians don't have to pay back the money.
	That seems wrong. This seems obvious.
	Yeah. Now, we're never going to hear that case on appeal because what happened is that the voters decide...
	North Carolina, like about half the states out there, elects their state Supreme Court justices.
	Not a good idea in my mind, but...
	So when is the rule on this case?
	Yeah, so they actually voted in a Republican.
	Two of the Democrats were up for re-election, and they voted for Republicans instead.
	So now Republicans have a 4-3 majority.
	I'm sorry, I think one Democrat and one Republican, and the Democrat lost their seat to a Republican.
	So it's now a 4-3 Republican, I think.
	Don't quote me on that. Why do you think this is the most important ruling that's coming down?
	Well, sorry for getting into it.
	Let me tell you, first of all, why it got to the Supreme Court.
	One of the things the state Supreme Court ruled is they said for drawing congressional maps, in other words, gerrymandering is the art of drawing a congressional seat so your side will get elected or as many as possible in your side will get elected and as few as the others will get elected.
	That's like California's communists.
	So certainly we have a biased way we draw seats here, but that's in many states.
	Actually, where I'm at right now, we just got gerrymandered out of a congressman.
	We had Mike Garcia as our congressman, and it was a Republican.
	I don't see how that one doesn't go to the Supreme Court as an illegal gerrymandering because they lost a congressman over it.
	Well, it wouldn't help with the California Supreme Court.
	It wouldn't change, I don't think, the California Supreme Court.
	Right, but remember, the U.S. Supreme Court said gerrymandering is not a reviewable case by federal courts.
	It's not. It's reviewed by the state Supreme Court.
	So if states say their own Supreme Court's correct, that their own state constitutions don't allow gerrymandering, then that's one thing.
	In many states like New York, for example, gerrymandering is not allowed under their state constitution.
	But federally, the Supreme Court said that it's not even a question the courts can hear.
	But they do gerrymandering in New York.
	To a certain extent, yes.
	But remember, the Republicans picked up several seats that they shouldn't have because the original Democrats' map was thrown out.
	Republicans would have only had maybe three to four seats, and instead they have eight or something like that, which made the difference in control of Congress.
	So that's not considered gerrymandering?
	I mean, I don't know, you know, the term is...
	It is, but again, the New York Constitution does not allow gerrymandering.
	Federally, it's okay. So the New York State judge struck it down.
	Okay. All right. Yeah.
	So federally, anyway...
	What happened is the North Carolina State Supreme Court drew their own map.
	They stated that North Carolina's map they thought was unfair, so they drew their own map.
	And that's what the Constitution, that's what the U.S. Supreme Court picked up on.
	What they're stating, if you look carefully at the rulings, at the text of the Constitution, it said that Elections for House and Senate, as well as for the presidential slate of electors.
	Because remember, we don't vote directly for president.
	We vote for an electoral college who selects the president.
	So they said that all of those are to be voted for in a manner as decided by the legislature.
	And so that term by the legislature has been picked up by a lot of the conservative movement.
	To say that, wait a minute, the state Supreme Court can't decide how we're running elections, only the state legislature.
	Now, why is that the most important issue in front of the Supreme Court?
	Because in the year 2020, well, it wasn't the first year, going back even to the year 2000 election, where there were many lawyers working on the Bush v.
	Gore case, including a young lawyer named Brett Kavanaugh.
	There were, and I want to say that Amy Coney Barrett also had some small role in that too.
	I'm not 100% sure on that one, but I want to say...
	No, no, I'm sorry. It was John Roberts. It was Roberts that had a role in that as well.
	He's been a longtime Republican lawyer though.
	So they both said...
	Some version of this.
	some version of this because if you remember in the year 2000 that um that uh the florida state supreme court which was then appointed by democrats they tried to they kept extending and extending the deadline for certifying the election just trying to hoping that a few uh more and more recounts would put gore over the top in 2000 in florida 2020 yeah so they were the ones that helped come up with this idea that no you the florida state supreme court can't do this but the 2020 election was even further now
	remember even as alex jones has conceded the machines had nothing to do with what happened in 2020 this was good old-fashioned uh counting ballots that i don't think i was going to get that i think that there's oh he absolutely did he absolutely has said that i mean i watched it daily talks about dominion voting machines and and There's definitely something with Dominion voting machines.
