good afternoon, everyone. thank you so very much for coming. my name is arthur milikh. i'm the executive director of the claremont institute center for the american way of life here in washington, dc. the right has gone through,

let's say, three phases over the past ten years. first, it was laughter at the left, laughing, thinking that this or that policy, this or that outrage can be solved just with laughter that steadily turned in to a kind of hopelessness. one saw how pervasive everything was that? we were laughing at, and the hopelessness led to a kind of dejection that has only been rehabilitated. and i think that that's what everybody this room shares, which is a new a renewed a new seriousness that i haven't seen in my lifetime. i'm about engaging in politics, in a way that isn't just about marketing and advertising, but is about owning the that we're partly here to discuss to celebrate is a book that was put together by a lot of writers, some of whom are in this audience that maps out the rights errors over the last generation point by point issue by issue the right is not good

in many ways at doing autopsies on itself, looking at itself in the mirror and looking at its own loss as if a doesn't learn from its mistakes. it goes out of business. if a doctor doesn't learn from his mistakes and his patients get hurt, he loses his license, goes out of business. take that to every single profession. it applies everywhere except for the establishment, right? nobody has ever punished. only the country suffers on of it. on immigration on universities, on the administrative state, on various funding that fund the right enemies directly. nothing ever seems to change, no matter how hard you vote and a moment when the left possesses nearly all of major institutional powers in the country, much of the right pretends, like it's still business as usual. it's not sometimes a country or, a party can lose and, never recover itself once and for all.

and we always forget that. but things it feels are changing in the air. you feel it and it's to some of the people in this room, a lot of people in dc when you when confront them with the bad situation in the country with the almost total institution control of the left say you still have to hope fair enough it's bad to without hope and simply be passive mystic. but it's also a vice can be a vice in that it implies that something somewhere will rescue you eventually and that may not be true. you be the ones or your representatives serious. political people may be the ones that rescue you from. the situation i would like to quickly introduce one of our special guests here, senator j d vance. unlike a lot of republicans, he doesn't forget where he came from and who is here for may will one day revoke his degree because he's been so effective.

he's the most intelligent and thoughtful u.s. senator and the only one set on actually restraining the power of the left nationally. please welcome, senator j d vance. thanks, arthur. good to see everybody. i was told, because we're in the capitol's visitor center, that i cannot encourage anyone to purchase this book. i can only say that it's very well done and it has great, great seeds of wisdom purchase it if you would like to, but don't purchase it if you would not like to. but congratulations on. such a great on such a great book. thanks for getting such a good crew together. obviously many of you are my friends, people who i've listened to and debated with for many years as we try to figure out how to save the country. you know, i thought i could do here that would be most useful is actually offer some practical insights into i've actually seen being in government nearly a year now we talk a lot how to fix washington dc. i've been doing the very

practical work for the past year of trying to figure out what that actually means and how to put it into practice. and so i thought that i'd offer just a few observations here and then i know we running a little short on time, but if you guys to ask me a few questions afterwards, i'll try to be relatively brief here. wells my great, great staffer and has prepared these remarks is going to be disappointed in me because never actually look at my remarks as they're prepared i just kind of say whatever i think and so that hasn't got me into too much trouble i guess it's got me here so maybe it has gotten me into a fair amount of trouble. here goes so. so three three broad insights i'd like to leave you with as i have been a u.s. senator all of a year now, not even quite a year. the first is that i think that, you know, those of us you call it, it's called the new right. and i think it's called the new right, because those of us in the conservative movement are trying to do something new with, the old institutions, something new with old ideas and something new with, the old tradition of american conservative and i hate

to say it, but that is the defining inheritance of american conservatism. for the past 30 years, it has been that we have largely failed at the that we have set out to accomplish. i like a lot of american conservatives, a great amount of attention to what goes across the pond in the united kingdom. and i to ask myself, margaret thatcher was a very prime minister electorally. but is there a single thing that margaret actually fought for that has proven successful? in 2023, britain? or if you go back to the reagan revolution in the 1980s and asked, what is it that you want? if you ask the voters what it that you want out of this presidency, did any of it actually maybe the enduring of ronald reagan's tenure? washington was the 1986 immigration reform, which set about the greatest change in american immigration policy in a generation. and the consequence of what we're still feeling today, the consequences of by the way have turned multiple red states.

blue and i think have transformed our country in very ways. that's not a criticism of ronald reagan, i think was genuinely a great president. it's a criticism of the approach of the conservative movement, which i think has been structurally flawed for a very time. how is it that we keep on winning elections and keep on losing country's most important battles? that's something that we have to be honest with ourselves and not just sort of point to the past and say these, are great people. many of them were great people, but many of them failed despite being people. i think if we want to succeed where they failed it will require us to think about those failures in new ways. the first thing that i've learned, having been a senator all of a year, is that we need to remember who we serve. we get way too abstract think all of us here are mostly pretty smart people. we care a lot about ideas. we read things like the american mind or up from and we think and care a lot about the life of the mind. but most the people that we represent and most of the people that we serve, they're human beings. they're worried about really

important things like raising their children or figuring out how to pay the mortgage which quite frankly, thanks. the biden administration's policies has gotten a lot harder in the last few months. what the people that we're serving are very very different even from the think tank intellectuals that we sort of think of as aligned here in washington, d.c. in fact, they're very different from the think tank intellectuals that we of as aligned here in washington, dc. so i think a lot of us, a lot of people who work in this town, their instinct is to sort of view them as this distant group of people. and yet it the american constitution that gives those the power to decide what our government ultimately looks like. we've to know who we're actually represented there. they're not conservatives primarily of the mind, because like i said, they've got more important things going on. but they are conservatives of the heart. they love the country. they love the community that they came. they don't see this place as some distant abstract set of

ideas. they see it as the place their grandfathers or their great grandfathers set down roots. they built a business where they've tried to build community that doesn't make them, in my view, unsophisticated. what it does is it makes them actually wise? because they realize that this country is not primarily about the ideas that bounce the minds of intellectuals and of senators and of congresspeople. they realize that this country is about the lived experiences. borrow a term from the left of the people who, actually occupy it. we shouldn't be afraid of that word. by the way, the lived experiences of the people that we represent are, i think, where the greatest source of strength our movement actually comes from. when i when i was first elected, it's sort of a crazy thing that happened. i was much a new senator mode. i was still figuring out where the where the hell all the doors were riding, had no idea where to go around it. my credit to jamaal bowman for showing us we're one of the most important exits were in these but i saw all kidding aside had no idea how to get around building and yet we had this

terrible crash in east palestine, ohio. and you all saw the mushroom cloud, the chemicals burning and so forth. and there were two sort of very quick insights that i gleaned from spending so much time in these palestine. the first is that this is a town that the train crash was really bad, but east palestine had been left behind by this country for 40 or 50 years. it had suffered terribly from waves in the industrial ization. there were people there who were trying figure out how to piece together their community how to create wealth and create jobs and opportunity in east palestine, ohio this train crash was just another in a long line of of leadership that kicked these people in the teeth. it was bad and i don't mean to understate it, but it was it was it was a it came as part of a long of really bad things that had happened. east palestine, ohio, if you had visited it the day before the train crash, you would have said this is a community that has been left behind by policymakers in washington dc and it had been

