Left-Wing Judges: The Gangsters in Black with Ken Paxton and Stephen Miller

Hey, feeling unsure about your finances these days?

You're not alone. That's why Noble Gold Investments is here to help. Just hear it straight from the people who they've helped. The Noble crew walked me through everything with no stress.

With their help, I could finally sleep easy at night. And now this month, Noble Gold Investments is handing out a free 5-ounce Silver America the Beautiful coin if you qualify for an IRA. Invest in gold and silver with Noble Gold Investments. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com right now.

That is noblegoldinvestments.com right now. Hey everybody to end the Charlie Kirk show. Ken Paxton, recently acquitted in Texas, is telling us about what he plans to do to get to work.

Then Stephen Miller, as we have a very in-depth, extremely detailed, and important conversation about immigration. Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. That is freedom at charliekirk.com. Subscribe to our podcast. Open up your podcast application and type in charliekirkshow and get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com.

That is tpusa.com. Buckle up everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here.

Brought to you by the loan experts I trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandtodd.com. He's back to work and he's more motivated than ever. Joining us now is the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton. Ken, welcome to the program.

Been a couple months since we have chatted. We tried to do our part. I'm glad that you got through that clown show and that nonsense. First of all, how are you doing?

You know what? It's just really great to be back. I appreciate your help and we have a lot to do and believe me, you're right. I'm very motivated.

Well, good. And we're going to go through some of the specifics because what happened is that you were put on the sidelines for, what, three, four months. You weren't even allowed to do your job because you had to fight all this crap. I want to go through some of the specifics though for our national audience. Texas is being invaded. Texas is seeing a crime wave in certain parts of the area. We have major issues. We have these illegal cities that you're going to go after. But why is it that the insiders in Austin felt the need to go out of their way to try to derail you? What was really driving this? It's perplexing as a non-Texan to witness.

It doesn't look like it makes any sense, but it really makes a lot of sense. If you understand how the Texas House works, then you understand why this happened. We have 150 members of the House, 65 are Democrats. The 65 Democrats block vote for speaker. And it takes 76 votes to become a speaker. The speaker controls everything. All the legislation getting through, committee assignments.

What happens is completely controlled by that one person. And so what happens is the Democrats will pick the Republican that gives them the most for their money. And they pick Dave Phelan. And Dave Phelan had to deal with the Democrats. And Democrats, House Democrats, I believe, did this for Joe Biden and the Washington Democrats to take me out because we filed 48 lawsuits against them. And so it looks like the Republicans did it. The reality is the Democrats motivated it. Dave Phelan is controlled by the Democrats. Yeah. And so, I mean, I was I was in Texas a couple of weeks ago while this whole thing was unfolding and someone came up to they said, hey, Charlie, you know, the speaker of the House is like a really he's a drunk.

I was like, oh, come on. Like that's. But then there's this piece of tape I saw that I just I have to play. Play cut 124. You guys be the judge. Is is Dade Phelan a low functioning alcoholic?

Play cut 124. Speaker, I move adoption. Mr. Campbell, send them a member to settle the author. Is there objection to the opposite amendment?

And the judge has done them is adopted. The chair recognizes Mr. Mr. Johnson of Harris. Mr. Johnson of Harris to speak in opposition to the bill.

So can I have to play that? Because that's the guy who made you go through hell. That's the guy who impeached you. I mean, so just to go through, you could comment on that if you want.

But I have to do that because it's just hilarious. So this guy's obviously either on pills, drunk or having a stroke, which I don't think he was. But then he he sided with Democrats. Why is the great state of Texas, the red state of Texas having Democrats choose a speaker of the House who designed that system? So it's it's we're getting outsmarted in the House. The Republicans should block vote themselves and decide which Republican they want.

But that's not the way it works. The Democrats get together. They they align all of their votes.

And if you think about it, you need 76 votes. The speaker's going to vote for himself. He only needs 10 Republican votes with the Democrats. And so it's pretty easy once you have 66 votes to get there, because then he tells 10 Republicans, hey, I'll make you chair of this. I'll make you chair this. And it's a done deal. So it's control.

