LindellTV is now publicly traded! OTC market … Stock symbol: $MLMCShow more Join Rudy Giuliani, famously known as "America's Mayor," for a hard-hitting daily show that rips the veil off Washington, D.C. corruption. With his unparalleled experience and insider knowledge, Giuliani delivers razor-sharp insights into the political dynamics driving the nation’s capital, exposing hidden agendas and breaking down the day’s top news. Fearless commentary, explosive revelations, and a no-holds-barred look at the forces shaping America’s future, straight from one of the country’s most trusted voices. Show less
This is Rudy Giuliani, and this is America's Mayor Live, except it's actually the Rudy Giuliani show.
I'm one hour ahead.
But it's been a very, very interesting day.
Of course, the Supreme Court decision, the implications of which appear at first glance to be massive and upon analysis are nothing more than annoying.
So let me see if I can explain that to you.
The president imposed the tariffs that he's used under several different statutes.
If you remember, he did retaliatory tariffs, which I think most people agree with.
Meaning, if China charges us 50% on the cars that we send to China, we should charge them approximately the same amount on charges on tariffs or duties or whatever you want to call them of things they send to America so that our workers are not disadvantaged,
so that Chinese cars can be built less expensively, sold less expensively in America, have less expensive basis, meaning less expenses in getting to the end product than ours, or can actually charge as much as our cars be twice as good because there's a hundred percent tariff involved, and they can invest that money in the car.
All of that has happened to us, and all of that has not destroyed, but done a horrible, horrible damage to, I'm picking just one industry.
It's ruined our steel industry.
It's removed our coal industry.
Of course, there you have to end up with the green madness that did that also.
And America's future is not very bright unless much of this is reclaimed.
Much of our solid base of a country that is multifaceted with a very, very diverse economy and that isn't based on one or two things.
So you see a country like Russia, which is really, I wouldn't say an economic disaster, but pretty close to it.
Certainly not able, given the base of its economy, to compete with the United States and China as a world power.
It pretends it bullies, it does have nuclear weapons, which it uses to bolster itself.
But as far as a long-term war is concerned, to defend itself, for example, it's useless, pretty close to useless.
I mean, if the United States and Europe really were serious, they could invade and accomplish what Napoleon and Hitler were unable to accomplish because they'd invaded from four sides, including over the North Pole.
And Russia would be gone, oh, not quickly, but Russia could be gone.
Russia's army has proven to be pathetic?
One could say pathetic.
So the tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court.
Let me see if I can explain to you what the Supreme Court did.
Simply, the United States Constitution makes it clear that only Congress, only the House and the Senate, can impose tariffs, set tariffs.
It's much like the revenue measures.
Revenue measures must commence in the House of Representatives.
And remember, we had to go through all of that during the government shutdown.
So it had to go back to the House if there was any change by the Senate.
Well, similarly under Article 1 of the Constitution, tariffs are set by Congress.
But like anything else, Congress can delegate powers to some degree to the executive branch and does all the time.
They'll delegate a certain, first of all, the federal branch immediately has delegated to us all the things that are necessary and proper to carry out a law of Congress.
So if there are things that, if the Congress said murder is a crime and it has a death penalty,
at that point, that authorizes the executive to hire police officers, build prisons, and purchase the means for executing because it's necessary and proper to carry out the law that was passed by Congress that allows the death penalty for first-degree murder.
The president, however, can't do away with the law for first-degree murder.
Nor can the president say, we're not going to consider capital punishment for murder because Congress has made it a law.
He has to carry out the intent of Congress, but the means and the ways in which that is done, that's the power of the executive, unless the Congress constricts that in some way.
And then if it constricts it too much, then Congress has acted unconstitutionally.
So why is all this so important?
This is so important because many of our constitutional scholars and our founding fathers felt that that separation of powers we have is even more important than our Bill of Rights in assuring our freedom from a despotic government.
That even before the Bill of Rights was passed, which happened after the ratification of the Constitution, the United States guaranteed you a benign government, a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, because Madison mostly and others were the inspiration for these checks and balances.
Each branch of the government has only the powers given to it by the Constitution.
They cannot poach into the powers of the other branch.
And this would be what I would call an anti-poaching decision.
