Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 2, 2023 - Sebastian Gorka

02:52:33

Bob Frantz LIVE: The most overtly politicized DOJ in history

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	��
	��
	�� guest host, Cleveland's own Bob France. - Yes.
	Well, how about that?
	Welcome into America First with Dr. Sebastian Gorka.
	You just heard the band.
	Yeah, very happy to be with you in the ReliefFactor.com studios of AM 1420 The Answer.
	That is in Cleveland, Ohio, about an hour and 40 maybe or so away from East Palestine.
	At the moment, still breathing free and clear.
	We'll see which way the winds quite literally blow.
	We're going to be talking a little bit about that and about why it is that about a month on now, tomorrow I think will mark a month since the toxic train derailment happened in East Palestine, Ohio.
	And Joe Biden still hasn't been by.
	He's been to Ukraine, he's been to Poland, he hasn't stopped by to see the good people who are suffering potentially catastrophic events because of toxins in the air, toxins in the water, toxins in the soil.
	Lord only knows how long and how prolonged those things have to be for real serious damage to be done.
	Nobody knows.
	Joe Biden's not really coming by to To reassure anybody about anything.
	That kind of lets you know.
	It was a toxic train derailment for East Palestine, but today we're going to be talking about the toxic train derailment that is this country, ever since Joe Biden took over.
	And more specifically, we're going to be talking about some of the circumstances from right before Joe Biden took over, and how we got to where we are now.
	Within the last hour, news broke That the most corrupt, the most, well, corrupt is a little bit of a strong word, but I don't think I'm going to back off of it.
	Certainly the most overtly politicized, and yes, probably corrupt Attorney General and Department of Justice in the history of this great republic.
	Decided that the former President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, can be sued civilly for inciting violence, as they say, on January 6, 2021.
	The Justice Department said today, like I said, within the past hour, Trump can be sued in connection with the breach of the U.S.
	Capitol.
	Now, by the way, when we talk about corruption and we talk about politicization and we talk about, quite frankly, incompetence, it starts at the top of the Department of Justice.
	It starts at Attorney General Merrick Garland.
	And Merrick Garland spent some time in front of the Senate Committee yesterday.
	I'm putting that incompetence and that politicization and that corruption, quite frankly, on display for the entire world to see.
	We're going to talk about that a little bit.
	We're going to play some of that.
	We're going to let you hear and see some of that if you're watching on the Salem News Channel.
	But we're going to let you hear about that.
	But for now, let's focus on the most recent development, and that is Merrick Garland's DOJ.
	Civil Division has filed a court brief in response to the D.C.
	U.S.
	Circuit Court of Appeals asking the agency to respond to Trump's claim of absolute immunity in a bid to dismiss the civil lawsuits brought against him.
	Which of course he should have, but that's aside from the point here.
	Quote, speaking to the public on matters of public concern is a traditional function of the presidency, and the outer perimeter of the president's office includes a vast realm of such speech.
	These are the words of the government lawyers.
	But that traditional function is one of public communication.
	It does not include incitement of imminent private violence.
	And you see, this is where we have ourselves a little bit of a problem.
	The Biden administration wants to continue to tell you, just like everybody in the left-wing media, that President Donald Trump incited violence.
	That he literally called for the people who were at January 6th at the rally at which he spoke And then they went down to the Capitol, of course, to do exactly what he asked them to do, and that is to be peaceful and patriotic and sheer on the hard-working men and women inside, working in that legislature, working in that body to try to convince the body to delay.
	To delay!
	That's it!
	To delay!
	Um, the confirmation of the electoral votes.
	That's all they were talking about doing.
	Just delay it until a 10-day audit could be held.
	We know what was done.
	We know how it was supposed to go.
	They were going to certify, without being certain, that all of the different states' votes were legitimate and correct.
	That's all he said, and everybody knows it.
	We can play it time and time and time again.
	Now it is up to Congress to confront This egregious assault on our democracy.
	And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you.
	We're going to walk down.
	We're going to walk down anyone you want, but right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol.
	And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.
	And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
	Because you'll never take back our country with weakness.
	You have to show strength and you have to be strong.
	We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated.
	Lawfully slated.
	I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
	I wanted to give you the longer version of that for two reasons.
	One, context, completely, 100% in context.
	And two, unedited.
	Completely unedited.
	I didn't clip parts of it out, I didn't add parts of it in, I didn't rearrange anything.
	I wanted you to hear his entire context, the entire context of what he said that day.
	Peacefully and patriotically walk to the Capitol.
	Let your voices be heard.
	You know, the way people do all the time when they gather by the hundreds or the thousands outside of various government buildings, whether it be the Supreme Court or whether it be the Capitol building.
	And they chant, and they cheer, and they make speeches, and they yell into bullhorns, and sometimes it's really agreeable with what's going on there and supportive of what's being done.
	Sometimes it's not.
	It's the exact opposite.
	Peacefully and patriotically march and cheer on your brave men and women in the Congress who are inside there doing their best to make sure that only lawful Electors are allowed to cast their votes in the certification process.
	That's it.
	That was it.
	That was the end.
	There was no incitement to anything, but here we sit.
	Two Capitol Police officers and 11 Democrats have sued Donald Trump in an attempt to hold him liable for these events when a crowd of people entered the Capitol disrupting lawmakers who were meeting to certify the election.
	The plaintiffs include Jerry Nadler, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters, some of the worst of the worst, some of the dumbest of the dumb.
	Looming over the litigation is President Trump's speech, which of course I just shared with you.
	Trump's lawyers argue their client, the President, was protected by his ironclad presidential immunity as it relates to speechmaking.
	But U.S.
	District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled in February of last year that the lawsuits, which were consolidated into one case, could move forward as Trump's message to supporters was the essence of civil conspiracy.
	Civil conspiracy.
	You just heard it for yourself.
	Did anything sound conspiratorial to you?
	I'll grant them the word civil.
	It was civil.
	But it wasn't conspiracy.
	It was very civil and very peaceful and very clear and very plain in its language.
	We're going to peacefully and patriotically make our voices heard.
	That's it.
	The United States expresses no view on that conclusion or on the truth of the allegations and the plaintiff's complaints, the government say.
	But, in the United States' view, such incitement of imminent private violence would not be within the outer perimeter of the office of the President of the United States.
	So, what are we going to do now?
	Our Justice Department has a two-tiered system of justice.
	There is justice for the Democrats, and then there is injustice for Donald Trump and his conservative allies.
	I've got a lot more coming up on America First.
	Bob France sitting in for Dr. G. Thanks for being with us.
	us.
	We'll be back.
	I'm Seb Gawker.
	Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
	Yes.
	Thank you so much, Dr. G. It's 20 minutes after the hour, and this is just a quick reminder that Dr. G and everybody at America First is continuing the annual spring campaign for the Christian non-profit relief organization, Food for the Poor, the Christian non-profit relief organization that helps feed the poorest of the poor, right here in the Western Hemisphere, primarily in the Caribbean and in Central America.
	Now, we've all said at one time or another, man, I'm really starving, right?
	But that's because we decided to skip breakfast, or maybe we were a little bit late for lunch, or something like that.
	But in El Salvador, our friends at Food for the Poor encountered, for example, a young couple that was so hungry they were literally eating leaves for their dinner.
	Right now they are on the mountain trying to pick up some leaves to eat or the banana and when they come back they usually go to the other homes asking for beans or tortillas in order to have something to eat at night.
	So if we can help this, please do it.
	Yeah, instead of eating leaves, you can make it possible for children and families to get good, nutritious food for an entire year.
	Go to the website SebGorka.com, click on the Give Food, Give Life banner, or you can phone in your gift in any amount to 855-330-4673.
	That's 855-330-HOPE.
	855-330-4673.
	That's 855-330-HOPE.
	Just $72 provides two nutritious meals daily for two children for an entire year.
	Or $144 gives the same blessing to four starving kids for a whole year.
	You can also text the keyword GORKA to 91999 and we'll send you a direct link to make your generous gift.
	More than 1 billion children are living in poverty.
	You could be the answer to their prayers today.
	Just go to SebGorka.com, click on the Give Food Give Life banner or phone your gift to 855-330-4673 and thank you so much for that.
	So to the issue that we started out with, I want to focus a little more on what is an extraordinary Injustice department in the federal government, uh, in the administration of the, of, of Joseph R. Biden, or let's go brand it.
	When I say injustice, I mean, literally here's what we're talking about.
	I just gave you, and I played for you in full context, exactly what Donald Trump said to his, um, uh, supporters on January 6th, 2021, as he spoke and talked about going down there to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard.
	I just gave you the entire thing in context.
	And yet, what I believe to be corrupt DC judges, you know, working essentially for a corrupt or working on behalf of a corrupt Justice Department, trying to say that he promoted some sort of, quote, imminent private violence.
	Now, this is, like I said, blatantly, easily, provably false and wrong, but this is what they do.
	And this is what we're dealing with.
	Now let me give you another example.
	Yesterday, finally, the Attorney General in charge of this Department of Injustice, for some, again, there's two tiers, finally gave some words and testified before and answered some questions of some very, very concerned conservative Republican senators, including Ted Cruz, including Josh Hawley, including Mike Lee.
	And I want to share a couple of these with you because I want you to truly understand what it looks like and what it sounds like to have a Department of Justice led by an attorney general who essentially cannot answer a very simple question and cannot defend his or his department's decisions on
	Protecting, for example, in this case, Supreme Court justices from threats on their lives because somebody decided that, you know, if they decide that it should be left up to the states whether or not babies get murdered on a regular basis rather than a federal right as granted by Roe v. Wade, well, then we should probably threaten to kill the judges, the justices.
	And that's exactly what was happening.
	Listen as Ted Cruz finally got an opportunity to confront Merrick Garland in Cut 10.
	Has the Department of Justice brought even a single case under this statute?
	It's a yes-no question.
	It's not a give a speech on the other things you did.
	The job of the United States Marshals is to defend the lives of the... So the answer is no.
	...is to defend the lives of the justices, and that's our number one priority.
	They have full... Why are you unwilling to say no?
	The answer's no.
	You know it's no.
	I know it's no.
	Everyone in this hearing room knows it's no.
	You're not willing to answer a question.
	Have you brought a case under this statute, yes or no?
	As far as I know, we haven't, and what we have done is defended the lives of the justices with the 70 U.S.
	Marshals.
	So how do you decide which criminal statutes the DOJ enforces and which one it doesn't?
	The United States Marshals know that they have full authority... I recognize you want to give a separate speech.
	No, I don't want to give a... How do you decide which statutes you enforce and which ones you don't?
	The Marshals on scene make that determination in light of the priority of defense.
	The Marshals do not make a determination over whether to prosecute you.
	The Attorney General will make a determination and you spent 20 years as a judge and you're perfectly content with justices being afraid for their children's lives.
	And you did nothing to prosecute him.
	Let's shift to another area.
	Can I answer the question?
	No, you cannot.
	You have refused to answer the question.
	I am answering your question.
	The Attorney General does not decide whether to arrest... How did you choose not to enforce this statute?
	The marshals on scene... The marshals don't make that decision.
	They do make the decision of whether to make an arrest.
	To prosecute someone?
	No, they don't.
	So, you know, it could not be more plain.