left behind by in washington dc. now, the second thing i learned is that after the train crash, it's quite how much public in this town is driven by lobbyists. i mean, we talk this all the time, but in reality, when you try to do something to help the people of east palestine, there are ten layers of lobbyists, ten layers of bureaucracy and, then ten layers of of on top of that. so 30 layers that you have to deal with before. you can actually get the people of east palestine any i actually heard from republican congressman senators and by the way, remember that most of the rail lines our country go through less densely populated areas. the very types of areas that we represent. the republican party and i heard that if we did to try to call the railroads to account, if we tried to do anything to make it less likely that trains would crash and set off bombs in our

communities, that we were somehow violating tenets of conservatism, well, i think the sacred tenet of conservative ism is to remember who we serve, to defend the people who actually make our communities what they are not, to railroad companies, by the way, many of whom were donating hundreds, thousands of dollars to democrats in the run up to the election of 2022. many whom have actively leaned into the most left wing take the culture wars over the last two decades. is it really our job to defend the railroads and not the people who had a chemical explosion set off in their community? if that's your attitude about what's going on in this country that, i think that you've got a very screwed up notion of american conservatism. remember who we serve. we are elected to do a job. of course, most importantly, to uphold the constitution of country. and after that, to do something meaningful for the people who elected us. don't forget and don't forget the people who actually gave us that power in the first place.

now, on that, the second insight i want to leave you with is republicans conservatives were still of wielding power, of actually doing the job that the people sent us here to do. you heard arthur say this earlier, that so many of the institutions have been captured by the left. how many of us have been worried about this problem that the media, the financial institutions some of our corporations, the technology sector and the censorship that comes along with it and of course, the universities and the institutions of education have been captured by the left, some of them, for generations in this country. and yet the thing that our voters can actually get the one institution that our voters can win in this country is when they go and vote and elect republicans. and then when they elect republicans, do all of us say we all say we don't. the government should do anything. how is that anything other than a lose lose proposition for the people who sell us? if on one hand, you have nearly every and powerful cultural and

financial institution in this country aligned with the left and the other hand, you occasionally have the people's democratic government that answers to the right. why shouldn't we be doing something with the people's elected government when they give us the opportunity to do so? or does it make common? isn't it just common sense that when we're given we should actually do something with? it i hear this all the time and critiques of the administrative state that come from the american conservative movement and a lot of the critiques of course i agree with the administrative state is too big. it does do too much. it is really hard. i mean. i was an investor and a business before i got into politics. try to something in this country and run into layers of nepa certifications and environmental regulations that have nothing do with protecting the environment. but they have a lot to do with employing bureaucrats are critiques of the administrative state are very often correct. but our answer to this can't be every single time the american people give us power, the only thing that we try to do is to trim down the thing that gave us

control over. sometimes we ought to say, you know, instead of just trimming thing down, why don't we actually make it more responsive to the will of the people the most in my view, the most egregious and out of part of the deep state in this country is the department of justice. the leadership. the department of justice is actively its political opponents. i'm not just talking about donald trump, of course, we know that douglas mackey is is almost at the brink of being sort of serving prison time. i understand that federal court stepped in and prevented him from going to prison. why? for posting a meme for posting a joke. merrick garland is trying to throw this guy in for, what, close to a year? because he posted a joke on the internet. and yet our response to this is, is as far i can tell, that we should have the of justice doing less well i agree we should be doing less but maybe he should actually do something good too. maybe we should actually be appointing attorneys to the

department justice who investigate the corruption in our own government. maybe we should be appointing people, the department of justice, who actually take a side side in the culture war, the side of the people who elected us and not just pretend we don't have to take sides at all. this is crazy me. every single time the american people give us an opportunity we tell them we don't deserve the opportunity. we just want to make this thing smaller. we should be much more focused on making responsive to the will of the people. i there are a lot of articles in, this book about that very topic, but we've to get comfortable with wielding power. that's that's something our voters is expecting us. i remember a conversation i was having with a guy after a campaign rally was more of a town hall in the early days of my republican primary campaign. this is probably. summer of 2021. and i gave this sort of thunderous speech against big tech. and i argued, we've got to stop the technology. oligarchs from censoring american conservatives. we've got be willing to break these companies up. use the teddy roosevelt option. there are too they're too

powerful and that they're preventing from participating meaningfully in the public debate. we've got to be willing use power to stop them, to stop that power and to push back in the other direction. and i remember this guy came up and was a very nice suit. afterwards, he came up in his in his nice suit. and it was it was clear that he was a guy of high and good education? probably a very job. and any any said i really agree with everything that you said, but i had to push back with what you said about the technology companies as say oh, no, here we go. this is a david french critique that these are private companies. we can't do anything to the technology companies because they are private companies. we should let the market decide what is and what is part of our public debate. he said, look, why do you want to break these up? why don't we just throw all their ceos in and my is that our voters are much, much more willing to invest us with ability to do something. and frankly a lot of them are willing to go much further than

even willing to go. and i'm probably willing to go much further than pretty much anybody else in this building. point is the voters, they give us power. we have to be willing to wield it. this is not a high class society. this is the united states congress. and it ought to actually respond to the people who give it all of authority. the third point that i want to make here is we have to be less ideological. what do i mean by that again, i sort of point this out. many of us are concerned is of the mind. we read things like hayek and arthur milikh, all these other geniuses that are in this in this in this volume. we think a lot about how to apply principles from 250 years ago to the problems of 2023. but in the inexperience i've had as a u.s. senator, much of what's going on in our movement, a fair question of who is going to help us accomplish our and who is trying to hurt us to our goals. and if somebody is going to help accomplish our goals, we ought to be willing to make common

cause with them and go and get something done. you just highlight this in a couple of ways. so so what are the dumbest debates that's going on in the new right? i mean, the people that i consider my closest friends in the american conservative movement is whether we should be pro or anti-union. okay. and there are people who sort of point the old libertarian arguments and say the are fundamentally instruments of left. they distort the market in all these ways and we should be anti-union because to be anti-union is to be pro people and pro and then you have sort of these new conservatives, a lot of whom are my friends who look, unions are a place the common people, the common people who have been dispossessed. our elites can actually come together and acquire bargaining power. we should be we should be supporting unions for that purpose. and to both of them, i say sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong, right sometimes unions serve very useful functions and sometimes they don't. and why do we have to be so ideological about this? why don't just be realistic, get out of the and into the real

world. here's a union i really like, because this is another thing conservatives will say, well, know i like unions, but i really hate public sector. you know what unions? i really like the fraternal order of police, a public sector union and you know, i like the fraternal order of police is because they are the most powerful institution in our society standing between barbarism when people burn down buildings and loot and murder, it, the police that prevent them from doing so and it's the fraternal order of police ensures they don't lose their for doing their job they don't lose their livelihoods for doing their job. they don't go to prison for doing job. that's why i like the fraternal order police. i don't give a -- what abstract you give against public sector unions. i like people who stand on the line between civilization and barbarians. it's that simple. and you should too. i'm telling you right now that in the actual world of politics that we live, the people who are doing the most to ensure

