Biden Adviser Says Wait and See What Happens After Title 42 is Lifted

About 2 years ago

Right click here and select "Save As" to download this podcast.

Emerald Robinson: The Biden administration is telling illegals to come on in, and let's see what happens when it comes to fueling our southern border chaos. Former President Donald Trump makes another major US Senate race endorsement that's drawing both criticism and praise. Plus, former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is calling out the platform's board of directors. Today is April 18th, and you're in on The Absolute Truth. As we've reported and been talking about a lot lately, the Biden administration is eliminating Title 42 on May 23rd. Now, this public health measure has allowed the United States to rapidly expel migrants and temporarily suspend the right to seek asylum at the southern border. The ending of Title 42 means the United States and Mexican border will be flooded with asylum hopefuls. But on Sunday, Biden's COVID Czar, Dr. Ashish Jha, took the opportunity on Fox News to downplay the looming chaos.

Video Clip: Dr. Ashish Jha: And the CDC scientists determined that Title 42 is not necessary at the border. And by the way, that goes into effect in late May. It gives us time to assess things, and that's a public health decision made by the CDC, and I think that they're following the evidence as they see it.

Emerald Robinson: The evidence as they see it. Well, let's bring in Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert and see if he thinks that's how he sees it. Congressman, thank you for joining us today.


Louie Gohmert, U.S. Representative: Hello, Emerald. Great to be with you.

Emerald Robinson: Now, Title 42 is being lifted in a little over a month. Dr. Jha is suggesting that it isn't any longer necessary. The evidence shows that it's not a public health safety concern anymore. What do you say to that, Congressman Gohmert?

Louie Gohmert, U.S. Representative: Well, if you noticed, he said on the border. Well, these people are either liars, they're incompetent, or they're just completely oblivious to what's going on. Because any time you see the president or vice president wear a mask, then apparently Title 42 is still necessary. Any time you see Biden, as he recently has said, we're going to extend the mask mandate for flying. Then it means that Title 42 should still be effective because there is a health risk as you see them continue to give Big Pharma this complete immunity from liability. Then it tells you that there is still a health risk, at least in their minds, why we need to keep Title 42. So, for them to keep allowing hundreds of thousands of people to pour across our borders with all kinds of diseases that they're not even testing for, then they say that they're still going to continue to give immunity because of the emergency use authorization. Then, you know, they're lying about Title 42 no longer being necessary.

Emerald Robinson: Now, let me ask you, and I do want to get more into the vaccines and the emergency use authorization with you in just a moment. But your governor, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, did bus illegals to the US Capitol. They arrived last week. Outside of taking measures like that. What can the governor do in light of the rescinding of Title 42 to maybe try to enforce it himself?

Louie Gohmert, U.S. Representative: Well, Emerald, Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution says the federal government guarantees states freedom from invasion. We know that there was a much tinier number in 1916 when Woodrow Wilson said, nope, that's an invasion. We're sending the Army to deal with it. When you have approaching 2 million people a year come across the border, as we had last year. Now, they're predicting even more with Title 42 being taken away. You have an invasion, and when the federal government refuses to live up to its obligation and breaches its obligation under the US Constitution. Then the state has every right to repel people from coming into its state illegally. So, the key is what the Supreme Court says. States cannot enforce immigration laws. Well, they can repel the invasion. That's what we have. So, with the National Guard that our governor already has on the border and the Department of Public Safety troopers that are there. They can repel the invasion legally and constitutionally and prevent people from setting one foot on Texas soil.

Emerald Robinson: That's exactly why Congressman Andy Biggs from Arizona told me as well when we talked about Title 42 and what his governor could do. He suggested that Governor Ducey isn't doing that or doesn't know if he's going to. Is Greg Abbott using this kind of power with the National Guard troops you mentioned on the border and the state law enforcement?