	And Ted Cruz, thank you.
	Senator Cruz, Ted Cruz, God bless you.
	You are a bulldog for justice.
	And not allowing this man to sit there and answer a question that was not asked.
	He was not asked, did you assign any federal marshals, or did your Department of Justice leaders assign marshals to protect the justices?
	That was not the question!
	I don't care if you assigned 70 or 700 marshals to protect the justices.
	The question was, did you prosecute, did you have arrested and prosecuted anybody that was violating the law?
	And the law is very clear and very, very plain on that issue.
	The law says that no one may, for the purposes of intimidating or threatening either witnesses or judges or jurors in any kind of a case, they may not do so outside of their place of work or their residence or any place else where they may feel unsafe.
	Now, of course, I'm paraphrasing the law.
	Ted Cruz read it and had it on a great big placard for everyone to see.
	And those things did happen.
	Hundreds and hundreds of people at a time.
	Not one arrest was made.
	Not one person was charged.
	There's a big difference between assigning law enforcement to protect them and stopping people from doing it in the first place by arresting them and bringing charges against them.
	So that's extraordinarily important to know about the leader of the Department of Injustice, as is the next one, which is even worse.
	Now this is an exchange between Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, the politicized, corrupt Attorney General, and Senator Mike Lee, who wanted to know, you know, with all of the, you know, protests that were happening and things that were going on and arrests that were made over the issue of the Dobbs decision, and this of course is after the Dobbs leak, not even after the official decision was made and Roe was repealed.
	But you had a whole bunch of things happening here with pro-lifers who were praying outside abortion clinics and you had, oh we have one minute here so I'm not going to be able to play this clip yet.
	We'll do this on the other side but let me set the table for you.
	You had a whole bunch of pro-lifers who are, which they often do and have been doing for decades.
	They've been doing it for 50 years.
	There are pro-lifers who try to protect babies and who try to, you know, counsel women by praying for them as they walk into abortion clinics.
	They don't stop them.
	They don't blockade them.
	They don't push them away.
	They literally just stand to the side and pray.
	But apparently that, of course, is just triggering to some who are in the pro-death cult, and that's what the abortion lobby is.
	But at any rate, you had people praying outside abortion clinics getting arrested, and you had people firebombing pregnancy centers and churches.
	Nothing.
	Wait until you hear the answer.
	Maybe you already heard it, but wait until you hear the answer that A.G.
	Merrick Garland gave Mike Lee as to why that was.
	That's coming up as we continue on America First.
	I'm out.
	I'm out.
	If you're back in office for 2024, your expectations for how the war in Ukraine would develop?
	Would Putin start behaving himself if you were back in the position of Commander-in-Chief?
	I would have that war ended within 24 hours.
	That war would end within 24 hours.
	That war would never have started and it could be now as bad as it is.
	And you can imagine how it'll be if it continues to go.
	It's just a horrible thing in terms of Humanity in terms of life.
	It's a horrible thing and it must stop.
	And, you know, Ukraine is being just decimated.
	These people are talking about Ukraine.
	Ukraine is being decimated.
	These are cities that don't even exist anymore.
	They're being hit by missile after missile after missile.
	And they have to stop.
	And we can stop it immediately.
	I would like to see anybody that runs for president take a test.
	I took it.
	I took a very strong, I think, the real deal test, and I got it 100 percent.
	Dr. Ronny Jackson, at the time, he was the White House physician, and I didn't even know him well.
	He's a fantastic guy, by the way, now a congressman.
	He was an admiral, and they gave me the test at Walter Reed.
	The Medical Center, which is fantastic, by the way, and as he will tell you, I aced it.
	And it's, you know, those questions start getting hard toward the end.
	They will ask some questions, from 30 to 35 questions, and when you get down to the end, those questions, there aren't a lot of people going to get them right.
	You don't have to get them all right, but I did ace it, and I was happy about that.
	Thank you.
	So, Thirty-three minutes past the hour on America First.
	I am Bob France, and I am live in Cleveland, Ohio at the ReliefFactor.com studios of AM 1420, The Answer.
	Dr. G is doing the CPAC thing.
	A lot of very interesting stuff happening there, and glad to have you aboard.
	We're going to open up the phone lines quickly at 833-33-GORKA.
	That's 833-334-6752.
	Very much want to hear from you about the politicized Justice Department and the news that a federal judge has said yes.
	A lawsuit can continue and can proceed against Donald Trump for inciting imminent violence on January 6th, believe it or not, despite a complete and total lack of evidence.
	But that has never been an issue with this particular Department of Injustice.
	And that's kind of where I want to stay.
	I want to share with you this clip.
	From yesterday's Senate committee involving the Attorney General Merrick Garland, he was talking, I just shared with you the one with Ted Cruz, I want you to hear this one, as Mike Lee asks him directly about why it is so many people have been arrested for praying outside of abortion clinics, pro-lifers, and yet when it comes to the ones who are committing violence
	And vandalism, and destroying property, spray-painting, smashing, and firebombing things like pregnancy resource centers that don't provide abortions, and Catholic churches.
	How come there's nothing happening there?
	Listen to Cut11.
	I will say you're quite right.
	There are many more prosecutions with respect to the blocking of the of the abortion centers, but that is generally because those actions are taken with photography at the time, during the daylight, and seeing the person who did it is quite easy.
	Those who are attacking the pregnancy resources centers, which is a horrid thing to do, are doing this at night, in the dark.
	We have put full resources on this.
	Every time I hear it.
	Wait, what?
	You're telling me that the full force of the federal law enforcement programs, the full force of the Department of Justice, be it FBI, U.S.
	Marshals, investigators, you're telling me the full force Of the United States federal law enforcement agencies is incapable of tracking down the people who firebomb churches and pregnancy centers because they do it at night?
	That's it?
	That's the reason there's no prosecutions?
	Because they're doing it at night and we can't find criminals who do things in the dark We can find the abortion clinic prayer warriors.
	And by the way, he lied to you there as well when he said they're blocking.
	Nobody is blocking or blockading the entry of people to the abortion centers.
	They're standing by the Planned Parenthood centers and others and praying for them on the sidewalk.
	But the problem is that hurts their feelings as they know they're about to go in there and have their baby butchered inside of them and dragged out of them piece by piece.
	And they don't like the fact that somebody there is praying and reminding them that, you know, God might be watching.
	Right?
	So they say they're blocking that.
	They're not blocking them, they're praying for them.
	But you just heard it.
	Why is it that all of these people have been arrested for prayers, but nobody has been arrested for literal assault or literal vandalism, violence committed against the pregnancy resource centers and the churches?
	And his answer is, well, the one, they do it during the day so we can see them, and the ones that do it at night, we don't know who they are.
	So, you know, that's why.
	This stuff started happening last summer.
	We're talking about after the leak of the Dobbs decision, much less after the actual announcement of it.
	Right?
	So you're telling me that from last, what, May, June, July, through August, through September, October, November, December, through January and February, and now here in the beginning of March, in all that time, your law enforcement agencies cannot find anybody because they just did it in the dark?
	That's your answer in a United States Senate committee hearing?
	Friends, I've got really, really good news and I've got really, really bad news.
	Okay?
	I'm going to start with the bad news.
	The bad news is, every criminal in the United States of America, no matter what type of crime they like to commit, be it arson, vandalism, robbery, assault, you name it, if you do it in the dark, you'll get away with it, because the DOJ says we can't find people if they do it in the dark.
	That's the bad news.
	The good news is now you know exactly how inept the current Department of Justice is.
	And now you know you better be prepared to defend yourself because they're never going to defend you.
	Not unless you are on their side of the spectrum.
	More coming up.
	More coming up.
	More coming up.
	More coming up.
	More coming up.
	More coming up.
	More coming up.
	More coming up.
	More coming up.
	More coming up.
	I'm Seb Gawker.
	Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
	Seventeen minutes before the top of the hour.
	Hey, in hour number two, Ilya Shapiro is going to be joining us in about 20 minutes past, so I hope you're ready for that.
	He has got some serious thoughts and important thoughts on the Supreme Court hearing this week on the student loan forgiveness.
	Randy Weingarten, the Teachers Union leader, just lost her mind on the steps of the Supreme Court, because they're going to lose.
	They're going to lose big.
	They're going to lose maybe nine to nothing, certainly eight to one.
	It's not even close.
	We're going to talk about that with Ilya coming up.
	Like I said, 20 minutes past the top of the coming hour.
	But friends, we're watching the collapse right now of our most trusted institutions.
	If the wheels fall off our world this year, are you prepared for it?
	Most people are not.
	Most people only have one week's worth of food at home, but when panic hits and grocery stores are stripped bare within hours, you won't be able to find food anywhere.
	That is unless You already have a three-month emergency food kit from My Patriot Supply.
	Stretch your hard-earned dollars when you go to mypatriotsupply.com.
	Their three-month emergency food kit features a new lower price that you're going to want to see, and you can trust My Patriot Supply.
	Uh, their three-month emergency food kit comes packed with tasty, and I mean tasty, breakfasts, lunches, dinners, drinks, and snacks.
	It averages over 2,000 calories a day, just like you're supposed to have now.
	Listen, there's not a lot of time.
	Go to mypatriotsupply.com, save $200 on your three-month emergency food kits while you can.
	These kits are in stock, they ship fast, and they ship free.
	Go to MyPatriotsupply.com while you can.
	MyPatriotsupply.com.
	Portions of America First are brought to you, in part, by My Patriot Supply.
	That's great advice.
	That's great advice.
	And I'll tell you why.
	Because my wife's biggest fear is the EMP.
	My wife's biggest fear is the EMP.
	Your car doesn't run, you can't get anywhere, everything, the power's down, there's no phone, there's no anything that uses Power, essentially.
	Electricity.
	It's just knocked out.
	Anything that requires a circuit is just knocked out.
	And how are you going to eat?
	Because unless you are already growing your own food in your own gardens, unless you've got your own slaughterhouse, or you've got your own chicken coops, whatever it is you need, very few people are going to be able to survive something like that.
	And I'm not suggesting it's imminent at all, but I'll tell you what, that balloon, that Chinese spy balloon that nobody knew what it was for?
	That freaks some people out.
	It made people wonder, what are we going to do if we don't have access to food from the grocery store?
	There's no trucks delivering.
	Nobody's stocking the shelves anymore.
	They're just gone.
	When they're gone, they're gone.
	That makes this a very, very good idea, talking about my Patriot Supply.
	All right, we're going to go to the phones.
	833-33-GORKA.
	That's 833-334-6752.
	Dial us up.
	I want to get your thoughts on what we're hearing from the Justice Department.
	I want to get your thoughts on the fact that the courts continue to find new ways to attack Donald Trump.
	And in this case, they decided earlier today, the DOJ and the courts have said that Donald Trump can be sued over January 6th.
	He can be sued for encouraging supporters to march to the Capitol with the incitement of imminent private violence.
	It's all hogwash.
	And I'm going to tell you something else, too.
	This is the kind of nonstop attack on Donald Trump that is going to lead to their worst nightmare.
	Because there are a lot of people on the conservative side of things who have moved on from Donald J. Trump, who have moved on from 45, who have said, I like somebody else, or I might like somebody else, or I want a new face and a new voice, or whatever.
