Tate Brown and Orrin McIntyre analyze the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Calais, which bans race-based redistricting and could shift up to 12 seats to Republicans, potentially halting a Democratic "blue wave." They connect this legal victory to Trump's praise of Anglo-Saxon heritage and his summit with King Charles, arguing these actions reassert a distinct American identity against globalist homogenization. Ultimately, the discussion frames the Revolution as a cultural separation driven by divergent strains rather than simple rebellion, concluding that preserving national character requires resisting the "big beige mush" of forced uniformity. [Automatically generated summary]
This is Tate Brown here holding it down, and I'm very pleased to be back with you on this wonderful Wednesday morning.
You know, King Charles is in town.
I don't know if you guys saw the news, or I don't know if you're news junkies, if you're any Politicos in the crowd, but King Chuck, he is in town as we are in the DC area.
And so I suspect, because we've had a slew of rainy, kind of cold weather that's just kind of rolled in this week, I suspect that perhaps King Charles drugged this weather in with him from Britain, because this is certainly.
Um, weather that would be more fitting for England or Scotland, perhaps, than Virginia.
It's a little annoying, so I mean, I'm happy he came.
You know, it's always good to have Chuck over to hang out with Uncle Donnie.
Um, but the weather, I mean, seriously, did you have to bring that with you?
I mean, like, I was getting geared up for summer, I was wearing shorts.
I mean, that's how serious things were getting, and then all of a sudden now I'm having to like pack an umbrella.
I mean, what's going on?
It's just utter woke nonsense.
But with that, we have some massive stories we're gonna get into.
Obviously, I'm your host, Tate Brown, taking you from the morning.
To the afternoon on the Rumble daily lineup, seeing as it is 12 03 now.
So it is firmly the afternoon here on the East Coast.
Some big stories this week are really big stories that were happening today.
The big one, I don't know if you saw the news because it dropped maybe like an hour or two ago, but the Supreme Court is now dropping some of their opinions from the last cycle.
And the second opinion they dropped was Louisiana versus Calais, which is the race based discrimination sort of suit where they are contesting the second or the section two, the second section.
Of the Voter Rights Act that effectively mandates race based districts.
Now, you may be asking, okay, well, what's a race based district?
That sounds bad.
And yeah, it is pretty bad.
It was a remnant of the Civil Rights era when we just crammed through a bunch of legislation.
One of those being that African Americans, you know, black people in the South would be basically given their own districts because the argument was, well, we don't have, you know, we're a separate group, so to speak.
And, you know, we've been, you know, this is their argument, we've been oppressed in the South, we don't have any representation.
So part of the way that we can achieve Sort of parity with everyone else in the country is if we have our own districts, right?
If we have majority black districts across the southern United States.
And that's what happened.
That's what this was.
That is what the implication of Section 2 of the Voter Rights Act is effectively, you know, I've used this term and I'm not even using it like pejoratively.
I'm just being objective as to what these are.
These are DEI districts.
Again, you are carving out a separate district purely along racial lines.
I thought the whole bargain, you know, I thought the whole deal that was inked in the 1960s would be that we are pursuing a post racial society, right?
That was the whole pitch to white America.
That was the whole pitch to America by and large is that, hey, everyone's going to chill out.
We're all Americans here.
Race is just a tertiary sort of factor of who you are.
Primarily, you're an American.
Therefore, you're going to be equal before the law, right?
There's going to be no distinction made along racial lines.
The problem was that was only selectively applied, and typically it's applied to Sort of harm white people or punish white people in the instances of like affirmative action and these sorts of things.
And then it's used to effectively disenfranchise voters in the South because at the expense of rightful Republican representation in the South or even representation of other Democrats, you know, like in the state of Mississippi, for example, or Alabama, they only seek representation specifically along the lines of race in the South.
It was just a completely, I mean, look, you know, Democrats, they're obviously coming out for partisan reasons of defending this, but I've had some conversations over the years before the Voting Rights Act was like a, you know, big thing that we could challenge.
And they were like, yeah, that is probably past due for that.
I mean, it is a bit strange that that's even a law on the books.
It's just a bit ridiculous.
So the Supreme Court made the right decision here.
I was reading Will Chamberlain.
You know, Will Chamberlain, obviously a great legal mind on these matters, especially on matters involving the, Federal government.
And, you know, he speculated that the specific angle that the Supreme Court took in, you know, contesting Section 2 of the Voters' Rights Act was actually better to, again, redefine what it actually does rather than just gut it completely because now we can prosecute the other way.
We can prosecute on the, or we can sort of make the case that, no, these districts are based along race and that violates the Voting Rights Act.
You know, it should be post racial, non racial, et cetera, et cetera.
Trump's delivery was perfect because you could tell he was agreeing with everything that was written.
Not that he wouldn't read a speech he disagrees with, but fantastic.
So we'll get into all that.
I got to get going here.
We have Orrin McIntyre coming out in halftime.
We're going to discuss, I brought him in to discuss the Voting Rights Act, but I have a feeling me and him are going to want to hit on.
Some of the implications of last night's pageantry because there was some meat there.
There was some red meat there.
Anyway, I'll get into it.
First, let's just get through this because this is massive, quite frankly.
From SCOTUS blog, the second opinion in Louisiana versus Calais.
I think I'm saying his last name correctly.
On race based discrimination in the Voting Rights Act, a 6 3 court held that Louisiana's math creating a second majority black district was, quote, an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Court didn't strike Section 2.
So, first of all, the implications of this are obvious.
The Republicans are poised to gain about 12 seats.
Again, if we can successfully capitalize on this, because this doesn't mean now the Supreme Court has ruled in that gerrymander is overdone, you know, is overdone.