Louie Gohmert, U.S. Representative: Well, they're not allowed under the Supreme Court decision to enforce immigration, so they're down there. I visited with them. They say they're not allowed to arrest people or stop people once they get on Texas soil. But they're not repelling anyone either. They tell them to go around the private property, or we'll have to arrest you for trespass. I see them do that, but that's not enough. We really need to stop the invasion. You know, Texas had 25 to 30 million people, and now you see they're projecting could be million, 2 million coming just into Texas, in this next year without Title 42 enforcement. So, you will completely lose the republic when you don't enforce the border. That's perhaps what Biden is shooting for, is destroying the republic, but I'm not sure he has that much competence. Somebody is trying to destroy the republic, and we cannot afford to have millions come in who have never been taught what it takes to sustain a democratic republic. We're going to lose it if we don't step up and have governors step up. Now, his busing people to DC. Unfortunately, he has to have their voluntary consent to go to DC, so we don't have large numbers going up there on the buses. There have been some buses going already, but it's time to stop the invasion.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah. I want to go back. You're talking about them not enforcing the border and not really enforcing what the Constitution is when it comes to the southern border and sovereignty. But they are enforcing a lot of mandates or have been on American citizens. So, I want to go back to the emergency use authorization and the vaccines you talked about while they're flooding the border with migrants. They are still pushing Americans to take experimental vaccines. There's some developing news on that front today with what they plan at the World Global Summit on COVID in May. Now, you and your colleagues, notably Congressman Posey, penned a letter that you signed that calls for the FDA to release important documents related to the approval process. In the letter, you all say that although we have been responding to the COVID 19 pandemic for two years, most of the FDA's possession is related to the EUA products and how approved COVID 19 vaccines, including vaccines that have been mandated for tens of millions of Americans, have not been made available for review and evaluation. You all go on to say there is absolutely no reason for failing to fully disclose pre and post-EUA data and the FDA's possession of those products, which have now been approved. So, tell me, Congressman, will the FDA now respond?

Louie Gohmert, U.S. Representative: Well, that's what we're hoping for because a proper response, either to do away with the emergency use authorization or you go back to Title 42. But it's time to start holding the pharmaceutical companies liable for the damage that they're doing. There's a need for Title 42, or it's time to get rid of the emergency use authorization. Let me tell you, there has never, ever been a vaccine in American history, especially since there's been an FDA that's been allowed to have this many deaths and this many adverse reactions and still even be voluntarily made available. Normally it would be pulled from the market when you have this many adverse reactions and deaths, and we don't even know the full extent. I would just encourage people to ask their pharmacist for the warnings that come with the vaccine when you get the shot or the booster, and they will give you, or they should give you the warnings that come with it. When you unwrap it, it's huge. It's about two by three-foot-wide and tall, and it's completely blank. There's not a single warning on there. One of the most important developments in US medicine came when we developed the idea that you would have the right to informed consent. You can't have informed consent unless you know the risks inherent to that vaccine. It's time for them to give us the information.

Emerald Robinson: Absolutely. But, Congressman, I think there seems to be a general lack of transparency out of the federal government in general, which is particularly bad under this administration. I want to go back to something. This is on a different topic, but still on transparency. I want to go back to something you said on the floor, the House floor back in February. Let's listen to your remarks then.

Louie Gohmert, U.S. Representative: For the first time since I've been in Congress. We have seen that our mail, we've gotten to mail just a day apart. One came on September 17th, stamped by the Department of Justice as being received, reviewed, and examined. And another from a Christian missionary to me and was reviewed by the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court has made clear that the Department of Justice cannot even get a search warrant to search a member's office. Yet this administration, like this House, doesn't think the rules, the laws, the Constitution perhaps mean what they say. We have got to get back to following the Constitution if we're going to preserve this republic. But it is in a dire situation. It is in a desperate situation. And if we do not get back to following the Constitution and observing the rules of the House, then our republic will be lost. That's where we're being taken right now. With that, I yield back.

Emerald Robinson: You know, I thought that was a very poignant remark on the floor, and it was very troubling to hear that the DOJ is opening and spying on the mail of a sitting congressman. Have you had any more developments on this, or have you had any interactions further with the DOJ about them intercepting your mail?

Louie Gohmert, U.S. Representative: Yeah, they say it must have been a mistake that we had your mail come in and didn't realize it. Then why do you hang on to it for three months, from September to February, for heaven's sake? There's something very wrong going on. We have seen that with the abuse of Americans' constitutional rights. We've seen that for some time called the National Security Letter, where an FBI agent can send a letter to anyone saying, give me all your records on this person or this company. If you don't, it's a felony, and we'll arrest you. And if you tell anyone that you've gotten this request, we can arrest you. It's time to do away with the national security letters. It's time to rein in some of the Patriot Act and get rid of some those because the government is using them to spy on American citizens without probable cause, which just shreds the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment. It is outrageous what they're getting away with by spying on American citizens. It is so much right out of 1984. It's as if somebody read Orwell and then said, Yes, that's what we want to do.

