Andrew Klavan and Megyn Kelly dissect the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision as a moral victory, overturning Roe v. Wade after Klavan’s shift from pro-choice to anti-abortion, framing it as a fight against dehumanization akin to slavery or anti-Semitism while mocking Democratic hypocrisy—like Hillary Clinton’s focus on abortion over 51 migrant deaths in a sealed truck at 101°F. They slam January 6th hearings as biased "show trials," questioning why the Secret Service hasn’t testified, and debate Trump’s resilience amid fallout, calling him the only Republican who could unite—or divide—the base. The episode also skewers Joy Behar for falsely equating Coach Saban’s prayer with Kaepernick’s protest, dismissing it as legal illiteracy, before pivoting to border chaos, where they accuse Democrats of exploiting crises while Republicans fail to act, warning unchecked immigration fuels trafficking and erodes national identity. [Automatically generated summary]
Joining me now, Andrew Clavin, host of the Andrew Clavin Show for the Daily Wire.
Andrew's also a best-selling author.
And his most recent book, which is amazing, is titled The Truth and Beauty, How the Lives and Works of England's Greatest Poets Point the Way to a Deeper Understanding of the Words of Jesus.
Thank you so much for being with us again today, Andrew.
Great to have you.
It's great to see you, Megan.
I love that opening.
Remind me never to get cross-examined by you on the stand.
I think you pointed to exactly what the problem with these hearings is.
It's the lack of any kind of cross-examination, any kind of fact-finder of truth, any objectivity.
And what's so distressing about it is the way the press, even some of the right-wing press, like the Wall Street Journal and some of the people on Fox News, are using the term, well, yes, it's a show trial, but there is no but.
There is no but after that sentence.
It's a show trial.
And you're absolutely right about Trump, and you're absolutely right about January 6th.
It reminds us all that Trump.
Trump is a tragic character because the very belligerence and narcissism that gave him the power to fight back against the press and the deep state and the Democrat machine made him just a rude and abusive person who the voters ultimately rejected because of that.
And it's sad to remember that, but on January 6th, he put these weapons in the hands of his enemies, and they're using them, but they're using them incompetently because they're just so hungry to destroy him.
That's right.
These are points Ron DeSantis can raise if he's fighting against Trump for the primary or whoever the Democrat, I don't know if it's going to be Biden, is if they wind up running against Trump in the general.
These are points for them to raise.
Totally fair points.
You can spin.
You can get political.
You can hold no to account for all this.
But what offends me as a lawyer and as a citizen is this committee trying to pretend that it's some objective finder of fact because they have two never Trumpers who hate Trump even more than the Democrats on the committee doing their bidding so they can call it bipartisan and not a single Trump defender.
So this woman would have benefited from some cross-examination.
Maybe she would have done fine.
Maybe she would have said, I'm sorry, that's a verbal tick to the effect of, I always do that.
No, these were the actual words.
Thank you for making me clarify.
Or maybe she could have responded to, no, there's no sour grapes.
I never did apply to go with Trump to Florida.
That's a lie.
And, you know, I didn't want to continue.
Whatever.
Well, we won't know because of the way this committee handles itself.
And where is their moral standpoint?
They're accusing him of an insurrection at the same time.
They're calling the Supreme Court illegitimate, telling people to take to the streets because duly appointed justices have made a decision that they don't like.
They coddled the rioters after George Floyd's death, encouraged them, not just coddled them, they encouraged them.
25 people died, billions of dollars worth of damage done by violence.
And they kept telling us, the news kept telling us it was mostly peaceful.
And now they're basically claiming that this act of idiocy on January 6th, and there's just no other way to characterize it.
It's a total act of stupidity, is somehow the worst thing since the Civil War.
It reminds me of like the Reichstag fire, you know, where somebody actually did set the Reichstag on fire, but Hitler used that to close down the government, to close down people's freedoms.
I'm not comparing them to the Nazis, just the strategy of taking this essentially minor but horrific incident and turning it into a second revolution.
It just wasn't.
It just wasn't that.
And this poor woman, I agree with you.
I feel for her.
She's 25 now, which means during the time she's describing she was 23 or 24, the press keeps calling her a top aide.
It's hard for me to believe that a 23-year-old who's essentially just out of college would be a top aide.
It's hard for me to believe that she was privy to too much of what was going on.
And as you pointed out, almost everything she said was hearsay, and nobody said anything about it.
