April 24, 2025 • 29 mins
-
Case Background:
- The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on whether religious parents can opt their children out of mandatory readings of LGBTQIA storybooks in public schools.
- The case involves books like "What Are Your Words?" which discusses changing pronouns based on feelings.
-
Parental Rights and Religious Freedom:
- The central question is whether parents should have the right to pull their children out of mandatory readings based on their faith.
- We argue that this is not education but indoctrination.
-
Supreme Court Arguments:
- Justice Gorsuch and other justices question the Maryland school district's policies and the influence of these books on young children.
- We include exchanges between justices and lawyers, highlighting concerns about forcing sexual material on elementary school kids.
-
Public School Policies:
- Criticizing the Montgomery County Public School system for mandating these readings and not allowing opt-outs.
- It discusses the impact on religious families, particularly Muslim and Ethiopian Orthodox families.
-
Political and Social Commentary:
- We provide a broader commentary on the shift in LGBTQIA activism from seeking privacy to demanding compliance with their views.
- It discusses the implications for parental rights and the role of public schools in shaping children's beliefs.
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening
#seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton
#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats
#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica
#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
All right.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
First up, let me just say it has been a
pleasure to be at the White House doing some interviews
celebrating the firste hundred days of the Trump administration. And
joining us a little bit later is going to be
Tricia McLaughlin. She is going to give us an update
of what's happening when it comes to the border issues.
This isn't Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, and
(00:21):
she's going to join us to talk about that important issue.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
So stay around for that.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Now, before I get to that, I want to talk
to you about a very important case at the Supreme Court.
It is a case that is getting virtually no attention
right now, and it's a case about parental rights. Do
parents have the right to protect their kids from gender
(00:45):
ideology in public schools? Now, there are a lot of
different things that have happened in our public schools that
we're now finding out about.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I'll give you an example.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
The Supreme Court is hearing these oral arguments and Mohammed
versus Haler, and it considers whether religious parents can opt
their young children out of mandatory readings of LGBTQIA story books. Now,
this is one of the books in the case, and
it is this what are your words question?
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Mark.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
My pronouns are like the weather.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
The book says, they change depending on how I feel.
Sometimes I just use one set of pronouns, it shows
with one child. Then the next thing it says, sometimes
I change my pronouns, and it shows that person changing
clothing to something else. Then it says, sometimes I use
all of the pronouns I can think of. And then
(01:42):
the next page it says, my pronouns are like the weather.
They change depending on how I feel, and that's okay
because they're my words. That is one example of the
books that are being given to your children and grandkids
to indoctrinate them in our public schools. Now, the question
is for parents, should you have the right, based on
(02:06):
your faith to say, hey, this mandatory reading in the
public school is something that I should have the right
to pull my kids out of. Obviously, I believe, of course,
because this is not education, this is LGBTQI in doctrination.
And as the Supreme Court is diving into Mohammad versus
(02:27):
Taylor debating this, if religious parents can skip the story
books for kids. It's a clash of a lot of
different issues one faith, two parental rights, and three they
say on the left school inclusivity policies.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
And the decision is expected to come down.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
This summer before school would go back into session in
the fall. Now, there were some very interesting moments at
the Supreme Court. And this is why I hope you
listen to the show, because I bring you things like
this that no one else is covering. I want to
I want you to listen, and please share this on
social media. All right, share this podcast, this show wherever
you are in social media. And I want you to
(03:05):
listen this exchange between Justice Gorsaic and a lawyer that
is representing a transsexuality pushing Maryland school district.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Okay, so you've got the Maryland School District.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
They're pushing transsexuality down the throats, mandating the.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Curriculum to these kids.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
And the discussion that you're about to hear is about
forcing sexual material on elementary school kids, even three year
old kids. Now, this is a back and forth the
audio from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Listen carefully, souscorsage.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
I just want to make sure I understand a few
fact things. And then a law question, what aage do
you in Montgomery County? Teach students normally about human sexuality.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
I think that it begins in either fourth or fifth grade,
the human sexuality class, Family Life and Human Sexuality the curriculum.
I'm not entirely sure.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
It starts in fourth or fifth grade. I think, is
there anything you can point us to in the record
on that?
Speaker 1 (04:07):
I don't think so?
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Okay. And second, these books are being used in English class.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
The division between English class and other things and a
second grade classroom doesn't really exist. You're sort of in
a room with a teacher.
Speaker 4 (04:21):
And sometimes I appreciate that I went to second grade too,
but it's it's part of the English curriculum that these
books are being used in. That's I thought that was.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Yeah, I'm not I'm not fighting the premise. I'm just
saying it's.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
Not a math class. It's it's not the human sexuality class.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
It's it is certainly not the human sexuality class. I'm
just sort of fighting the premise that there's a neat discimery.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
And they're being used in English language instruction at age three,
some of them.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
So Pride Puppy was the book that was used for
the pre kindergarten curriculum. That's no longer in the curriculum.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
That's the one where they are supposed to look for
the leather and things and bondage things like that.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
It's not bomb sex a woman and sex worker, right, No,
it's not correct. No thought, gosh, I read it queen.
The leather that they're pointing to is a woman in
a leather jacket and one of the words is drag.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
Queen, and they're supposed to look for those.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
It is an option at the end of the book.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Correct, Okay, And you're you've included these in the English
language curriculum rather than the human sexuality curriculum to influence students.
Is that fair? That's what the district court found.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
I think to the extent the district court found that
it was to influence. It was to influence them towards
civility then natural consequence of being exposed whatever, but to
influence them in the manner that I just mentioned.
Speaker 4 (05:48):
Yes, and responding to parents who are concerned. You agree
that there was some intemperate language used.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
I don't know that those were respond to parents who
were concerned. This was after the fact for most of
these comments, and this was in a very public setting,
which obviously got heated. And some intemperate comments were used, certainly.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
And I wanted to understand your context that you are
giving about the statement that some Muslim families it's unfortunate
that this issue puts some Muslim families on the same
side of an issue as white supremacists and outright bigots,
I think in response to justice. So, Tomayer, you're trying
to give some context to that.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
I don't think I was speaking directly about that comment.
I think that comment was given or was made in June,
which was several months after the decision to withdraw the
opt outs was made. I don't have context for that
savement now, okay.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
And then the legal question, why isn't discrimination against religion
a burden on religion? If a state, now this is hypothetical,
not moving away from there, if state actors intentionally discriminate
against religion, what secular purpose, valid secular purpose could that serve?
