Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Jun 30 2026

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Welcome, everybody, to the Tuesday edition of Clay and Buck. Clay on his way back, I believe from Hawaii, he'll be joining us on Thursday. It's just me, the Buckster, today. And look, there's no way around it. A very rough day in terms of the biggest Supreme Court decision, it went against us. Let's just jump right to it. By 6.3, although there's a little bit of an asterisk, makes it feel more 5'4, but by 6.3, the court decided that if someone is born on U.S. soil anywhere, for any reason, at any time, criminal conspiracy of birth tourism included, you name it. They are, with the only exception being diplomats, which was previously carved out, they are U.S. citizens. They have come down with this decision that I think is one of the worst in the history of the court, quite honestly. Samuel Alito, Samuel Alito, oh, let me give you some of the stats, the details, just so we can have a really... robust conversation about this. It's important we talk about it and understand what is not just in the decision, but what happens now. This is a big deal. Unfortunately, it's a bad big deal. But this is, as a leader wrote, one of the most important decisions in the history of the court. And in my judgment, the court has made a serious mistake. So you had Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Thomas. See this for what it is. That's the three who just said, you guys have got to be kidding me. I mean, in other words, but that was their bottom line on this. You can't really believe that somebody who shows up. And this happens. This isn't just a theoretical. This happens every day in this country. We'll get to the trans. By the way, the trans athlete thing, that went in our favor. So that's good news. There is some good news to discuss today as well. And there was also a ruling on political campaign finance donations. We'll get to that. That's much smaller potatoes right now than this. The trans ruling went our way, but that... I think was expected. I mean, that would have just been the court no longer can read plain English. This, well, maybe the court can't read plain English. Think about some of the things that have had to be taken up by the Supreme Court. Does the word temporary, in fact, mean temporary as in not forever and will end at some point? The court had to rule on that. The Democrats on the court, that's what they are. People say the liberals, they're Democrats. The Democrats on the court said, no, temporary actually means forever because you're mean. That was troubling. Today, the court did find that when the law says biological sex and separation thereof under Title IX, it actually is biological sex. And just because somebody might really, really, really want that word or that reality to be something else, it does not change. So that's encouraging. But let's get back here to...

The big one, which is the birthright citizenship case. The court, and this came up in oral arguments before, the court has said today, In essence, or no, really actually quite explicitly, I shouldn't even say in essence, if a Chinese birth, and that's where there's a lot of this birth tourism that goes on, and that also raises concerns in this country because that's our primary geopolitical and economic rival. There's a lot of subversion, a lot of espionage, a lot of working against the interests of the American people happening when it comes to China. The Supreme Court today said that if a Chinese birth tourist breaks, it is against the law to do this, keep in mind, birth tourist shows up here, has a baby here, takes that baby out of that hospital in San Francisco or Los Angeles or wherever, goes back to China. They can come back here in 18. You live their whole life in Beijing. Maybe they don't speak a word of English. Maybe all they've learned is how terrible America is. They can come back here at age 18. And they're as American as you and I. They are as American as apple pie. My friends, it's deeply distressing just to say that out loud. Because we know at a gut, at an instinctual. Dare I say at an American level, that is just not true. It's just not true. The court can say it's true, but the court also said that there was a special right to privacy to kill a baby in the womb. They were wrong on that one for a long time. The court also ruled in Dred Scott. The court also ruled in Roe v. Wade. They have been wrong in the past, and I think this is wrong. And it wasn't 9-0. It wasn't like, oh, my gosh, there's no real question of fact here or there's no question of law. It was 6-3. And Brett Kavanaugh says, look, I got to go right now with the majority as in this is the law now. But he thinks that Congress can just change this. But the majority held that this is actually constitutional. that this is in the Constitution and therefore a act of the legislature alone would not be enough. You would need a constitutional amendment. You would need a constitutional amendment, the court says today, to make it no longer the case that an illegal who shows up here from Nicaragua comes across the border, has a baby here, and maybe goes back home. And then returns at age 18 or returns. That could return in a few decades and run for president. As American, as American gets. It's all the same. I'm sorry. I, well, I'm not really sorry. But I sit here and I tell you what has happened today. But I also tell you that as far as I am concerned, a majority of the Supreme Court has decided.

That to be legally American is so debased that it can in fact be obtained as the proceeds of criminal conspiracy. And that the founders who risked hanging to forge this nation wanted us all one day to think that citizenship is just a game, a joke, a scheme of no real meaning, no bonds of fraternity, friendship, or... nation among us, it's just words on a page courtesy of some bureaucrat somewhere. That is it. It's a devastating ruling. Now that I think we've explained at least the basics of what this is, they're saying subject to the jurisdiction thereof, that was always the... Now, keep in mind, the Congress had to change. changed the law after the 14th Amendment because of Native Americans were not considered initially to be automatically citizens as a result of the passage of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment explicitly had to deal with freed slaves and that they are Americans and that they are false citizens and there should be and can be no question or debate about that. It is ludicrous. It is ludicrous for the justices to sit there and say, you know, that also covers people who are subject to foreign citizenship and foreign law who come here in violation of our law, have a baby and even return home. That's one thing. The anchor baby thing is bad enough because that is the proceeds of a crime. It's a benefit. And let me also point out that anchor babies of all kinds are a rapid pathway for the rest of the family. That's why there's the anchor to keep them here, but there's also the anchor pulling in the rest of the foreigners to skip the, to the front of the, and then we're told it's family reunification. This is a huge... incentive for people to continue to game our immigration system and it's happening at the same time that we are told we need to pay more we need to pay more taxes there needs to be more rules more laws on the law abiding more restrictions on the productive you're not doing enough nicholas christoph of the new york times is saying that Elon Musk has killed millions of children Because of cuts to USAID. If we aren't paying, you and I aren't paying to put gas in the tanks of cars in West Africa or the Sudan or Cambodia. And there's any problem over there? It's our fault. We're literally killing children. That is the position of the left now. So we have to... Come together and have a conversation about what does it in fact mean to be American? What is it to be American? Even some on our own side, I think air when they say, well, we are just a creedal nation. No, we are a people and a creed. We are two things simultaneously, and one cannot be separated from the other. If you change the people entirely, the creed does not matter. If you change the creed entirely, well, then the people will be led astray. But this Supreme Court is absolutely leading us astray.

