RADIO

STEVEN CROWDER ON GEORGE FLOYD RIOTS: 'Nothing excuses people acting like animalistic thugs'

BlazeTV's Louder with Crowder host, Steven Crowder, took his film crew to the Dallas streets the morning after a night of riots. A graffiti artist (or, vandal?) Crowder spoke to excused defacing property because his mural was designed to fight for justice. But, what about justice for the business owner? Or the owners of all the other buildings and businesses that have been destroyed? Crowder says rioters don't have the right to destroy somebody else's stuff, should forfeit their own rights for doing so, and that there are no excuses for acting like "animalistic thugs." And if Crowder's beliefs on George Floyd and the resulting riots upset some Americans, then he doesn't care.

2 Reasons Why Everyone Needs to GET OUT of New York City
RADIO

2 Reasons Why Everyone Needs to GET OUT of New York City

Leftists are ruining New York City, Glenn says, and a recent attack on former president Donald Trump may be the final sign that everyone needs to GET OUT. Glenn argues that if New York Attorney General follows through on her promise to seize Trump’s assets, it will lead to a mass exodus of businesses from the city. But it’s not just business owners who are at risk of losing everything. Glenn reviews how New York’s insane squatting laws have let a squatter sue a homeowner because she wouldn’t let him live in her house! Are there ANY property rights in NYC anymore?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, when it comes to negotiations, you really shouldn't -- you really should check out your case, especially when you're sitting across the table from Donald Trump.

Because the one thing he does do well, is hard-core negotiations.

So Donald Trump is facing a deadline on Monday, to post a 454 million-dollar bond, in the civil fraud case, against him, in New York. Well, he can't raise the money. His lawyer said, it was practically an impossibility.

And the press and everybody else -- oh, Latisha James, she's got to go after him. She's got to take his stuff. Oh, I think Donald Trump is -- is waiting for her to take his stuff. Really? Really?

Now, this is a guy who loves New York. He was popular in New York, for many reasons. One of which, the guy, actually, really loved New York.

And did things that weren't necessarily beneficial for him, monetarily. Like, oh, I don't know.

Rebuilding the ice rink, after the city spent a decade trying to fix it. He finally came in to fix it, and did it, in I don't even know, like eight months?

So he loves the city. But, you know what, you're going to kick me to the curb? Okay. That's fine. Now, he was ordered to pay $354 million.

That's more than anyone has ever been -- ever been charged with.

Nobody has ever been told, they have to kick up a 454 million-dollar bond. Let alone, in just 30 days.

Okay?

So what has she been saying?

Well, that's fine. You don't do it. You don't pony up with that. Then we can seize your assets in 30 days.

Okay? This bond number has ever been issued before. No insurance bond company has ever been issued near this. So there's really no chance of this happening. And only giving them 30 days notice.

All right. So Donald Trump is calling their bluff.

Okay. Take my property. Go ahead. Take Trump Tower.

Do you know what that's going to do to New York?

You seize Donald Trump's property, because he can't cough up the bond.

Go ahead. Now, let's look towards the future. How are you going to sell that thing?

What happens if he wins an appeal. And you've sold his property.

Is he going to sue the state, to get the money that he should have been worth? What happens if he could have won on the bond, and he has his property?

What happens, even more importantly, because this is no longer about Donald Trump. And this is where Donald Trump has his power seat at the negotiating table.

He's so smart.

He's sitting there, and he's saying, oh, yeah. You think you're going to hurt me.

No. You know what you're really going to hurt?

New York. Because you can't just take someone's property. Because you don't like them politically. In a case, like this.

That has never, ever -- never believe before the court before. Where they have -- where they've taken somebody's business.

I mean, real crime has happened.

And they have charged people under the same charges, that he was tried under.

And they didn't lose anything.

Okay?

Really? Really?

Okay. So that sends the message to the rest of the business world.

You disagree with the attorney general, or the governor.

And they'll destroy you and your company.

Good! Good!

There's a great article that's out in our show prep today. From the shark tank guy. Kevin O'Leary.

Listen to this. He said, think about this, America.

The reason this is the number one economy on earth, is that we have laws, we have due process, and we have property rights. That's what attracts foreign capital from all over the world. Now, foreign capital outside of China, buying up all the farmland.

Where is that foreign capital going?

Mainly, to cities like New York City. They buy big buildings.

All of that is being shaken to the core here.

