Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 15, 2025 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec

48:13

GAZA CEASE FIRE, TEXAS LAW ON PORNHUB REACHES SCOTUS, TRUMP APPOINTMENT HEARINGS CONTINUE

Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiecGet $50 off their 4-Week Food Kit TODAY from ‘My Patriot Supply’ when you go to https://www.preparewithposo.com.To get $5000 of free silver on a qualifying purchase go https://www.protectwithposo.com or call (844) 577-POSO.Save up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO Support the show

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I want to take a second to remind you to sign up for the Poso Daily Brief.
	It is completely free.
	It'll be one email that's sent to you every day.
	You can stop the endless scrolling, trying to find out what's going on in your world.
	We will have this delivered directly to you totally for free.
	Go to humanevents.com slash Poso.
	Sign up today.
	It's called the Poso Daily Brief.
	Read what I read for show prep.
	You will not regret it.
	humanevents.com slash Poso.
	Totally free.
	The Poso Daily Brief.
	This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth-generation warfare.
	A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran.
	This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobiec.
	We won World War II with seven four-star generals.
	Today we have 44 four-star generals.
	There's an inverse relationship between the size...
	Senator, to cut to the chase, you're clearly talking about Kash Patel.
	I don't believe he has an enemies list.
	I have known Kash.
	And I believe that Cash is the right person at this time for this job.
	You'll have the ability to question Mr. Patel when you do.
	And I'm questioning you right now about whether you will enforce an enemies list that he announced publicly on television.
	Oh, Senator, I'm sorry.
	There will never be an enemies list within the Department of Justice.
	House Republicans have yet again stood up for women.
	Today, the House voted to uphold common sense again.
	We voted to require all schools receiving federal funds to uphold the original meaning of Title IX. And keep biological men out of women's sports.
	Happening today at the nation's capital, the Supreme Court will weigh states' efforts to require pornography websites to verify their visitors' ages.
	Texas and 18 other states have a similar law in place.
	President-elect Donald Trump is doubling down on his tariff promise.
	Yeah, he says a new agency will come into play on his first day back in office.
	Trump announcing on Truth Social that he'll collect tariffs and other revenues from foreign countries under the...
	If those hostages aren't back, I don't want to hurt your negotiation.
	If they're not back by the time I get into office, all hell will break out in the Middle East.
	And it will not be good for Hamas, and it will not be good, frankly, for anyone.
	Sources tell CBS News that both Israel and Hamas have agreed, in principle, to a ceasefire and hostage deal.
	Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events.
	Daily here live in Washington, D.C. Today is January 15, 2024. Anno Domini.
	Folks, we can see the various hearings that continue up on Capitol Hill right now in the United States Senate.
	We've got the great Russ vote there.
	You've got Marco Rubio based Mike Lee.
	Numerous friends and family of Human Events Daily that are up there today.
	President Trump's advanced teams are boots on the ground in Washington D. Now, we're looking at this.
	We're going to be tracking it throughout the entire day, making sure that it stays through.
	First of all, by the way, I'll just throw this out there.
	Yesterday, Pete won.
	Pete Hegseth absolutely won.
	And look, are you going to see a nomination?
	Hearing that goes as well as that did yesterday?
	No, I don't think so.
	Because Pete Heggseth is someone who's uniquely qualified from his years of media service as well as uniquely qualified from his years in the military to understand exactly how to put up and make them shut up when it comes to all of the questions that went through yesterday.
	Absolutely, Juan.
	And I certainly agree with what Senator Johnson said here yesterday in the program, that all of Trump's nominees...
	Are expected to be confirmed and should be confirmed.
	But that doesn't mean there aren't headwinds.
	Tulsi Gabbard, RFK, Kash Patel, numerous others all being delayed, all being held up.
	Why?
	Paperwork issues, we're told.
	Paperwork.
	No, no, no, no.
	Senate.
	You go and figure it out.
	Senator John Thune, whoever else is out there, figure it out.
	You get your job done.
	President Trump has done his job.
	He delivered for the American people at the ballot box.
	Then he went and delivered for the American people in terms of presenting them with the slate of nominees.
	That is exactly what he promised.
	Actual change agents at these variety of federal departments.
	So now it's time for the Senate.
	Do your homework.
	Pull yourself up by your beach traps.
	Eat your veggies and take your vitamins and get the nominees across the line.
	And I don't want to hear any more about these paperwork issues or delays or this and that.
	No, absolutely not.
	And think of the boldness, by the well, of President Trump.
