The robed resistance and being above the law (04-28-2025--Hour1)

[00:00:04] What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to 3 on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content, like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to thepetekalendershow.com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button, get every episode for free, write your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support.

[00:00:29] So the robed resistance, the robed resistance, I was happy to see Politico actually acknowledged that this is a real thing, that this is occurring. Not that I needed Politico to affirm my observation, but considering what we heard at the White House Correspondents Association gala the other night about how

[00:00:57] media, you know, needs to admit if they've made mistakes and they gave an award to Alex Thompson because he alone was the only reporter who could determine that Joe Biden may be slipping a little bit.

[00:01:10] And he did this story before anybody else months after the election and the coup. But I just feel like it's good to acknowledge when somebody in a legacy or mainstream media outlet like this that covers the White House, covers politics, that they that they recognize the thing that is obvious to us all. It's good. It's good. Right. It's a shared it's a shared sense of what is occurring.

[00:01:40] Right. A lot of people lament back in the olden times when we only had three TV stations, everybody had a shared sense of what is true and what is not because the media acts as gatekeepers. It is, by definition, a gatekeeping kind of operation and industry. And I'm not saying that as a slur. I am a gatekeeper as well.

[00:02:05] You are, too, on your social media. You don't retweet and repost every single thing. OK, well, some of you do. I know who you are. But some some people just regurgitate everything. But not everything. Right. They don't post things that they don't agree with usually. So everybody is acting as sort of an aggregator and a gatekeeper. And the media has done this since its inception.

[00:02:32] That's the core function is to look at the universe of stories that are out there and then to aggregate down the things that are most important that you're going to now devote your time and energy to reporting on. But the downside of that, obviously, is that, yes, you may have a shared sense of what is true and real and what's happening in the world.

[00:03:00] But the gatekeeping function restricts other stories that might actually be as important or more important than the stories that the gatekeepers have allowed to pass through. So, again, kudos to Politico for writing. One of the most powerful wings of the Trump resistance may be at risk of losing a crucial tool.

[00:03:30] What is this? Nationwide injunctions, a.k.a. lawfare. Democrats, lefty groups suing in front of allied judges and getting temporary restraining orders or injunctions against Donald Trump's executive orders or actions.

[00:03:54] And it blocks Trump from implementing his agenda because they cannot block him at the legislature. You know, they lost the White House. And so this is the only thing that they can do to gum up the works and run out the clock. And that is the point here. Right. It's to drag everything out so long that Trump's tenure ends before he is able to implement lasting change.

[00:04:23] They ask the question, what is the extent of lower court judges power to block a president's policies nationwide? That's the core question that the U.S. Supreme Court now has agreed to hear arguments on next month.

[00:04:44] If the high court grants the Trump administration's request to limit or lift three nationwide injunctions blocking his bid to end birthright citizenship, it could cripple the ability of President Donald Trump's opponents to seek and judges ability to grant these blocks entirely. Right. It's it's getting worse. Right. This these abuses are getting worse.

[00:05:12] And more voluminous. Partly because Donald Trump has been doing a lot of stuff. Right. When you're cranking out executive orders at a clip like we're seeing, then you're going to get a commensurate amount of lawsuits that are going to be venue shopped to judges that agree with the Democrats, the plaintiffs, and and then you're going to end up with more and more and more of these injunctions.

[00:05:37] And I think, you know, part of the problem in kind of going over this topic is that sometimes. It is appropriate. Sometimes you should be able to do this, but sometimes you shouldn't. And so you've got to differentiate on a case by case basis. It is sort of a Cloward Piven effect. Right. The old sociologists who came up with this this plan back in the 60s.

[00:06:05] The idea being to overwhelm the entire system with applicants for all sorts of government assistance and payments. And the idea is to strain, if not bankrupt, the system in order to force a collectivist shift among the elites to allow for, among other things, a guaranteed income for people to not even work. Just everybody gets a guaranteed income. That was one of the that was one of the end goals.

[00:06:33] Politico says federal judges across the country have already applied the remedy to halt key parts of the president's agenda in lawsuits challenging anti-diversity initiatives, cuts to federal medical research, the pause on refugee admissions, and a freeze on nearly all federal grant spending. Such limits on the executive branch, according to the Trump administration, prevent the government from functioning properly. And they are correct about that.