(07:03):
And how how wouldn't that be a burden?
Speaker 1 (07:05):
So I don't know. I mean, it depends on the
hypothetical what the state is doing and whether there's a
secular purpose that's hard to imagine one. But if this
state is discriminating.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
Against Muslims or Catholics or Protestants or whatever.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
I think this court has recognized that when an enactment
that discriminates on its face, or has recognized with respect
to an enactment that discriminates on its face, it is
intrinsically coercive. That's how the Court has performed the burden inquiry.
If you are privileging one religion over another, you are
coercing people to subscribe to that particular set of beliefs
in order.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
That's a burden.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Yeah, absolutely, thank you.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
This is just absolute psychotic insanity from this public school district.
That attorney there for the Montgomery Public School system, his
name is Alan. He's a guy that's saying no, like you, really,
as a parent, you don't have any say show over
your kids.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
You don't get decide if.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
What we're teaching your three year old kid about a
chick being a dude or do being a chick, or
bondage or books that say find the leather for the
for the bondage and sexuality, and this indoctrination of perverting
your kid's minds at an insanely young age of three
and up. You don't have a say so in saying oh,
(08:23):
just because of my faith, you can pull your kid
out of this mandatory curriculum. Now, the other way to
look at this is you can literally fail the child.
The child could be could fail over and over and
over again if the parent does not give in to
this type of indoctrination. And what the Supreme Court is
(08:46):
saying there, and this judge is also saying, is that
we believe that a parent has really.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
No rights over their kid. They are properly of the state.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
And what Gorch I think was getting to there, and
the point he was made making so clearly is you
guys actually really do believe this, Like this is what
you think that the parent doesn't matter, that the parent's
faith literally has no bearing on protecting a child from
anything you want to indoctrinate that child on. I also
(09:18):
want to play for you another example of how radical
the left is in this case. And again no one's
talking about this outside in the mainstream media because they
don't want you to know that this is even a thing,
so that you can.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Have a voice in it, all right.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Brett Kavanaugh also had another back and forth and Brett
Kavanaugh spot on in what I'm about to play for
you during his question at the Supreme Court, And I
do want to just put this into perspective here so
you understand just how far the radical left has gone.
Fifteen twenty years ago, the LGBT community, the activist basically,
their line was just like, leave us alone, let us
(09:53):
live our lives, our private lives. That was the argument.
Just leave us alone, leave us alone, leave us alone.
What is it today today is well, if look, if
you don't bake me a cake, then I'm going to
sue you and shut down your restaurant right because there's
no such thing as you having the rights to say
no for religious reasons. If you don't allow us and
(10:16):
we will force your children to sit through our curriculum
regardless of your religious beliefs, then we're just going to
fight and try to take those kids away from you
and turn the government against you. Like, think about how
far we've gone twenty years ago. Leave us along and
let us live our private lives. Today, you will bake
me that cake. You will force and you will force
(10:36):
your children to sit through our curriculum or they'll be
kicked out of school, regardless of your religious beliefs.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
That is how far the pendulum has gone.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
So listen to Kavanaugh and what he said to the
attorneys there on this case.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
But in the country has opt outs for all sorts
of things. The county has opt outs for all sorts
of things. The other Maryland counties had opt outs for
all sorts of things, and yet for this one thing
they change in mid midyear and say no more opt outs.
I'm just not understanding feasibility.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
So again, I think what's in the record is that
with respect to these books, as they were deployed in
the classroom, there was high absenteeism in some schools, for example,
dozens of students being opted out in I think mister
Baxter said the average size of an elementary to Montgomery
County is seven hundred students, so each grade is one
hundred and twenty five. If you have dozens of students
walking out, making arrangements for those students to have adequate
(11:32):
space and supervision and alternative instruction, I think is infeasible.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
And that's do it for all sorts of other opt outs.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
They don't do it for all sorts of other opt outs.
There's a limited universe of things that students can opt
out from, the family life and healthy sexuality curriculum stands alone.
It is mandated by the state. It is something where
you are able to predict precisely when the curriculum is
going to be deployed.
Speaker 5 (11:54):
There's a four the most similar substantively to what we
have here, and there's an opt out allowed there. I
guess I'm not understanding why Montgomery County school Board stands alone.
I think in the country, you can tell me if
there's another school board that's done something like this.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
I thought, both.
Speaker 5 (12:14):
The kind of books that are being used and prohibiting
opt outs, and I guess I'm just not understanding the
whole goal. I think of some of our religion precedents
is to look for the win win, to look for
the situation where you can respect the religious beliefs and
accommodate the religious beliefs while the state or city or
(12:37):
whatever it may be can pursue its goals. And here,
they're not asking you to change what's taught in the classroom.
They're not asking you to change that at all. A
lot of the rhetoric suggests that they might have that's
a written that they were trying to do that, but
that's not what they're trying to do. They're only seeking
to be able to walk out so that they don't
(12:58):
have to The parents don't have their children exposed to
these things that are contrary to their own beliefs.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
I understand your honor, and there may well be circumstances
where a school can.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Or I mean, it's just incredibly bizarre.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
And this is why I play this audio for you
so that you understand you need to be checking what
your kids are being indoctrinate at at three, like they're
doing this before your kid can even know like this
is wrong. They're doing this before your kid even understands
what's happening.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
And that's not by accident. That's on purpose.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Because if they can get control of your kid's mind
to believe that you know Heshi them, they pronouns are normal,
and that you can change your pronouns every day, just
like that book I was reading for you earlier, then
they're like, all right, we're good to go here now
that these moments are not just bizarre, but but they're insane.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
I'll give you another example.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Justice Jackson yesterday had this back and forth when it
dees with the case.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
I'm going to play it for you and then I'll
commentate on the other side.
Speaker 6 (14:06):
Listen, and I guess I'm struggling to see how it
burdens a parent's religious exercise. If the school teaches something
that the parent disagrees with, you have a choice.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
You don't have to send your kid to that school.
Speaker 6 (14:19):
You can put them in another situation.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
You can put them in another situation. Let me let's
let's dissect and go through that quote. If the school
teaches something that the parent disagrees with, you have a choice. Now,
I wish she was actually saying that she's in favor
of school choice, right, but that's not what she's saying here.