It's stupid. But we've let the Democrats do this for over a decade where they control. And you can see the difference between the Texas Senate and the Texas House. With Dan Patrick in charge, the Texas Senate is very conservative, does really good things for Texas. The Texas House, on the other hand, has Democratic chairs. They they don't get a lot of good things done for the state of Texas. They block a lot of good legislation, both by Governor Abbott trying to get school choice done.

And they've been blocking many things done by the Senate that Governor Patrick's strategy. So. So, Ken, just one final thought on this. Then I want to get to the work that you're doing. That's the most important thing.

You just add more. You said this with Tucker Carlson, but it's worth repeating how this was really a Bush family driven operation and how the people spoke and they were able to push back against it. Add a little bit more to that more context, please. So we in this process, we were getting information. They finally had to disclose emails and there were definitely connections between Karl Rove, George P. Bush, obviously pushed by Karl Rove in the last election against me, and a group called Texans for Lawsuit Reform, which is supposedly a Republican group. But they've they've aligned in the Bush camp. And that's two guys named Dick, Victor Bolsey and Dick Weekly, who have spent millions of dollars to take people like me out. Karl Rove participated in this and George P. was supposed to be their guy. And it's interesting because he went to get his license literally the day that these guys turned me over, supposedly violating the law to the FBI, who I was investigating, by the way, for breaking the law. And there's no doubt that there is a connection between the ex-employees who also got emails and text messages from Karl Rove, Texas for lawsuit reform, the Bush's.

They're all aligned. So, so, Ken, let's now get to the work that you're doing. What are the top priorities?

What are the lawsuits you're filing and the things that you want to bring to completion? Well, everybody can see what's going on on the border. It's not gotten any better since I left. Unfortunately, you know, with the four months out, we were stopped in our progress, but we are looking at many things along the border to try to fight back the Biden administration's unlawful activity. We're also going down to look at Liberty County, which is where this village or city has been set up. It's been growing like crazy. And there's all kinds of crime there. There's all kinds of difficulties there. We're going to try to figure out how we can stop that.

Obviously, I've only been back for a week, so I've got a lot of catching up to do. I can promise you this, whatever we can do in this situation, we are going to do. And we're going to continue our investigation of big pharma.

We had an investigation of some of the vaccine manufacturers potentially lying to Texas consumers and to the world about the efficacy of their vaccines. So we've got a lot to do along with finishing our lawsuits against big debt. And look, Ken, can you just remind our audience the size of your office? It is the largest AG's office in the country, isn't it? It is the largest Republican office. I think New York and New Jersey and California may have larger Democratic offices.

It is the largest Republican office. We have about 4,200 employees. We have close to 800 lawyers.

Our budget's about $1.8 billion for the biennium. And so we do a lot of things that a lot of people don't know about. And we're very active in really trying to defend Texas and defend the Constitution.

Yeah. And with that sort of enormity, you can now defend the rule of law. And talk about this, though. This is what I'm a little confused about. There's this local DA AG office tension where you can't bring criminal cases. Can you just talk about that a little bit?

Because it's confusing to some people in our audience. Well, and I'm glad you brought that up, because this is the riskiest thing going on for Texas. Since 1951, the Attorney General's office – I'm not that old, so I went around then – but we've been authorized or directed by the legislature to prosecute voter fraud. We have a dual court system.

We have the Court of Criminal Appeals that is the final say on criminal matters, and we have the Texas Supreme Court that is the final say on civil matters. The Court of Criminal Appeals is Republican, but largely unknown, and I'm very suspicious of them now. And I think we need to change that court, because they struck down the only statute that allowed me to prosecute any type of criminal activity, which was voter fraud, which we were doing. We had over 900 cases of real voter fraud that we were investigating or prosecuting. Now all of that has stopped, and it's up to the local DAs, who, again, are largely Soros-funded in the bigger cities. And so voter fraud now is not being prosecuted. That is a huge risk to my state in the future, and we will lose the state if we don't stop voter fraud. Are you then able to do the investigation and hand it off to a local sheriff or DA? Are you able to do the legwork and say, hey, we believe there's a crime here, and then work in harmony?