criminals don't take over our cities, are the police and the people represent them. so don't give me your -- about public sector unions. the fraternal order of police are the good guys. conservatives should be fighting for them because believe in civilization. we believe in we believe you should be able to walk down the street without getting mugged or murdered. and that's why we support the cops. we give in another example, i, i had a meeting where i think the leader who met with me was not very well briefed. i will i won't name his name because i don't want to embarrass the guy. but, you know, he came into my office very early during my senate term. he was one of the leaders of the major american airlines. and he said, senator, i just want you to know that we're very committed. the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion in our flying work force. and i said, oh, that's interesting. whoever whichever staffer prepared you for this meeting, they should get fired. you're you're not to the right guy, my friend. but you said he said something really, really interesting to he said that they really want to

diversify by the pilot workforce they would really like to increase the number of young people they have working as pilots and that sounds pretty good to me. but then he said that there are actually people that he would to be pilots and he thinks they would make excellent pilots, but they don't. the standards that have been set to become pilots and i'm father of three kids, a six year old, a three year old, a one year old. there are two jobs that i really, really to be merit based and nothing else is surgeons. and two is airline pilots. okay, i want the smartest and the best people don't care what they look like. i care what their background is. and the thing this guy said to me is, is actually if you think about it, i would like to have less qualified people flying your children around in the name of. that's insane. i whatever my politics, i'm against that i want the most qualified people to be flying the children of americans all across our country. you know what else he said to me? it was pretty interesting, is that the people are standing in

his way. i think this is where he sort of thought maybe i was just a conventional republican. he said the people who are standing in his way the people who are most aggressively preventing him from hiring a more diverse workforce was in the pilot corps or. the airline unions. okay. i didn't know --. the airline unions. and then i became their fan that moment. okay, again, not worry about i'm not talking about arguments about bargaining power and i'm talking about the people who want to make sure we have the most qualified pilots. those are my people and i'm going to be their side going forward. and in of these arguments, if you really think about we got to get less abstract and we got to focus on the things that actually matter. so my third and final point that i will leave you with and i'll repeat it is stop caring much about ideas. ideas really, but start caring about how we can win and the alliances that we have to form in order to win. i will be as much of an ally as

i can be and i know you guys reciprocate. god bless you in your efforts. thank you. and i. so if you a question, i'll take like two or three questions. just speak. i'll answer them quickly and then i'll get out of here and let you guys get on with the rest of the conference. anybody? mike vick. anton has a lot to say. mike, you have a question question? anybody question in the back please, sir? bilal, i love your point about the fraternal order of police as well as the airline unions in cases where they were absolutely correct. now, i would assume that i know your answer on this, but in cases where those unions are wrong, you're not going pay all of your people on a case by case basis, correct? look, it. that's exactly right. i think there are good unions and there are bad. we have to be honest about that fact. do do have a special amount of affection for the the starbucks

union where they're currently using their power not to bargain for higher wages but to come out and support the terrorists of hamas. right now, this is what i mean about getting too abstract about this stuff and the criticism i would i would give to my friends on the right who tend to be more pro-union is if you're lead you to defend the baristas union as they defend hamas and you should have a different politics, it's really that simple. again, some of institutions are good. some of these institutions are bad. and the only way you can really figure it out is do the work, get on the ground meet with people, try to create alliances and, figure out how it goes from there. so in the back. so similar, we should be certainly doing more things, but does it not still matter the precise things that do so? for example, with the tech companies yes, the tech companies involved in the censorship, but we now have pretty definitive proof that this all came from the doj at some level.

so do you think it might be a mistake to turn ire on the private sector when they have the sword of damocles of regulation hanging over them all the time? and it does come from the deep state some level, even though our results in the past going after the deep state have been disappointing. well, it's i think the on some level part of your question is really important. right. it came the deep state on some level we certainly that the fbi was was explicitly participating in some of the censorship regime, the run up to the 2020 election. but look we also know these guys were doing it in part of their own volition. the fbi making mark zuckerberg. right. $425 million to left wing ballot harvesting initiatives. right. my my my point here again, to go back to the abstraction point is we have to recognize good evil, right. versus and not allow a particular principle to hamstring us from doing what's actually in the interest of the american people. because if, you know, as anton chigurh says if if if the rule has led you to this point, what

we use was the rule. okay, my point is, if the rule is let us that point, we have to be willing to think of some different rules to apply here. and you're absolutely right. we have to be mindful of the deep state on, the censorship stuff, if i were to sort of a lot responsibility, i'd probably say 70% of it was deep state, 30% of it was private actor. that's a guess in my head. but that means we have to be willing to sort of push back on both fronts if we want to end the censorship complex in this country. and i certainly do. one more question, sir. yeah. your comments. all this about who's the enemy. well, look, i'm hardly an in carl schmitt and i actually am pretty ecumenical in that i think that most of our fellow americans are not the enemy. i think it's really important we distinguish between the leadership of the left and the rank and file democratic voter

think most of whom actually i genuinely do believe this i'm not just a hopeless optimist. i think most rank and file democrats are good people. i think the leadership, the left has gone completely insane. and certainly what i'm talking restoring civic order, bringing back a meaningful border, raising the wages of americans just bringing back like the basic good things that we all care about in the conservative movement, then certainly are people on the left that are actively aligned against it. and i'm not afraid to call them out for the for fact. thank you. but thank you for having me, arthur. thanks for organizing. god bless, you guys. and i hope to see also see. okay. thank you very much, senator

vance. joining me now is michael anton, a contributor to the edited volume, a former communications director at the national council and currently a senior fellow at the claremont institute. jeremy carl former deputy assistant secretary in the department of the interior and a senior fellow at the claremont institute and matt peterson, who is the founding of the american mind. he's looking at me to. make sure i get this right. founder of a venture firm and currently the executive editor of blaze media. we will start with michael anton, please. all right. i'm going to push something. i guess i do. so i won't read to. i'll just keep it here so i can see. these are arthur's instructions to me as to what to talk about. he doesn't have any power of the purse over. me so i can probably say what i want is now a lot of recourse.

i try to be a good colleague and do a testimony. me so he wants to talk about how the left and how of all how it took over everything, why it's held on so tightly and what we can do, you know, shake it or. okay. so how i'm actually researching a bit now have been a million books written about this. you can find them easily. roger kimball is the long march picking up a phrase from chinese civil war in 1930 anyway. but i to give you an analogy of how because i this for another purpose, one of the things i'm looking at is for reasons i won't go into the history of student takeovers of buildings in the sixties and thereafter, when this became a thing like you go into the building, you have a sit in, you occupy, you map kind of demand, eventually. typically, i would say more than typically probably 99 out of a hundred times the university caves gives you everything you want. there's a movie that i recently watched about this that i had never heard of it. it was called the strawberry

statement. totally forgotten 1970. it's about a sit in at an unnamed bay area university. how did they do it? well, if you read about it, they're actually fairly clever. most of these buildings, at least in those days, they're open. right. it's a bunch of different doors. you walk in. you've got to file your papers. you've got to do this. you've got a lot of reasons to be in there. so you have a conspiracy with two or 300 people beforehand and. you trickle in over the course of a few hours. and once you reach critical mass, you sit down, you block the doors, start chanting, you break out the signs, so on and so forth. but just one at a time. you go in. this is the way that they, in effect, took over? you do it very quietly. you don't announce your intent until you have physical control. this the way it is, in a sense, that the left took over a lot of our institutions, they nobody comes in saying we're going to take over the university and make into a left wing anti-american hate fest. it's just you hire one person at a time as quietly as possible. they only when you have critical mass, does the real agenda reveal itself or in another context, similar.