She's saying, then pound sand, then take your kid out
of school. Good luck figure it out, because you're the
(14:44):
crazy one because you don't want your three year old
indoctrinated with this trans ideology. So again, back to her
exact words, you don't have to send your kid to
that school. You can put them in another situation, all right,
So choice right.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
For justice Keanji Brown Jackson.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Is is have your three year old sit through trans
story hour without question, or pay for expensive private.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
School or shift to homeschooling.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Not an actual choice, by the way, quote unquote for
a lot of working families or single mothers, and your
tax dollars is what is funding this radical school, whether
your kid goes there or not, so they keep your money.
This is why I'm in favorite school choice. This is
why I'm in favorite vouchers. This is why we as
(15:35):
a community need to understand. Okay, like we need to
understand that this is something now that is going to
happen forever if we don't stop it, because they're already
doing it. I'll give you another example. I'm going to
play another part of the argument in the Supreme Court. Okay,
this is Eric Baxter, the attorney for Muhammad, explaining how
(15:59):
Muchtgomery Public Schools undermined parental rights and religious freedom. And
he said this was clearly targeted the school district at
religious parents. Okay, so this is he's saying, there's no
disguising this. They wanted to come after Christians, they wanted
to come after religious people and say to them, Pound Sand,
(16:23):
we own your kid.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
They are property of the state, not you a nation.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
And then I guess I am a bit mystified as
a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this.
Can you just tell us what happened when in March
of twenty three, you know what.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
Happened in terms.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
Of the objections and how the school board responded to
give us a little bit.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
I share your concern.
Speaker 7 (16:51):
My kids you graduated to my kids graduated from MOCO,
and we're opted out when they when they asked on
their own accord to opt out of some instruction on
sex education. And what happened is we're not even entirely
sure because for the entire first year, the board promised
in multiple places on Fox News and other media, the
parents would be be notified and then they would be
(17:12):
opted out.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
The last notice.
Speaker 7 (17:14):
Happened on March twenty second, twenty twenty three. The very
next day, overnight, with no explanation, the board came out
and said, we're changing the rule because we want every
all students to be instructed on inclusivity. That's at five
point forty seven in the appendix, that emphasis on all
students have to receive this obstruction, nothing about administrability.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
And then from there on, even then they said.
Speaker 7 (17:35):
If we've already told you you can opt out, we'll
let you do that, but more parents can't ask, And
then it wasn't until later in the year when they
actually revised their guidelines which still allow certain religious opt
outs and just not others. This was clearly targeted at
religious parents, objective.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
And complaints were raised.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
Right, That's right. Hundreds of parents complained.
Speaker 7 (17:56):
These were mostly, according to the news articles, mostly families
from Muslim faith and Ethiopian Orthodox who are objecting. When
they spoke to the board, the board accused them of
using their religious beliefs as another reason to hate, accused
a young Muslim girl of parroting her parents' dogma, and
(18:17):
then accuse the parents of aligning with racist xenophobes and
white supremacists. And so again, there's no question in this
case that there is a burden, that it was imposed
with animosity, and that it's discriminating against our clients because
of their religious beliefs.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I'm going to say it again, if you're not involved
in your kids in their schools and what's happening, this
is probably the craft that's happening, and you have no
idea what's going on, and you can tell the Supreme
Court at least some of these justices are saying, I'm
sounding the alarm.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
Parents.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
You need to get in your libraries, and you need
to see what your kids are being forced to listen
to and what they're been doctoring your kids with during
their reading hour as early as the age of three.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Because I mentioned earlier.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Tricia McLaughlin, the Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security,
join us at the White House to talk about what's
going on with border security issues.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
And here is what she had to say.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
One of the big issues that so many Americans care
about right now is the issue of what's happening at
the southern border. We have done a lot to secure
the border in a President Trump and in the first
hundred days, but then there's the issue of all the
illegal immigrants that are in this country and how we're
going to deport them, especially those that are in MS
thirteen gang members and Trey de la Laga gangs. This
(19:37):
is still a major issue for safety for so many Americans.
So join me now to talk about this is Trician mclofflin.
She is the Assistant Secretary Department of Homeland Security. Tricia,
it's a pleasure to have you here and to talk
about this. Let's go to the headlines and start there.
You've got this story of a MS thirteen gang member,
who even his own wife was making sure that his
(19:58):
knuckles were that had the tattoo of the MS thirteen
gang symbol, was not on social media in some of
her postings. Then the media tried to say that he
was not a gang member, that this was terrible, that
we kicked him out of this country, and that we
send him out Salvador, and they're domating him back.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
And now Democrats have.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Gone all in on this, like there's delegations using taxpayer
dollars to go and meet with this person, not meet
with family members and victims in this country, those that
have been terrorized, those have been killed, those have been
raped and murdered by this gang that is a terrorist organization.
And now we're also seeing lawfare in the courts trying
to say no, no, no, President Trump, you can't keep American
safe as.
Speaker 8 (20:35):
Well, exactly Ben, And there really is a concerted effort
by the media and Democrats to whitewash the story, whitewash
who this guy is, that he's some innocent marilynd father,
when he's anything but. First and foremost, he is in
the country illegally. He had final deportation orders. But let's
go through the timeline a little bit to describe who
this guy Abrego Garcia actually is. When he was initially
(20:57):
arrested in twenty nineteen, he was found among other MS
thirteen gang members, decked out in MS thirteen gear having
different MS thirteen symbols on it. He was found with
drugs and rolls of money as well. Two separate immigration
judges found that he was an MS thirteen gang member
as well as the Prince George's County gang unit. Keep
(21:18):
in mind, Prince George County, Maryland isn't exactly some red haven,
it is very blue. They found that he is in
MS thirteen as well. Flash forward to twenty twenty one.
His wife, his own wife, who like you said, was
covering up his knuckles, was filed a domestic restraining order
against him for slapping her, for ripping off her shirt,
(21:39):
for pinching and scratching her sheet, and her own written
testimony said how she feared for her children and tried
to take them away from him, and then man if
I may one more time is In twenty twenty two,
he was pulled over by the Tennessee State Highway Patrol,
during which he was allegedly taking eight individuals from Texas
(22:00):
to Maryland on a three day journey. On a three
day journey with eight people, and there was not a
single piece of luggage in that vehicle that reeks of
human trafficking.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
That is textbook.
Speaker 8 (22:11):
And so we're left to believe that, oh, no, this
is an innocent guy.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
And by the way, that let's be queer the Biden administration.
The FBI said no, no, no, just let him go.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
Don't worry about that.