	And those conservative-minded people who were Trump supporters and MAGA, they're America First, but they're looking for something new, are very quickly being driven right back to Donald Trump just out of solidarity with justice!
	The man was screwed, the man was robbed, the man was defrauded, and the man was impeached twice on bogus charges.
	He endured a two-year long Hoax investigation of Russian collusion after the phony Steele dossier and the illegal warrant to spy on him and his campaign and his presidency.
	I mean, nobody has ever had anything done like this to them, and everybody knows that.
	But even so, some people are ready to move on because, you know, it's a different time right now.
	There's a lot of people who said, you know, he's not really at this point in time, maybe not the best leader for this particular moment.
	And then they're seeing what they're doing to him and saying, screw that.
	I want Trump to get four more years.
	Let him do it, I guess.
	I feel bad for the former president because he's got to have to deal with this stuff in civil court.
	He's going to have to be dragged through all of this nonsense over what is a very easily disprovable claim that he incited violence.
	He's going to have to go through.
	I don't want him to have to go through with it, but you know what?
	The more they throw at him, the more I think popular he becomes, even with people who were supporters of his and who were very appreciative of his and really filled with gratitude for what he did for four years.
	But who are ready to look elsewhere, now saying, this is crap.
	Give them four more years just to stick it right up their... Noses.
	Right?
	I know people personally like this.
	People I talk to call my radio program in Cleveland, Ohio.
	And I guarantee you, this is going to backfire on them as they continue to find new ways releasing his taxes.
	Oh, well, looks like he didn't cheat on his taxes.
	How about that?
	He just knew the tax code better than everybody else.
	This January 6th nonsense, indicting him in Georgia, all of this garbage they're doing to him, honest to God, makes him stronger.
	And I absolutely love to see it.
	I absolutely love to see it.
	The one thing that makes me supportive of Donald Trump more than anything else, even as I consider and ponder all of the other options that are going to be there and what's going to be a crowded field, the one thing more than anything else is I want him to get that which was taken from him.
	He deserves four more years because they were stolen from him, I believe, when he won four more years.
	And the fact that they are doing everything they can, that ridiculous January 6th unselect committee, and now this nonsense on the civil lawsuits against him over January 6th, the more things like that that are done to him, the more No, that's not the right word.
	The more angry it makes me, quite frankly, and it makes me come right back to saying, Don, let's shove it right up their behinds again.
	Let's do it again.
	And I'll tell you what, let him come.
	Let him keep coming for him and watch and see what was a base that was already substantial but wasn't really growing over the last couple of years, watch it start to grow back up again.
	Watch people who may have left the camp come right back to it because they are sick and tired of seeing again.
	What did I call it?
	They called it the Department of Injustice, and it literally is.
	And when this kind of stuff happens, this kind of stuff continues to happen, like I said, I think it's just going to make him more powerful.
	I want your thoughts on that.
	We'll take our time out of here.
	I know he said he was going to the phone calls.
	If you're on hold, stay there.
	If you're not on hold, get there.
	That's the easiest way to say that.
	833-33-GORKA.
	Dial now, we'll put you up and on the radio on America First.
	Bob France sitting in for Dr. G. We'll be back.
	Thank you.
	I'm Seb Gorka.
	Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
	Yeah, let's do that.
	Axel Foley and me.
	Bob France, live in Cleveland, Ohio.
	The ReallyFactor.com studios here in Cleveland are at AM 1420.
	The answer.
	My home base there is WHKRadio.com.
	Nine to noon weekdays, Eastern Time, if you're listening around the country and you want to hear more of what we do.
	Nine to noon, WHKRadio.com is a good way to hear me.
	I want to hear from you now.
	Let's go to the phones, as promised here.
	Phil on line two is in Philly, and you are now on America First.
	Bob Frantz sitting in for Dr. G. Phil, go right ahead, sir.
	Mr. Frantz, thanks for taking the call.
	Earlier in the week, I think I gave Dr. G like an uncomfortable twitch, because I made a suggestion about a new direction for Donald Trump's campaign, and I just wanted your thoughts on it.
	I mean, we got Rona McLooser and Mitch McComie having him, they're very comfortable with him attacking other Republicans in this primary.
	Nobody, what I was saying was, nobody can hold a candle to this guy.
	He not only talked the talk, but he walked the walk.
	We know what he can do.
	Nobody's going to vote for anybody else but him in the primary.
	Everybody knows that.
	What I was saying was, he needs to concentrate his time on exposing these commie craps.
	And the corruption that's going on with, I mean, when he's trying to think up a new nickname for a primary opponent, 14,000 people are running across the border with 10 pounds of fentanyl.
	See what I'm saying?
	I do.
	He could start with, here we go.
	How's this?
	There's 50 people that signed the letter about Hunter Biden's laptop misinformation.
	Where are they now?
	Just pick a name.
	I'll bet that they have a bunch of no-show jobs in the Biden regime.
	Would that make sense?
	It does.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, Rona and Mitch cost us Arizona.
	They cost us Pennsylvania.
	They cost us Alaska.
	They cost us the Senate.
	She's like a second place loser.
	I mean, this girl cannot win an election.
	And if they're in his ear telling him, "If I want to see him attack people, I'll go on YouTube and pull up the 2016 primary campaign." We don't want to see it anymore.
	He's got so many accomplishments, 120 pages of accomplishments, that he can go through and then twist right into the communcrats, what they're doing.
	Yeah.
	I mean...
	Listen, Phil, I happen to agree with you 100%, and thanks for the call.
	I wish he would turn his attention to the Democrats, and to Joe Biden, and to everybody over there that supports Joe Biden.
	I'm not a fan.
	of the attacks.
	I mean, I, look, I know primaries, you have, in a primary you have to differentiate yourself between, you know, yourself and distance yourself from yourself and the other candidates in order to stand out.
	That's how you want to, I get that.
	But I believe in the Reagan commandment.
	I believe in the 11th commandment, a Republican shall not attack another Republican, particularly with the vicious vitriolic kind of things that President Trump is doing.
	He did in 2016, and he's doing right now to a guy who's not even a candidate in Ron DeSantis.
	I'm not a fan.
	I do not like it.
	I don't think it's helpful at all for the conservative cause or America First.
	And I am for America First.
	He needs to focus his attention on the bad guys, not on other good guys.
	All right.
	I'm Bob France.
	And for Dr. G, we've got one hour in the books.
	I want to talk to you next hour.
	And Ilya Shapiro will be here as well, right here on America First.
	We'll be back.
	Thank you.
	Cleveland's own Bob France.
	Dr. G, thank you so much for that.
	Hour number two is underway, five minutes past.
	We are live in the relieffactor.com studios here in Cleveland of AM 1420, The Answer.
	I'll keep giving you the radio station because I'm not good at self-promoting.
	You know, you would think that after 25 years in radio, I would know how to promote myself.
	I just forget to tell you about my Twitter and I forget to tell you about my station.
	I forget to tell you about all the other places where you can reach me.
	So I'm going to try to rectify.
	You know, three years ago, I dropped my Twitter account.
	I left voluntarily.
	A lot of people got cancelled, as you know, including President Trump.
	I left before.
	A lot of people quit their Twitter account and closed it after Donald Trump got banned from Twitter, and with good reason, saying, how dare you suspend the First Amendment rights of the sitting President of the United States, much less a regular citizen.
	This is the President!
	And a lot of people said, done with Twitter, done with Facebook after that.
	I actually quit my Twitter account before President Trump was banned by these idiots.
	And I was tired of the shadow banning.
	I mean, I was tweeting things.
	I had almost 40,000, I want to say 38,000, 39,000 followers.
	Now, in the grand scheme of things, that's not a massive number.
	You know, you've got hundreds of thousands of people that follow Dr. G and other people like that, and that's fine.
	But I had 39,000, almost 40,000 people who followed me.
	I would tweet something important.
	I would get, you know, a few hundred likes and get a few hundred retweets sometimes and impressions and blah blah blah and then suddenly I'm getting nine.
	You know, same type of things I was tweeting.
	Suddenly I'm getting, you know, two people liked it and one person retweeted it or nobody did and I knew I was being shadowbanned.
	Then I would start to actually get suspended for periods of time because I would share things that, well, Apparently Twitter's moderators knew more about than doctors like Robert Malone on things like, you know, things like COVID, you know, it was three years ago.
	We were, we were all being told by Twitter, everything you needed to know about COVID you can get from them, not from doctors like the patent holder on the mRNA technology that actually created the, uh, the profit shots.
	That's what they're called.
	Don't call them vaccines ever.
	I call them profit shots or poison darts because I think both are accurate anyway.
	Point being, I got sick and tired of all of the nonsense, so it's not quite three years ago, but I did.
	I went ahead and I just canceled my account.
	And when Elon Musk bought it back, I was moderately enthused and excited.
	Not bought it back, bought it, hoping that maybe it would turn it back into something resembling free speech.
	And I think so far it's pretty good.
	He's done a pretty good job of it.
	I do.
	So I rejoined it and now I'm trying to build back.
	I've got, I don't know, a little bit under 6,000 people instead of 39 or 40,000.
	So I'm trying to build back, but I never tell people about it.
	I always forget, so I'm going to use that now.
	I'm on Twitter, and if you are too, follow me there.
	Dr. G does, and if it's good enough for Dr. G, it should be good enough for everybody else.
	France Rance.
	F-R-A-N-T-Z-R-A-N-T-Z.
	That's the last name, and then it's again without the F. France Rance is where you can find me.
	You can also search for Always Right Radio.
	That's the name of my program in Cleveland, Ohio.
	Always Right Radio.
	So look for me there on Twitter.
	Now, having said all of that, we've got Ilya Shapiro coming up here in about ten minutes or so.
	I do want to get to a few more phone calls.
	I also want to get to a few more stories from Today, breaking news stories.
	I shared with you one that was about an hour before we came on the air.
	We heard about the DOJ saying Donald Trump can be sued over January 6th.
	Well, here's a new one and a shocking one.
	This one is also just breaking this afternoon.
	Joe Biden is actually doing something that might marginally resemble common sense.
	Earlier this morning I heard Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina on Fox & Friends saying that Joe Biden was clearly going to veto the Washington, D.C.
	council's move to strengthen, actually to oppose, the softening of crime laws.
	And this is something that's happening everywhere.
	Obviously, violent crime is on the rise all over this country, in all of the big cities, in all of the urban centers, because of left-wing Soros-funded district attorneys who are, you know, giving no cash bail, giving soft charges, cutting soft deals rather, judges giving soft sentences, and so forth.
	It was expected that President Biden was going to veto the decision to block the move to soften the crime laws.
	Just literally within the last hour, Joe Biden has announced he will not veto the bill that blocks the softening of that criminal code.
	And I'll read it directly from Fox.
	President Biden informed Senate Democrats in a closed-door meeting today he will not veto legislation blocking the D.C.
	Council's move to soften crime laws.
	Following the meeting, Chuck Schumer confirmed the President's plans to sign the bill once it gets to his desk.
	Biden also tweeted upon returning to the White House, saying, quote, I support D.C.
	statehood and home rule, and that's ridiculous.
	The statehood part.
	But I don't support some of the changes D.C.
	Council put forward over the mayor's objections, such as lowering penalties for carjackings.
	If the Senate votes to overturn what the D.C.