with this decision it is distressing and it's not just because i think it shows a mentality that a large portion of the country shares that Americanness is just status, something that can be changed with the check of a box, with the wave of a bureaucratic wand, there's nothing to it. You don't have to speak English. You don't have to share our history. You don't have to even grow up or live or be around any of us. You could, in fact, according to John Roberts, who is a coward, and Brett Kavanaugh, who... Well, he's not as bad. Connie Amy Coney Barrett, who I think is just not as smart as the others, just being honest with you. I'm talking about the conservatives. They think that if you live your whole life in Beijing, but you spent five days here after being born in San Francisco, you should be able to run for president in America. You are a U.S. citizen. We should be willing to deploy SEAL Team 6 anywhere in the globe to save your ass, even if you've lived in Beijing for 40 years because you spend five days here in San Francisco and they decided that subject to the jurisdiction thereof on a tourist visa means you're American. The problem is, my friends, they have opened the definition so wide that you'd have to ask. If everyone is American, then what does it even mean to be American? If the bar is so low, if it is so debased, as I said, what are we left with? Let me tell you, anybody who is feeling a little squeamish about deporting as many illegals in the country as possible before, I hope this is a wake-up call to you. The left, the Democrats, the communists in this country. That's right, the communists in our midst. They view this place, America, as a commune. They want us. They want us to be subject to all the other jurisdictions thereof as well. They want to take what is yours. They want to give it to others. They want you to shut your mouth in the process. This is a very dark day on the court. This is a very dark day for America. We will fight on. We will keep pushing. But I cannot sugarcoat it for you. This was a devastating ruling from the court. And you have to wonder, you ask yourself, how many people going forward are going to be willing to fight and die for an economic zone? How many Americans going forward are going to say, I will answer the call. I will go anywhere the commander-in-chief tells me to and risk my life and be away from my family and not see my children and not be next to my wife or my husband for.

months and months, perhaps even over a year at a time on deployment. How many will do that knowing that it is so cheapened to be American that someone can show up here for five minutes and have all the same rights, all the same benefits, but somehow not the same obligations as you and me? They have no answers for that for you today on the court. And I wish I had all the answers on this, but I don't. Honestly, it's a bad day for the country. We fight on. We don't cry. We don't whine. We take it. We process it. And we will move forward. That is my promise to you here on the show. I'm sure a lot of you are going to have thoughts on this. Let's talk about it. I will get to the transgender ruling, which was... absolutely the right ruling and important it is a good ruling it is an important ruling it today is overshadowed somewhat by this birthright citizenship ruling that over it just it undoes the trump executive order on this i didn't get into some of that background but that's the long and the short of it all right look your parents can relate to this especially if you have young kids how many times you see them doing something that you just need to get on video Whether it's an iPhone in 2026 or a beta cam in 1997, those moments instantly become part of your family history. If you're an iPhone family, you've got those videos on the cloud. If you're part of the Betacam generation, they're on cassettes or VHS tapes. Legacy Box is the company that helps preserve those memories by digitizing your old media. You send them your old tapes, film reels, photos, slides, over a dozen different kinds of old media, and they carefully transfer them by hand. You'll get everything back along with brand new files on the cloud, ready to watch and share from... anywhere. More than two million families have trusted Legacy Box to preserve their memories. They were even recently trusted by the U.S.O. to digitize fragile handwritten letters from World War II. It all happens in their facility in Tennessee. I know the founders of this company, they're great guys, they're patriots, they're Americans, they're people that are all about your values, and they just run a great business. It's so much fun when people go through this process. Shop Legacy Boxes America's sale today at LegacyBox.com slash Buck. That's LegacyBox.com slash BUCK. Looking for normal in a world of crazy. Clay and Buck have your back. Welcome back to Clay Ann Buck. Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio joins us now. Congressman, I don't know if you've caught any of the top of the show, but I know you know what's going on with this Supreme Court decision. Trump says the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, which is too bad for a country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation, which has the support of the president. What do you think about that? What are the, I mean, let's just jump right to the legislative ways to at least make citizenship something that feels less like a joke.