	Putting them all up at the same time in addition to taking what we were told was the quote-unquote most controversial nominee of Pete Hegseth and then taking him and putting him first right out of the gate.
	That understands more than anything else that should make you understand.
	This is a new management.
	There's a new sheriff in town.
	His name is Donald J. Trump.
	He hasn't arrived yet to Washington, D.C., but he'll be getting here in just a few days.
	That's right, boys and girls.
	You have less than five days left.
	Five days' time.
	President Trump will be the 47th president of the United States of America, and he better have the majority.
	of his cabinet well on the way to confirmation by that time.
	We've got a huge amount of events going on this weekend here in Washington, D.C. This is becoming the center of the universe, but there's a lot going on around the world as the Trump effect is already starting to set in.
	Darren Beattie will be on with us just next to explain that.
	Right back, Human Events.
	You know, they talk about influences.
	These are influences and they're friends of mine, Jack Prusovic.
	Where's Jack?
	Jack?
	He's done a great job.
	All right, Jack Prasovic back here.
	Live Human Events Daily, Washington, D.C. Five days.
	You have five days left to the deep state, to all the rest.
	You have only five days before President Trump's triumphant return here.
	To Washington, D.C. And his nominees are already marching up and down Capitol Hill.
	And in fact, the Trump effect is already getting into place because I think people know by this point, but if you haven't heard yet, that just about two hours ago, news came down of a ceasefire deal that has been brokered essentially by President Trump's representative to the Middle East, Steve Whitcoff.
	Steve Whitcoff, by the way, the same individual who was golfing with President Trump.
	One of his just close personal best friends, he was golfing with President Trump the day that Ryan Wesley Routh was there on the golf course at Trump International down in West Palm Beach.
	So someone who presumably would have faced an extreme situation with President Trump had that not been uncovered.
	We've got Darren Beattie here from Revolver News to talk us through this because Darren, you and I were talking about...
	The role of the America First movement in foreign policy.
	And I suppose my question to you is, is that what we're already starting to see?
	Absolutely.
	And we're starting to see it across a variety of domains.
	Across a variety of domains.
	We're seeing it not only in the Middle East, we're seeing it hopefully in Ukraine.
	I noticed that in Rubio's nomination hearing, he basically...
	Reiterated Trump's position that, yes, we need to bring an end to this conflict as well.
	And so we're seeing in multiple theaters a very strong prognosis for peace and stability, and Trump hasn't even been inaugurated yet.
	So I think it's pretty exceptional that we're seeing this level of progress before day one.
	We're in day negative five, and we're already seeing a lot done.
	It's pretty tremendous.
	And it really is tremendous.
	And when we're looking at the broad swath of this...
	I think that there was an interesting take, and I'd love to get your sense on this, that apparently there's been a lot of chatter about the fact that Netanyahu was even saying that he wasn't a huge fan of this deal, that he wanted to be able to go further into Gaza, potentially take down all of northern Gaza.
	And, you know, there was sort of this back and forth about how they wouldn't have the meeting at first, but apparently Witkoff was able to get him to come in.
	And so we had heard that Hamas had signed originally, and there was some back and forth on Netanyahu.
	Well, I mean, I think we'll have to see.
	I think the early signs are very positive.
	But I think there's a real architecture in place now for in multiple theaters of the world.
	And so we're seeing very positive signs already.
	But again, you know, it's a lot of the resolutions are premature.
	So we'll just have to see how it develops.
	Well, I think that's right.
	And, of course, we know with these ceasefires, it also portends that, of course, both sides are going to have to abide by that, and certainly something that has been an issue with various ceasefires in the past.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, you have to have the right types of conditions, and there has to be some kind of reasonable expectation those conditions will be met.
	You know, a lot of it will be contingent on just how much of the work has been done in terms of neutralizing a lot of the radical element in that region.
	You know, Israel has had a long time to do it, but it's unclear to me whether the full job has been done, and it seems just as a practical matter that would need to be...
	Completed to some kind of threshold degree before there can be any expectation of Hamas or whatever the future version is called not disrupting the terms of any kind of peace agreement.
	That's exactly right.
	And so, of course, this is something that President Trump was calling for from the campaign trail, calling for from the front.
	What do you make, by the way, speaking of this, you mentioned Marco Rubio, since we're talking foreign policy and we're talking issues of war, that Marco Rubio seems to have changed his tone quite a bit when it comes to the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
	This was a guy who early on was very strongly involved in not only calling for an enlargement of NATO, pushing in, but he was one of the guys who...