Emerald Robinson: Congressman, you've been trying to push the FBI director, Christopher Wray, to give you more information on their surveillance activities. It appears to me as a journalist that, given everything, we know about Russiagate and the FISA abuse related to Carter Page and others. It doesn't seem like the FBI has really changed its practice in light of that debacle, have they?

Louie Gohmert, U.S. Representative: No, they haven't. In fact, the way it appears to me, President Trump appointed Christopher Wray as director of the FBI. That's a guy that was sent in to clean up the disastrous debacles in the FBI, and he took his marching orders to clean up the mess, to simply sweep things under the rug. That's all he's done. He has not gone after and punished FBI agents who have violated the Constitution. The worst he's done that I'm aware of is letting people go get a more high-paying job in the private sector. That's not a whole lot of punishment for people that have been so absolutely abusive of the Constitution.

Emerald Robinson: And it seems like they're more focused on the J six. I guess we'll call them suspects because the FBI is continuing to go after people, make arrests, and then we'll see what's happening at the DOJ. Over the weekend, you tweeted about this. You said the glaring threat to democracy that our country faces is the mean-spirited, weaponized, politically driven J six prosecutions. They've also been coming for you, Congressman. What is your reaction to where we stand right now on J six prosecutions? Just recently, a man wasn't prosecuted. He wasn't convicted based on a video that showed the Capitol Police waving protesters into the Capitol. They thought they could go in. Your reaction?

Louie Gohmert, U.S. Representative: Well, I think we'll see more of that as we go along. There are people that have been arrested that have been saying, look, I didn't do anything. I had the impression it was okay to go into the Capitol because nobody was telling us we couldn't. There were a lot of people going in. But regardless, Emerald, we can't lose sight of the constitutional right people have not to be punished in pretrial confinement. The Constitution is very clear about that. Supreme Court's been very clear about that, yet they are using pretrial confinement as a kind of torture and imprisonment for people that have not been convicted. So, the only reason you're supposed to ever put people in pretrial confinement is if they are a threat to themselves or others, and you have people that are not charged with any crime; that's a violent crime. Yet they've been locked up in isolation, and they've been punished in all kinds of ways. Normally, the Supreme Court and even the ACLU would be going nuts over the kind of civil rights violations we have, but just crickets. And the DOJ is okay with that. It tells you our country, our republic, is in further danger than people realize. If they can do it to them, then they can do it to anyone. This is a very, very dangerous time in our history, and people have got to wake up. They could be next.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah, speaking of crickets. There are a lot of crickets from many of your fellow Republican colleagues. It's been you and a handful of members of Congress who've been speaking out about these pretrial confinements and conditions of these defendants. We appreciate your time coming on, Congressman Gohmert. We really enjoy talking to you, and we look forward to having you back.

Louie Gohmert, U.S. Representative: Thank you, Emerald. Always great to talk to you. Thank you. It is always great to hear you.

Emerald Robinson: Now, I want to get to some developing news in light of what we were talking about earlier with the Congressman. The White House says it plans to hold a global COVID summit on May 12th. The summit is expected to mark the end of the pandemic. The White House says the meeting will discuss the plans on how to move forward on the acute phase of the COVID 19 pandemicstill waiting to see what that means. The administration also hopes to bring solutions to vaccinate the world for everyone, everywhere. Now coming up, we'll look at what the political landscape is like ahead of the midterm elections, as well as another big endorsement from former President Donald Trump up next.

Emerald Robinson: Over the weekend, President Donald Trump gave his endorsement in the Ohio Senate race to an attorney and author J.D. Vance. Though not as controversial as the Dr. Oz endorsement from the previous week. The endorsement has been met with some pushback due to past anti-Trump statements made by Vance. Justifying his decision in a statement, the 45th president said quote, "I've studied this race closely, and I think JD is the most likely to take out the weak but dangerous Democrat opponent. Dangerous because they will have so much money to spend." Now despite a certain level of name recognition. J.d. Vance had been polling third. So, some are saying Trump is taking a bit of a risk on this one. But in America First World, some people who were not Revolver News, Daron Beatty is, applauding the former president's decision. So, let's bring in the founder of the 1776 PAC, Ryan Girdusky, who was also one of the best campaign political election minds that I know to talk about this in Ohio. Just the overall electoral landscape ahead of the midterms. Welcome, Ryan.