Overturned and then the map changes automatically.
No, these states still have to redraw their maps.
So, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, they all have to redraw their maps.
Now, Florida is already on the case here with Ron DeSantis.
I covered this yesterday.
So, Florida is already one step ahead of this.
They're already on it.
They're not really too perturbed to begin with.
Granted, they don't have as large of a black population as, for example, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina.
Those are kind of the big ones.
But as you can see on this map, the Democrats hold 24 seats in these states.
And again, if they overturn or if they sort of act, if they act to redraw, the Republicans can claw back 12 seats that were previously gerrymandered away for racial purposes.
So, massive, massive implications here.
Again, the midterms are in play.
Now, I know it's kind of the narrative right now across conservative media that it's going to be a wipeout in the midterms.
But as time goes on, some people are saying, actually, you know what?
This could be in play.
Again, if I had to put money on it, I would still anticipate the Democrats take the House.
The Republicans keep the Senate because, again, just much more of the seats that are much more of there's much more Democrat tilting seats that will be up for grabs if you just look at individual polling.
I know we have general polling coming in.
You know, Harvard put a poll out yesterday.
Harvard Harris put out a poll saying it's a tie, 50 50 tie on the general ballot.
That being said, the general ballot doesn't translate to seats.
The general ballot just indicates that if there were a nationwide popular vote, what would be the result?
And they're saying it would be 50 50.
But that doesn't matter because we're voting on individual seats.
And again, as it stands right now, if you do the math, the Democrats are still favored in the House and favored in the House for the House in the midterms.
But with this, this does change the math where even if the Democrats win, it's going to be a razor thin majority.
I don't think we're going to see a blue wave now.
It was previously anticipated.
But it's contingent on two things.
One, if Trump can wrap up the Iran war, we're already about three weeks now past his initial deadline.
People are still feeling the pinch at the pump.
I know everyone's talking about the geopolitical implications.
What I'm contesting is that most Americans don't really care.
They care about whether their life was better or worse before the Republicans took the House.
It's a referendum on that.
I mean, it's boring.
People want to over intellectualize sometimes the motives for voters.
The primary motive for a voter is are they happy or not?
Are they satisfied with the current government?
That is ultimately what it's going to come down to.
And again, if gas is still hovering on $4 a gallon when it comes to the election, there's no shot.
There's quite frankly no shot.
This is what wiped Biden out primarily.
Yes, Trump ran a great campaign.
Yes, Trump did this, that, and the other.
Yes, Biden had Afghanistan withdrawal, all these horrible, horrible decisions and actions under the Biden administration.
But the primary reason was gas was through the roof.
And that was the primary reason why a lot of people just stayed home or swung and voted for Trump.
So, all this to say, very promising.
Still, this is very promising.
The Republican states need to go ahead and get to work.
I anticipate that a lot of them already had plans in the works to redraw once they got a favorable decision here.
And we got it.
We got it.
Will Chamberlain says here this is the key passage in Louisiana versus Calais.
While not overturning section two of the VRA, it construes into near irrelevance.
All minority voters are entitled to is the map that drawers is that the map drawers not use race as a metric in drawing their maps.
No more majority minority districts.
And I think I agree with Will's analysis here.
He says, Look, you have to understand how brilliant Alito is.
This is actually better than getting rid of Section 2 outright because it means Section 2 can be used to challenge majority minority districts for impermissibly using race.
You know, again, a lot of people are going to say, Oh, that's Cope.
You didn't get a full wipeout of the VRA, so you're coping.
Okay, I heard dozens of conservative legal analysts saying this would be the most favorable outcome in the run up to this whole decision making process.
So that's not what's going on here.
This is excellent.
And again, as Will pointed out, we can now weaponize the VRA, maybe not even weaponize, just properly deploy it, I would say, to again, just abolish race based districts.
Because even just trying to be objective here, trying to be objective, putting my bias aside, You know, let's just pretend we're not even in this gerrymandering war.
This is still crazy.
This is still crazy, like that we're sort of dividing Americans like this.
We're dividing Americans by race and giving minority groups like race allocated seats.
Like, this isn't South Africa, right?
Like, this is not how we do things in the West.
So, great decision.
Kalshi, they're not budging too much on the betting market.
The Republicans are up slightly, the Democrats are down slightly.
But again, you know, let's just say, you know, count Florida redistricting.
Count the VRA tweak.
I think the Democrats would still be favored by about like three to four seats.
So that is why the polling or the betting market is not reacting.
But this does indicate that it's not going to be a blue wave, which should be encouraging.
And again, if Trump can get out of Iran, you know, mop that up, declare victory, et cetera, do what you need to do, take the off ramp.
Honestly, UAE leaving OPEC, if you can wait for the Saudis to leave OPEC, that's your golden parachute and get out of there.
Again, if UAE and Saudis are just exporting as much oil as they possibly can, that's going to tank the global oil price, and gas will be, along some of the terminology of Trump, some of the wordage he uses, it will be like water.
So, with that, we're going to get into our next story here.
This is from Todd Blanch, the acting AG right now, who's fantastic.
He's off to a tear.
DOJ charges former FBI Director James Comey with two felony counts knowingly making a threat against the President of the United States.
And transmitting an interstate communication containing a threat to kill the president, each carrying a maximum of 10 years in prison.
Unbelievable stuff here.
Hod Blanche is on a tear.
I'm going to play you a clip of the indictment here.
Today, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned an indictment against James Comey on two counts.
The first count is that on or about May 15th of last year, He knowingly and willfully making a threat to take the life of and to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.