	It would go over there with John McCain, with Lindsey Graham, with Amy Klobuchar, so many others, meeting with Poroshenko, meeting with who was the original president before Zelensky came in.
	I mean, this was a guy who has really gone on quite a journey when it comes to politics.
	Indeed.
	I think it's, yet again, another major testament to Trump's leadership that...
	Within the rubric of Trump's leadership, I think Rubio can and will be an extremely effective Secretary of State when aligned with this agenda, and I think we see every indication that that's going to be the case.
	Certainly, the Ukraine-Russia issue is a critical litmus test for this, because it's certainly one of those arenas in which U.S. involvement is highly questionable, at least In the way that it's been under the Biden regime of simply throwing hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars into this war machine that simply contributes to the needless,
	unnecessary deaths of both sides, to the enrichment of what?
	To the betterment of what?
	Well, to the betterment of defense contractors and to the betterment of corrupt oligarchs in both Ukraine and Russia.
	And this is, you know, inconceivable from an America First standpoint.
	And I think the guidestone is always the principle that I've advocated here on your show multiple times, and I haven't found any way to improve upon it, which simply is to say, the victories of the American empire, the victories of the American system writ large, Must also be the victories of the American people.
	We can't have a foreign policy simply based on the enrichment of the defense industry.
	We can't have an economy that simply exists for the enrichment of Wall Street and various special interests.
	And we can't have an immigration and crime policy that's simply for the benefit of Foreigners, and criminal.
	The victories of the American empire have to be the victories of the American people, and I think that really is the crux.
	That is the core and the essence and the guiding principle of what America First really is.
	It's something where, when I hear some of these nominees and various entities going out across...
	Not Pete Hegseth, by the way.
	Sole exception there, fantastic exception of hearing his issues with the military and walking through just chapter and verse, something you can tell is actually very studied.
	And clearly he has the experience of being someone who's been on the battlefield in the conditions that we've lived in.
	And Pete Hegseth, of course, came on this program about a year ago and talked about his experiences having his having his orders pulled from being able to deploy to, by the way, defend the Biden inauguration, which would be four years ago on Monday, that because of Christian which would be four years ago on Monday, that because of Christian tattoos that he had received while being in
	Believe me, if you want to go through all of the Christian tattoos and other various tattoos that we might find in the military, I think you're going to see the entire collapse of the United States national defense.
	Have you ever heard, go spend some time with the Marines.
	Go spend some time with the Rangers.
	Wasn't it actually a policy?
	Wasn't it, I could be wrong about this, was it at one time a policy in the military that you couldn't have tattoos and they basically relaxed that on the basis of basically everybody has one now or a very high percentage of the population?
	They realized that would be an untenable policy?
	Yes, that's correct.
	That's correct.
	When I was in, it was like you could have a tattoo, but as long as it was not visible while you're wearing your uniform.
	So you would see people go and their tattoos would stop right where the uniform starts.
	So you couldn't do the Mike Tyson.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Maybe they'll relax that in the future.
	I mean, I could now as a civilian.
	I've been thinking about it, actually.
	They can make an exception for Iron Mike, I suppose.
	Actually, Tanya and I were going to get matching ones.
	The fact that they're talking about a tattoo just shows you how ridiculous and petty the whole thing is.
	I mean, this guy served his country on the highest levels in multiple domains.
	He's a very, very skilled person in media, skilled communicator, and he's young.
	He's exceptional, and not the least of which, he took a very keen interest in our story on Bishop Garrison.
	So that's also a major point in his favor, that he was actually the only person other than Tucker Carlson on Fox News that would have on yours truly.
	And he was very interested in the Bishop Garrison story, which is just one story, but it was emblematic of this broader problem.
	Darren, Darren, we...
	We're coming up on a really quick break, by the way, and I want to finish what you were talking about with Bishop Garrison and also the Hegseth, but I did also pull the policy update on the tattoos.
	So just before we go to this break, very quickly, I mentioned that's what it was like when I was in, but now the U.S. military allows tattoos on the neck, face, tongue, lips, eyes, scalp.
	Other tattoos are allowed as long as they were not deemed offensive or excessive.
	As long as they're smaller than your hand, single band tattoos on the fingers.
	Oh my goodness.
	Again, and don't even get me started on the hair regulations.
	Complete relax in everything.
	Folks, we're turning it all back.
	We're bringing it all back.
	Jack Posobiec, Darren Beatty.
	Stay tuned.
	Stay tuned.
	All right, Jack Posobiec back here live, Human Events Daily, Washington, D.C. Folks, we've all seen the headlines.
