Heartland Journal Podcast
Heartland Journal Podcast EP223 Jon Schweppe Interview & More 7 2 24
Joining us is Jon Schweppe Director of Policy for American Principles Project (APP). In this role, he advances the organization’s legislative priorities by working with allied groups and with federal and state lawmakers. Schweppe co-authored the groundbreaking 2020 report: Protecting Free Speech and Defending Kids: A Proposal to Amend Section 230.Schweppe is an alumnus of the Claremont Institute’s Lincoln Fellowship. He has been published in a number of publications, including The New York Post, The American Mind, First Things, Newsweek, The Federalist, and the Daily Caller. Prior to joining APP, he worked on several political campaigns, focusing mainly on communications and policy. He is a graduate of Augustana College, where he majored in Economics and Finance. For more about Jon and APP go to https://americanprinciplesproject.org If you like what you hear make sure to subscribe to the show and share it with your friends. You can find us at http://heartlandjournal.com
- Duration:
- 1h 28m
- Broadcast on:
- 02 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
[Music] Welcome to the Heartland Journal's podcast. With your host, Steve Abramowitz, editor-in-chief of PartlandJournal.com. Howdy and happy 248th, 4th of July week. I've got my Bucky's T-shirt on. This is the one time I can get away with wearing it. For those at Dolorino, I'm Steve Abramowitz, and this is the Heartland Journal podcast. We are focusing on our nation today with always an interesting person making a positive change in our community and live on Rumble. Virginia Public Schools are out of control. They're teaching our kids that America is evil. They're teaching them to judge people based on skin color. You're going to deliberately teach kids this white kid right here, got a bad idea because he wipes. They're even teaching elementary school students that they can change their gender. And when Virginia parents fought back, school boards called them "domestic terrorists." The National Association of School Boards is asking the Biden administration to investigate upset parents as potential domestic terrorists. And what does Democrat Terry McAuliffe have to say to these parents? And I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach me. Terry McAuliffe doesn't think you should be in charge of your kids' education. Parents, it's time to fight back. We need to keep Terry McAuliffe out of office. He's a threat to Virginia families, paid for by American Principles Project PAC, not authorized by any candidate or campaign committee. Welcome to our People in News where I interview people who are making an impact and are lovers of truth. Today we are talking with special guest, John Schwepy. John Schwepy is the Director of Policy for American Principles Project, APP. In this role, he advances the organization's legislative priorities by working with allied groups and with federal and state lawmakers. Schwepy co-authored the groundbreaking 2020 report, Protecting Free Speech and Defending Kids, a Proposal to a Men, Section 230. Schwepy is an alumnus of the Claremont Institute's Lincoln Fellowship. He's been published in a number of publications, including the New York Post. The American Mind, First Things Newsweek, the Federalist and the Daily Caller. Prior to joining APP, he worked on several political campaigns focusing mainly on communications and policy. He is a graduate of Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois, adjacent to the Mississippi River where he majored in economics and finance. APP's The Big Family is the only group in Washington, DC fighting for the American family in politics with over 300,000 members and activists, APP is the largest political movement for the family. Hello, John. How are you today, sir? Hey. Thanks so much for having me. I know you have a big convention coming up, so I'm really happy that you're here to spend some time with us. I thought people needed to hear from APP, especially here in the south, where it is not well known. Tell us what your mission is and how you got activated to join it personally. Well, thanks so much for giving us the platform. We really appreciate it. So what we do, our organization was actually founded in 2009, but I think, you know, part of our origin story really starts in 2016, and you'll remember this, the bathroom bill in North Carolina. And what happened there was, you know, Republican legislators and the Republican governor were trying to do right by women and children and protect them in private spaces. And the Democrats and all the institutions rained, holy hell down on them, and made it into this big political issue. And unfortunately, Governor McCrory lost that race by about 10,000 votes. And one of the things we noticed there was that we were just starting to foray into political spending and having a super back and doing that stuff. But we only spent, you know, a few hundred thousand dollars in that race. And nobody else really did. And so ultimately, McCrory was left to fend for himself against human rights campaign against all of this, you know, billionaire money coming from the left. And of course he lost, right? And so that even though it was very close, it was like 12,000 votes. So, you know, we came away from that recognizing, okay, we really need to have a cavalry that comes in and, you know, fights the anti-family politicians and defends the pro-family politicians. You know, the NRA has that for gun owners. The big industries have that, where, you know, if you cross big pharma, look out, you're going to have a lot of money coming into your race. And that doesn't even get into, you know, crossing like the defense industry, right? And so we wanted to do that for the family. And so that's really what we've tried to do. And, you know, in 2016, again, I think we spent $300,000 in that race. We've slowly built up to where, you know, this year we're anticipating doing close to $20 million. So very exciting, you know, it's been great to be a part of it. The fun thing is once you start to get involved in politics and campaigns, people are more interested in your political proposals and your policy because, hey, they must be a serious group if they're spending money. We don't want to get on their bad side. So it's been really fun and we've been able to do a lot of good work in the last few years. And how did you personally hook up with them? So I started on political campaigns. And it's actually funny because Terry Schilling is APP's president. He was also my first boss in politics. I worked for him on a congressional race and the Tea Party wave back in 2009, 2010. And I was planning to go make a bunch of money on Wall Street kind of pivoted because I loved what we were doing with the Tea Party wave and did a bunch of campaigns and then came out here to APP in 2014. And I've been working here ever since. 10 years. Wow. Well, tell us about Terry Schilling. What's he got? Like seven kids now with his wife, Katie? He's got seven. We're in a race right now. I have four with a fifth on the way. He's at seven. So we'll see what happens. He's a couple of years older than me, but yeah, I mean, Terry Schilling is probably one of the most unique figures in politics. He's a hard worker, but he's also a lot of fun. That comes across when he does his media interviews. You know, he's not one of the things, you know, we kind of envisioned when, you know, we're building this social conservative NRA for the family is we didn't want to be the kind of button up, you know, not there's anything wrong with that. But like, you know, the kind of evangelical, what you imagine from the 90s, right? Like we wanted to be a little bit more Trumpy for lack of a better term. And so, Terry fits that bill perfectly. I mean, this is a guy who has tattoos. They're tattoos of, you know, the Virgin Mary and Joseph and Jesus, but they are tattoos. And you know, he's got that kind of edge to him, but I'll tell you, you know, yeah, yeah, a very unique guy. And I think that that rubs a lot of people in a good way actually out here and he's very real and down to earth. And so, you know, I think that's been helpful to us having him as our lead people see us as kind of a different type of organization. And you know, I think we're a little bit different than say what people would consider conservative Inc. I think that's great. And Frank Cannon, he was the founding president, tell us a little about him and his vision. So Frank and Terry in so many ways are different. Frank is like the strategist archetype, brilliant guy, but you'll, you know, have your best conversations with him, smoking a cigar at, you know, Morton's patio balcony in Washington, DC. So you kind of get that smoke filled room thing with him. But Frank has been, I would say the chief architect of the pro life movement the past 30 years has an illustrious career with a lot of success. And you know, he's somebody where when I'm looking at, Hey, what are we going to do in this state with this age verification bill or how are we going to deal with this politician who's, you know, attacking us on this, you know, he's my first call because he's the smartest guy I know in politics. So he was our president, now he's our president emeritus, but he really serves in this kind of political strategist role for us. And he's, he's great. He's been a key part of what we've done. We have very effective. Okay. Well, I found your group from a June 3rd, so a month ago tomorrow, press release from your legislative arm, a P P slams democrat contraception bill as a Trojan force for child sex changes. Before I saw it, I noticed how the press and politicians were making a big fuss about Alabama law and some talk in Tennessee about IVF out of nowhere. No one cared about IVF until that morning. And I figured it was a campaign year scare the women, you know, that kind of stuff. But then I saw it actually had some movement in the polls. And now contraception is a big thing for November VP Harris was just doing ads, uh, an event at an event about Republicans wanting to take contraception away, the big baddies on the right. What's about your opposition to Senate's right to contraception act? Well, as we know, and this has been true throughout the last couple of decades, you know, Democrats love to have these bills where they named them something. And then they put all sorts of awful stuff in there, uh, but the name distracts from it. Right. So we look at just recently a couple of years ago, we had the inflation reduction act, which was supposed to fix inflation. And it actually spent like $1.5 trillion gave a bunch of that. Right. Right. Gave a bunch of, uh, rich DC area, New York area, Tesla owners, $7,500, but really didn't do a lot for the country and certainly not a lot for infrastructure. So, you know, that's what this was. We looked at the bill and one of the things we noticed was that, you know, Republicans were really unsure as to how to message on