SCOTUS Defends Female Athletes In Title IX Ruling

Your education is more than a path to a degree. At Regent University, it's an important step in God's plan for your career. It's where you'll be equipped to lead and serve with purpose. It's where 40,000 graduates have prepared to fulfill their callings, and so can you. Choose a top ringed program from over 150 areas of study, on campus or online, and watch what God will do. Learn more at regent.edu. That's regent.edu. News, politics, entertainment. This is O'Connor and Company. Good morning. Originating as always from our flagship station, W.MAL in Washington, D.C., but today is still in Gotham City, New York, where the communists have taken over. It's Larry O'Cotter here from the Relief Factory Studios. Good morning. The world exploded yesterday after we went off the air as a dozen or so Supreme Court decisions came down. We knew it was going to happen. This is what happens. And that was due to 10 a.m. when we go off the air. So I've had to wait 23 hours to get to it today. And we will. We've got plenty to talk about. Is the birthright citizenship now a done deal? Is it over? Should we be blackpilling over this? Well, Kurt Schlichter doesn't think so. He actually has an interesting perspective on it. He's going to join us coming up in the 8 o'clock hour. Jim Campbell is with Alliance Defending Freedom. He's going to talk about all the clients involved in some of the unspoken stories related to the transgender athletes cases that. that we came out on the right side of. Carrie Severino is also going to join us. They're both on the 7 o'clock hour. Right now, though, we're going to go right to that transgender athletic story, something that I think a lot of people care deeply about. And we're going to do it from the legislative perspective. Because unlike Roe v. Wade or other major decisions from the Supreme Court, this does not affect a federal law and therefore has a sweeping consequence for every single person in this country. No, this just basically allows state. to put limits on the participation in sports based on gender slash sex. And that means state by state, there will be different laws enacted. And joining us right now is one of the lawmakers from the state of Maine who has taken this up as a personal cause for the last couple of years of her career. A friend of the program, State's representative Laurel Libby joins us now. And first of all, congratulations. I think you must have been thrilled when you saw the Supreme Court come down with this decision. From your perspective, break it down here for us, how these laws in West Virginia and Idaho that have now been upheld. What does that say to you in terms of what you can do in any other state in the union?

This was a huge decision yesterday, and such good news for the entire country, even states like Maine, where it doesn't have direct immediate ramifications. But 27 states have passed laws that protect women and girls that ensure a fair, safe, and level playing field. And so those states have now been affirmed. They have the right to pass these laws. And states like Maine that have yet to pass laws protecting our women and girls, we should follow their example. follow their lead, follow what main citizens want, and pass similar laws. You know, it's funny, my initial instinct when I saw this go by yesterday was, oh, this may be good news for Democrats because it takes the issue off the table politically because they don't want to talk about it. It's the last thing they want to talk about it. It's a political death knell for them. But now I realize, and after I read a little bit, it's like, oh, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. Actually, this makes it even more politically viable because basically every state, including a deep blue state like Maine. Like yours, Representative Libby, you now have every right to take up this debate and put Democrats back on the hot seat. They can't say it's unconstitutional. They can't use the fig leaf that this is a problem with equal protection. And that's one of the arguments that they made last year when they killed every bill that came before us regarding protecting girls sports. They said, well, this is unconstitutional. And you're right. Now they can't make that excuse. They have no excuse whatsoever to not pass legislation ensuring a fair, safe and level playing field in Maine. So it'll be interesting to see with the next excuses. However, in Maine, we do have a ballot initiative pending. It will be on the ballot this year or next year where Maine citizens will get to make the decision. instead of the legislature. Now, first of all, what do the polls look like? Because I can't make sense of Maine sometimes. Forgive me, it's a lovely place, and you're a lovely person, and most Mainers are lovely people. But I can't tell where they stand on things politically sometimes. Do you have a sense of how Mainers feel about this issue and where they might come down politically? Of course, Democrat Governor Janet Mills and the Augusta Democrat majority do not align with Maine citizens. Polling is very clear. Two-thirds of Mainers believe that biological males don't belong in girls' sports. This is common sense to Mainers. It's only the extreme left that follows this ideology in our state. And I have to tell you, back in 2024, we only lost the majority by 60 votes across the entire state. So while the left is advancing this extreme. ideology, that majority is not as wide as some might think. Right. Well, that's actually quite insightful and quite fascinating. And it sort of blows away the myth that this is, you know, I always call this one of the culture war issues and the thing that really just appeals to the deep red states. No, you just said it yourself. It's common sense. It's logic. And if you're politically against something that is common sense, that tends to not work out for you on election day, I would think.

The Democrats are counting on things going their way every two years when the legislature is reelected. But over time, we've seen that there is this shift coming. Whether that means majorities in 2026 or not, I can't promise you that. But we do see this shift coming. And I do believe our state will be read before too long. So when you said, again, you've spoken so passionately about this. And you got punished by your legislature, if I remember. Didn't you get like silenced and excised and they tried to violate you from being able to even bring up this issue on the floor? Yes, I was censured, which in our state currently means that you cannot vote or speak on the floor. And I had to take my case to the Supreme Court in order to be able to represent my constituents. Amazing how women's voices are silenced when they try to speak up about this to defer to men who, for whatever reason, and I have compassion for people who are so confused that they believe that they're the other sex, so that those men can have some imaginary rights in these realms. So when you saw this decision come down, just on a personal level, what does this mean to you as a woman? And I'm assuming that did you play athletics as well when you were in school? It's such a deeply emotional issue, I think. And as a father of daughters, it matters so much to me as well. I'm wondering, you know, how were you affected by this personally? Well, given that Maine isn't directly impacted immediately by this decision, I honestly didn't expect that personally, I would feel much of anything. But yesterday was a huge day. It was a little bit emotional. It was very exciting because we have seen, you know, we've seen at the federal level go along and get along with the Biden administration. putting this radical agenda out there and so to see such a dramatic turnaround in the last couple of years it is incredible and it's such a weird thing larry to be sitting here as a republican state representative and be the feminist in the room here in maine right this is a huge victory for women And it's the conservatives who get to celebrate it. And actually, that's actually right on brand, in my opinion. So to me, that there are three major... aspects of the gender agenda right now that we're fighting against, especially with regard to athletics. And I want to address each of them if I could in our final couple of minutes. The first one is competitiveness. And this is the one I think Democrats try to weasel. We saw Gavin Newsom do this. Well, obviously, it's not fair to have transgender women, as he calls them, competing against women because they have a competitive advantage. And that is an issue. That's a big part of this, I think, because this has...

robbed young women of opportunities that they otherwise would have through women's athletics. And that's kind of a big deal, right? Absolutely. And they try to downplay that. Like, oh, well, it shouldn't be about competition. It should be about inclusivity. No, it's about competition. I was a mediocre athlete, and I can't imagine the folks who excelled in my sport having those opportunities taken away from them, utterly unfair. Like I said, that's the easy one. I mean, because everyone realizes that everyone knows it, even though the left tries to lie about that too. Oh, there's no science to show that these men have competitive. It's ridiculous on the face of it. The second is the safety issue or the privacy issue for that matter. Young girls should be able to be in a private space. If they need to disrobe in a locker room, they shouldn't have to worry about being exposed to a naked man or exposing themselves to a naked man. That's a big issue. And Democrats don't really want to touch that part of it, right? No, they don't. They pivot and say that it's, you know, Republicans wanting to look at genitals. It's a ridiculous argument. Actually, we'd be quite content to leave all genitals out of it if they would simply stop putting this radical agenda forward. That would make all of us very, very happy. And I, the thought of having my child, my daughter, in a locker room with a male exposing themselves infuriates me. Absolutely. Amen. All right. In our final minute, this is the third one, and it's the one that nobody ever wants to talk about, really. But it's more fundamental. This is about the truth. We need to just acknowledge the truth that men and women are not the same. And for whatever reason, a man or a woman, for that matter, is going through a process where they believe in their head that they are, in fact, what they are not, we need to stand for the truth. And I think that we need to keep coming back to that point, representative. We do. And here's the truth, Larry. Boys are boys, girls are girls, both may participate in sports. No one is being banned from anything. Everyone may participate, but they may participate according to biological reality. And that is as the sex that they were born. The sex, yes. It's funny. It's the truth. It's a fundamental truth. And it's a truth that each and every one of us recognized. inherently, when we were toddlers, we knew that there was a difference between ourselves and our sisters or our brothers. Laurel Libby, state representative in Maine. Good luck with the fight. Keep us updated. We're excited to see where the state is going. We're excited to see where you're going. I appreciate you joining us. Thank you much. Speaking of the truth, in a moment, we're going to show you how the mainstream media covered this story. Not a whole lot of truth out there, but that's why you come here. It's O'Connor. For nearly 3,000 years, Homer's The Odyssey has shaped Western imagination. It tells the story of Odysseus as he faces monsters, shipwrecks, false comforts, and impossible choices on his long journey home. As one of the foundational works of Western literature, Homer's epic is more than a mythology, it explores permanent questions about courage, duty, loyalty, family, leadership, temptation, and the search for home.

In one of the epic's defining moments, Odysseus rejects the offer of immortality from the goddess Calypso, choosing instead the long and difficult journey home. His decision reveals one of the central themes of the Odyssey that a life of duty, family, and home is greater than a life devoted to comfort or glory. Achilles chose glory. Odysseus chose home. That's why Hillsdale College has released its newest free online course, The Odyssey. Top by Professor Benedict Wayland. The course reveals why Homer's masterpiece remains one of the greatest works of Western literature. Find this free course at Charlie for Hillsdale.com. That's Charlie for Hillsdale.com. Read the classics, study the West. The Odyssey from Hillsdale College. Go to Charlie for Hillsdale.com. Larry O'Connor here in New York today. And I try my best to remind you why you keep coming back here. to O'Connor and Company. I try my best to keep reminding you why this is where you want to be on this station that you're listening to on the radio or the station that you're watching, Salem News Channel, on your streaming device, because of the garbage you get everywhere else. Here is how NBC announced this decision yesterday. They literally gave their viewers a trigger warning. because of the language in the Supreme Court decision. What language was that? Well, here, take it away, NBC.