	Cyber attacks on our power grids, drones in the sky, violent attacks on everyday Americans.
	The ugly truth is no leader, no system can protect you from anything.
	And the last thing I want is to be standing in line depending on help that may never come.
	And when the crisis hits, food is always the first casualty.
	We saw that in L.A. this week.
	Everyone needs it, and panic buying makes things worse.
	That's why I've made sure that my family is prepared with my Patriot Supply.
	Our four-week emergency food kit gives you the nutrition you need to stay strong in a crisis.
	With 2,000 calories per day and 100% of your daily value of 12 essential vitamins and minerals, this kit keeps you going when every meal matters.
	Right now, they're offering $50 off their four-week Go to mypatriotsupply.com now to grab yours.
	Don't put this off.
	Now is the time to prepare.
	That's mypatriotsupply.com to get your four-week food kit today.
	So we're on with Darren Beattie, and we're talking about this.
	Darren, just before the break there, we were talking about how, yes, and by the way, living in the D.C. area, we've got a lot of military here, tons of bases.
	That's why I originally came down to the D.C. area in 2012. You know, what happens?
	You meet a girl, you stick around, you know, Donald Trump runs for office and there you, you know, Bob's your uncle.
	But the standards that I see just walking around when I see this from soldiers, from airmen, from Air Force and all the rest, it's very visible when you see people in uniform and you realize that that's not what my...
	Mental image of what a soldier or a sailor would have looked like even as early or as late, I should say, as late as like 2005 when you look at those soldiers marching up and down in the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans or looking at some of these other things.
	Something has clearly gone wrong and the standards are all over the place.
	The hair is all over.
	The tattoos are all over, as we just explained.
	And so it seems as though the military is actually more interested in that and doing those types of things to increase their, to try to meet their recruitment goals, which by the way, are still failing.
	And then along comes Pete Hegseth and says, "How about we pull women out of these combat How about we go back to equal standards for everyone?
	How about we go back to focusing on what we're good at and then creating something that actually becomes a beacon for those in our society who would qualify for said positions?
	Darren, it didn't get this way all by chance, did it?
	No, and look, you know, traditionally, the military has been one of the major meritocracies.
	That has lapsed considerably, to say the least.
	And I think headset's mission of re-establishing a culture of meritocracy is critical for the future success of the United States and for us to be respected around the world.
	It's as simple as that.
	That's going to involve more than simply purging the purgers.
	We were talking about...
	Bishop Garrison, the person we identified in a major Revolver.News piece that Pete Heggs took a personal interest in.
	And this was the ideological veteran chief who was managing the sort of political purge of the Pentagon, who had a very public record of being viciously anti-Trump, anti-Tucker Carlson, anti-anybody you can think of, who's propounded an America first.
	And so cleaning that out is just the precondition for putting an organization like the Pentagon on a proper footing.
	We also need to restore that culture of meritocracy that I think really people engage in such serious activity really crave a culture of meritocracy.
	I've never served in the military myself, but I can only imagine how utterly devastating this is to morale.
	To have the political gamesmanship trump meritocracy when it comes to things as high stakes as winning wars.
	And that's really what it comes down to.
	I mean, there have been a ton of people, shout out to Bowtied Ranger and others, who have been posting about their experiences.
	And by the way, this is a perfect example to sort of veer off in a second here, for a second.
	About why it's so important.
	When you're living in a society like ours with these institutions that we maintain anonymity online because you can have people that are currently serving who know that they would face personal and professional repercussions for blowing the whistle and coming out and talking about what's happening in these various areas.
	But you can go on X right now and find all of these anon accounts, people who were army rangers, people who served in a variety of special forces capacities, and people who We'll do so with their true name as well.
	But they're telling you that we know, we all know that these policies don't work, that they destroy unit cohesion, that they destroy any ability for...
	For mission success, and yet they are constantly harped on by the leadership, by the generals and others to come down.
	And Darren, we even had Senator Kramer yesterday.
	Senator Kramer from North Dakota.
	I'll never forget this part where he said, maybe you should give the generals a chance, Pete.
	Maybe you should just give them a chance and see if they're willing to walk away from this.
	And can't we all just get along?
	Do you really have to get rid of all the generals that are pushing this?
	I wonder, Darren, if there are people who have the stomach for understanding how bad the problem actually is.
	Oh, it's tremendously bad.
	And I was going to say, while it's still on my mind, another very positive thing, and I think it's very critical, it's not just a symbolic issue, is that Hegseth is very much opposed to the politically motivated renaming of various military installations and bases.