Six members of the Supreme Court said when the president set up these tariffs under the AIPA Act, I think that was the act that he did it under.
Let's get the exact act that he did it under.
We have it right here.
The president did it under the International Emergency Economic Act, EPA, IEEPA, of 1977.
And that is a law of Congress that gave the president power to regulate importation in an emergency and to exact emergency measures for that.
The Supreme Court said that although presidents had used that virtually everyone since the beginning, no president ever used it to impose a tariff.
They had used it to impose fines.
They had used it to impose sanctions.
They had used it to impose specific regulations about how much and where and how, but they never imposed a tariff.
Now, one could say that that's semantics, right?
What's the difference between a sanction and a tariff?
Suppose Trump had said instead of it's a tariff, the 10% that I am charging on every country is a sanction because of the way they have screwed us for the last hundred years.
I guess there would be a charge that that was trying to do indirectly what you can't do directly, but you can't impose a tariff.
But then he'd have the authority of all of the sanctions that have been imposed by other presidents that have been approved.
So there's a little bit of very hollow analysis and thinking here, right?
It really amazes me in many ways how, please, I probably don't have to argue before the court again, how foolish they are and childish.
The 10% tariff is, a president can't do that, but the president can do a 10% sanction.
Now, even more interesting than that, which Judge Kavanaugh in dissent pointed out, he can do everything he wants under other laws.
One that seems to be a clear one that was just about approved is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, where he can do, having found an emergency or an issue, he can impose at least a 10% tariff.
And now, obviously, he's going to do that.
He was pretty clear on this.
So just so you understand the decision, six justices, three liberals, three conservatives voted that it was unconstitutional for the president to impose these tariffs.
Now, these tariffs are not all the tariffs by any means.
These tariffs are the tariffs that he imposed specifically on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
He used, he said, he has two other at least categorical tariffs of a similar dimension.
All of those are in effect.
So this collected, this tariff, he collected record amounts of tariffs, right?
And we have almost, I think, a record amount of receipts for the government.
But I think this was about a third of it.
Also left open.
And boy, this is a wide open question.
Is it retroactive?
Kavanaugh in dissent points out the danger the court is creating by doing this, because if it is retroactive, it could create quite a situation of economic jeopardy for the country.
Not so much because you can't do it in the future, but because you couldn't recoup this money from the past and you'd have to pay it back.
Now, it is not clear that it's retroactive.
And what does that usually turn on?
That's going to turn on whether the president had a reasonable basis to pay.
To tell you the truth, they've never decided this before.
So let me tell you, as a lawyer, I'm creatively making this up.
I can't give you five opinions one way and five another, because we never faced this problem before.
Because a court has never really done this kind of damage to a president.
I mean, you could have written, I could have written, when I listened to the argument of this case and read, you could decide this case, he's a wedding.
The law says that he can take the actions necessary to deal with an emergency to regulate importation.
President says a 10% tariff is a thing to do.
That'll settle them down and stop them from imposing all kinds of tariffs here and there.
And not only tariffs, but also imposing all kinds of fees and regulations and internal tariffs when we get there.
It's the full package of discrimination.
It's the full package of things that you impose on an American product that isn't imposed on the French product.
Tariff is only one of them.
And again, had the president imposed a sanction of 10%, it at least would have been consistent with what almost every other president has done and has been approved.
There would have been the argument that he was, there's a thing in the law called you can't do indirectly, what you're prohibited from doing directly.
But for many, many years since 1977, the court has accepted the labeling that the president applies to it.
Why he didn't do it?
I don't know if it was an oversight.
I doubt it.
There's a great deal of study given to this.
It probably is one of the things he's trying to do, which is to expand and clarify so that in the future these things can be avoided, the powers that the president does have.
And although this limits exercise of discretion under one statute, as the president quite astutely observed, this gives him a great deal of leeway under these others.
So we'll be back exactly where we were very shortly.
It's just a matter of his signing papers.
Doesn't have to go to Congress, doesn't have to do anything.
It'll be taken to court because it'll be said, again, that this is just a way of getting around it.
And then it's going to be a question of does he satisfy their desire to have it sufficiently different or not?
And in this is a great deal of sophistry, which is tragic, really.