Rarely does a day go by here at the White House when the president doesn't rail against the participation. That's not the one we want, guys. We want clip five, please, is the one we want, number five, please. The terms that we're using here during our reporting, biological male, biological female, the high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent. But just so you know, we're using those terms from the decision itself, biological male, biological female. That was their special report where they broke into regular programming. Just so you know, we're not using those terms because we want to. They're in the biological mail. By the way, why did SCOTUS put it in quotation marks? Like there's something, you know, biolo. I bet they had to negotiate over that. But Ketanji Brown Jackson demanded that there were quotation marks. But then even worse. Here's ABC addressed it. This is cut three, please. You had the exclusive interview with Becky Pepper Jackson, the transgender athlete at the center of the West Virginia case. She will no longer be able to participate on her track and field team. That's right. A 15-year-old, the only known openly transgender student and athlete in the state of West Virginia, bravely brought this case to the Supreme Court, insisting that she had an equal right to play with the girls. But the Supreme Court today, 6 to 3 decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said states, school districts can draw lines based on biological sex when it comes to sports teams in schools. And so that is a setback for Becky. 29 states that have similar. similar laws as West Virginia will continue to stand. And I will note, Kira, that 21 states don't have bans on transgender athletes. Those are unaffected by this decision, but certainly a blow to that transgender community and student athletes on this last day of Pride Month. Not only on the last day of Pride Month. Oh, the deepest cut of all. Entire the story is told through the perspective of the transgender activists and what a disappointment of it. Not once do they mention the actual girls that were affected by this. And they showed the pictures of this student, Becky Pepper Jackson, a teenage boy who is clearly going through some level of confusion at best and maybe even psychological distortions at worst, thinking that... He is a girl. And, of course, he has referred to as she in that report. And all of the devastation. And the photographs that were played during the report show Becky Pepper Jackson as an athlete. What was the sport? Track and field. Not running, not sprinting. Discus. And other types of, you know, heavy throwing type sports where men have inherent. advantages. That's how ABC News decided to focus the story. I'm going to take a different approach. I want to tell you about Adelaia. Adelaia is a young girl in the same school as Becky Pepper Jackson. Adelaia was the client of Alliance Defending Freedom. We're going to speak with one of the attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom coming up in the next hour. Kristen Wagner with Alliance Defending Freedom posted on social media.

that no one in the media is going to talk about little Adelaia. They're also not going to talk about how Becky Pepper Jackson defeated 470 other girls 1,400 times during Becky Pepper Jackson's career in high school track and field in West Virginia. Becky Pepper Jackson won the state title. as a man competing as a teenage girl. Also, Adelaia was sexually harassed in the locker room by Becky Pepper Jackson. That didn't come up in ABC News' report. Adelaia stopped playing school sports, the sport that she loved because of Becky Pepper Jackson's ongoing presence in girls' sports and in her private spaces. But that's how the media addresses these stories. Not like I am right now, not talking about the young girl who was sexually harassed in a locker room and had to quit the sport she loved as a high school athlete because a boy bullied her and harassed her, disrobed in front of her, and denied her opportunities. That the media won't do, but we will, and we will continue to do so. Courageously, like Adelaia. Hey, I want to tell you about my friends at best hot grill.com who make the amazing solar infrared gas grills. I want you to declare your independence from the low heat, low-powered gas grills, which in the course of grilling events wear out every couple of years. Secure your rights to juicy steak, succulent chicken, and moist fish, as well as healthy grilled veggies and perfect finishing of suvite. Pursue grilling happiness with the purchase of a USA-made hot fast solar infrared gas grill. This is my grill. I love this grill. I cook on it every day. From steaks to chicken to fish. And yes, I've even thrown some veggies on there. And it's delicious. Made in America. And Rhett Rasmussen, guy who makes these over there at Salar Infraid Grills, he is a Naval Academy graduate and a veteran of the United States Navy. There's no better way to celebrate our independence than with the best grill, with the best steaks made in America. It's besthotgrill.com. Besthotgrill.com. Besthotgrill.com. Your education is more than a path to a degree. At Regent University, it's an important step in God's plan for your career. It's where you'll be equipped to lead and serve with purpose. It's where 40,000 graduates have prepared to fulfill their callings, and so can you. Choose a top-ranked program from over 150 areas of study on campus or online and watch what God will do. Learn more at regent.edu. That's regent.edu. Larry O'Connor, O'Connor and Company here. We're in New York, but of course we're broadcasting out of our flagship station, WMA, and D.C. all the time, no matter where I am, we're still originating out of Washington. And coming up in the next hour, we're going to speak, well, like I said, to Jim Campbell, Chief Legal Counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom. They represented that little girl who had to quit sports. because of a boy in her locker room. That's the story you're not hearing in the media. We'll talk to her attorney coming up in the next hour. Also, Carrie Severino, one of the best Supreme Court. I think she clerked with Clarence Thomas. She's fabulous. She's going to break down all of these decisions. That's coming up in the next hour. Joining us right now, as he always does at this time.

when we're lucky. It's the one and only legendary syndicated columnist, Cal Thomas. Cal, here we are. It's Independence Day week, and it really is exciting in Washington and in New York, by the way. New York played a big part in the revolution in this first week of independence. And we're talking about... truths that are self-evident and yet it took a supreme court ruling to affirm one of the most basic biological truths that are pretty self-evident for any child growing up when they start discovering that they're different as boys and girls it took the supreme court to affirm that yesterday what what two hundred fifty years later what truths are still yet to be self-evident yes well Ketanji Brown Jackson who can't define what a woman is uh should have recused herself from that decision, I think. Yes. Well, this is pretty strong opinion, Cal. I think she took a biology class since her confirmation hearing. Really? Well, that would be good to see. No, this is all part of a bigger thing. You know, I remember a talk that the late Bishop Fulton Sheen gave several years ago at the National Prayer breakfast. It was 1979, and he said, how do you define a football field? And he answered his own question by its boundaries. We are rapidly removing... all kinds of boundaries, economic boundaries, moral boundaries from our country, and we're wondering why we're getting some of these crazy people elected in the Colorado election yesterday, more socialist elected. William Bennett was ousted as senator. You've got that crazy woman who thinks we deserve 9-11 and Israel deserved October 7. I think this is nuts stuff and it's sweeping the country and we better get ready for it because it's already here. Yeah, that woman you're referring to, and I saw people in the media saying she's had anti-Israel views. No, no, no, she's pro-Hamas. There's a big difference. You can go ahead and listen, I'm pro-Israel. If you disagree with Israel, if you're anti-Israel, I'll have that discussion. But when you're pro-terrorist, that's a different thing. Isn't it, Cal, I would think? Yeah, and anti-Semitic. You know, the left is trying to separate. Well, yeah, I'm against Israel, but it's different than being anti-Semitic. No, it's not. The two go together. It's like saying, well, I'm for rights or black people, but I also believe in the Ku Klux Klan. Excuse me? So I wonder how you think, let's start with the transgender story, because there are a lot of Democrats who try to keep... their political office or try to run for political office. And when challenged on this issue, if they're in a red state or a purple, or excuse me, a red district or a purple district, they can always avoid the question on the transgender stuff and say, listen, I understand, I'm sympathetic. It's not good for competition, but it would be unconstitutional to ban. This is an equal protection thing. Well, they can't use that fig leaf anymore, Cal. And I wonder how this might affect the elections coming up in November. good question things change awful quickly and the anger against trump uh has become so irrational that you can't have a conversation and haven't been able to have a conversation for several years about what trump has actually done you may not like his personality you may not like his name calling but he's actually getting things accomplished closing the border was a big deal the problem now is with the supreme court allowing

birthright citizen you're going to have planes full of pregnant women coming to guam and having their babies become instant u.s citizens and all of the problems that's going to create look i hate to use this analogy because some people are going to see it as racist Coffee is black. My coffee ear is black this morning. If I start pouring cream into the coffee, it dilutes the coffee. If I pour enough cream into it, it replaces the coffee. We have a country, the United States of America, that was built on shared values, shared faith, more or less, and a share idea and vision of what we should be. This is why we've lasted 250 years. And there are people like these socialists now who are running, who openly say they want a different America, they want to destroy America. Remember Barack Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform America. He never said what was bad about it. He just wanted to fundamentally transform it. And now the socialists have picked it up and are running with it. We're in deep trouble. We may not make it to 300. Well, in this Colorado victory that you mentioned last night in the primary, upending a 15-year veteran for the Democrats who actually had some seniority and actually could get something done for a party, even if they were in the minority, that's how the House works. um that's not a you know everyone was writing to this office saying well that's new york democrats but that's not the same other this is colorado that's not new york city cow this is a real canary in a coal mine situation colorado used to be a fairly conservative state or at least the purple one uh they had bill armstrong as a senator there for uh many years uh two terms and uh he had two terms in the house before that I recall. Yes, they had Gary Hart, but it was a fairly reasonable balanced state. Now they're going all crazy, just like New York, like California, and like Illinois. And you can't sustain this kind of thing. It's amazing 20 years after legalizing pot that they've all gone out of their minds in Colorado. Maybe there's a connection, Larry. There is a connection. And now there are proposals to go national. Do we need more people who are out of their minds in America? Please. I got to tell you something. I do love New York City. I used to live in New York. I've been here for two days, and it's hot summer. So, you know, the city starts to smell a little bit. But usually, you know, it's the smell of garbage and urine because it's New York City. I got to tell you, Cal, the marijuana smell, every block, no matter where you go, if you're walking around outside, forget about having fresh air because everyone reeks of pot in this city. Well, you don't have to buy it for yourself now. You can sniff it off of other people. I mean, we've gone from knives on the subway, the pots on the street. I mean, it's true. It is crazy. It really is. I wouldn't live in New York. I mean, it used to be, you know, it's a wonderful town. The Bronx is up, the batteries down, the people riding a hole in the ground. That is on the town, ladies and gentlemen, the great Leonard Burstein musical. Lyrics by. And the lyrics?