[00:07:03] Right. An administration that comes in and says, you know, we're promising to do X, Y and Z when we're in charge of the administration or the executive branch and is then blocked from doing those things. Yes. Right. You are preventing the government from functioning properly. Right.

[00:07:25] President Joe Biden's Department of Justice also asked the Supreme Court to limit lower courts nationwide injunction powers, because once again, remember, the other team gets an at bat. They get to play, too. And the Biden administration tried to stop states from blocking actions by the federal government that these Republican led states opposed.

[00:07:54] So, you know, three years ago, this was the argument being made by the Biden administration. The justices at the time did not take up that request. Conservative members of the court have been public, though, about their desire to restrain the broad applications of nationwide injunctions. Right.

[00:08:14] Because some of these lawyers with the wardrobe change, these lefty lawyers that win judgeships or get appointed to the bench, they are abusing their powers. That's why it's called lawfare. All right. So spring is here, a time of renewal and celebrations. You got graduations, weddings, anniversaries and the special days for mom and dad. Your family's making memories that are going to last a lifetime.

[00:08:40] But let me ask you, are all of those treasured moments from days gone by? Are they hidden away on old VCR tapes, eight millimeter films, photos, slides? Are they preserved? Because over time, these precious memories can fade and deteriorate, losing the magic of yesterday. At Creative Video, they help you protect what matters most. Their expert team digitizes your cherished family moments and transfers them onto a USB drive, freezing them in time so they can be enjoyed for generations to come.

[00:09:09] I urge you, do not wait until it's too late. This spring, celebrate your past. Visit Creative Video today and let them preserve your legacy with the love and care that it deserves. Creative Video, preserving family memories since 1997. Located in Mint Hill, just off 485. Mail orders are accepted too. Get all the details at createavideo.com.

[00:09:32] So Politico, kudos to Politico for recognizing that the lawfare is one of the most powerful wings of the Trump resistance. And they may be losing a crucial tool. The ability to go in front of a single judge that hates Donald Trump, who then issues an injunction to prevent Trump from doing stuff. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to take this up.

[00:10:00] They could declare that trial judges can enter injunctions that apply only in the geographic districts where they are appointed. So if you take your case to Charlotte and you win, it would only affect whatever jurisdiction Charlotte covers. That's it. Or the Supreme Court might restrict trial judges from issuing remedies that go beyond the specific litigants in a particular case.

[00:10:28] So if I were to bring a challenge, a complaint, and I win, the Supreme Court could say, well, it only applies to me. You can't create an entire class of plaintiffs that haven't been designated as an official class. And that takes time. Think like class action lawsuits, you know. You got to put out all the postcards. You got to send them all out.

[00:10:56] You got to get people to sign up. And then you got to kind of vet everybody. And then if you're successful, you get like, you know, $1.82 in some settlement, right? Three members of the high court's right flank have already made clear they would all but eliminate lower court's power to issue nationwide injunctions. Those justices would be Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.

[00:11:22] Because last year they wrote an opinion, Gorsuch wrote an opinion, the other two signed on, warning that injunctions and other relief should be limited to the named plaintiffs in a case rather than applying across the country. Gorsuch wrote, quote,

[00:11:50] Okay, so what is he saying there? He's saying that these lower court Democrat judges have abused their authority. They have usurped the norms, right? This power traditionally was very, very limited. The use of it was very limited. But in recent years, it has grown more and more prolific, more and more sweeping, right?

[00:12:20] Covering the entire country. I mean, heck, you got that guy, Bosberg, on the bench up in what, D.C. or New York. He's like now broken the boundaries of America. He's demanding El Salvador do stuff. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also has indicated that the court should review the appropriateness of nationwide injunctions. But that doesn't give us any indication as to which way he may go on this, right?

[00:12:50] And I don't put a whole lot of stock in predictions on how justices are going to rule on various things. People make all sorts of speculations, you know, court watchers say that it looked like this was going to happen. You don't know that. Okay? The wild cards are John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, because they have not offered clear signs yet of what their views on this subject are.