	Council did, I'll sign it.
	So how about that?
	That's interesting.
	One might if one were cynical, and I am.
	Think that that's a political maneuver?
	He's getting ready to announce his re-election plans?
	In fact, he was asked earlier today about that, and he said, uh, I'll announce it when I announce it.
	Uh, maybe that means it's coming sooner than later, and he's got to find a way to not be as radically Marxist-left as he is, and he's got to reach to the center somewhat?
	I don't know what his reason is, but he's actually going to do the right thing here.
	In February, the House approved the resolution 250-173.
	It had both Republican and Democrat support.
	Companion bill introduced by Senator Bill Hagerty is going to pass the Senate.
	And the bill gained momentum after Joe Manchin signaled he would support it.
	Teeing up a Joe Biden veto.
	And Biden apparently has announced now he is not going to veto that.
	He is not going to allow the super soft softening of the criminal code in Washington, D.C.
	How about that?
	That's a pretty interesting development.
	All right, back to it.
	I almost gave you the local phone number in Cleveland, Ohio.
	833-33-GORKA.
	833-33-6752.
	We'll go to Philadelphia.
	And Nick, who's been waiting since we started the show today.
	Nick, thanks for your patience.
	You're on America First.
	Fire away.
	Thanks, Bob.
	First of all, Biden who says he's not going to veto that bill, it's just like the migrants.
	Most of the senators and the congressmen do not want that bill to pass.
	So he's just saying, not in my backyard of Washington.
	With regard to the other thing about the DOJ doing civilly, I think every red state attorney general should take those cases where these pregnancy centers were bombed, these pro-life centers were bombed, and sue civilly.
	They should sue.
	Chuck Schumer, who said he will reap the whirlwind.
	They should sue Maxine Waters, say, get in their face.
	We had people bullied.
	Actually, Paul Rand was injured.
	Rand Paul was injured.
	They should just—they opened the box.
	They just opened the Pandora's box that these red states' attorneys general should sue.
	All of these places that got some firebombs.
	I'll get off the line and hear what you have to say.
	Well, I'll tell you, thank you for the call, Phil.
	I appreciate that very much.
	I completely agree with everything you just said.
	There have been legitimate calls to violence over politics.
	And over the course of the last few years.
	And all of them, all of them, came from Democrats.
	From Chuck Schumer to Maxine Waters to so many others.
	When you listen to them talk about pushing up on Trump administration supporters and creating a crowd, tell them they're not welcome here.
	And then of course you literally had Chuck Schumer You literally had him basically saying, um, you're going to reap the whirlwind.
	You said it yourself.
	Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, if you keep making decisions, this is prior to the Dobbs decision, but if you do this, you're going to reap the whirlwind.
	In other words, you're going to pay the price.
	Not in other words, in those words, he said, you are going to pay the price.
	And what does that mean?
	We talked about this.
	Dr. G has talked about this.
	I'm not breaking any new ground here, but when he says you're going to pay the price, if these were elected officials, that could mean politically.
	You're going to pay the price of the ballot box for these terrible decisions.
	We're going to vote you out.
	But these justices are lifetime appointments, not elected.
	And you say you're going to pay the price.
	That's a threat!
	That's not a political statement.
	That is a straight-up threat.
	I want to tell you, Gorsuch!
	I want to tell you, Kavanaugh!
	You have released the whirlwind!
	And you will pay the price!
	There is no other way to hear that.
	There is no other way to hear that.
	So, you're right.
	I think you make a great point.
	When the DOJ says, yeah, they can sue Trump civilly for inciting violence on January 6th when he did no such thing, let's go to who really has incited violence and called for violent acts and allowed for them.
	And the fact that Garland yesterday, as we were playing the clip with Ted Cruz, In that Senate hearing yesterday, Merrick Garland essentially had no answer whatsoever.
	None for why it is that he refused to prosecute anybody who was breaking the law outside of Brett Kavanaugh's home and threatening and intimidating him to try to get him to not vote the way he did, obviously, in the Dobbs case that affected Roe v. Wade.
	It's a two-tiered system of justice is exactly what we are watching.
	All right, we're going to get a quick timeout here, and on the other side, Ilya Shapiro is going to join us.
	We're going to talk about sparing college students the debts they voluntarily took on, whether the Supreme Court allows that or not.
	Now, we'll be back.
	We'll be back.
	I'm Seb Gawker.
	Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
	I think we're going with every blockbuster movie soundtrack from the 1980s today.
	Every time we come back in, that's what we get as one of those.
	Outstanding.
	Welcome, Bob France, in for Dr. G on America First.
	Hey, traveling to the Holy Land was truly one of the most amazing trips, Seb tells us all the time about this, of his life.
	I've never been.
	But as he talks about it, being able to walk in the same steps that Jesus did is just an overwhelming and powerful experience that is not to be forgotten.
	Trust Dr. Gorka and those who have been there, Dennis Prager and others too.
	Go visit Israel.
	For more information go to holyland.israel.travel.
	Israel, exactly like nowhere else, and of that I have absolutely no doubt.
	All right, it is 421 now.
	I want to welcome Ilya Shapiro to the program.
	Ilya Shapiro is the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute.
	He's also the author of Supreme Disorder, Judicial Nominations, and the Politics of America's Highest Courts.
	And the Supremes were busy this week hearing the case of the borrowed money that never has to be repaid.
	Oh, wait a minute, yes it does.
	It has to be repaid by people who didn't borrow it.
	Ilya Shapiro, thank you for the time.
	Welcome to America First.
	How are you, sir?
	My pleasure, good to be on.
	So I'm reading your article in the City Journal about this case, and I feel like this is one of those cases where it makes you wonder how it got to where it is, because it seems so very clearly unconstitutional.
	But just to set it up, as you do in the middle of your piece, in following through on a promise he made during the campaign, Biden claims the government has the authority to forgive billions of dollars In loans across millions of borrowers, specifically $10,000 in federal student loan debt for borrowers earning up to $125,000 a year, $250,000 for married couples, and up to $20,000 for those with Pell Grants.
	Now, Ilya Shapiro, everybody who has spoken to this that has announced a common sense has once again reported the obvious here.
	No one signed on to take on a massive loan for higher education with a gun to their head.
	They chose to take a loan, whether it's for a business, whether it's for a house, or for a car, or for an education.
	You choose the loan.
	You really kind of have to expect that the bank is going to come back to you and say, okay, it's time to pay that back now.
	How did we even get this to the Supreme Court?
	Yeah, I mean, it's crass politics.
	Somebody I saw this morning wrote that it was the confluence of the worst of populism with the worst of elitism in the sense that this is a way for the Democrats to appease their own constituency of college graduates that have worthless degrees and they're in debt.
	And they they throw them a bone in this way.
	Now, it's one thing if Congress were doing that, that they in the course of covid relief, the massive, you know, multi trillion dollar bill had included debt forgiveness there.
	Then we can argue the policy, but probably constitutional for Congress to change its own plan.
	But here it's Biden is the president by himself, even though Congress has refused to act again and again, usurping that power of the purse to rewrite not just, you know, the terms, the modifications, the provisions as both Trump and Biden have done in terms of pausing repayment, but forgiving the provisions as both Trump and Biden have done in terms of It really is.
	You know, you used a phrase there in that response, I think it was, appease young people.
	It was a way to appease young people.
	Biden can say, well, we tried, but those crazy ultra mega justices stopped us.
	That's why you need to reelect me.
	That's that's all that's going on here.
	You know, you used the phrase there in that response.
	I think it was appease young people.
	It was a way to appease young people.
	Is that synonymous with by votes from 18 to 22 year olds?
	I don't think I said young people.
	I said from their constituencies.
	So kind of over-educated.
	I don't know what young is.
	I'm 45 myself.
	Well, we can stick with the constituency.
	But to me, here's how it felt like.
	Millennials who have already taken off their loans and now they're working, and they don't want to have to keep paying them back, or younger voters too, you know, the ones who are in college right now, who signed on to buy these things, and Biden is saying, hey, I'll give you ten or twenty thousand dollars back in your loans, and the only thing you have to do is make sure I'm still here to do it.
	It feels like to me it was a vote-buying scam.
	That's right, that's right.
	And I think he knew in his heart of hearts that it wasn't going to get through the courts, because at the end of the day, this is not the first time that he has tangled with the courts.
	The CDC's eviction moratorium, the OSHA's vaccine mandate, the EPA's greenhouse gas emissions regulations, all sorts of stuff.
	But it's done to message and to signal, and as you say, to effectively buy votes.
	It's a very crass calculation that only lowers, diminishes our rule of law.
	You know what it reminds me of, Ilya Shapiro, is a little bit about the mandates, you know?
	I mean, when he issued mandates that anybody who either works for the federal government, works in the military, works for a contractor that partners with the federal government in any way has to take the shots.
	He knew that was unconstitutional as well, and he basically was told that by some judges, and he said, well, I'm going to keep on doing it until they actually stop me.
	me, you know, and make me repeal the mandate.
	And by that time, we'll have had the desired effect and I'll have forced all these people to choose Jabber Job.
	It seems like the Constitution is pretty much just a suggestion for him, not something that guides him.
	Well, that's different because I don't think he was buying votes necessarily with vaccine That's just something that he wanted to put... No, no, no.
	I didn't mean to conflate the two about buying votes.
	I'm just talking about ignoring the Constitution to get something done that he felt like he needed to get done, even though he knew he didn't have the constitutional authority to do so.
	Yeah, it's a continuation of the pen and phone governance that we've had for, I don't know, 15 years, 20 years, where Congress won't act.
	And so the president decides that he has the power to do that, even though Congress rejected that.
	And by the way, it's not just Democrats.
	Trump, when Congress didn't give enough money for the border wall, he just diverted it from military funding.
	That was very controversial.
	I think some of that was not authorized by law.
	So this executive governance is surely a problem.
	And, you know, Congress a lot of the time willingly gives away its power because then people can blame the president when something happens they don't like rather than or, you know, the bureaucrats and the bureaucracy rather than their elected representatives.
	Ilya Shapiro is my guest.
	In your City Journal article, Ilya, you talk about and explain the major questions doctrine, and say, this makes this an easy case.
	Can you explain that, please?
	Yeah, so there's increasingly been this emergence of the idea that whatever the constitutional authorities might be, if Congress didn't speak clearly to a question, to give a certain kind of power to an executive agency official or whatnot, the agency can't just assume that power.
	That is, in cases of significant economic or political impact, as the Court has has said, or significant economic and political significance, not vast economic and political significance is the exact term from the West Virginia versus EPA case last June.
	That's the most recent invocation of the major questions doctrine.
	And so the idea is maybe, maybe not Congress has the power to do something that's just huge and fundamental and transformational.
	We can argue the constitutional niceties, but it better well have spoken clearly and explicitly if some I think the standing question will be closer than the merits.
	a massive authority in this case to forgive nearly half a trillion dollars worth of loans.
	So that's why I think this will be decided on what's called the major questions doctrine.
	Do you expect this to be close?
	I think the standing question will be closer than the merits.
	That is, a lot of the argument on Tuesday, the argument in the two consolidated cases, was about whether the people challenging this action are even properly in court.
	For example, there's a Missouri agency that processes federal student loans, and it's going to lose money from all of this forgiveness.