Count two, same day, May 15th, 2025, that the defendant, James Comey, knowingly and willfully transmitting in interstate commerce a communication that contained a threat to kill the President of the United States.
Both of these counts carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
So I think it's fair to say that threatening the life of anybody.
And I think the reason why that's fair, you know, I'm laughing just because of the absurdity of what's happening is, again, because the political violence is coming from one side.
You know, that's the reality of the situation.
The political violence is coming from one side.
You know, I called some flack yesterday on the show because I said, I don't really care.
You know, the left is pointing out all these, you know, examples of right wingers supposedly, you know, conducting themselves the same way as James Comey.
I don't really care.
I genuinely don't really care because as I see it, we're in an existential moment.
And honestly, which is, Hilarious.
I've seen all these people on Twitter that are saying, oh, Trump should ignore the courts.
He should go scorched earth.
He needs to just arrest everyone.
And then as soon as we start moving in that direction, everyone goes, oh, hang on.
I don't know.
I mean, are we sure?
I think this might have been protected under free speech.
And they get a little nervous and wring their hands.
I'm like, what did you think this was going to look like?
This is actually what it looks like.
Again, you got to hold these guys accountable.
The whole point of high profile arrests, the reason why a lot of people, including our guest for today, Orrin McIntyre, were clamoring for high profile arrests.
It's because, again, you have to make examples out of people.
You cannot let this type of behavior fly in the United States of America.
You cannot normalize threats against the president of the United States in the United States of America.
And as it stands, all those threats are coming from the left.
The bulk majority of those threats are coming from the left.
And the problem is, in addition to just the threats, they act on it all the time.
Third major assassination, high profile assassination attempt on the president happened Saturday.
Charlie Kirk was shot and killed.
I'm sorry, but you know, you got to start believing these people when they say these things.
Again, they're going to, you know, be coy and say, oh, I thought, you know, I was just saying, you know, remove him from life, but not like, you know, kill him or anything.
You know, that's what it's like.
Okay, drop the charade.
We know what's going on.
James Comey has an axe to grind at Trump.
He hates his guts, et cetera, et cetera.
What are we doing?
So again, Todd Blanch just drops in the hammer here.
I'll, you know, I'll just read what he had to say because, like I said, a clip, you know, a journal asks him, where does free speech end and the actual threat of violence begin?
Todd Blanch says, You are not allowed to threaten the president of the United States of America.
That's been the case for a very long time.
I mean, look, the average person, the average well to do citizen, trembles in fear if you say anything remotely fed posting near a phone because they're suspicious that the NSA is going to be listening to them and throw them in jail.
So the idea that James Comey can post that on his Instagram, no, sorry, no, you're going to get a slap on the wrist at the very least.
You're going to get put in handcuffs and you're going to be made an example out of because, again, this kind of stuff has gone way too far.
It's manifesting in violence.
Enough is enough.
So fantastic from Todd Blanche.
Todd Blanche has been on a tear.
You got to start.
You know, I know people are going and defending Bondi last night and the callers.
And, you know, I understand she did do some good work.
I mean, look, the FTO designation for Antifa was big.
That was huge.
But Todd Blanche is kind of giving us what we wanted, which was, again, high profile arrests.
He's sniffing around, you know, Comey and throwing indictments down.
This was huge.
This was also dropped yesterday.
Former Fauci aide charged with.
Conspiring to evade COVID related records requests.
Again, this is what young people are going to love, is because, again, I had me personally, I was in college, I was a freshman in college when COVID hit.
So I had years of my life taken away from me through COVID.
So I really have no, quite frankly, no mercy for these people at all.
Throw them all in jail.
And I think young people globally will feel fairly similarly, to say the least.
And Blanche is delivering.
This is what we wanted.
This is fantastic stuff.
The SPLC indictment was massive.
Again, that's just busting up another apparatus of the Democrat Party that they use to harass right wingers.
Everywhere you look, Todd Blanch is doing great work.
I think Trump finally found his guy.
I think Trump finally found his guy.
He's got the hot hand, and this is fantastic stuff.
I really hope he can keep this pace up because this is really some terrific stuff.
So, with that, we're going to get into the British section of the show involving, again, President Trump and King Charles' meeting yesterday at the White House, the summit at the White House as King Charles begins his North American tour.
Wholesome Chungus, everyone's going to be buddies.
You know, post the Soyjacks, everyone's friends now.
I love friends.
You know, friendship is great.
Everyone must love.
You know, billions must love.
This is really some fantastic stuff from the president and King Charles.
Again, a lot of animosity between the United Kingdom and the United States recently.
Particularly between the governments.
And I would say, primarily because of the way that Keir Starmer and the Labor government have chosen to conduct themselves, President Trump is fair in his criticisms that he's levied towards the British government.
But very encouraging that this is a wholesome chungus moment.
And, you know, this went a different direction than I thought it was going to go because I listened to King Charles' speech before Congress and I was like, wow.
I mean, there was some good stuff in there, but he was also like clearly there, you know, as a sort of.
You know, he was representing the United Kingdom's supposed interests right now, which is again the defense of Ukraine.
And that was his kind of primary thing he was stumping for before Congress, was increasing aid to Ukraine.
Bit cringe there.
He also dropped the line about like interfaith dialogue and stuff.
Very cringe.
But he did say that, you know, the primary bond between the United States, the United Kingdom, and sort of our Anglo heritage is the Christian faith.
And that has informed a lot of our legal process, et cetera, et cetera.
And that was very encouraging stuff.
This was pretty interesting.
Trump and King Charles are 15th cousins.
So I'm actually closer to Taylor Swift than Trump is to King Charles.
I don't know how I.