[00:13:20] So if you were to get rid of nationwide injunctions, there could be real costs, according to Rick Hassan, a prominent election law expert at UCLA's law school. A fave of the left. He described a scenario in which Trump's efforts to end automatic birthright citizenship is upheld in one circuit court, but not in another, leaving people in one region of the country who are going to face consequences during that period.

[00:13:47] Sometimes consequences that might not be undone. Right? Right? So, yeah, you live in California, and you're an illegal alien, and you have a child, and now that child is a citizen. But you live in Arkansas, and same thing, but now that kid is not a citizen. Right?

[00:14:06] It's going to create problems because you'll have all of these different circuits with different ideas and different rulings, and so the application of those laws then are different for those people in those jurisdictions. Abolishing these national injunctions would mean a tougher fight for the many groups suing the administration, if only because it will add to the constant legal uncertainty and chaos that sometimes enables Trump's policies. Right?

[00:14:33] Well, there's another reason it makes it more difficult for these groups is that they actually have to go and litigate in front of multiple different judges across the country. It limits their ability to venue shop, forum shop, judge shop. Right? They now have to make these arguments to a wide array of judges in different areas of the country with different judicial philosophies, and you may get different results.

[00:15:02] See, that's why it would be difficult for these groups. During the time it takes for cases to percolate all the way up to this U.S. Supreme Court, the administration would have authority to continue policies and practices that some courts have already temporarily put on hold. Hassan said, quote, part of the problem is that Trump is doing so many things that are extraordinary that lead to litigation that have to be resolved on an emergency basis. See? It's Trump's fault.

[00:15:30] It's Trump's fault that we have to sue him for trying to, you know, follow immigration law or something. And that's how you end up also with these crazy judges like the one that got herself arrested up in Minnesota, I believe, or, yeah, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Yeah. Here's a great idea.

[00:15:54] How about making an escape to a really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina, just a quick drive up the mountain? And Cabins of Asheville is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon, maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get family and friends together for a big old reunion, Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that truly matter.

[00:16:18] Nestled within the breathtaking 14,000 acres of the Pisgah National Forest, their cabins offer a serene escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally located between Asheville and the entrance of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, it's the perfect balance of seclusion and proximity to all the local attractions.

[00:16:36] With hot tubs, fireplaces, air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi-Fi, grills, outdoor tables, and your own private covered porch, choose from 13 cabins, 6 cottages, 2 villas, and a great lodge with 11 king-sized bedrooms. Sometimes Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you for any occasion, and they have pet-friendly accommodations.

[00:16:57] Call or text 828-367-7068, or check out all there is to offer at cabinsofashville.com and make memories that'll last a lifetime. I'm actually going to talk with Will Chamberlain. He is the senior counsel at the Article III Project. Will, how are you, sir? Good. Great to be with you, Pete. Yes, sir. Thanks for making time for me. I appreciate it today. So I went over a little bit.

[00:17:20] Politico had a recent article going over how the U.S. Supreme Court is going to look at these nationwide injunctions, but it's part of this case over birthright citizenship. And so I guess the first question I've got is, is this even something that the Supreme Court can actually rein in?

[00:17:41] Because it feels like these lower court judges are abusing their powers, and I don't know how the Supreme Court would actually get at that to codify it. I mean, if they – you know, the Supreme Court has a lot of discretion, at least with regard to, you know, essentially the procedures of the courts below them, certainly, and, you know, what authority they have to issue injunctions.

[00:18:06] I mean, equity, which is where all this comes from, is really a judge-made concept. It's judge-made law. So, I mean, obviously Congress could put a stop to it too and, you know, impose restrictions on the lower courts. That's within their authority. But I think the Supreme Court could do the same thing. So how would that look if you've got different district courts issuing different rulings? You could have like a patchwork of the application of the law throughout the country, right?

[00:18:36] Yeah, but that's already the case. I mean, that's actually the way the law works now in a lot of different instances, right? There's a lot of cases where you have people start disagreeing with each other on a point of law, and that's often ultimately leads to the Supreme Court stepping in to try and make the law uniform across the country. But the idea that, I mean, yeah, there are certainly issues where the law is functionally different in different circuits and probably will be until the Supreme Court gets a chance to weigh in in a proper case.