Comden and Green wrote the lyrics. Thank you very much. They were great. All right, let's turn to your show. Let's quickly get off of Broadway musicals before I get notes from every program director around the country and get to your column this week. It's running on July 2nd and it's about Independence Day. Cald, give us a little preview about your reflections here 250 years later. First of all, it should be noted. Cal Thomas actually covered that signing. I believe that you were on the John Hancock beat that day, weren't you? You should see me in a wig. I look really good. I can't believe it. You mentioned earlier, Larry, the great words in the Declaration of the Independence, self-evident truths. Now, what is self-evident today? And what is truth, as Pontius Pilots once said, when he had it standing before him? These are now debatable. They know they're worse than debatable. We don't even debate them anymore. They're personal. They're subjective, not objective. So you even have in schools we've seen around the country, if you say one in one is three, we're not going to give you a failing grade on it because it might make you feel bad. We don't have valedictorians and salutatorians in our schools anymore because the underachievers might be feel bad. This is all anathema to the founders. I mean, here's a member of the famous quote from John Adams about... uh... the the the constitution and the the declaration upon which it was founded he said our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people it is only inadequate to the governor government of any other all that's gone out the window now religion is to be uh... uh... you know not even mentioned in public So I go back and look at what the founders said 250 years ago and ask Americans to reconsider them. They worked for 200 plus years. They can work again if we'll embrace them again. You know, you also pulled, I really pulled this out of you. I got a preview of the column, boys and girls, because that's, I'm special. You quoted James Madison as well. James Madison said that its citizens lacked the sufficient virtue to govern themselves. Nothing less than the chains of despotism could stop us from destroying each other. That put a chill up my spine when I read that, Cal, because I feel like that's oftentimes the road we're walking down. That's right. And Madison in another context also said, if men were angels, we wouldn't need government. But men are not angels as we see every day.

No, they are not. Well, given that, and given the idea of, and you dwell on this a little bit in the column in a very thoughtful way, the idea of natural rights, are we even allowed to use terms like natural rights anymore in our political discourse? Because that drove the entire idea of America that we have these rights from God, not handed out by governments or kings. These are our rights and the constitutions there to protect us from the government taking them from. Our citizens. Well, once again, I recall, and I think I've used it before on the show, the great words of G.K. Chesterton, the danger when men stop believing in God is not that they'll believe in nothing, but that they'll believe in anything, and that's what we are today. Yeah. So what's your advice to parents right now, navigating their way through this Independence Day? And I think that we would all agree that they need to, especially this year, take... Take a step, a moment, pause with your family, and not just say, oh, yeah, this is a great day for fireworks. It's a great day for cookouts. This is a great day because of the birth of our nation. What should parents be talking to their kids about, Cal? Well, you'll recall one of Ronald Reagan's famous lines, and he had many of them. We're only one generation away from losing it all. Freedom isn't the natural state of humanity. We've got to get our kids and grandkids out of these re-education camps. They don't be, meaning public schools and a lot of universities that reteach the history of America, which is really not the history of America at all. If you want to hand this country over to your children and grandchildren that looks anything like that, which you have received from the greatest generation, you cannot put them in these camps that teach them. You may think you're a boy, but you're a girl. America is an evil country because it once had slaves. You just can't do it. And so the future of the country depends on you. We have school choice in almost 50 states now. I think it's going to go national. If you don't have the money, you can get it. Where I am in Florida, we have a great school choice program started by former Governor Jed Bush years ago. It's working incredibly well. This is the key to the future. If you want more socialists, then keep them in the public schools and the universities. If you want to get back to the principals that founded America, get them out. Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist, conservative thinker, living legend, and a lot of people don't know this, he was the standby for Ken Howard on Broadway for the original production of 1776 back in 1968. You know, when I first saw Hamilton, I didn't know that all of our founders were black. Yeah, who knew? You know, that really does change things quite a bit. Happy Independence Day, Cal. It's always a pleasure to talk with you. Thank you, Cal Thomas. Cal Thomas, boys and girls. Yeah, actually, by the way, speaking of that, just to swerve back to Broadway musicals, too good. video presentations, movies that you could watch with your family. Hamilton's actually not bad, but even better. 1776, the musical. It's brilliant. It's phenomenal. And you'll love it. Watch it with your family. O'Connor & Company.

Your education is more than a path to a degree. At Regent University, it's an important step in God's plan for your career. It's where you'll be equipped to lead and serve with purpose. It's where 40,000 graduates have prepared to fulfill their callings, and so can you. Choose a top-ranked program from over 150 areas of study on campus or online and watch what God will do. Learn more at regent.edu. That's regent.edu. We are coming up on our two-month anniversary of our program, sort of modifying our format a little bit and going national with the Salem Radio Network, and it's been a great ride. It's been fantastic. But, you know, there have been minor tweaks to the show to sort of accommodate the national audience and the different network that we're on now. And so we've got longtime listeners who have been, I've been fortunate enough, blessed enough. to have in my life for the last, well, 14 plus years in the greater Washington area. And I actually ran into one of them in New York yesterday, who said, said, I like the show, but that's not a little different. You know, it's a little, and I said, well, what exactly is different in your mind? And they said, and I put it bluntly, I don't have as many segments where I get really awkward because I'm obsessing over a beautiful woman. This has been part of the show for quite some time. I make it weird is what I've been told by various people in my life, that I'm reporting on a woman. And only when the story involves her beauty and her physical appearance, that, you know, listen, I'm your typical straight guy, just like that straight guy right next to you there, or just like you. And when you see a beautiful woman, it's hard not to. start to babble and look at my executive producer, Heather Hunter, who by the way is also a beautiful woman, is giving me the side eye right now because she knows that this could completely go south now. I can completely go, I can make it weird. And I'm trying not to make it weird. But we are now going to talk about Sophie Cunningham, basketball player for the WMBA, graduate of the University of Missouri, where she was their all-time scorer. I'm trying to keep it on the sports here, Heather. I'm talking about the game. It's all about the game. She now plays for the Indiana Fever, which is the same team that Caitlin Clark plays for. And as you know, Caitlin Clark has become the target of a lot of bullying and a lot of roughhousing in the WMBA, the NBA, and there seems to be a racial element to it. The understanding is, or the belief is, that the... black athletes in the WMBA resent Caitlin Clark because she gets so much attention and she sells out arenas. And they think that it's because she's white. And these black players are like, we've been playing for the WMBA for years. Nobody's coming out to see us. And so instead of being excited that they're all going to be making more money and that they've got their arenas filled, no, they've become the mean girls. and really aggressive bullying mean girls. And they've been beaten up on poor Caitlin Clark for like two, three years now. Recently a player got suspended for punching her in the throat while she was lying on the floor.

And by the way, there was no foul called at the time. Only after the replay went viral, did the WMBA do anything about it. They got a real problem over there. This brings us back to the super hot, absolutely fabulous, and she's occupying my mind at all times. The long-legged, tall, gorgeous, statuesque Sophie Cunningham. Have I made it weird yet? A little weird. Sophie Cunningham is Caitlin Clark's teammate. And she has sort of taken on the role of a bit of an enforcer. She's got her teammates back. And by now I'm sure you've seen that there was this moment in a game about a week ago where she had a confrontation with one of the players on the opposing team. And Sophie Cunningham just started pointing at... the athlete pointing at the basketball player on the other team that was having this confrontation. And the rest had to get in the middle. All she did was point. She just kept a look on her face and she kept staring at the athlete, the player who was trying to bully her and bully the team and trying to get into a fight. All she did was point. It almost had the attitude of, I'm not touching you. I'm not, you know, you know, my brother David used to do that to me all the time in the backseat of the car when my dad was driving. My dad, he's touching me. I'm not touching you. And then he put, you know, put the finger right up in my face, drove me crazy. He still does it. He's in his 60s and he still does it. Anyway. There's Sophie Cunningham doing the point, and it became an instant meme. And we weren't going to talk about it necessarily because we thought it was just a flash in the pan. But this thing has taken on a life of its own now. The memes are ubiquitous. They're everywhere. They're right up there with Marco Rubio sitting on the sofa in the Oval Office, and every single one of them is hilarious. And it seems like it's conservatives. on social media, who are making the most of them. Like this one from Moms for Liberty, where Sophie Cunningham is labeled as the mom, and the bullying athlete on the other side of the equation is the teachers' unions. And Sophie just keeps pointing, resilience, and it finishes with a title that says, moms never give up. and the activist teachers are the losers. And so conservatives have sort of taken the Sophie Cunningham pointing meme and made it their own. And yesterday I saw one on the day that all the Supreme Court decisions came down. Because of AI, you can manipulate these videos so brilliantly. And they replaced Sophie Cunningham with Clarence Thomas in his judicial robes. But he's just pacing back and forth on the basketball court pointing at all the activist judges. Somehow with the exact same expression, that resilient, take no prisoners expression. And that's funny. And I love Clarence Thomas. But not in the same way I love Sophie Cunningham. Not nearly in the same way. Can we talk about how gorgeous she is?

There is also a meme of Sophie Cunningham in the place of George Washington on the boat of the famous picture crossing the Delaware. And all the other players on the team are rowing the boat through the frozen waters and she is pointing the way. And I kid you not when I say that it's right up there with Marco Rubio because there's another meme of her sitting on the sofa next to Marco Rubio and they're both pointing at each other. Sophie Cunningham, God bless you. Thank you for making this week bearable. Thank you for joining our club. Thank you for being so hot. It's Larry O'Connor, and we are broadcasting today from New York City. But, of course, our home is our flagship station, WMAL, in Washington, D.C., where we focus on a lot of things happening in that town and how it affects you. And certainly yesterday, it was the decisions handed down from the Supreme Court. We're going to get to almost all of them in a few moments with Kerry Severino Judicial Crisis Network. Also, in 30 minutes. Alliance Defending Freedoms, Jim Campbell's going to join us. Not only did they read an amicus brief, but they also represented one of the girls who was bullied and harassed by the male trans-identifying male athlete at the center of the West Virginia case yesterday from the Supreme Court. Also in our 8 o'clock hour, our friend and colleague Kurt Schlichter, one of the senior columnists at Town Hall, he had an interesting take on the birthright citizenship. discussion and the future for that issue. And so we'll talk to Kurt about it. He's not blackpilling on this, not as much as many people. Let's take Carrie Severito's temperature and see where she is on that and other decisions that came down yesterday. Carrie Severino, of course, not only with Judicial Crisis Network, but also the co-author with our friend Molly Hemingway of Justice on Trial about the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. Hi, Carrie. Thanks for joining us. Always great to talk with you. Great to be here, Larry. First of all, because you know Brett Kavanaugh from writing that book and studying that case and everything, he seemed pretty consistent and came through just the way most supporters of the conservative movement would have wanted yesterday and originalists on the Constitution, would you say? Yeah, and I think in particular, you know, the Wall Street Dermelop editorial this morning was really calling out his loan concurrence in the birthright citizenship case as a more modest judicial solution that might have allowed the court to save this really thorny question. As an originalist matter, there's evidence on both sides as to how we should be interpreting the 14th Amendment. He said, We don't even need to get there. Why are we deciding this today? There was a statutory grounds to make their decision. That would have kicked it back to Congress and then saved the court for another day. And the scholarship really is continuing to develop on this issue. And carry almost every single legal expert I've spoken to on this program and personally, because I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination. So I talk to smart people like you off the record or offline. You educate me. And to a man and woman, they all thought, yeah, we're probably going to lose this one. But they're not going to come down and say that this is enshrined in the Constitution. And this is what the 14th Amendment stated from the beginning.