Yeah, it's common sense that if you're here and, you know, unlawfully here in the country and you have a child, that that child should not have a back of you. I mean, I think even Samuel Alito in his dissent said, in my judgment, the court made a mistake, a mistake that will seriously affect the country's future. So if that's a situation, let's look at legislative ways to fix it. I think you just have to write something straightforward. Like, no, the 14th Amendment was written at a different time for a different situation, you know, dealing with the evil of slavery in the aftermath of all that. And then And the fact that you are born here is not actually make you subject to it. Just by the fact you're born that it shouldn't fit that clause. So I think that is the key takeaway. But unfortunately, it was what, five, four, the other direction. And the court should know the 14th Amendment is going to be interpreted in a way that says you are a citizen. Is it, is it, I'd have to look at this. I know that birth tourism is illegal. There have been cases brought against, usually the, like, Birth Tourism Center or the place that is conspiring to bring in people to do this. My understanding is that that is illegal. Is there any restriction on visas for people from countries coming here at six months or eight months or whatever it may be? pregnant depending on how long they have to stay in the country? Is that also something to be looked at? Because people are wondering, short of a sweeping change in what just happened today, how do we tighten things up? Because this is just going to be a free-for-all now. Yeah, well, we do need to tighten things up on a host of ways and make sure that in the event we get another Joe Biden, he can't do what he did, which is allowed 10 main people just to come in the country, all claiming asylum and saying temporary protected status is not temporary. It's forever on all the things that he did. So we do need, and maybe when we put that legislation together, which we passed in the House last Congress, maybe we need to go back and do some of that again. we can look at what you just described. Oh, there should be further stipulations if it looks like this is going on. In fact, Samuel Alito used that term in his dissent. He talked about birth tourists. That was one of the things he cited. So maybe we do need to look at that as well. But I do know we need to tighten up the asylum laws. We need to fix the what's called the Forrest decision. We need to make sure there can't be no catch and release. Those things we need to get into law so that we don't have. 10 million people coming across the border like we all, like what happened with President Biden. Now, I know you are doing a hearing, I believe right after you're done with us here on air, up on Capitol Hill with Angel Moms. And this obviously goes very much to the issue of illegal immigration and law enforcement. What's going on with this? Tell everybody what's happening.

Sanctuary jurisdictions is the dumbest policy I've ever heard. Understand what they did. Systematic plan of the left. They let in 10 million people under Joe Biden. Then they create jurisdictions where it makes it difficult to remove those individuals, even when they commit another crime. Because remember, sanctuary jurisdiction is simply politicians tell them local law enforcement. You can't work with federal law enforcement when it comes to enforcing federal law. And then, of course, the third step was Democrats try not to pay ICE. They tried to abolish ICE. So this is their systematic plan. And what happens is real consequences for families like Ms. Gorman, who was the student in Loyola, who was killed by an illegal migrant who had committed a crime and who was let out because they wanted to be soft on people and take into effect their deportation status when they decide whether to charge people with crimes or what kind of sentence or plea agreement they might get. This guy kills Ms. Gorman, and her mother is testifying today at 2 o'clock. So it's all part of us. We've passed legislation already. out of our committee to address the sanctuary jurisdiction problem, which, again, is part of this systematic plan of the left. Oh, by the way, a third of the country, we talked about this, I think, before, Buck, but a third of the country lives in a jurisdiction that is a sanctuary jurisdiction because it's all the big blue cities and big blue states. It's ridiculous that a third of the country, their political class tells the local law enforcement don't work with federal law enforcement. And the consequences are what happened to Sheridan Gorman. whose mom Jessica is going to be testifying at 2 o'clock the day in our hearing. Now, legislation is a good idea. It will also run up against the realities of a Democrat filibuster or threat thereof in the Senate side, right? So there are limitations. This is good for the conversation. This is good to show people what sides of the issue Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill stand. But I would ask. You know, you know President Trump very well, and you are quite aware of what's going on with the executive branch, which has critical functions that are still underway here, critical missions that are underway to enforce the laws when it comes to immigration. Senator Markwayne Mullin, your former, well, Senate side, but congressional colleague, he was on TV over the weekend and said something about, well, there's all these Haitians who are no longer covered by TPS, but they can apply for other things. and see how that goes. People did not like that. Let me just ask you, are you hearing, and you would know because you talked to them, is the executive branch dialed in and ready to go with the kinds of enforcement operations that have been promised from the very beginning of the Trump presidency, i.e., are there major deportation operations that are coming? Yeah, and it's been over a million some that have been deported in President Trump's year and a half in office. And, of course, we've got the ruling on temporary protected status. And in simple terms, temporary means temporary. And I think it was someone who works at DHS was on doing an interview. And their statement was to folks is, look, you don't have to go back to your home country. You just can't stay here. That's pretty direct saying that people are going to have to leave. Now, are there other problems they can apply? I don't know exactly what those would be, but maybe they can claim something, but it seems to me then you're going to have to, you know, touch back and reapply and some kind of asylum or whatever you want to do. But yeah, I think that this administration has done what they've said they were going to do in enforcing the law.