[00:19:04] I got an email question from Chris. He says, what executable accountability is there if the injunctions are ignored, I guess, by the administration? I mean, accountability? Nothing. I mean, there's no other than the accountability is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. The president is the head of the executive branch and in charge of all federal law enforcement.

[00:19:34] There's no independent enforcement agency above the president that could force him to obey the Supreme Court. There is just the remedy of impeachment. So do you think that that is that sort of the second goal of the law fair that we're seeing is to induce this refusal to follow an injunction in order to then, you know, stack up a case for impeachment if the Democrats win back control? That might be part of it.

[00:20:03] Yeah, I think that I could easily see that being the logic, you know, basically try and get to a point where you essentially force the administration to defy a court order because the court order is lawless. The court order doesn't respect the court article to prerogatives. And then in a couple of years, we could see, yeah, we could see some sort of impeachment attempt based on that. So what's your assessment of this fight?

[00:20:26] Does it rise to the constitutional crisis level or is this sort of like a natural testing and pushing back one branch against another? I think it's more, you know, the push and pull of an executive branch that's finally decided to assert its authority and the judicial branch being staffed with a bunch of people who despise the president and are trying to push back on that.

[00:20:50] I think that's really, I've said this before, but the constitutional crisis is being created by some unbelievably aggressive district court rulings. Are there any that particularly stand out? Oh, I mean, there was there was the order by the D.C. district judge to turn planes around. The planes were already in midair.

[00:21:09] There was a different D.C. judge who ordered USAID to disperse funds without a bond wildly outside his jurisdiction because, you know, and jurisdiction is sort of a routine theme where it's like courts don't actually have the authority to issue the relief they're issuing. So, you know, a D.C. district judge doesn't have the right to demand that funds be dispersed because it's a contract matter and that goes to the court of federal claims. The D.C. judge who ordered planes turned around didn't have jurisdiction because it's a hideous issue.

[00:21:36] So it needs to be brought in the court where the person is being held or was most recently held. So you have this consistent problem where district judges are like, oh, the Trump administration is violating the law. And then they're violating the law themselves because they're not even looking at whether they have the authority to issue a decision in the first place. Do you think that Trump and the administration should consider looking at suspending habeas for deportees? I mean, they should look at it.

[00:22:03] I think I don't think it's necessary, but there's a world in which it's I mean, that is the underlying in a world where the Supreme Court imposes unbelievably onerous restrictions on individual deportations. I think that'll be necessary. I just I think that there's a there's a Democratic legitimacy problem. When President Trump was elected to engage in mass deportation, he ran on the platform. The Biden administration facilitated a mass invasion.

[00:22:27] If the judiciary is going to for the Democratic will of the people on an issue out this central to our country, then I think that, you know, the president should look at all options available to him to achieve what he ran on and what he legitimately should have the right to do. Yeah. All right. Let me shift gears up to Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan.

[00:22:48] This is the this is the judge that apparently helped an illegal criminal, violent criminal, illegal alien helped him escape out the back door to avoid arrest by ICE. She then got herself arrested for that obstruction. I would say, have you ever heard of anything like this? But I think we actually did hear about something like this during Trump's first term when a different judge did a similar thing.

[00:23:11] I guess it speaks to sort of the same kind of mindset that has infected a lot of these leftist lawyers with wardrobe changes. Yeah, I mean, in a sense, it's a really great metaphor for what the federal judiciary is doing as well. The difference is the federal judiciary has lawful authority to decide cases so they can't be prosecuted for just deciding a case incorrectly and thereby protecting illegal aliens.

[00:23:39] But this state court judge didn't have any authority to do anything like that and yet took it upon herself to, yeah, shove this person through the jury door and try and help them get out of the building before ICE got them. Right. Have you have you read the details like who else like the victims were in the court with them and saw this all play out? Like, it's just it's it's an amazing just tone deaf thing to do, just offensive thing to do for an officer of a court.

