Popular Posts

A "Verse of the Day" graphic, likely from a Bible app, featuring a blurred sunset/mountain silhouette background transitioning from orange at top to dark maroon/purple at bottom. White text overlays the image citing a Bible verse.

Text in image: Verse of the Day Amos 5:24 NIV But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

you have told nobody about this coming announcement. We're glad you chose this show. Welcome back. It's great to have you. We love the people of Wyoming, except maybe we're a little mad at the Chinese, but short of that, we like everyone else. What's on the agenda tonight? Well, the people of Wyoming, and of course all your viewers, know that the country was much better off under President Donald Trump, and Joe Biden continues to fail America. You know, when President Trump was in office, we had the best economy in my lifetime. In most of our lifetime, we had energy independence. Our enemies feared us, and we had a secure border. And now under Joe Biden, we have high prices. We have a wide open border. What's happened at the border, the surrender at the border has allowed 8 million illegal immigrants into the country. Joe Biden goes and begs our enemies for fuel and energy. This is a disaster. We cannot afford another four years of Joe Biden's failure. So if you want to get the country back on track, which is what I want to do, we need a strong Republican conservative House and Senate, and we need Donald Trump back in the White House. And that's why tonight, I am endorsing Donald Trump for president of the United States.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Well, thank you very much. Before we begin, I'm pleased to announce that I've just signed a proclamation officially designating tomorrow, May 8th, as a victory day for World War II, commemorating the 80th anniversary of America's victory in the Second World War. All over the globe, our World War II allies are celebrating this week, but the United States has never joined in with the proper celebration of our own, and the victory was mostly accomplished because of us. Whether you like it or not, we came into that war, and we won that war, and we had a lot of help from a lot of great people, a lot of great allies. But I think there would be nobody that would say that we were not the dominant force in that war, and we don't celebrate it, and I think that's a great disservice to the people that lost their lives and people that fought so hard in winning World War II, and also a separate victory day for World War I, and we're going to be doing that, too. It was American tanks and ships and trucks and airplanes and service members that vanquished the enemy 80 years ago this week without America. The liberation would never have happened, and so we have to pay tribute and homage to those people that gave us victory. And we did something else that people don't talk about. We rebuilt the world. All of these countries that were destroyed, we helped them rebuild. And that's something that, for the most part, others did not do. So with this proclamation, we are here by honoring the incredible sacrifice and heroism of millions of Americans who served in World War II, along with the unprecedented mobilization, home front that helped deliver this great triumph. All Americans should take pride in what these incredible patriots have achieved. So I just want to say happy victory day to all. So we are celebrating every year now. I can guarantee for four years, but I think after that we're going to have two victory days, World War I and World War II. This is World War II Victory Day. In the future, we're going to have a major celebration of each day. We're not going to have days off because we don't have enough days in the year. We have too many celebrations already. But we're going to have Victory Day and first World War I, World War II. And without us, those wars would not have been won. I think we can say that would not have been won. And I think it's time that the United States start taking credit for their achievements. And it's -- I really believe it's a shame. You know, I was watching for the last week, and I noticed France. I noticed other countries all getting ready for Victory Day. And I said that's sort of strange because David just added something. He said we also rebuilt the world. And I didn't have that, and I should have that. That was a big factor. But I noticed all of the countries, Russia, having a big day tomorrow. And by the way, they lost millions of people. And they were absolutely a major factor. But there was no major factor like us. We won the war, and we won it with the help of others. But everybody was celebrating with the United States of America. And I said, you know, I think it's time that we start celebrating victory. And that's what we're doing.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