and going after people who are here illegally, particularly ones who have committed crime. That's why this, again, I come back to the sanctuary jurisdiction, why this is such a stupid policy, and yet it's being embraced by the left, and it's currently in effect in about a third of the country. Well, is there a budgetary mechanism that, you know, that's where obviously the majority has much more leeway. I mean, we've heard about a possible withdrawal of funding. For example, there's actually a lot of federal law enforcement dollars that go into a lot of these sanctuary, really all of them, but major jurisdictions. And the federal government said, look, if you're not going to be helpful, we could pull back that funding. I mean, what are the other than the narrative, the discussion, the showing the American people what's going on? I know you're doing this hearing coming up. What are the levers that can actually be pulled so that sanctuary jurisdictions, if they're not going to change, at least feel the heat? Yeah, a good question. One is the power of the purse, which is the founders of vision that is being the primary power that the legislative branch would have. That element is in our bill that we've passed out of our committee on sanctuary jurisdiction. The other element is you say to law enforcement, you can't be, if local law enforcement, which a vast majority do, if they want to work with a federal law enforcement to enforce the law, and again, most of them do, then we give them immunity from being harassed and targeted by their... by their local political jurisdiction. And then third, we say, and this is the most powerful part, I think, in the legislation, we say, oh, to families like Ms. Gorman's mother, who's going to be testifying later today, we say, you have a cause of action to go against the city, against the political entity that allowed this to happen, who said it was okay to release bad guys, not work with ICE, and then they commit some crime and harm your family. You have a cause of action, private right of action, to go after them. So there's three key elements. in the legislation the money protecting of the law enforcement who want to work with federal law enforcement and the the private right of action for families who've been harmed now is that so that private right of action that would be a a statutory change where does that stand right now yes that'd be a statutory change it's in the legislation we pass from the committee we think this is going to be on the house floor we've been pushing for it we want to get it on the house floor and pass it um But we're making sure we got all the votes because I don't think we're going to get any help from the Democrats. Again, the Democrats have embraced this crazy concept. Is there anything else on the immigration front that you would like to see Congress take up, you know, putting aside for a moment the roadblock of the Senate without running roughshod over the filibuster, getting rid of it, whatever? Is there anything else that you think on this immigration issue deserves more attention at this stage? Because, I mean, I'm going to tell you something. A lot of people, Congressman. Feel a little dejected right now. You got to be kidding me. Anchor babies and birth tourism is enshrined in the Constitution according to a small majority in this court. That's a rough one. No, I understand. The main thing we want is this bill on sanctuary, city, sanctuary jurisdictions. We think that is the most important thing to pass. But as I said before, I do think it makes sense to codify, put into law things that Joe Biden was, to prevent the next Joe Biden from doing the things he did, like the catch and release.

Now, we don't have that happening under President Trump because he's actually, he's actually, you know, secured the board like he said. But it'd be nice to put things into law which make it more difficult for another Democrat if, you know, if it happens, we hope it doesn't. But if a Democrat gets back in the White House at some point, making it tough for them to do what Biden did. Can I ask you? So there's things that we can do in that. We're talking to Congress and Jim Jordan. I know you've got to go to a hearing in a second. Just one last one for you. I'm hearing from some of my people that there's concern. in the for the upcoming election for republicans in your home state of ohio particularly on this i'm really just talking about on the senate and gubernatorial side in those races is that stuff overblown can you just give us a little insight into we got good candidates uh the bake i think is great and we endorsed him early uh like him i think he's going to do a great job for our state and the same with senator he's dead But it's Ohio, you know, it's, it, and before President Trump come along, we were the Bellwether State. Now, President Trump has made us a Trump Republican state, but I do think the early polling shows that these races are real races, but I think we're going to win. We just, I think it's going to require President Trump coming to our state, which I'm sure he will do, and, and, you know, helping help him with turnout with Trump voters, Trump Republicans coming out to make sure they vote for Senator Houston and for Vivek Ramaswamy as our next governor. But I think we can win. And there's also a pickup opportunity. I think we had a good chance to beat Marcy Cappter in that Northwest Ohio, Toledo area congressional seat. I think we had a good chance there with our candidate, Derek Marin. So we're looking at all that. All right. We needed a little shot of optimism here at the end. So that's good. We can go to Congressman Jim Jordan for that one. Congressman Jim Jordan, appreciate you, sir. Have a great 250th, and we'll talk to you soon. You too. Take care. born on america's darkest day of nine eleven the tunnel to towers foundation has been helping america's heroes ever since heroes like detective victor vargas he dedicated his life to service he was a u s air force veteran who later became a detective in new york city after the nine eleven attacks victor joined the search and recovery efforts at ground zero It was a selfless act that would later cost him his life. In this 25th anniversary year of 9-11, we continue to see the toll that day is taking on heroes and their families. Victor fought pancreatic cancer with courage, leaving behind his wife, Adriana, and their four children. Tunnel to Towers honored Victor by paying off the Vargas family's mortgage. You can help more families like the Vargas family through Tunnel to Towers. Help bring hope and security to those who have given so much for us. Join us in donating $11 a month or amplify your impact with a car or land donation. Go to t2t.org. That's t the number two t.org. Learn. Hang with the guys. Right there when you need them most. Clay and Buck. Just preset them on the iHeard app. Welcome in everybody. Third hour of Clay and Buck starts right now. Joined in studio in NYC where I got the whole team here.

My friend Raphael Mangual is with us. He's got a book, which I'm looking at, is perfectly placed behind his head. You should go buy it. Criminal injustice. What the push for decarceration and depolicing gets wrong and who it hurts most is quite a subtitle, sir. Criminal injustice, though, a great book. You should get it. But before we know that, can I get your take? Because you follow all legal stuff, you follow immigration stuff. So the, I feel like I'm just going to guess. You probably think that a man is a man as a woman as a woman and you're probably on board for that. Easy peasy. Do not think macho man, Randy Savage, should be able to like stiff arm girls on the, on the, on the, you know, field hockey. Isn't that amazing? That's so good. That's so timeless, too, because. They did it to be like, come on, we all know that's crazy. And now they're like, no. Now there's, yeah, no, this is, that's real. There's like 240-pound guys with long hair who want to be like the female weightlifting champion. And, you know, it's like, I'm not here to talk about my transition. That's right. That's right. So anyway. But on the ruling today, birthright citizenship. I mean, just giving your take. And also, I want to, you have a really interesting story a little bit on your family legal, legal. It's an interesting story in your background, but what do you think about? Scotus coming down today saying, you know, birth tourism, for example, citizen, no question. Yeah, look, I mean, I'm more with the dissenters in this case. I think, you know, the constitutional question, though a hard one, I do think plays out in the direction that, you know, say Thomas and Samuel Alito and Gorsuch would have taken it. I was surprised to see the Chief Justice in the majority in that case. But look, it's a somewhat... you know, defensible position. I think, you know, Brett Kavanaugh really had kind of the best of it, you know, where he had the right, I think constitutional interpretation, but did take issue with the fact that this was done through executive order. I think it's... Saying it's up to Congress is I, I think that's... I think that's... I feel like, okay, that's... I can see that and that's real. Just saying that this is what the founders intended, which is really what the majority under John Roberts, I'm looking at this like, you guys have got to be kidding me. Yeah. Look, I mean, I think it's a much harder argument to make. I think there's some real interesting sort of idiosyncrasies in terms of like, you know, what the sort of founding era, not really founding era, right? Because these are reconstruction amendments. But, you know, what the... the drafters had in mind at that time. I don't think that it was as broad as they say it is. I think, you know, this idea that simply just being subject to the laws of the United States is enough. It's probably not right. But look, here's an opportunity for Congress to be serious, right? I mean, if this is a major national issue, well, there's only one course of action now. So at least it clarifies the scope of that debate. And the only move forward is something that's practically impossible, which is a constitutional amendment, which you're not going to get. So the audience may have figured out because your last name is Mangual, that you were not of the Mayflower Mangual. That's right. Not of the Mayflower Manguals. So you came here or your parents, rather, are immigrants to the country.