	Of course!
	For sensitivities related to the South.
	Now, look, I am not a fan of former Chief of Staff John Kelly at all for a variety of reasons.
	But even he could acknowledge what serious people, including presidents, including Churchill, and everyone acknowledges that he had respect for Robert E. Lee.
	He had respect.
	For what happened in America's history.
	And that was, that prospect was par for the course, across the board, North and South, even President JFK, no Southerner.
	Everybody understood that it was only on the basis of mutual respect for the soldiers that a reconciliation could take place going into the future.
	And also, up to this day, My understanding is a disproportionate number of people who go into the military, especially in those really life-risking roles in infantry, these people come from the South.
	So it's a very particular kind of slap in the face that the military would go out of its way to offend that sort of...
	To really spit on the ancestors of many people who are currently in harm's way and in danger for no reason whatsoever other than to score political points.
	So I think that's also very telling as to positive direction and really positive outlook that Hegseth has is that he would understand why that problem needs to be corrected.
	And the bases will need to be renamed to their proper and original names.
	Right.
	And we remember on New Year's Day, we had that sort of these dual terror attacks or strange incidents that involved soldiers who both served on Fort Bragg.
	And everybody referred to it in every single outlet and every single tweet and every single utterance.
	They kept saying Fort Bragg, even though, of course, you know, we're not supposed to call it Fort Bragg.
	No, it is Fort Bragg.
	President Trump has said this as well as including by the way, Mount McKinley and Barrow, Alaska and all of these other different name changes that have gone on.
	Certain things are sacred.
	And we all know that it was done.
	Yeah, it's and we realized that this was done from a position of a revolutionary regime to push out the history.
	By the way, and I say this as a guy who's from Pennsylvania, but one of the reasons...
	I didn't even know this, but one of the reasons...
	That a lot of those bases got their names.
	One of the reasons that you have the Confederate section at Arlington National Cemetery, which I'm not even currently sure what the status is, there was a Supreme Court case on it, that the idea was, as a country, we have to come back together again.
	So it's interesting, we were talking about...
	You know, Panama and the Guantanamo Bay and some of these other things that went on in terms of where Teddy Roosevelt came up.
	And it was, in fact, the Spanish-American War was held only about 30 years after the Civil War.
	And so you had, as you say, these southern soldiers that were participating in the same units or possibly the same campaigns as northern soldiers.
	And so the idea was that we are going to come back together again as a country rather than demonize either side for all of the various issues that they went to the war, but instead understand that we all want to live in the same country again.
	And so we are going to respect the history, the warrior spirit.
	We're going to respect the fact of the soldiers who fought.
	Obviously, we can disagree with the reasons and the politics of the situation.
	Fine.
	But the point was is that you would show respect to the generals like AP Hill, General Bragg, General Hood, and all the various others through the names of these bases.
	And that's something to allow them to have that respect and to understand, by the way, that yours is a place in America.
	Darren Beatty, last minute to you.
	Yeah.
	I totally agree.
	And again, very encouraging.
	There's a lot of things to correct, not only in the Department of Defense, but in the FBI. I mentioned last time we talked that we'd have a major piece on that.
	Loudermilk pipe bomb report that is fresh off the press, just published it an hour ago, so people should go to revolver.news and read that and read what future FBI Director Cash Patel has on a silver platter in order to finally expose this pipe bomb January 6th scandal.
	There's a lot of work to be done all around.
	Biden screwed things up immeasurably, as did A lot of his compatriots.
	And so there's a lot to be done, but Trump is doing a great job so far, and he hasn't even been inaugurated.
	So I am very optimistic about the future.
	Amen.
	Darren Beattie, go give him a follow, revolver.news.
	Make sure you're watching.
	Make sure you're checking out all of the white hot pieces that are coming up.
	Coming up next year, Attorney General Ken Paxton of the great state of Texas.
	Where is Jack?
	Where is Jack?
	Where is he?
	Jack, I want to see you.
	Great job, Jack.
	Thank you.
	What a job you do.
	You know, we have an incredible thing.
	We're always talking about the fake news and the bad, but we have guys, and these are the guys who should be getting Pulisic.
	All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're back here at Human Events Daily, Washington, D.C. Folks, did you know that seven banks failed in the last two years?
	Did you know that?
	And your money has 20%...
	Well, the Human Events audience knows to expect the unexpected, especially when it comes to the economy, which is exactly why we've partnered with today's sponsor, Allegiance Gold.
	Gold has been the one commodity that stood strong for thousands of years.