this. And so you saw, you know, some Republicans coming out with their own pro contraception bills, uh, and saying, Hey, this is the way we should do it. But we saw the Democrats offering this bill and there wasn't enough criticism on it. We looked at the language on it and it sure looked like it was including all sorts of different things that, um, you know, it was creating rights to, uh, cloning, but we saw this, uh, what looked like a loophole to include gender affirming care, quote unquote. And one of the key things they put in there was, you know, they were basically telling liberal justices, liberal judges in the, uh, in the notes to basically enforce this as crazily as possible, uh, and, you know, to include as many things as possible. So, you know, it was one of those things where we, we sounded the alarm on this and fortunately a lot of other groups came to, uh, to say that as well. And we only had, I believe it was, you know, I think we lost Collins and Murkowski, but the rest of the Republicans did vote against this bill, um, and prevented it from overcoming the filibuster, which was really important. Okay. The APP president, Terry Schilling, said here we go again with the Democrats's favorite playbook. This dangerous legislation cannot be allowed to move forward, given the increasing amount of destruction being wrought by the transgender industry. The stakes cannot be higher for this reason. We strongly urge all senators to oppose this bill. So is it fair to say that you are a Republican centric or right of center organization or are you nonpartisan? It just happens to be that that party likes to carry the water on those type of bills. You know, I can tell you that there are Republicans out there who would say we're not Republican. So, um, you know, we are a C three C four and super PAC, uh, we consider ourselves conservative, pro family. Oftentimes that means we do align with a Republican party, especially on certainly what the transgender industry where we've seen, you know, Democrats kind of lose their minds over the last few years. Um, but you'll find, you know, on some issues, like, you know, fighting for, uh, an increased child tax credit, for example, we had more natural allies sometimes on the left than the right on that. Uh, so it kind of is a, it depends, you know, our goal is to advocate for the interests of the family and, uh, whichever party is, is, is pushing that, you know, we're happy to, to be helpful with, but I will tell you in an election year, uh, you know, that that's pretty much the Republican party, right? I think, you know, ultimately, uh, I'd like them to, to shift on a couple of things, but, uh, you know, at the end of the day on some of these serious moral issues, serious issues to the family, like you got a, you got to vote for Donald Trump and the Republicans. Yeah. Once upon a time, family values were bipartisan issues, but it seems like the Democrats don't really want to be the party of the family and the Republican certainly are family values oriented. And they say, um, and just a few days later, y'all wrote condemned Biden administration persecution of whistleblower, Dr. Ethan Hain, who was indicted for exposing Texas Children's hospitals. Tell us about that miscarriage of justice and that don't, this is, this is horrific. So Dr. Ethan Hain is a patriot, um, who is, you know, was working at this hospital in Texas and saw, you know, what they were doing with transgender medicine, what they were doing to kids, how they were, um, you know, not going through the, the proper protocols that they were, um, not really caring what happened to these kids when they were giving impurity blockers and cross sex hormones and, you know, even in some cases, surgeries for minors. And so Dr. Hain, uh, sounded the alarm on that he was a whistleblower. And as soon as he did that, uh, the Biden administration came down hard on him. Um, you know, allegedly citing, you know, he did this in an anonymous way where he wasn't disclosing who these patients were, but they're trying to go after him on HIPAA. They're trying to, you know, they're trying to put him in prison for 10 years. And it's pretty obvious what this is, um, you know, we've seen it throughout this administration. They go after their enemies. They persecute their enemies using all tools at their disposal to do it, uh, whether it be Dr. Hain in, in this instance, where he's exposing the transgender industry for what it is, or even, you know, going after parents at school board meetings or Christian colleges, you know, that's been something that's been in the news lately where, uh, you know, they're going after Liberty University, um, and, and Grand Canyon and all these other, I mean, this is what they do. They are focused on promoting, you know, what they see as the good guys and, and hurting what they see as the bad guys. So I think it's really important that we expose this and, and, you know, Dr. Hime, somebody who's, you know, going to be, I might be giving you guys fresh news. I don't know if this is out there, but you know, he's in some of our ads, right? That we're going to be running in the fall, uh, because he's a great spokesperson for standing up against this evil industry. And so, um, we're obviously our prayers are within, but, uh, you know, he's doing, you know, unbelievable work standing up against, uh, power. He is and it is an election year and it is Texas of all places. Where's Governor Abbott? Where's Ted Cruz? Where's Cornyn? Obviously Heidi, where's Chip Roy? Where are the other, you know, staunch conservative Texas Republicans that you would think would defend him? Are they helping you? And him, I did see, I did see Cruz, uh, came out and, and brought attention to this. I can't speak to everybody else because I haven't tracked this. I don't want to say they haven't, um, but you know, I'll tell you, um, you know, every little bit helps. And this is something where, you know, a lot of people gave attention understandably and justifiably to the Steve Bannon indictment. And I think that's important, but that was one example of this. You know, this is another example that kind of got swept under the rug and it happened at the same time. So, um, you know, certainly, you know, people need to know this that, uh, the Biden administration not only, you know, they came out the other day claiming, no, no, we don't support sex change surgeries, uh, for kids while you're prosecuting the whistleblower who is showing how this Texas children's hospital was doing that. And the same day, they, in the same breath, they told us that doctor, whatever she is, Rachel Levine came out and said she's the one that he's the one that made war path changed the age to no age discrimination in sex change therapy. So they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. Um, you know, we know Texas has got a very strange school board. We know that Texas children's has been exposed by him and Jonathan Cho as well. One of the journalists I worked very closely with. So Texas being the most conservative state in the nation, they say is ground zero for the weaponization of the administration and Steve Baker, who was with Glenn Beck at the blaze in Texas is also being put to the fire, just like Steve Bannon for being a truth teller journalist. So yeah, very fascinating. So I'm glad you're on that case. Um, now speaking of the Biden administration and his department of justice, uh, they don't really like groups like yours either being out there, uh, especially the effective ones like yours. Have they put pressure on y'all to stop being so public with your complaint so much as observations or defenses? Um, there's been a couple of attempts, you know, we had some FOIA requests and things like that in the past, but generally, you know, I think they recognize that going after political groups, uh, that transparency might be, uh, might be harmful, um, but you know, they, they're certainly doing it in every opportunity they have. And I think we should all understand, you know, those are the stakes here, whether it's Biden or Kamala, you know, a second term here, uh, is really dangerous. And we actually, you know, if it is Kamala, there's a lot of speculation today about that. Uh, you know, Kamala was notorious for this as a G in California, going after pro lifers and pro life groups and David delight. You might remember, um, when he was in here, uh, it wasn't he with, uh, O'Keeves, uh, former Veritas and they put him in jail or wanted to put him in jail. Yeah. Yeah. I think he was with Veritas and he might have been with live action too. Um, but he exposed the, the, uh, baby body parts scandal. And so, um, so you know that if she gets in there, I mean, she's going to be absolutely malicious, but we, it's pretty clear she was the attorney general of California. She has that record, including putting a lot of African Americans in jail for low level, you know, marijuana use. Now she is the vice president and we don't know what she does on a daily basis, but somebody's driving this and we know it ain't Joe post debate. She's very likely the one directing all of this with the attorney general's office weaponizing the department of justice, which is exactly what she did in California. Uh, okay. Well, your boss Terry also said about Dr. Haynes case, there can be no denying it now. Joe Biden is a direct threat to the rule of law and America's constitutional order to save our country from tyranny. Biden and his Democrat allies must be defeated and we will be doing everything in our power to ensure voters understand the stakes before this falls election. What is in your power that you're doing because we got five months left. Yeah. Well, first of all, I mean, he's totally right. You know, uh, the Democrats are guilty of the, uh, psychological phenomena of projection. Right. You always hear him talking about protecting democracy, the democracies on the ballot, this election cycle. It actually is, uh, but you know, if you really want to preserve democracy, you got to vote Republican because I think what the Democrats want to do is create this kind of left-wing authoritarian utopia like Canada. And as we all know, that's not really much of a utopia, but you know, with five months left, uh, I really think what we got to be doing is, uh, engaging the political process as much as possible. And so everybody has their unique ways to do that. You know, certainly on the individual level, volunteering, making phone calls, donating if you have the capacity, um, and also just getting out to vote and getting your friends out. I think that's pretty key. But for us as a group, you know, one of the things we really focus on is we recognize that Democrats and independents, uh, don't tend to be on board with the party establishment on some of these extreme social issues. And so we've been able to in the past, you know, target these voters, uh, with our messaging that kind of shows how Joe Biden supports sex changes for kids, uh, supports doing away with women's