	But it, this agency, Mochila is the acronym, was not in court.
	It was the state of Missouri itself, and it's supposed to be independent budgetarily from the general treasury.
	Is that significant?
	I think at the end of the day, there's a majority to find standing, but that's A closer question than whether what Biden did was allowed under the relevant law.
	We are talking with Ilya Shapiro from the Manhattan Institute.
	and we'll continue with him right after this on America
	First. First.
	First.
	First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First. First.
	First.
	Thank you.
	I'm Seb Gawker, now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
	Let's do exactly that.
	It is 33 minutes past the hour.
	That leaves us 27 minutes before the top of the hour, and we do continue on America First live in the ReliefFactor.com studios here in Cleveland, Ohio.
	WHKRadio.com, weekdays from 9 until noon is where you can find me on the local program.
	Our guest is Ilya Shapiro.
	He's a senior fellow and the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute.
	He is also An author, a celebrated author and supreme disorder, judicial nominations and the politics of America's highest court came out in 2020.
	We're talking about Supreme, the Supreme Court right now.
	We're talking about the case heard on Tuesday over the decision to the Biden decision to grant unilaterally via executive order relief of student loans, billions of dollars of student loan debt.
	Almost certain to be ruled unconstitutional.
	But Ilya, as we were talking off the air, and I want to bring this up now, you mentioned in one of your comments to me previously that not only Democrats do this, Republicans do this as well during President Trump's term.
	There are a lot of things he couldn't get done legislatively, so he did via executive order.
	And those things were, of course, just as easy to write off by the next president, which is why the legislation is the best way to go.
	So I asked you if you knew who had more.
	Or what pace Biden is on compared to Trump, and you say, doesn't really matter the number, what matters is the significance.
	Can you explain more?
	Yeah, I mean, most executive orders are relatively inconsequential.
	They reorder how different parts of the executive branch operate.
	And, you know, comparing Bush to Obama to Trump to Biden, the sheer number doesn't necessarily reflect their impact.
	It's not that 300 are more significant necessarily than 100.
	It's what their substance is.
	And for example, the one that we came up with that we started talking about last week about equity, this kind of follows up on January 20th, the first day of Biden's presidency, he signed a whole of government initiative to make equity a focus of all policymaking.
	And this one deepens that to actually designate people in every agency and every part of decision making for there to be an equity style review.
	That's big, because what this does is it burrows these postmodern, illiberal, racialist ideas into the bureaucracy, into the policymaking process, It burrows these postmodern, illiberal, racialist ideas into the bureaucracy, into the policymaking process without Congress having to create a new program or even a new position necessarily in a different department. into the policymaking process without Congress having to create a
	So something like that is much more significant than 10 declarations of sanctions against a certain country or proclamation that a certain day is reading National Reading Week or what have you, which most of these executive orders are doing.
	But we have seen an uptick generally with each successive presidency just because Congress legislates less and less and is happy to punt political decisions into the executive branch. - Okay.
	Yeah, the 2021 EO that led to this, the one that we're talking about from this month, or actually in February now that we're into March, was called Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.
	Does that mean it's specific like some of the other EOs to federal employees or employees of contractors, or is this something that goes into corporate and private America?
	This is just the federal government.
	I'm not sure if there's a contract apart to it.
	So there's not a private mandate there.
	I think that's being attacked through a different way.
	The FTC, the ESG rules through the SEC.
	I'm sorry for all the acronyms, but that's the way government is done.
	The private sector stuff is more through regulations specific to each industry.
	But the presidential EO was about the executive branch and essentially getting political commissars, whether you're dealing with water quality or K-12 education or I want to see if you can explain this to us, Ilya.
	In the White House statement about this EO, it says, despite the meaningful progress that the Biden-Harris administration has made, the reality is that underserved communities, many of whom have endured generations of discrimination and disinvestment, still confront Unacceptable barriers to equal opportunity in the American dream.
	Ilya, isn't it pretty much understood by everybody that equal opportunity and equity of outcome are two very different things?
	That's right.
	I mean, the word equity in general should be uncontroversial.
	I mean, it's a centuries-old principle of Anglo-American law that there are courts of equity.
	That means they issue rulings to have an equitable distribution of assets or an equitable ruling mandating or enjoining someone from doing something.
	But this is a very, just like the other parts of the D.I.E.
	acronym, Diversity, inclusion, equity.
	They're Orwellian.
	They've come to mean the opposite of what, you know, the puppies and rainbows of inclusion.
	Newspeak, yeah, yeah.
	It's Newspeak.
	Ilya Shapiro is our guest on America First.
	I apologize hard out here.
	year.
	We'll be back.
	Thank you.
	I'm Seb Gorka.
	Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
	Yes, let's do exactly that now.
	It is 17 minutes before the top of the hour and time to remind you once again that Seb and the team at Team Gorka are continuing the spring campaign for the Christian non-profit relief organization, Food for the Poor.
	Now this very important organization helps feed the poorest of the poor.
	Right here in the Western Hemisphere, primarily in the Caribbean, And in Central America, now we've all said it one time or another, right?
	Man, I'm starving.
	But that's just because we decided to skip breakfast, or we're a little bit late for lunch.
	That's not starving.
	In El Salvador, our friends at Food for the Poor encountered a young couple that was so hungry, they were literally eating leaves for their dinner.
	Right now they are on the mountain trying to pick up some leaves to eat or the banana and when they come back they usually go to the other homes asking for beans or tortillas in order to have something to eat at night.
	So if we can help this, please do it.
	Yeah, instead of eating leaves, you can make it possible for children and families to get good, nutritious food for an entire year.
	Go to the website, sebgorka.com, click on the Give Food, Give Life banner, or you can phone in your gift at any amount to 855-330-4673.
	That spells 855-330-HOPE.
	3 3 0 46 73 that spells 8 5 5 3 3 0 hope just 72 dollars provides ready for this two nutritious meals daily for two children for an entire year or 140 Or $144 gives the same blessing to four starving kids for a whole year.
	Just $72.00.
	You can do this.
	You can text the keyword GORKA to 91999.
	We'll send you a direct link to make your generous gift.
	More than one billion children are living in poverty and you could be the answer to their prayers today.
	Just go to SebGorka.com, click on the Give Food Give Life banner, or phone your gift in to 855-330-4673.
	And thank you so very much for your generosity.
	Thanks again to Ilya Shapiro as well.
	That last part of the conversation we had to rush through, obviously, but...
	An extremely important one.
	That equity bill, or excuse me, not a bill, that equity executive order, that's the point.
	They don't do it through legislation with bills.
	They're doing this, Biden is, with executive orders.
	Requires federal agencies to build equity action plans.
	In other words, to discriminate against people based on what they look like.
	Equity in these areas, in these spheres of influence, whether they be governmental or private sector, equity is akin to or synonymous with affirmative action.
	We are going to promote some people or the hiring of some people based on what they look like, and by definition, if we do that, we have to discriminate against and deny people who look like something else.
	It is blatantly unconstitutional.
	It's wrong.
	And here's the best part, or the worst part, depending on how you look at this.
	The last question I asked Ilya Shapiro that he was answering as we had to get out.
	It was about equity versus equality.
	You know the difference.
	Everybody who knows what D.I.E.
	stands for, diversity, inclusion, and equity.
	Some people call it D.E.I.
	Those people are dumb.
	It's better to say D.I.E.
	because it spells die, which is what they're trying to do, and that is kill liberty in the United States.
	It's to kill corporations and education, schools, and so forth.
	And their ability to operate without this discrimination.
	So, equity and equality.
	Very, very different.
	Equality means everybody is treated the same and given the same opportunity to accomplish, to buy, to earn, to get promoted.
	It's an equal opportunity for all.
	That is what our Constitution guarantees us.
	That is what our Declaration of Independence declares, right?
	Equity is something entirely different.
	Equity says it's not about equal opportunity, it's about equal outcomes.
	About at the end of the day, everybody has the same thing, or the same amount, the same dollar figure, the same score, the same number of people working in an office.
	Equity is the enemy of equality.
	Equity is the enemy, quite frankly, of liberty.
	Equity is the enemy of opportunity.
	Equity says if you work your A off, you can't advance any further than the guy who is sleeping his A off over there.
	At the end of it all, you have to have the same thing.
	Equity is a tool of Marxism.
	Equity is a tool, quite frankly, of communism.
	Of collectivism.
	Equity in the classroom means student A studied for four hours for that midterm exam.
	Killed it.
	Got a 95.
	Student B gamed and played Fortnite for four hours and got a 10.
	Well, that's okay, because 95 and 10 is 115, or excuse me, when I say it's 105, it will divide, well actually that wouldn't work so well either, because if you divide that equally between the two, they're both still in the 50s and they're failing.
	But you understand my point.
	You divide the or you take the the amounts collected or earned by both students or both workers or whatever the case might be that you're measuring and everybody gets the same share.
	That's equity.
	You each got the same amount and that of course leads to a demotivation.
	It's a it's a.
	It's something that tells people don't try.
	You can't succeed.
	Don't try to earn to get better, to get promoted because the guy who isn't trying or the girl who isn't trying is going to get the same thing you do.
	Equity demands it.
	You may earn that promotion because of your hard work and because of your knowledge and your talent and your merit, but you're going to be promoted at the same time as this other person is because they look different than you.
	And their look is one that's of a marginalized community.
	Whether it's racially marginalized, ethnically, sexual orientation, or any of the other identity political traits that the left embraces, they are going to get under the same opportunity for promotion that you got, even if they didn't try.
	So whether it's school and it's grades or whether it's money or whether it's promotions or opportunities, you're never going to get a fair shake.
	And so equity is what they promote.
	And yet, and this is why I asked the question of Ilya Shapiro, the statement by the Biden administration and the White House is, the reality is that underserved communities, many of whom have endured generations of discrimination and disinvestment, still confront unacceptable barriers to equal opportunity in the American dream.
	And that is straight up fiction.
	That's fiction.
	That's false.
	That's a lie.
	That's a myth.
	That's a fable.
	There is not one thing in this country that is available to a person with lighter colored skin that is not available to a person with darker colored skin, or an in-between color of skin, or something that's not light or dark.
	It doesn't matter.
	There is not one thing, because of our laws, because we passed civil rights, that is available to one group and not another group.
	Everybody has equal opportunity to pursue the American Dream.
	If they didn't, you wouldn't see People of color who are millionaires.
	You wouldn't see people of color who are award winners, who are celebrities, who are popular, who are rich, and so on, who are promoted, who are leaders, who are CEOs.
	You wouldn't see that if those opportunities weren't there.
	They are there.
	The question is who is willing to pursue them.
	And those who pursue achieve great things.
	Guess what?
	White people Latinos and Latinas, Asians, all Europe ethnicities, European ethnicities, and yes, African Americans, or people who are of color but not necessarily from Africa.
	Like, for example, the Vice President of the United States who likes to wear the black card, or play the black card, and of course she's not.
	She's what?
	Jamaican and Indian.
	Point is, whether you're black or brown or some shade that's in between any other shades, it's irrelevant.
	Literally irrelevant.
	You have equal opportunities.
	Everyone does.
	What this does, it says, equity will be applied, not equality.
	Equity, which means even if you don't do anything to advance yourself, we will advance you simply because of how you look.