	Through wars, recessions, and financial collapses, gold has stood the test of time.
	Because gold doesn't depend on Wall Street or politicians or the value of paper money.
	It's real.
	It's tangible.
	And it holds its value when everything else falls apart.
	Well, we've partnered here with Allegiance Gold because they can show you how to diversify your savings with gold and silver and protect what you have worked so hard for.
	Go to protectwithposo.com and Allegiance will give you up to $5,000, it's true, in free physical gold or silver to get started.
	Plus, no setup fees if you choose a gold-backed IRA. The time is now.
	Take control of your financial future.
	Go to protectwithposo.com.
	Right now, it's protectwithposo.com.
	We're very honored here on the program for Human Events Daily to now welcome on Attorney General Ken Paxton of the great state of Texas.
	General Paxton, how are you?
	I'm doing well.
	Thanks for having me on, Jack.
	Oh, it's an absolute honor.
	So walk us through.
	You've had a huge day today over at the Supreme Court.
	This hearing and this case regarding the age verification law that Texas has put up regarding pornographic sites.
	This is one of the first times that it's gone up to the Supreme Court.
	The hearing was held today.
	Walk us through your side of it.
	Yeah, so let me give you the background.
	So this law was passed in the last legislative session, which ended May approximately a year and, what, seven, eight months ago.
	It went into effect.
	It was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans and Democrats.
	And then we started enforcing the law.
	It was my job to enforce the law, and the law was pretty simple.
	It asked these porn sites to do age verification, to make sure that...
	The people that were looking at these sites were at least 18. If they were 18, then there's no problem.
	If they were under 18, then they were to exclude them.
	It was simply designed to protect children.
	And most people, I think, would agree, at least in Texas and I guess most of the country, that that's something that you would want your government to do, is to protect children from viewing obscene material or other material that might be objectionable to their parents.
	And so that's what happened.
	And we started enforcing this because many of these sites were not...
	Doing the age verification, they sued us.
	We actually lost in district courts.
	They chose the court and we lost and we got an injunction put on us which stopped us from enforcing the law.
	We appealed it to the Fifth Circuit and we got the injunction stayed so that we could start enforcing the law.
	And then these porn sites that have a little free speech, they call it some free speech group, sued, took it to the US Supreme Court and that was what we were doing today was defending our law.
	Hoping to keep that stay in place while the litigation goes on and continue to protect children under Texas law.
	And so one of the interesting pieces of the case that I saw, I was able to watch some, I was jumping between different hearings today.
	We had the Senate hearings with the nominees and the Supreme Court hearing.
	It's all going on at the same time.
	So really things are picking up so much in D.C.
	But one of the interesting pieces that I saw regarding this was the Texas side was arguing, and I think it's a very strong argument, that there are lots of things that are regulated for age verification when you would go and purchase them at a store.
	For example, under 18 for tobacco, under 21 for alcohol or various firearms restrictions based on age.
	All of these things exist and everyone is quite familiar with them.
	R-rated movies, quite familiar with them, when you're doing so in person.
	And basically what the attorney was arguing was that it's the exact same concept, just applying that in the digital space.
	No, that's exactly right.
	I think it's our history.
	I mean, as long as we've been a country, we protect children from certain things.
	And as you mentioned, tobacco and firearms and certain movies and now, you know, porn websites.
	And so I think...
	Most Americans would agree.
	Certainly, I know that this was overwhelmingly passed by the legislation.
	It was not controversial at all.
	And I don't think it's controversial in America that we are going to protect children.
	So that's all we're trying to do here.
	We're not trying to shut these sites down.
	We realize there is a First Amendment right for adults to view whatever they want, and that's certainly up to them.
	But with kids, we treat them as a separate category.
	We've done it in different areas of the law, and we do it in the areas that you've just...
	Talked about.
	And so that's all this is.
	It's a very simple argument.
	And even the other side, the free speech side, came in and admitted that the state does have a compelling interest in protecting children.
	They just don't like how we're doing it.
	And they have other, I guess, what they would call less intrusive ways of doing that.
	However, the ways that they are suggesting have not been effective in preventing Miner from viewing these materials.
	So what are some of these debates and the counterarguments that they're talking about, these less intrusive measures?
	Oh, so they want some type of content moderation standards.
	It hasn't really stopped kids from viewing it.
	It's not effective.
	The only way to make this effective that we've seen, and that's why the legislature did it, there's a lot of studies on this.
	This has occurred over many years.
	They didn't really specify much as to solutions.