	Ted, just to touch on this subject, I remember back in the day we were having a discussion on this and you said something really smart.
	You said that The Dominion voting machines, that's the wrong argument.
	There was clear violations of federal election law.
	So I understand focusing away from the need to focus away from the Dominion voting systems.
	But also, you know, let's not discount that clearly, I mean, look at Dominion.
	They're suing Fox. They're suing everybody that came after them.
	I mean, it's clear that Dominion is definitely hiding something.
	Whether they are the main culprit of the fraud that took place in 2020 and 2024 or 2022 or not, I don't think we can let the Dominion thing go.
	Whether it's a valid...
	I don't think it should be the lead argument, but I definitely think it's something we've got to keep a target on as we move forward.
	How does that factor into this Supreme Court case?
	Well, yeah, let me get to it.
	So I want to be clear. I'm not saying we let them off the hook, and I'm not a fan of a lot of these type of machines because of the potential for something to go wrong.
	But what I'm telling people is that that Just, that should not be what your, yeah, that's, and I'm pretty sure, by the way, by the way, that Alex Jones said, look, don't look at the machines for what will happen in 2020.
	That Democrats admitted to in court in many cases, if you go read the transcripts or go read the court, they counted illegal votes.
	What happens is that you had all this mass mail-in balloting, and you have these mail-in ballots that were sent out to everybody, whether they requested it or not in many cases.
	And the way you check to make sure that the proper person voted, the vote wasn't stolen, was mainly by the signature match.
	Now you have other ways, like for example, double check to make sure the vote, check the government database to make sure the voters still alive, that they're residing within the state, et cetera, et cetera.
	Those, you know, the government databases are never going to be 100%.
	So I understand why not relying solely on that.
	But it's my view that They should err on the election officials.
	First of all, should follow the law.
	And second of all, when there's doubt, should err on the side of the law.
	And then listing on your website that your ballot was not validated.
	So you now have 15 days.
	In most states, you have 15 days to what's called cure the ballot.
	Meaning you can come in up to 15 days after election day and say, no, this was my ballot.
	This was my signature. I really am this person.
	And if you don't, the ballot is thrown out.
	And what happened is the Democrats did the exact opposite.
	The Democrats issued orders.
	Stating that all signatures basically are to be deemed a match unless proven to not match.
	And you look at this, and these signatures weren't matching.
	Even in the case Ward versus Jackson, which was the Arizona election challenge that went to their Supreme Court, the Democrats auditors came in and said, no, of course, about 10 to 20% of these signatures are not matching and legally should have been thrown out.
	But the Democrats argue that, no, it's our right to say that, you know, we said the signatures did match.
	So, you know, Katie Hobbs was the Secretary of State.
	She says it matched. So therefore, it's a legal match.
	So if Moore versus Harper goes our way, and they say, no, the only valid election laws are ones that the legislature enacts, Then the future Katie Hobbs people out there will no longer be, or likely, no longer be able to validate illegal ballots for federal elections.
	Now, for state elections, she did the same thing.
	If you're not familiar with the Carrie Lake case, Carrie Lake just today has shown...
	This is the recent one. What's that?
	This is the recent one.
	Yes, the recent. Carrie Lake running for governor in the 2022 elections So she had three different witnesses whose job it was to validate signatures stating that Give or take 100,000 signatures in Maricopa County were tossed out, give or take. And then Katie Hobbs' people were just validating virtually all of them.
	I think they said that in the end only several hundred, not 100,000, ended up being thrown out.
	And of course the mail and bills were going roughly 2-1 in favor of Katie Hobbs.
	There's supposed to be a big announcement on the 29th.
	Do you know about it? I don't, but what I can say is that the Arizona State Legislature reviewed about 40,000 ballots as far as a sample, and they were finding roughly the same percentages, somewhere between 10 and 20%.
	10% were clearly not matching, and another 10% You could argue we're not matching either.
	And by the way, when I say not matching, we're talking either not even close or the person didn't sign the ballot at all or put like a giant X through it.