This is pretty cool.
Don't get me wrong.
I mean, it's pretty cool.
And, you know, some posters made this point.
We always knew it would come to this that President Trump could potentially just seize the throne of the Commonwealth, which would be quite interesting.
I don't know how interesting it is if you're 15th cousins.
I would assume every white person is probably 15th cousins with each other, if I had to guess, just because of the way, like, you know, there's not.
There wasn't that many of us back in the day.
So I don't know.
I still think it's pretty cool.
President Trump is, you know, this was a family reunion of sorts.
And I do agree.
When the British and the Americans get together, it is a family reunion.
It's a very beautiful thing.
President Trump had a beautiful speech here.
I'll just read it because it was a two and a half minute long speech here.
And we do have the get moving to get to our guest.
Honoring the British king might seem an ironic beginning to celebrate our 250 years of American independence.
But in fact, no tribute could be more appropriate.
Long before Americans had a nation or constitution, we first had a culture.
A character and a creed.
Before we ever proclaimed our independence, Americans carried within us the rarest of gifts, moral courage, and it came from a small but mighty kingdom across the sea.
That is absolutely correct.
And this is, again, Trump, this is just, I love this.
This is fantastic stuff.
This was really, I haven't heard a president speak this way with like a true depth of affection for Britain and not really the British government, but the British people themselves, that specific island that sent over all of our initial.
Tonight, in return, we are really doing something that's very special, preparing to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence.
It's a big time in our country, very big time.
And it's only natural that Americans begin this commemoration by paying tribute to the transcendent bond we share with the Nation that Thomas Jefferson himself called our mother country.
And I mean, this is really some fantastic stuff because, again, I think Americans, you know, and I'm saying this as, you know, an American Mayflower descendant, you know, wasp, et cetera, et cetera, I would have every incentive to sort of maybe posture at the British.
But it is very real that, you know, 1776 didn't necessarily dissolve that very real bond to Britain that we all have.
You know, every heritage American in this country has.
And honestly, every American that's sort of joined in on this project, you know, is kind of.
Grafted into this larger story.
And I, not to get too granular, maybe we'll talk about the Oron, but like, you know, I truly do believe that, you know, Trump, he does allude to, again, this clip right here.
I'll play the clip first, then I'll kind of expand on this further.
I think this clip specifically was really incredible to hear from the president because I don't think I've heard a president talk about Anglo Saxons in a like promising or positive way in like, I don't know, decades.
So take a look at this clip.
This is really some fantastic stuff.
Again, hats off to the speechwriter, hats off to President Trump.
From English towns and Scottish hills, from Welsh mountains and Irish villages, a people unique in history sailed across the mighty Atlantic to settle and civilize this continent in the name of God, King, and country.
So beautiful.
They called it New England and meant that very, very literally.
The first Americans saw themselves as free men carrying the forward.
And central liberties and ancient rights of the Anglo Saxons into this new and beautiful world.
In the eyes of America's founders, our war of independence was fought not to reject this heritage, but to reclaim it and perfect it.
As the founding father George Mason wrote, we claim nothing but the liberty and privileges of Englishmen in the same degree as we had still continued among our brethren.
I do think, and I tweeted here, Trump is openly discussing the Norman yoke.
We've crossed the Rubicon.
Again, Trump was sort of alluding to the very real history of the United States, which was, again, a lot of the founders, and this was a very popular sentiment among the colonists, that we were sort of reclaiming those Anglo Saxon liberties that were sort of trampled upon by the Norman conquest and that would sort of impose feudalism that came along with that.
And a lot of the founders discussed this quite openly, Thomas Jefferson specifically.
Hammered on it all the time.
So, you know, this is obviously in jest.
I don't know if this really has any larger implications of the direction of the Trump administration, but it is, I mean, really something to see again for us kind of more nerdy history geeks out there.
Again, this is just beautiful.
Tonight, on the eve of the 250th year of our cherished independence, we turn to the sovereign embodiment of the British heritage and say sincerely thank you to our friends, the United Kingdom, for the richest inheritance that any nation has ever given to one another.
King Charles gave Trump the bell that hung from the HMS Trump, which was launched from a UK shipyard in 1944.
That was a really beautiful moment.
Trump loved it.
I do want to play these clips.
We're running out of timers, so I got to grab a warrant.
I mean, he's obviously talking about the War of 1812 when he sort of burned down the White House.
I guess it was a form of readjustment.
And of course, the French, he's referring to the French and Indian War when the British did successfully repel the French and basically booted them off the continent.
Manuel Background endorsed King Charles' statement here, which is quite funny.
But with that, we got to bring Lauren in.
We got to get him in here.
You know, I know he's chomping at the bit to give his thoughts on everything that we.
Super happy to have you on, seeing as we had a bit of an Anglo Saxon moment last night.
I think this was really some, I didn't expect that.
I thought this was mostly just going to be, you know, just kind of friendly chumming around, but it was really a kind of beautiful moment.
Before we get into all of that, I mean, you're obviously a friend of the show, regular, but maybe for the few people that don't know who you are, give them a quick intro of who you are and what you do.
A lot of people are pointing to 10, possibly 12 seat switches once this gets applied.
You have a scenario where the Democrats have been aggressively working to gerrymander in places like Virginia, despite the fact that Republicans have been fighting back against this.
Basically, not at all.
They've just been allowing the left to do this redistricting and not taking advantage of the times when they have control of legislatures or the ability to redraw straight lines.
But now, with this change to the understanding of the Voting Rights Act, you no longer have the ability to mandate these minority districts, drawing lines specifically to produce minority candidates, which means Democrat candidates.
And so this has a huge change.