But it sounded like, other than Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence, it sounded like that is what they said. Yeah. To be honest, hearing the oral arguments, I thought that John Sauer, the Solicitor General, was very compelling. I think he did have probably the better of the day in the arguments. But honestly, it did seem like the justices didn't think so. So I never was really sure whether they would come down on the statutory grounds or a constitutional grounds. At the end of the day, you know, I'm disappointed in that decision. But the good news is we have an original Supreme Court where at least they're asking the right questions. They're not asking, what do I want immigration law to look like? How do I feel about the American project? They're asking, what do we think? the actual original understanding of this text is. We can agree to disagree on the answer to that question, but that's at least they're asking the right question. And apart from this decision, you know, overwhelmingly, this term has been one where that originalist approach has really shined and brought us back to the proper constitutional understanding of so many provisions. I want to agree with you. And for the most, but since you raised it, would you? hold to that with regard to the election day and receiving ballots and counting ballots after election day decision as well, because that didn't seem very originalist to me. Election day is election day. Why is this complicated? Well, that one, the good news is the very few decisions that one might consider a loss, for the most part are statutory, apart from this birthright citizenship case. And the election day case is the same thing. Amy Coney Barrett wrote, it was very clear like, Guys, this is not us saying we think elections should be done this way. There's a lot of reasons for election integrity. And the remedy is there. I get that. Absolutely. That wasn't constitutional. That was a statutory question. Congress can fix that. So I think that's one of the many things that that was Congress's job is to do that. And the courts, if they keep taking Congress's job from them, it's going to make them even more lazy and feckless than they already are. So let's get back to birthright citizenship. I want to talk about the remedy here because this issue is not going to go away, nor should it. And I do agree with the glass half full perspective on this, as my friend Kurt Schlichter wrote at Town Hall, which is, listen, the best thing, if you're going to lose, the best thing is that this was 5'4. That means it was a lot closer than some people thought. Correct me if I'm wrong, curious everyone. It sounds like there's three different remedies. Amend the Constitution, kind of a tall order. Number two, follow Brett Kavanaugh's lead here and fix this through the statute. And because it was 5'4, you could now win this if it gets challenged again. Or three, just wait for a new court. Get a new justice on there because we're at 5'4 right now. Where do you fall in there? Well, the challenge is we're only at 5'4 when you're not counting Brett Kavanaugh. So I think what that means is that middle ground is unfortunately not really on the table. But Clarence Thomas, in his concurrent or his dissent, said...

I don't think this decision is going to stand the test of time. And he has a pretty good track record on flagging things. Now, that doesn't mean you might have a court reconsider it tomorrow. But I do think that means don't take off the table the idea that another court could consider it differently. I think... Constitution Amendment, very tall order, that's correct. But I also think is one worth making an effort for trying to build that supermajority. When there's an issue this important in the country, we ought to have that public debate and we ought to make that effort. And then there are cons there are statutory. things we can do to start addressing it. People are talking about limiting surrogacy in ways that it's trying to create anchor babies, limiting birth tourism, limiting things like birth tourism to territories because they don't have that statutory ground or that constitutional ground for citizenship. It's a statutory citizenship in places like Guam or the Marianas Islands. Those are really close to China. They're hubs for birth tourism. Maybe we can cut down in other ways. And then, of course, immigration enforcement, always. Thank you. Regardless. This was the last question on birthright citizenship, and you've sort of already led me there. I did read somewhere, and please clarify this for me. Could the executive branch right now determine that in territories like Guam, or Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, that birthright citizenship is off the table. You said this only applies to the states. So right now, they could say, all right, fine, regardless of what the Supreme Court just said, we will not acknowledge citizenship for a baby born in Guam of non-U.S. citizens. Can they do that right now? I think that's definitely on the table. I mean, it's something that would certainly get people challenging it at the court. But I think it's a very different legal analysis. And I think that's a great next step. A lot of people are talking about. Especially considering how the proximity to China, as you mentioned. All right. We wanted to spend time on birthright citizenship. It was a big one. Let's get to the transgender athletics here first. We've got a lot on that today. Specifically, I want to ask you, this now creates a setup where you've got different states with different rules with regard to women's sports. And when those athletes now compete on a national level, we're going to have some conflict there, right? Could this be a commerce clause trigger now in the future? Well, you know, the good news is some of these national organizations, you know, the National Olympic organizations that the NCAA actually I've come down on the side of women's sports and protecting that for biological women. So I think that is a really good sign. But you're right, it does feel strange that depending on what state you live in, you might have to compete against men in sports. And for anyone who's an athlete or a woman athlete or has daughters in athletics knows how unfair that can be. So I think the next step in this case, the Supreme Court, very importantly, didn't say.

This is an issue for the states. We're leaving it to the states. They didn't say that. They simply said states, there's nothing in the law. There's nothing in the Constitution that blocks states from having laws protecting women's sports. And we know the 27 states already do. For those 23 states, well, they don't have the excuse of claiming it's unconstitutional. But also, I think that opens up the door. for challenges, and I know those are already starting in some cases, against those states for not protecting the equal rights of women to be able to have fair competition. So those who believe this was unconstitutional, or that there was some constitutional protection for trans-identifying athletes, they were hanging their head on equal protection, right? Was this decision... narrow to athletics specifically, or could this decision now apply to any other policies that are affecting women's opportunities outside of athletics that are being infringed upon by trans-identifying males? Yeah, there are actually a lot of things that are really good for the broader question. One is that... All of the justices agreed that in Title IX and presumably then elsewhere in the civil rights laws, that sex means biological sex, and that is a binary. That seems like it should be obvious, but I'll take that as a great win today. That's not something that everyone finds so obvious anymore. I think it's also really important the way the court did its equal protection analysis. I think a lot of these arguments have been. relying on the fact that, you know, we know men are generally better in athletics and women stronger, bigger, taller, but there might be some overlap. There's guys who are exceptionally short or exceptionally bad at sports. They're women who are exceptionally strong and exceptionally good. Just because it's not necessarily a non-overlapping Venn diagram, the Supreme Court said, that doesn't mean you have to eliminate that category of men and women altogether. Huge. Under intermediate scrutiny, you can have it where it's a pretty darn good fit and that's good enough. All right, a couple more decisions that we're going to talk with Kerry Severino about and about that embarrassing moment, Nina Totenberg NPR and the story that was just wrong. We'll get to that coming up next. It's the best morning show in the country and the best Supreme Court analysis you're going to get anywhere, not because of me, but because of our incredible guests, including the effervescent Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network, co-author with our pal, Mali Hemingway, of Justice on Trial. That's a seminal book about the atrocious confirmation hearing. of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a sort of a red pill moment for a lot of people in this country actually, Carrie, and I love the way you and Molly detailed in that book. Thank you for sticking with us. I would love for you to explain the campaign finance ruling that happened here and how critically important it is with regard to political speech.

Yeah, this is a track that the Supreme Court has been on for a long time. The campaign finance laws really were swinging for the fences in ways that people for years have been saying this is impeding on constitutional rights. And one by one, you know, everyone knows about Citizens United, but that was not the only decision where the court has been pushing back and saying, no, no, no, you can't limit speech more than necessary. This was a great capstone to some of that. The campaign finance laws limited the amount of coordination, the Republican and Democrat parties could have with their own candidates. And their explanation is, well, this is going to cause corruption. The Supreme Court said, now, wait a minute, you know, if we have to limit, I don't know, foreign donations, other things like that to stop corruption, absolutely. But the party is going to corrupt its own candidates. And they just said, you can't limit more speech than you have to. This is not necessary for preventing corruption. So parties do have the ability now to spend. without those limits to support their candidates. That'll allow a more cohesive messaging and for them to share information in ways that it's going to help not be duplicative on those with the parties and their candidates. Right. And in very real terms, and it applies starting now for this upcoming midterm election, it's going to give a lot of leeway and a lot of flexibility for these various organizations and the political party, which makes sense. I mean, what else is a political party other than the candidates that that party represents and supports? It makes sense that they should be able to share finances across the board. But the larger picture here, beyond how it affects the election, is really sort of a fundamental question of our speech because you see a lot of politicians running for office right now saying get money out of politics, get big money out of politics, get public financing of campaigns. This does a 180 from that kind of political talk. Yeah, I mean, our First Amendment protects speech. That means I can, if I need to spend money for a microphone to speak to you and get my political ideas out there, I can do that. We can't block those. Sure, not everyone has speech we like. We might wish there was less political speech, but the First Amendment doesn't allow us to gag our politicians. And, you know, every time people talk about public financing, like that's not normally a way to keep costs down. So I'm not really sure why that would be our solution here, just spending more of our public money on it. I'm hearing a lot of criticism from people I love and respect on the political right conservatives who are disappointed with Amy Coney Barrett. And I'm, and I sort of get it in certain respects, but at the same time, listen, whenever a justice is on the opposite side of Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, I give them the side eye. All right? It's like, I don't trust those guys. But what is your assessment, if you don't mind, of Amy Coney Barrett? Is she getting, does she deserve the criticism she's getting? You know, I think we're dealing with a little bit of Amy Coney Barrett derangement syndrome right now. Yeah, I don't agree with every decision she makes either. But you know what? I don't even, every once in a while, I don't agree with Clarence Thomas. It's rare. But, you know, if you're trying to do a good job and try to work down these really tough, thorny legal questions, not everyone's going to end up on the same side every time. I'm really concerned that you're looking for the right things. Look, Justice Scalia, her former boss and Clarence Thomas.