The concept of seizing assets in 30 days, there is no chance, that's going to happen.

And this is a really bad message. New Yorkers should think well past Trump, whether he's president or not.

Or whether the attorney general is gone in four years. That's irrelevant. This is case setting, against the American brand. The most stable country on earth, anywhere. To put capital to work over a long period of time. Especially in real estate.

This is an assault on what we believe, to the core.

It's an attack on America. And I don't know how you can look at it, as any other way. And as an investor, I know plenty of investors, who are completely disturbed by this.

But, I mean, no one is going to put any money to work in New York, in these amounts, until this thing settles down.

The whole world is watching, and everybody is waiting for the one thing they haven't got yet. Adult supervision. Where is it?

Where are the adults in this crazy narrative?

Certainly, there's got to be adult supervision, at some point.

And I understand, you know, the war going on, here is all political. Yada, yada, yada.

Woof. Woof.

But we need an adult in the room now.

This is the United States of America, under siege, end quote.

It's pretty powerful, and right.

So let me just tie that with this story.

A suspected squatter, who allegedly took over a million that are queens home. That's Queens, New York. Is now subletting space to the house.

Kevin Ballasty said he was conned into paying $1,500 a month to live in the basement of a flushing home, with the deal made with Jay.

Who he identified as the squatter, first exposed by WACTV. This was a story that was in yesterday's show prep, about the squatter. Okay? Now, the squatter is subletting the home. Here's what happened. Yesterday, in case you didn't get the newsletter at GlennBeck.com.

Yesterday, there was a story from WABC, that talked about this woman and her daughter, that were away. They come back.

She opens up the door.

And the guy says, what the hell you doing in my house? She's like, what the hell are you doing in my house? All of her furniture everything is there.

She calls the police. The police kick him out.

They say, you cannot change the locks. That's against the state law of -- of New York.

You can't change the locks. Otherwise, he could take you to court.

She's like, he -- he -- he is squatting in my house.

I have a daughter. I'm a woman. I'm going to change the locks. The police say, don't do it. You're going to break the law.

The next day, she has the locks changed. He comes back. Tries to open the door. It's locked.

He doesn't have a key. And what happens? He goes back to the same police, brings them back to the house, and now she's in court.

She's suing her!

So now the squatter is subletting her house. Is there any right to property in New York at all?

You couple this with the story about Donald Trump. What do you think is going to happen to New York?

I'm telling you right now. What I told my kids, seven years ago.

Eight -- oh, my gosh. Has it been -- wow. It's been ten years, I think.

And I said to my kids, at the time. Before any of this was happening.

This city is going to burn itself to the ground.

This city is going to be a nightmare.

It's going to be an escape from New York.

It's only a matter of time.

We're leaving.

Dad! You're always so dramatic. Uh-huh.

Well, watch.

Look what's happened to New York. Would you want to live in New York?

Do you want to own property in New York. They can offer me the Trump Tower for $10. James could come to me, and say, Glenn.

I just seized this. It's only $10. You buy it. Free and clear. It's yours. No freaking way, man.

No way. I'm not just worried about how I would be losing $10, because in an appeal, he could take that back. And then I'm in court, with you?

No.

But here's what it really says. I don't want to own any property in New York City. Because they're going to continue to tax the rich to death. Property owners are going to be the worst people to have ever lived.

Anybody who rents out any space, is going to become a robber baron.

The city is going to get more and more corrupt. More and more dangerous, for people who just want to live. The school systems are absolute crap.

The city is now suing the bus company. That is bringing in the immigrants.

Suing the bus company. Not suing -- not suing the Biden administration.

No. No. No. No. Not trying to stop that influx.

No. No.

Suing the bus company, while New York and JFK and La Guardia.

Those are the biggest end destinations for people this government are allowing to board a plane without any documentation. And come into this country, as an illegal immigrant. The government is endorsing it! In many cases, we're flying them to New York, for free!

On your dollar!

You're going to live in New York. Good luck with that. Good luck with that.

If you're listening to New York, and you agree with anything I'm saying here. Think deeply.

I know your family is there.

I group up here. My family is here.

Uh-huh.

All of that, all of that, that you grew up with, ain't coming back soon.

These people won't get it until they've destroyed absolutely everything. I honestly believe that's their plan.

Destroy everything. Get out.

Escape from New York.