	And that, my friends, is wrong.
	We'll be back.
	I'm Seb Gawker.
	Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
	It is amazing sometimes, isn't it, that they can be so blatant with their dishonesty and with their lies.
	To say, literally, that there are still massive numbers of members, massive members of the underserved communities who still confront unacceptable barriers to equal opportunity.
	I challenge them.
	I challenge anybody listening right now.
	Maybe you're a left-of-center person listening to Dr. G and you want to hear the other side.
	Okay, good.
	Tell me what opportunity exists for a person of Caucasian majority race that is not available to somebody who is a person of color, or any other minority, or any other marginalized community, for that matter.
	Tell me that.
	Because equal opportunity is all the Constitution guarantees us.
	That's all our founders wanted to give us, is equal opportunity.
	We have achieved that.
	Equity is something very, very different.
	Let's see here.
	We're going to go to... How about Columbus, Ohio?
	I'll stay in my home state here.
	Joe, you are on America First with Dr. G, but he's not here.
	It's good to have you.
	Go right ahead.
	Yes, I am.
	Yes, I'm here.
	No, no, no.
	I meant Dr. G is not here, my friend.
	Dr. G is not here.
	That was my introduction.
	Oh, okay.
	I've been waiting over an hour or so.
	Well, I'm glad we got you on the air, my friend.
	What's on your mind?
	I've been in Columbus longer, but I'm actually from East Cleveland, so.
	Anyway, uh.
	Okay, I'll just get right to the point.
	Um.
	I like I am Republican and my wife likes to see anything.
	That's great.
	But I'll tell you this.
	This is my Right from my heart.
	And I didn't even know why at first, but now I do.
	We've got to stop playing games.
	This is a war, and we are under judgment.
	We have a lot of questions.
	We need Trump.
	I said this to people.
	I like to say this.
	I wish he would work with Trump.
	I wish a lot of the Republicans would bond together the way the liberals do.
	They seem to understand that better.
	But the problem is, we can't have a regular Republican right now.
	We could if the times were good.
	But we are in dire trouble.
	I think we need to convince other conservatives, and the liberals want us to split, and we need to convince those middle-of-the-road people.
	They may even be Democrats that, say, in the 80s voted for Reagan.
	They don't want to broadcast it, but they know if they want jobs and they want prosperity, they might have to secretly vote Republican.
	I think we absolutely need Trump.
	I know you may not agree with me on that, but I think he comes up with things.
	A problem he has is he doesn't reach the regular media because, of course, they lie about him.
	But, I mean, he's coming up with things that are brilliant, that go beyond other conservatives.
	Okay, let me reply a little bit to you here because I've got a hard break coming up here at the top of the hour.
	By the way, Dr. G's interview that he did with President Trump was terrific.
	We're going to play a couple of clips of that coming up in the next segment, by the way.
	But as far as needing Trump, and whether or not Trump is the most electable, that's a question that is going to have to be answered by voters all over this country.
	Whether they need him, and he can be elected and give them what they need, those might be two different questions.
	We can discuss those and we'll do it after the top of the hour as we continue on America First.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Dr. G, thank you.
	Good to sit in with your massive audience.
	Here I am with an audience of three million people and once again I'm failing to promote myself.
	One time I've mentioned it in the entire two hours so far.
	I'm trying to rebuild my Twitter following.
	I had about 40,000 people just under before I quit Twitter almost three years ago.
	I came back when Elon Musk bought it.
	And I'm still forgetting to tell people about it.
	Three million people listening, most of them tweeters, or twitterers, or whatever you want to call yourself as a Twitter user, and I keep forgetting to tell you.
	Follow me on Twitter if you're so inclined to continue the conversation we're engaging with here on America First.
	Follow me at France Rants.
	F-R-A-N-T-Z.
	France.
	R-A-N-T-Z.
	France.
	Rance.
	Very easy.
	If it's still too difficult and you forget how to spell France, look for Always Right Radio.
	That's the name of my radio program in Cleveland.
	It airs from 9 to noon every day.
	Eastern Time.
	And you can listen to it all around the country, anywhere around the world, of course, through the magic of the web, which is WHKRadio.com.
	WHKRadio.com.
	And I would love to hear from you on my local program in Cleveland as well.
	I want to hit a couple of things here as we move into the third and final hour of America First today.
	I'll be back for Dr. G tomorrow, too, so we can definitely engage in this conversation then, too.
	I want to talk about crime for just two seconds here, because I played a clip, or actually, I don't know if I played that one yet, where Corrine Jean-Pierre says that Biden has walked the talk on fighting crime.
	I don't know if I want to hear her anymore, because I really can't stand that voice very much longer.
	We don't have to hear the voice of Lori Lightfoot any longer.
	I need to hit this because it happened on Tuesday, of course, when they had their primary for Mayor of Chicago and everybody likes to call her Beetlejuice.
	Aside from everything that there is to despise about Lori Lightfoot as a politician and as a leader of that city whose crime rate just spiked and soared and she had absolutely no regard for anything or anyone except for what was I talking about a few moments ago?
	Identity politics.
	She was so proud of Chicago, Illinois being a progressive city that they chose to elect a black, gay, female.
	Three of the marginalized communities in America.
	Black, gay, and female.
	And they elected, this progressive city elected her as mayor, and she was so proud of her progressive city.
	Now after watching her fumble and stumble and bumble and fail her way through a job for which she was wholly underqualified, they have voted her out.
	And now she says that Chicago is racist, homophobic, and misogynistic.
	The same city that chose her as a black gay female votes her out and now she says that they don't like blacks, they don't like gays, and they don't like women.
	How about that?
	She literally blamed, she didn't blame the crime rate, she blamed her race, her sex, or her sexuality, or her sexual identity, or orientation, or whatever the living hell she wants to call it, and her actual sex as a woman.
	That's what she did.
	This is what Democrats do.
	This is what the left is.
	It's all about identity politics.
	It is 100% about that.
	You must support us because we look different, or we think different, or we identify different, or something of that nature.
	And if you don't, you're a phobe, or you're an ist, or whatever.
	And even if you're the same people that voted for her the first time around because you didn't mind her being a gay black woman, If you vote against her the second time around, it's because now you don't like gay black women.
	It is just incomprehensible.
	The reality is crime is out of control.
	It's out of control in Chicago.
	It's out of control in New York.
	It's out of control in San Francisco.
	It's out of control in Portland.
	It's out of control in Los Angeles.
	It's out of control in Oakland.
	It's out of control in Philadelphia.
	And we have to go on to all of the largest major urban centers in this country.
	It's out of control because of the same mindset.
	I cover this stuff on a TV show that I host.
	I do a streaming TV show.
	If you have not yet checked out the True Blue factual streaming network, and by the way, True Blue is without E's.
	It's T-R-U-B-L-U.
	No E's.
	T-R-U-B-L-U.
	I host a program there called True Blue Today in which we talk about police issues, law enforcement issues, criminal justice system issues.
	We talk about good cops.
	We talk about bad cops.
	We talk about good laws.
	We talk about bad laws.
	We talk about good case results.
	We talk about bad ones.
	It's all over.
	It's all over.
	And we're going to do a feature in a segment or two or ten on Lori Lightfoot and people who are in charge of cities that have gone completely woke, that are so left-wing they don't give a rat's rip about victims.
	All they care about is making sure that the equity in the criminal justice system lines up that we have just as many black people in the jails as we have white people or technically just as many white people as we do black people just as many black people being charged as white people being convicted uh... again no bail all of this stuff has to be equitable for them to be happy and what it's leading to is more victims
	And the surprise, it should not be a surprise, and that is that the FBI crime stats show overwhelmingly, and the new ones are out by the way, they came out in October, so it's been a few months, for 2021, the most recent year for which they've been compiled in full, and the overwhelming number of victims of crime are within the same racial group.
	The overwhelming number of white victims have been perpetrated, or the perpetrators, they've been victimized by white perpetrators.
	Same thing in the black race.
	The overwhelming number of victims of black perpetrators are black victims.
	And the reality of the situation is there are just far more of them.
	Far more of them than there are in the white communities.
	And yet these leftists, in the interest of equity when it comes to criminals, completely ignore the victims who suffer at their hands.
	So, Lori Lightfoot, nice to see you.
	Good to know you.
	Don't let the door hit you because they booted you from Chicago and it has nothing to do with your race nor the type of person you like to sleep with.
	I don't think anybody cares.
	Let's go to Glenn in Arizona.
	Glenn, you are on the America First with Dr. Sebastian Gorka.
	Bob Franz sitting in for the good doctor.
	Go right ahead.
	I told the call screener about the equity position situation, so I want to get your take.
	The mayor of L.A.
	just recently said that she's going to weed out right-wing extremists from the department.
	The only reason I ask you this is I know you're a really sturgent supporter of the police.
	So when this starts to happen, and they start weeding out these right-wing extremists, Uh, two questions for you.
	Who would they replace them with?
	And the second question for you, are you going to still be supporting the police as an entity knowing that this is going to happen?
	Well, first of all, thank you for the call.
	I appreciate that, first and foremost.
	Second of all, I don't know why anybody would stop supporting the police because a left-wing mayor says she is going to try to root out white-wing extremism out of the police force.
	I don't think there is right-wing extremism in the police force.
	I did a commentary on this, literally, for the new episode of True Blue Today that dropped yesterday.
	I did a full commentary on Karen Bass, the mayor of L.A., and it was a two-part, actually, because one announcement that she made was that they were going to try to root out white right-wing extremists from the police ranks.
	The other one was that they were going to lower the standards to hire more minorities in the police department in L.A., which of course is a recipe for disaster.
	There may be some places where lowering the standards, otherwise known as affirmative action, is a positive thing, otherwise known as D.I.E., is a positive thing.
	You don't mess around and hire less qualified individuals to have jobs in which life and death are on the line.
	And in policing, yes, life and death decisions have to be made.
	Unfortunately, far too often in this ever-growing violent society, you don't put lesser qualified people in there.
	I don't care if they're green.
	You don't put them in those uniforms, give them those badges, if they are less qualified mentally or physically or both or emotionally or temperamentally or reasonably or whatever their situation is, because it puts people in danger.
	The other thing that she said about the right-wing extremism in the police ranks, I stand behind the police union leader out there in LA who responded to that by saying, I don't think we should have extremists in our uniforms either.
	Right-wing extremists?
	Left-wing extremists, domestic extremists, or foreign extremists?
	He said, why would she narrow it down to one level that right-wing extremism is a threat or a problem in the police force?
	Because it's not.
	If you're an extremist in any ideology, or whether you're domestic or foreign, it doesn't matter.
	You shouldn't have the uniform or a badge.
	He's right, she's not.
	Listen to my whole rant on this, if you wish, on the latest episode of True Blue today.
	And like I said, just go to WatchTrueBlue.com and you can subscribe and pick these up.
	Watch True Blue with no E's.
	T-R-U-B-L-U dot com.
	And you'll see what I'm talking about.
	I do this every day on TV.
	This is who next?
	This is Mike calling from Detroit.
	Hey Mike, you're on America First with Dr. G, but Bob Frantz sitting in.
	Go ahead, sir.
	Oh yeah, yeah.