didn't always agree on things either. And Justice Scalia wrote some really bad decisions, actually, that have later been overturned her in the process of being overturned. So we have to make sure we're not getting so frustrated that we forget all the amazing things she's done. Voting to overturn Roe versus Wade, getting rid of racial preferences in education, bringing back the second amendment. Really strengthening presidential power. You know, the list is very long on that side. And let's not lose perspective here. That was Kerry Severino criticizing St. Scalia, not me. I just want the record to reflect that. Really quickly, Nina Totenberg said Samuel Alito was resigning. It turns out that story was wrong. NPR had to retract it. What do you make of that way? Was this possibly a bad leak? Maybe Samuel Alito did that on purpose to see who leaked the Dobbs decision? You know, that would have been a nice turnabout. She's she's known for Supreme Court leak. She's the one who leaked Anita Hill's FBI information before the Clarence Thomas thing. So hard to get past that. Now, I think she had this pre-written because everyone has everything written. Sure, we do that at Town Hall too. Yeah. Exactly. And it sounds like she misheard, but boy, I feel like you ought to double check before you pull the trigger on something. I think maybe Nina Totenberg needs to hang it up after all these years. Carrie Severino, God bless you. Thanks for joining us. More to come. O'Connor and Company. It's Larry O'Connorado Goddard Company. on our flagship station WMAL in your nation's capital Washington the district of Columbia but today we're in Gotham City still we're in New York the city's so nice it smells like a urine that doesn't sound right is that how it goes well it's true nonetheless It's just getting worse under the socialist. You know the old, I've got good news and bad news. Well, that's sort of how a lot of people took this last Supreme Court session. And it was mostly good news, a little bit of bad news, a little bit of confusing news also. Most specifically on the birthright citizenship decision, my friend Kurt Schlichter, not known for his rosy, sunny optimism, actually is not blackpilling like so many other people over this decision. He wrote a very thoughtful column about it. He's a retired lawyer, by the way. Actually, do you ever really retire when you're a lawyer? He's a lawyer. He'll be joining us coming up in the next hour to discuss this. Right now, though, I really want to focus on the humanity involved in this transgender athletics decision that was so overwhelming and so good. And honestly, yes, I cared passionately about almost all of the... decisions that came down over the last couple of weeks. But yesterday's decision affirming that states have the right to protect women's sports and to protect women, young girls, 14-year-old girls in their private spaces and in their locker rooms from being invaded by a male.

I cared more about that than anything else. And to get to the actual human story behind this, not the agenda, not the money, not the activists, not the people who hold signs and start screaming in your face about what a bigot you are. We're joined by Jim Campbell. Jim is the chief legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom. And Alliance Defending Freedom had a very important role in this case, Jim. And I so appreciate you joining us to talk about it. My pleasure. Thanks for having me on. So first, tell me about your clients, who was not necessarily a party to the case, but was affected in West Virginia by this transgender athletic policy, correct? Yeah, so we actually have a number of roles in the case. One, we were co-counsel to the states of Idaho and West Virginia directly helping them defend their laws. But we also represented a number of female athletes. I think the one that you're referring to is Adelaia Cross. is a young girl who was, as a middle school student, required to play alongside a male who identified as a female. That male is the individual that brought the challenge to West Virginia's law. So West Virginia is one of the first states to pass a law protecting women's sports by ensuring that women's sports would be for women only. But at Adelaia school, one of these individuals, a male who identified as a girl, wanted to compete. And so Adelaia was forced to be on the same team with him, to share the same locker room. And that created a lot of issues for her. It costs her the opportunity to compete in championship meets when this athlete took her spot. It costs... her the opportunity to have privacy in the locker room when she was forced to change next to this male athlete. And at one point, he sexually harassed her in the locker room by whispering just absolutely vile things into her ears. And so this issue has real costs, which is why it's so important. that states, there are 27 of them, have passed laws like these, and now the Supreme Court, and it's ruling yesterday, said that these laws are fine and that states can protect women and girls from males and boys invading their sports. Do you have a, Jim, thank you for laying it all out there. And I have so many questions for you. But the first one, as a father of two girls, they're still little girls to me. Did you get a reaction from Adelaia and her parents? Do we know what their reaction? Because they have not gone public. They haven't really been all over the media. But do you know how they took this decision? They're ecstatic. Like all the clients we represent, we represent two female athletes in Idaho that intervened in that case to help defend that law, and we represent another female athlete in West Virginia, and all four of them, Adelaia, and the three others I just mentioned, are thrilled because for the first time in this journey, they were heard by a court. For the first time in this journey, Brett Kavanaugh wrote an opinion.

that spoke beautifully about the plight that they face when they're forced to compete, they're forced to work as hard as they can, to earn roster spots, to earn medals, to earn scholarships, and then they're unfortunately forced to play on an unequal playing field when some states were allowing boys and males to come in and compete against them. Honestly, Jim, I wear my emotion on my sleeve sometimes, and I'm starting to tear up thinking about this because you're right. All we hear about is the rights of the trans-identifying athletes in these cases, or you hear about the state and the state's rights one way or the other, but what about the rights of this little girl? And I want to make sure our audience understands exactly what was said here by Mr. Campbell. This is a middle school. Adelaia was, what, 12, 13 years old having to confront all of this. And the school and the adults were not there protecting her and her rights. And it is maddening. It is infuriating to hear it laid out like that. And I'm so grateful to Alliance Defending Freedom. Your organization is so critical and so important in these fights, Jim. Thank you. It's really our pleasure. For two long girls were told to sit down, to be quiet, to accept this. But there have been some courageous girls who have refused to do that. There have been some courageous parents who have refused to do that. And yesterday was a vindication for them. But I have to say it's not the end. And it's not the end because, yes, 27 states have decided to protect women's sports. But 23 are not. And so this decision catalyzes some of the efforts that we're engaged in. to require those states to protect women's sports. Let's talk about that. That is the next step here, because basically, if I'm understanding this correctly, this does not compel at the federal level every state to now do away with their rules that allow trans identifying those 23 states. So what is the next step? Do we fight those 23 states in the courts, or do we need to get new legislation proposed? What happens now? I think both. We have to do both. So this is a clear call to legislators in those 23 states that you have the power to address these issues. You have the power to pass laws that ensure women and girls have a safe and equal playing field. So that's the first thing. And the second thing is, yes, there are litigation avenues. So we at Alliance Defending Freedom, we already have three pending cases, one in Connecticut. one in Minnesota, and one in the state of Washington. And in all of those cases, we're arguing that the federal law, known as Title IX, require states to protect women's sports. And here's why. Because Title IX says that women and girls must have equal opportunities in athletics, in sports, in education. The only way that for various competitive sports, girls can have equal opportunities is if they are given their own sports and if males are not allowed to compete in them. And so our understanding of Title IX is that it requires all of these states to protect women's sports the same way that West Virginia, Idaho, and the 25 other states that have passed laws doing so have done.

And does this decision factor into that at this point? Because you can basically say, listen, Title IX says, you know, you have to give these rights. You can't infringe on the rights of girls. And this decision now appears to say a girl means biological girl. So does this decision now play into... pretty much any statute at the state level that in some way is trying to redefine what girl means and allow trans-identifying men to pretend like their girls and get access to those girls set-asides or whatever is available to girls and their access. Because of this decision, did they firmly say enough of this nonsense, boy means boy, girl means girl. Well, the court did include a footnote, and the footnote said that it wasn't addressing squarely the question of whether, for instance, a state like California or Minnesota must protect women sports. They said, we're not addressing that. Now, that said, the logic of what the court said is very helpful. for the challenges that we're bringing against states like Minnesota and Washington. Because it's exactly what you said. The court made clear that sex in Title IX means biological sex. It also made clear that Title IX requires equal opportunities for women and girls. And it made clear that there are inherent biological differences on the playing field between boys and girls. And so when you put all of that together, we think that logically means that states have have to protect women's sports. And that's what we're going to be arguing in courts around the country. I said it in our first hour this morning, but I'll say it again, especially this week of Independence Day. Everything you just laid out there about the differences between boys and girls and men and women. Those truths are self-evident, if I could use that phrase, Jim. And I think it's appropriate this week to remember that. Jim Campbell is our guest, ADF, Alliance Defending Freedom. I want to pause for a second and tell everyone. ADFlegal.org is where you want to go, because I know you're all thinking, we've got to help Alliance Defending Freedom. We've got to donate. We've got to support. We've got to get on. their mailing list, we've got to be a part of this because they're the ones who are fighting this fight. So there's your answer. Go to adflegal.org. ADFlegal.org. Jim Campbell, I know you do legal, you don't do politics, but I do want to ask you a question of a political nature. And that is, you know, you get some Democrats who try to act reasonable right now and say, oh, well, of course, that transgender athlete nonsense, that I don't agree with that, but it would be unconstitutional because of equal protection laws. I can't, you know, vote for this thing that bans a trans-identifying man from playing with girls. They can't use that fig leaf anymore. They can't.

make that political argument anymore, right? Now they actually have to come down on one side of the other. That's absolutely right. That fig leaf, to use your term, has been taken away from them. They cannot hide behind that because the Supreme Court was clear that there is nothing in federal law, not the constitutional equal protection clause, and nothing in Title IX that prevents states from passing laws ensuring that women's sports and girls sports are for women and girls. So now if a politician, regardless of the party, and I shouldn't have even brought a party into the conversation, but now if a politician supports these laws that allow trans-identifying men to participate in girls' sports, they're doing it because ideologically they believe that that's the right thing to do or that there's no difference between boys and girls or men and women, not because of some constitutional protection that doesn't exist. That's huge, politically. It absolutely is. And I also have to point out that all nine of the justices, if you read all the opinions that came out from the court yesterday, all nine of them recognize that there are inherent differences between the sexes when we're talking about sports. And that's massive. So some of the dissenting justices... thought that maybe those differences could be changed through various drugs and hormones, which that's not true, and the science doesn't support that. But the baseline truth, that there are inherent biological differences between the sexes, that was acknowledged by every single justice on the Supreme Court yesterday. Hold on. Even Ketanji Brown Jackson, I thought that she had some sort of, like, lack of expertise in that arena, generally. She has her own opinion and she states other matters, but she did sign on to an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor that recognize that, yes, generally speaking, there are inherent differences between the sexes on the playing field. Politically maneuvered like a man who might have to argue before the justice someday soon. Jim Cabell, Elias Defending Freedom. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. My pleasure. ADFlegal.org. Get there. Donate. Get on the mailing list. They're amazing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I know what you're thinking. I know what you're thinking. You're sitting there and you say, yeah, Supreme Court decisions, transgender policies and athletics, birthright citizenship, mail-in ballots, Save America Act, midterm elections. Get to the real news, Larry. Tatee is getting married. We've got to talk about Taylor Swift. No, we do. This is a huge cultural event. This is the closest thing we get to a royal wedding here because Taylor Swift, of course, is royalty because she's... What was that again? Why is she royalty exactly? Oh, because she's rich. That's why. And kids love her. And I don't dislike Taylor Swift. I do get a little bored with Taylor Swift. Music starts to sound a little redundant, but it's fine. I think it's great. And she's marrying a football player who she seems to have emasculated in a pretty horrendous way. But that's fine. Listen, he's marrying a gazillionaire, and she's cute.