mother's an immigrant. My dad's from Puerto Rico. I'm sorry. Your mother's an immigrant to the country. Your dad, Puerto Rico is U.S. citizens. That's right. That is definitely, we know that. U.S. citizens. But tell this, it's really interesting about the DR. Tell about your dad. That was fascinating. My mom. I'm sorry. Your mom's side. Your mom's side. So my mom's side. My mom is a Dominican immigrant. Came to this country in the 60s legally. My grandfather came first. So it was one of those sort of traditional immigrant stories where, you know, he leaves his home country to set out for more opportunity here in the United States and then, you know, saves up enough to eventually send for the rest of his family, his wife and his kids. But the way that he was able to get his visa to come here in the first place legally was that he was helping out the U.S. Marines when they landed in the Dominican Republic in the 1960s in the wake of the overthrow of the Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo. um who was you know assassinated in i think 1961 and that threw the country into a state of tumult so there were all these sort of competing factions within the military and um my grandfather because he spoke english and had you admired america you know kind of played a couple of interesting roles in his community one was sort of you know, giving the rest of the neighborhood, you know, the news that was coming from the state. So they had this radio where they could listen to, you know, U.S.-based commentary about what was going on. And he could give an accurate take on that. But he could also help feed intelligence to, you know, the Marines. And that was, you know, how he was able to eventually get to this country, which he is a citizen of and loves deeply. Yeah, I was raised very patriotically. My mother became a citizen at the very first opportunity. And, you know, you know, always grew up in a house with an American flag. And, you know, it's, it's, it's interesting. I mean, you know, the Dominican nationality was actually in the news recently here in New York City. We had a congressional race, one of the three big DSA sweeps in the primaries. The socialist, just servants clear, the socialists. The socialists. So you had Dari Alisa Avila Chevalier. who ran for the seat in New York 13 against the incumbent, who is the head of the Hispanic caucus, Adriano Espaillat, and she beat him in a district that is heavily constituted by Dominican immigrants and Dominican descendants. What's interesting, though, is that she won that race while losing the Dominican vote. She won in the places. around Columbia University, around Barnet College. It was basically like grad students, and I believe black voters, too, actually, went for her over Espe, Espeyat. Yeah, who, and like both her and Adriano Espaillat share a Dominican origin, right? Her parents are Dominican. She was born in Florida. Adriano Espaillat is a Dominican immigrant actually came to this country, I think, illegally. You know, she was undocumented for a time. Yeah, but sort of rose to the range traditional American story. What was interesting is that her sort of socialist, you know, kind of leanings came into her old commentaries about the Dominican Republic itself, where she had actually said that Dominican nationalism was toxic, that it was anti-Hatian, that it was anti-Black, and she had made references to the Dominican flag as like this sign of violence, which actually put her on bad footing with the Dominican community who had.

rejected her pretty soundly. In fact, the morning of the primary, she ended up walking off of an interview on the biggest Spanish-speaking radio station in New York City because they pressed her about what she said about the Dominican flag and she refused to apologize. One thing that I have observed many times, but is always a complete... there's a befudlement and a shock that particularly white leftists have in this country when they find out that non-white people and other places around the world have their own beefs and bigotries and problems with each other and that's like even in the indian subcontinent there's racism sure among indians about skin color i mean it's you know it's far more complicated than just you know if you uh Uh, you know, if you look like Mitt Romney, you can be racist and nobody else can be racist, which is essentially what the, what the, yeah, even the Asian world, especially. Oh, my, yeah. One thing that I will tell you, I thought, sorry, I'm getting way off here. We're going to talk crime. His book is criminal injustice. Let's go buy copies of it. He's brilliant guy. It's why I have him here in studio. Um, but, uh, when I was in Taiwan this past, uh, September, um, there's a clear, I mean, there's a, uh, for advertisements. Yeah. They make, they make, the women, um, whiter than white I mean there's a there's they actually change people's skin color yeah as part of which it's a weird When you see it, you're like, what is that? But anyway, whole other car. Otherwise, I love Taiwan. Great place. But that was a little off-putting. But so tell me criminal injustice. Okay. So you're somebody that I go to when I'm like, hey, what's really going on with the crime scenario in this city or that city? What policies are working? What's not working? I mean, is the top line here basically the entire Democrat BLM, leftist movement, has just been wrong about everything, made everything worse for everybody and particularly made minorities suffer more? Like what? What is what here? Yes, yes, and yes. I mean, you know, the BLM movement has been one of the most toxic and most dangerous movements for Black America and the United States over the last several years. I mean, really starting in 2013, 2014, when that movement really kind of took off. What did they drive? They drove policies like decarceration, depolicing, bail reforms, you know, raised the age reforms, which kind of raised the age at which people can be held criminally responsible so you can't prosecute 16 and 17-year-olds in New York City anymore. essentially, right? You have to run them through family court and that means that they almost always get out. So you have all of these things that they did that essentially all went in one direction, which is they raise the transaction cost of enforcing the law and they lower the transaction costs of breaking the law. When that happens, Things go bad. You get more crime. And what I think is interesting about the moment that we're in right now is that everyone's making all of this hay about the fact that crime is, you know, going down, that homicides are going to reach their near low, you know, for however many years.