	One thing that really struck me when I was listening to Mayorkas and Merrick Garland and Ray, you know, when they were asked about the FBI Gestapo tactics, mass incarceration, Solemnist, January 6th show trial, it just struck me because I was raised by the World War II generation.
	And, you know, when you watched—I was fascinated by the Nuremberg trials, and the vast majority of the original defendants were deep state bureaucrats of the Nazi state.
	They took no responsibility.
	They were masters at the art of deception, and they were just following orders.
	They took no responsibility for anything.
	And I'm just wondering, what path are we going down here?
	You know, who are these people?
	Well, I'll tell you what, Mike, I appreciate the call.
	I've got to go here and get this hard break, but I appreciate the question.
	And the question is, can we trust our government to answer the question you just asked about who these people are?
	And I don't trust our Department of Justice one iota.
	We'll be back.
	Now, let's get back to the show with Bob France.
	Yes, indeed.
	Twenty minutes past the hour, we're going to talk to a good friend and a great analyst of something very, very important in a moment.
	But first, I want to remind you something you already know.
	In this economy, you need to make every dollar count, right?
	Especially, you need to protect your retirement funds, but huge firms like BlackRock and others who control trillions and retirement assets are risking your financial future, playing woke politics with your funds.
	They're using the progressive system called ESG to do it and doing so without your consent.
	They're pulling investments from solid companies to advance their social causes, one of which is climate activism.
	Just recently, every Republican senator and Democrat senator, Joe Manchin combined from West Virginia, who said ESG puts our entire company in jeopardy, introduced a bill that would prevent ESG from overtaking profits as the leading consideration on how your retirement savings should be invested.
	Makes perfect sense, right?
	Many state leaders are fighting back, too, telling firms like BlackRock to stop playing politics with our pensions.
	So to protect your savings, in 2022 alone, state treasurers divested $5 billion from BlackRock.
	To learn more how to fight back against woke investment firms, go to consumersresearch.org.
	They've been protecting consumers from fraud and abuse for decades.
	Go to ConsumersResearch.org.
	Learn about their mission to protect you from woke investment firms like BlackRock.
	That's ConsumersResearch.org.
	Portions of America First are brought to you in part by Consumers Research.
	To talk about what is happening in states all across this country in the wake of the Roe v. Wade overturn by way of the Dobbs decision last summer.
	Obviously, everybody who thought that the repeal of Roe v. Wade meant an end to legal abortion in the country, it does not.
	It just simply means it's up to the states.
	Well, there are a lot of radicals in a lot of states.
	One of which is New York, one of which is the one I reside in right now, and that's Ohio, where they are in the process of putting forth amendments to codify the most extreme and radical of abortions you can even imagine into the Constitution by way of constitutional amendment.
	And that means all the way through nine months with no exceptions and no apologies and no explanations or anything else given.
	Well, joining me now is Rob Walgate.
	Rob Walgate is the Vice President of the American Policy Roundtable and also the Ohio Roundtable, and he is following this very, very closely and obviously is very, very concerned about the left-wing death cults that, quite frankly, that's what they are, that are pushing these and trying to get an amendment passed here in the state of Ohio the way they have in other states.
	Robert, it's good to talk to you.
	How are you, my friend?
	Hey, thanks for having me, Bob.
	Rob, tell me first about what you know about the Ohio Amendment and why it is that come November, there's a very good chance that pro-death, and by the way, for people who don't know why I call it pro-death, I looked it up in a thesaurus.
	You know what the opposite, the antonym for the word life is?
	Yeah, spoiler alert, it's death.
	So if the opposite of pro-life would then be pro-death.
	So the pro-death cults are obviously going to put this radical abortion amendment to the Constitution on the ballot in November.
	And Robert, what is your understanding of what it does?
	Well, the unfortunate part is they're playing politics with the issue of life.
	And they're telling people they're attempting to do it in 2023.
	And actually, their language was certified by the Attorney General today in the state of Ohio, just as being forthright in telling what they're going to do.
	And it authorizes them to begin the signature gathering process.
	They're going to have to get 400 and some odd thousand Valid signatures to get on the ballot.
	The name of their amendment is the right to reproductive freedom with protections for health and safety.
	Now, we all know that's about as misleading as you can be, because when you read the language, and obviously that's what matters when you're talking about a constitutional amendment, the language matters.
	And in it, they try and throw you some curveballs, if you will, unfortunately, Bob.
	They talked about abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability.
	But, big word obviously, but in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's, pregnant patient, not woman, not pregnant woman, right, pregnant patient's treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient's life or health.
	And of course they don't define health, so that could be any type of health.
	Mental health, maybe a scar, whatever the treating physician wants it to be.
	And this is being put on the ballot by a couple groups.
	The groups came together, they had disagreements behind the scenes, but it's a group of radical abortion doctors, and then it's also Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and others.
	They got together to do this to drive voter turnout.
	And for the purpose of what?
	Voter turnout in order to win other elections that are on the ballot in November?
	Yes.
	Well, in 2023 is what they say they're going to do in the state of Ohio.
	However, they are facing some intense deadlines to get those signatures done, and the signatures don't expire.
	So they would then just say they'll push it to 2024.
	We have a very important Senate race in the state of Ohio in 2024.
	Some people may be saying, Rob, Bob, what are you guys worried about?
	Ohio's a red state.
	Let me tell you something.
	As long as Sherrod Brown is representing the state of Ohio in the United States Senate, I'm not sure how Ohio can call itself a red state.
	and he will be up for reelection in 2024. - Rob, do you think that the reason why this is such a potential disaster is because what we have in the state of Ohio is two very, very different extremist kind of views.
	Now, don't get me wrong.
	I don't think it's extreme to recognize that life begins at conception, but to some that's the opposite extreme of abortion up until literally seconds before birth.
	Or maybe even after birth in some cases, or in the survival of a baby, of an abortive procedure.
	The baby survives, they can decide, you know, it's sitting there breathing and living and whether or not they give it life-saving treatment or are they allowed to die.
	Those are considered to be the two ends of the spectrum.
	Extremists, if you will.
	Is that the problem here?
	Because that's what's going to drive the overwhelming number, and all they need is 50% plus one, of the pro-death side to win this thing.
	Is the problem that it's extremists on both sides, and nobody is offering that middle ground?
	Nobody is offering that, hey, let's talk 15 weeks maybe, after a baby is pain-capable, and those kind of things.
	Is that what needs to happen?
	Does there have to be a center?
	Well, the Ohio General Assembly passed a law that deals with the heartbeat and viability when you detect a heartbeat in being six weeks total in the courts right now.
	There was an injunction put on it, so that's going to go through the process.
	I think the problem becomes is, you know, the far left will play on emotion, and they're going to give the emotional story, the one-offs, if you will, continually, time after time after time.
	And you can't sit down and have a conversation because I think if you went, and I'm not saying to do this, and I'm not saying to make that compromise, but many times if you sat down, I've had this conversation with people, and I say, okay, what if we say rape, incest, life of the mother, abortions can still happen?
	Again, I'm not saying to do that, but I'm just saying for the conversation's sake.
	They immediately say, well, well, well, we don't think so.
	Those emotions that they play on, that's not really what they're going for.
	When you read the language, they want it available all nine months of pregnancy.
	It's clear in the language, and if they didn't, they would change the language, and they're trying to make it constitutional.
	However, they're very misleading in how they name things.
	And how they want to come across to the public to get that vote, to get it put in the Constitution.
	And they have no chance of getting this put on the ballot through the Ohio General Assembly because lawmakers there see them for what they are and they understand it.
	Yeah, and what you said in the earlier remarks is exactly right.
	If in the judgment of the physician, the health of the mother is in danger, and that could just mean, I'm stressed.
	My mental health is now at issue.
	I really can't have this baby after all.
	So go ahead and kill it inside of me before I deliver it naturally, even if it literally is at the ninth month and in that moment of birth.
	So Rob Baldgate, stay right there.
	there.
	We're going to talk to you some more because we're going to talk about more dangerous language in these amendments coming up as we continue on America First.
	you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm Seb Gorka now let's get back to the show with Bob France you Thank you, Dr. G. It's 33 minutes past the hour, 27 minutes before the next one.
	Thanks for being with us.
	We'll get back to Rob Walgate in a second here, but a lot of the callers today have been asking about or commenting about the presidential primaries that are on the way and who's going to be what and whether or not President Trump is on the right track and so forth.
	President Trump did a tremendous interview with Dr. G. a couple of days ago.
	It was phenomenal.
	Was that yesterday?
	No.
	Now I've lost my days.
	Tuesday.
	It was Tuesday.
	And it was terrific.
	If you missed Dr. G's interview with President Trump, you should hear the entire thing.
	But in the meantime, I'll give you a little portion of it, because I think this is one of the most important issues that President Trump is going to be the strongest on, and that is foreign affairs and issues like the Ukraine war.
	Let's hear cut three.
	If you're back in office for 2024, your expectations for how the war in Ukraine would develop?
	Would Putin start behaving himself if you were back in the position of Commander-in-Chief?
	I would have that war ended within 24 hours.
	That war would end within 24 hours.
	That war would never have started and it could be now as bad as it is.
	And you can imagine how it'll be if it continues to go.
	It's just a horrible thing in terms of Humanity, in terms of life, it's a horrible thing, and it must stop.
	And, you know, Ukraine is being just decimated.
	These people are talking about Ukraine.
	Ukraine is being decimated.
	These are cities that don't even exist anymore.
	They're being hit by missile after missile after missile, and they have to stop.
	And we can stop it immediately.
	I think one of President Trump's strongest points, honestly, if anybody in the world could drag Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky and Xi Jinping, which is going to be a player in this, into the same room and end this right now and have that summit, it would be Donald Trump.
	That, I believe, fully.
	And that's just part of the interview that Dr. G had.
	You can hear the whole thing on his YouTube channel.
	Dr. G is back on YouTube again, and that interview with President Trump is on YouTube on Dr. Gorka's channel.
	Check it out for yourself.
	I want to get back to Rob Walgate now, because Rob...
	You and I were talking about some of the constitutional amendment language in Ohio, the one that's coming up here, that they're going to try to either push through into this November or maybe push it to 2024 for the purposes, as you said, of driving up voter turnout.
	But in New York City, or not New York City, in New York State, They had this language ready to go last summer, almost immediately after the Dobbs decision, and this became a state's issue, and Roe was repealed.
	This was ready to go, and apparently, according to what you've told me, this is going to be on the ballot this year in New York State.
	2024.
	Oh, that one is also, they're going to do the same thing.
	Okay, they're going to try to drive voter turnout.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate the correction.
	I want to talk about not just the abortion aspect of this, but what you have theorized they could also do because of the malleable language they have in this.
	I'm going to read it very briefly.
	No person shall be denied equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof.
	No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed or religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy,
	Be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or any firm corporation or institution or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state pursuant to law.
	That's it.
	Now, Rob, you said something to me when we were chatting earlier that is very, very important here that has nothing to do with abortion, really, but the language and the way they worded it, the moldable language that they used here could lead to some other very, very important outcomes that people are not considering if they think they're just voting on an amendment to codify abortion into the Constitution.
	What is it that you see here?
	Well, sure thing.
	First, let me apologize for interrupting you and jumping in.
	Rachel Walgate would be telling me now, hey, don't be interrupting people.