Texas Official Accuses Federal Court of HELPING Cartels by Blocking Immigration Law
RADIO

Texas Official Accuses Federal Court of HELPING Cartels by Blocking Immigration Law

The courts have gone back and forth and back again on the Texas immigration law, SB4. The law gives Texas the power to secure the border and deport illegal immigrants to Mexico as the federal government fails to do so. But after the Supreme Court allowed the law to remain in effect while the Biden administration challenges it, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to stop it. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joins Glenn with his reaction: “I’ve never seen anything like it. I don’t understand it. It’s bizarre.” Paxton also accuses the 5th Circuit of helping and protecting the cartels with this order.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Ken, the attorney general from the great state of Texas. How are you, sir?

KEN: I'm doing well. Pretty crazy stuff going on right now, as usual.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. Thank you for joining us.

I know you're getting ready for your argument with the appellate court today. Can you tell me what happened?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court said, Texas can begin arresting. And I get up this morning, and the appellate court said, no. No. No.

Not so fast.

KEN: Well, this is one of the more confusing and inexplicable things I've experienced in the court. It started out with the district court with the Biden administration and a little group called the ACLU sued us saying that the floor was unconstitutional.

We didn't the right to expel anybody from the country, no matter how bad they were. So the judge, with where they filed a lawsuit, put an injunction on our law.

So it couldn't go into effect March 4th the date it was supposed to go into effect.

We appealed that. The three-judge panel ruled in our favor. We got the stay lifted.

But they put what they called an administrative stay on it, give the Supreme Court a chance to review it.

It goes up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says, no fine. Six-zero. It can go into effect. So we're good. We're happy. Within hours, we're notified by a new panel of the Supreme Court, Priscilla Owen, I think a Bush appointee. And then we have a liberal judge, appointed by one of the Democrats. And we had Andy Holden (phonetic) who ruled in our favor. So we lost two-one. They put another stay back in. Then they ordered us to have a -- a hearing, within less than 12 hours from finding out.

So, actually, my guy is arguing by Zoom right now, if the court in New Orleans, that three-judge panel, that really odd argument. Because they removed the stay. But they said, that's what the argument is about.

It's almost like they've already decided. They still want to us argue the case.

I don't know. I've never seen it. And I don't understand it. It's bizarre.

GLENN: Why?

Yeah. I was talking to Mike Lee today. And he said, you know, stays are usually to stay from harm. What we have going on here, is a whole lot of harm.

We have crime. We have killers. We have just -- just an invasion of our border. And it should be that the court should say. No. No. No.

Let them arrest, until they look at everything.

Instead, the harm that is being perceived, I guess, by this court. Is to the illegal alien.

MIKE: Yes, to the illegal alien, and to the Biden administration's partnership with cartels. That's the harm. We are harming the cartel relationship. And that's -- I don't know how else to put it. If the court defends this. If they block us from enforcing legitimate half law by the legislature, not by the governor.

Then they are saying, we want to protect any harm that might come to the illegal immigrants and to the Biden administration's work with the cartels. That's the reality where we're at now.

GLENN: So what is your guy arguing?

I wish we could listen in. What's he --

MIKE: He's arguing exactly what you are saying. There's no harm. Let the law stay in effect. The arguments of the case. And you let us have the opportunity to uphold and defend, a purposefully enacted law bit Texas legislature. The people.

GLENN: So when is -- when are they going to -- when is this going to be decided? I mean, I know the stay is for the trial.

I guess they would announce something within a couple of days, on the stay. What about the full case?

MIKE: I mean, they've already removed the stay. So the administrative stay of the stay.

So confusing.

Because there was a -- you know, a stay in place. Then they had the administrative stay as the stay.

That's why it was so hard to explain. What they will do, I think they will rule very quickly. Look how fast they went.

The Supreme Court gave us the victory yesterday afternoon, and by, you know, within an hour or two, the Fifth Circuit, Priscilla and others said no. You can't -- this law can't stay in effect.

We'll let the state go back into effect. The original judge put into place.

Then you have to argue it tomorrow at ten in the morning, which I've never had an argument turn around that fast, on something so insignificant. Even on something minor. That's what is so strange about this.

That's part of it. The circuit would sort of step past the Supreme Court. Well, we'll think about this going into effect.

It's despite the fact, that exactly what you said, the harm is defective. There is no harm to this. I mean, I will acknowledge harm to the cartels. I will acknowledge they are being harmed.

It's true. We are harming the cartel.

GLENN: Right. Harm to the drug industry. Harm to the fentanyl pushers.