Because that's similar to what a lot of the Democrat states are doing, New York being one of them. We're trying, but a lot of these DAs won't prosecute it. So we used to have the authority both to investigate and to prosecute. And by the way, they struck down the law saying that because I was in the executive branch, the attorney general is an executive, that I didn't have the authority to go to court, because that is a judicial function. Now that is insane, and if that's true, then every state attorney general is doing something illegal under their constitution, as well as the U.S. attorney general.

I hope everyone understands that. They basically turned the AG's office into a civil lawsuit organization. You could still sue civilly, you can protect the people of Texas, but to actually investigate crime, they've neutered you.

I want to explore that more because it's very unusual, and it actually puts you at a disadvantage versus other AGs in other states that have that kind of criminal investigative authority. Strong Cell is amazing. I got to tell you, the combination of NADH, CoQ10, and collagen is really something. You know, people ask me, they say, Charlie, how do you keep your energy up? How do you just keep on pushing?

Look, part of it is diet, nutrition, but I'll be honest, I take supplements really seriously. Fact check me on this. You can say, oh, I'm going to fact check you. Type this into your search engine. NADH.

Just type it in. What does it tell you? It might tell you that it is the secret to living long, anti-aging properties, more energy. All of that is being proven in more and more clinical trials. NADH is a precursor so that your mitochondria can remain healthy and vibrant. The elites, a lot of billionaires, people with a lot of money, they spend a ton of money on NAD. In fact, NAD just might be your secret weapon for more energy. I take NAD every single day.

I could tell you that NADH, compared with CoQ10, the trials show very, very good things. Don't take my word for it. I mean, honestly, my word should be good for something. But fact check me.

Look at it. And if you do it over 30 days, you'll see an increase in energy. I wake up better than ever before. NAD can help you potentially, again, fact check me on this with depression, anxiety, other issues that you might be dealing with.

It is nature's gift to you so that you might have extra energy and mental clarity. You guys can use promo code Charlie for 20% off. It's StrongCell.com slash Charlie. NAD might be nature's secret weapon for you.

I love it. I take it every single day. Try to try it for at least 30 days to see the maximum benefit.

And let me know, has NAD helped your life? StrongCell.com slash Charlie. Check it out. StrongCell.com slash Charlie. Let's just play cut 126 just to show this illegal invasion of Texas.

Play cut 126. In Eagle Pass, Texas, where just moments ago, Customs and Border Protection cut a hole through the concertina wire that has been stretched by Texas DPS along the border there to allow migrants to come through. It was initially a group of about 60 to 70 people.

It swelled to some 300 very, very quickly. OK, so, Ken, let's just get into some detail here. You have the largest Republican AG's office. It's complicated because you don't have all the investigative powers of other states. But just to kind of go back through this, what specifically are you now going to do with the authority granted to stop the invasion of the great state of Texas? So I just, that clip is shocking to me that the federal government would clip our wire to allow people to come in illegally. In other words, not only are they doing their own thing, but they're actually stopping us from protecting our border and our lands in Texas.

We're looking at every available angle. We've got about two or three lawsuits that we're looking at, and specifically one related to them damaging our property and forgiving us from keeping illegal from coming into the country. So I can guarantee you we've got more lawsuits coming as it relates to immigration and we're going to do everything we can to stop this. Yeah.

And so let's this is I'm able to I'm a talk show guy and you're a lawyer, so you have to be more focused or very careful. I think this is treason. I mean, the federal government is actively co-sponsoring the entrance of non-citizens into the country. And it's not getting any better. And so, Ken, is there any precedent where the federal government willingly doesn't do its job and it damages a sovereign state?

And if so, what how can you deal with that? Because your duty is to Texas. They are just saying we don't care about Texas.

We don't care about all the damage that's being done. I've never seen like this. I've never seen the federal government, our country, affirmatively help basically the cartels because that's the business model.

Right. The cartels bring people to the federal government, the federal government transports them, and they also aid and abet their drug trafficking, fentanyl trafficking. I've never seen them actually damage our property to allow illegals to come in. And so this is a new thing for us that we're looking at trying to figure out how do we stop the federal government from one aiding and abetting, but also actually damaging our property to help the illegals get in. It's it's insane.