	That's not a signature match.
	And the excuse the judge came up with, since, you know, we're Jews, this is a good definition of a chutzpah.
	How do you know that Shabanan is a Jew?
	Because he works in Hollywood, that's why.
	We can't give any details about his actual ethnicity.
	I could be Episcopalian.
	He's an Episcopalian sailor.
	He doesn't even work in Hollywood.
	Oh, he doesn't work in Hollywood?
	I thought you said that. My bad.
	We're not trying to blow his cover over here.
	So he...
	The old saying is that the definition of a chutzpah is a man who murders his parents and then the judge says, well, why should I go easy on you?
	And the man goes before this and says, your honor, I want you to go easy on me and be sympathetic to my case because my parents just died.
	I'm now an orphan. That's kind of like what the Arizona judge did in Carrie Lake's case.
	So he, after, you know, two years, we're saying, no, there was no election fraud.
	If you think that you're, if you think there was a fraud in the election, then you're like a Holocaust, you know, you're an election denier, like a Holocaust denier.
	It's the big lie.
	Sorry, something just fell off.
	It's the big lie. So what he cited, and you can go read the case, I'm happy to, I even circled it with a highlighter to send you, Adam.
	It's like four sentences.
	It's not, wouldn't take too much time to read.
	He said that Carrie Lake can't sue for what Katie Hobbs did over the signatures.
	She should have known that Katie Hobbs would do that to her because she may have done it last time.
	And as evidence she may have done it last time, he cites Both Trump's 2020 election challenges and the Arizona state Republicans' report showing that the signature matching standards were not being upheld by Katie Hobbs.
	So that's chutzpah, saying that you can't challenge the election because you waited too late.
	It's the same thing as sports, by the way.
	If you don't challenge the bad call right then and there, you can't wait until after the game.
	So it's the same in law. It's called latches.
	What happened to the bills? Oh yeah.
	It's called latches in law.
	Are you a Bittles fan, Jabbarone?
	So what the judge said is it's too late to sue.
	You should have known that Katie Hobbs was going to do something like this to you because she may have done it last time.
	Even though if you had said before this trial that there was any games being played with the signatures, you were compared to a Holocaust denier, basically.
	Is that a normal thing for a judge to do?
	I guess it's like precedent, right?
	I can tell you that one of my best friends, I was the best man at his wedding, is a lawyer.
	He's a federal judge.
	He is in the Northeast, not here.
	But he looked at this, and he's a Democrat.
	He's a nice, honest man, but he's a Democrat.
	And he said, man, this judge is trying to find any excuse in the book to avoid hearing this case.
	So he, the judge, refused to hear any election challenges based on the signature matching standard because he said, That Carrie Lake should, you know, should have known to sue before the election.
	And judges, appeals courts let judges get away with that garbage, you know, to avoid hearing these cases.
	And he said, man, that's a dirty trick by the judge.
	But he said, yeah, he'll likely get away with it.
	I saw a tweet on Twitter recently, a very wise tweet that said, future elections due to all the mail-in ballots are now less about vote-getting and more about ballot-collecting.
	Correct. The thing is, we need to unfortunately go against what Trump said.
	When he speaks out against mail-in ballots, we need to do what Trump Jr.
	said. I got no problem going against things that Trump said.
	He told me to get vaccinated.
	Okay, that's true.
	No, what Trump Jr. said is, look, where there is legal mail-in balloting, like Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, places like that, we need to vote by mail and embrace voting by mail to get elected, to then change the law so that there is either no voting by mail or it's like done in Georgia.
	The easiest way to end ballot harvesting is for Republicans to make a big public vote.
	Display of ballot harvesting.
	To go all crazy about it.
	Ballot harvesting to the 10th degree.
	Go hard.
	Don't stop. Ballot harvesting all the time.
	Yeah, we did it in Los Angeles.
	They started putting...
	We had ballot boxes in front of these mega evangelical churches.
	And then Democrats whined. We said, hey, you guys said this was legal, so we're doing it now.
	You did it in front of Democratic places, so you're just putting it on random street corners.
	We're putting it right in front of churches to remind all the church to go and vote.