sports, supports, uh, DEI and, uh, you know, all these different things. And we run ads and we target them and we try to convince them not to vote that way. And I'll tell you, you know, our methods have been very successful. We've had, you know, it's kind of rough to say that because we've been on, um, you know, it's kind of like in baseball where you have the advanced analytics and it's like, no, Mike Trout is actually like a really good ball player, even though the angels have never been good. Well, that's kind of how it's about the last few years, like we've been losing elections and, uh, so sometimes you feel that way because the Republicans haven't had a good election cycle in a while, but I'll tell you, uh, we do all our due diligence on our numbers. And so we've been able to, to see that we're moving tens of thousands of votes, uh, using control and treatment groups. So we know we're doing it. Um, and so we're hoping 2024, which looks like a really good year. Hopefully APP will help, uh, move some of these candidates over the edge and hopefully help Trump, uh, win the electoral votes he needs. That's great. And most people don't know this. Um, there's a lot of things the Biden administration in the last, I guess, three and a half years now has slipped into law, but a direct threat to our children's health, uh, is the Department of Health and Human Services, just like they've weaponized the high profile TV stuff you see maybe from the DOJ with the trials against Trump or FBI raids and things like that. But this little known or little paid attention to department does it too. Just days after they gutted protections for women and girls in title nine that you talked about, they have now moved to inject radical gender ideology into hospitals and medical centers nationwide, which obviously will affect everybody one day, forced to provide sex change drugs and surgeries to all comers, including minors or be forced out of business. That's not very American, quite evil actually. How is this happening? Well, this is fundamental over what the Democrats believe right now, which is that there should be no discrimination against transgender people in healthcare. And what they mean by that is all across the board that, uh, if a person who goes in and wants treatment, wants puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, uh, you know, surgeries that they have a right to that. And also that insurance must cover, right? And so, uh, so you have a situation now where the Biden administration is actually putting more of an emphasis on ensuring that, you know, transgender people can get their cosmetic surgeries than say making sure that diabetics get their needed stuff. And there's been all sorts of or veterans or, um, you know, all sorts of people dealing with, I've heard about Crohn's disease where there's all sorts of treatments people need with that. And they're not able to get it under insurance, uh, under the kit, the current healthcare system. But again, the Biden administration's prioritizing transgender healthcare. So, uh, and, and, and we have to be honest about what this healthcare really entails, even for adults, right? I mean, this is mutilation of body parts. It's putting people on a permanent drug regimen that they have to take the rest of their lives. It's harming their bodies to where they have often, and I'm trying not to be graphic, but gaping holes in their bodies that they have to, you know, take care of, treat to make sure they don't get infection. And so really what we're doing is we're putting people into this state of medical emergency that they, that we have to, we, the taxpayer have to pay for the rest of their lives. And so it's pretty nuts. And, uh, you know, I think exposing where the Biden administration is on that, I mean, there's lots to say about abortion. But this is actually, I think you become even more of an emphasis for them. And this is something that isn't really much of a debate with the American people. Nobody wants to pay for this stuff. Nobody wants it to happen to kids. And so we should be really out front and making this a, a key issue in November. And everybody forgets, you know, we just kind of came out of the woods on this oxycontin pain over subscription, uh, addiction to opioids. And here we are hurting people surgically at a young age who will become addicted to painkillers that are, it's, it's, so it's we're in a bizarro world, um, and just, I'll just add on this, you know, the moral justification that the left uses for why we need to do this to kids is suicide. Right. They say that these kids will, will kill themselves. They bully parents by saying, would you rather have a, you know, live son or a dead daughter, right? And the reality here is, and there's been studies on this, uh, you know, we're actually condemning people into a state of, of mental psychosis of constantly being frustrated with their body of being on all sorts of chemical regimens. And so I think we're leading people down the road to suicide. We're leading people down the road to misery and, and we should be opposing that. And so I think, you know, when Democrats bring that up, you actually don't hear them bring it up as much anymore. And we've seen in focus groups we've done, it's not that effective of an argument where uh, people kind of dismiss that like, okay, you know, it works on parents who are in a vulnerable situation though, um, and we need to make sure that we're doing everything we can to, to push back on this, not just on the government part of it, but also on the, the hospitals and the gender clinics themselves. Yeah. And the suicide rate amongst transgender people with actually gender dysphoria is the highest of any category. And then of course, there's the new statistic of people who regret it and want to go back the other way. And it's too late because these things were permanent, but they weren't told that. So good old fashioned, uh, safe and effective, uh, or informed consent, I should say, not so much. Um, well, here we are. July 2nd. Happy 4th of July, by the way, number 248, uh, which makes that we're dealing with this nonsense all the more infuriating and anti enlightenment. But next month, beginning August 1st, a new rule kicks in, which interprets prohibitions against sex discrimination in title nine to include gender identity. That's your phrase, gender identity, title nine, 40 years ago, when we were only 200 year old was to protect the rights of women and girls. Whose bright idea was it to flip it upside down and gender bent it like this? It's kind of been this mind virus that's evolved over the last 10 years. You know, um, it says in the law, sex, sex is the protected class. And you saw this kind of evolve with the equality act being introduced and voted on where Democrats envision sex to mean, uh, like there's a parentheses after it and sex this whole time has meant also sexual orientation, also gender identity. And so this started, especially with Obama, I believe he had a rule in either 2015 or 2016, uh, that started to codify this and, and now we've been dealing with it ever since and you have States doing it and all sorts of things. So, you know, ultimately what that means is we're stripping actual sex protections from the law and enshrining gender identity instead. So where women don't have protected spaces anymore, it's anyone who says they are a woman, a woman. And, um, you know, it's, it's a real problem, um, it has all sorts of implications just on how people operate in public bathrooms. You know, like women are, are, are running into people who have other mental health problems that also identify as transgender who are doing all sorts of things in these bathrooms. And, and, you know, and then of course sports, I think sports is the one that's easiest for people to, to grapple with because they're the issue of fairness comes up and the fairness here, you know, it's not fair to these, uh, actual female athletes who have worked hard their whole lives to compete and hopefully win a competition. And when you have men come in and compete, you know, it's, it's, it's a joke, right? And safety on the field, but also safety in the main street, because we just had a case where it took a few extra hours to find somebody who shot up a grocery store because they refuse to say whether it was a male or a female, but for some woke ideology at the dispatcher's office. So we do actually, or these people who go into the office, the, the, the practitioners spend their money on healthcare and say, I'm not having my period or I need to have a cervic exam or there's a little man, you don't have a cervic here or a male, it's, it gets to be quite a frustrating trying to just live in a, a realism, a real world. And, and the poor doctors in that scenario, I mean, they're in a situation where they have to adhere to the woke cult or they're in trouble, they might get sued. So you have an obvious male come in and ask for women's healthcare, or maybe that male is like over the age of 40 and you need to give the guy a prostate exam. But, oh, it's a, it's a girl. So you can't do that. I mean, this is, this is actually insane, you know, idiocracy type stuff we're dealing with. And, and you know, it's, again, it's, it's farming people. I love the emperor's head, you know, the emperor has no close story because I think that's actually what we're living with in so many ways with the transgender movement. You know, the reality is that conservatives, people who reject this ideology, we respect everyone, everyone's human dignity, we want to protect them. The people who are promoting this ideology are saying they don't, they actually don't care about the individuals. They, they're happy with them, you know, committing all sorts of harms on themselves, but they want to feel morally superior by, by, you know, completely ignoring it and playing along. President Schilling said this assault on the hard one legal protections of women and girls, as well as on biological reality itself is a, is as reprehensible as it is insane on no other issue is the extremism of far left Democrats more visible. Are these even Democrats anymore? Are they in humanists or some trans humanist or who are they? They're not Truman FDR JFK LBJ Democrats. Those guys wouldn't put up with this stuff. Is it all because Roe versus Wade was turned over turn? Well, that that's a contributor, I suppose, and it's, it's radicalized them. And I think Trump, you know, to a degree radicalized them to not really through any fault of his own. Just I think his, his hair may be driven crazy or something, but, you know, I, I think the, the reality here is that you look at the polling, working class Democrats, Democrats of color, all sorts of folks, they really don't line up with them on some of these extreme social policies. This is almost the exclusive domain, frankly, of, of white liberal women. And they just have complete control over that party. And so you have a situation where the candidates, the members of Congress, nobody