Yeah. And so this is what is frustrating us in Arizona and others is that where what why is the state government not doing more? And that's where we're confused. And the federal government, they're actually they're going through and cutting the wire, Ken. That's what's insane is they're actually cutting the wire to allow the foreigners come in. Talk about how you are taking aim at this illegal city that's been created in Houston. It's a bizarre story, but this seems to be a primary focus of yours. Yes.

Let me go back to real quickly. This case, Arizona v. U.S. that you know about is that is fundamental to changing this because part of the reason we're in such a difficult spot is, you know, 10 years ago when Arizona tried to protect themselves with state law because the federal government wouldn't. Obama sued the state of Arizona and they came in and said basically the Supreme Court under Justice Kennedy writing the opinion with Justice Roberts joining the liberals said that the state could not have their own laws if the federal government had laws that were similar. That cannot be right. It cannot be right. The federal government can pass a law, then ignore their own law and say, well, you can't enforce your laws because we have laws that were not important.

None of it makes any sense. I want another shot at that. So I've encouraged the legislature or the governor to do something that would violate that and let us take another crack at it now that the court has changed. Back to your other question. We are definitely looking at that Liberty County issue. It's insane. It's been growing for years. It is a hodgepodge of people from all over the world and it's also creating all kinds of crime issues and it's creating an incentive for people to move into this county who are illegal and we're going to figure out some way to stop it. It was a state creation, this sort of mud district, this development, and we're looking into how it got created and what we can do to undo it. And we may have suggestions for the legislature because they're going to go back into special session. I'm glad. Finally, special session. I mean, your state's being invaded. I'm pleased. Hey, how about you didn't spend 90 days impeaching Ken Paxton?

You wouldn't have to go to special session. But Ken, let me just end with this, though, which is that I want to empower you and tell you the audience is with you. You are one of the few fighters we have on the entire country.

Please be as aggressive as you can be while following and enforcing the law. We need you. And so we're here for you, Ken. Thank you. Glad you got through that.

And now it's time to uphold the law and protect Texas. Thank you, Ken, so much. And thank you. I'm inspired and I'm ready to go. So thank you.

Thank you, Ken. Listen, as students begin heading back to school, do you think they'll be learning about the founding principles that made America the freest, most prosperous nation in history? Will they learn that our unalienable rights are God given and not granted by government?

Will they be given a full and honest account of our nation's history? The answer to all these questions is yes for students at Hillsdale College. And these days, in addition to teaching college students, Hillsdale has extended teaching to K through 12 students and lifelong learners like you and me. If you're not doing so already, one of the best ways to start learning from my friends at Hillsdale is through in Primus, Hillsdale's free digest of liberty. My listeners can sign up for free at the special Web site, which is available for a limited time. It's at Charlie for Hillsdale dot com. I look forward to in Primus each month and you can, too. It's interesting, useful and free. The best and smartest in conservative constitutionalist thought. Find out more about Hillsdale and in Primus at Charlie for Hillsdale dot com.

They're an excellent college, America's greatest college, Charlie for Hillsdale dot com. Joining us now is Stephen Miller. Stephen, thank you for taking the time. You know, Stephen, we're seeing an invasion of our country. Let's start there.

That's not a controversial statement. How and why can this legally be described as an invasion? And why does that categorization matter? Well, the invasion clause primarily matters in two contexts. The first would be in Article four, Section four and the ability of states to in the invocation of that clause to demand relief from the federal government. And then the constitutional principle would flow from that, that if the government declined, it's actually called the guarantee clause, that if the government declined to fulfill its guarantee under the U.S. Constitution, that the state would then be authorized to unilaterally defend its territory and to stop the invasion. It also matters in another context, which is the 14th Amendment, Section three. And that would be that Joe Biden is actually ineligible to run for president because he'd be disqualified for aiding and embedding an insurrection against the United States.

So it has significant legal meaning for both of those reasons. Yeah. And so Greg Abbott declared a invasion in November of 2022, just about a year ago. But, Stephen, he's done really nothing to stop it except some razor wire and some things in the river. Talk about how and why the states need to step up and take this into their own hands and tell the federal government to get out of the way.