	They just said they needed less intrusive, more thoughtful ways of doing this, but they didn't really offer up solutions to this problem that actually work, that we know.
	They offered nothing up, just that we needed to do something different, which in my mind is just stalling and trying to push this off for another day.
	But the reality is this is a very sensible Common sense way of dealing with the problem.
	Just make sure that these people that are viewing it are 18 or older.
	Well, and I actually remember, I'm going through some of the minutes here of the case, where even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that, in fact, going on the Internet and accessing something is fundamentally different than walking into a store.
	Because it's easier.
	It's more pervasive.
	It can be done anywhere.
	Teenagers have cell phones all over the place.
	There's no block on this whatsoever.
	So rather than having to go into the store and at least pass through this, you know, that basic check of a cashier or...
	The clerk who's waiting there, this is actually delivered straight into your own home, right under the nose of parents.
	It's not the old magazines under the mattress anymore.
	This is just right there already.
	Yeah, you make a very good point.
	He made a very good point, which is it's push of a button, and you're on these websites and access to all kinds of stuff and large volumes of it.
	And if you think about it, I mean...
	It's not been controversial that you have to show a photo ID if you go into adult stores or strip clubs or whatever.
	That's not controversial.
	Why is that not a problem?
	And somehow, because it's online and easier to get to, somehow this is a violation of free speech rights.
	Look, I would broadly interpret the First Amendment and say protections for adults are extremely broad, and the state does have to show a compelling interest.
	And it should be strictly interpreted.
	But when you're dealing with children with materials that could be harmful to their mental health, potentially their physical health, we have an obligation as a country and as a state of Texas to protect those children because they're not going to be able to make the right decisions at the ages that we're talking about.
	Well, that's exactly right, and we're seeing this more and more.
	I've got two little boys, age four and six, and they're already asking us, Mommy and Daddy, can we use the tablets?
	We want to play this game.
	They already know how to bypass.
	And my six-year-old is figuring out my passwords pretty much on a weekly basis now, so I have to keep jumping past him, and I'll pop up, and he's...
	He's on YouTube.
	Now, fortunately, at this point, when I catch him on YouTube, he's usually just watching Lego videos and trying to figure out how to build the next project.
	So not too upset about that.
	But of course, I understand that as soon as he gets older, he is going to want to start branching out into that wider Internet.
	He's going to be looking at more things.
	He's going to be fed references to things.
	And certainly, I mean, YouTube is another conversation we could have about the stuff that gets forwarded to children on that thing that is not vetted in any way.
	And unfortunately, then when they click the links, they jump away from YouTube.
	They think they're looking at something that's just Legos, and they bounce around to another one.
	By the way, folks, I want to be clear about something before the break.
	We do not allow them unsupervised YouTube access.
	We'll be right back with Attorney General Ken Paxton.
	We're talking about how should pornography sites face any state regulation regarding age verification.
	Stay tuned.
	We'll be right back. - Jack is a great guy.
	He's written a fantastic book.
	Everybody's talking about it.
	Go get it.
	And he's been my friend right from the beginning of this whole beautiful event.
	And we're going to turn it around and make our country great to get to you.
	Amen.
	All right, Jack, we're back live.
	Human Events Daily.
	We're on with Attorney General Ken Paxton of the great state of Texas, where he was at the U.S. Supreme Court defending the Texas new law regarding age verification for pornographic sites.
	By the way, I know this is an issue that really gets a lot of people going because on the, you know...
	More of the conservative side, people will say, yes, you know, we want to protect the kids, but then you'll get your libertarian types who say, no, no, it should all be free.
	You can't put those restrictions on companies like that.
	So if you have a take on this, if you have an opinion, send us your email, 1776 at humanevents.com.
	So A.T. Paxton, let me actually bring that up then.
	So regarding the First Amendment question, this has been obviously the...
	Crux, I would say, of Pornhub's argument and the Free Speech Coalition, as they're calling themselves.
	It's not just Pornhub.
	There's other sites out there.
	But they say that they have First Amendment protections and that this law would restrict the First Amendment.
	What is your response to that?
	Look, I agree.
	First Amendment is broad.
	It covers almost anything you can say.
	But, you know, you can't yell fire in a movie house, even if you're an adult.
	So we have recognized throughout our history some limitations that override free speech, and there are very few.
	But this is one of them, and it's protecting our kids because they don't have the mental capacity at young ages to make the right kind of decisions.
	And so, you know, we don't let minors enter into contracts.
	Is that discriminating against minors, or is it protecting minors?
	We have long protected minors in all kinds of different situations.