And I'm happy that we are pro-marriage here on this program. I've done it a couple of times myself. I think people should get married. It's a good thing. It bothers me that they seem to have been cohabitating prior to marriage. They should have gotten married a while ago. I want her to get married. I want her to have tons of babies. And I want that to be a demonstration to all those swiftly fans out there that marriage is good. family life is good. And by the way, you don't have to be a gazillionaire to have babies. That's why I'm annoyed that it's taken this long. But there's a lot going on here with this wedding. And I speak to you from the front lines because I am in New York City. And apparently Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey, the aforementioned football player, are getting married this weekend and they are hypersensitive and obsessed with their privacy. They don't want anyone to know about this thing. They don't want anyone to bother them. They just want to get married and everyone to leave them alone because it's their private life. So, of course, they're doing what everybody's doing. They've rented out Madison Square Garden. And they've shut down streets in New York City. My buddy Eric Erickson is in town in New York. The reason I'm in New York is because there's a big Amy Coney Barrett Media talk radio conference going on. I did a panel yesterday with Sid Rosenberg from W.IBC in New York, Mark Simone from W.O.R. in New York. Eric Erickson, nationally syndicated host out of Atlanta. And myself, yours truly. And we're in New York. Eric is staying at the Chelsea Hotel. Did you hear that Chelsea Hotel, everybody? I tell you the name of that hotel, the Chelsea Hotel, because I asked Eric, I said, oh, are you leaving today? Today on Wednesday here, the 1st of July. And he goes, yeah, I got to get out of the hotel by noon. And I said, wait, you're on the air at noon. He goes, yeah, I got to pre-record my show. Can't do it live. Why not? Why can't you just get a late checkout? Oh, because the Chelsea Hotel, the... Chelsea Hotel, have you heard that everyone, the Chelsea Hotel in Manhattan? The Chelsea Hotel has kicked him out because they have to make way for the bridal party. So they're kicking everyone out of the hotel. The Chelsea Hotel. If TMZ would like to go hang out in the lobby, it's the Chelsea Hotel. Go ahead and harass everyone. Because Taylor Swiss Bridal Party is coming in. They're going to shut down a couple of streets in New York. to accommodate the wedding because they want their privacy. You know what normal people do when they want to get married and they want their privacy? They don't talk about it. They don't tell anybody. In fact, they go to a church and they get married. And then if you want to have a party, go have a party. But a marriage is not a sporting event and it doesn't need to be, or is it a concert appropriate for a 20,000 seat arena, but that's what they're doing. Apparently, there are going to be hundreds of guests, and the guests have to sign non-disclosure agreements. This is the wedding registry. Are you on the bride side or the group side? Oh, and by the way, have your people look over this paperwork here. Have it back by the end of business today. If you need your lawyers, oh, we do need to have it certify.

Just stop. Stop with it. People are going nuts with this thing. And as if July 4th weekend in New York City isn't mayhem enough. But now they want this to be a huge event while at the same time pretending like they don't want it to be a huge event. And that's what annoys me more than anything else. You want to do this at Madison Square Garden. You want to do this and shut down city streets. You want to do it in the heart of Manhattan, the biggest city in America, and then claim you want it to just be a small, intimate, private affair. You can't have it both ways. I want there to be helicopters, you know, circling over the arena and bothering them at every step of that. I want people to infiltrate and break through the security barriers to release viral videos of them. I want their privacy invaded because they're not acting like people who want privacy. Apparently, Ed Sheeran's going to be there. Gigi Hadid, Carly Klaus, Zoe Kravitz. Of course, it says members of the Kansas City Chiefs organization. No one's named there. Some reports say that a thousand people might be showing up for this invited guests for the wedding. They have said specifically, by the way, this whole thing could be a head fake. She's got the money to buy the island. She could be doing a, she could be faking you out. She might be getting married in Vegas. She might be getting married on an island somewhere, and they're just doing this to mess with everyone. Did I mention that the bridal party is staying at the Chelsea Hotel? You might want to go camp out there. According to the sources who know about this thing, there are multiple events, including the rehearsal scheduled for tomorrow night at 6 p.m. That's going to be 100 guests all by itself. The most important thing is they should have done this in Vegas because then we can put odds on how short the marriage is going to be. My over under, seven. Take the under. A very good morning to you. Coast to Coast Auto Cutter Company, of course, originating from our flagship station, WMAL, in the heart of the nation's capital, Washington. and in the Relief Factory Studios. Today, though, broadcasting from New York City, and it's about to get 104 in New York, and you know what that means? The layer of urine on the sidewalks actually starts to bubble up, and you can actually see an effervescence of the human debris in Manhattan. What a beautiful city. I love it. Communists deserve it. Enjoy, Zohran Mamdani. Try cleaning up the sidewalks, almost as exciting as Los Angeles. home of our first guest here in this hour. Kurt Schlichter. Kurt, of course, senior columnist at Town Hall, my buddy, my friend, my colleague, author of multiple books, including the People's Republic series there. Kurt, good morning. How are you, my friend? Well, thank you for allowing me to wake up to be greeted by the image of a roiling cauldron of hobo's former lemonade.

Well, you've been to Los Angeles in New York City. You know how it is. Yeah, the term is Frisconti. Thank you for that. Everyone will be Googling that now on the Beltway. Curred yesterday when the decision for birthright citizenship came down, most of my friends on the right, my colleagues, my pals, my buddies, they were blackpilling. They were ready to burn John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett in effigy. They were slitting their wrists. They were angry. You took a different path. You're not thrilled with the decision, but your column actually saw very much a glass half full, if not maybe three quarters full. Explain your logic here. Well, I think the best way I describe it for the Democrats as a Pyrrhic victory. Look, I was expecting, and I want to give you some background. I've only done this law stuff for 30 years. Yeah, I left that off your resume, by the way. Kurt is not only a senior columnist and a retired colonel from the Army, he's also a practice who has been a practicing lawyer for three decades. And let's not forget author of the new book, American Warlord, which you should go on Amazon and pre-order, American Warlord, coming out November 3rd. But it was supposed to be a 7 to 2 decision, maybe an 8 to 1 decision. I mean, you've got to understand the birthright citizenship interpretation that John Roberts wrote about. And then Amy Coney Barrett signed on and that the three leftist judges agreed with because it in this case supported leftism. Although if anchor babies were about to go out and vote for the Freedom Caucus, you know they'd have been against it. Like Harry Reid was when he put in legislation. Right, right. To end it. This was the common understanding of how the earth right citizenship worked for 150 years. And there's a lot of conservatives out there go, but, but Kurt, the arguments against it are very, very good. Yes. Now, it's been the last 20 years where you've had this scholarship come. And there's been a lot of guys, Ilan Warner being one of the. primary scholars on it who've done a lot of work on and really turn things around. Remember, things take a while to turn around. Roe versus Wade took 50 years to overturn. Second Amendment was 100 years where it was, well, if you want to pass a gun law, that's cool until new scholarship convinced the court otherwise. And, you know, the Democrats' favorite, Plessy versus Ferguson, of course. Let's explore that was the Democrats' favorite. Boy, they rode to town with that one with their burning crosses in their hoods for decades. Let's talk about gun law. I think you make a very compelling argument, and it pains me to compliment your writing. You know that, Kurt. But you brought up the Heller case here as an example. So explain this to our audience here, because the Heller case sort of was the

the first break in the dam there, the way you describe it, that led us to a whole string of decisions since then, right? Yes. Yes. Look, law in the Anglo-American system is based on precedent. You tend to do what has happened before, and the courts are very reluctant to change it, but they will change it if you convince them, and it takes time to convince. You have to have academics writing about. You have judges writing opinions on it. You discuss and debate, raise up new theories, raise up new ideas. And that's what happened with birthright citizenship. For our listeners who don't remember the Heller case, if you could, just for a quick second, give us a quick background on Heller and why that is a good example here of what you're talking about. Well, Heller, the Second Amendment was understood for a long time. by most legal theorists and judges to mean that, yeah, you have the right to keep in bare arms, but it can be reasonably regulated. That is, if it's a reasonable regulation, well, that's fine. And, of course, that's the lowest kind of scrutiny, rational basis scrutiny. What that means a judge looks at it and goes, well, it's not crazy. You know, there's a reason for this law, so we'll leave it in effect. And that allowed a balancing test, which is, well, guns are dangerous, so we're going to subordinate the right to the need to protect people. Right. Suddenly, anything is rational at that point because the alternative is that people will get slaughtered by guns, so we have to be rational. Right. But then Heller became that tipping point. Well, Heller, Heller. Was the, changed it and said, no, Heller, Heller said, keeping guns is not a second rate right. It is a first rate right. You have to look at with strict scrutiny. And you have to go through a serious analysis to see, and through subsequent cases, is there are historical analog from the time of the founding. to regulate guns in this way. In our words, you can't just say, well, I think it's a good idea. You have to say, well, it's a traditional regulation of guns of over like 150 years ago. So we can't just do whatever we want. And this was a revolution that came because of legal study, legal controversy, and legal debate. It didn't just happen. even though there were a lot of us who thought that was the proper way to do it. So using Roe as an example, Roe was passed in, they voted on Roe in 72, I want to say 73. And then for decades, there were other challenges to abortion laws. And slowly it started to chip away, but oftentimes pro-life activists would lose. outright overturning of row. Sometimes it was 7-2, then it was 60, it kept getting narrower. Here on birthright citizenship, you argue, we're already at 5'4.