Speaker 8 (22:20):
There's certainly more to the story and I'd love to
hear more from the FBI and what went down there.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
So you look at this guy and he's over there,
and now the media has become like he's some sort
of folk.
Speaker 3 (22:31):
Hero or hero for them.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
The Democratic Party is spending taxpayer hours to go down
there and meet with him like he's a celebrity. You
have centers that are holding his hand like he's been
persecuted by the Unitstates of America and demands to bring
him back. What so we can deport him to another
country as soon as he gets here, because that's exactly
what could happen.
Speaker 8 (22:48):
It's remarkable to me that this is the hill that
the Democrats and media are willing to die on that
they have one small shred of any credibility left and
this is what they're going to burn it on. Is
this MS thirteen gang member. Americans should remember who MS
thirteen is. It is a vicious gang that sex traffics,
that human traffics, that mames, rapes, and kills Americans for sport.
(23:11):
These are people who should not be in our country
and should be hunted down and locked up immediately.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
You just look at some of the things that apparently
were found on his devices. And that's one of the
things that I found interesting on the reporting is you
look at what they share MS thirteen game members. They
share the pictures of beheadings, the butchering of humans, and
then yet they're trying to say, oh, this guy's a
victim who broke into America.
Speaker 8 (23:36):
Anything but and that is I mean, if you look
at the crime on American streets and the crimes by
these illegal immigrant gangs, so much of the time they're
done by MS thirteen, they're done by Trendy Aragua, they're
done by these other vicious gangs. They shouldn't have been
here in the first place because they're in the country illegally.
Much less the fact that with impunity, they've been allowed
(23:56):
to rain terwer on American streets for the last four years.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Let's talk about the court system now, and we've seen
these activist judges who are stepping in and using law
fair to say, Hey, the President can't do this anymore.
You can't just ship people off to the other countries.
We're going to stop you every step of the way.
What is the administration's response to that. How long is
it going to take for this.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
To play out.
Speaker 8 (24:18):
I think ultimately President Trump, Secretary Nomen, this entire administration
are going to be victorious on this issue. On November fifth,
twenty twenty four, there is a clear mandate from the
American people that we need to get criminal, illegal aliens
out of this country. There was likely ten to twenty
million illegal aliens who came into this country under Joe Biden.
(24:39):
The American people are done with it. Look, whether Garcia
is in an American detention facility or an La Salvador,
what matters really is that he's locked up. But I
do think ultimately this will be sorted out. We will
ensure that these individuals have due process. That was what
the Supreme Court was most concerned about was the amount
of time these individuals were given notice. But we're going
(25:00):
to be very clear that despite the fact that these
are terrorists and these are criminal gang members, this is
still the United States of American. We guarantee due process
under the US Constitution.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
So when you look forward after, we're at the one
hundred day mark in essence, and this is pretty awesome
because there's a lot that's been done. The border is
now more secure than it's been in decades, the number
of people are coming across. I think the message the
present sent loud and clear was you come here now,
it's game on. We're saying that the number of crossings
have dropped significantly, but there's the big question of Okay,
(25:34):
there's a lot of people that got in under the
Biden years.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
There's literally millions. How are we going to unwind all
of that in an orderly fashion?
Speaker 8 (25:42):
Yeah, I think that we're working to do just that.
Secretary Nome was handed a tough task and she's taking
it on miraculously. Look at the border, as you just mentioned,
we virtually have operational control of the border. Crossings are
down ninety five percent. That is, i all counts the
most secure border and American history. That's in less than
ninety days. It's pretty remarkable. But we also have to
(26:04):
look at our legal immigration system as well. The Biden
administration majorc has use parole programs, temporary protected status, and
these other programs to allow illegal immigrants to come into
this country unvetted. We don't know really who's in this country,
so we have to really take a pause and go
through who did we let in for the last four years.
(26:26):
So I think it's going to take also a unleashed ICE.
Secretary name has been remarkable in that, but the fact is,
for the last four years, Biden did not allow these
ICE agents to actually do their jobs. They were disincentivized
for making any of these arrests, whether it be just
illegal aliens to criminal vicious aliens like these MS thirteen members,
(26:47):
as we've mentioned before. So we have a tall task
and we've got to get these arrests numbers up. But
that's part of the reason why Secretary Nome is on
the ground on a weekly basis with our enforcement officers
from Border and Protection Patrol and from ICE to make
sure that we're getting them the resources they need to
be successful to get these arrests numbers up and to
(27:08):
make sure.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
They're safe on the job.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Let's talk about detention detainers that the ICE needs in
the court systems. They need these courts still alert them
when they have somebody in custody that is clearly needs
to be deported. We still are seeing activists that are
not allowing for that to happen. How big of an
issue is that going to be moving forward and is
there more than the White House can do to stop
that from being a thing.
Speaker 8 (27:27):
Yeah, I think the Department of Justice under Attorney General
Pam Bondi is definitely looking at options with these sanctuary cities,
like you mentioned, if ICE isn't able to lodge these
detainers against these criminal aliens, that they could be released
into American communities and go out and commit the same act. Actually,
a couple of weeks ago, Secretary Nome was in New
York City and a lot of listeners will probably remember
(27:50):
this really heinous crime at Coney Island, the subway station
there where this illegal immigrant lit this woman on fire
and killed her. It was incredibly depraved. ICE tried to
lodge a detainer, and we are not sure if that's
going to be honored. So we don't know if, if,
and when this guy will get out, but if he's not,
he could be released back into New York even though
he's in this country illegally. That's the kind of cases
(28:12):
we have to end and that's what I mean case
in point why sanctuary cities are so so dangerous.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Final question for you on moving forward in the next
one hundred days, what do you expect the headlines to
be from this administration on this issue. Obviously, the border
is secure, we can check that box. We're doing more,
but where is this going to go and what can
the American people expect.
Speaker 8 (28:34):
I think you're going to see ramped up deportation numbers.
I think you're going to see more agreements with third
party countries. Whether you see that with Al Salvador that
they're taking some of our most vicious, worse, the worst
criminal aliens. I think you're going to see more of
that from other countries to make sure that these guys
are off of Americans, loyal and take and take part
in getting their.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Their folks folks back.