Now, we did see Clarence Thomas say he wish he could have gone a little further.
He actually did a concurrent agreeing opinion where he said we should have taken Section 2 and instead of just saying you can't force people to draw these racial lines, we should have just said it doesn't give anyone the ability to interfere with states.
Drawing maps however they see fit.
That obviously was not the full interpretation that we got here, but it's still a big win.
And it's one of those things that's not very exciting on paper.
You're not going to be running around pumping your fist like this is some incredible culture war slam dunk.
But it is one of those procedural things that people just didn't realize.
When people talk about democracy, they don't realize that literally the map was required to be drawn to benefit Democrats.
Like the law actually rigged elections on behalf of Democrats for half a century.
So he was saying that actually, you know, leaving Section 2 intact but changing the interpretation does, you know, in some ways give us some advantages insofar as we can challenge any attempted gerrymandering along racial lines.
We can utilize the VRA sort of against those people that are attempting those gerrymanders.
Now, again, I'm not a legal expert, but that was sort of compelling that maybe it was intentional, at least from Alito, to kind of keep the bones together insofar as they can, you know, turn this back around Democrats.
I don't know if you'd seen that or what your thoughts were on that.
And look, I'm not the, oh man, government power is always bad guy.
Like, you know this.
Like, I am not the small government, any cost guy.
However, I am someone who believes that ultimately, when this tool specifically is left in place, it's going to be used by the left more than it is the right.
I just don't see the right.
This is the same argument I get when people tell me we have to get the Civil Rights Act around because it keeps people from discriminating against white people.
No, it doesn't.
Actually, what we see is that Harvard just continues to discriminate against white people and just stops discriminating against white people.
And so the idea that we're suddenly going to start using the Civil Rights Act to secure the rights of white Americans seems just as unlikely as we're going to suddenly use the Voting Rights Act to benefit Republicans on a regular basis.
That said, huge win either way.
I don't think that this is necessarily leaving a weapon in their hands once it's been rewritten this thoroughly.
I would have liked to see more of the Clarence Thomas approach where we just nuke this thing from orbit, we stop leaving this on the table.
Uh, because the right just does not have the strength to use it in its own advantage, but that said, the fact that you now have the ability to properly draw these districts to not explicitly advantage the Democratic Party over and over again is huge.
And very interestingly, starting to see some of the Democrats on CNN and MSNBC admit, Well, yeah, I mean, we kind of needed this because we can't get white Americans to vote for us, we needed to manufacture this, which is another way of saying that's why we opened the borders.
We knew that diluting or destroying majority white districts.
We're critical for our ability to control the country through electoral manipulation.
This is why it's so important for people to understand it's not about democracy.
It's about who draws the lines and who counts the votes.
That's really where the power lies.
Democrats have known this for well over 100 years.
I mean, I think it's you that made this point is like, look, you know, the Republicans still think this is a democracy where the Democrats accurately understand it as a census.
Every election is simply just a census counting who is where.
With that, I actually do think that kind of parlays into, I know a discussion that you're probably.
Itching to get to, I know I have.
I know if anyone saw your appearance on the Tucker Carlson show, I think they would know that this is something that would be especially scintillating to someone like you.
Was again King Charles's sort of summit at the White House last night.
Again, I had watched his speech before, you know, the pageantry before was fun and everything was cool to see, but, you know, I love that kind of stuff, the pomp and circumstance.
I share that with President Trump.
The speech before Congress, it was all right.
I mean, you know, he came there to stump for, you know, NATO and Ukraine.
It was kind of to be expected.
I was like, all right, well, this is just going to be kind of one of those things.
But then the dinner comes along.
President, well, first of all, President Trump delivers an unbelievable speech before the dinner, you know, really speaking deeply about, you know, the American nation or history or heritage, et cetera, et cetera, and how it's sort of not just inextricably linked, it is directly linked to Britain.
I mean, there's really no way around that.
And he laid that out.
Whoever the speechwriter was, was unbelievable.
He was on a tear.
And fair play to President Trump, I mean, delivered it beautifully.
But then, yeah, we go into the dinner, and President Trump is, I mean, he's talking about, How the United States, you know, sort of it's the undercurrent is that we sort of carried and ultimately wanted to deliver on those Anglo Saxon liberties that were entitled to us as Anglo Saxons.
And he was citing, you know, Jefferson's thoughts on these sorts of things.
And I took a step back.
I think Scott Garrip put a tweet up and he was like, I haven't seen anyone, you know, any president speak about Anglo Saxons favorably in like 60 years.
So I'm hearing all this and I'm going, oh my gosh, this is really some fantastic stuff.
And it's really salient in regards to that thing you just said, which is, you know, the Democrats are seeking to just completely.
Water down that sort of true heritage American population.
Again, they want to sort of disenfranchise that.
And then President Trump goes up there and reasserts sort of, okay, this is what the actual foundation of the country was.
This is what the animating ethos was.
Britain's, I mean, we came from the British Isles and we carried with that a lot of those things.
And I put a tweet up, I said, you know, Trump isn't sort of, he's talking openly discussing the Norman yoke.
I mean, this is really a big deal if you're like really into that kind of stuff.
But I'm wondering what your thoughts were on that.
Look, we've seen an acknowledgement of the importance of this.
I've seen this administration take pretty seriously the need to recultivate an important understanding of American identity.
And we saw the Marco Rubio speech talking about our connections to Europe and our civilizational connections and Western civilization and how important that is.
And I think that was such an important speech, not only because it's true, but to help maybe repair some of the rift.
Between Europe and the Trump administration.
And then we see this speech about the connection specifically with the Anglo Saxon tradition.