but this is an anecdote i approve of some of our and teacher a harvard professor retired now named harvey mansfield had to keep his head down for a long time. he got tenure in 1965 and when he got tenure, he wrote a telegram. that's how long this was to his mentor, leo strauss. it says you achieve or i forgot exactly what the word was, but i never really remember the second sentence. and there were only two sentences. one word like achieved, and the second one is now we run up the jolly roger knows now you can't touch me. back then, tenure was taken seriously. now i will reveal i really am and i'll start giving harvard a headache on a daily basis, which he to do for about 40 years, 60 years, i should say. so this is the way they take it over very slowly, right under the guise of fairness, freedom free speech and so on, when there's critical mass. then you announce yourself and you change the rules in a sense, if anybody wants to get really depressed i don't recommend read

what it's like on a university hiring committee these days or what you have to do to muster to get higher forget or just to even forget to get hired just to get an interview. just to get the first round and a university. it's almost impossible. it's changed extremely rapidly just in the past, let's say three years. okay. why have they held on? well, okay, i think that's part two of my charge. they've held on because. they waited to achieve critical mass. and once you achieve mass in a given institution, it's you can be fairly hard to dislodge. so who's to kick them out now of the universities or of the major newspapers or of the foundations of, you know, i've worked at three fortune 50 companies. now, you would think this is to piggyback on something, senator vance said. you'd think these people these, companies, these institutions, because their profit making right there, have to be responsive to the bottom line. they have to be responsive to investor concerns. they have to be responsive for

the public. who pays their who buys their product and. yet they're overwhelmingly just as left. they're not quite as bad as, let's say, a women's department at oberlin college. but there are there's more in common with a fortune 50 boardroom and, an a and a mid-tier sociology department than you might think. we've seen some signs recently. disney to be suffering because of pushing too much woke bear, alienating its customer base. it's on i know i'm trying to i'm trying to see the the light at the end of the tunnel in that i guess bud light suffered anheuser-busch via bud light has suffered a little bit. mostly, though, these companies haven't a price because once there's a critical mass, there's aren't a lot of levers. there's almost nothing you can do from the inside and there aren't really that many levers that you can utilize from the outside to the universities. for example, the main lever people would have over the universities boycotting them. don't send your kids there, don't pay the tuition. i can tell you from experience, someone who's a big sap that i

am paying the tuition right now for one of these places like no one's doing that no one is yet willing to say to their kid, you know, don't go there or. i refuse to let you go there or anything. nobody's the we'll see what happens to harvard. and penn and mit, they appear to be going through a rough patch. one of the i think is right now without a president maybe two more soon will be although i think gay is going to survive at harvard. that's my but you know hey they suffered like this in a long time so maybe that's something to look forward to or something to be optimistic about. another reason, though, why they hang on is because they seized i don't i don't i mean this only in the sense of perception right? they've seized the moral high ground they occupy moral high ground. not literally. i don't think they hold the actually true moral position but they sound like they do they're always able to couch they want or whatever they do or their priority is or whatever this action that appears to the rest of us to be hypocritical, they're always able to it in terms that sound extremely moral

so that the regular person that senator was talking about, not the think tank egghead, was right, not the engaged participant, not the campaign volunteer, the regular constituency who just wants the chemical train in their town cleaned up when they hear this moral language. actually, it sounds. that's about right. right. and the egghead comes in and says, well, let me write i can write 10,000 words about why my vision of justice is different from theirs. it doesn't get through right. the moral revolution in the way we're supposed to understand the relationship between privilege and non privilege in the underdog and entrenched power and all of that gives them an incredibly effective tool, even when people sort of have misgivings like. should the six foot two 200 in town, 10 pounds hulking person, ambiguous gender actually be competing against five foot four biological women? you know, common sense is not

probably that doesn't seem right but if you frame it as a moral issue as civil rights imperative of our time, as i the president called it before he was president, and if you if you guilt and shame them into thinking that, you know you're you're against progress, you're against the disadvantaged, the they can kind of i think maybe not fully genuinely but they can be made to feel misgivings that overcome their common sense and. at a minimum, if it doesn't fully convert them to this cause, it makes them kind of recede into the background, say, well, i'm not going to raise a stink if i'm not going to raise a stink about that because. it makes me look bad. and i'm not even sure that i'm wrong. so holding that moral high ground or that moral weapon is very important. what could we do against all of this. well, since we're in capitol hill or the capital or i don't know we're underground somewhere out. i can think of two things that members of congress and should do that they almost never do. right. one is just don't give them any

money. right. you have power of the purse i teach a class. we all do. i teach for hillsdale and we're all supposed to. something about the constitution or it's somewhere. article one. it says that only does only the congress. that is the senate and the house of representatives have the power of the purse only. ultimately, the house of representatives has the power of the purse. right. i can show where this is. if you don't give them any money. they can't spend any money yet. whenever some controversial, horrible thing comes up or or the worst behaving departments in the us government. the senate senator mentioned the department of justice right controls among other things, the fbi whenever one of their bills comes up, the republicans always vote to give them more money. right. so they gave fbi some huge raise i'm not going to say the number because i'll forget it. then everyone will jump on me. you know, you were one digit off or whatever. not only did they expand their, but they all voted. i'm sure some people voted, but anyway, it passed to bill them, a gigantic new sparkly

headquarters in the dc area right. well, given all the malfeasance we've seen come out about this particular agency in the last seven years, they don't deserve any of this. and yet the can't stop it. right. and even if you can't stop it, i would say if there are any members in the room, i'm looking you even if you can't stop, at least vote no. just symbolically just put yourself on the record saying, okay, this is going to get smashed through anyway. there's nothing they can do. the leadership is for they've got the votes, whatever. but i in good conscience can't put my name on it, but they always go and i can we could point to a million more examples of things that republican elected officials know are wrong. their constituents don't support. if it was explained to those constituents, they would especially not support and pay for it repeatedly. the other power. this is really more for the senate side, although there are levers that the house side could push is over. stop voting to confirm people who say they're going to do things in the us government.

so again, j d vance teed this up for me. thank you, senator. right. he's talking about airline pilots. well, we have a sort of similar issue on the military side where. the last chief of staff of the us air force recently became the chairman of the joint of staff, is the highest uniformed position in the united states military. and he said and one of his top, if not his top priority as air force chief of staff, and it will continue to be as the head of he's not really the head of the whole military. it's complicated the way the joint staff operates but you his priority is to diversify these ranks now as the senator said fine with that as as long we're diversifying consistent with high standards and high you know without diminution of standards without any lowering of qualifications. but when that just diversity for its own sake becomes a priority, no longer selecting for that, you're going to have a problem. so this generals was, you know, very loudly, clearly on the record what he wanted to do.