What's interesting is that for the last couple of years, especially, we have walked away from all of the reformist impulses that the BLM movement pushed. So we're seeing police around the country reassert themselves. We are seeing, you know, the incarceration rate go up. The prison population is going up for the first time and over a decade for the last two years. So, you know, I think we learned some lessons from that really toxic experiment. The one thing that I think don't think people appreciate enough is that the people who paid the highest price for the excesses of BLM were black Americans who saw the, I think they bore almost 95% of the homicide spike in 2020 and 21. Yeah, I think that that was actually part of the Rudy Giuliani, New York City miracle being so far reaching and so widely appreciated was that people did see based on the data. that there were thousands over the course of his tenure as mayor, you know, the entirety of it. But if you add it up, thousands of... overwhelmingly black and some Latino New York City residents who are alive walking around and enjoying themselves day to day, who would not have been there, were it not for the change in crime trajectory that affected those communities so dramatically? 100%. There's a study that I cite in the book. Patrick Sharkey was one of the authors, and I couldn't disagree with that guy more on policy, by the way. But it's an interesting study. What they did was they looked at the homicide decline between 1990 and 2014. And they looked at the effect of that decline on life expectancy by different racial groups. That decline added about 0.14 years of life expectancy to the average white man's life. It added a full year. of life expectancy to the average black man's life. And the reason that I brought that up in the book is it poses a very simple question, which is if the BLM movement is right and the criminal justice system is racist and the policing is racist, and aggressive prosecution is racist and high incarceration rates are racist. All of the things that contributed to that decline, by the way, why on earth with the system that's allegedly racist toward black men in particular so disproportionately almost exclusively benefit that same group? When it achieves its state lens. Ask any police chief in the country. What are you going after? I want to control crime. Ask any law and order to prosecute. Why are the evil racist cops saving so many black lives by actually policing communities? Every single time a cop gets out of a car and chases a bad guy down a dark alley who might or may not have a gun, they're subordinating their own safety. To who? To the communities that they serve. It's not rich white communities that have a problem with these mass gunmen. They are putting their lives on the line for precisely the communities that we're all supposed to believe that they hate. So, I mean, I could ask you questions for hours. I kind of do. I text him randomly. He's one of these people, I'm like, explain this. He's like, I'm trying to sleep. I'm with my family. I'm like, tell me what's going on with crime in Philadelphia these days. And I appreciate that you're very quick on the draw with giving me your best analysis on some of this stuff. So I've got one of those moments, though.

You look at El Salvador. Yeah. Incredible. I mean, incredible miraculous level turnaround. How is it that any criminologist, anyone who operates in your world of like, let's look at the facts and figures and come up with what actually works, what is their response to, hey, if you actually just lock up the bad people, everyone is safer? Yeah, no, they'll ignore it. They'll say, well, they'll either ignore it or they'll lean into, you know, the kind of due process concerns. Well, you know, we can't just sweep 70,000 people up in one fell swoop and lock them up. We have to give them all fair trials and blah, blah, blah. And you wouldn't want to live in that kind of country with that kind of power. And look, I get it, right? Like there are legitimate due process concerns, right? That wouldn't work in the United States with the system that we have. But the key insight from El Salvador is that incarceration works, man. It works. There's a tweet that the RNC research account put out that I responded to yesterday. It was like a clip of Zohran Mamdani back before he was a mayoral candidate talking about prisons and the need to abolish them. And he said, well, what purpose do they serve? And so I just quoted the tweet and said very simply, it's a very easy question to answer. They serve the purpose of incapacitation. Somebody who is locked up in a prison cell cannot harm anybody in the communities that they would otherwise spend their time in. That's the key. That's what prison does effectively. Now, there are secondary and tertiary, you know, purposes that prison serves like deterrence and, you know, punishment and even rehabilitation, which I think is mostly a pipe dream because we have no idea how to do it, let alone how to do it at scale. But the key is, it's to take people who are in the throes of a criminal career and take them off the street to physically incapacitate them. When you look at homicide or any serious crime category in this country, what do you see over and over and over again, whether it's Arena Zarutka or. Whatever kind of case makes it use. It's the guy had 15 priors. The guy had 20 priors. The guy was out on parole. The guy was out on probation. And so regular Joe's in public, they ask themselves the same question, which is what the hell is this person doing out on the street? Why? Why are they there? And the answer too often is that we just didn't have the stomach to do what was necessary. They have the requisite criminal history. They have the convictions. We just chose not to put him in prison for a really long time. And if you do that, you end up protecting a lot of people. And what El Salvador illustrates is that it works. And we know this. Yeah, I feel like we've run this experiment. The data is in. And there are people just like, nope, sorry. Yeah. Well, it makes them feel good, right? I mean, these people have convinced themselves that they are moral superiors, right? And they, the truth is, is they don't have to live with the consequences of crime going up, right? They don't live on the south or west side of Chicago. They don't live, you know, in the southwestern district of Baltimore. They don't live in Brownsville, Brooklyn. They don't have to deal with the fallout, right? They would never send their kids to school in these neighborhoods. They only drive through these neighborhoods at 55 miles now. Any Democrat who wants to talk about criminal justice policy. who is of means, should explain. Where do you send your kid to school, by the way? I'm always, you'd be amazed, everybody, what that shows you. Criminal injustice is the book. Rafael Menguel is the author. Go get a copy of it. Be smarter on crime stuff than all your lib friends. You'll drive them insane. Rafael will help you make the arguments that they will not be able to defeat. Criminal injustice, go get it. Manhattan Institute, they're your employer. They're smart. They're smart. They're smart than me. They're smart to employ you because you do work. All right. Thank you, Raphael. Thank you.