will tell them no. And so you have a few, you know, prominent Democrats, I think, who have kind of resisted this, but they've been kind of cast aside as well. So, you know, until we get through this fever, and the only way to get through the fever is to beat them in elections over and over and over again, you know, we're going to be living with this and they're going to continue to try to do, you know, really push this woke stuff. And by the way, I just want to point something out, you know, on the women's sports front, you know, right now across the country, people are enjoying this Caitlin Clark phenomenon. I don't know if you've caught a WNBA game, but it's like really exciting stuff. She's doing great. Now imagine if we had men in the WNBA, where you have like six foot four, six foot six drew holiday, drew now being a girl like covering her, you know, she, we wouldn't be enjoying this. And the reality here is that she's excellent just because she couldn't beat guys does not mean that she's not an excellent, unbelievable athlete. And so we want to celebrate women's sports and the transgender movement wants to destroy it. It's really sad. Yeah, we had Riley Gaines on here right after she graduated college. So we've been early on to that phenomenon, but I think that's why, tell me if you think I'm wrong, Biden is coming in somewhere in the 28s in the polls because you said it. White women on the Democratic Party side are not enough to win elections. He's losing black women, Hispanic women, Muslim women, because they don't go in for this kind of stuff. They are very family values oriented, very religious oriented, very spiritual. And this kind of stuff is inhuman or demonic, so they're not going to go for it. So we've been talking about, well, first answer that, then I'll ask you the next question. I totally agree. And the thing is, you know, Republicans have come so far on these issues, but they're still not running campaign commercials on this stuff yet, and they need to do it. I think the reality is, you know, Biden won in 2020, I mean, well, he won, okay, we won't go into that, but Biden won in 2020 because, you know, I don't think we got the message out that he was a radical. I think ultimately, you know, people thought he was a return to normal and that's why a lot of these suburban voters voted for him. And, you know, now it's pretty clear that the Democrats have lost their minds. We got to tell voters where they're at or else they're going to, you know, make up their own minds. And when we have these abortion ads running against us, you know, I don't think we want that. Yeah, people forget it was Bernie's race to lose until Clayburn in South Carolina gave Biden the black vote down there and he was the moderate, but he said out loud he would be the most progressive president we've ever had, and that means Wilson, that means FDR. And he's right. That's what we got. When we talk about issues important to American principal project, the foundation's mission and purpose says a mission to tackle issues critical to protecting human dignity. Tell us about the foundation. Mm-hmm. Well, I think, you know, ultimately, what we believe is what the founders believe. We want to protect human dignity. We want to enshrine freedom for all Americans opportunity. But you know, I think one of the things we're really debating in the culture and certainly debating within Republican circles today is, well, what do we mean by that? Do we mean this libertarian ethos that the government should never be involved? Or do we mean that there is a role for government to play in her being licentiousness and curving evil? And, you know, the founders talked about securing our rights to liberty and freedom. Well, you got to secure it. That's the purpose of government. So, you know, I think some of these social issues, one of the big things obstacles we run into is folks who say, well, the government shouldn't be playing a role. And I think, you know, certainly on the issue of life, you know, we believe that life is protected under the 14th Amendment. Obviously, the government should be defending that because it's in the Constitution, you know, on issues like sex changes for kids. Well, these are doctors and hospitals and an industry run amok. We got to protect children. We have government has an interest in doing that. And another issue, you know, we're really working on and we've been pretty successful on, is protecting kids from porn. This is an issue where everyone likes to talk about, oh, this is the First Amendment. There's no First Amendment right to distribute pornography to children. There's just not, right? And so, you know, this is the type of thing where I think we as Republicans have to recognize, of course, we want freedom. Of course, we want limited government. We don't want overregulation. But you know, we do have interest in doing the right thing and, you know, fighting against evil. That's abortion is evil, sex changes for kids, evil, porn is evil. And so I think there's an interest there and we got to be willing to legislate. And the battleground is the public schools because that's the gateway drug with those pornography books to kids that are way too age inappropriate for them. And then they go on to be customers, a Planned Parenthood arrest. Okay. Advancing new pro-family policy ideas through initiatives such as our contract with American families. What is that? I got that for the website. Yeah. So, I think we call it the big family pledge now, but basically what we do with that is we're trying to push politicians to commit to, hey, what are you actually going to do to defend the family? Don't just say family, right? Like we, I mean, historically we've run into that with the pro-life issue, like a politician says their pro-life but doesn't actually want to do anything pro-life. Well, on this, we have the same issue and, you know, so what is pro-family? Well, first of all, it's fighting for parental rights, obviously, you know, giving parents the right to direct their kids' education. It's protecting women's sports, opportunities and safety for women. It's protecting, you know, parents against this evil transgender industry that frankly is trying to trans their kids, whether it be pushing it from the schools or other institutions. You know, I just mentioned the online stuff, you know, obviously there's protecting kids from porn, age verification, that sort of thing, but there's also protecting kids from these social media platforms that are exploiting them, you know, stealing their data, sometimes even driving kids to suicide. I mean, it's happened so many times. So, you know, we focus on all these issues and, you know, really try to, again, the political component is a big part of it. We got to make sure we're defeating these anti-family politicians, helping elect pro-family politicians that'll help us enact our agenda. But then also it's got to be, you know, getting these policies enacted, getting it done. And so, that's why we look at 2024 as a huge opportunity. We get Trump in there, you know, hopefully we get a Republican House and Senate, maybe we can actually accomplish some of these things and really push back against the Democrats' anti-family agenda once and for all. And they're going to be very busy those first hundred days if you get those sides. It's going to be fun. It's going to be fun. Let's win though. So, protecting the religious liberties of families, we've seen some elderly people jailed for violations of the Face Act, the Face CE Act. For those that don't know, that's the freedom of access to clinic entrances. So, from really praying and trying to talk to mothers before they give up their babies to Planned Parenthood, they've been going to jail. Are you aware of those people and are you involved in freeing them for illegally imprisoning them for exercising their First Amendment rights? Is that the type of thing you do or not in your purview? Well, I mean, we're certainly sympathetic. It was horrific what that judge did. I'm sure you saw the same case where the judge basically said, "Well, hopefully get right with your religion. That'll help you get through your prison term." I mean, these are awful, awful people trying to do this. Praying in front of an abortion clinic is about as nonviolent as it gets. I mean, ultimately, you're there to offer a voice if wanted for women who are dealing with the situation who are considering doing something really awful and to send those people to prison, but at the same time, go easy on Antifa, go easy on these Hamas sympathizers. It's a real miscarriage of justice and it shows that there's this two-tier justice system. So, on the Face Act, this is something we'd obviously be advocating for. We don't support that. It isn't something APP has been active on in the last year or so, but certainly we will be a supportive organization of efforts by the pro-life movement to get rid of that. Okay. I need everybody to repeal that. We all had to sadly watch as our colleges this spring descended into madness. I don't know the way to do it, madness of crowds and backed Hamas killers and rapists in the name of gay unity, I guess, a lot of gays for Palestine signs. This is on the heels of the plagiarism scandal and anti-Semitism at Harvard, Pan, MIT. We learn, basically, the schools get a lot of foreign donations, gifts they call them, and some like Columbia Northwestern and USC are over 50% foreign students enrolled from countries that don't like us very much, quite frankly. Tell us about your internship program and what kind of future leaders of America you see coming through there that we can glean some hope from. Well, I will tell you, the higher education system is really broken, and that's a big part of how we select our interns, I'm not going to lie. We look at what's happening on these college campuses. These are indoctrination factories, pure and simple, and I mentioned this at the top, but the Biden administration going after Christian colleges, they recognize the importance of that institution of maintaining their indoctrination factories, so they don't want choice. They don't want conservative families to be able to send their kids to conservative colleges. When we look at our internship program, which we're excited and we accept quite a few people, and we've had some great people come through here, but to be honest, we tend to be pretty preferential to colleges like Hillsdale or Liberty or Franciscan University, where we know we're getting people who got a good education, who really a classically liberal education, but not this woken indoctrination, and I will tell you though, not to throw any of our interns under the bus, they've been great, but we've even run into people where they just kind of accidentally absorb some of this stuff. We're seeing it on the right now, actually, a lot of Gen Z folks who have this antipathy towards Israel and kind of lose support for Hamas, kind of flirtation with antisemitism, and I just think this is the