Yes, we're very close. If one of the five judges goes away for some reason, retires, Donald Trump gets to appoint a new one, and we're going to see birthright citizenship become the new row. That is the focus of the Republican Party when it comes to judges. Every judge is going to get the question, where do you stand on birthright citizenship? The old traditional view, which, you know, I was taught in law school and never really thought about. until new scholarship came along, or the new view, which I have come to be convinced by. I didn't just say, oh, well, it helps me politically. I think the scholarship shows, yeah, this is a better understanding of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause. So we're already at four or four to five, or five to four. And if you look at Brett Kavanaugh, who concurred, he concurred with the judgment. He said, yeah, you can't do it. the way Trump did it, which was an executive order, but he specifically said, I don't think there's a constitutional problem with limiting birthright citizenship when it comes to like illegal aliens. Interestingly, Gorsuch, who signed on to the dissent outright, said, well, you know, a long-term illegal alien might be a different situation, but certainly birth tourists. So it's not quite as cut and dry, but it's still five-four. You get, you know, Sotomayor, who's, not particularly healthy, decides to retire because of her health, you know, Trump gets another person. We have a very real chance of having a new understanding of the Cistern't Trump Clause. Could you explain a little bit more about that? Black Pillars? Yeah. Play the long game. We Republicans are in it for the long haul. We've been doing this for 250 years now. Much love. What about, and we've only got a couple of minutes left, but can you explain or maybe give us a roadmap for the Brett Kavanaugh path? Is there a path right now without waiting for Justice Sotomayor to retire? Is there a path statute-wise, as Brett Kavanaugh laid out there, that will pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court? I think it could. Of course, there's practical problems to passing legislation through the Congress, thanks to the filibuster. And the fact that we may lose our majority in November. I plan to write about a town hall on Monday. There may be some executive orders. There may be some legislative ways to limit particularly obnoxious. abuses like the birth tourism, the Chinese folks flying for a day, have a kid, go back to Shanghai, and raise a communist with an American citizenship. I think there are ways to handle that. I think we'll also see limitations on who can come into the country. You know, if you were bulging with child, I expect you to be turned away at the door. That will be an interesting policy development, too, and we'll keep an eye on Stephen Miller there. It sounds like he could hatch something like that. Let's go back to the most important thing. I would have mentioned it, but I didn't realize it was on pre-sale already. American Warlord, a brand new novel by Kurt Schlichter, totally new. This is not part of the Kelly Turnbull series. You've got a brand new novel. Give us the quick pitch.

Hey man, a regular guy watches civilization crash, brings civilization back because he knows a little about Roman history, and he knows his way around an M4 rifle. It's a pretty cool book. Kurtz Licker. American Warlord, go buy it. It's available for pre-sale, and go to Larry Cruise.com so you can take a cruise to the Caribbean with me and Kurt. More to come. As you know, we've been having a great time celebrating the 250th anniversary of the signing of our Declaration of Independence. This show originates out of Washington, D.C., where the Trump administration has absolutely pulled out all the stops for one of the greatest celebrations. If you're not able to make it down to Washington for this week's festivities, make sure you tune in and you watch, you watch the fireworks, you watch the concerts, you watch all the stuff that's going to be happening because it's going to be phenomenal. Already has been. And yesterday, something very cool happened on the mall. in Washington, where 13 new statues have been unveiled. I love this. We don't build statues anymore for our heroes. We don't build monuments for our heroes. In fact, the political left who dominates so much of the conversation in this country, they want to tear down the statues of our heroes. They want to rewrite our history. They want to, as my friend and colleague, Dennis Prager says, they want to have a proctologist's view of the founding of America. That's the 1619 project. That's the, you know, we were just a bunch of rich, powdered wigged slave owners, landowners who were racist and bigoted and sexist. And those people don't deserve to be honored. Well, not this administration. Just like we can say Merry Christmas again, we can also say, God bless America again, and we can celebrate our founding, and what better week to do it and what better city to do it than Washington, D.C. So take a look at this, or take a listen, as yesterday in Freedom Plaza, downtown Washington, D.C.,'s 13 new bronze statues honoring heroes of the American Revolution 13, that's right, for the 13 colonies. Here's Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins. For a time, it all seemed hopeless, the tearing down of the statues, the erasing of our great American history. But it also seemed hopeless 250 years ago. When the Patriots first waged the war, they were a rag-tag band of rebels standing up against an empire with no real prospect of success. They didn't succeed, as we know for the most part, for a couple of years. Casualties piled up. Territories were lost. Provisions disappeared. It wasn't until the summer of 1780 that the tide finally turned in the Americans' favor. Until that point, the odds were long and the cause was hopeless. But some causes are worth fighting for, dying for, and never giving up, even when the prospects themselves are so dim. Because in fighting in the battle, in this case, in declaring independence 250 years from Saturday, you show

who you are and what you are made of. The 44 delegates who voted in favor of the declaration at the Second Continental Congress knew that they were in for a long and a hard fight without any guarantee of success, in fact likely the opposite of success. They turned aside from every easy path. the submission, compromise, and negotiation that was asked of them, and instead chose the hardest path imaginable, and that was independence. That says something about the strength of their belief and about the nature of the cause itself, that liberty admits and accepts no compromise ever. One of the statues, and that was well done by Brooke Rollins, she's one of the stars of this administration. One of the statues is for Caesar Rodney. 250 years ago, today, the final vote was happening to accept and adopt the Declaration of Independence. All the colonies were in line and voted for it, except for one, Delaware. Their delegation was split right down the middle. They had to break the tie. Caesar Rodney, a 47-year-old lawyer and a general in the militia, was a delegate to the Continental Congress, but he was back in Delaware because he was suffering. He was dead. He was 80 miles away in Dover. He wasn't dead, but he was on his deathbed. He was dying. Stricken. And they needed his vote. Word got back to him in Dover from Philadelphia. And Caesar Rodney, on the evening of July 1st, 250 years ago today, got on his horse and valiantly. road the 80 miles to Philadelphia. His spurs jangling on his boots. He climbed down off of his steed and hobbled into Independence Hall and cast that decisive vote. risking his life, the first amongst the men in that room to risk his life before they even voted and signed the declaration. But of course, once they all affixed their name, they were risking their lives as well. Because if the... Experiment of American independence went south, as it should have at that moment. They all, as Ben Franklin said, would have hung together or hung separately. Caesar Rodney, an American hero, finally gets his statue put back where it belongs after it had been torn down by the radical lefts occupying the Democratic Party. Happy Independence Day. Caesar Rodney, happy birthday America. Well, everyone was focusing on the Supreme Court decisions, as well they should be yesterday. And, of course, we've been diving into them all morning here as well with great experts, by the way, joining us. And I want to extend my gratitude to State Representative Laurel Libby, who has been leading the charge.

in the state of Maine on transgender athletic policies. She joined us in our first hour. And then last hour we had Carrie Severino of Judicial Crisis Network and Jim Campbell of Alliance Defending Freedom. And then we just spoke with Kurt Schlichter. While we've been doing our analysis of the Supreme Court decisions, what the ramifications are politically in real terms for moms and dads and taxpayers and citizens. Yesterday, there was work being done on Capitol Hill right across the street from the Supreme Court. In the House of Representatives, we had a hearing, another hearing, by the way, we can't get enough of them, about sanctuary policies, about sanctuary cities and sanctuary states. Jurisdictions in this country dominated by Democrats who have decided to defy federal law, they just can't shake their instinct for secession, can they? This is in their DNA, these Democrats. They decide that they pick and choose what federal laws to follow and which ones they respect and which ones they don't. And they have dehumanized and demonized ICE agents. These are federal law enforcement officers who are doing their duty to enforce immigration laws. And the creation of ICE was a bipartisan effort when the Department of Homeland Security was formed after the attacks of 9-11. Democrats helped write the legislation that created ICE. And now these ICE agents are dehumanized on a daily basis by these radicals who have become the establishment of the Democrats. And they are radicals. And they dehumanize enforcing immigration laws that Democrats actually helped write. The Democrat presidents signed into law. And Donald Trump's sin, the Republican Party's sin right now, is that we're actually following the law and enforcing the law. And for that, we get riots in the streets. Or we get these sanctuary policies. Where Democrats just decide if they're a governor or if they're a mayor or a city council or county supervisors or what have you, they just decide, oh yeah, we don't like that law. That law makes us feel icky. So we're just going to ignore it. And what ends up happening? Well, criminals get protected. A criminal who is arrested and in custody under any other normal circumstance up until about 10 years ago, that criminal who was in the country illegally and has been arrested for breaking yet another law in our country, that criminal would be handed over to federal agents and they would be deported. But not anymore. Not in certain cities, counties, and states in this nation. That's why Republicans in the Judiciary Committee continue to have hearings focusing on the very real world ramifications of these un-American unconstitutional sanctuary policies. Which brings us to yesterday on Capitol Hill in that hearing room, Jessica Gorman, the mother of Sheridan Gorman, a young college student at Loyola University in Chicago.