And of course, it's thoroughly true.
Remember, our ancestors were rebelling for their rights as Englishmen.
If you look at the English Bill of Rights, it's very clearly what inspired the American First 10 Amendments.
And it's incredible that so little thought is given to this most of the time.
I'm a big fan of Samuel Huntington, who wrote a book called Who Are We?
And Huntington, a perfectly moderate center left Harvard professor, no racial bomb thrower of any kind.
One of the big points of that book, one of the central points is that we have to acknowledge that our culture is Anglo Saxon in every way, religiously, legally, tradition wise, everything is tied to this.
Now, again, Huntington believed that many people could join in, could weave themselves into that.
But the key was they had to assimilate to that.
They were changing from whatever they had been.
And leaving that behind to become part of this Anglo Saxon based civilization.
You might not have Anglo Saxon blood, you may not have that ancestry, but you understood that becoming American meant becoming that, not multicultural, not some homogenization of all these different.
No, it was very specifically the idea that you were becoming more and more Anglo Saxon.
And so Trump taking the time to recognize that, to praise that, to recognize that that is the core of our tradition is so important because, again, The left knows their job is to basically deconstruct everything about America.
And if they can deconstruct it enough, then they can swap out the population, they can get the votes, they can lock things down.
But Donald Trump reminds us, reminds the people of the United States, no, you came here if you came here for a reason, to be more like the Anglo Saxons that founded this country.
And that's what really undergirds everything that we do.
And like, you know, something that at this point needs to be made because, you know, unfortunately, the moment that we're in, it's very cool and very in vogue to not take anything seriously, to not care about everything or anything, quite frankly.
And we're sort of in this post ironic culture.
And that's all very true.
And it is true on the opposite side that we do have a lot of LARPers.
And I do agree that the LARPing has got a little out of control from quite a bit of people.
On this, this isn't a LARP.
I mean, Thomas Jefferson spoke explicitly about everything you're saying right now.
I mean, the great, you know, the first proposal for the Great Seal or the proposal from Thomas Jefferson was Angst and Orsa, like the first Saxon chiefs.
Like he wanted that to be the emblem of the United States.
Again, he wrote extensively about, again, how he felt this imposition of Norman feudalism on the Anglo Saxons was ultimately what began to.
Strip away again their liberties, their way of life.
I mean, if you go to the National Archives, you know, I went last week and I love going, it's one of my favorite places on planet Earth.
What do they have?
And like they have a whole exhibit about civil rights and the Bill of Rights and everything or whatever.
And some of it's a bit cringe, but right when you walk in, the first thing there is one of the four original copies of the Magna Carta.
And you may be saying, well, the Magna Carta predates the United States by, you know, 500 years.
Who cares?
Because the Magna Carta was kind of that first shot across the bow from the Anglo Saxons trying to sort of reclaim a lot of those liberties again to sort of.
Claw back, uh, sort of that true Anglo Saxon character, um, and sort of try to attempt to restore that in Britain.
And it's a really beautiful thing.
And you can't separate that from the United States.
You can walk through all these exhibits at the National Archives and read again, these people at the time of the revolution, our ancestors, what their thoughts were.
And it wasn't this chest beating, like modern interpretation of the revolution, like, oh, we hate the king, and we're all like this, that, and the other.
No, they viewed this as a very tragic thing.
They did view it as inevitable in some regards.
That is true.
But you can read, I mean, you know, John Adams writing to John Jay, and he's discussing, you know, his correspondence with the king, and the king.
King George was writing, Hey, I know this conflict happened, but this doesn't change the fact that we're united by blood, by character, by religion, et cetera, et cetera.
I want to have a good relationship.
Like we're linked forever.
We're attached at the hip.
It's just, again, the way that the settlements, you know, the patterns of settlers work, it became an untenable, you know, ruling structure.
But there wasn't a lot of chess beating going on, you know, around the revolution.
There wasn't like this modern hoorah stuff like we see now.
It was a very sad, kind of somber moment.
And I think everyone on both sides viewed it as kind of a very tragic moment.
Yeah, today we get kind of the schoolhouse rock, no more kings, song, that kind of stuff.
And of course, the founders were a spectrum.
Saying the founders believe this or the founders believe that is often a mistake because there were a wide range of opinions.
Of course, there were many loyalists who continued to want to stay a part of the crown and keep their loyalty to the crown.
But you're right.
A lot of people don't recognize that originally, actually, The Americans leaned pretty heavily on attempting to petition the king for their rights because they said it was parliament that was robbing them ultimately and that the king could come in and save them from this scenario.
So the idea that they were just against the idea of kings in general is completely wrong.
Hamilton himself suggested the American presidency be lifelong, basically be an elected king.
And so the idea that we were just vehemently against royalty all by itself, well, that shows itself in some ways.
Ultimately, we did not allow.
Landed titles and that kind of thing.
But you can see that there's still that flow of culture.
In many ways, the Americans were just the people who felt like they were being as loyal as they could to their tradition, moving along that track that the Magna Carta and other documents set out.
And so you're right to say that this was, in many ways, a difficult decision.
And I think that's why the Declaration of Independence talks about how, look, if we're going to be men of character, we have to explain why we're doing this to the world.
We're not doing it flippantly, we're not doing it because we just don't want to have anyone in charge of us.
We're doing it because our rights as Englishmen have been impinged.
They are recognizing that complete continuity between the English civilization and the American civilization.
And the fact that we fought a couple of wars with these guys, but then turned around and basically became allies as soon as we could, I think ultimately shows you that bond has always been there.
You go to England, and it's a different country to be sure, but as an American, you feel pretty at home.