Ryan Girdusky: Thank you for having me. In full disclosure, I do work for JD Vance's Super PAC.

Emerald Robinson: Absolutely, and here's what I think a lot of people don't know, Ryan, is that this was not an easily won endorsement for President Trump. Early on, he was looking at other sources. He was looking at endorsing Jane Timken, but there was a lot of pushback from America First supporters of his who said that J.D. Vance is the more America first candidate. My question is, he has been polling in third. So, how much will this endorsement help him? It looks like he's already going up to second now in polling based on a Trafalgar poll after this endorsement.

Ryan Girdusky: Well, President Trump was looking at, I think, everyone who approached him for an endorsement. He said the only person he wasn't looking at was a state senator, Matt Dolan. And, yeah, JD had lagged in some of the polls, including in some of our own internals. But over the last couple of months, after $3 million of negative ads were sent against him and allegations that he had voted for Hillary Clinton, which he never did. And allegations that he voted for Joe Biden, which he never did, were thrown around by our opponents on the campaign. I think that JD was able to make himself known as the only real America First Candidate in the race. Unlike our opponents, we will suck up to Trump publicly and then privately vote against the interest of MAGA voters. Jd Vance actually is the only candidate running on the issues that got President Trump elected in 2016. It's a very important distinction between people who say nice things and vote very badly and people who actually are committed to the ideology that we believe in.

Emerald Robinson: Now, there's clearly a break between President Trump and his endorsements and the kind of candidates that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would like to see. He gave money to Liz Cheney's campaign and is helping to fundraise for her. So, who do you think wins out in this primary landscape on the Republican side? Is it going to be Donald Trump and his endorsement, or is it going to be the more establishment-backed people, particularly in the Senate races?

Ryan Girdusky: Well, in the Senate races, there is no alternative to Mitch McConnell as of right now. So, there is no one actually running to replace Mitch McConnell openly. Until that person emerges, it is Mitch McConnell by default. Who knows who it is? I think the biggest advantage that Mitch McConnell had was when President Trump unendorsed Mo Brooks in Alabama. Mo Brooks was one of the only Trump-endorsed candidates who explicitly said he would vote against Mitch McConnell for Senate majority leader, although he didn't have a candidate he would replace him with. I think that given until someone can emerge, who would take the leadership mantle from Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell is the default leader in the Senate, and I don't see anyone right now, although Rick Scott is certainly making waves, anyone right now who is openly saying that they will challenge him for that position.

Emerald Robinson: Politico is calling Ohio the bellwether state for the GOP's future, and there is clearly going to be a lot of big money coming into Ohio for this race. There's going to be a lot of media attention. Politico is saying the ground game in Ohio seems like an afterthought. Is it an afterthought to Vance, or how important is the ground game going to be for him?

Ryan Girdusky: Well, JD has done bus tours across almost every county in the state. He has met with thousands, if not tens of thousands of voters at this point, individually shaking hands, meeting people, and doing traditional campaigning, which is incredibly important. It's important they actually know the constituents you're going to be representing, which is something that most people don't do in campaigning anymore. Every candidate in the race besides JD is a self-funder. They're all worth a lot of money and put lots of money. I mean, Josh Mandel is not worth as much as maybe Jane Timken or Mike Gibbons's, but he certainly had the backing of the very wealthy corporate donors and his former campaign donations from previous lost campaigns that he had run for US Senate. So, everyone started in with a lot of money. JD was the only person who really didn't have personal funds to invest in it. A lot of his hitting the ground, meeting people, shaking hands, doing three or four stops a day, I think, has built some trust with every day, average Ohioans. I will say this as someone who's known JD for over two or three years now. He is a transformational figure in the GOP. I think that we have had a lot of people who have used the MAGA slogan and the America First ideas as a bumper sticker for the back of their campaign bus. When the rubber hits the road, they vote with the party on every major issue. They don't differ very much on anything from trade to immigration to our foreign policy. Jd Vance is a major break from that, and I think that people getting people like him elected means having more conversations within the GOP about broadening our policies on a whole host of things and really bringing someone with that Trump mentality that Trump brought to the presidency in 2016 into the Senate in a very real and important way.