Speaker 8 (28:55):
I also think we're going to see more, you know,
we're going to see more action with these the courts
and some of these activists judges, but we're not gonna
let it stop us. We have deportation flights going almost
every single day, and Alien and Newmies Act is only
one tool in our arsenal. We have a lot of
authorities to get these people out of the country.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
It's incredible.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
You guys are doing great work, and your boss is
doing great work as well. It's nice to have leadership
at the Department of Home in Security that actually knows
who the bad guys are and they're willing to go
after them. Chrisia mcoffin, she is the Assistant Secretary Department
of Homelandsecurity.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Always a pleasure. Thank you for coming on this monor
thank you.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Don't forget we do this show every day, so make
sure you hit that subscribe or auto download button so
you don't miss any of the interviews we do, especially
with members of the administration. And I'll see you back
here tomorrow morning.
All right.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
First up, let me just say it has been a
pleasure to be at the White House doing some interviews
celebrating the firste hundred days of the Trump administration. And
joining us a little bit later is going to be
Tricia McLaughlin. She is going to give us an update
of what's happening when it comes to the border issues.
This isn't Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, and
(00:21):
she's going to join us to talk about that important issue.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
So stay around for that.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Now, before I get to that, I want to talk
to you about a very important case at the Supreme Court.
It is a case that is getting virtually no attention
right now, and it's a case about parental rights. Do
parents have the right to protect their kids from gender
(00:45):
ideology in public schools? Now, there are a lot of
different things that have happened in our public schools that
we're now finding out about.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I'll give you an example.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
The Supreme Court is hearing these oral arguments and Mohammed
versus Haler, and it considers whether religious parents can opt
their young children out of mandatory readings of LGBTQIA story books. Now,
this is one of the books in the case, and
it is this what are your words question?
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Mark.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
My pronouns are like the weather.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
The book says, they change depending on how I feel.
Sometimes I just use one set of pronouns, it shows
with one child. Then the next thing it says, sometimes
I change my pronouns, and it shows that person changing
clothing to something else. Then it says, sometimes I use
all of the pronouns I can think of. And then
(01:42):
the next page it says, my pronouns are like the weather.
They change depending on how I feel, and that's okay
because they're my words. That is one example of the
books that are being given to your children and grandkids
to indoctrinate them in our public schools. Now, the question
is for parents, should you have the right, based on
(02:06):
your faith to say, hey, this mandatory reading in the
public school is something that I should have the right
to pull my kids out of. Obviously, I believe, of course,
because this is not education, this is LGBTQI in doctrination.
And as the Supreme Court is diving into Mohammad versus
(02:27):
Taylor debating this, if religious parents can skip the story
books for kids. It's a clash of a lot of
different issues one faith, two parental rights, and three they
say on the left school inclusivity policies.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
And the decision is expected to come down.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
This summer before school would go back into session in
the fall. Now, there were some very interesting moments at
the Supreme Court. And this is why I hope you
listen to the show, because I bring you things like
this that no one else is covering. I want to
I want you to listen, and please share this on
social media. All right, share this podcast, this show wherever
you are in social media. And I want you to
(03:05):
listen this exchange between Justice Gorsaic and a lawyer that
is representing a transsexuality pushing Maryland school district.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Okay, so you've got the Maryland School District.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
They're pushing transsexuality down the throats, mandating the.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Curriculum to these kids.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
And the discussion that you're about to hear is about
forcing sexual material on elementary school kids, even three year
old kids. Now, this is a back and forth the
audio from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Listen carefully, souscorsage.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
I just want to make sure I understand a few
fact things. And then a law question, what aage do
you in Montgomery County? Teach students normally about human sexuality.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
I think that it begins in either fourth or fifth grade,
the human sexuality class, Family Life and Human Sexuality the curriculum.
I'm not entirely sure.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
It starts in fourth or fifth grade. I think, is
there anything you can point us to in the record
on that?
Speaker 1 (04:07):
I don't think so?
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Okay. And second, these books are being used in English class.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
The division between English class and other things and a
second grade classroom doesn't really exist. You're sort of in
a room with a teacher.
Speaker 4 (04:21):
And sometimes I appreciate that I went to second grade too,
but it's it's part of the English curriculum that these
books are being used in. That's I thought that was.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Yeah, I'm not I'm not fighting the premise. I'm just
saying it's.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
Not a math class. It's it's not the human sexuality class.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
It's it is certainly not the human sexuality class. I'm
just sort of fighting the premise that there's a neat discimery.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
And they're being used in English language instruction at age three,
some of them.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
So Pride Puppy was the book that was used for
the pre kindergarten curriculum. That's no longer in the curriculum.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
That's the one where they are supposed to look for
the leather and things and bondage things like that.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
It's not bomb sex a woman and sex worker, right, No,
it's not correct. No thought, gosh, I read it queen.
The leather that they're pointing to is a woman in
a leather jacket and one of the words is drag.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
Queen, and they're supposed to look for those.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
It is an option at the end of the book.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Correct, Okay, And you're you've included these in the English
language curriculum rather than the human sexuality curriculum to influence students.
Is that fair? That's what the district court found.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
I think to the extent the district court found that
it was to influence. It was to influence them towards
civility then natural consequence of being exposed whatever, but to
influence them in the manner that I just mentioned.
Speaker 4 (05:48):
Yes, and responding to parents who are concerned. You agree
that there was some intemperate language used.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
I don't know that those were respond to parents who
were concerned. This was after the fact for most of
these comments, and this was in a very public setting,
which obviously got heated. And some intemperate comments were used, certainly.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
And I wanted to understand your context that you are
giving about the statement that some Muslim families it's unfortunate
that this issue puts some Muslim families on the same
side of an issue as white supremacists and outright bigots,
I think in response to justice. So, Tomayer, you're trying
to give some context to that.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
I don't think I was speaking directly about that comment.
I think that comment was given or was made in June,
which was several months after the decision to withdraw the
opt outs was made. I don't have context for that
savement now, okay.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
And then the legal question, why isn't discrimination against religion
a burden on religion? If a state, now this is hypothetical,
not moving away from there, if state actors intentionally discriminate
against religion, what secular purpose, valid secular purpose could that serve?
(07:03):
And how how wouldn't that be a burden?
Speaker 1 (07:05):
So I don't know. I mean, it depends on the
hypothetical what the state is doing and whether there's a
secular purpose that's hard to imagine one. But if this
state is discriminating.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
Against Muslims or Catholics or Protestants or whatever.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
I think this court has recognized that when an enactment
that discriminates on its face, or has recognized with respect
to an enactment that discriminates on its face, it is
intrinsically coercive. That's how the Court has performed the burden inquiry.