Yes. So I'll be blunt in saying that the if Texas were to act unilaterally to to repel the invasion, it would be the action that would be required would be of a scope and scale beyond what I think many people realize or appreciate, because what you'd really be talking about having to do is switching from a blocking strategy, which is what they're doing right now. So, you know, put up some razor wire here, put a show force over there, put cars and trucks where applicable, make it make trespassing arrests and so forth to a detain and remove strategy.

But because of the logistical challenges involved in removing, you would need to build, which, of course, I would support doing. You would need to build an extremely large holding area for illegal immigrants that at any given point of time could hold upwards of 50, 60, 70 thousand illegal aliens while you are waiting to send them someplace, somewhere that would be willing to accept them. Even if you push them across the border, they're going to run back across. So you have to have some place to to detain them so that I presume on the third or fourth attempt of a new immigrant to cross who then pushed back, who ends up in detention center, they would stop trying. But that that is the kind of infrastructure that they would have to build. The other issue is that they would then have to make sure to protect their own law enforcement officers from arrest and prosecution, because my presumption is that DOJ would begin prosecuting state officials for deprivation of civil rights and the other kinds of exotic federal charges that you've seen Garland's DOJ bring up to go after conservatives that could even imagine them charging state troopers with kidnapping and things of that nature. So obviously, in the event where you invoke the guarantee clause and the federal government disregards that invocation and then you take action unilaterally as a state, you have to be prepared to do the full sweep of activity that I've described and be aware of the fact again that the Department of Justice, presumably, that has been unwilling to use any kind of force to stop the border invasion would indeed use force to try to arrest and incarcerate your state law enforcement officers.

Yeah. And so is there anything? So first of all, that's really well said.

And you're right. And the Department of Justice, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, they wouldn't arrest the drug traffickers, the child sex traffickers, the fentanyl traffickers, the gun traffickers. They would arrest the Texas sheriffs that are enforcing the law. Texas was once its own sovereign country with its own constitution.

Does that play into this argument? Because they'll say, oh, it's supremacy clause. But, Stephen, just from a moral standpoint, putting the legal legal issue aside, when your own state is being invaded and the federal government is co-sponsoring the invasion, don't you have a moral right to act and figure it out? Well, I think as others have said before, there's no such requirement in the Constitution for a state to commit suicide. And so while it's true that there is federal supremacy and that's, of course, a bedrock principle of the U.S. Constitution, again, in an environment in which a state is being invaded and the federal government declines, not only declines to stop that invasion, but in fact does the opposite, marshals its resources to perpetuate that invasion, then the state at that point has the legal and, yes, the moral right. So, yeah, let me interrupt though, Stephen, while this is on my mind. I'm sorry to interrupt.

I just want to keep the pace going here. When you were in the Trump White House then, what was the argument that San Francisco and Chicago used to not allow federal agents into their city for sanctuary cities? Isn't that a challenge to the supremacy clause? Why was San Francisco not, for example, or L.A., saying feds or ICE not allowed, but Texas can't say we're going to secure our own border? What am I missing here?

Well, yes. I mean, indeed, when we went to court against sanctuary jurisdictions, most notably California, if my memory has been correct, one of the arguments we made is that their refusal to turn illegal aliens in custody over to the federal government violated the supremacy clause, because, again, we weren't talking about asking the state to go out and make arrests. We were asking states to engage in what are known as custody transfers, where they arrest an illegal alien in the context of committing a local crime, and then we find out that they're here illegally, and so we asked them to be turned over, and so they were actively harboring illegal aliens. In fact, they would go to great lengths to make sure that those illegal aliens could be released without us ever knowing when and where.

And so they were concealing these criminal aliens from the federal government, and we argued that violated the supremacy clause. But the judiciary, such as it existed at the time, again, if my memory has been correct, did not favor those arguments. Now, if you remember, well, of course you remember, by the end of 2020, the Supreme Court, of course, went from a four conservative minority to a five conservative majority.