And I think Kavanaugh's decision, which the president rightly praised, is and for the two other justices, Thomas, who is the greatest justice of his generation, and Justice Alito, who certainly, if he gets another 10, 15 years, can challenge that, agreed with that.
And you can pretty much look to the two of them and then Kavanaugh.
Epstein's Legacy Ruled00:15:19
And usually Gorsuch, I'm shocked, actually, for very sound legal opinions.
The chief, Chief, I think, is affected a lot by Washington cocktail parties.
You know, is he going to be accepted, acceptable?
You know, I think he, I thought he would have changed with the switch in the Washington Post.
I always thought, although I have a great deal of regard for John Roberts, and I think he's a great judge, and it's tragic.
I think he knows what he's doing.
But he's been a very, very, at times, at other times not, but at times for conservatives, a very, very big disappointment.
And Amy Coney Barrett, I don't know.
She must have had a midlife crisis of some kind.
Roberts is more consistent than she is.
So we're going to have the new tariffs.
And they're going to, so why don't we hear the president explain this?
Why don't we hear the president explain this to us in his own words, which are probably clearer and better than mine.
Can we play that?
You took a look at the deficits that we had with some of these countries.
It was disgraceful what they got away with for many, many decades.
But now we know because this decision affirms all those things that some people weren't sure about.
In order to protect, and it says so, in order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past period of a year under the various tariffs, authorities.
So we can use other of the statutes, other of the tariff authorities, which have also been confirmed and are fully allowed.
Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs, they're existing, they're there, remain in place, fully in place, and in full force and effect.
Today I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.
And we're also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.
So Section, that's the one I just mentioned to you.
The two that he first mentioned, Section 232 and Section 301, we already have tariffs.
As I said, it was about one-third of the tariffs that were declared unconstitutional.
And those were the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
They were ruled, the provision wasn't ruled unconstitutional.
The way in which the president applied the provision was ruled unconstitutional.
Under that provision, he doesn't have the power, only Congress does, to impose tariffs.
And Congress hadn't effectively delegated that power to him.
Now, under 232 and 301, although there isn't a holding here that those are fully constitutional, it appears from the language of both opinions that they are.
So they remain in effect.
So actually, he just reiterated those.
He didn't become vindictive.
He could have raised them.
But what he did do, he immediately used the law that clearly is within his power, and that's Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which predated this law to impose the same 10% tariffs.
So I don't know if he loses a day in collection.
So far he doesn't.
The big questions will be the following.
Is the decision today retroactive?
And I was going to tell you that I believe that that'll get decided on how reasonable his action was or how malicious his action was, if malicious at all.
In other words, would his decision be considered, even if you disagree with it as a Supreme Court scholar justice, whatever, a reasonable interpretation of the statute?
I would say he's on pretty good ground there because he has three justices agreeing with him.
In other words, three justices of the Supreme Court saw the same constitutional merit in it as the executives did.
So how could one say he was acting lawlessly or irresponsibly or irrationally unless those three are also irresponsible and irrational.
So if the court wanted to be putive and imposed its burden on the United States, they would have done it.
I don't think, I think they're actually hoping that nobody comes back and asks them, because I think that some of those votes on that side of the court, the six, do not exactly have a great deal of intestinal fortitude, and they do everything they can to avoid tough questions, which leaves the lower courts very often in a state of massive confusion under the way Justice Roberts does things.
And they complain about it, both right and left.
But in any event, I think the end result here, again, not clear, is that the worst hasn't happened.
He hasn't been required to pay all the money back.
Now, if he had to pay it back, it's about a third of what he collected, not all.
being the great businessman that he did, he quickly reorganized.
And as of tonight, those same tariffs are in effect, except under a different statute.
There's nothing preventing them.
I am certain that these anti-American creeps will go to court because all they're trying to do is protect their business in foreign countries.
These guys are there's not a single thing about this that benefits the United States.
All these will benefit the foreign countries.
They don't have to pay the tariffs anymore.
And if you want to know the companies, one is Learning Resources Inc. versus Trump, and the other is VOS Selections Inc. versus Trump.
One of them does a great deal of business in foreign countries.
Well, could they have a right to do it?
But let's figure out who's acting in the best interest of the United States and who isn't.