broken TikTok brain problem that we have in this country. You might remember, this was almost a year ago, but there was a viral clips on TikTok of all these folks, young people, you know, reading a speech from Osama bin Laden and saying, "Oh my gosh, Osama bin Laden was right." And this happened before kind of the Hamas stuff, obviously before October 7th, and you know, it kind of set the stage for this, where the brains of our youth are so poisoned and so hopelessly, you know, manipulated right now that they're comfortable supporting Islamic terrorists because they think that's justified. So I actually think this goes beyond left-right. I mean, obviously the left-wing protesters, you know, there's more antisemitic left-wingers than right-wingers, but, you know, I don't want to say the guy's name, but, you know, you have that prominent activist on the right who has all his group or followers, you know, anti-Semitism, right, just like blatantly out there. So I think that's something we got to push back against, and certainly, you know, with our conservative colleges, our conservative internship programs, all that. And I think that's important to kind of root that stuff out and educate kids proper. Yeah, they're educated so badly that the first time they ever hear a well-fought-out argument, even if it's nonsense, they will go with it because like, "Oh, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone make sense of something that I have absolutely no clue about." You can always ask them, "Which river and which sea are you talking about?" I don't know. It sounds good. It's a cool bumper sticker. Okay, so John, I carry this graphic with me on my phone so I don't forget it, and I post it on socials that would be so often remind me, everyone who has the forces against our kids are who they are. And there are men, act blue, glisten, NEA, Planned Parenthood, move on, Rainbow Library, American Library Association, scholastic, billions of dollars of firepower funding porn in the schools. How do you all fight that? It's not a, it's David versus Goliath, really. Several glist. Yeah, well, honestly, that comes down, I mean, we need to do everything we can in the states and federally to prohibit this stuff, but I think school boards have the most power to stop that stuff. And that's why these school board races have been so important, and I know there's been some great groups that have really focused on the school board races. I don't want to take credit where it's not due, so, you know, 1776 Project, I think Moms for Liberty has also been involved to a degree there. And you know, we were obviously tracking that as well, but I think that's got to be key here. You know, I'll just tell you a story. I'm in Loudon County where a lot of this, you know, that was kind of the genesis of where a lot of this started in Loudon County, Virginia. And you know, we have a school board where that's dominated by Democrats. And I had this lady, Dina, who was awesome, you know, but I kind of figured, okay, well, we're in Ashburn, Virginia, she's probably not going to win. Well, it turns out that when you knock on every door and tell people you stand up for parental rights, they're willing to vote for you, and she won that seat. So, you know, I think it's one of those things where even if you think you're filling your name on a ballot, you know, you've got to get out there and get this message of parental rights out there. You know, one in Virginia, in large part, because he embraced that messaging, and you know, people just fundamentally do not like the idea of bureaucrats, school superintendents, even teachers, you know, trying to take over the parenting role from you. And so, I think that's got to be a key part of it, but it's all about those school boards. And then also, as I mentioned earlier, you know, conservatives can't be afraid if there's acts, action we can take at the state level or the federal level, we got to be willing to do it. So, if they're teaching, and I love using the Civil Rights Act for this purpose, but, you know, if they're doing things like separate critical race theory, separating people by race, all sorts of these things, those are civil rights violations, we should be prosecuting. We should be going after it and making sure that kids are not put into that situation. 100%. 100%. And we actually had, you mentioned Loudon County and young, we had Zeevan Fleet on here, who was a survivor of communist China, right after she went viral, telling the school board that you guys are following the wrong guidance on how to raise children. You're acting like communists, not like Americans. And so, she kind of blew that open and that election did go that way. So, you both started at the same time. Um, I only have a few seconds here, but I did want to ask about this. On October 25th, the new republic, very left wing outfit, published anti-woke incorporated, the shadowy right wing think tank pushing transphobia. The American principles project has lost election after election, but it's influenced in the GOP is still growing by Jack McChordick. It's a very long piece, but concludes, in my experience, Gilliam Branstadter, now a communication strategist at the ACLU said, quote, "People who make a living on transphobia are not all that well-grounded in reality." If the APP is any indication, the constellation of anti-LGBTQ organizations that have flourished in a thoroughly trumpified GOP will continue their push to eradicate trans people from public life. I'm not sure how, but that's what he says. No matter, he says, no matter the electoral cost, perhaps that can be read as an encouraging sign for the Democrats immediate term political prospects, but it's also a herring one for the country. What do you say about the ACLU and what they said about APP? And Jack McChordick reporting it. Well, look, I think ultimately, I mentioned this. It's been a rough few elections. I think our argument would be we think that fighting against the transgender movement has been politically beneficial, and we encourage Republicans to do that, and certainly our own results and our own internal show that, but this is something they're trying to do, like puff out their chest saying, look, like them going after us transing kids, that's bad for them. They don't actually believe that at all. And the proof in this is that the Biden administration just released something last week, and you mentioned this, where they're trying to say, no, no, no, no, no, we don't support sex changes for kids. And the reason is because they know it's an enormous political vulnerability, and hopefully the Trump campaign will seize on that and run ads on it because they know they'll lose over it. And in the same article, it said someone agreed with you. This assessment was echoed by a real estate mogul and reality TV star who had briefly reached second place in GOP 2012, primary polling, despite never formally entering the race, a decade and one Trump presidency later, the APP has turned into an electoral juggernaut, pouring many millions of dollars into political races around the country on the theory that social conservatism is the key to unlocking electoral majorities for the GOP. Over the past five years, the strategy has made the APP one of the most vocal pro-family organizations in the country, fast forward in 2022, heading into the midterms, APP had made its largest ever electoral investment over $15 million across 13 states and was predicting a, quote, tea party sized wave for the GOP, we didn't get the red wave. I wish we did. What do you think happened in your losses? Did the votes not want family value can't seize? And are they more pro-transoner than we'd like to think or did the left I know this? I know this sounds like sour grapes, but we actually ran an autopsy. We wrote an autopsy about 2022, the red wave that failed and you can find that on our website. And we analyzed the ads in all of these races, all of these key Senate races, and none of them ran anything on this. They just completely dodged it and they focused on inflation and immigration. And so, you know, I think it's a consultant issue and ultimately, you know, we can talk on Twitter and social media about all of this stuff, you know, we can certainly a group like APP can come in from the outside and try to help swing these races by exposing voters to messaging, but it's got to come from the candidates. They have a tremendous advantage over us in terms of the affordability of the ads they can buy. And also, that's where the voters want to hear it from. They want to hear it from the candidates. So, you know, our hope is 2024 goes a little bit differently, but I will tell you, I got to reach out to that guy. He would be a great PR guy for APP because, man, he made us sound pretty awesome in that piece. Yeah. Most newsrooms are being gutted. So, he might be available, but, John, thank you for your time. We are at the end here. So, tell everyone where they can go to find out more about you and the foundation and follow your socials. Well, I'm pretty Elon loyal, so I'm pretty much only on Twitter, on X at John Schweppi. And then American Principles Project, we have a lot of good content. We're on X as well, at AP Project. And then we're on Instagram as well, I believe it's APP_1776. You might have to double check that. And, of course, our website, americanprincipalsproject.org, you are reading some of our press releases from there. A lot of great stuff up there, and you can kind of keep track of what we're up to. I hope all that in the show notes. All right. Thanks again for coming on. Hey, thanks so much for having me. My name is Stevie Giorno. I'm the chair for the Tennessee Young Republicans, and I'm on the Heartland Journal podcast. Welcome to the Steve and Steve segment of our show producer Steve, what do you think of our guest, John Schweppi? I need some of his energy, Steve, I just need some of his energy, else I could say. He's bubbly, he's got a good attitude and lots of energy there, and that's kind of people that we need. That's right. Grassroots needs energy to grow. All right. Fourth of July really became a holiday in 1941. So we're 248 years old as a country, but we've only celebrated it 83 times. Started when producer Steve was a baby. Fun facts, $9.4 billion is the amount Americans plan to spend on Fourth of July food, $150 million number of hot dogs eaten. That's a lot of pig snouts and nitrates. Did you know the vote that passed the Declaration of Independence was passed on July 2nd, but took until July 4th to sign it? So we celebrate signing day, not voted on day. Yes. Okay. Rep Lisa McLean from Michigan, destroying gaslighting Democrats who won't answer questions. So is that yes, you have owned a business or no, that's not. I mean, you are brilliant at answering a question that I didn't ask, and this is the very reason why you can't get confirmed in the Senate because nobody trusts you, because you can't answer a simple question. If you're supposed to be in charge, I would