My question now, because there were reports, for instance, that the Secret Service wants to deny the absolutely absurd story of Trump in the car.
You know, are they going to let Secret Service testify?
Is that even going to make it onto the air?
And if it doesn't, what does that mean about all the journalists saying it's a show trial?
But if they can't even come in and say this story is absolutely untrue, I'm the driver.
I'm the guy.
It didn't happen.
If they can't do that, what's the point of her testimony at all?
You're exactly right.
There's a reason in a courtroom you don't allow hearsay.
It's considered unreliable.
If I want to report to you what my neighbor said, they don't want me to be able to do that.
They want me to have to put the neighbor on.
They want to hear from the neighbor, to hear exactly what the neighbor said.
And the more, it's like the game of telephone, the more links you have between the actual speaker of the conversation and the person sitting on the witness stand, the less reliable it is.
And you could hear that in her testimonial about like, okay, so the beast driver is the one having the confrontation with Trump, allegedly attacked by him as he's driving the car.
Trump's leaning.
I don't even know if you can reach the steering wheel when you're the president in the back of the beat.
I'm going to imagine there's a divider, but I have no idea.
So that guy experienced that and he talks to the head of security, who's apparently also in the car.
And then they go back to the White House and then the head of security relays something about what the driver experienced to this aide.
And now she's trying to remember something to the effect of something, come on.
In a court of law, they would not allow.
And I realize she also testified the driver was sitting there while this was being relayed and didn't stand up and say, none of that is true.
But now they are reportedly saying this isn't true.
Richard Engel of NBC News is reporting, I think, was it Richard Engel?
No, not Engel.
Peter Alexander, sorry, the White House correspondent, is reporting that they're prepared to say this wasn't true, the bit about him confronting, reaching for the steering wheel and actually physically attacking anybody in the beast.
And one of those guys, Engel, the head of security, was interviewed by this committee already.
So either Liz Cheney already knows that this guy is in dispute with this witness and put her on anyway without asking her about the dispute, which is a massive problem for Liz Cheney if it happened.
Or Liz Cheney interviewed Engel and got a story that perfectly lines up with what Hutchinson testified to.
And now this guy's flipped and she's got to bring him back before the committee to find out why he's flipping.
Is he flipping?
Does he want to disavow his earlier private testimony that we haven't been subjected to?
Or she didn't ask him, right?
Or she didn't ask him, which is another problem for her.
Either way, it's not good.
And they haven't made his earlier testimony public because this committee hides half of what it does, more from the rest of us.
They do this private investigation.
And at the end, we all know what happens.
Trump gets condemned.
Trump in their perfect world gets convicted by a DOJ investigation, which very clearly seems to be underway.
They're investigating Trump for crimes associated with this.
And a compliant media will push the narrative just as much as the Democrats want them to.
You know, you know what's kind of funny about it, too, is if you step back for a minute and you think, what if everything they say happened?
What if it's just as bad as they say it is and all their assertions turn out to be true?
Then in that case, Mike Pence saved the country.
If that's true, then Mike Pence, as I actually believe in some sense he did, I think Mike Pence acted with tremendous courage and integrity.
And Mike Pence is everything the Democrats hate.
They did nothing for four years but make fun of his, you know, of his fidelity to his wife, of his Christian faith.
They lied about his feelings toward gay people and his actions toward gay people.
They just made him sound like a dunce and a clown.
And all those values that they hate with every fiber of their being saved the country under their own scenario.
In fact, not just Mike Pence, but every time Trump tried to pressure a functionary to do something wrong and that functionary stood up against him, it was because he was a Christian.
It was because he was quoting the Bible in his own mind and saying, you know, my service to God means I have to defy the president of the United States.
So all the values that the Democrats have worked and slaved to destroy in this country are what saved the country under their own story, under the story that they're trying to tell.
The heroes turn out to be all the people they hate.
So I don't really think, you know, with inflation being what it is, with the border being open, with so many things going wrong, the pandemic still as bad as ever, really, I don't think this is going to help the Democrats at all.
I think this was actually a misguided attempt, even with the press making those claims, well, it's a show trial, but I think ultimately people just could not care less about what happened, which what now is in our history is so long ago.
Now there are some reports that Trump is getting ready to announce that he's running in 2024 as soon as this holiday weekend.
I don't know whether that's true, unconfirmed reports.
If he does it, it'll clearly be a middle finger to this January 6th committee, which sounds Trump-like.