some people like to give you a quick opinion about something like this. This is the Supreme Court decision opinion on tariffs. Here's the problem. There's opinions within opinions. It's a mess. First, there was no need for the court to rule as it did, period. The majority is not even a majority, except in agreeing to hold that the tariffs were not authorized by Congress in a 1977 law. Second, the majority is split into two camps. You've got Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett, and then that camp is split somewhat between Gorsuch and Barrett. Third, the three other justices in the second camp of the majority, the usual leftists, well, they mostly agreed with each other, but went further in attacking the President's tariff authority. I can assure you they wouldn't have done it with a Biden or Obama. Number four, this explains why it took so long for the court to issue a ruling, because the ruling appears to be a variety of arguments intended to reach a result. That is, in my view, it was result-oriented, a result looking for a constitutional and/or legal justification. Now fifth, if the court, as here, is going to issue a ruling that is so destructive of, or contrary to, the executives' international economic, national security, and foreign policy objectives, and the President's strategies, the President and we, the people, deserve a lot better than the massive mess that these nine lawyers created. This ruling is more like some committee of lawyers, or some law review group of legal students in the law library, each vying to impose his or her own policy preferences on the President, while searching for some constitutional legal justifications to do so. In fact, this case was not complicated at all, although the decision, which is actually an accumulation of arguments within the court, is complicated because of its incoherence. Sixth, the court majority wants you to believe that this was a matter of statutory interpretation only, involving one statute passed in 1977, and Congress's power over the purse. Article I, Section 8. That's it. Well, then why did it take 177 pages? But there's more. But Congress's have passed multiple statutes, and even more historically, Presidents have used all kinds of trade tools to influence and affect international commerce, foreign policy, and national security. It simply does not just come down to the powers of the purse. Article II, Section 1, gives the President great power over conducting foreign policy. What are tariffs? Tariffs are effectively taxes imposed on foreign governments. Well, isn't that foreign policy? Yes. And when the President uses tariffs to influence foreign governments, whether it's over war and peace, whether it's over economic policy, whatever it's over, is that not the conduct of foreign policy? Of course it is. Seventh, the court bobbed and weaved, touching on congressional delegation or non-delegation, cherry-picking the historical record where Presidents have imposed tariffs and other international trade tools to influence and affect foreign policy with the majority, we think, essentially ignoring or rejecting all contrary precedent in history. All precedent in history that came before is essentially written off. Number 8, the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, bluntly states that when he reads the text of the 1977 statute at issue, even those words specifically authorizing the President to quote, "regulate importation." It's in the statute. They're in the law, and in fact, are in several other laws, by the way, authorizing the President to impose tariffs. In this case, he says, "There are just too many words between the words 'regulate' and 'importation.'" Got that? Too many words between the words "regulate importation" for him to draw the conclusion that this particular statute authorized the President to regulate importation. Ninth, Justice Thomas went through the history of presidential power and tariffs, meticulously, as he always does, and that makes clear that President Trump has, in fact, been acting within the powers traditionally exercised by past presidents. Now, I know people who are opposed to tariffs, so that's not true, but it is true. So, what we're discussing here is the Constitution of the law, not policy preferences, and who makes those decisions? Six justices on the Supreme Court who can barely write a single majority opinion? In fact, they don't. Tenth, Justice Kavanaugh was brilliant in his dissent, and he went through the statutory history of delegations to presidents, of tariff powers, as well as other points, making clear that the President was, in fact, delegated authority under that 1977 statute to, quote, "regulate importations." Shame on Chief Justice Roberts, shame on Justices Barrett and Gorsuch, your word games and semantical ruminations had no place here. I was left thinking how lawyers can become so typically absurd when trying to prove how brilliant they are, or when, in fact, their egos get in the way of well-reasoned outcomes. And you can see that in some of the back and forth. It's really kind of appalling. Twelve, the Chief Justice appears to have come up with a so-called majority opinion that is as narrow as possible in order to attract enough votes to overturn the tariffs, at least under this one statute. But in doing so, he did not show leadership. He created a big mess. This so-called majority opinion provides no precedential value. It provides no constitutional or legal guidance. It says the court does not have the authority or the ability to get involved in policy, yet I found this ruling to be more about policy than the Constitution or law. The majority had a problem, which I knew they would. On the several occasions I've discussed this case with you right on this show. Where exactly is the separation of powers? Where is that line drawn when it comes to tariffs? Yes, Congress has the power of the purse. The president has broad power over foreign policy and national security and diplomacy. Obviously, trade and its relationship to the president's broad powers cannot be ignored. Yet the ruling essentially does that, but then the court says they're not doing that. It's just ruling on a single statute. In other words, the court's ruling was, as I said, result-oriented, policy-driven, despite the majority's disclaimers. When the Supreme Court cannot come up with a coherent, understandable decision based on the Constitution and the law, you know then it is conducting itself as politicians, it is activists, and it has no business doing what this court did. It interfered in a matter that should be left to the legislative and executive branches because the constitutional question on who gets to lay tariffs is in fact an absurd question. What do you mean, Mark? Because both Congress and the president have a role. And if Congress thought the president went too far, it could use the power of the purse, the appropriations process, under Article I, to stop him. As I've said here repeatedly, Congress didn't even try. And so this is the mix in the battle between the elected branches and to have basically six lawyers, a majority, who can't really come up with a single theory. Get involved and decide one way or another is appalling, it's absurd. So where are we now? It's a foolish overreach by the Supreme Court. There was a piece written by Stan Valger and Clark Packard a few months back, the American Enterprise Institute, and boy did they hate tariffs. That's fine, that's their view. They hate tariffs, they hate all these manipulations or involvement in trade and so forth and so on. And yet in their peace, while they're haranguing against the president's tariffs, they also provide the following, which is actually quite interesting. And they point out the first Trump administration of post-tariffs, usually at 25% on some two-thirds of imports from China under Section 301 of the Trade Act, in 1974, they're telling us actually the president has many alternatives to that one statute that the court, we think, ruled on. The Biden administration kept these measures largely intact, used the existing authority to layer on other tariffs, including 100% duties on Chinese electric vehicles. Most of these tariffs continue to this day. Because of the Section 301 measures, the effective tariff on imports from China remains particularly high, around 50%. Section 232 tariffs would also survive in administration loss in learnings, resources versus Trump. Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the president may restrict imports determined to pose a threat to national security, following an investigation by the Commerce Department. They go on. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the provision empowers the president to address large insurance balance of payments deficits. Through import surcharges of up to 15% import quotas, or some combination of the two. Wow! Section 301, the basis for existing China tariffs, offers another avenue for reconstructing the tariffs that the court struck down, one where the president enjoys wide unilateral authority. It grants the US Trade Representative broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair foreign trade practices. That's not all. The old 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, I know we don't like it. I'm just saying what's available. Now, it lets the president oppose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce as compared to other nations. So what exactly did the Supreme Court accomplish? Nothing. It created a mess in terms of tariffs that had been paid. The president can follow other avenues if he wishes. I would argue that constitutionally he is the authority to do what he's doing, whether people like it or not. And Congress has the constitutional power to try and check that, and those lawyers on the Supreme Court had no business getting involved. They should have done what I said, not because I said it, because it would have been right, which was reverse the lower court that found those tariffs illegal, tell the judiciary below, stay out of this. The court should say, "We're going to stay out of it," because this really isn't justiciable in any rational or logical way. It hasn't really played out. It may never play out. It hasn't played out in 200 years and more of American constitutional history. But the court jumped in and they created a big splash, a big mess, and achieved nothing but chaos.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