Harm to the drug traffickers. The human traffickers.

Yeah. So, yes. Yes.

Venezuela.

MIKE: In public, in court, anywhere.
We are arming them.

GLENN: Yes.

So that was the other question. And you just touched on it.

How does a lower court usurp the Supreme Court?

MIKE: So they basically. The Supreme Court, to put it back to the fifth circuit, and said, we're not -- we're not going to -- undo the administrative state of the stay.

So they left our -- our law in place.

That the fifth circuit still has control of the case right now. Because it's back down to them.

And they can rule however they want. And they can protect if they want to protect the cartels. They can protect the cartels.

It's within their power to do that.

GLENN: Another thing that happened over night.

And this is the first thing I was worried about.

I saw this late last night.

And then I saw, oh, well, we don't have to worry about that. As much as we do. Maybe people inside our own country.

The president of Mexico said, Texas isn't going to return anybody to the border of Mexico. Or fly them into Mexico.

Which made me think of the 18,000 people that we finally got out of Afghanistan. We were thwarted by the Department of State every day, all the time. Several times a day.

We had a plane with refugees, in the air.

And we had a place to land. Another country, had already okayed it. And the State Department called and said, we can't vouch for that plane.

So I wouldn't allow it to land.

And they -- they stopped us from flying any place.

Can the -- can the governments do that? To Texas?

MIKE: It seems wrong to me.

We also have this case in the Supreme Court, this knocked out our -- being an injunction for the Fifth Circuit. To stop the 30,000 people they're flying in. Flying in! From Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela. Flying in, so 30,000 a month, are being flown in.

We're paying for it. The country is paying for this. The Biden administration is paying for this. It's completely illegal. And we had an injunction to stop it.

The Supreme Court just a week ago, got rid of our own injunction. So now the 30,000 people don't even -- we're paying for them to come to the country illegally.

I can't make this stuff up.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't know.

I'm trying to figure out the distinction between injunction and a stay, what the difference is there, but.

MIKE: I'm sorry. It's language that they use.

But basically, we had a junction stopping the Biden administration from importing 30,000 people a month from those four countries. The four I mentioned. And the Supreme Court, six to three, said no. The injunction goes away. Go back and litigate this case.

Here we are, we now have 30,000 people a month. And we can't stop it. So it will take -- who knows how long? Every month, 30 thousands of individuals more. We're paying for this. Are going all over the country, from those four countries I've mentioned. And on top of that. Now Texas has an injunction, stopping us from enforcing our own laws. Protecting our state from illegal immigration.

It's very frustrating.

It seems like, even when we get rulings that allow us to go back to court. There are the rulings that allow it to take years. And so you will buy another 300,000 people fly across the border. They won't even go to the Border Patrol anymore. They just fly in.

GLENN: Ken, I am sure you know this. Because you live in Texas as well.

You know, there's an old saying, don't mess with Texas.

And, you know, fortunately, or unfortunately, whichever way you want to look at it, a lot of Texans mean that.

And a lot of Texans are seeing this as an invasion. And they're seeing this out of control government. You know, doing exactly what you just said.

And destroying us. Intentionally poisoning us.

And there's a lot of Texans that I think are, you know, kind of up to here. How do we -- how do we diffuse this, this back and forth?

How do we diffuse it, just so it doesn't get to a boiling point. That you can't turn down.

Look, all we can do. I have lawyers. People all the time say, why don't you do more?

The legislature gives me lawyers. They don't give me anything else. I go where I can fight.

I think eventually, if you have such disdain -- if the federal government has such disdain for the law and the Constitution, then eventually the people have a right to say, no, we're not putting up with this anymore.

And the Declaration of Independence, is clear on that. These rights are inalienable. They're from God. They're not from Joe Biden and not from Donald Trump. They are inalienable.

And we have a right to those rights. And eventually, the people have to find a way to overcome that. And what that is, I don't know.

Hopefully, the next election will speak to that.

And those rights will start being honored as fundamental rights to human beings.

GLENN: That is one of the most amazing statements I think I've ever heard from a government official.

I -- I hope we -- I hope the next election with you, I hope the next election solves these things.

Because we're in constitutional crisis, after constitutional crisis.

And it's got to stop.

KEN: We are on our way. And if we're not there now. We don't have a constitutional republic. If the rule of law, the Constitution can be put aside, set aside, and flip to mean anything, that a few justices think it means.