and a big stink raised a lot of outrage, a lot of concern, a lot of controversy. and what happens in the end, the republicans just roll over and he was confirmed with like 85 votes or something. i forgot what it was, but it was over 80. nobody stands up and says no, right, either say that you're not going to do that. you're going to prioritize qualifications readiness. the ability to defend the united states, to carry out military or you don't care or vote. but we lay down every time. so these are things that could be done from this building by the elected members who serve in this building in complete accordance and keeping with the constitutional duties of their offices, with the oath that they take and in my humble opinion, having never served in congress and never will. they seldom do those things. and i, for one, would like to see them do it just occasionally would be a start. and then increasingly and then universally thank you, jeremy carl. thanks very much, arthur.

so i flew out here from montana on weekends to talk about immigration little bit and i on the way back from the airport, i a newbie from afghanistan and like to chat up driver. so i was just sort of talking with him and we had a really good talk and i asked where i from. i started from montana he said, oh, i have friends, missoula and i actually knew about that because. we had a recent resettlement, 130 afghan refugees in missoula and montana being a small state and a particularly diverse state, that was sort of a newsworthy event. a significant number of refugees. and sure enough, not that long later, there was a rape case involving one of those refugees. now, we consented for that refugee resettlement, although this was legal immigration. know i do, congressman from montana. it actually objected to it. the governor objected. but honestly, there's not much we can do. and, you know, i'm here in montana saying, well, do we

control our own country? do we control who really comes here? and i really think it underscores to me that immigration is the fundamental issue, that the first issue that transcends all other issues, it goes to really the heart of who are we as a people like and do we get to choose and. it's a battle that i think we as a nation right now are losing in october this year, we hit 15% immigrant population. the united states, that is the highest in history, higher even than the the ellis island era and that's both legal and illegal. and it wasn't always this way. i mean, even not before i was born in 1970 census, we were 4.7% immigrant. in 1960, the median age of immigrants, 57 immigrant median of native born americans was 27. so you had few older immigrants and that was kind it. 84% of those immigrants came from europe and canada today we have immigrants and illegal from everywhere in the world. under joe biden, we've had a 4.5

million net increase. that's according to the census bureau, estimated 2.5 million, according to my friends at the cnn center for immigration studies. of those are illegal. those numbers are historically absolutely unprecedented. that type of increase got away numbers similar thing we have 137,000 per month right now encounters at the border that's bigger than the biggest city in montana. we had about 42,000 a month by comparison under trump which is hardly zero. but you're talking about a more than three x increase. it's twice as many as we had under obama. so it's a dramatic change. it's business as usual now of immigrants who become citizens more than percent of them are democrats. just a quarter a you do the math of what looks like so given the importance the issue, i'm going to just talk about four different things. one, i'm to talk about the conceptual big picture. secondly, because we're on the hill, i'm going to give you a few thoughts on what we can do with current legislation followed sort of long term strategic goals and finally sort

of long term practical things that we could do if we have the white and when we have the white house. again, a conceptual big picture. how should we think about this, the perspective of congress if we want to make change well, so absent substantial for immigration law, not just enforcement promises but law. we shouldn't be doing any deals, any that gives discretion to the immigration bureaucracy. i think we fundamentally lose if we create new law, we might win if we create facts on the ground then we will and we shouldn't put our trust in fences right now on our side of the border in arizona, we've got huge numbers of illegal aliens out basically waiting to be picked up and to have their bogus asylum claims and they are almost all are bogus processed and to just disappear into the interior. so having a wall, i'm not trying to say having a wall is not important? it is, but it is far from sufficient a policy is more important than. a wall and personnel is more important policy. that's how i think about immigration and most broadly.

so what does mean short term practically in terms of the current bill we have of in front of us right now, the current debate we've immigration twinned with ukraine. there's been a lot of discussion whether that is kind of useful or not even mitt romney is kind of saying no deal you know at anything with immigration if you want your ukraine money if that's true if we can really get we want that was basically in h.r. two in this ukraine bill then fine that's a trade i'm willing to make. but if not i just know our history as a party, i'm really worried we're going to give up fundamental things and as a result, give also tens of billions of dollars to ukraine with, regardless of the merits of it, is not something that popular with an increasing number of gop voters. so what should be the things in that sort of a bill, one, i think parole is the most important thing. so you have to the provision because that's how you actually release people into the interior and then they're kind of never seen again functionally.

it's much more important than asylum and it's not a coincidence that the democrats have been willing to do deals on asylum, but not really parole. secondly, some of the smaller loopholes, when you deal with asylum, things like credible fear and what a particular social group in the law, whether that means domestic violence or being in a bad neighborhood, is included in that which we should really say no. those are things the democrats even indicated. they have some willingness to move on. obviously, those are mandatory. again, i'm going to get a little bit wonky, but the floor is a loophole change to pray things where basically these both involve what you deal with minors. the idea that if a minor is not from or canada we kind of can't do anything with them if they show up as opposed to what should do, which is just call up their embassy and be like, hey, we've got somebody from your country, need to go deal with them. similarly for us right now. a basically a judge for the last long period of time has made it

that if you show up with a minor it's basically a get out of jail free card, your whole family if you and a family in every case gets released into the interior, we can stop that legislate natively. and to me, those are sort of minimum goals that we should have. we can dramatically increase enforcement budget much, the completely ridiculous things the democrats do on immigration are they say, oh, well, we're just using our discretion so if you give them a ton of money to actually just for enforcement, then the discretion argument a little bit harder to to swallow. finally, we should empower states to enforce immigration laws. you're seeing a little bit this particularly down in texas in a little bit in arizona. you know, will the democrats really risk with our current border are they going to send federal troops down to texas and say we're going to start arresting? and i knew michael was going to say, yes of arresting people who are just trying to enforce the federal laws that they won't

enforce. i think they may try. but i think if we're smart, we can make the optics of that so bad that becomes toxic even for the democrats. so that's that short term, create facts on the ground. what do we do? the long conceptually? well, first, i think we have to puncture the nation of immigrants myth that's literally its origins in a democrat campaign in 1960. if you read my chapter in the book i kind of go all into sort of the history of american immigration, which is not what most people think it is. so you can see some of my other talks on youtube. we also need to have a candid look at what worked and what didn't work under trump, under trump deportations increased. the border was certainly more secure. remain in mexico, policy kept hundreds of thousands of bogus asylum claims from being from being adjudicated here. refugee numbers went down to 15,000 from a high of 80,000 or so in the obama administration. parts of the border wall were strengthened. that's good. but there is little fundamental long term change despite really

smart people and folks like stephen miller, really good efforts. there was no mass deportation of illegals, there was no meaningful legislation passed again, despite efforts most of these accomplished wins under trump have been undone in more by biden, we even failed again, not through lack of trying to end obama's blatantly unconstitutional doca executive order and. so i think there's no way we can win ultimately on this immigration issue if we simply play under the current rigged system in this kind of gets back to the old way of doing conservatism in which advocacy groups resettlement and lawfare kind of dominate policy. so what's a solution? well, we can take a page from president lincoln and president lincoln and you start by doing things like challenging the power of district judges. this is now if we control, the white house to nationwide injunctions when they don't like something lincoln argued against judicial supremacy in the civil war he took dred scott he took x