Things can be legal, illegal in this technical sense and still be, I mean, not every law that we passed is intelligent, right?
Take a look at Congress and you can figure that out.
So let's see what happens.
This will go into effect.
By Monday, there'll be a case in the district court of probably the District of Columbia challenging these new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
So let's see what happens.
I do think, and this is just an expression of anger or annoyance, or I do think the court could have waited until June to do this, since it's really of no consequence, really.
They must have known the president is not going to just kind of like say, oh, you were right.
They had to have known, since they even noted it in the opinion that he has a roadmap here.
They actually pointed out he can impose higher taxes.
It gave him a way to do it.
I mean, I'm surprised you didn't.
He could have put the three acts together that were not touched.
And he could have decided, well, instead of a 10%, this is the 10% tax that has been attacked.
You go, let me make it 15.
Let me make it 20.
It wasn't the amount of the tax that made it unconstitutional.
It was the fact that he did it that made it unconstitutional.
And the amount of the tax.
Now, again, I have to look a little more carefully.
In some of these delegations, the amount of the tax is important where the court has, where the Congress has narrowly given the president power as opposed to broadly.
So let's see what abuse, child abuse.
We don't know if it's, well, any sex with a minor, consensual or not, is considered statutory rape under American law.
I assume it's the same under English law.
And then minor does change a little in different states.
I mean, by and large, it's usually 18.
But I think there are states in the United States where it's 17.
There may even be one or two where it's 16.
I'm not sure about the 16 part.
I know there are several where it's 17.
And if you listen to Virginia's, if you read Virginia's biography, it was non-consensual, I think.
I think.
You'd certainly make that argument.
I mean, it sounded like the girl was brainwashed, but that could be an opinion rather than a fact.
Prince Andrew looked completely destroyed yesterday when he was arrested.
Oh, yeah.
We got a picture of that.
That's a picture.
And you know, the British tabloids have that of them right away.
And the charge that he was arrested under is his crimes against the government.
He has not yet specifically been charged with child molestation or abusing a minor or sex with a minor or any of the things that seem to emerge as at least allegations from the Epstein reports.
He's been demoted or had his title taken away.
That's more than a title.
That's his, I think, I think, certainly his income and possibly everything he owns, Ted.
Yeah.
Because I'm not sure he owns anything.
No, yes, he does.
He was able.
Most monarchs buy things of their own with the money they get from the government.
I wonder what happens to the things, assuming he did, that over the years, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor bought.
Say Andrew Mountbatten Windsor set up an IRA or an investment account.
And he took the money he was getting as a prince and he put it in there.
And now that is worth $10 million.
Does he get to keep that?
I'm raising it as a question, Ted.
I don't know the answer to it.
I don't know if he gets to keep it.
Have they taken everything from him?
They certainly no longer pay him.
They no longer give him his free residence.
They no longer give him his food allowance.
His title's gone, obviously.
All that stuff that he was getting.
But he was paid for many, many years.
With that payment, he bought things.
Do those things belong to him or do they belong to England?
I think they belong to him.
I think what he bought, what he purchased is his property as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, not as Prince Andrew.
I think he does have that.
He keeps that.
He is not being forced to give back items he personally purchased.
He is not receiving any financial return for the roughly.
That's my question.
So now it's a question of how much he stashed away.
Was he smart enough to stash away money or did he spend everything and now he's got nothing?
But if he were to some degree prudent, he would over a period of time have invested or saved or bought property with the house he was evicted from, he never apparently never bought because he was thrown out of his palace.
But I guess that's not a that's a government building.
Now his former wife, Sarah Ferguson, is going to be is going to be subpoenaed.
I don't know.
I don't know what she does.
She show up in the, she shows up at a couple of the events with Epstein, correct?
But there's no real, as far as, I mean, I have not, all I do is read what other people write about this.
I haven't read the Epstein stuff.
But I don't know that it at all spells out what she was doing other than accompanying him.
And since the time they were divorced, there is no marital privilege.
And I believe it operates in England that it does exist for the time they were married.
She can't testify against him about anything that he said to her or she learned while they were married.
But they've been divorced for quite some time.
And I think a lot of the Epstein activities took place after he was divorced.