And they can dishonor fundamental rights, that were guaranteed in our Constitution, then now we're back to the Declaration of Independence. And that is a big place to be. As you know.

GLENN: Yeah. Ken Paxton.

God bless you. Thank you. We'll pray for your win today.

God bless. The attorney general of the great state of Texas.

Why do I feel like history, we just lived history.

DEBATE: Is the TikTok Bill a Trojan Horse for Government Censorship? | Glenn TV | Ep 341
TV

DEBATE: Is the TikTok Bill a Trojan Horse for Government Censorship? | Glenn TV | Ep 341

One of the hottest questions happening online and at the dinner table right now is: What do we do about TikTok? The app has 150 million active users in the United States. The average American spends 82 minutes a day on the platform. That’s TRIPLE the time the average user spends on Snapchat or Twitter and twice what the average user spends on Instagram or Facebook. It’s so addictive, but why? Did you know that China has stated that the algorithm running TikTok is one of its MAJOR national security assets? A Chinese propaganda analyst has said, “The one who wins the platform [TikTok] wins the world.” We can all agree that something has to be done about TikTok ... but is the recent bill from Congress the answer? Glenn reveals the full text of the bill to let you decide for yourself and brings in two congressmen he respects to help him come to a conclusion. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) are both strong champions of the Constitution but on opposite sides of the House’s recent TikTok bill. Roy was one of the bill’s lead cosponsors, and Massie has called the bill a “Trojan Horse.” After hearing both arguments, Glenn gives his final thoughts. Yes, we’re in a war with China, but we’re also at war with communism and fascism and oligarchs ... in our own country! Can we repair this country by giving more power to the government?

The New York Times ADMITS the Deep State Exists and DEFENDS It?!
RADIO

The New York Times ADMITS the Deep State Exists and DEFENDS It?!

While much of the media has spent the past few years denying the existence of a “Deep State,” The New York Times has released a piece admitting that it’s REAL. However, the piece also DEFENDS the Deep State as helpful and “actually kind of awesome.” Glenn and Stu tear apart this argument and explains to the Times what the Deep State really is.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The New York Times has come out with a great editorial. It's about the Deep State. Now, Stu, what's the New York Times' opinion of the Deep State.

What has it been?

STU: Not even real. What are you talking about? It's fake.

GLENN: It's not real.

STU: It's a creation of conspiracy theorists like you. Who just -- start a fever dream to explain all the problems that you have created yourself.

GLENN: Right. Correct. Amen.

Well, here's the New York Times opinion of the Deep State.

It turns out, the Deep State is, actually, kind of awesome.

As America closes in on a major election, mistrust is brewing around the mysterious government entity, that's now denounced in scary-sounding terms. The Deep State. The swamp.

But what do those words even mean? Who exactly do they describe? What we went on a road trip to find out. And as we met with the Americans who are being dismissed as public enemies, we discovered, that they are us!

They like Taylor Swift. They dance Bachada. I guess. I don't know.

So I don't dance that. They go to bed at night, watching Star Trek reruns. They go to work and they do their jobs. Saving us from Armageddon.

Sure, our tax -- can you imagine if we said, Donald Trump will save us from Armageddon. What they will say. Sure, our tax dollars pay them. But as you see on the video. What a return on investment we get.

When we hear Deep State, instead of recoiling, we should rally. We should think of the workers otherwise known as our public servants. The everyday superheroes, who wake up every day, ready to dedicate their careers and their lives to serving us.

Are these the Americans we employ. Even though their work is often invisible. No, it's not. That's why we know they're existing. It makes our lives better.

No, it's not. Because we usually don't notice when things are better. We only notice them when they're bad.

If Donald Trump is reelected and enacts schedule F, that could change. Oh, yes, please.

He would have the power to eviscerate the so-called Deep State. Are they calling for evisceration of people?

Did you hear that, Stu?

Let me read that again. I don't think there's any way to read that, other than they're encouraging him, and their people are cheering it on.

That he would take a knife, stick it in somebody's the guts. Pull out all of their organs and entrails. Eviscerating how many thousands and millions now of people. Is the New York Times saying they want to eviscerate. I don't -- I don't wow.

Well, he would have the power to eviscerate the so-called Deep State. And replace our public servants with people that work for him, not us. In the video above, you'll see a few of our hard-working American servants. We hope you'll agree that they're not scary at all.

In fact, they're kind of awesome. That's the New York Times.