think it's not too much to ask to be able to answer a question, and with that, my disappointment continues to grow, and your smugness continues to be very unacceptable, but you continue being acting secretary, making policies of which you know nothing about, and with that, I yield back. Nice. Nice. Nice. Yeah, this is testimony against Democrat Julie Sue, who became acting secretary of labor on March 11th, 2023. The committee voted 11 to 10, along party lines, to advance her, that lady, nomination to labor secretary April 26th, 2023, but she's been there over a year. She was previously confirmed by the Senate to serve as the deputy secretary of labor on July 13th, 2021, the full Senate voted 50 to 47 to confirm her as deputy secretary in July 2021, three years ago, as deputy secretary, she served as the de facto chief operating officer for the department overseeing its workforce, managing its budget, and executing the priorities of the secretary of labor, which there isn't one, she can't even get confirmed by a Democrat Senate because she's that shady. So when you see those positive numbers on jobs that come out as they splash them all over CNBC, remember who's in charge of fact checking that lady, will the real Sue shady stand up? Well, now you can close the show with that song, but it's got a lot of bad words. All right. Breathing is often to another Eminem song is often taken for granted, yet how we breathe through the nose or mouth can profoundly affect our health, the anatomical and physiological differences between nasal and mouth breathing significantly influence our body's oxygenation and respiratory health. Sometimes on the show, I like to do what I call public service announcements. This one will headline seven reasons to breathe through the nose. Number one, shield against illness. Our nose serves as a defender against germs and contaminants in the air as air passes through the nasal cavity, tiny hairs and mucus trap, just allergens and other harmful particles, providers, preventing them from reaching the lungs and warding off respiratory infections. James Nestor, author of breathe, not the song by Faith Hill, highlights the importance of nasal breathing in the podcast saying that, quote, the nose is our first line of defense against bacteria and viruses. He emphasizes the risks of mouth breathing by noting that when you breathe through the mouth, your lungs are basically functioning as an exterior organ. It's exposed to everything. Nasal passages also play a vital role in warming and humidifying inhaled air to body temperature and adding moisture crucial for maintaining respiratory tract health. This function becomes especially important in air or cold climates where dry air can irritate the lungs and airways, increasing susceptibility to infections. Number two, enhanced oxygen absorption. Nasal breathing helps better regulate the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide entering the bloodstream. The nasal passage produces nitric oxide, a gas that plays a crucial role in increasing blood flow and oxygen delivery to vital organs like the brain. This process is essential for maintaining efficient oxygen, carbon dioxide exchange and cardiovascular health. Nose breathing imposes about 50 percent more resistance to the air streaming than mouth breathing, enhancing oxygen uptake by 10 to 20 percent. This resistance optimizes oxygen, carbon dioxide exchange and ensures a more efficient delivery of oxygen into vital organs, both doing overall health and endurance. Okay, I like this next one. Steve, is this boring or is this interesting? No, as a matter of fact, I'm doing some deep breathing and relaxing using my nose. It's like, oh, I said them. Yeah, it makes sense, right? Okay. Yes. So, number three, maintain a healthy smile. Nasal breathing is not only about taking a breath, it's a significant ally for oral health. Health breathing can dry out the mouth, setting the stage for tooth decay and gum disease. In contrast, nasal breathing keeps the mouth's natural cleaning system saliva flowing. Breathing through your nose creates a moist environment in your mouth. This allows saliva to do its job in preventing harmful bacteria from accumulating all on your teeth and gums and does all those spiders. Nasal breathing also helps prevent abnormal jaw growth in children. Dr. Kyle Guernholfer, dentist and CEO of Denscore, told the Epoch Times, research links mouth breathing to increased oral acidity, a factor in enamel erosion and cavities. Conversely, nasal breathers tend to have better oral health thanks to the protective role of saliva, the way we breathe can have a lasting effect on our dental well-being. We can all benefit from this. I'm sure, number four, improve sleep. Breathing to nasal breathing could be the key to better sleep. Mouth breathing during sleep often leads to a dry throat and disrupted rest. In contrast, nasal breathing promotes uninterrupted and deeper sleep by maintaining optimal blood oxygen and carbon dioxide levels. Mr. Huberman said, "Mouth breathing during sleep is not just undesirable, it is actually dangerous as it is associated with sleep apnea. The solution is to become a nasal breather as much as of the time as possible and especially during sleep. A shift to nasal breathing subsidizes breathing patterns and enhances overall sleep quality potentially reducing the risk of sleep-related disorders." 5. Calm the Nervous System. Nasal breathing plays a pivotal role in regulating the nervous system. You were just doing your Zen over their steep, particularly balancing the sympathetic and parasympathetic symptoms. I didn't know we had those. This regulation is crucial to stress reduction and overall well-being. When we breathe through our nose, we take slower, deeper breaths that activate the parasympathetic nervous system leading to a calmer and more relaxed state. More recent research published in Scientific Reports highlights the profound effect of controlled breathing on stress and mental health. This comprehensive study confirms that breathwork, particularly through nasal breathing significantly lowers stress, anxiety, and depression in various populations, "nasal breathing creates resistance to airflow, so it slows the rate at which you breathe to induce the parasympathetic nervous system response and also as rest and digest," Mr. Sanderman said. He noted that "right nostril breathing stimulates the body's sympathetic system, while the left enhances the parasympathetic system." Interesting. This dominant shifts in a daily pattern known as the nasal cycle, but you didn't know you had a nasal cycle. Two more. 6. Protect your brain. Nasal breathing is more than just a way to take in air. It's a booster for your brain, breathing through the nose is crucial in maintaining the proper level of carbonate oxide in the blood, which is essential for brain health. Nasal breathing is fundamental for cognitive functions such as memory, focus, and concentration. Recent brain imaging research shows that nasal breathing can enhance brain function during memory tasks, compared with mouth breathing. Nasal breathing activates key areas of the brain more effectively, suggesting that mouth breathing could hinder brain performance over time. And number seven on why to be a nose breather, if you're not already, and congratulations if you are already, thanks for sticking with me to this point. Number seven. Improve appearance. For all you vain people out there, nasal breathing, especially from a young age, plays a crucial role in shaping facial structure as outlined by the Cleveland Clinic. Mouth breathing can affect children's facial development, causing what's called mouth breathing face. They have mouth breathing face, often have narrowed faces with receding chins or jaws. Supporting this studies found that children who breathe through their mouths can have distinct facial structures compared with nasal breathers. This research highlights that nasal breathing contributes to a broader palate and a more balanced facial appearance, suggesting it's importance for health and aesthetic development. Alrighty, the wife and I watched the 1958 on a hot tin roof last night, and I'm going to have to assume Paul Newman and young Elizabeth Taylor were nose breathers, them because they were gorgeous people, rest in peace, both of them. Okay, in the little time I have left, I've been holding onto this one for a while. When President Biden signed the inflation reduction act in 2022, he promised it would lower Medicare costs for American seniors, loaded with the all too familiar political rhetoric of taking it to drug companies. What is missing from the talking point is how the president took it to seniors. Thus far, however, seniors' costs have skyrocketed. A new report reveals that for those with a Medicare Part D drug plan, this year's premiums have increased by a crushing 21% on average, next year's prices are expected to be even higher. Already one major health plan has indicated they are pulling out of the Part D market in 2025, which could force almost 200,000 seniors to find a new plan. We expect more plans to leave the market in the coming years, further reducing options for beneficiaries, another impact of the IRA is that Part D insurers are aggressively cutting costs by adding more prior authorization requirements and by pushing patients toward the cheapest therapies first. None of this damage was necessary by partisan proposals to redesign the drug benefit is a smarter, less disruptive way where proposed were proposed but ignored in the interest of rushing a partisan bill through Congress, more than 50 million American seniors on the world in Medicare. They were told the Biden administration was improving the drug benefits, they are now learning the IRA is breaking it. That from Joel White, the president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, a non-profit advocacy organization that seeks to lower the cost of healthcare for all Americans. Good luck guys. Stay tuned for my last Miam, my thoughts of the day. Alright, it's hard to read a lot of things and breathe through your nose but it is time for my quotes for the day. Before I share a remind everyone to subscribe to heartlandjiddle.com, just go there and give us your email and zip code and we'll deliver news right to your inbox for free. A happy family is but an earlier heaven, George Bernard Shaw, founding member of the Fabian Socialist Society. He was lying. He thought all useless people should be killed as determined by a government agency. Happiness is having a large loving, caring, close-knit family in another city, George Burns. In family life, love is the oil that eases friction, the cement that binds closer together and the music that brings harmony. Frederick Nietzsche, he argued that the development of science and emergence of a secular world were leading to the death of Christianity. The other night, I ate at a real nice family restaurant. Every table had an argument going, George Carlin. It is a peculiar fact, stated Frederick Angles a few months after Karl Marx died, that with every great revolutionary movement, the question of free love comes to the foreground. By the mid to late 19th century, it was clear to advocates and opponents alike that many socialists shared a propensity to reject the institute of the family in favor of free love, if not in practice at least as an ideal. No transhistorical norms for the family exist, thus theoretically any sexual relationship between mutually consenting persons would be possible. What would not be possible would be the security of a lifelong marriage. This sexual relationship could not be chosen. Marx Angles and the abolition of the family, Richard Weicart 1994. That's it for this episode. Thank you, John Schwepi, for joining us and reminding us it doesn't take a village, it takes a family. 