[00:24:07] Yeah, it was incredibly audacious. I mean, just in the level of entitlement, you know, I've been reading a lot about immigration recently in the sort of history of the asylum movements and a lot of the NGOs that work in immigration. And you have to understand these people think they're like Harriet Tubman running the Underground Railroad. They just they they just they think their farts not stick. They think they're so righteous that the law is just there as a tool to be used, but it's not something they need to obey because their righteous cause is more important than the law.

[00:24:37] Yeah, it's it really is. It really is amazing. Thank goodness the the ICE folks caught the guy outside the courthouse. We're having we had a similar thing happen right here in Charlotte last week. Our sheriff confronted some ICE agents that were picking somebody up outside the courthouse, which, of course, now they're allowed to do like the ICE agents are allowed to affect these arrests on public property.

[00:25:01] As long as it's not inside of a courtroom, I believe, if it's out in the hallways or out on the courtyard, they can do this. Yeah, there's not. It's it's this is the United States of America. You know, the state of North Carolina is not independently sovereign. We don't get to tell federal authorities to go away. That's not how this works. Like most basic part of the Constitution is the supremacy clause. The federal government is supreme to the states. There are certain rights reserved to the states.

[00:25:28] But when federal authorities are engaged in federal law enforcement, i.e. immigration enforcement, the states don't get to tell them go away. I mean, outside of like the limited context of inside a courtroom. Right. Which I think we can all understand why if you're, you know, running a court, that would make sense. You don't want to be, you know, tackling people and arresting them right in front. But it's a controlled environment. It just makes sense. It's the courthouse or it's the jail. Like that's the safest place to take somebody into custody.

[00:25:57] It's it's bizarre. Right. You don't have to go to their house. You don't have to go with with guns. You know, they're they've been disarmed. They're right. You know, they're around other law enforcement. Like it's a very safe place to affect arrests, which is why it's perfectly sensible for ICE to want to do it in a courthouse. Yeah. Will Chamberlain, the senior counsel at the Article three project. Good to talk with you, sir. Thanks a lot for your insight. Appreciate it. Absolutely. Always. All right. All right. If you're listening to this show, you know, I try to keep up with all sorts of current events.

[00:26:25] And I know you do, too. And you probably heard me say get your news from multiple sources. Why? Well, because it's how you detect media bias, which is why I've been so impressed with Ground News. It's an app and it's a Web site and it combines news from around the world in one place. So you can compare coverage and verify information. You can check it out at check.ground.news.com. Slash Pete. I put the link in the podcast description, too.

[00:26:52] I started using Ground News a few months ago and more recently chose to work with them as an affiliate because it lets me see clearly how stories get covered and by whom. The blind spot feature shows you which stories get ignored by the left and the right. See for yourself. Check.ground.news.com. Subscribe through that link and you'll get 15 percent off any subscription. I use the Vantage plan to get unlimited access to every feature.

[00:27:19] Your subscription then not only helps my podcast, but it also supports Ground News as they make the media landscape more transparent. I do not know what airport this is, but they hung like a 20 by 20 foot painting of Icarus on fire falling from the sky. Why would you do that in an airport? Why? Kind of awkward.

[00:27:41] I mean, not as awkward as, I don't know, say a Bill Belichick interview on Sunday mornings, but also, did you see the scandal about Donald Trump's blue suit? He wore a blue suit to the Pope's funeral. And like somebody took a cropped shot photograph. Everybody around him wearing black. Trump's wearing blue. And you're not supposed to wear a blue suit.

[00:28:10] And then when you zoom out, you see like Prince William wearing a blue suit. You see like all these other people wearing dark blue suits as well. Now, I don't know if it raises to the the scandalous level of Obama's tan suit, which was scandalous. Whereas Ronald Reagan's tan suit was pretty norm. But yeah, I don't know. Maybe you know what?

[00:28:34] Maybe Trump goes with the tattered like grass mowing sweatshirt that Bill Belichick wore during his interview. Like, do that, too. Like, just start wearing that. I don't do not get it. All right. So protesters were out there protesting, as they are known to do, outside the FBI after in Milwaukee.

[00:29:00] After agents arrested a Milwaukee judge accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities. The case has escalated. That's the word. Escalation. That's the word.