And although he, even before we knew about Epstein, all the gossip columns would talk about Andrew's girlfriends, et cetera, et cetera.
It was always clear that he and Fergie, as she's called, were friends.
Yes.
You know, personal friends.
And she seems to be very, very upset about this.
How much she knows of it, how much she doesn't know of it.
I don't know.
I don't know and how forgiving or not forgiving or understanding she is.
I don't know that either.
But I do know she's going to be, she's going to be questioned by, I guess, Scotland Yard covers this investigation.
And they are, of course, quite a they are quite a massive force to deal with.
Upset and Questioned00:02:32
So the last monarch, the last member of the royal family that was arrested, there have been some that have been prosecuted for minor offenses like speeding or drunk driving or things like that, but not arrested.
The last one, I thought I had this picture because you'll see it, was 400 years ago.
So they've either been protected or good boys for a very, very long, for a very long time.
And that was, but now, would you like to know his penalty, though?
The last one.
King Charles I was forced from the throne and put on trial and convicted in 1649.
Wow.
That's the last time.
Of waging a civil war.
He was convicted of insurrection.
I wonder if it was a phony charge.
Charles was exposed as a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer, and a public enemy.
A court rule of the time on January 30th, 1649.
I guess he got his head.
He got his head chopped off.
So that will not happen to his ancestor, the brother of Charles III.
Andrew's sister, so I guess this family has going to have a little bit of a couple of black marks on it in the royal lineage.
I don't remember this.
His sister, Princess Anne, became the first royal to be convicted of a criminal offense in modern history.
Oh, geez.
She was convicted of the Dangerous Dogs Act in 2002 after her bull terrier bit two children.
Oh my gosh.
Well, she was fined $670 for it and ordered to pay $330 in compensation.
So I think that one, that one, I don't think anybody would have had a big investigation if you kind of didn't waste your time.
Didn't waste your time.
We're going to take a short break, and we'll be right back.
Drop Pounds, Boost Energy00:03:48
If you want to drop extra pounds, boost energy levels, and reduce swelling in your legs and feet, then this message is for you.
Pure Health Research is on a mission to make America healthy again.
And two of their best-selling health supplements are leading the way.
First is Liver Health Formula.
Over 100 million Americans have a sluggish liver that's riddled with fatty deposits.
This can kill your metabolism, pile on the pounds, and make you feel tired.
Liver Health Formula takes care of that.
It supports thriving liver health with special nutrients like artichoke extract and milk thistle.
This is one of the easiest ways to slim down and revitalize your energy levels.
Next is Lymph System Support.
If you struggle with fluid buildup or swelling in your legs, ankles, and feet, this is for you.
The natural ingredients in lymph system support help gently flush away extra fluid and toxins out of your body.
And right now, for a limited time, you get 35% off liver health formula and lymph system support, along with 50 plus other health supplements that Peer Health Research has to offer.
So head over to PureHealthResearch.com and use promo code Lindel at checkout.
That's PureHealthResearch.com.
Promo code Lindel to save 35% on your order today.
Too many pharmacies and insurance companies are blocking the medications that actually work.
That's why I recommend All Family Pharmacy.
They give you access to treatments like ivermectin now starting at just $2 a capsule.
They also have methylene blue, hydroxychloroquine, and so much more.
They're helping you stay prepared and they've dropped their prices by 25%.
Also, use promo code Lindel10 to save even more.
Go to allfamilypharmacy.com forward slash Lindel.
Use promo code Lindel10 and get the medicine you need.
It's finally here, our second annual mega sale.
This sale only comes around once a year, so take advantage of the best offers ever while you can.
For example, save 50% on our Giza Dream bed sheets, as low as $29.98.
And for the first time ever on TV, MyPillow Mattresses and MyPillow Mattress Toppers as low as $99.98.
And you save 50% on our LuxPure six-piece towel sets.
Regular $69.98, now only $39.98.
And our best-selling standard MyPillows, regular $49.98, on sale for $17.98.
Wait on it, mega sale, only $14.98.
So go to mypillow.com or call the number on your screen.
Use this promo code to take advantage of our second annual mega sale.
But wait, there's more.
To make the mega sale even more special, when you order right now, your order's going to ship absolutely free.