But what do you make of that?
I mean, this will be an albatross around his neck if he decides to run again.
And if the Republicans don't let him have it in the primary process, then he's definitely going to get it in the general.
But I can't imagine a Republican challenger wouldn't touch the January 6th stock because these primaries are slugfests.
Does anybody remember what Chris Christie did to Marco Rubio last time around?
I mean, two times ago?
It's just, it's brutal.
So what do you make of it?
I mean, do you think Trump will run again?
And do you want him to?
Well, I don't want him to.
I think he's probably the only person who could lose to the Democrats at this point.
I am hearing from his close friends and people who, you know, know him well and speak to him all the time that he is 100% running, that nothing in this world can stop him from trying to overturn this blow to his ego that was this loss.
And I believe him.
I believe that there's still some time before he has to decide.
So maybe he'll turn back.
What I really feel is that Trump, Trump in his way, was a godsend.
Trump was the exact right person to stand up to what has become a machine of lies, which is not just the Democrat Party, but it's also the deep state and their media, which is almost all the media.
And it took a bowling ball like Trump, a guy who just doesn't care what people think of him, what he says, what comes out of his mouth, to really put a dent in that machine.
And I think he was truly just sent by heaven to bring this country, to open up this country again.
But all the things, as I said before, all the things that gave him the power to do that also made him an unviable candidate.
And I think if he were a different man, a better man, he would now step aside and name DeSantis or someone like him as his replacement and say, this is my legacy.
I paved the way for this.
And now let a younger man and a more statesmanlike man do what has to be done.
And I think that that would be a beautiful thing, but I am being told and told again that he is 110% running.
And I think he is the one person who could lose.
Yeah, I know.
I mean, the polls show that he wouldn't lose, but who knows?
He's just such a divisive figure.
And though you know DeSantis and I know DeSantis and the name very well, the country doesn't know that name as well.
And Trump's got those loyal, loyal, loyal supporters.
And one of the things that one of the dynamics that emerged to me in the wake of her testimony yesterday was his supporters, there won't be one thing in there that they dislike.
And to the contrary, they'll love all of it.
You know, that he was like, let them in.
I don't care if they have weapons.
They're not going to hurt me.
And the fact that he tried to live up to his promise to them to go to the Capitol with them.
So we've heard some of the supporters say, I don't understand why he didn't come.
He said he'd come and we went there for him.
Why didn't he go?
Now they have their answer.
He tried, according to her.
He almost punched out a Secret Service agent in order to get the beast to take him there instead of 1600.
So, you know, who does this rattle support with?
Nobody.
I think his core base is still there.
And the nomination, I still think, is his for the taking with because there's just nobody who could garner 30% of the GOP in the way he can, you know, and that's that's what it's about in the primary process.
All right.
Now, I want to shift gears and talk about this because Trump had a great week prior to this yesterday.
I wonder if the things are related.
But he had a great week with Roe versus Wade and Casey being overturned, clearly in part as a result of the three justices that he appointed.
And, you know, I wonder whether he could be persuaded to just let that be his legacy.
You know, to, I realize he's not really pro-life.
You know, I'm like, Trump's not really.
I just don't believe that.
But no one cares.
You know, people who are pro-life are like, I don't give a damn.
You actually agree with me.
Just do what I need to get done.
And he did.
So do you think that that plays it all into like, wait a minute, why don't you just go out on this?
This is a win.
Go out on this win.
Nah, well, that's, I think that may be a little wishful thinking.
You know, it was a tremendous victory for Trump this week.
I mean, it was three great decisions from the Supreme Court, top among them, obviously, Roe v. Wade, the overturning Dobbs, the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
And it was all because of Trump, Trump and Mitch McConnell.
Mitch McConnell saw his chance and he took it and he understood that Trump, unlike a lot of other Republican presidents, was going to stand behind him even when they did what they did to Brett Kavanaugh.
He just tried to destroy the man.
Trump was just that character who was going to stand by him.
And it was a tremendous victory.
And it makes a lot of the never Trumpers look really bad.
It makes a lot of the people who couldn't understand that this was a special moment, that this was a special character, that you had to look at him in a nuanced, balanced way.
It makes them look ridiculous.
And there was a lot of stuff.
I used to love National Review, but there was a lot of stuff coming out of National Review saying basically we don't have to credit Trump for this.
But no, this was his victory and it was the best thing about his presidency.