There are entire books written about which foods are best for people, why they work and why they won't work or don't work. But none of those books can specifically take your body's unique chemistry into account. Viome is the company making sense of all this. They pay attention to your gut health and what foods and supplements your body digest and accepts best. If your DNA is the blueprint, your RNA shows what's actually happening. That's where Viome comes in. They have a simple at-home gut health test. uses advanced RNA technology to analyze your gut microbiome. So you know how it really functions. And then they create a personalized food and supplement plan designed specifically for your body. Look, I've had food issues. As you know, I have celiac disease. I've had to really dial in on my food situation to understand what sits well with me, what doesn't. Instead of guessing, you can go to Viome and get data. on our data based on the real facts okay go to viome.com that's via's in victory v i o m e.com use code cb 50 to get $50 off viome v i o'me dot com code cb 50 for $50 off level up your brain mental mugging with clay and buck well i think it's a big threat to our nation because it's not socialism it's really communism they use the word social democrat because it sounds so nice but It's really communism you're talking about. I think it's the biggest threat to our nation. There is, maybe since our founding. That includes World War I, World War II, September 11th. It includes the Pearl Harbor attack. I think this is the biggest threat. To our nation, people will smile when I say that, but the smart people are going to say, you know, it's probably right. It's basically introducing communism into the United States of America. There's never been anything so dangerous. Never been something so dangerous as communism to the United States. You know, I am pretty amazed at how often. When I have this conversation, I do like to sit around and just talk about history and things like that with people. I don't know. In my personal life, I don't really spend a lot of time talking about politics. I do that so much here, a little bit. But I do like to just talk about history sometimes. I mean, in social settings, you know, with people I don't know that well. But. When I tell them that communism had the single greatest death of far beyond, in terms of death toll, fascism in the 20th century, people sort of push back on it in their heads. They go, no, that can't be. That can't be. You know, what about the horrors of when we say fascism? We really mean. Nazism and in Germany in the World War II era. And of course that's absolutely terrible, very obviously horrific. But you start looking at Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and then a whole bunch of other places that people don't often think, well, Cuba certainly gets into the mix of Angola. I mean, there are all these different places.

um vietnam that have been completely poisoned by communism and how many lives have been ruined and destroyed and the fact that in that environment you could have people today who are certainly speaking with a communist twang if not aligning with all of their policy proposals. There's something about these so-called Democrat socialists that you immediately start to say, hold on a second. What is so different about what they want from what not the results were in these other countries, but what in the early days they said they were going to do universal child care? equal sharing of blessings for everybody no one goes without everyone has what they need right to each according to his need from each according to his ability whatever something like that and i i do think that it's important for the president to be willing to just speak about this and address this i hate when they play these games It's really, it's just like a hide, hide the football game, you know, of, oh, it's not, they're not socialist, they're democratic socialist. They're not communist, they're socialist. They're not, you know, they're not collectivists, they're progressives. They like to try to hide in the jargon and the, uh, the pseudoscientific nature of the way that they talk about these things. But ultimately. They have a belief that you do not have individual rights, that the state is in place of God, and their aims to make society better, whatever that may be, require as much power as they want, and however many eggs they've got a break to make that omelet, they're willing to do. That's really what it comes down to. This is why communism is more religion, actually, than a political belief system. It is a it is both. I mean, it is a political belief system, but also a religion at the same time because it requires a faith. It requires people to dispense with what they know of history and to forget the lessons of history intentionally, to suppress them, to ignore them. This time it will be different. The real stuff has never been tried. We have seen so much of this. And I think it's... It's very concerning, honestly, that this is rising. You might say, Buck, why do we care so much? There are other places where this stuff, I mean, in this country, there is a person who's running in Colorado right now, who I believe called the 9-11 terror attacks inevitable due to U.S. policy. There was a piece yesterday, quote, after victories in New York City. Democratic socialists are taking their fight against the Democratic establishment to Colorado. I think it's also interesting. They've created this term, this democratic socialist. Socialists? There are plenty of places, you know, socialist states that claim to be democratic, that have elections. So why do they have to have this designation? They're trying to create really an artificial...