who was murdered in cold blood gave her testimony. In Chicago, a sanctuary city, in Illinois, a sanctuary state governed by a man, J.B. Pritzker, who wants to be president of the United States and will probably run so he can bring those great Illinois policies to all of us. I demand that you pay attention to Jessica Gorman right now because you need to hear her story. And if you're living, in any state that has these policies, you need to echo her story to your politicians who continue to create a climate where Sheridan Gorman's of the world can be murdered. Take a listen to her mother. I'm a lover, not a fighter. I'm a lover. I love children. I love... up and making them feel good about themselves. I'm not racist. I'm not xenophobic. We've done everything right, my husband and I. We taught our daughter to be wonderful, beautiful person. Her love was extravagant. And now I'm going to have to spend my last waking moment, I'm going to have to spend fighting, fighting against these policies, fighting for people to say her name. So if you have Have the courage. Please come talk to me. Come sit on that bench. I'll buy Congress a bench. Talk to each other. Talk to each other. We shouldn't be screaming across the room. I mean, we also shouldn't say but, because I have to just say, and I understand that you're here for a reason. I don't understand why it's only the Republican side that cares about our American children. And I know that you're a mother. I know that you're a father. I deeply value that. But basically what you just did, what you said was, I'm so sorry for your loss. I have a daughter too. I have a son. I feel your pain. You don't. You don't feel my pain. Because the next words out of your mouth were, but. There's no but. When your child is in the coffin, there's no butt. And I need you to understand that. And if you ever want to talk about it, I'm here, I'm going to buy you a bench. I'm going to buy, I can put that on the record. I'm going to buy Congress the bench. And they can come and sit and hold my hand and look me in the eye and explain to me why. Illegal immigrants are more important than my daughter. I really want to know what because I don't understand. Please, I welcome you. I will listen. I will listen. I care. I care. I just need you to explain it to me because I don't and nor and I fear I will never understand. You know, people think that the border issue is done. It's over. Trump won. He closed the border. Let's move on. Let's talk about gas prices. Let's talk about affordability. It's not over. It won't be over. As long as Jessica Gorman has to grieve like that and has to fight, why does she even have to come in and fight for laws being followed and obeyed in this country? The law is already there. And she has to go through this. She should be grieving her daughter. And by the way, the worst part of all of that, and it's heart wrenching, is the fact that Jessica Gorman, a grieving mother who was testifying before Congress,

to make the case that our existing laws should be enforced and criminals should not be welcomed onto our streets when they should be deported. The worst part is she had to preface everything by saying, I'm not racist, I'm not xenophobic, but that's what we have to do now. That's what we're reduced to. That we're not allowed to grieve and express our righteous anger. at the fact that our daughters should not have been murdered. Our daughters should still be alive if it weren't for the twisted, bastardized political perspective of one party in this country who refuses to enforce the law. And then if you dare to object and say, hey, you know what? Your politics ended up killing my daughter. Suddenly you are a racist. That you have to defend your head. Don't get me wrong. I'm not racist or anything. Grieve your daughter without having to grovel to these totalitarians. But that's where we are. I want you to hear a little bit more from Jessica Gorman. I just mentioned that her governor, J.B. Pritzker, wants to be president. Jessica Gorman. has more right to be president, is more qualified to be president than her governor who put her in this situation right now. Hers is the voice that I would like to hear on a debate stage. But here's a little bit more of this grieving mother yesterday on Capitol Hill. On March 19th, Sheridan went with friends to the lakefront in Chicago because they hoped they might see the northern lights. She never saw those lights. The man accused of murdering my daughter as Jose Medina, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, who should not have even been in this country. And even after committing a crime and having an outstanding warrant, he was left on the streets of Chicago to murder my innocent American child. But this story, it's not about him. This story is about my Sheridan. It's about how failed border policies, sanctuary, city laws, and twisted leaders refused to cooperate with ICE. They sent her to her grave. It's about a government and politicians that forgot their first priority. And the question before this committee is painfully simple. When did protecting our American citizens stop being your first priority? And even more important, why did protecting our American citizens stop being your first priority? I want an explanation. I need one. And I deserve one. But first I want you to know who. She is heart-wrenching. And it gets on. I beg you to go to town hall. and watch that entire video. We've got it up at townhall.com and on our social media pages as well, and it's amazing. But I want to move to another moment in this hearing. Representative Mike Lawler in New York, who is one of the most moderate Republicans. By moderate, I mean, you know, he reaches across the aisle. He tries to find bipartisan agreement. He's in a very purple district in New York, and they are throwing a lot of money in that district.

So you would think that Representative Mike Lawler wants to, you know, keep his head down and just sort of make his way to Election Day and not rile up the left. But Mike Lawler showed me something yesterday. He showed me that he stands on the right side of this issue and is unafraid to speak up about it. He also showed me that he has no concerns about this election. Because take a listen to what Mike Lawler did in an exchange with Jamie Raskin. in this hearing about these policies, these policies that are killing American girls like Sheridan Gorman. Take a listen. The same outrage you feel about Renee Good and Alex Preddy, you should feel about Sheridan Gorman's and Lake and Riley and every angel family in this country. I do feel that outrage. You do not. Because if you did, you would not support sanctuary. Do you feel the outrage about Alex Freddie and Renee Good? You should be ashamed to be ashamed. You don't belong to this committee. You should get the hell out of year. You don't understand the rules of the committee. You don't understand the Constitution. You're a disgrace. You're a full of it. Mr. Jamie Raskin. Mr. Jamie Raskin. A half full of disgrace supporting sanctuary. One word about Alex Freddie. I did. I wrote a whole New York Times opette about it. You should be absolutely ashamed that were not opposing sanctuary policies that resulted in their daughter's death. This is what this election needs to be about. This, because this is who these politicians are. That's Jamie Raskin screaming. at Congressman Mike Lawler because he dared to say, hey, all you want to tell is talk about Renee Good, who got killed because she interfered with ICE agents, but how about a minute or two on these innocent American girls who are getting murdered because of your policies? And Jamie Raskin' unhinged reaction tells you that he knows they're on the losing side of this. And if every single election this year, especially in those districts that are up for grabs, there's about 15 or 18 of them that will determine who is in the majority in the House of Representatives, if every single one of those districts votes based on the border in immigration policy and sanctuary policy, Mike Johnson keeps that gavel. And if every single one of the Republican candidates brings the kind of passion and fire and intensity that Mike Lawler, I'm not, listen, I disagree with Mike Lawler on a lot of stuff. But damn it, he was good yesterday. And this is exactly the passion and the focus and the intensity that every single Republican has to have now to election day or, honestly, all is lost. More to come on O'Connor and Company. A couple of more things. We've got a great conversation ahead here in a couple of minutes about the incredible contribution that America has made to the world with regard to air conditioning.

And how, again, some countries just refuse to jump on board the, you know, what, 70-year trend of air conditioning, saving our lives. I do want to do that. But I want to continue to drill down a little bit on this conversation yesterday over sanctuary policies. Please, Republicans, if you're listening, lead with this. Every town hall, every commercial you do, Democrats will open that border again. Democrats refuse to enforce our laws. American citizens are dying because of these sanctuary policies. millions of dollars being wasted on people who should not be in this country, who already broke our immigration laws, they should be gone because of that, and now they're breaking further laws. And this idea that this exchange with Mike Lawler and Jamie Raskin yesterday was so telling because Jamie Raskin and the Democrats, as you know, They all went and did a vigil. They went and prayed and, you know, rented their clothing over the death of these two agitator protesters, Antifa adjacent types. Renee Good and that other guy who was a nurse and who kicked out the taillights of an ice vehicle the week before he was shot. because he brought a gun to the ICE protest where he was interfering with federal agents doing their jobs. But all they want to talk about are those two deaths. And they don't want to talk about the thousands who have been murdered by illegal immigrants in this country, murderers, rapists, kidnappers. They don't want to talk about them who have been allowed to stay in this country and celebrate it as dreamers. by the political left and protected by the political left, who have killed innocent Americans to compare those people, those gang members, those thugs, those murderers. The Democrats want to compare them to an ICE agent or a Border Patrol agent, lawfully discharging their firearm in the course of their duty. as a sworn officer of the United States government. They want to compare this woman, Sheridan Gorman, who was murdered in cold blood as an innocent victim, minding her own business. They want to compare her to Renee Good, who drove her 3,000-ton vehicle right at an ice agent in the middle of a protest and in the middle of that ice agent conducting his lawful duty. He discharged his firearm. He didn't want to. He shouldn't have had to. But to compare Renee Good, who threatened the life of an ice agent with her vehicle. on an icy snowy road in Minneapolis to compare her death at the hands of law enforcement to the murder assured in Gordon is so morally bankrupt and so twisted that it is warped and it defies any moral explanation. But those are the boundary lines of this political discussion.

are the terms under which this election is taking place. And Republicans need to get that. They need to inject it into their veins. And they will win going away. Make their opponent agree with Jamie Raskin. That the real tragedy here is Renee Good. Not all of these American women who have been sexually assaulted and murdered by illegal immigrants protected by their party. Mike Lawler, by the way, was not done as he left that hearing room and it got very heated, as you just heard. Independent journalist Nicholas Bellasi stopped him in the corridor there and take a listen to this. Go Mike Lawler, go. You want to have me just to ask you about the exchange with Jamie Raskin, since it's going viral online, just to tell exactly what happened with the committee's rules versus how you were handling it with the victims, family? This is very simple. We had to listen to their 10-minute diatribes for Milagia Paul and Jamie Raskin, in which they dismissed my constituents. They said, we're sorry for your loss, but we shouldn't even be having this hearing. Their comments were outrageous. They were disgraceful. And I didn't respond to it. I went into my introduction. The fact that they decided multiple times to try and cut me off because they didn't like what I had to say is ridiculous. It's ridiculous. To fully appreciate and understand why Jessica Gorman is here, you actually have to understand what happened to their daughter. And the reality is that they didn't want to hear it. They didn't want to hear what happened to Sheridan Gorman or that their policies that they support contributed to her death. That's the fundamental fact. Their behavior was outrageous. And I, for one, I'm not going to sit there and take their shit. So got it. Thank you. There's Mike Lawler being quite fired up as you heard and as you saw. And that's what we need. Also, by the way, as I mentioned, we mentioned it yesterday to Europe continues to defy technology and the science and they refuse to use air conditioning. France, a Paris politician. blamed America and U.S. air conditioning for the deaths of 1,300 people in her country. She opened a letter saying, Dear American journalists and social media influences for days, some of you have been criticizing and making fun of Paris because the city doesn't have air conditioning. This is rich. As the second largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, you bear a significant amount of responsibility for global warming and the consequences we in France are experiencing. Your SUV is killing people in France. Or they could just turn on the air conditioning. Talk tomorrow.

Did you know there's an investment account that's been around since 1888, and most people have never heard about it until recently. It's not stocks, it's not crypto. It's a trust that was created over a century ago, and it's been averaging 29% returns for the past 25 years. To put that into perspective, it beat Apple, it beat Amazon, it beat Microsoft over that same period. BlackRock has over $2 billion sparked here. JP Morgan, Bank of America, some of the big... Biggest banks in the world have been quietly using this for decades, and they've never mentioned it to regular people. There are no commercials, no billboards, nothing, and literally anyone can start. You just need a few hundred dollars. There's a free video that explains exactly what it is and how to access it, and it's 100% worth your time. Go to My Account29.com to check it out. That's My Account 29.com. com.