Now, I just want to point out, that they have said forever, the Deep State doesn't exist.

Now, it does exist. But it's kind of awesome.

Kind of like, hmm. I don't know. CRT.

It doesn't exist in your school. Oh, well, it does. But it's not what it you say it is.

It's, actually, awesome. DEI. It doesn't exist. What are you talking about. It's a conspiracy theory.

Okay. It does exist. But it's kind of awesome.

ESG. That's not real. That doesn't exist. Okay. It's real. And it might be bad. Okay. It's bad.

Well, that's what we're saying is bad. So we're going to say we're stopping it.

But we're not, actually, stopping it.

Because it's kind of awesome. How about -- how about the cries for 25-dollar an hour minimum wage 25 bucks. Remember when we all said, that was crazy. And everybody said, well, that's just Bernie Sanders. Really?

You know, health workers in California, yeah. How much are they getting?

Twenty-five bucks, aren't they?

STU: Yeah. Twenty-five bucks an hour.

GLENN: Twenty-five bucks an hour. Yeah, so health care workers now have it in California.

Seattle is paying $26 for a sandwich if it's delivered to your house by Uber, because of what the state has done. And Barbara Lee now is not saying, $25. Because that was crazy.

Now in her Senate campaign. She's calling for $55 minimum wage. It's kind of awesome.

Gender mutilation of our children. You know, that's not happening. Okay. It is.

But it's really good for kids. Oh. There's no pornography in our public school libraries.

Well, there is. Because madam, madam, madam. We are in a city council meeting.

You cannot read that. Because it's kind of awesome. Government censorship. That is not happening. That's just a right-wing conspiracy theory.

We're not censoring social media or shutting people down. We're not involved in that.

Okay. Yes, we are.

And now that you're on to us, we think you're violating our First Amendment right to speak.

Oh, my gosh. How about inflation is transitory.

You're too stupid to understand, that you're not really paying, higher inflation. To now, what the -- what's happening this week.

The fed has now said, yeah. 2 percent inflation. That's not really a target we can hit. Maybe three. Three and a half percent inflation every year.

Oh. Okay. I thought you had that under control. Oh, abortion.

That nobody is saying abortion all the way up to birth. And then some. Oh, yes. We are.

Because it's neat. It's awesome. We should shout our abortion. And one of my personal favorites. We are not banning gas stoves. Okay. Yes, we are.

But it's awesome. Look at their pattern. So now, they know, that everyone knows, the Deep State. What is the Deep State.

It's not awesome. And it's not just your neighbor. Okay?

The Deep State is a -- is a blob that you don't elect. You don't know who they are.

That will make new regulations. Without going to you, or Congress.

They will make regulations. For instance, you now have to register with the Treasury, if you're a small business owner. You have under 20 employees.

You now have to fill out ail kinds of forms. And file it with their criminal division of the Treasury. Making small business owners, feel like a criminal, and if we miss anything, or we don't do it right. Or anything changes like our address. And we don't notify the Treasury, we could go to jail for ten years.

That kind of stuff. Or here's one.

We're all going to be driving electric cars by 2035. That didn't go through Congress. That didn't go through Congress.

That was just pencil pushers and the president.

Hey. You know what, you can find that regulation. Go ahead and, yeah. Find that regulation.

I know we can -- I know we can. You know what, let's tell people, that we're not debanking people.

And then we'll debank them.

And then when we find out, that we are debanking people. We'll just say, yeah. But we're doing that to protect the country.

Because there's these extremists.

No. The extremists are the ones, that are pointing out, the Constitution doesn't give you the right to do these things.

The Deep State is a group of people that do not care about the election, because they're not elected. They just do whatever it is, they want to do, in their agency, no matter who the president is.

Remember, last time, the State Department fought against Donald Trump, all the way.

They were sabotaging him, and almost every agency. The agencies work for the president.

They're part of his cabinet. He oversees the administrative arm. So if you're not working for the president, who are you working for?

Well, I'm working for the American people. No. Constitutionally, that doesn't work.

Constitutionally, you're supposed to be protecting and defending the Constitution. Which means you should read it. And in that, you would see that the CEO of our country, that runs the administrative state. Is the president.

Ask there are checks and balances with Congress. You don't work for Congress.

You work for the president. And he hopefully, is working for the American people. Not some, I don't know. Energy company, in China. Let's say. Just off the top of my head, nobody in particular springs to mind.