	No, that's not an interruption.
	That's a correction.
	You corrected me, and I needed to be corrected there because I was wrong, so I appreciate that.
	No.
	Sorry about that, but to the language, and this passed overwhelmingly in the New York legislature to get it on the ballot for the people to vote for.
	As you read, you know, it's about so much more than abortion or reproductive health care, as they like to term it.
	It talks about age and discrimination when it comes to rights and when it deals with age.
	They talk about gender identity, gender expression.
	The far left thinks today that 10, 11, 12 year olds, even younger, can choose their gender, their sexuality.
	If they can choose their gender, their sexuality, you can't discriminate against them.
	And now they're saying, putting in their age with no barriers for minors.
	I'm saying that constitutional amendment, when looked at on its face, people are going to say, well, that's going to give minors the opportunity to make their choice about whether or not they want to participate in sexual activity and who they want to participate with.
	Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
	What you're saying right now, Rob Walgate, is a mouthful, and we are very short on time here, so I'm going to ask you to be patient and hold with me for one more short segment after this time out, because what you're saying right now deserves its own slot and its own attention.
	We'll continue right after this.
	We'll continue right after this.
	We'll continue right after this.
	We'll continue right after this.
	We'll continue right after this.
	We'll continue right after this.
	We'll continue right after this.
	We'll continue right after this.
	We'll continue right after this.
	We'll continue right after this.
	I'm Seb Gawker.
	Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
	And if you are online on Twitter, I'm trying to remember to promote myself.
	I just don't do this very often.
	I don't do social media great, to be 100% honest with you, but find me on Twitter at France Rantz, F-R-A-N-T-Z, R-A-N-T-Z.
	I had 40,000 followers before I quit, and now I'm trying to rebuild, and I'm just over 5,000 followers.
	Help me!
	This is an audience of 3 million!
	I ought to be able to fix that in about a half an hour.
	Let's go ahead and find me there, and we'll continue the conversation on Twitter.
	France Rantz.
	F-R-A-N-T-Z.
	R-A-N-T-Z.
	Before we continue our conversation with Rob Walgate, a reminder that Seb and the entire team at Team Gorka Continue the spring campaign for the Christian non-profit relief organization, Food for the Poor, feeding the poorest of the poor right here in the Western Hemisphere, particularly in the Caribbean and Central America.
	You know, we've all probably, of course, when I say, I said it today, as a man, I'm really starving.
	If you skip breakfast or you're a little late for lunch, you say, I'm starving.
	You don't know what starving is.
	None of us do really.
	In El Salvador, our friends at Food for the Poor encountered a young couple that knows what starving is.
	They were so hungry, they were literally eating leaves off of trees for their dinner.
	Right now they are on the mountain trying to pick up some leaves to eat or the banana and when they come back they usually go to the other homes asking for beans or tortillas in order to have something to eat at night.
	So if we can help this, please do it.
	Yeah, instead of eating leaves, how about we make it possible for the children in these families to have good nutritious food for an entire year?
	On the website SebGorka.com, you can click on the Give Food, Give Life banner and make a donation.
	Or you can phone in a gift of any amount to 855-330-4673.
	That spells HOPE.
	855-330-HOPE.
	850-4673.
	That spells hope.
	855-330-HOPE.
	Just $72 provides two nutritious meals daily for two children for an entire year.
	Or 144 gives the same blessing to four starving kids for a whole year.
	You can also text the keyword Gorka to 91999, and we'll send you a direct link to make a generous gift.
	More than 1 billion children are living in poverty.
	You could be the answer to their prayers today.
	Go to SebGorka.com.
	Click on the Give Food, Give Life banner or phone your gift in to 855-330-4673.
	Thank you so much for your generosity and your consideration on that.
	.
	Rob Baldgate is the vice president of the American Policy Roundtable, and we're talking about constitutional amendments being put on the ballot in referendums in states around the country related to abortion.
	And Rob, you just said something before the break that was a mouthful.
	We were talking about language that promotes and codifies abortion in state constitutions like the one in New York, and you went from abortion rights to What is this?
	Children being allowed to consent for sexual activity?
	What are you talking about here?
	Where are you making that leap?
	Well, I'm just reading the actual language that they're putting forward to put in the New York Constitution, and they say it's an abortion amendment.
	However, when you read it, it talks about age.
	It talks about gender identity, gender expression.
	I think this would be the law that the LBGTQ – I don't know if that's the accurate acronym or not, but I know it's a mouthful.
	This would be the one they would want because it talks about sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, all of those things.
	So if you have 8, 9, 10 year olds, whatever age they want, you can't discriminate by age against their rights.
	So that would mean they would be able to get any of the treatment they want.
	They would be able to do anything they want, suppress hormones.
	It would be illegal not to.
	But then, if they're old enough to make that, then how come they wouldn't be old enough Because you can't discriminate on age to make the decision on who they want to have sexual activity with.
	I mean, some people are probably wrecking their car saying, wait a minute, you're far-reaching.
	Am I?
	Look at what we've come to over the last 15 or 20 years, and when I read this law, I don't see anything that's put in there to protect the minors when it comes to that.
	It sounds far-reaching, but you're right.
	20 years ago, there are probably a dozen or more things you could say 20 years ago, we'll never see that happen.
	Or no, the slippery slope isn't that slippery, we're going to go that far.
	We hear this kind of thing, we think about this kind of thing, it'll never happen and then they happen.
	And what you just said, Rob, is in the language.
	No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, is right in the middle of a whole list of things, different criteria, that shall not be discriminated against.
	And that means if someone is in age of 10 and wants to be able to consent to sexual activity with an adult, this law would say he has to be allowed to do that, otherwise you're discriminating.
	This is a pedophile's dream.
	This is a pedophile constitutional amendment's dream.
	If you really want to take it to the extreme, and that's exactly what we've seen, as you say, for the last 20 years, we've been doing, is going to the extreme.
	And I think it's going to go even further in the sense that when you read it, civil rights by any other person or by any firm.
	Also, this is where rights are going to clash, because your First Amendment right is going to clash with this, where they're going to claim they have constitutional rights in the state of New York.
	I mean, we've seen what happened.
	You mentioned Mark Halk earlier.
	We can take a look at what happened in Europe, where people were arrested because of a bumper sticker.
	I mean, this is not going away.
	This language, this is bad language for the state of New York.
	And it's similar language in the state of Ohio, it's similar language in the state of Minnesota, and it's similar language in the state of California and so many of these others.
	And again, they are.
	They're using the abortion issue and the constitutional amendments that they're putting forth to make sure that they have language that is It's just ambiguous enough to say we're going to advance a whole bunch of our other pet projects and our other causes as well.
	And one of them would indeed be the LGBTQ dream.
	And yes, and that's not to say everybody in LGBTQ is pedophile, not by any stretch of the imagination.
	But it would be the dream of maps, you know, because, you know, that's the other thing they're doing is softening the language of pedophiles.
	It has all those words in there.
	Everyone can say, well, they did this because of, you know, they're going to use the term reproductive health.
	talks a minor into doing things with them, that minor should be allowed to do so without any crime taking place.
	Otherwise, you'd be discriminating based on age, according to this language.
	I read it.
	It has all those words in there.
	Everyone can say, well, they did this because of, you know, they're going to use the term reproductive health.
	I'm going to talk about it being abortion.
	If that was the case, why wouldn't they make the language simple and forthright?
	Why would they add so many other words?
	And also, in adding all those words, Bob, the vagueness of it.
	Listen, we've seen what lawyers can argue over.
	And in the state of New York, It's going to be up to the prosecutor in some instances on who wants to be prosecuted.
	And we've seen what type of people are prosecuted and what type of people are given a pass.
	Yeah, we've been talking about that too, about these DAs and making decisions, you know, based on a lot of times political ideology.
	Rob Walgate, Vice President of the American Policy Roundtable.
	Make sure that you check that group out.
	They do tremendous work.
	Rob, thanks for shining a spotlight on this.
	I really do appreciate it.
	Terrific analysis.
	We'll talk again soon.
	We'll talk again soon.
	We'll talk again soon.
	We'll talk again soon.
	We'll talk again soon.
	We'll talk again soon.
	We'll talk again soon.
	We'll talk again soon.
	Now let's get back to the show with Bob France.
	Yeah, final segment of America First Forward today.
	I'm coming back tomorrow.
	Dr. G's, of course, got the CPAC thing again, and I'm going to be in again tomorrow.
	We're going to talk a lot more about his interview that he did with Donald Trump on Tuesday.
	Because, first of all, that interview, if you missed it, you can see it, hear it, watch it, enjoy it.
	Appreciate it.
	On Dr. G's YouTube channel, which is back now.
	Find Dr. Gorka's YouTube channel, and of course you're going to enjoy that.
	But I want to give you just another small taste of that conversation that he had, because this is a big deal.
	When you're talking about somebody who is clearly as mentally and cognitively in decline as Joe Biden, I can see why President Trump would answer this question from Dr. G the way he did.
	Cut four.
	I would like to see anybody that runs for president take a test.
	I took it.
	I took a very strong, I think the real deal test, and I got it 100 percent.
	Dr. Ronny Jackson, at the time he was the White House physician, and I didn't even know him well.
	He's a fantastic guy, by the way, now a congressman.
	He was an admiral, and they gave me the test at Walter Reed, the medical center, which is fantastic, by the way, and as he will tell you, I aced it.
	It's, you know, those questions start getting hard toward the end.
	They will ask some questions, from 30 to 35 questions, and when you get down to the end, those questions, there aren't a lot of people going to get them right.
	You don't have to get them all right, but I did ace it, and I was happy about that.
	Yeah, and if you're going to draw a distinction between President Trump and President Biden, on that level alone, it should be just such an obvious answer to the question.
	I mean, Joe Biden, I don't think Joe Biden could answer a Bazooka Joe comic correctly.
	I mean, he's that far gone, and I think every day that he speaks to it, every day he speaks, he kind of underscores that.
	President Trump may be a lot of things, too.
	And President Trump is not a young spring chicken anymore either.
	He's going to be, what is he, 78 now?
	So he would be pushing up on 80 again.
	So President Trump is not a young man either, but if you listen to the two of them, the one thing you cannot say anything about President Trump has anything to do with his cognitive ability.
	You can talk about personality, you can talk about name-calling, you can talk about drama, you can talk about all of those things, baggage.
	Don't question his mental acuity because it is sharp as anybody I've ever seen of his age.
	That's the other thing that the left can't stand is that he campaigned and he governed Like a man half his age, like he was in his 40s.
	Like an Energizer bunny.
	It's like just non-stop.
	I always said I thought President Trump was a cyborg.
	Physically and mentally, don't let his age be a factor.
	Joe Biden's age is a factor.
	Now you want to talk about President Trump compared to some of the other people in the pool who are going to be in that primary pool, obviously much younger, fine.
	But if you look at President Trump and Joe Biden, they could not be more different.
	That was a great interview.
	That Dr. G had with President Trump.
	And like I said, you can see it on his YouTube channel now.
	My name is Bob France.
	Pleasure to be with you.
	Thanks for having me in today.
	I'll be back in tomorrow here on America First.
	We'll have some great conversation.
	We'll see you then.
	Be well, be safe, stay free.
	See you next time.

▲