Welcome to Vocal, the free speech social app that gives you a platform to amplify your voice, speak freely, connect boldly, and be part of a growing movement for truth, faith, and freedom.
Want to know what's happening right now?
The Now Playing feature shows you exactly who's live and what's streaming in real time.
Check out the show's feed, a non-stop lineup including Lindel TV News 24-7, shows and on-demand programming all in one place.
Connect with your favorite host and never miss a show.
Explore the featured page for quick access to Lindell TV's top shows.
Follow your favorites and watch their newest content flow right into your feed.
And when they go live on Vocal, you can join the live chat and be part of the action.
Ask questions, share your thoughts, even help shape future shows.
Stay informed on issues around securing our elections by following your state's Cause of America account.
Join a group and connect on a deeper level.
Leaders of Peace00:04:35
From faith and freedom to the future of our nation.
Go to Vocal.com or download the app today and be a part of the mission to save our country.
Welcome back.
Yesterday was a second meeting of the Board of Peace.
And the Board of Peace is taking on some real shape and form now and addressing itself to its first mission.
I mean, the great fear with the Board of Peace is that it will take over for the United Nations because the United Nations has done such a good job over the last 50 years.
Just think of all the wars they stopped.
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Afghanistan twice when Russia invaded it.
Ukraine right now.
How many in the Middle East?
One, two, three, three, four, four.
All the wars in Eastern Europe after communism.
Oh, gosh, as Clabil Clinton said when I asked, why didn't you bring them in?
He said, well, because they're useless.
And that is pretty much a bipartisan opinion when the Democrats are telling the truth, which is no longer.
So, I mean, I don't know that it really is very, very hard to make the case that the UN is a useless Marxist Marxist debating society.
The Board of Peace is made up of doers, people who and most, and if you look at the leaders that are there, those are mostly the leaders who mean something.
The jackasses were pretty much all home.
The ones who are running countries that are at deficits that are absurd, the ones who can't seem to raise an army or in the last two days, two very, very tough essays were written.
One by the deputy prime minister of the Czech Republic who ripped apart Hillary Clinton during a debate at Munich, in which he basically said, you know, Trump is right.
Europe is Western Europe, not Eastern Europe, Western Europe is basically a basket case.
And there will not be, if it keeps going in that direction, much of a reminder of Western civilization in about 10 years.
It's almost gone in England, and it's on its way in France and Germany.
And Georgia Maloney is fighting a very, very courageous battle in Italy to prevent it with great forces aligned against her.
But the Board of Peace first mission is maybe one of its most impossible, which is to straighten out the situation in Gaza.
And core to that is creating a place that is not a breeding ground for terrorists.
Gaza, supported fully by the United Nations, in which the terrorist group Hamas widely made up all of the employees of the UN's relief effort, which meant that the Palestinians starved and Hamas got wealthy based on the UN.
The reconstruction of Hamas is under the direction of the Board of Peace, Chairman Donald J. Trump, members, useful, positive world leaders, not members of the Marxist jackasses.
And, well, you've got them, you know, England, France, Canada, countries that are basically all falling apart and some of whom are, I don't know, what's that gambling service?
Pick one, one of the famous.
FanDuel.
What?
FanDuel?
What are the odds on FanDuel that the King of England is a caliph in 10 years?
And not a king.
He's the caliph Muhammad.
Right.
Muhammad.
They have that one up there yet.
Muhammad Caliph William or something.
Wins the Family Converts?00:03:56
What do you think?
Is it all going to convert?
Yeah, right.
Wins the family going to convert so they can remain?
I don't know.
I mean, it looks like Charles looked like Charlie III looks like he's ready to go.
Right.
I mean, I think, do you think his mother, Queen Elizabeth, who I have great affection for, obviously I would, since she honored me with a knighthood, honor her, honored me, honored.
Do you think she knew that her son would be the last king of England?
She was hoping for a grandson.
Was she hoping that she'd live and Charlie would die and William would take over?
But she waited.
I mean, there was always that rumor that she waited forever and she would never abdicate because she thought that her son was too weak and too stupid to be king.
Wow.
Boy, Charles is a left-wing, complete, you know, greeny, weird guy, silly.