There are some things that are different, but it's very, going.
It's not just the English.
You go to a place like India that'll speak English, or you go to another European country where English is often spoken, like France, you will feel the radical difference.
You can feel that tie when you go to the UK, though.
I mean, it's one of those things where, again, to your point, obviously it wasn't a universal sentiment among the founders, but again, you had a lot of these sentiments that were especially popular among the colonists.
And I think part of the problem, I think part of the problem why people have a tougher time sort of drilling down on what the exact environment was like around the revolution is because Most of the decolonization we've seen in the last century was quite ugly.
It was based on, they had a chip on their shoulder against their colonial overlords.
And there was, to a degree, sort of a chip on the shoulder feeling among the American colonies.
But to your point, I mean, that had more to do with the way that they perceived behavior, the perceived treatment that they felt the parliament was treating them unfairly.
And I mean, you have like, I think it was Pennsylvania was lobbying to the king as late as like 1774, saying, hey, come bail us out.
I mean, George Washington, if you had to go through all of our major founding fathers, he would kind of seem to be the person that maybe was the most rare to sort of speak on this specific breakdown relationship.
You know, he was very stoic, et cetera, et cetera.
But I remember reading a quote, it might have been in the National Archives, where he was saying his favorite battles that he fought, the service that he was most proud of, was his service to the empire and the French and Indian War.
So it's like all of these guys viewed America as simply, look, we're taking the Saxon torch, we're going to carry it over here.
Like, good luck.
You know, again, We're not, this isn't a divorce.
Like we, again, like the King George himself said, we share the same character, the same religion, the same blood, et cetera, et cetera.
It's just, it's one of those things that happens.
There's a sea in the way.
Like, what are we going to do?
But again, it's not like modern day where, you know, Kenya starts bombing everything and just to get the British out and they hate white people.
That's not at all what was going on.
There really wasn't any hatred.
It wasn't like these Americans, like, we hate the British.
That would be like, they would basically be saying, we hate ourselves.
We just, again, it's a very natural kind of separation.
We're going to go our own ways here.
This is getting a little out of control.
We're not seeing eye to eye.
And if you want to get really granular, I mean, you know, Albion Seed, I know there's a bit of, you know, criticism of that book that there might be a bit of pseudo history in there as far as perhaps the cavalier Puritan, you know, that being an extension of the English Civil War might, you know, some people say that that is a bit of pseudo history.
But I think that book generally does a great job showing how the settlement patterns from Britain made a separation between the two even more inevitable because, again, you had the more hardliner, kind of hyper Calvinist types coming to the New World.
And then it is true among the landed gentry in the South, right?
Cavaliers, those were like the second sons of nobility.
So they already did feel, you know, a bit of, I don't know, maybe disenfranchisement in their mother country.
But Jefferson himself, I mean, you know, he wasn't of like Anglo Norman heritage.
You know, a lot of people are like, oh, the Southerners, they're all Anglo Normans.
Like, no, he literally said, my Saxon ancestors.
He said, you know, these are my ancestors.
You can't separate the two.
Again, this is just simply kind of an inevitability based off the way that history is moving.
Yeah, I think it's a scenario where world historical forces simply separated the Americans and the British.
They lost the mandate of heaven.
They could no longer, you know, continue to govern the way that they had in America.
Had been its own separate thing for hundreds of years.
We have to remember that America doesn't begin in 1776.
It begins hundreds of years before that.
And there's a reason that these two systems grew apart.
As you say, many of the people who had moved to America were kind of more radical.
They were taking kind of these Enlightenment ideas to extremes that weren't acceptable in Britain.
We saw a lot of people who were looking for making their own name and separating themselves.
And so just over time, these countries grew apart.
But it was never.
A abandonment of the British tradition.
It was in many ways a kind of an offshoot and a fulfillment of a specific branch of that tradition.
And I think it's again why it's so easy for America and the UK to come back together in moments like this and so easy for Trump to recognize it.
And, you know, I think that it's that was really Trump at his most charming.
It's been a rough time, you know, last few months with the Iran war and everything else and many of the other clashes.
But, you know, Trump sitting there holding the bee in his hand and everyone being fascinated, and you know, him giving the speech about them being connected and the soldiers and in the period and costume and everything.
It just reminds you that the president is, yes, a political figure, he is a leader, but he is also a personification of the United States.
He is also someone who is supposed to help with the morale, is supposed to give you a sense of identity, you know, and the fact that he slips into that role.
So effortlessly in that moment.
It was good to see that because, like I said, it's been a little rough for Trump supporters the last few months.
So it's very nice to remember that that is something that Trump can do.
And it's sad that for some people that won't bring us together because they don't like the idea of us having an Anglo-Saxon heritage, but it should be.
It should be a moment that brings us all together.
Trump recognizing our heritage, who we are, what people should be aspiring to, what they should be assimilating to, how those bonds reach across hundreds of years and thousands of miles of ocean.
I think that's something that really should lift the spirits of Americans.
And I mean, not to get too granular here, but I think President Trump is a great example of someone that was successfully grafted into that kind of, I guess you would say, colonial infrastructure.
Because again, I mean, his grandparents on his father's set are from Germany.
His mother was from Scotland, but she was from the Highlands, which would not be sort of considered part of that core American settler stock.
Yet, every heritage American, maybe not every heritage American, every conservative heritage American, Views Trump as kind of an avatar of sorts, like again, that kind of physical manifestation of the American nation.
Again, this is someone that doesn't have any Mayflower heritage.
I mean, as far as I understand, he doesn't have any presence in the country prior to like 1880.
But again, he's unmistakably American.