	And you mentioned some of them earlier about tobacco and vaping.
	You can't vape unless you're 18 years of age.
	So these kind of significant decisions, we just don't let miners make them because we know that their brain is not fully developed and we try to protect them from things like obscene materials and from making contracts that would tie them up in a bad situation.
	And that's really what it comes down to is, you know, it doesn't seem like you're trying to shut down these companies.
	It doesn't seem like Texas is attempting to say that they can't operate.
	But what it is, it's the flip side of that.
	It's a basic protection.
	For the rights of parents, for the rights of children.
	And again, it goes in the line of the well-established protections and powers given to the states to be able to regulate these things, whether it's gambling, which, by the way, is another huge issue coming in with kids under 18. And it's interesting, by the way, because you usually do hear this when it comes to the gambling sites.
	They usually say right up front that they're totally fine with age verification.
	Yeah, and it's interesting to me.
	Obviously, it affects their bottom line.
	It must.
	Because you would think that they would expect that we're going to regulate anything that has to do with children.
	And they know the research.
	They know that there are damaging effects to what's going on here.
	And very young people looking at these websites.
	And they know all of that.
	And yet, here they are in court arguing against what I would consider the most basic, most reasonable...
	Law that we pass, which is protect children first and let adults choose as they please.
	That's right.
	And for a lot of that, too, for many of these sites, it comes down to, right, when you're purchasing something regarding gambling sites, it's baked in because you're going to need a credit card to pay, so you would already have to verify for getting your credit card in the first place.
	Now, you know, are kids going to steal mom and dad's credit card and put that in?
	Sure, maybe, but eventually that will be caught.
	The issue, of course, with the pornographic sites is...
	It's free, by and large.
	They can go to the site.
	They can watch whatever they want.
	There's no verification.
	They can get right in there.
	And we've seen already, and this, by the way, was a huge part of the briefing today regarding the mental and psychological damage that is done to kids when they start accessing this type of content at a young age.
	Yeah, and look, I mean, you saw some of the arguments.
	None of these justices appeared to even...
	Come close to arguing that the state doesn't have a compelling interest in protecting children.
	I actually, I don't know many people that would argue differently.
	Even the coalition, the Free Speech Coalition, argued that it admitted that we had a right to, we had a compelling interest in regulating this type of activity.
	They're just trying to make it ineffective.
	That's all it is.
	And I understand they have a profit motive.
	But the reality is they also know that what they're arguing will not work for us, that we will not be able to protect children.
	And so they're willing to trade that off for profit.
	That's what it looks like to me.
	And I think one of the justices actually, Clarence Thomas or one of the other justices clearly said that in the arguments.
	Oh, no, it was Alito that said, it's just about profit.
	That's what this is.
	And I think that's true.
	And that's absolutely right.
	And that gets into some of the deeper issues that I think are going on in our country right now when we look at these types of things and we ask ourselves, you know, I always use It's a Wonderful Life and the contrast between Bedford Falls and Pottersville, right?
	By the way, my favorite Christmas movie.
	So I like that.
	It's the best.
	It's the absolute best.
	And what do you see in sort of the nightmare version?
	It's gambling.
	It's alcohol everywhere.
	It's girls, girls, girls everywhere.
	It's all of this vice.
	So the idea is, and of course, Mr. Potter loves it because he makes lots of money.
	And when everybody spends all their money at his establishments, well, he's got his little shantytown at the edge of the city there, and they can go live in a shantytown.
	So it's representing two different visions, I think, of what a town could be and what America could be.
	And that's where I think a lot of people draw the line.
	It's about having a place that's actually healthy for families and healthy for children rather than just putting profit motive over everything.
	Yeah, look, I'm not against companies making profits.
	What I'm against is companies making profits at the expense of children's lives.
	Free Speech Coalition made about, you know, sure, yes, the state has a compelling interest.
	I think they knew that they could not go in and argue, no, the state has no interest in protecting children.
	That just sounds like a horrible message, right, a loser message.
	So they kind of argue out of both sides of their mouth.
	They make the argument that the state can do it, but oh, oh, oh, you can't do anything that actually works.
	You can't do age.
	I mean, how controversial should age verification be?
	To me, it should be...
	Non-controversial, and yet they're fighting one of the simplest ways for us to protect children because in reality, while they say that we have an interest, they do not actually believe it.
	Amen.
	AG Paxton, thank you so much for joining us here.
	Congratulations on a great hearing up at the Supreme Court.
	Make sure you're following him because I expect big things to come out of that AG's office this year down in Texas.

▲