party merriman when the court attempted to limit his authority and he said basically good legal opinions. you know what? i'm just not going to do that. that's nice that you have that that opinion and means that what you need. noah feldman of harvard law has argued that even the emancipation proclamation was probably a constitutional, certainly not a moral violation, the constitutional violation. so the question, are we going to talk about the left's version of a constitutional violation or are we going to make the correct legal arguments to do the things that we know are the right to do? we do rescue that spirit of lincoln. that also means my number one priority is an aggressive counsel. the white house counsel's office in the next administration. people are really going to be unafraid to to kind of push for these very fundamental changes. so on a policy perspective, what do you do? you berocca criticize immigration claims. you take authority away from immigration judges, quote unquote. they're not real judges. you do things, simple things,

even like for asylum claims, everything heard by three asylum judges. you need all of them to say yes before you can get it. even just doing that little thing would get rid of a lot of bogus things. we need to remove the temporary protected status program entirely as opposed to kind of doing this country by country thing. we've got 400,000 illegals right now. people who would be here illegally, except they've been given temporary protected status. what is temporary mean? well, it's on 34 years for somalis, 25 for hondurans, 25 years for nicaraguans, 15 years for haiti. does it really feel so at this point? finally, i'd say we need to consider. and this really gets to two things. senator vance would say what i would call the nuclear option. and is really an up from conservatism thing, from a conservatism that always loses. i think the department of justice day one of administering our next administration needs to open up a january 6000 investigation of the activities of the biden administration and immigration, their state enablers and criminally prosecute if they find appropriate evidence or

administration officials who have broken oath of office and intentionally violated the law. and i'm very, very by the way, that if you start doing communications, you're going to find a lot of things where you're going to you're going to have that happens from. secretary mayorkas on down. and i want to be clear what i'm talking about here is not criminalizing policy disagreement. okay? the left is not going to agree with us on immigration policy, and that's fine. i'm talking about the criminal behavior that is going on right now of the biden ministration who refuses to the duly laws of the united states because they feel that it will hurt them politically at intel you do that until you make people personally on the left for blatantly flouting laws not just by losing an election, but by their freedom. you're going to have the same sorts of bad acting from the left that you always have had there need to real consequences for democrats who engage in the

sort of criminal behavior that we have seen. unfortunately, from this administration and their enablers often at the state level. and when you that when you have those sorts of real consequences, you're going to get the change you need. so with that i think got me matt peterson. so anyone in pain and paying attention now knows that in america there's very few elite professions or corporations allow their members to safely dissent from woke dogma. everyone knows this everyone knows they risk their job or career. if they do so publicly. worse, we know the views of roughly half the country are increasingly opposed suppressed delegitimize by major corporations in key sectors like tech, finance, media. and as we learn more and more day big corporate increasingly works with the administrative state to spy and deplatformed bank on person otherwise attack dissent in political cultural organizations, citizens and

political movements. that's where we're at. so first off, it's suffice it to say, if we're going to talk about the economic war we've lost this battle, right? we did something wrong? we've lost big corporate that was supposed to be republic is gone. so now this is a time that we have to and this is what this book is about. we have wholly rethink our approach if we're going to have any hope of winning. so the way i look at this, there's no easy path to victory. there's a clear but there is a clear strategy forward. it's not complicated, but victory is not going to be possible unless we boldly and publicly acknowledge that our economy is a political and cultural war zone and act accordingly so arthur he can me to conflict in conflicting orders. one was to keep it within a time and the other was to explain how we got here. i'm going to i'm going to skip the how we got here part and go to the other half what we should do but suffice it to say i am very confident in arguing that the founders, the republican

party, abraham lincoln, the whig party, clay, the american system, teddy roosevelt, all of those people in the past did talk about business the way that we do now, it is very new to consider business a neutral space and they would have issues with the way in which conservative movement has talked about it. post-world war two. but let's look forward there's two paths forward. one is it's a pincer movement. if we're going to stop what capital one is legal and political action and. the other is a new commercial cultural movement, competition and radical acceleration, accelerated innovation. i'm going to speak mainly about the first today because of where we are. i think the second is ultimately the way you win. but the first, the political and legal action is necessary to hasten and unleash the second. so the first line of attack, the first thing we should talk about is, is simple. and i can't really emphasize enough people, very smart people. this space do not do not grasp this in the way that they should

internalize it. we need to use the weapons are already available to us. here's one of the big problems. until recently, the right just hasn't tried very at this stuff and. there's no greater example of this than what has been going on in the last few weeks in your daily headlines. so listen to this. this is probably more important than any of the intellectual stuff i say. elon musk recently said this, quote, media matters is an evil propaganda machine. we are suing them in every country in which they operate and. we will pursue not only matters, but anyone who funds media matters. they should go to hell. and i hope they do. so the guy who also declared on disney right, that's the right mindset. if you want to win the war, you bend, you don't break, you go on the attack instead. and people this the voters know this. musk has become a hero to half the nation. but here's my point as soon as

masood media matters right in the last few weeks he inspired a host of right leaning companies and tech companies to follow suit, to do the same and more are going to follow his lead lead. okay. so why didn't we do that years. why would we done that already? everyone's going to follow his lead because he planted a flag and he did something. and the truth is, whether it's free speech, whether it's antitrust, whether it's tortious interference, whether common carrier laws and regulations, there are plenty of avenues available to protect consumers and attack the corporations now wielding power against to further their political. the lack of will to deploy them is, in my opinion, first problem. so if you jettison the blinders of the past and you engage in a kind of full scale economic war, that corporations are already waging against the other side, against you will unleash the and creativity of politicians, policymaker and lawyers at a

much greater scale with much greater effectiveness than anything we've seen so far. and that's already happening. we need more of it. there's been state attorney generals in states like texas florida, missouri, elsewhere. they've proven that you can you can win using the framework of existing law whether it's filing suits against google for antitrust violations or the biden administration for colluding with big tech. these things are popular voters and even many donors. so if you join the fight that, you know, that's the first step. use existing law. second, there's plenty of areas in new or radically reformed laws and regulations reshape the commercial landscape for the better. obvious measurescorporations th. that means pulling out large amounts of money. now in the hands of blackrock and other large investment vehicles that have weaponized the trillions of dollars they control. there's been some headway there that needs to become the norm across the nation for the right same principle should apply all large state contracts with notable that oppose an attack. the interests of american and state residents all special and giveaways that state and local governments designed in the past for corporations given to them.