I mean, the fact that, again, someone like me, a Southern Baptist of Anglo stock from Tennessee, views a German guy from Queens as very relatable and someone that, again, sort of petitions for my interests more so than anybody else in the political spectrum, I think does indicate how, again, Blood does matter, but again, there is a possibility for people to buy in and then become unmistakably American in this sense.
And also, to your point, I mean, some of these people that are really hard line about, you know, like there has to be direct blood and this sort of thing, I think they're both falling into the same trap in which they're using American primarily as an adjective rather than American as a noun, as in something that is well defined, something with a definition that is just fairly cut and dry.
Again, they overcomplicate it and they try to intellectualize it and again use it as an adjective.
Like, well, you know, in Vivek's case, it's like being American is about a set of values.
And then that begs the question what happens if someone doesn't share those values, but they've been here for 400 years?
Can we deport them?
I don't know.
What's the implication here?
But then, likewise, on the other side, it's like you're also using it as an adjective, saying, well, you know, if you have, you know, these certain Mayflower ancestors, it's almost like, you know, Boy Scout patches.
It's like, congrats, you're like 100% American.
And it's like, it's a bit more complicated than that.
I think that's fair to say.
But what you hit on is essential is that, okay, these more exotic, you know, disparate cultures, there's really not going to be much common ground there.
Where do you even begin to assimilate these people?
I mean, you know, I know it's like a, you know, almost a mean thing to say, but it's true as like the Native Americans, I mean, they're still to this day not fully assimilated.
Nor should they be expected necessarily, I guess, because they have their own thing going on.
But it's like that indicates that, again, when you have very disparate cultures, even for 500 years, we fought a lot.
We fought a lot.
We had a very tough time seeing eye to eye.
And to this day, there's still a very distinct cultural divide between the two groups.
And I don't think there's any way really around that.
I think you should have to acknowledge, yeah, there's kind of a difference here.
There is a difference in culture.
That's not like, you know, it's not a horrible thing.
I actually believe in global diversity.
I mean, I know it's almost a cringe thing to say, but it's true.
It's like, I would find it sad if Bangladesh ceased to be Bengali or if the Philippines ceased to be Filipino.
I do like on the global scale diversity.
I don't want to see everyone just turn into a big sort of beige mush.
I think that's pretty sad.
But you also, if I believe in those things, that's for that reason.
I believe, oh, the American identity is actually distinct.
There is, you know, hard, you know, breaks of, okay, who could possibly sort of, you know, mend into the tribe, you know, melt into the tribe and who couldn't.
I think you have to make those distinctions.
And we did make those distinctions until like 50 years ago.
I think the, you know, America is an idea, propositional nation bros took a very hard L on this one.
I think you're exactly right.
There it, I am very pro-diversity in the global sense.
I think that there are many different nations that God made them and separated them for a purpose, and He has blessed many of those nations and calls them to certain actions and certain ways of life.
And I don't think there's anything Christian or biblical or moral about trying to wipe out any given nation, be it the American nation or Uganda or China or whatever you choose.
These are ultimately distinct cultures and peoples who have been called to live in a certain way.
And it is not our job to like blend everybody down into some gray goo that unifies the entire globe.
That's not how we're supposed to live.
And so it's okay to understand America as a distinct people with a distinct history and a distinct identity.
And we might let people come in, we might let people join, but it should be our choice.
It should be our decision.
It should be us saying, you know what?
You seem like you might be worthy of joining us if you ultimately work very hard and choose to assimilate into this Anglo American heritage.
But it should always be our choice.
It should never be some.
Automatic process that's foisted upon us for some weak claim of diversity that's actually going to homogenize us rather than allow America to remain a distinct and I think celebrated people.
What if we gather all the peoples of the world and we all homogenize and turn into one big group and then we start building a tower and, you know, we start constructing this tower because I think if we all put our differences aside, Become one just giant group and then work on a tower together, we might be able to get closer to God.
Actually, I opened my own book with this biblical passage because I think it is so central to what our global elites are doing.
They think that creating this homogenized population that is easy to manage, giving this globalist framework over to the people and making sure that they all can be.
Managed properly and get the maximum utility out of each one.
This is a terrible way to live.
This destroys the human.
It destroys the divine.
This is what C.S. Lewis described in his fantastic work, The Abolition of Man, is that if you strip out these things that make us human, the flaws, the passions, these things ultimately, if you just pull them away and you strip them away so that we can be more easily managed, we can be a more modern man, we'll destroy the nature of.
Humanity.
We will destroy the individual nations, but we will also destroy humanity in general.
So I just think it's, again, great to see Donald Trump celebrate the core identity of the United States and remind Americans that they aren't just an economic zone.
They aren't just some unit where they get taxed and their money goes out to the empire, or at least they're not supposed to be.
That we are distinct people with a distinct identity that is worthy to be proud of.
And those who would like to come alongside, if we allow them, that's what they're going to be assimilating to.
And I think that is.
So important to be centering, especially as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States.
I couldn't have thought of anybody better to bring on for a subject like that because this is what I love about guys like Oren I kind of have these, maybe a little rough around the edges, these kind of ideas, these thoughts, and then I throw it out to them and I'm like, okay, what's going on here?
Can you break this down?
He'll go, yeah, you're right there, but you're a little off there.
Here's a book that you can read.
Like, it's fantastic.
He's one of the best.
So, I love him.
So happy he was able to join us today.
With that, we got to wind this show down, folks.
So, with that, you can follow me on X and Instagram at RealtateBrown.
Come give me a follow.
I want to talk about this all day long.
This is really some just, I love this kind of stuff.
So, with that, go give me a follow and we'll be back tonight.