Emerald Robinson: I've got two quick questions for you before we end this segment. Number one, we see all these headlines from political strategists and pollsters. Particularly, Joe Biden's pollster who's saying that the political landscape for Democrats is the worst they've seen it ahead of this midterm cycle. We don't usually see them be so honest. Even if it is bad for them, they don't openly admit it. So, what does it mean for them openly admit it?

Ryan Girdusky: I think they're nervous. We wouldn't see retirements from people holding top-level positions in the US House of Representatives if they were not in a position where they thought they were going to lose. I think they know they're going to lose. I think that the level of support among Hispanics and Asians has certainly increased, although we are not winning a majority of them. We have we've done much better than we had a decade and a half, two decades ago, and white working-class voters. I mean, there is no floor we get hit. We saw that with Glenn Youngkin when he did ten points better than Trump in Virginia among white working-class people. I think it's the perfect storm of high crime in cities, inflation, a broken border system, and the terrible crunch we're seeing when it comes to our supply chains. People every day, when they go to the grocery store, they see products not available, and the price is rising. I think that combination is just a doomsday scenario for Democrats, not only in 2022 but probably in 2024 as well.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah. You know, Ryan, I saw a tweet, and we don't have time for it now, but there's some GOP out there acting like they're now the party of Hispanics, and Hispanics are a Republican. But you say no.

Ryan Girdusky: No, it's not. We'll do better with them, but we're not winning 60% or 55%, probably not even 45% of Hispanics.

Emerald Robinson: All right. Thanks, Ryan. Good to see you.

Ryan Girdusky: Bye.

Emerald Robinson: All right, Jen Psaki might have one foot out the door of the White House, but that doesn't mean she gets off the hook in today's Better Briefing. Jen Psaki has some not-so-nice things to say about the only journalist left in the briefing room who doesn't always ask groveling DNC sponsor questions. Psaki had this to say about Fox's Peter Doocy during an appearance at a live taped podcast before an adoring crowd of leftists.

Video clip: Is he a stupid son, or does he play a stupid thing on TV?

Jen Psaki, White House Press Secretary: Okay - Well, he works for a network.

Jon Favreau:  Okay.

Jen Psaki, White House Press Secretary: That provides people with questions that are nothing personal to any individual, including Peter Doocy, but might make anyone sound stupid.

Emerald Robinson: Psaki tries to clean up those comments that went viral in a tweet saying, quote, "The full video shows I also told a story about Peter Grace last night and make it very clear I was not being critical of him or any reporter at Fox, and instead was critical of the slant of some Fox topics. He is doing his job. I am doing mine. We debate, we disagree. I respect that." Now, Psaki might be right about Doocy asking the Fox line of question, which still stays within certain boundaries, but at least he's there offering some level of pushback in an otherwise compliant and groveling press corps that essentially serves as a public relations arm of the DNC. But Psaki has been more protected than any other press secretary to date, and unfortunately, she's about to step out of that job, and she'll never truly be put to the test of a press corps with integrity, making the press secretary defend the Biden administration's policies. But to interpret what Psaki was really saying there, for you, no journalists in DC are allowed to ask questions of Democrat policies. Coming up, Elon Musk is still owning the libs and hopes to own them a little more. We'll give you the latest in the battle over Twitter with independent Jordan Schachtel.


Emerald Robinson: Elon Musk is calling out Twitter's board of directors, and Musk is saying the board members economic interests are, quote, "simply not aligned with shareholders." Now, all of this comes as Twitter voted to adopt the poison pill defense. This move is considered to be a move to prevent Musk from purchasing the company. Let's bring in independent journalist Jordan Schachtel to discuss. Hi, Jordan.


Jordan Schachtel: Hey. Thanks for having me, Emerald.

Emerald Robinson: So, Jordan, it's clear that the Twitter board of directors may be the issue because if you look, even former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who I would assume is not necessarily aligned ideologically with Elon Musk, called out the board by saying, quote, "It's consistently been the dysfunction of the company." Now, my question to you is the Twitter board is clearly the issue here.