I mean, the people of England can't really respect him very much.
I mean, did you see him?
He goes to those Muslim services and he's the head of the Church of England.
He's the head of the Christian Church of England, which is the closest thing you can find in the Protestant Reformation to the Roman Catholic Church.
It's a little ridiculous that he's the head of the Church of England since the guy who took over was a bit like Muhammad, you know, a murderer and a dishonest guy.
I mean, just didn't murder his wife.
He murdered a lot of other people.
Murdered a lot of Catholics and Protestants.
You know, he's a strange guy, Henry VIII.
Henry VIII thought he was a Catholic right to the very end.
In fact, the Church of England, subsequently Anglican, and then as it moved out to the colonies, the Episcopalian Church, right?
Henry VIII, when he died, would have told you that it was the Catholic Church, just correctly formulated under the king as the primary leader of the church.
And the Pope, if he would ever assume his proper role of just being the religious leader, could come back, but he couldn't run the church and the property would be the kings.
It was his daughter, not his first daughter, Mary.
Mary conducted a Catholic bloodbath after she took over and tried to wipe out the Protestant movement by execution.
But she didn't execute a sister, nor did her sister execute her.
And then when she died, her sister Elizabeth took over.
And her sister, half sister from a Protestant mother, Anne Boleyn, was a true Protestant.
As Anne Boleyn was, she had embraced Luther and Henry VIII was a big opponent of Luther's day he died.
And she changed the church.
She took it out of the Latin language, put it in the English language, changed, tweaked some of the things, some of the doctrines, although for centuries it remained the closest Protestant church to Catholicism.
And in some situations, when they called it high Anglican or high Episcopalian, you couldn't tell the difference.
Now, there are still churches like that.
But I warn you that every person that I talk to now, almost, I would say it's universal, that has recently been in England, say they give it 10 years and it will be a completely Muslim country.
Partially Muslim Country00:05:25
It is already partially a Muslim country, where in fact and in reality, the law is disregarded in favor of Sharia law.
Right.
So the Board of Peace is going to have to, at the core of being able to regularize the Palestinian state, it's going to have to change the whole process of indoctrination.
Every Palestinian that grew up in Palestine, and this is why they're dangerous, is trained from childhood to kill Jews and to kill Americans and to, if necessary, die as part of the jihad to spread Muhammad, the religion of Muhammad, as Muhammad told them to do.
The people who teach them this in the Muslim schools, which are all the schools in both the West Bank and in Gaza, are doing this based on specific language in the Quran, which commands all of this, and specific stories that explicate it in the Hadith, which is the contemporary, well, contemporary,
meaning 1,200 years ago and a couple hundred years after Muhammad, stories of the Muslim scholars.
It is a brutal, bloodthirsty religion.
People who say it's a religion of peace are either lying to you or they're misinformed.
It's a religion that would only be a religion of peace is if you tore out about one-third of the pages and burned them.
Then it would be a religion of peace.
It can be, depending on how you organize the Torah, it can be, I'm sorry, the Torah is the first five books of the Bible.
But depending on how you organize the Quran, it can be, I mean, I could get out the chapters about violence and it would be a questionable but acceptable book.
I don't think you'd believe it.
It seems to be an attempt by a second-rate intellect and fifth-rate poet to copy the Bible stories incorrectly.
It would be unlikely that it was written by Muhammad, since everywhere he's described as illiterate.
Now, unless illiterate means something different in Arabic or ancient languages and you can't read and write, he couldn't write.
And he was afflicted with seizures as he got older very, very frequently, attributed without scientific or historical fact to epilepsy.
But at the time, epilepsy was unknown to the public, so attributed to being possessed by the angel Gabriel, being possessed by Satan, or just being crazy.
Which is why a lot of people didn't follow him.
I mean, he'd be preaching something that seemed rather hard to believe.
Gabriel came, scooped him up, took him up to heaven.
Then he met all these guys like Abraham and Isaac and Moses and Jesus.
And they all patted him on the back and told him what a great guy he was and how much more important he was to them.
And Abraham was the top guy, but he was more important than Abraham.
And then this God they had was really a name and a concept they took from the pagan religion of his hometown.
So that's going to have to, they're going to have to be deprogrammed.