So as your president, here is the deal that I will be offering to every major company and manufacturer on Earth. I will give you the lowest taxes, the lowest energy costs, the lowest regulatory burden, and free access to the best and biggest market on the planet, but only if you make your product here in America. It all goes away if you don't make your product here and hire American workers for the job. If you don't make your product here, then you will have to pay a tariff, a very substantial tariff when you send your product into the United States. And by the way, you know, for years they knocked the word, the word tariff properly used is a beautiful word. One of the most beautiful words I've ever heard, it's music to my ears. A lot of bad people didn't like that word, but now they're finding out I was right. And we will take in hundreds of billions of dollars into our treasury and use that money to benefit the American citizens. And it will not cause inflation, by the way. And you know, I took in from China hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes and tariffs. And I had no inflation. We didn't have any inflation, 1.2%. We had essentially no inflation. Now you've had over the last four years, you've had the highest inflation. I think in the history of our country, somebody said, no, sir, it's only 58 years. Well, that's pretty bad too. I think it's really in the history of our country. This is the policy that built America and this is the policy that is going to save America. It's going to save us because we have gone so far down in so many different ways. Not to mention, not to mention the border, not to mention 21 million people pouring in from places unknown, totally. But like I've always called it, because it's a very beautiful and simple term, it's called America first, we're putting America first.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.