[00:29:21] If you don't believe me, here is a compilation put together by Western Lensman over on Twitter of the calcifying narrative. We begin tonight with the escalation in the president's crackdown on illegal immigration. Today is dramatic escalation in the Trump administration's conflict with judges. The Trump administration signaling a major escalation in its deportation efforts. Today, an escalation in the Trump administration's battle with the judiciary.

[00:29:50] Tensions between local and federal authorities over President Trump's immigration crackdown escalated today. We begin this hour with a major escalation of the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration. We begin with what appears to be a major escalation in the Trump administration's deportation efforts. And what is a major escalation in the battle here in D.C. over immigration and deportation? This feels like an insane and reckless escalation from the Trump administration arresting a judge.

[00:30:19] I will tell you, you are not alone. It's a dramatic escalation. More aggressive moves. More escalation. Trump's escalation of his migrant purge. This kind of escalatory action. This is a dramatic escalation. Escalation. Escalation. Escalation. Escalation. Escalation. We see an immigration. An escalation. An escalation. Props to the guy who used the, what was it? Escalatory. Escalatory or something word.

[00:30:47] I didn't want to say escalation. There is a reason why they all are saying the same thing. It's because somebody wrote it. Probably the AP. I have the AP article here in second sentence. The case has escalated a clash. Has it? Is this an escalation? Or is this the results of your own actions?

[00:31:11] When a judge breaks a law, then law enforcement goes in and arrests the judge. Just like the judge down in, where was it? Arizona or something? Or California? California, where the judge and his wife asked if some MS-13 or TDA gangbanger guy wanted to stay in their pool house.

[00:31:38] I don't know if he was actually cleaning the pool while he was there. But to me, if you're breaking the law and you're aiding and embedding, obstructing or harboring a wanted person, whether they're illegal or not, it's not an escalation to then arrest you for doing that. It is the natural outcome of your actions, right? It's the reaping phase.

[00:32:09] All right, let me jump over here. We'll say John Doe. Welcome to the program. John Doe, how are you? Hey, how are you doing, Pete? Hey, I'm good. I'm your friend that you met at the news news. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I just want to share a story. Well, first of all, what you're talking about with the judge makes me tick to my stomach. I mean, it's just absolutely ridiculous. But I wanted to share a story when I was in law enforcement, how our judges treated us at the municipal level.

[00:32:36] I was working and I got a phone call from a judge that was actually in the middle of a trial that took a recess to let us know that the person that was on trial had an active warrant. And he wanted us to wait for him outside of the courthouse so we could take him into custody. Oh, so like the complete opposite of what this Milwaukee judge did. Correct. Correct.

[00:32:57] And that's how I truly believe, and I hope most people believe, how judges and law enforcement on all levels, municipal, federal, I mean, that's how we should get along and work together cohesively versus trying to evade or help criminals. Right.

[00:33:15] If the judge is supposed to be applying the law and they know that there is an active warrant out for somebody's arrest, then you would think it would be their duty as an officer of the court to alert the proper other officers of the court to go and pick the person up. A hundred percent. A hundred percent. And that's exactly what this judge did.

[00:33:42] And literally in the middle of the court, hey, come get him. Yeah, well, you dropped, I'm sorry, you dropped out there. So you said literally, that's right, I said literally in the middle of the court and then you dropped out. What happened in the middle of the court? Literally in the middle of the trial, he took a recess to let us know to come get him and arrest him on the court, on the property of the court. Yeah. Well, yeah, because, again, it's a controlled environment. They've gone through security.

[00:34:09] So, you know, they don't have weapons coming in and you got law enforcement all over the place. It makes sense. And I just want to say there are good judges out there. Yes. Obviously, this one is just not all there. No, definitely not. Hey, John, appreciate the call, man. Good to talk with you. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. They were chanting, because, again, that's what protesters do.

[00:34:37] They were chanting, well, unless they're doing the die-ins, right, where they just lay down on the ground. They were chanting, immigrants are here to stay. That's what they were chanting. Immigrants are here to stay. So, again, like, they're telling you what they believe the border policy should be. And what we witnessed under the Biden administration is it. They want open borders. They don't want any deportations.

[00:35:07] All right. That'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast. So, if you'd like, please support them, too, and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to thepcalendorshow.com. Again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.