They're indoctrinated.
Palestinians are indoctrinated people.
They grew up, most of them, listening to a version of Mickey Mouse with a mouse whose name was not Mickey Mouse, it was Farfur.
What did Farfour do?
Farfour was a little mouse that led jihad.
And Farfour liked to kill Jews.
The little mouse liked to kill Jews.
So the kids were brainwashed to kill Jews.
And then when Jews went around Christians, to liberate Jerusalem and to make the world Islam and to do whatever was necessary to get rid of those who didn't accept the word of Muhammad.
Rules vs. Freedom00:05:59
Well, I know there's a tremendous debate, right?
The big, big debate goes on about these tariffs were going to lead to.
So we just had the litigation on tariffs, and one-third of the tariffs have been declared unconstitution.
By three hours later, the president had reiterated them in the renewal law.
So right now, you're going to pay the tariff until somebody goes to court and tries to get an injunction.
So they lost four hours of tariff revenues.
But remember how tariffs were going to kill us?
I mean, first of all, nobody would import anything in the United States because they wouldn't get hit with a tariff.
And secondly, we're going to have inflation out of control.
Well, inflation is lower than it's been now in three or four years.
It's going even lower.
I couldn't believe how little I paid for a tank of gasoline the other day.
I thought I made a, I kept pushing the thing.
Come on, come on, what are you talking about?
But in any event, here's the best answer for which they should get down on their hands and knees and say, Donald Trump, oh, you are a genius.
And we are, we have to, we have admit, we have to admit that we are what you have said we are.
We are morons compared to you.
We are complete morons.
So the first thing, the first thing one would expect if tariffs were going to hurt the United States, because we're charging people more money to send, like 10.
Everybody in that case today is spending, is having to add to the price of their and the cost of the goods that they're selling 10% for selling it to the United States.
So if they make, I think they straightened it out, but at one time we had added 100% to Italian pasta.
I remember that.
I think Georgia Maloney exercised her goodwill with the president to get that changed because a lot of Italians in America said the American pasta is not as good as the Italian pasta.
Look, I'm not sure of that.
I really am not.
I don't know if that's a fact or fiction.
I've had both, and I've never done really a comparison test, and I will.
But I do think a lot of that stuff about ethnic origins and it's better with the Italian stuff is a lot of garbage.
But we have just completed our best year for imports in the history of the United States.
We've got the highest tariffs and we have more people selling to us when the tariffs were lower.
You go figure and look at it.
Can you put this on, Ted?
I don't know if you can see this.
This is it here.
There we got it.
And that's the highest.
There it is, right there.
Zoom out on that.
Yeah.
There we go.
Can you zoom out on that?
Yeah.
Wow.
They were up 4.3 trillion.
Gotta laugh, but it's.
We laugh, but people don't know this.
People do not realize that you can begin with the analysis that anything the Democrats say about economics is wrong because they are Marxist.
And Marxism is a disastrous, insane, infantile, and satanic economic theory.
It's an economic theory that uses economics to take away your freedom.
People shouldn't use economics to take away your freedom.
And of course, the most vibrant economy, which any mature human being would tell you, is a free economy.
And tariffs are not being used by Trump to make it a command economy and take away freedom.
What they are doing is to allow an arena for freedom to be exercised.
That's called having rules of fairness.
So the minute you impose rules, you're not taking away free trade.
When you impose commands or onerous rules, that's when what the Democrats love to call a rule-based economy and a rule-based world.
That complete phony Ron Emmanuel wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday saying, Trump is moving away from the rule-based society.
What's a rule-based society?
You know what?
To him, it's a dictatorship.
It's doing what the Democrats command you do.
Law is a lot better because law is passed by the people.
Law is bipartisan, God willing.
And law is only as much as we need in order to create a fair playing field, but not to determine the result.
I mean, the minute you set up rules for a baseball game that determine the result of the baseball game, it's no longer baseball.
The minute you set up rules to determine the result of an economy, it's no longer a free market.
It's a ridiculous, and in fact, this is much too esoteric, and we're at the end.
You can't have a rule-dominated free market.
It's no longer free.
Well, God bless America.
Go over to X, and we'll be right there, and we'll continue on this because it needs a little more explanation.