To say that he could see it that way and let go, that just doesn't sound like the Trump that all of us know.
But it was a tremendous moment.
And it really did.
Just the panic and the anger and the absolute nonsense that comes babbling out of Democrats' mouths in the wake of it just shows you why they spent so much time trying to defeat him.
I mean, this is basically his third impeachment trial that they're running and he's not even president anymore.
So they're really passionate about it.
Well, and the Brett Kavanaugh situation is the greatest example of Trump's temperament being hugely important in many ways.
And obviously, we've already talked about the downsides of it, but that any other president, I mean, there's not another president on earth prior to Trump.
The Brett Kavanaugh Controversy00:06:40
Now he set an example.
I can't say there won't be one in the future, but that would have stood by Brett Kavanaugh given what they were doing to him.
It took a guy like Trump, and what they did to Brett Kavanaugh was deeply wrong and deeply unfair.
So that's when a lot of people changed their minds on Trump and realized, wait a minute, the upsides to this sort of weirdness about him are far greater than the downsides.
Andrew, you're right.
Court, they're bat in a thousand this week on some great religious liberty cases and gun rights cases, which kind of look like no-brainers, but a previous court would not have come down the way they did.
You know, it's like, how is he, how is the Coach Kennedy establishing religion on the 50-yard line when he's privately just taking a knee to say a prayer, and people come to join him, whether they want to or not.
How is that the establishment of religion?
Like the establishment clause jurisprudence is just all over the place.
It's a nightmare.
We could use some clarification on it and the court's inching there.
But anyway, talk to me about that moment.
And our viewers should know, you used to be a liberal, right?
I mean, like, it's not like you've been this died-in-the-wool conservative your whole life, but it was emotional for you when you heard about Dobbs.
Tell us.
Yeah, it had been weighing on me more and more, no question about it.
You know, I haven't heard anybody else say this, but this is what bothered me about it: is that there's a fundamental difference.
You know, abortion is going to continue.
I think abortion is a grave evil.
I have come to that opinion over a long time.
I was pro-abortion in my youth.
I lost an argument with a friend one day, and that just worked on me over the years until finally I changed my mind.
And abortion is going to continue in some of the states.
Evil is always going to be with us.
There's nobody, you know, we're going to have evil institutions.
But there's a fundamental difference, an essential difference between a country where evil is done, which is every country, and a country that establishes that evil as a right.
Because when you say that evil is a right, you effectively dehumanize the class of people to whom that evil is done.
So there's a difference.
You know, slavery was a grave evil, but there's a difference between having slavery and having Dred Scott, where you say that an African-American isn't an American, can't have the rights of an American.
There's a difference between being an anti-Semite and even having an anti-Semite government and passing the Nuremberg laws that strip Jews of their rights and dehumanize them.
When you say that abortion is a right, you take this unborn child who already doesn't have a voice and you take away any possibility of his having a voice.
When you dehumanize someone, he loses that right that we all have, that we all depend on, to say to your fellow human, look at me, I'm just like you, I'm the image of God, you can't do this to me.
And more and more, it began to seem to me that the logic of that dehumanization was working on all of us until, you know, and my friends will tell you, my friends here at the Daily Wire will tell you that I would say to them, you know, I'm not sure this is a good country anymore.
I'm not sure that a country where we have to discuss whether it's right to butcher children to change their gender is a good country.
And all of it to me was traced back to Roe v. Wade.
It was traced back to the idea that not only could abortion be performed in certain circumstances, something I think people should argue about and vote on, but we had a right to do it.
And obviously, it was obvious to me that that right would start being legal, safe, legal, and rare, and would end up with shout your abortion, even if you did it one second before that baby was born, because a lot of ideas follow their logic out to their furthest point.
And it was beginning to just weigh on me.
It was certainly a major part of my prayers every day that this country had truly lost its way.
And I love this country.
I mean, I love this country the way people love their mothers because this is my mother country.
I mean, this made me everything I am.
It gave me everything I have.
It has fashioned, it has allowed me to fashion an independent personality in a world of conformity.
And I'm an artist, so that matters a lot to me.
And yet I felt it had gone terribly, terribly wrong.
And so this decision, the minute I saw it, I mean, my heart just exploded because the minute I saw it, I thought, you know, this doesn't make us a good country.
It opens the possibility for us to be a good country.
It means that evil will be done, but we are no longer evil.