Jordan Schachtel: It seems that in addition to the Twitter board, there are a lot of interested parties in making sure that Twitter does not stay free of any kind of outside oversight. What Elon Musk seems to be wanting to do is to completely overhaul the company entirely if he decides to purchase it. So, it seems that this board, which is acting upon some kind of interest, wants to prevent that from happening. It could be just the interests of the random members of the board, but when you look at the shares that these people are holding of the company, it's pretty inconsequential. I mean, Jack Dorsey holds the most shares on the board, and he only has about 2% of the company. No one on the board other than Jack owns even 1/1000 of the company's share. So, it seems that there are a lot of outside interests that want to make sure that Twitter remains a kind of an information platform for the elites. If Elon Musk takes it over, that can be put in jeopardy. So, it seems that they're trying to prevent that.

Emerald Robinson: So, the poison pill defense that they put in place recently, will that actually work to counter Musk taking over, or is this an effort that might not work to block Musk? And how does all this line up with the FCC? Couldn't this be some kind of violation?

Ryan Girdusky: So, it seems that has been true for many years now. There seems to be a rule for the ruling class and a rule for everyone else. I see the poison pill defense as kind of a temporary roadblock, and they are going to mount several roadblocks, whether that's in the form of like media smear operations to kind of demotivate him or his investor allies from taking over the company. We saw the reports that the FCC was thinking about investigating Elon Musk himself. They have had a long, tumultuous relationship with him, the government. Even though he pays more taxes, I believe, than anyone in the United States. So, you'd think they'd love him, but I guess not when he's trying to take a prize piece of their communications apparatus. I think that the government will most certainly get involved in trying to create its own roadblocks. And the idea that we have some type of semblance of the rule of law that's like equally distributed. I think in the coming days and weeks, we will see they will pull out all the stops to try to prevent this from happening.

Emerald Robinson: I think you're right. I think if they get past the poison pill defense and there's going to be the next thing and the next thing. So, then it begs the question, how committed will Elon Musk actually be to this potential Twitter takeover? Do you think, at some point, I'll just say, well, it's not worth it? I proved my point that it's not even possible to be a free speech platform. Or does he really push for this?

Ryan Girdusky: It's interesting because I think he's genuinely motivated to bring back some type of semblance of free speech and open conversations and encouraging dialogue on the Internet. It's obviously not the ideal situation in the world that the wealthiest person in the world is going to potentially take over this company. But it's like the least of other potential bad outcomes. The status quo on Twitter is totally unacceptable. But I genuinely believe that he's, especially like the whole COVID mania thing, awakened a lot of citizens who are otherwise kind of on the sidelines about human rights and individual freedoms. I think he genuinely cares about it, and that's what's motivating him. I hope that he continues to pursue the takeover of Twitter because I just don't see Twitter as a perfect solution. But as of now, I don't see a legitimate competitor in the space just yet.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah, I know Twitter has been bad, and it's just been getting worse. Now, you brought up the COVID issue, and that shed light on Twitter and other platforms for a lot of people. I did want to touch on that just real quick with you. Last question, because you've been so ahead of the game in a lot of ways. On the data regarding COVID, you've been very hard on Dr. Tony Fauci while he was out last week on MSNBC praising China's zero COVID policies once again as Shanghai and other cities are in lockdown. What was your reaction to Dr. Fauci once again going out there and giving applause to China for what clearly didn't work?

Ryan Girdusky: It's just more of the same from a guy that's been working the bureaucracy for 50 years. This class of ruling elites envies the Chinese Communist Party. A lot of people get this wrong. They think that there's some type of like an adversarial relationship. They're more so our elites and their elites, as you very well know, Emerald. They're more like chess competitors, but I think they both want the same thing. And Tony Fauci most certainly wants to emulate the Chinese system. He thinks I believe if only we didn't have these rabid Americans who believe in freedoms and stuff. If only we could get past them and totally cast them out to the fringes of society, then we could create our utopia. That's the way they think. So, they envy the fact that China has a one-party state where people don't really have representation, and they have this top-down system. That's what Tony Fauci wants for America. And my view is they want to be able to control everything without any resistance because they review their resistance as what's getting in the way of their perfectly crafted plans for society.