So one would hope that if these questions were raised again in 2025, they would have a very different outcome. So, I mean, Stephen, but just to think a little creatively here, wouldn't Texas be able to say, well, we're a sanctuary state for the Constitution? I mean, this is just use their own standard that has been set by these left wing gangsters in black dresses.

Why would that be, you know, flimsy, if at all? Because and by the way, it's not just that. It's also on the marijuana issue. States defy federal guidance and federal law on the marijuana issue. They did this on gay marriage against DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. So it's not the first example where the left finds wrinkles and state dissension against federal law or federal practice. Why don't we start to embrace some of that spirit when it comes to, I don't know, enforcing our border from an invasion?

Well, I think that you could and should. The sad reality is that judges really don't care about consistency. A very large percentage of them care about outcomes. And so the Ninth Circuit judges ruling on questions related to California, of course, are completely outcome determined. And then the Fifth Circuit judges who would rule on issues related to Texas would bend over backwards to try to appear neutral or to try to appear objective.

And so, as you know better than most, oftentimes trying to appear neutral means, in fact, issuing the wrong ruling just to make a point. So I don't think that the judiciary is going to save us at this particular moment. I think that, again, Texas has sovereign rights that it can exercise. They should go into that, of course. And I don't think they're going to. So it's a hypothetical, I don't think they're going to. But they should go into that, if they do, clear-headed, understanding about the nature of the challenge they're going to have with the federal government.

And then if there is a president in 2025 who is not of the left, then they would need to, of course, be issuing a number of pardons to a lot of people who may get caught up in various DOJ prosecutions in such a circumstance. Yeah, it's just basically what you're saying is that judges will make up whatever they want to get the outcome they want, but then they're going to rely on process to not stop the invasion. So, Stephen, what you're talking about is that the Texas House, the Texas governor, the entire Texas leadership Republican need to come together and say, we're doing this. And that might require a standoff with the federal government. This is where the U.S. House could actually come in and apply equal pressure, right? The United States House could have a top-down, bottom-up, almost a pincer movement where you have the Texas standing up to the federal government and the U.S. House of Representatives standing up for Texas, cutting off funding, cutting off the special projects of Joe Biden. But, Stephen, that would require a serious Republican Party.

We don't have such. Stephen, summarize it all. Yeah, I mean, the bottom line, as you said, is that conservatives rely on process to protect themselves from criticism, thereby often arriving at the wrong result, and the left ignores process and is solely focused on arriving at the correct result. When those two forces need each other over time, it ends predictably, which is that the right will lose almost all major legal disputes with sufficient passage of time. And so it is going to be incumbent upon the elected representatives of the state of Texas to assert their fundamental sovereign rights as a state and to understand that the constitutional crisis is not the implication of those rights. The constitutional crisis is what's happening right now, which is the absence of invoking those rights.

Stephen, stay right there. We are not a serious country. Ten million people will waltz into America.

We're worried about legal process. It is how you lose America. Hey, everybody.

Charlie Kirk here. When the government used emergency edicts during COVID to restrict the gathering and worship of churches, three pastors facing the risk of imprisonment, unlimited fines, and their own churches being ripped apart, took a courageous stand and reopened their doors in the face of a world that chose to comply. The Essential Church is a feature length documentary that explores the struggle between the church and government throughout history. The story uncovers those who have sacrificed their lives throughout history for what they believe in. Rediscover why the church is essential and how we prove this stand remains true from a scientific, legal, and most importantly, a theological and biblical perspective. This is not your typical movie.

It will change your life. You need to see this movie with your family and friends. The Essential Church is streaming today exclusively at SalemNow.com. That's Essential Church movie streaming at SalemNow.com. That is SalemNow.com. Check out the Essential Church movie. It's terrific.

So go to SalemNow.com right now. One of the things that has infected center-right Vichy French Republicans is that deportation is radical. It's not radical. Israel deports people all the time. I want an immigration system that Israel has. Why does Israel get a wall, get borders? Why do they get to deport foreigners that commit crimes? Well, we don't because we are not a serious country and we are a suicidal country. Steven, when I see the people come across the border, it demoralizes me.