We are no longer saying that this child cannot make an argument, that no one can stand up for this child and say, look, it's a human being, you know, treat it like a human being.
Because, you know, that to me is the only argument we're having.
We're not having arguments about a woman's right.
We're not having arguments about health care.
We're having an argument about whether or not an unborn child is a human being.
And I think there's a little leeway to make arguments there, but not as much as you would think, and certainly not going anywhere near 16, 18, 24 weeks.
That's ridiculous.
And so we're arguing about the humanity of this child.
And when you say at the highest level, this is beyond argument, this is beyond vote, you've made it so that, I mean, justice is supposed to be blind.
It's not supposed to be mute, but you've essentially ripped out justice's tongue because that's the argument we all use.
That's the foundation of the golden rule.
It's look at me.
I am the image of God.
I am your image.
You have to treat me as you would be treated.
And they took, they stripped babies of that right.
And in doing that, to me, they stopped doing evil and became evil.
And it touched all of us.
And it has changed our culture in a million different ways.
I mean, I won't, but I could go on and talk for an hour on the ways that I think that has changed our culture for the worse.
And this opens the possibility that we can begin to climb out of that.
And that to me is a beautiful thing.
I mean, a beautiful thing.
I did not want to, I'm getting up there in age, and I did not want to walk out the door, leaving the country in the state, the cultural state it's in now.
And I haven't heard anybody else talk about that, but that's the thing that weighed on me so much.
That's the thing that I kept bringing to God.
And that's the thing that broke my heart when that wonderful decision came in.
Wow.
Well said.
I mean, it's like Lila Rose said the other day.
She was on the program reacting to the decision.
You know, she heads up Live Action, which is a pro-life group.
And she was saying, now we have a fighting chance.
What this decision does is it's not a total win, but it gives us a fighting chance to persuade people.
Before, we didn't have that, really.
You know, it was like we couldn't even get in the fight.
Now they're in, and now they have a full-throated opportunity to say this shouldn't be allowed or this is why you should make a different choice.
And I know that you feel this personally because I learned something about you in preparing for today.
Gosnell's Legacy00:09:22
I knew that you had written all sorts of movies and books and so on, but I didn't realize that you had written the drama Gosnell, the trial of America's biggest serial killer, about Kermit Gosnell, a case in which I have a lot of interest.
I was on the air every day when that broke, and it was incredible.
It was unbelievable that this guy existed.
And serial killer is the right word for him.
And in the state of Pennsylvania, and I'll never forget, you know, the big reveal was ultimately that Tom Rich, a Republican governor who was, he fancied himself pro-choice, but Republican, basically allowed it to happen.
He had stopped inspections of the Gosnell abortion clinic.
And he thought for political reasons that wasn't going to play.
And then we later found out that Gosnell was murdering babies in their ninth month in utero in horrific, disturbing ways.
The nurses who came out and talked about what he was doing, what he was making them do, they were given immunity so they could be honest about it with just gruesome tales.
And I think that whole case, which you now are so familiar with, that was a bit of a turning point on hearts and minds on this issue.
You know, the best scene in that movie, and I can say it's the best scene because even though I wrote it, I took it right out of the transcript of the trial, was when the defense brought on a regular abortionist, a legal abortionist, a non-insane abortionist, and had her describe what she did when she was aborting a child.
And it was virtually the same thing that Gosnell was doing.
And so it actually, the defense was, well, he was just doing abortions, which to some extent was actually true.
When I was researching it, I talked to the prosecutor, and she was talking about the voir dire, the interviews of the jurors.
And every time she came to a male juror and asked his opinion of abortion, he would say, oh, well, that's not for me to talk about.
That's only for women to talk about.
Every one of them.
They were afraid to have an opinion because they were male and not female.
A distinction which apparently no longer exists, but did at that time.
And that speaks to what I was saying before about stripping people of their voices.
Almost everything the left does, if you notice it, is not an argument.
It's a reason why you shouldn't be able to speak.
Everything they say translates into shut up, and they've been so effective at it.
And the idea that because you're a man, you can't comment on whether the destruction of an infant life is a good or a bad thing is just incredibly corrupt.
But that was part of the Gosnell thing.
And the reason Gosnell was not arrested is because nobody wanted, everybody knew what he was doing, but nobody wanted the taint of what he was doing to touch abortion because it was too hot an issue.
Oh my gosh.
Well, the cynicism in response to the Dobbs decision and what it means and what it doesn't mean for other cases and other rights continues.