corporations are actively opposing the interest of their residents. american citizens. we need to reexamine those special carve outs, right, and take back the idea that that action conservative principles is so to me, i mean, strict libertarian have been talking for decades that special cut outs for businesses distort what should a level playing field right so getting of them should be applauded what would what did should be applauded with disney. the entire complicated landscape of our free market is already a distorted and corrupt war zone where states like california and new york, ceaseless rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies. that's what they do. so fighting against this, will will raise awareness of the problem. and if you do some of the things i just mentioned, you also create an ecosystem where you can you can foster and reward alternative businesses and financial institutions that aren't doing these things right, which can start capped. they can start capturing market from their competitors the worst offenders. another thing obvious but needs to be done is starting to happen but not enough in the past we

relied on the discipline of boards and shareholders as a trustworthy lever to the political activity of a company right. but many corporate boards have long since been co-opted by activists to acknowledge the reality. the real impetus behind the cries for diversity on corporate boards in california and elsewhere is simply to leverage power for political purposes. and you have tangled web of ngos, politicians, political organizations. they've succeeded over the years to take over i mean, think about this. even the industries they despise such as the energy sector. so there's reason the good news is there's no reason in principle nonprofits, politicians, political organizations on the right could act in a similar manner to the left in this arena, there's only lack of will you know, there's there's tons of examples could take. but to take one example of something that could exist would put the right pressure. now why isn't a consumers union right now that represents tech platform and advocates on their behalf? harmeet dhillon and i proposed

in 2019 she didn't have time and neither did i? but such an organization would fire a few high profile lawsuits a year. it would break down the ever changing terms of service it would educate consumers about their rights, tech, privacy practices, rank social platforms, call attention to their worst right. it'd be like a legit version of a media matter is actually serving people, consumers unions, but the idea has been around forever. where is that that's just one example. there's a ton of new things like that that we could see we could see coming. we need to foster but here's the controversial and the most important thing that i'll say about, the legal and political problem and the thing that congress must do to fight off woke capital is its root legal cause. no one talks about this. that's our corrupted civil rights regime, why our companies work. it's baked into the cake. our laws, institutions and our culture have long since baked in the necessity of allegiance to elite sponsored wokeness and identity politics. although the initial civil rights act was sold to americans as a way to ensure we judge individuals the content of their merits.

it metastasized into a system based on opposite notion by law. all workplaces must now take racial and many identities into account, and they hire, fire and promote people accordingly. the system is not neutral. moreover, it's partly run not just by the woke commissars in the businesses, by an ideological federal administrative state and its corollaries in the individual states themselves. so, you know, here's the hard news can be no real victory until the right takes aim at the massive body of rules regulations that emerged and created the woke human resources wrongly established on the basis of the 1964 civil rights act that, provides the commissars their command centers. every major business in america has become a tyrannical tool of radical ideology. all know this we must no longer require race and other identities be taken into account. the workplace. now i know what you're thinking. dismantling that complex is such a monumental task that many would despair at the attempt, but there's no longer any way

around fighting the weaponization of race and identities in the workplace. if there's there's no around it. if there's any hope of saving america, that's what you have to do at the very least. okay, after saying the most radical thing, at the very least, the concept of disparate, which practically means that any inequality is the result of oppression, must be rectified accordingly, needs to be dismantled by revisiting and revising all of that civil rights act legislation that's been wrongfully built upon the 1964 act, the right can rest assured that despite the success of its millions of regular americans and business leaders still value and despise the working they now find themselves in. they want to get out of it. what's required to, help them is a brave new political movement that takes direct aim at that of law and do that you have to you have to accurately describe the problem, have to reject the rhetorical straitjacket leftist put us in for decades. the framework talking about has nothing to do with race or but the question of whether we still

value excellence and competence. so we need to argue that h.r. is not merely inefficient, but it's fundamentally unjust and morally wrong. now, think about this again. i mean, go back to musk to shame the right the most successful businessman in the world recently declared, unless it is stopped the woke mind virus will destroy civilization and humanity never reach mars. if republicans can't say the same and explain why and act on that, they should not expect defeat woke capital and they don't exist to deserve a political party. in my opinion. if, however, republican begin to take action and we see some of this, if they taking that sort of political and legal action rethink the framework of how they talk about these things, they start to move in this direction which the new right is trying to push that will serve the purpose not of on its own defeating the enemy, but it will unleash the other side of the

pincer we need. it'll hasten the of a new commercial cultural movement in the private sector based on competition for innovation and excellence people have already started to get out from under the control woke capital you know the same driving geographic migration that you see right now from blue to red states apply even more so with even force to the one party controlled workplace marketplace and digital technology platforms. any way you count the numbers, you have millions. people who as a group would constitute one of the largest gdps in the world who want to stop supporting companies and cultural institutions that hate them. you know, half the nation wants alternatives i'm part of that movement in the private now expanding blaze media, which will increasingly shine a light on all above. there's a lot of work to do. members the private sector need to be roused and given a vision and purpose and the action that i'm suggesting help that but ultimately only they can put together the historic of talent now available that wants to

break out to the increasingly ravenous demand of people, the new tech media and financial institutions we need. and that's not only single business, single largest business opportunity in our lifetimes. that's also how we're going to save america. thanks. thank you. give our panelists a round of applause, please rather than break for an intermission. in the interest of staying on time, i'd to welcome our next panelist. please thank you very much. for.

this. welcome back, everyone. i hope you like your intermission. i would like to pick up right. we left off and turn to congressman bishop and discuss what peterson talked about, which is problem of our understanding of the economy, that it is a neutral space, which effectively has meant for the past generation. the left makes advances and the right stands idly by. now, congressman, you have been interested in antitrust laws and thinking about esg from that perspective. you talk a little bit about that. please. well, yeah, i joined chairman jordan on the judiciary committee back in july, asking for information from vanguard and i think blackrock and some other entities on the degree to which there's an there's an

agreement in restraint of trade, concerning decarbonization in the like all the esg initiatives. and i will just say that think it's today there's an element that chairman jordan has followed that up. what's been forthcoming is limited and and so subpoenas have been issued to vanguard and aruna capital are and i think it's know it seems like something that's been obvious it's staring us in the face. the question is just whether we're going to permit it to go on endlessly or as say, you know, it's a it is an economic war being waged by by means of unfair agreements and restraint of trade must be responded to by congress and and committees. and congress can find out what's been going on and then we'll see what happens after that. and what must some of your colleagues here think? who would be on our side in principle, but but discourage you from pursuing? i mean, do they think that

things will simply normalize ties in time? i think generally about your thesis, arthur, some of the materials i've i saw your interview with kevin roberts and i there is look, i've been in congress since 19. one of the things you said is that maybe we need to look to states. i agree with that i'm leaving congress to go run to be attorney general of north carolina for exactly reason you're talking about. i think is that as a general theme, the problem is there's a lack will, a lack of courage in people who've served congress for far too long and who are who are nominal conservative. and that's got to change. and so it's a matter of this this timidity in responding to an all out assault on the american way of life by a radicalized left, be is not a solution and so yeah i think you've got to. use tools that you've been we've reticent about and if people are

are scandalized by that well i'm sorry that's just too bad thank you representative. babbin we we talked immigration a little bit. i just have a basic question. why the right always talk about doing something about and never does anything you've seen it from the inside tell us absolutely when i got elected in 14 and i said don't committees that really don't have jurisdiction unlike dan, i don't sit on juries on judiciary judiciary. but i it's such a major issue and especially being from the state of texas, it is i think it's the most important issue that we face as far as danger because the imminent danger that that an open border has for us is just overwhelming. and quite frankly, it just is as. dan said, we don't.