Emerald Robinson: Those pesky freedoms Jordan, just always get in the way. Thank you, Jordan, for being here. Always good to talk to you.

Ryan Girdusky: Yeah, thanks so much.

Emerald Robinson: It's now time for your Daily Round. The suspect in the South Carolina mall shooting that left 14 people injured has had his bond set to 25,000. Twenty-year-old Dewayne Price will be on house arrest but will be allowed to travel for work. He'll be required to wear an ankle monitor. Price has been charged with unlawful carrying of a pistol. The prosecutor says he could face additional charges after their office completes its review of the evidence. Price's lawyer claims he was only acting in self-defense. Nine people were shot during the shooting. People believe it was a targeted attack. No one else has been charged. And let's head down to the Sunshine State for this next story. Florida has just rejected 41% of its math textbooks after the state uncovered CRT and Common Core lessons inside the books; 71% of the books rejected were for Grade K through five, according to the Florida Department of Education. Governor Ron DeSantis banned Common Core back in 2019. He recently banned CRT from being taught in classrooms as well. The governor weighed in on the rejected books by saying quote, "It seems some publishers attempted to slap a coat of paint on an old house built on the foundation of Common Core and indoctrinating concepts like race, essentialism, especially, bizarrely, for elementary school students." Let's turn to Saturday Night Live, though I don't really watch it. The once-popular comedy show has resorted to poking fun at President Joe Biden.

Saturday Night Live: A new poll shows that President Biden's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 33%. For perspective, that's less than half the approval rating of Sonic the Hedgehog II. Sonic Chew features the character's tails and knuckles, which are also the names of two gang members Joe Biden claims he fought in the 1960s. A video has also gone viral of President Biden finishing a speech in North Carolina, then apparently turning to shake hands with an invisible person. Hey, her name is Kamala. You saw herPresident Biden seen here trying to remember where he left his mask announced new federal regulations for ghost guns. I mean, look, I don't like the idea of people having ghost guns either. But if there's something strange in your neighborhood, who are you going to call?

Emerald Robinson: Now, that might be more telling than anything else that Democrats are ready to be rid of Joe Biden when they're allowed to make fun of him on Saturday Night Live. And that's your Round Up. Coming up, the pro-life movement has just gained another win. We'll tell you how next.


Emerald Robinson: The pro-life movement garnered a win last week with a signing of a bill by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis banning abortion after 15 weeks in his state. Now, Hollywood and the fashion world were, of course, quick to criticize, while most of the fashion world celebrates a quote-unquote woman's right to choose. One particular line Col 1972, celebrates the right to life. And joining us now is the founder of that line, Carla Nicole. Carla, it's so good to see you.


Carla Nicole: Thank you for having me this morning. Yes, it's really quite wild that the fashion industry is actually aborting its future customers. It doesn't seem like a very good business plan. So, at Col 1972, we have a different business plan, and that is we celebrate 1972, the last year that we enjoyed a culture of life. The other side has been wearing all year long 1973 sweatshirts, sweaters, on jewelry because they applaud and they glorify the right to death. So, we just applaud Governor DeSantis. We stand with him. Signing that bill is going to save thousands of babies' lives. And hopefully, what he has done and stood courageously for life is going to really catch across the other 49 states, and they're going to follow and lead for life, which is what our fashion brand does. And we're very proud to counter that.

Emerald Robinson: You know, Carla, I've been amazed to watch you all grow over the years because I interviewed you in the early days of your line when I was also new to political reporting at One America News. And it's just expanded so much. So tell me, what kind of market out there is there for a fashion line with a conservative platform instead of all this liberal messaging that we see from mainstream fashion and media?