Right on down to Hillary Clinton, who, by the way, now I think it was CNN's Chris Eliza, tweeted out something saying, this is her moment.
They're actually starting this up again.
They're actually going to try to push her on us again.
But she's out there in her brilliant punditry talking about Justice Thomas in the most offensive way.
Listen to her.
I went to law school with him.
He's been a person of grievance for as long as I've known him.
Resentment, grievance, anger.
And the thing that is, well, there's so many things about it that are deeply distressing.
But women are going to die, Gail.
Women will die.
My God.
I've never heard anything less true about Justice Thomas.
He's exactly the opposite of a person of grievance.
His only grievance I've ever heard from him is he refuses to be used as white liberals' puppet, as something less than an equal citizen when he refuses to just mouth their talking points on issues of race.
They've been doing this to Clarence Thomas since he was appointed, and they basically accused him of being the wild, sexual black man, and now he's the angry black man.
They'll pull out any kind of cliché, racist remarks they have.
But they don't, you know, this is the thing about the left now.
They are a racist party.
You know, I say this all the time.
They're a right-wing racist.
They're racist all over the place.
But the left is now a racist party.
The Democrats are a racist party.
They believe in racism.
They think it's good racism because it's pointed at white people.
But in fact, it's not pointed at white people.
White is just a word they use when they want to attack people.
So Clarence Thomas becomes white when he ceases to agree with them.
Clarence Thomas is, you know, it used to be the sort of accepted wisdom that he was the second place to Antonin and Scalia.
But looking back, I think Scalia learned a lot from Thomas.
I think Thomas's philosophy is more solid.
I think he's thought it through, and I think he's a brilliant jurist.
One of the things about reading both the decision on Dobbs and the defense is how, first of all, the clarity of Alito's legal logic is impeccable.
You can't really find a place to drive through.
The saddest one was Roberts trying to kind of mealy mouth his way out of the position he found himself in.
But when you looked at the dissent from Kagan and the others, they admitted that there were conflicting rights between the unborn child and the mother.
But how can there be conflicting rights if the unborn child is not a human being?
You know, objects don't have rights.
Only people have rights.
And so their logic doesn't really hold together.
And Clarence Thomas is so clear.
He is, I got to say, he's a radical in his originalism.
He basically said, you know, we should use this logic and get rid of Oberfell and get rid of a bunch of other decisions that the rest of the court was saying not.
But he's an honest guy of intention.
You know what?
Alito feels the same way.
He just didn't want to say it.
Like the more conservative jurists privately likely agree with Justice Thomas.
They just recognize the country's not quite ready for the total elimination of what's called substantive due process, which was controversial from the start.
And also, if you got rid of substantive due process, all that would mean is all these rights go back to the states to decide.
You know, we're truly a federalist society.
If it's not really explicit in the Constitution or has a long, long history of being a right not mentioned but recognized in this country, then you have to fight for it on a state-by-state level.
It's really not that controversial.
People are like, he wants to do away with gay marriage.
That's not true.
He wants to, he would like it to be a state-by-state matter.
He doesn't see it as a constitutional right.
That's pretty much how everyone in the country felt up until about 10 years ago.
It's at the core of our system is federalism.
You know, Madison knew that a giant democracy would collapse, a giant republic would collapse, but a lot of little republics patched together could survive.
And he was right.
He proved that he was right.
That's why we have gun rights.
And that's why they want to take those gun rights away.
And that's why we have different decisions.
I mean, even murder is a state-run, a state-decided crime.
You know, we have those different ways of looking at things because we know that a series of little republics will remain republics, where one great big republic is going to suddenly just become an authoritative regime.
And that's what the left is pushing for and has been pushing for for a long time.
So part of the problem in interpreting Thomas and the court and all these things is we have a bunch of morons on television offering their own punditry on it.
And, you know, I mean, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the ladies of the view and Joy Behar.
Okay, now she's talking here not about Roe, but about the Coach Kennedy case, where the football coach who I mentioned, he was privately praying on the 50-yard line and students decided to join him and he got fired because the school said you're basically forcing kids to do it.
And there was no forcing whatsoever.
The only real argument was you have authority and therefore they might feel like you're not going to start them on the football field if they don't do it, even though the guy had absolutely no history of doing that to students who didn't join.
Anyway, listen to where Joy Behart took that wind for Coach Kennedy in this soundback.
I would like to know if it would apply to Colin Kaepernick, for example.