300,000 strong at his group and rolling americanprinciblesproject.org, if you want to join. This is goodbye for now. I'm your host, Steve Abramowitz, editor-in-chief of Heartland Journal dot com. See y'all tomorrow, peace in our time, and definitely, glory to God, Amen. Any of you's or opinions represented on the podcast are personal and belong solely to the creator and do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the creator may or may not be associated with in a professional or personal capacity unless it's strictly stated. See if we've watched producer Steve, everybody, even though I can see we're still like this. Okay. All right, let's go ahead and bring in Steve, Steve Abramowitz, one of our favorite Steve's. He is the CEO of Heartland Journal. He also hosts the Heartland Journal's Tennessee podcast. Steve, thanks for joining us here on the final countdown. I did not write Dream On, I just want to say that upfront. That's good song. You should just check it right. You absolutely should. And just think of the royalties, and these days, the catalog catalogs for music go for billions of dollars, so that would be a good thing to have. All right, so Scott, Steve, Scott, you were saying, I'm sorry to interrupt you, please continue your thoughts. No, I was just going to say that adding that layer of having to prove that it was an unofficial act. That's a tough thing to do. That's a tall order. I mean, you went through a lot of similar things, Ted. What was, oh gosh, what was that legal process you went through? Oh, the anti-slap. Yeah. Yes. Yes. And it is like that. Yeah, it does feel like that, right? It would be like the, so now the procedure in a situation like this where a former, I mean, the form, any former president, including Trump being prosecuted for something that happened while they were president, but after they leave the White House, they're going to be, they're going to argue that it was an official act. And I mean, you know, look, this is a weird thing, like even what about an official act that is leaked that is sort of okay within the construct of the presidency? For example, using ordering a drone assassination, drone assassinations are by, they're illegal under both American and international law. They're an extrajudicial assassination. They violate executive order 1233 issued by President Reagan against political assassinations, which remains enforced today. They're illegal, but it's an official act. Clearly, you know, it's not like I can issue a drone assassination, unfortunately. And so, you know, like why, you know, so you're right, Scott, this is going to, it'll just, it'll just make, it insulates a former president to the point where a prosecutor might think this is going to be a little too hard, but, you know, it's, but technically speaking, they still have the, you know, they're still prosecutable for something like J6, right? Yeah, no, this makes it almost impossible to prosecute. You said, even leading into this question, you made the case for Trump saying that, you know, he could cloak what happened on January 6 as official acts. He will. So, it makes it very, very difficult. Steve, what do you think? Well, I'm at a disadvantage because I missed the beginning of the conversation. So if I repeat myself, I apologize, or I apologize, but I think this is the official, nobody is above the law law, right? It's called Trump versus the United States, so they're not looking at the forest through the trees. It's not about Trump. They're using him, and fear he'll be the next president, sure, but what about the next 10 presidents? You know, we have a situation in which we would say that the president should be making official acts without any responsibility for following the law, the justices for two hours explored the bounds of what a presidential immunity means, and obviously with some of them seeming to embrace Trump's theory that presidents cannot be prosecuted for some actions even after they leave office. So, cocaine in the White House, dead bodies at Obama's brown chef, male prostitute, the Pelosi's Clinton illegal server, I mean, Comey, all would get a pass. You've been in Peter Navarro in jail for less, right? I mean, Justice Brown just said, she's trying to understand what the discern of the distinction is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country. And we all saw the departed, right, where why do Boulder goes right into the FBI? This would be, like, forget Watergate, forget, you know, Clinton having to testify over a blue dress, no, Iran, Contra, for Reagan. Yeah. Auntie, what's your answer to that? I mean, even, you know, Teaprod Dell, Ulysses S. Grant's criminal-infested cabinet, Hillary's private server, nothing would ever be called a scandal again, basically making the Supreme Court Justice's job a lot easier. And Congressmen and presidents job a lot easier because they don't have to follow the law. It is a little scary, right? I mean, it does seem like we've just entered sort of, is it too far to say this is kind of like monarchy light? No. Steve? Auntie? No, that's exactly what it is. And after leaving office, and Mugi implies even men. So, you know, whatever Obama and Soros and Hillary have been up to, just bring in the act president, Bill, or George W. Bush, right, you've seen what Sam Blankenfield freed, had politicians in his corner. So he wouldn't even have to testify as witnesses, likely getting, you know, non-elected people off. It's really to get at a jail-free card for elected officials, and we have seen how they like to abuse that, whether it be campaign finance laws, illegal immigration laws, any of the laws they're trying to skirt, just to get into power, they would now get to be able to say immunity. Thank you, Supreme Court justices. And again, they're using Trump, the personality that everyone's mad at that's got 91 felonies on his, you know, rap sheet or whatever, to get away with this. But you know it's going to spread down to every elected official from Pelosi on down day, you'll see to whoever wants to break the rules, because they won't be subject to the rules. Yeah. Well, today marks the landmark decision to support the Constitution. I think that's what we just saw today. I think Supreme Court definitely made the right ruling because, as Steve has said, this is going to affect every single presidency prior to Trump and after Trump. So I think this was definitely the right decision. I've got to argue with you, it might be a good decision. I don't know. I have to think about it a little more. But it's not really based in the Constitution, right? I mean, the Constitution is really has always been silent about this question. Well, now there's an answer. Isn't that the problem? No, the problem was all the unjust political harassment and unfair targeting using this. Look, as everyone on this show can name crimes of past presidents that they've made during their presidency, anything could be a crime. And I think it just got so hot and so politicized that you can't actually get your job done and it affects future presidents' duties if they know that maybe I shouldn't be bombing XYZ country because I may get hit for it when I'm a civilian again. Well, guess what they're not going to do, right? So I think this was, you know, it was never the perfect decision, but this was definitely, I think the right decision for these times. I think that this clears the pathway for President Trump now to be President again. I have to think through the legal maneuvers. It may not affect the Manhattan DA case whatsoever, but everything affects each other. So I want to hear from our guests. Does Trump now, does Jack Smith kind of move off the playing field here? Because all those other cases that are still in effect, does it leave them with nowhere to go? Certainly the Florida documents case. I think that this decision might affect that. Wow. You know, I it's hard to imagine Jack Smith's case going forward following this. But if he does, it just means that this case, all the remaining cases are going to go on for at least two or three years now, because of this ruling. Yeah. I agree with that. This has just gotten back, gone back to federal district court Judge Tanya Chudcon. The Supreme Court just remanded it. It's part of the order and just said, all right, Judge Chudcon, it's up to you to sort out what's, what's an unofficial act? What's an official act? That's going to take a while. By the way, that's a delay tactic, which is exactly what Trump wanted, which is good. He's his moto, famous hunter, and Joe Biden on telling Joe not to step down after that disastrous debate. We're delayed in several of those cases because it's not all of them that go back. And this basically will fire Jack Smith because he's not necessary until after the election. So we've got that, but just five days ago, I don't know if you all saw this, but Supreme Court basically legalized bribery as long as it's accepted after the vote, not before. So we know these Supreme Court justices themselves had some issues. And if they can pass that legalized bribery after this fact, they can do anything. So yeah, this is interesting, but it's just going to help Trump. But again, the next 50 years, 100 years, well, Roe versus Wade lasted 50 years. Next 50 years of presidents are going to be able to say, well, it's okay for Trump, it's okay for me. And you know, the left has been going after Clarence Thomas for bribes, so my year has taken lots of donations. So they're all compromised too. And ironically enough, Brown Jackson was the only dissenter in that one. And the same thing with this is in oral arguments, which I find interesting. She's the newest. Then there's a least time, maybe the least compromised. Well, so interesting, the New York Times and my old friend, Alan Foyer, is reporting that this ruling specifically excludes, it immunizes Trump from his any kind of interaction that he had with members of the Justice Department. One of the main accusations was that Trump wanted to install Jeff Clark as acting attorney general in order to act on Trump's behalf and do what Trump wanted in terms of de-certifying the 2020 election. That would