If you are privileging one religion over another, you are
coercing people to subscribe to that particular set of beliefs
in order.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
That's a burden.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Yeah, absolutely, thank you.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
This is just absolute psychotic insanity from this public school district.
That attorney there for the Montgomery Public School system, his
name is Alan. He's a guy that's saying no, like you, really,
as a parent, you don't have any say show over
your kids.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
You don't get decide if.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
What we're teaching your three year old kid about a
chick being a dude or do being a chick, or
bondage or books that say find the leather for the
for the bondage and sexuality, and this indoctrination of perverting
your kid's minds at an insanely young age of three
and up. You don't have a say so in saying oh,
(08:23):
just because of my faith, you can pull your kid
out of this mandatory curriculum. Now, the other way to
look at this is you can literally fail the child.
The child could be could fail over and over and
over again if the parent does not give in to
this type of indoctrination. And what the Supreme Court is
(08:46):
saying there, and this judge is also saying, is that
we believe that a parent has really.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
No rights over their kid. They are properly of the state.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
And what Gorch I think was getting to there, and
the point he was made making so clearly is you
guys actually really do believe this, Like this is what
you think that the parent doesn't matter, that the parent's
faith literally has no bearing on protecting a child from
anything you want to indoctrinate that child on. I also
(09:18):
want to play for you another example of how radical
the left is in this case. And again no one's
talking about this outside in the mainstream media because they
don't want you to know that this is even a thing,
so that you can.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Have a voice in it, all right.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Brett Kavanaugh also had another back and forth and Brett
Kavanaugh spot on in what I'm about to play for
you during his question at the Supreme Court, And I
do want to just put this into perspective here so
you understand just how far the radical left has gone.
Fifteen twenty years ago, the LGBT community, the activist basically,
their line was just like, leave us alone, let us
(09:53):
live our lives, our private lives. That was the argument.
Just leave us alone, leave us alone, leave us alone.
What is it today today is well, if look, if
you don't bake me a cake, then I'm going to
sue you and shut down your restaurant right because there's
no such thing as you having the rights to say
no for religious reasons. If you don't allow us and
(10:16):
we will force your children to sit through our curriculum
regardless of your religious beliefs, then we're just going to
fight and try to take those kids away from you
and turn the government against you. Like, think about how
far we've gone twenty years ago. Leave us along and
let us live our private lives. Today, you will bake
me that cake. You will force and you will force
(10:36):
your children to sit through our curriculum or they'll be
kicked out of school, regardless of your religious beliefs.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
That is how far the pendulum has gone.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
So listen to Kavanaugh and what he said to the
attorneys there on this case.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
But in the country has opt outs for all sorts
of things. The county has opt outs for all sorts
of things. The other Maryland counties had opt outs for
all sorts of things, and yet for this one thing
they change in mid midyear and say no more opt outs.
I'm just not understanding feasibility.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
So again, I think what's in the record is that
with respect to these books, as they were deployed in
the classroom, there was high absenteeism in some schools, for example,
dozens of students being opted out in I think mister
Baxter said the average size of an elementary to Montgomery
County is seven hundred students, so each grade is one
hundred and twenty five. If you have dozens of students
walking out, making arrangements for those students to have adequate
(11:32):
space and supervision and alternative instruction, I think is infeasible.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
And that's do it for all sorts of other opt outs.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
They don't do it for all sorts of other opt outs.
There's a limited universe of things that students can opt
out from, the family life and healthy sexuality curriculum stands alone.
It is mandated by the state. It is something where
you are able to predict precisely when the curriculum is
going to be deployed.
Speaker 5 (11:54):
There's a four the most similar substantively to what we
have here, and there's an opt out allowed there. I
guess I'm not understanding why Montgomery County school Board stands alone.
I think in the country, you can tell me if
there's another school board that's done something like this.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
I thought, both.
Speaker 5 (12:14):
The kind of books that are being used and prohibiting
opt outs, and I guess I'm just not understanding the
whole goal. I think of some of our religion precedents
is to look for the win win, to look for
the situation where you can respect the religious beliefs and
accommodate the religious beliefs while the state or city or
(12:37):
whatever it may be can pursue its goals. And here,
they're not asking you to change what's taught in the classroom.
They're not asking you to change that at all. A
lot of the rhetoric suggests that they might have that's
a written that they were trying to do that, but
that's not what they're trying to do. They're only seeking
to be able to walk out so that they don't
(12:58):
have to The parents don't have their children exposed to
these things that are contrary to their own beliefs.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
I understand your honor, and there may well be circumstances
where a school can.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Or I mean, it's just incredibly bizarre.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
And this is why I play this audio for you
so that you understand you need to be checking what
your kids are being indoctrinate at at three, like they're
doing this before your kid can even know like this
is wrong. They're doing this before your kid even understands
what's happening.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
And that's not by accident. That's on purpose.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Because if they can get control of your kid's mind
to believe that you know Heshi them, they pronouns are normal,
and that you can change your pronouns every day, just
like that book I was reading for you earlier, then
they're like, all right, we're good to go here now
that these moments are not just bizarre, but but they're insane.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
I'll give you another example.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Justice Jackson yesterday had this back and forth when it
dees with the case.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
I'm going to play it for you and then I'll
commentate on the other side.
Speaker 6 (14:06):
Listen, and I guess I'm struggling to see how it
burdens a parent's religious exercise. If the school teaches something
that the parent disagrees with, you have a choice.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
You don't have to send your kid to that school.
Speaker 6 (14:19):
You can put them in another situation.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
You can put them in another situation. Let me let's
let's dissect and go through that quote. If the school
teaches something that the parent disagrees with, you have a choice. Now,
I wish she was actually saying that she's in favor
of school choice, right, but that's not what she's saying here.
She's saying, then pound sand, then take your kid out
of school. Good luck figure it out, because you're the
(14:44):
crazy one because you don't want your three year old
indoctrinated with this trans ideology. So again, back to her
exact words, you don't have to send your kid to
that school. You can put them in another situation, all right,
So choice right.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
For justice Keanji Brown Jackson.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Is is have your three year old sit through trans
story hour without question, or pay for expensive private.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
School or shift to homeschooling.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Not an actual choice, by the way, quote unquote for
a lot of working families or single mothers, and your
tax dollars is what is funding this radical school, whether
your kid goes there or not, so they keep your money.