	I appreciate very much all this Supreme Court talk.
	I really wanted to get this information out there to our listeners in the Adam King Show.
	While we're here, I want to pivot to Jabinon, and I want to ask Jabinon what you think is pressing you more than anything.
	If it has to do with the Supreme Court, great.
	And if you just want to bitch about the trannies, go right ahead.
	Let's hear what you've got to say.
	We didn't get enough of your opinions on this episode.
	Well, I'm not an expert.
	I appreciate Ted's expertise.
	It's very informative.
	But relating to the Supreme Court, I heard recently from a very powerful governor that the Second Amendment is like a suicide pact.
	In his state, there have been three big shootings recently in the past couple days.
	Surely he knows.
	It was Gavin Newsom.
	I think he was walking through Northern California, or if San Francisco is considered Northern California, a day after two mass shootings in his state, claiming that the problem is the Second Amendment in his state where it's like, I don't know, it's probably hard to buy a gun in California.
	It's actually pretty easy.
	Yeah. And I'm not talking about the black market.
	That's really easy.
	To get a gun, you go to the gun store in California, pay for it.
	You've got to take a test.
	And the test, you've got to take a test if it's your first gun.
	You get a little card if you pass the test.
	The test is like, if you're angry and you have a gun, what do you do to the person that you don't like?
	Do you A, go to their house and assault them with the gun?
	Do you B, Ignore the problem or do you see, you know, and like it's really not a difficult test at all.
	They don't check if you're like a fellow.
	And then you have to wait 10 days and then you go back to the gun store and pick up your gun from the gun store.
	It's not that difficult at all.
	I don't know about the bump stock thing so much.
	I'm not even sure I'd be able to identify what it is, but I've seen in Chicago a lot of the kids who do a lot of the mass shooting put these things on their guns called a switch that turn their handgun into an automatic.
	Have you seen this before?
	It is actually a huge problem.
	I wonder if that will be wrapped in some of the pistols.
	It's a thing that goes in the back of the handgun.
	So, I don't know. I think that's a pressing...
	I think the bump stock issue is very interesting, considering where it spurred from.
	Didn't it... It came up after the Trump...
	It was... It spurred from Trump himself.
	Yeah, from the Las Vegas mass shooting.
	Yeah. Yeah. The bandit.
	Which never got... Which never got...
	Resolved?
	Yeah, I know. There are a lot of theories surrounding it.
	And the sheriff of Clark County who couldn't seem to find the shooter and it helped go away somehow got elected governor.
	It's very interesting.
	I heard a really interesting thing that one of the Saudi princes was staying in that hotel at the time of the shooting and that it was an actual assassination attempt on a Saudi prince that kind of got out of control.
	My favorite theory about it is the pictures that came out afterwards.
	There are no bullet casings on the ground.
	I mean, you can't see them, so maybe they're just not visible.
	But yeah, if you look at the pictures that the FBI released, I implore you to go Google them.
	There aren't bullet casings.
	You'd think there'd be a lot.
	So bump stock really got hit up because of that case, because of that situation.
	That's the reason why we're obsessed with bump stock today.
	Was he shooting with AR-15s with bump stocks?
	Or didn't he have actual M16s or something like that?
	I think it was bump stocks.
	I think it was ARs.
	I don't know what type of gun he had, but he was using bump stocks.
	You know, the media has figured out how to weaponize hysteria and cause legislation.
	I think it probably was like that in the past, too.
	I don't think we've – this is a new thing, really.
	But it feels faster now that something happens and then it just, like, they can force legislation.
	It's almost like a tool, you know, that people will try to – What's her name? Sheila Jackson Lee She's making...
	I'd love to get both of your opinions on this as we're closing out the segment soon about criminalizing white people.
	You guys both saw that, right?
	Yeah. Look, anyone can make headlines by proposing a ridiculous bill, an unconstitutional bill.
	Well, I saw her.
	I forget the name of the...
	God, I forget all their names.
	Anyone who's on any of the liberal media, I forget all their names.
	They're so insignificant to me.
	But she was on this show with this woman of color.
	I don't know what her name was.
	And she says, the black interviewer says, so according to this law, Any white person who promotes or supports anything that has to do with white nationalism can be arrested.