Carla Nicole: So, it's growing rapidly every single solitary day because I think the other side has become so rabidly pro-death, and they're really targeting our children as early as kindergarten with what they're sharing in the classes and the public schools so that we have families that are coming over traditional families, traditional women, traditional men, that one to support a brand and wear a brand that supports and glorifies and applauds life. Life from the moment of conception until life's final breath. We do give back to pro-life organizations. We do sponsor a crisis pregnancy center right here in Philadelphia. We are a Pennsylvania company, USA Family Run Small Business. And so there are millions of people that want to support businesses like ours. If you follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Gab, or Getter, you will see thousands of people that are supporting our small brand in just three years. And of course, God has used our brand to bring women out, to also want to empower what we call our life tribe for life. So, people like Abby Johnson, Alex Clark, Sam Sorbo, Dr. Gina, and you have come out and said we're going to not be afraid to wear Col 1972. And in fact, we hope that people ask us, what does 1972 mean? What does Col mean? And let me tell you, Emerald, when you are sharing with someone over hot pink, cute strawberry shirt what Col means, it is really opening great conversation. My necklace is Col my earrings are so well. We've expanded to have not just a street-chic line, which is what we started in 2019, but we expanded to upcycled jewelry for women as well as the teens. So there is still a lot of growth for us to expand. Remember, we're competing with Ann Taylor, Kate Spade, Gap, and the Banana Republic. These are all brands that give back and support Planned Parenthood and a culture of death.

Emerald Robinson: I'll just say, not just the clothing; it's really, really cute. It's really wearable, but it's also your branding appeals to women out there who like fashion, trendy stuff, social media, and it's really good. Then I want to bring up one other area when you're talking about what these girls are getting fed as young as kindergarten from fashion if you look at the headlines and see these fashion headlines, especially during Fashion Week this year, pushing the idea to accept transgenderism. And then there was particularly one that really bothered me the most, and it was on Teen Vogue because you look at the age of girls reading Teen Vogue. Overall, what does this say about the value of women as women, and how your advertising appeals to women and reinforces this femininity and womanhood? Can you just talk about that a little bit?

Carla Nicole: My favorite topic to talk about. If you've done any studying on the feminist women's movement starting in 1960 with people like Betty Friedan writing Women's Mystique. You'll identify very quickly that these women are not pro-women, they're not pro men, they're not pro children, they're not pro-life. Their agenda was always 100% free abortion across all 50 states, up to 40 weeks. It was a lie when they said that abortion was only going to be used very infrequently in cases of rape and incest. Also, if you read what they said back in the sixties and seventies, they wanted a gender-free, gender-neutral society. That is what is written in the National Organization of Women's Initial Manifesto back in the sixties and seventies. So, they have accomplished many of their goals. Right? We now are teaching in kindergarten; which pronouns would you like to use? The feminist movement started the word gender. Gender really didn't exist before the sixties and seventies. There were two sexes, male and female. Why did we know that there were two sexes? Because biology tells us that there's x, x, and x y. This is not brain science. There are two sexes, X, X and x, y. And yes, you're right, Emerald. They're trying to get our children as early as five years old to indoctrinate them with a lie. It is untruthful, and then they're taking it a step further to say, we want to start chopping off your private parts, and we're going to start giving our children, our little boys, they're going to be ingesting estrogen. This is creating sterility. It's creating depression and anxiety. So, everything that they claim that they're helping children with it is actually absolute confusion. It is horrible for women, men, children, families, and the United States of America. But Celine Dion in the fashion industry started with this gender neutrality. Do you remember, back in 2018? She actually started a line for our infants and children. Everything was black, and they made fun of us who traditionally put our children in pink or traditionally put our children in blue. She started a whole gender-neutral line. I'm not sure that it's doing very well now. I think that it's already gone bankrupt, but these are the kinds of things that we're starting to see. I think that parents and pastors need to stand up and teach our children. Don't think that the public-school teacher is going to be their salvation. It's the traditional family that is right now being destroyed in this society that needs to teach our children the truth.

Emerald Robinson: I'd have to say, Carla, I really love the way that your girls are very involved with this, your daughters. I love the way that your line is cute. It's really trendy and appealing, and it celebrates family. I think it's an inspiration for a lot of people out there who are now looking; how do I get involved and do something business-wise that isn't on the liberal agenda or the corporate America platform that is so liberal. So thank you, Carla. Thank you for sharing your story with us today. We'll look forward to seeing you in the future.

Carla Nicole: Thank you for having me today. Come and check us out at

Emerald Robinson: There was so much good conversation with our guests today. We didn't get to the usual commentary but stick around tomorrow. Come back and join us tomorrow when we'll break down what exactly is going on with John Durham. Why it is taking so long, and what do you expect from the Michael Sussmann trial when you come back tomorrow for more of The Absolute Truth.