This is why I'm in favorite school choice. This is
why I'm in favorite vouchers. This is why we as
(15:35):
a community need to understand. Okay, like we need to
understand that this is something now that is going to
happen forever if we don't stop it, because they're already
doing it. I'll give you another example. I'm going to
play another part of the argument in the Supreme Court. Okay,
this is Eric Baxter, the attorney for Muhammad, explaining how
(15:59):
Muchtgomery Public Schools undermined parental rights and religious freedom. And
he said this was clearly targeted the school district at
religious parents. Okay, so this is he's saying, there's no
disguising this. They wanted to come after Christians, they wanted
to come after religious people and say to them, Pound Sand,
(16:23):
we own your kid.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
They are property of the state, not you a nation.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
And then I guess I am a bit mystified as
a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this.
Can you just tell us what happened when in March
of twenty three, you know what.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
Happened in terms.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
Of the objections and how the school board responded to
give us a little bit.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
I share your concern.
Speaker 7 (16:51):
My kids you graduated to my kids graduated from MOCO,
and we're opted out when they when they asked on
their own accord to opt out of some instruction on
sex education. And what happened is we're not even entirely
sure because for the entire first year, the board promised
in multiple places on Fox News and other media, the
parents would be be notified and then they would be
(17:12):
opted out.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
The last notice.
Speaker 7 (17:14):
Happened on March twenty second, twenty twenty three. The very
next day, overnight, with no explanation, the board came out
and said, we're changing the rule because we want every
all students to be instructed on inclusivity. That's at five
point forty seven in the appendix, that emphasis on all
students have to receive this obstruction, nothing about administrability.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
And then from there on, even then they said.
Speaker 7 (17:35):
If we've already told you you can opt out, we'll
let you do that, but more parents can't ask, And
then it wasn't until later in the year when they
actually revised their guidelines which still allow certain religious opt
outs and just not others. This was clearly targeted at
religious parents, objective.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
And complaints were raised.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
Right, That's right. Hundreds of parents complained.
Speaker 7 (17:56):
These were mostly, according to the news articles, mostly families
from Muslim faith and Ethiopian Orthodox who are objecting. When
they spoke to the board, the board accused them of
using their religious beliefs as another reason to hate, accused
a young Muslim girl of parroting her parents' dogma, and
(18:17):
then accuse the parents of aligning with racist xenophobes and
white supremacists. And so again, there's no question in this
case that there is a burden, that it was imposed
with animosity, and that it's discriminating against our clients because
of their religious beliefs.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I'm going to say it again, if you're not involved
in your kids in their schools and what's happening, this
is probably the craft that's happening, and you have no
idea what's going on, and you can tell the Supreme
Court at least some of these justices are saying, I'm
sounding the alarm.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
Parents.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
You need to get in your libraries, and you need
to see what your kids are being forced to listen
to and what they're been doctoring your kids with during
their reading hour as early as the age of three.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Because I mentioned earlier.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Tricia McLaughlin, the Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security,
join us at the White House to talk about what's
going on with border security issues.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
And here is what she had to say.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
One of the big issues that so many Americans care
about right now is the issue of what's happening at
the southern border. We have done a lot to secure
the border in a President Trump and in the first
hundred days, but then there's the issue of all the
illegal immigrants that are in this country and how we're
going to deport them, especially those that are in MS
thirteen gang members and Trey de la Laga gangs. This
(19:37):
is still a major issue for safety for so many Americans.
So join me now to talk about this is Trician mclofflin.
She is the Assistant Secretary Department of Homeland Security. Tricia,
it's a pleasure to have you here and to talk
about this. Let's go to the headlines and start there.
You've got this story of a MS thirteen gang member,
who even his own wife was making sure that his
(19:58):
knuckles were that had the tattoo of the MS thirteen
gang symbol, was not on social media in some of
her postings. Then the media tried to say that he
was not a gang member, that this was terrible, that
we kicked him out of this country, and that we
send him out Salvador, and they're domating him back.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
And now Democrats have.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Gone all in on this, like there's delegations using taxpayer
dollars to go and meet with this person, not meet
with family members and victims in this country, those that
have been terrorized, those have been killed, those have been
raped and murdered by this gang that is a terrorist organization.
And now we're also seeing lawfare in the courts trying
to say no, no, no, President Trump, you can't keep American
safe as.
Speaker 8 (20:35):
Well, exactly Ben, And there really is a concerted effort
by the media and Democrats to whitewash the story, whitewash
who this guy is, that he's some innocent marilynd father,
when he's anything but. First and foremost, he is in
the country illegally. He had final deportation orders. But let's
go through the timeline a little bit to describe who
this guy Abrego Garcia actually is. When he was initially
(20:57):
arrested in twenty nineteen, he was found among other MS
thirteen gang members, decked out in MS thirteen gear having
different MS thirteen symbols on it. He was found with
drugs and rolls of money as well. Two separate immigration
judges found that he was an MS thirteen gang member
as well as the Prince George's County gang unit. Keep
(21:18):
in mind, Prince George County, Maryland isn't exactly some red haven,
it is very blue. They found that he is in
MS thirteen as well. Flash forward to twenty twenty one.
His wife, his own wife, who like you said, was
covering up his knuckles, was filed a domestic restraining order
against him for slapping her, for ripping off her shirt,
(21:39):
for pinching and scratching her sheet, and her own written
testimony said how she feared for her children and tried
to take them away from him, and then man if
I may one more time is In twenty twenty two,
he was pulled over by the Tennessee State Highway Patrol,
during which he was allegedly taking eight individuals from Texas
(22:00):
to Maryland on a three day journey. On a three
day journey with eight people, and there was not a
single piece of luggage in that vehicle that reeks of
human trafficking.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
That is textbook.
Speaker 8 (22:11):
And so we're left to believe that, oh, no, this
is an innocent guy.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
And by the way, that let's be queer the Biden administration.
The FBI said no, no, no, just let him go.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
Don't worry about that.
Speaker 8 (22:20):
There's certainly more to the story and I'd love to
hear more from the FBI and what went down there.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
So you look at this guy and he's over there,
and now the media has become like he's some sort
of folk.
Speaker 3 (22:31):
Hero or hero for them.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
The Democratic Party is spending taxpayer hours to go down
there and meet with him like he's a celebrity. You
have centers that are holding his hand like he's been
persecuted by the Unitstates of America and demands to bring
him back. What so we can deport him to another
country as soon as he gets here, because that's exactly
what could happen.