separation from this. So there are other places across the country, other places across the country where this is now also having a moment, having its time in the sun heading into a midterm election. And I am reminded of this quote from Pat Buchanan, which I will share with you all now. and there's a lot a lot of stuff you go back to read pat i've done that i've i've uh i've been a fan of the of of the buchanan uh writing for a long time he's he wrote this wherever communism has triumph triumphed churches have been gutted priests massacred and children indoctrinated into their communist lies the family has been subordinated to the state and the betrayal of friends has become a matter of duty man that nails it totally true really hits on a lot of it as well. It's why I know Rush loved the movie The Lives of Others, so true, such a good movie, because it really gets to that the core of the communist project, the collectivist authoritarian ideology is the cause is more important than everything. It is more important than your love for your own children. It is more important than your love for your parents or your spouse or... It has to override everything because it will inherently fail and do terrible things along the way. And you have to find the people that are engaged in it in the communism, if you will, they need some way to justify what they are doing. The only way you can justify the atrocities that communism always falls into along the way is to create. a ends justify the means and this means more than anything reality oh boy i'm saying this now i'm going to get texts about this congress revisits cia mk ultra program oh boy oh boy i looked into mk ultra for my book guys if we could do the stuff that people think the cia could do don't you think we'd do it a lot more Oh, I know. People are going to get mad. People are getting mad. People can't decide if the CIA is like a bunch of worthless bureaucrats sitting around doing nothing or a team of evil geniuses who can create Manchurian candidates at will. It's really a lot. It's honestly a lot of people punching into a clock who were like, yeah, I'm going to write some emails and get out of here as soon as I can today. That's the reality of it. For the most part, for most of the people work there. But back to the communism thing, the fact that Trump is speaking out and I think is a good thing. There's also a, I just want to get to this guy, I'd mention at the top of the show. As you know, the big deal today was birthright citizenship upheld by the court, which is, I think, madness, but it is what it is. This is where we are. The...

slow dissolution of our republic, it seems, continues, at least as it pertains to sovereignty and immigration. But we're going to keep fighting, and we'll figure it out. We will figure it out. But there's this other, the transgender case, that was the right ruling. Although I do think the reality here is, it should be shocking to anyone that someone on the Supreme Court could sit there and say, You know what? There really should be men competing against women's sports, and that doesn't somehow break down the distinction between men and women's sports. That is troubling. So we have the right outcome, but it also should not really put you at ease because they're not giving up on this. They're not going to walk away from this. But here's the case today, National Republican Senatorial Committee. This is the other one versus federal election committee. So the NRC versus the FEC. Six-three ruling, I think you can guess who the three are. The court struck down longstanding federal limits under the Federal Election Campaign Act on the amount political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates for federal office. These are known as coordinated party expenditure limits. So parties had faced caps on spending when done in coordination with a candidate. These were being treated like direct contributions to prevent circumvention of those contribution limits and reduce corruption risks. This comes from the post-Watergate reforms. It's been upheld by Supreme Court back in 2001. So the court... opinion by Brett Kavanaugh held these limits violate the First Amendment. Political spending is protected speech. The limits are not justified by anti-corruption interests in light of evolving campaign finance precedents. So there you go. Totally ideological lines, by the way, the three communists on the court saying, no, we want to keep this. We want to keep these restrictions in place. There's always this trend about the left in America. They want more power. than the right does because they will use it because the notion that people can live freely and in liberty and make more and more of their own choices upsets the left you're not supposed to you're supposed to be a part of the hive mind and you're supposed to go along with whatever they want That is what they would like to see. They do not believe that there is a liberty interest that is more important than their state, big estate project. Trump, by the way, I was trying to find this before on Truth Social. He wrote, the Supreme Court just took restrictions off political spending, all caps. A big win for Republicans and more importantly, the First Amendment. So he's very happy about this. and the Republicans are pleased about this because the Democrats always want to be able to infringe on speech for their own political purposes. They see no problem with it. They can live with the cognitive dissonance easily. They can say, well, yeah, you know, this is free speech, except what you're saying is so bad, it's not covered.

And they never see a problem with this. I mean, it's emotion driven. It's, once again, ends justify the means. But they like to be in a position to abuse the First Amendment so they can stay in power. And none of this should be really all that surprises. So that was a good decision, right? I'm trying to bring you up with a, or bring into the picture here a good decision. And that is something that we can all be happy with for a second. Look at that. Trump is very happy about it. So you've got two good minor decisions today pretty much. I don't know. The trans one, if they had gone against us on the trans one, then it would be smoke them if you got them. The Republic is finished. Nothing means anything anymore. You know, up is down. We are living in the, you know, in an alternate universe. So yes, I'm glad that's not the case, but it's tough to get too excited about that with the trans athlete case. But on the, yeah, the birthright citizenship today, it was a little bit of a tough one. A little bit of a tough one. We'll come back here and talk about pride in America and the 250th and how much we love this great country of ours. But do the others? Do the Democrats. There's some data on this that I think you will find quite interesting. If you're a camper or an outdoorsy person, you need to get some rapid radios. These are like the walkie-talkies we played with as kids, except they utilize the nationwide LTE network. So no matter where you are, easy to connect. Just push a button and talk instantly over thousands of miles with crystal clear audio. They're 100% private with 256-bit encryption. So no one can listen in. For all the times you find yourself in a dead cell zone or a remote spot where service is limited, having rapid radios keeps you connected. They're small and durable and the battery lasts up to five days. Great for summer road trips. Rapid radios don't require you to sign a contract. There are no monthly fees, just a reasonable annual renewal fee. Go online to rapid radios.com slash bundle for their massive buy more, save more event. When you buy two radios, you get one completely free. Have more people to take into consideration? Buy four and get... Too free. Every bundle includes a full year of service and free shipping. Keep your family connected the easy way. Visit rapid radios.com slash bundle. That's rapid radios.com slash bundle. Level up your brain and balance out your day with the right amount of information and entertainment. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on the IHartRadio app or wherever you get your podcast.