It's like this daily slit of my wrist. Every day somebody is like slitting my wrist, this slow bleed of the republic. Steven, when Trump is President again as the 47th President of the United States, how do we deport 30 million people? Well, your first priority for deportation needs to be to send a message to the world and for many other reasons. It needs to be all of the illegal aliens who entered the country under Joe Biden so that you immediately send the message to the whole of the planet.

Someday, though, of course, we'll be another far-left President and that far-left President will open the border and you need to send a message to the world that even if you come here, even if you get in, you're still going to be deported from the country. And we don't know how large that number is going to be. Of course, you'll pick up an enormous number of what they call collaterals when you're making those arrests. So you'd have to imagine, you know, if you went to say you raided like an agricultural plant that had, say, a meatpacking center that had one Biden illegal, you'd probably pick up 10 other illegals at the same time.

So you'll get an enormous number of collaterals. But that number, and it's unknowably large because it's, of course, your releases, your gotaways, and then all of the people who are overstaying their visas, which nobody even talks about. But since ICE has been disabled from deporting visa overstays, there's millions more illegals than no one is even aware of or thinking about or even having a conversation about. In order to carry out a deportation operation of that scale, you would need to involve the U.S. military, which is why President Trump often talks about the Eisenhower model when the last time the U.S. military was involved in a large-scale deportation operation. So also the reason why President Trump has talked about invoking the Alien Enemies Act, which is a law that was passed in the late 18th century during the Adams presidency that allows you to instantaneously remove any noncitizen foreigner from an invading country aged 14 or older. So it doesn't apply to the entire, all the demographics of illegal alien groups, but it applies to those 14 and older.

And so it would be particularly useful in context where you have large amounts of gang members and drug dealers and other criminal offenders who are overwhelmingly going to be over that age threshold. And so that allows you to suspend the due process that normally applies to a removal proceeding. Most people don't realize who haven't worked in immigration enforcement how bureaucratic that process is or the fact that all illegal aliens have the ability under current practice and procedure not only to appeal their deportations, but if they get the right kind of lawyer and they get the right kind of judge, they can even get their deportation appealed into federal Article III appellate courts. In other words, out of the immigration courts which are under DOJ and into regular federal court. So you can have a single deportation for a single alien get all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

That's how bureaucratic this has become. And so you need to then invoke extraordinary powers to overcome that. And then you need to mobilize the US military, state, federal and local law enforcement to then carry out large scale deportations across the whole country. And then you would need to build very large staging facilities to carry out the removals because logistically what a lot of people don't think about or realize is that if a deportation team goes to a particular house and arrests an illegal alien family, so say a mother, a father and four children, there's not like there's a plane on a tarmac that's just like 10 minutes away ready to take them and even if there was, it wouldn't be a very efficient use of resources to have an entire chartered aircraft for a single family. So you need to then build massive staging facilities that you can efficiently remove people, plane full at a time or where applicable busload if it's going to go back to Mexico at a time. And so it would be an undertaking that would be greater than any national infrastructure project that we've done today, but that's what we have to do.

But look, we live in a modern era. We have a lot of people that want to go to work. Round them up.

Kick them out. Go home. Go make Honduras great again since you're such a blessing to America. Steven, thank you so much. Wonderful work. We'll have you on again. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always. Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.

Thank you so much for listening and God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com. The United States Constitution guarantees every American fundamental rights and protection of life, liberty and property. Salem is celebrating our founding document with a special offer, a 1953 Omen U.S. Constitution lithograph. Understand the value of these lithographs as we know the story. A master lithographer, immigrant named Theodore Omen, came to this country to find the American dream. Seventy years ago in 1953, Omen printed a limited number of these exceptional Constitution lithographs.

Go to salemeventstore.com to read Omen's entire story. America's most important document stands as a testament to all Americans to maintain their liberties, freedoms and inalienable rights. Buy it and display it proudly. Buy a gift for your family and friends, for all the teachers in your communities. There's a limited number, so act today. Go to salemeventstore.com to get your exclusive 1953 Omen U.S. Constitution lithograph. Buy it and display it proudly. While limited supplies last, there's a limited time, so act today. salemeventstore.com, salemeventstore.com