Speaker 8 (22:48):
It's remarkable to me that this is the hill that
the Democrats and media are willing to die on that
they have one small shred of any credibility left and
this is what they're going to burn it on. Is
this MS thirteen gang member. Americans should remember who MS
thirteen is. It is a vicious gang that sex traffics,
that human traffics, that mames, rapes, and kills Americans for sport.
(23:11):
These are people who should not be in our country
and should be hunted down and locked up immediately.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
You just look at some of the things that apparently
were found on his devices. And that's one of the
things that I found interesting on the reporting is you
look at what they share MS thirteen game members. They
share the pictures of beheadings, the butchering of humans, and
then yet they're trying to say, oh, this guy's a
victim who broke into America.
Speaker 8 (23:36):
Anything but and that is I mean, if you look
at the crime on American streets and the crimes by
these illegal immigrant gangs, so much of the time they're
done by MS thirteen, they're done by Trendy Aragua, they're
done by these other vicious gangs. They shouldn't have been
here in the first place because they're in the country illegally.
Much less the fact that with impunity, they've been allowed
(23:56):
to rain terwer on American streets for the last four years.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Let's talk about the court system now, and we've seen
these activist judges who are stepping in and using law
fair to say, Hey, the President can't do this anymore.
You can't just ship people off to the other countries.
We're going to stop you every step of the way.
What is the administration's response to that. How long is
it going to take for this.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
To play out.
Speaker 8 (24:18):
I think ultimately President Trump, Secretary Nomen, this entire administration
are going to be victorious on this issue. On November fifth,
twenty twenty four, there is a clear mandate from the
American people that we need to get criminal, illegal aliens
out of this country. There was likely ten to twenty
million illegal aliens who came into this country under Joe Biden.
(24:39):
The American people are done with it. Look, whether Garcia
is in an American detention facility or an La Salvador,
what matters really is that he's locked up. But I
do think ultimately this will be sorted out. We will
ensure that these individuals have due process. That was what
the Supreme Court was most concerned about was the amount
of time these individuals were given notice. But we're going
(25:00):
to be very clear that despite the fact that these
are terrorists and these are criminal gang members, this is
still the United States of American. We guarantee due process
under the US Constitution.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
So when you look forward after, we're at the one
hundred day mark in essence, and this is pretty awesome
because there's a lot that's been done. The border is
now more secure than it's been in decades, the number
of people are coming across. I think the message the
present sent loud and clear was you come here now,
it's game on. We're saying that the number of crossings
have dropped significantly, but there's the big question of Okay,
(25:34):
there's a lot of people that got in under the
Biden years.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
There's literally millions. How are we going to unwind all
of that in an orderly fashion?
Speaker 8 (25:42):
Yeah, I think that we're working to do just that.
Secretary Nome was handed a tough task and she's taking
it on miraculously. Look at the border, as you just mentioned,
we virtually have operational control of the border. Crossings are
down ninety five percent. That is, i all counts the
most secure border and American history. That's in less than
ninety days. It's pretty remarkable. But we also have to
(26:04):
look at our legal immigration system as well. The Biden
administration majorc has use parole programs, temporary protected status, and
these other programs to allow illegal immigrants to come into
this country unvetted. We don't know really who's in this country,
so we have to really take a pause and go
through who did we let in for the last four years.
(26:26):
So I think it's going to take also a unleashed ICE.
Secretary name has been remarkable in that, but the fact is,
for the last four years, Biden did not allow these
ICE agents to actually do their jobs. They were disincentivized
for making any of these arrests, whether it be just
illegal aliens to criminal vicious aliens like these MS thirteen members,
(26:47):
as we've mentioned before. So we have a tall task
and we've got to get these arrests numbers up. But
that's part of the reason why Secretary Nome is on
the ground on a weekly basis with our enforcement officers
from Border and Protection Patrol and from ICE to make
sure that we're getting them the resources they need to
be successful to get these arrests numbers up and to
(27:08):
make sure.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
They're safe on the job.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Let's talk about detention detainers that the ICE needs in
the court systems. They need these courts still alert them
when they have somebody in custody that is clearly needs
to be deported. We still are seeing activists that are
not allowing for that to happen. How big of an
issue is that going to be moving forward and is
there more than the White House can do to stop
that from being a thing.
Speaker 8 (27:27):
Yeah, I think the Department of Justice under Attorney General
Pam Bondi is definitely looking at options with these sanctuary cities,
like you mentioned, if ICE isn't able to lodge these
detainers against these criminal aliens, that they could be released
into American communities and go out and commit the same act. Actually,
a couple of weeks ago, Secretary Nome was in New
York City and a lot of listeners will probably remember
(27:50):
this really heinous crime at Coney Island, the subway station
there where this illegal immigrant lit this woman on fire
and killed her. It was incredibly depraved. ICE tried to
lodge a detainer, and we are not sure if that's
going to be honored. So we don't know if, if,
and when this guy will get out, but if he's not,
he could be released back into New York even though
he's in this country illegally. That's the kind of cases
(28:12):
we have to end and that's what I mean case
in point why sanctuary cities are so so dangerous.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Final question for you on moving forward in the next
one hundred days, what do you expect the headlines to
be from this administration on this issue. Obviously, the border
is secure, we can check that box. We're doing more,
but where is this going to go and what can
the American people expect.
Speaker 8 (28:34):
I think you're going to see ramped up deportation numbers.
I think you're going to see more agreements with third
party countries. Whether you see that with Al Salvador that
they're taking some of our most vicious, worse, the worst
criminal aliens. I think you're going to see more of
that from other countries to make sure that these guys
are off of Americans, loyal and take and take part
in getting their.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Their folks folks back.
Speaker 8 (28:55):
I also think we're going to see more, you know,
we're going to see more action with these the courts
and some of these activists judges, but we're not gonna
let it stop us. We have deportation flights going almost
every single day, and Alien and Newmies Act is only
one tool in our arsenal. We have a lot of
authorities to get these people out of the country.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
It's incredible.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
You guys are doing great work, and your boss is
doing great work as well. It's nice to have leadership
at the Department of Home in Security that actually knows
who the bad guys are and they're willing to go
after them. Chrisia mcoffin, she is the Assistant Secretary Department
of Homelandsecurity.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Always a pleasure. Thank you for coming on this monor
thank you.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Don't forget we do this show every day, so make
sure you hit that subscribe or auto download button so
you don't miss any of the interviews we do, especially
with members of the administration. And I'll see you back
here tomorrow morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!