	And she looks at Congresswoman Sheila Jackson and she says, does this mean that we can arrest Tucker Carlson for this?
	It sounds like Joy Reid.
	It's like, yeah, they're like, yeah, we're, uh, she gives like this little smirk and it's like, yeah, we're going after them.
	That's how they're going after us.
	Say you were saying we got a glitch and you kind of just cut out for a sec.
	You were talking about criminal prosecutors?
	I just think it's tragic that the community has elected a lot of representatives that I don't think are serving their community well.
	I think that if they had elected people that would push for school choice and better schools and those who See the need to have safe streets, but also understand that there are some abusive police officers, really, and prosecutors is where it is.
	Remember, the places where African American cities like Baltimore and Cleveland, if you're an officer that has a record of abusing your power, That you can actually get your record gets wiped every few years.
	That's what African Americans vote for themselves to have.
	We should still look at police officers as government workers who do make mistakes and need to be held responsible, need to be fired when they do a bad job.
	Same with teachers.
	And look, that doesn't excuse bad behavior from other places.
	And yes, of course, this is who they voted for.
	So, you know, you deserve what you get.
	But I just think the situation is tragic.
	And for me, as a religious person, I want the best for them.
	It's very tragic. And to pivot into actual tragedy...
	Of the failures of the black community.
	Guys, what is going on with Atlanta?
	Jobanon, you got anything on this?
	Well, I don't know if everyone's on the same page here, but recently there was...
	I think they were protesting the building of a cop training center.
	A police officer training center.
	That's what this thing is about?
	Yeah, so there's a bunch of people protesting the building of this police officer training center.
	And... One of the protesters shot and hit a police officer who I think was in critical condition but is fine now.
	But he got killed, the Antifa member.
	And they're calling this that I think the St.
	Louis Congresswoman Cori Bush...
	I don't remember exactly what she tweeted out, but she was calling these protesters who used a gun to shoot a police officer.
	You know, something you'd think people who were anti-gun would...
	Peaceful protesters.
	Mostly peaceful protesters.
	Yeah. They were supposedly...
	They're calling this protesting the destruction of a forest.
	And they're protesting the building of a police officer.
	You know, they're anti-police people.
	I think a lot of these protesters were not from the area, or they found out after they arrested them, which is funny because they're like, you know, they're not going to suffer the consequences of there being fewer police officers if their protests were to have been successful.
	It's kind of funny.
	They're just anti-police no matter what, whether they're a good police officer or a bad police officer.
	Ultimately, we rely on these police officers, but they don't care.
	Maybe these people are funded by certain groups to try to sow discord.
	A lot of people believe that.
	But, so there's a lot of strife right now.
	There's a lot of protests and now it's around the country.
	There have been several protests all around.
	And the media is not even really largely reporting on it.
	No, it's not being reported.
	I actually called my mother and I was like, did you see Atlanta's like burning down?
	And she's like, what? I didn't even know.
	There was a big protest over this, over this incident in Atlanta.
	There was a protest in Boston recently where the Democrat House Minority Whip's child, I don't know how they identify, and that is actually a thing, that this child was arrested for assaulting a police officer.
	I saw someone on Twitter was like, this House member in Boston has four children.
	The one who identifies as something other than their originally born gender or whatever it is.
	You mean the hero of the family?
	She talks about this child many times in her Twitter feed, but never talks about her other three children.
	She's just so proud.
	I mean, I would be too if...
	I mean, it's such a proud thing, you know?
	It's unfortunate, you know, a lot of these people are used as, like, props, but...
	It's not something to joke about, because the trannies end up killing themselves, and it's a tragedy, and nobody stands up for them.
	But we were talking about how a lot of these areas, they feel that they're being oppressed by the police, and then, you know...
	They do ultimately defund or shrink their police size, and it has a negative effect on the community.
	I think a good solution to this actually came out of Nevada this past week, and that in Nevada, the state Supreme Court said that state officials in Nevada are no longer presumptively covered by qualified immunity.
	I wouldn't personally go that far because I think when a police officer puts his or her life on the line or is in a dangerous situation with a suspect who's resisting arrest or even putting their hands in some hidden You know, into their car or into the pocket.