no longer be, that will no longer be something that can be part of the J6 indictment in this case. It's pretty important. In which court was that? This is in the, well, this is the new ruling being kicked back to Jack Smith, so. It's really immoraculous. I mean, it's the end of the article one, clause one, basically some of what those kinds of powers, most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go in the office knowing there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. That's what Graham was almost brought down for because of Iran country. He could basically just say, "Hey, too bad, I did it." I don't believe a question. He didn't have absolute immunity. This is not what that's about. It's about qualified immunity. No, that's not correct. It's absolute. So, it's absolute immunity for anything that is considered an official act of the president. So, let's say the president calls the Department of the Treasury to do this or that. That's an official act. The president orders a drone strike. That's an official act. But an unofficial act would be the president meets with his reelection team. That's an unofficial act. So it's about whether it's an official act or an unofficial. It's not qualified immunity. It's absolute immunity for these official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts. Which I just said, there's no exception on that. It's meeting with the lawyers, as well, or his trusted advisors, which has always been a problem. That's why Navarro is in jail right now. That's why Bannon is in jail right now. So the fact that they're saying that's an unofficial act, even though I would say it's an official act, because how are you supposed to get advice to do the right thing if you can't even do that, except for the Senate, then we've got ourselves that gray area. Which is going to be constantly fought every single administration by the opposite party every single time for the rest of our lives. And this is holding us back from doing real world stuff, like doing potholes. By the way, I think it's important for the point of history to mention, to take note of the fact that Donald Trump did not file this motion. Jack Smith filed this motion. He might never have had this ruling if Jack Smith had to apply for it. More than rest of the constitutional bounds, too. He shouldn't even do it, and he's an illegally appointed special counsel, as we've just determined. So all of this is messing with the rule of law that has done America a great service for a long time, the only country based on liberty, because they want to get the man, they want to stop Trump. Well, again, that's short-sighted. We've got a century to win. So we already have this is a real imperial presidency, right? I mean, the executive branch already stole the right to declare war from Congress, starting 200 years ago, right? I mean, Congress has only declared war five times, the U.S. has been at war hundreds of times. And so this is just another example, right? I mean, basically, we're ending up with a very powerful executive branch. Politically, how does this affect the Biden campaigns, and more specifically, the Democrats? We have to say the Democrats, because we're not really sure Biden will be the nominee anymore. How does this affect their argument that it's so important to defeat Trump because he's got authoritarian impulses? I mean, it's one way to look at it, the Ted Raw way, which is, well, it doesn't matter if he has authoritarian impulses or not. Now, even like a president without authoritarian impulses can rule like an authoritarian despot, or does it increase, does it amplify that argument and say the presidency has never been more powerful than it is today. Therefore, it's really important not to have someone with Donald Trump's temperament take that office. Boy, you could say that, but that's a very funky campaign slogan. It doesn't fit on a very small bumper sticker. But you're right. It does put the lie now to anyone who says that Trump is an authoritarian will have or install authoritarian institutions or mechanizations. This absolutely makes for an imperial presidency. This was the fear of the 70s. If you remember a very famous book back then the imperial presidency postulate on this and postulate on these ideas and said, we can't have that in our democracy. We had a revolution to fight against stuff. So this is this decision, Angie, with all due respect, I disagree with you. When you said that a president would think, "Oh my gosh, if I do this, I'll be hit later." I want that fear in place. I want the person holding that office to be held to the same standards that I owe. I agree. And it's deeply disturbing today. I won't argue too much with that, but I do. Donald Trump has responded to the immunity case. He says, "Big win for our Constitution and democracy, proud to be an American." And he's going to be on truth social later on today, I think, doing maybe a speech about it. I'm not sure. That's not confirmed yet. That's a big win. That's a great win. That's a great win. That's a great win. He gets a brief. Yeah, he gets a brief. Because you and I also agree that there has been lawfare, no question. And so this looks at that, and I wonder if the judges can look at in the current state of political prosecution, which is so over the top now, to kind of maybe almost spend looking at 2000 elections, they just said, "Okay, enough's enough. This stops now, you know, weaponizing the legal system. That stops now." I'm dying to read the decision. I'm going to ask you guys a little bit of a legal jungle question here. I mean, do all the prosecutors now going after Trump and his teams, you know, with all the lawfare stuff that we've been talking about for months, if not years now, do they have to now go back and look at their cases to see if it applies to the new SCOTUS decision, and maybe do some workarounds or some sort of legal gymnastics to kind of not mitigate but like to keep their cases going? Like which ones? Not just them. Not just them, but everybody. I mean, the bookkeeping case, even. Not just their lawyers, but all the way back, any living president now, and maybe even some dead ones are going to have to relocate some of the things, because that was the only one. You know, I mean, I personally believe the history of the United States has come down to two or three things, and one of them is the Battle of Congress, or what we call a pull-up bureau, if it's Russia, and the presidency, the only one we all get to say in, Congress is just, you know, districts and counties and local, local, local, and so what this is is a creation of Nancy Pelosi and Jack Smith deciding that while they wanted the president to be handcuffed and be able to say, "You can't ever do anything that you aren't told to do again by the Congress, and they'll be long gone when the time this actually gets re-litigated." But the point is, is that what we just saw today was the Supreme Court, for whatever reasons, men and women are flawed, just like the rest of us are all sinners, said, "Nah." Let's talk about the political implications of the court and its reputation. This was a 63 decision divided along the usual party lines inside the court. I don't think it's a big stretch of the imagination to say that Democrats, you're going to look at this and say like they did after Bush v. Gore 5 to 4 in 2000. The fix was in, you know, they ruled for their guy. They ruled for the Republicans, the Republican Supreme Court justices ruled for their dude. They put, in the middle of an election year, they decided to basically drive a stake through the biggest legal threat to Donald Trump, biggest legal and political threat. I've always maintained that of all these cases, the only one that should have ever been brought was the J6 case because it's the only real issue that Donald Trump really should be held to account for. So here, Democrats are going to look at this and you know this is going to be the spin and it's going to resonate, isn't it? Scott? I think it's going to resonate, absolutely, that this is, you know, we had, this is the whole, you know, election have consequences and the fact that Trump was allowed or was in office to appoint three justices, this, yeah, this is going to be one of those issues. You know, but now, are they going to go forward and say Joe Biden would never have nominated these horrible people, he'll nominate good guys. He may not know who they are or remember their names, but that's this will be an issue. Not an important issue as you think it will be because wants like us care, does the general voter of the United States care, they don't care right now, but they will- But the reputation of the court is in the toilet right now and I don't think it's going to get me better anytime soon because of this, a little, I want to just clarify something about the ruling of the two states of Florida and Texas that we're trying to curb social media companies ability to moderate content, I want to be specific. So what's actually happened here is not really a rejection of these cases, these are, there's been no real definitive resolution, instead, nine to zero, the court agreed to return the cases to lower courts for further analysis. They said that neither of the federal appellate courts had properly analyzed the First Amendment challenges. So basically, these laws aren't really dead yet, Steve, right? No, no, no, no, this is something that will employ lawyers forever really and the point is that some of the trials that Trump is facing were before he was president. So that's Eugene Carroll, for example, or what he did, misallocating funds at or whatever the actual charges I forget in New York. So those folks will get to do what they're doing, but maybe for the time being, we're not going to have to worry about Jan 6 or anything he did while he was president until this is litigated. So bottom line is, again, I just have to emphasize, the next puppet president who does a bunch of illegal stuff is going to have to either retry this or not do it because it's not the law. I haven't read the whole decision yet. No one has. It just kind of came out. I'm very interested in seeing the defense as well because if the government of the sense, then that means one thing, if it's liberal, the sense it means another. But I just think that there are some past presidents who are a lot dirtier who did a lot dirtier stuff on the watch that are breathing a big sigh of relief today, even then Trump. Agreed with that. All right. So guys, thank you so much for joining us on this extremely eventful news day. Bremovitz is the CEO of Heartland Journal, he also hosts the Heartland Journal's Tennessee podcast. Go and check that out. Also Scott Stantis, the editorial cartoonist for the Chicago Tribune creator of the comics for Prickly City contributor to center clip winner of the Sigma Delta Chi journalism award co-host of the America DMZ America podcast with me, Ted Rall. Scott and see, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you.