He takes a knee.
I don't know if this is really legal or any of what I'm saying, but it seemed to me like the guy takes a knee and he gets thrown off the team.
But he could be praying too, praying, you know, that these people would leave him alone.
I don't know why he's praying, but he could be praying.
How do you know what you're doing when you take a knee?
Doesn't that look like prayer to you?
Suddenly it's illegal for him, but it's okay for this.
It's illegal.
It was illegal, you see, for Colin Kaepernick.
So Colin Kaepernick was doing something completely different.
So what could be worse than differentiating between two things that are completely different but look vaguely the same?
One is working for a private corporation.
One is working for a public school where the government is shutting you up for doing it.
And the NFL can tell its players to do whatever the hell it wants to tell them to do when it comes to speech.
Why We Regulate Borders00:03:11
But I love that she's suggesting Colin Kaepernick was told it was illegal for him to take a knee.
But it is true that one of them was praying and one of them was protesting the flag under the flag of the NFL.
He was wearing an NFL uniform at the time, so they had a perfect right to tell him not to do it.
I mean, the view has got to be a source of constant stupidity.
It's amazing to me that a show with hosts named Whoopee Joy and Sonny could be such a font of misery and depression.
I just think they would live up to their names.
It's so true.
So, okay, last thing, because I didn't really get to it yesterday and I felt so bad.
This migrant crisis down at the southern border continues, and May was the worst month that we have had in terms of the encounters with migrants.
And now we know that 51 people are dead inside of this semi-tractor trailer, 101 degree temperatures.
They were left there, and somebody was heard moaning, and finally they were rescued.
No water.
To me, there's just a consistency here because the Democrats, they clearly don't care.
Now they want us to say, oh, women are going to die.
Women are going to die, as Hillary Clinton said.
They're all about life, except of the baby.
And now they're all about, oh, you know, we're a country that accepts immigrants.
You know, we have to improve people's lives.
Except they won't talk at all about incidents like this, which border hawks have said all along is one of the reasons why we need to secure our southern border.
People will die.
They'll die at the hands of illegal immigrants who come across and unleash hell, especially on the ranchers who are down there.
We've seen examples of that.
And they'll die thanks to these traffickers who couldn't care at all about the people who they are taking across the southern border.
Once they have their money, they exploit them.
They die.
Where's AOC in her little white uniform now?
You know, I just do not understand why they are not under more pressure.
And this is one of the things I fought the Republican Party for.
You know, what is the logic of this?
What country doesn't have a border?
What country doesn't regulate the number of immigrants who come in?
And what country doesn't also make sure that those immigrants who come in are schooled in the ways and nature of the country?
I mean, this is the way, we are a nation of immigrants, but the way we managed being a nation of immigrants was making sure that the people who came in loved it, wanted to be here, had a good reason for being here, could be used by the country and elevated by the country.
All of those things have gone by the board, and it's like we're not supposed to exist as a nation anymore.
You know, this is what part of what Douglas Murray calls the war on the West, this idea that somehow we are uniquely evil.
And personally, I think it's the other way around.
I think it's unique what America has done, how it's elevated freedom, how it has kept.
There is no free man walking on the face of the earth or free woman who does not in some way owe that freedom to American blood and treasure.
And I think that that's a remarkable thing, and we should be very cautious of our country.
I want immigrants to come in.
I want our country to be refreshed.
I'm incredibly proud.
I'm incredibly proud to live in a multi-ethnic country.
I love, you know, where I live, there are a lot of multi-ethnic people all together and couples and all that.
And I think what an achievement that I saw in my lifetime that we created a country like this.
But no, you don't just take the border down.
Why Crisis Continues?00:00:51
I mean, it's ridiculous.
So why don't the, aren't the Republicans louder about this?
Why haven't they come up with, I mean, we had the power when Trump was in office.
Why aren't they able to come up and just say, all right, you know, we're going to do this one thing is we're going to close the border and regulate who comes in, and then we're going to worry about the people who are already here another day.
I mean, they have this idea that the whole thing has to be solved at once, that there's no compromises that can be made.
They blow it again and again, almost as if, and I'm certainly not the only person saying this, it's almost as if both parties want the crisis to continue because it helps them with their base.
But I think it's a shame, not just because of the deaths of the people and the abuse of the people and the women who are constantly being raped as they're brought over by these criminal coyotes.
But I just think it's a crime all along and we should stop it.