	I think that a police officer should be able to err on the side of defending themselves and shoot to kill.
	That said, I think that qualified immunity goes way too far.
	If a police officer or a prosecutor, for example, look at the prosecutor who prosecuted Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin.
	There's unfortunately under existing Wisconsin law Nothing you can do to that prosecutor, even a case that was a ridiculous start.
	So I think it's the right idea to eliminate qualified immunity.
	There's no ramifications for rogue prosecutors is what you're saying.
	Right.
	There need to be ramifications for rogue prosecutors, judges, yes, and police officers.
	It's funny that the lawyers come and they regulate the shit out of everybody's business.
	But when it comes to regulating law, I mean, there's like zero regulations on the regulators.
	Oh, even worse, lawyers regulate themselves through the bar committee, and the state bar is notoriously biased.
	So ask any lawyer if they think that their state bar is fair, and I don't think anyone will consider, unless their best friend is on the bar.
	Can I just say earlier that when it comes to quality...
	When it comes to qualified immunity, I do favor qualified immunity for police officers when they're putting their lives on the line, but if they decide to, say, give parking tickets in, say, only a black community, that police captain who made that decision should not get qualified immunity, because he's not putting his life on the line in that situation.
	I want to get to our last comment segment as we're ending this unbelievable edition of the Adam King Show episode 23.
	I want to thank both of our guests, Ted Siegel, the hidden luminary of Los Angeles.
	That's what we're going to call you from now on.
	And Jabbanon, one day may you come out of the closet as the conservative in Hollywood, my friend.
	I want to leave any last comments.
	Do you guys want to make the final hammers blow?
	You want to say anything before we leave?
	I would just want to end.
	I always like to end on a happy note.
	Just note, for all the challenges that we're facing as a country right now, we don't have to go through all of them, but in all of the setbacks that we've been dealt in the past several years in court, remember that the wheels of justice do turn slowly, but they do turn.
	And remember all the victories that we've had over the vaccines, all the victories that we've had in terms of Pairing back abuses of the state.
	And, you know, things keep getting better.
	And just look at how much easier it is to right the wrongs of our country in America versus in other countries.
	And that we are heading in the right direction doesn't stick.
	Look at even the UK, which direction they're heading when it comes to, say, free speech or anything.
	It's much, much worse.
	I'd much rather be an American, despite my critiques, my criticisms of our current laws.
	Things are moving in the right direction.
	We have work to do, but we're still the best.
	We have a lot of work to do, but we're still the best.
	Jobanon, closing thoughts before we end this segment.
	Oh, you know, Ted, you're an expert, and this has been a very great conversation.
	I love living in America, obviously.
	It's great. I've lived in other countries, and we have the best food, I have to say.
	Underrated, definitely.
	We've got everyone's food here.
	Oh, yeah. Okay, that's true.
	We've got every type of FNIC food that you can imagine.
	We got potato latkes.
	We got frozen knishes.
	We got meatloaf.
	Oh, my God. Don't forget the matzo ball soup.
	We got my Bobby's mandel bread.
	Oh, my God. The food here is incredible.
	It's just really incredible.
	It's pretty great.
	The Sparta have much better food.
	Moroccan food, Iraqi food, Yemenite food is so much better than ours.
	We can have it too, you know?
	I am Adam King.
	I want to thank my guests.
	Jobbing on... Wait.
	Jobbing on right over here.
	Ted Siegel right over here.
	We had a great show about the Supreme Court.
	Of course, none of this would have been possible without our amazing associate producer, Rock Breath.
	Thank you. I also want to thank the InfoWars team and Band.Video.
	Please check us out on TheAdamKingShow.com to see all of our platforms.
	We lean into our Band.Video platform.
	Check out InfoWarsStore.com.
	Help support the live feed and the broadcasts.
	And from the bottom and the top of my heart, unified in the center, I want to say thank you to all of our listeners who keep listening every single week.
	I am Adam King.
	You are listening to The Adam King Show on Bandot Video.
	Have a wonderful, wonderful week, everybody.
	Stay tuned and God bless.

▲