have 100% will in the republican party to secure the borders. the democrat party certainly does not to have secure borders because. they see this as a political thing that is a this is a source of votes, a of chaos to inflict upon the country with a marxist intention of of nihilism anarchy, more marxists pick up the pieces routinely. you look at your history books that this is the way they operate and quite frankly, the the house of representatives. i was so proud having served on what my fifth term we passed h.r. two, which i think is the historic i think it's the toughest, best border bill, border security that that has had has come out of of the congress in modern times. and unfortunately, it's withering and gathering over in the senate because there the

democrats are in control. they're, you know. and in his paper, michael anton said, we're so blinkered by ideology that we can't or won't apply obvious solutions to simple problems. we know what? i'm a dentist by profession? i'm used to getting things done comes to my office have on a dental problem or we diagnose it we sell that the to the patient and i say sell. we convinced the patient that treatment is necessary and we get the thing done and they leave smiling and happy up here. it seem to work like that. i wish it did, but it doesn't. one day last week we 12,000 illegals come across the border, most of them over in in in arizona and to the great state of texas. and our governor, i have been trying to convince them for a long to declare an invasion and

was very, very happy that he did because seven of my nine counties that i represent county resolution said this is an invasion. congressman, we are being overwhelmed and guess what? we are nearly 300 miles from the border in my district, my district is of the houston area to louisiana and. we simply have got to sort to to secure this border. if we don't i don't see this country lasting as we know it. that's just the simple of the matter. we should not negotiating border security. we should be enacting it. and frankly, i can't i can't up here and explain and speak on behalf of some of my republican colleagues that won't vote for border security. it's either they're there foolishly compassionate you know about they've convinced by the democrats that this is the right thing to do or could be an ideological thing as.

well, or it could be an economic thing. i think we all know that the the. there's there's a groups that you would think would be republicans us chambers of them that it's an economic they want cheap labor and that's the pandemic we've got major major major unemployment by folks that just simply seek a job because they're they're being they're cashing a check each month and don't need to. and so it's a it's an income isn't it's totally economics when you look at it from standpoint. but the republican party let me tell you something, if we put a republican in the white house, he has got to have interior and enforcement in a major way. we've already had 9 to 10 million cross. we cannot allow those people to stay in here. we have to have enforcement.

we have the not a whole year to go. as we said, 12,000 crossed in one day. how many are going to come across by the end of this year? we cannot incentivize further illegal immigration to leave these folks without interior enforcement in this country will be nothing incentivization to keep coming. they know that if get in, they can stay and eventually they will. they won't have. as the democrats we've we've seen their very first bill under nancy pelosi h.r. one was a takeover of our our election process by the federal government and included in that was the ability for foreign nationals vote. and we know what it is i mean everybody knows that is what's going on there. and so we have to make that we start incentivizing housing disincentivizing, illegal immigration and sad say that

republicans do we talk about border issues but we can't seem to get on the same page. but i will say this and i've already mentioned it. h.r. two is a tough a good bill that would put this country on the road to a secure border, if only the democrats would let that come come to the floor in the senate this next year's election is going to make that determination. thank you, sir. representative hagan, thank you for coming. it's very nice to see you again. your victory was extraordinarily important. the person was that occupied, that seat was persecuting the right and the landslide which you won was a marvelous moment for that many celebrated and in way it's a it's an optimistic case for the future as opposed to some of the very pessimistic observations that we've made

here so far flesh out what would it mean how should the right look optimistically on its future what would it need to change about itself confront about itself, move forward in a successful way? well, thank you authors. thank you for having me here today. and thank you for having me here. and i think one of the things that we have to recognize this bill, is a bit more on your last panel and some of the points that they we have to understand how we got to the current position of where we are if we're going to be able to fix it going forward. and one of the things that i think is critically important is understanding what happened about five years ago and then move forward on steroids, starting under the clinton administration. and that is the expansion in the administrative state. so what has happened is we turned over so much of our legislating the congressional body. and this has at both the state and federal levels, we've turned over so much of our legislating responsibility to the unelected bureaucrats that the unelected bureaucrats are the ones that

are dictating policy in this country. and we were talking just a moment ago about the concept of disparate well, disparate impact was created the early 1970s by the eeoc as a mechanism by which they could control what was going on in the boardroom and private companies. the interesting thing about that is the eeoc, number one, has no rulemaking authority. the disparate impact requirements have been put into rules because they can't be. and yet here we are, 45 to 40, 50 years later, where every time is a disparate outcome in any of an action taken in a private company, you've got enforcement mechanisms. this will be in an attempt to tell these private companies what they can do. so when you want to find why our corporations have become have have become the mouthpieces, the left wing or the or the woke, you have to understand, is that administrative agencies and regulatory have an inordinate amount of power in this country, and they have wielded in a way that they know they would never get the policies through if they actually had to vote on them.

so when congress and our state legislators abdicate the responsibility of not legislating, but instead right into their statutes themselves. it is up to the eeoc to determine how this how this statute will will be carried out or it is up to the secretary of interior to carry out the intent of this particular bill dealing with our bureau of land management lands. then you can understand that the left has been able to move things further and further and further and further to the left, despite the fact that we are a center right country. so i think one of the things that's critically important and why i'm optimistic is that more people are understanding this and recognizing what the administrative, regulatory regime does to us every day. so i'm very proud to serve on the judiciary committee with dan and jim jordan. and i'm also on the select committee on the weaponizes of the federal government. and while don't have the senate and we don't have the white right now, what i do believe we've able to do pretty effectively is expose the nature of what is going on in this

country. we had jonathan turley is one of our very first witnesses in the select committee on weaponization and we talked a violation of our first amendment rights through surrogacy. so it isn't that joe biden went and said, you can't say that or it isn't that the that one of us went out and said that what did they do? they went to facebook and went to twitter and they went to all of these companies and they said, we don't like what's being here. we don't like these jokes. we don't like statements. we don't like anybody pushing back covid. and so they got the companies do their dirty work and then they sat back and said, that wasn't us. we didn't do that, but that's illegal. and in missouri versus, biden, we have two incredible decisions saying that and think the united states supreme court will affirm that outcome. we've had matt taibbi and michael shellenberger and describe what they have been able to uncover and disclose. and i always say sunshine is the best disinfect it and this place needs to be fumigated. and with with those two gentlemen and others like them,

we have been able to expose the level of censorship that all of us are living under. and of us are now saying, no more, no more, no more. we're not doing this anymore. so we're getting pushback from the people who need to give who need to be pushing back. so, number one, i think that we need to understand that when congress does not do its job of legislating, we're the only ones who can be held accountable. you brought up in introducing me, i beat liz cheney. i beat her because she did what we didn't want her to do. so we threw her out of office. right. that's called accountability. that's voting does that's the kind of country we have. but who runs the eeoc who's the undersecretary of the of the undersecretary who ensures that we enforce disparate impact rules and regulations? we don't know. they can never be held accountable. well, we've got to push that decision making authority back to congress, where it you need to hold people like me a accountable. we need to be exposing the administrative state has ultimately done to us and then we can fight back against it and expose it because it is such an

antithesis to the very foundation our form of government, which is separation of power and individual rights. and if you look at the separation of powers, the very purpose of that paradigm was to make sure that our individual were protected, whether it was from the executive branch or the judicial or the legislative branch. that's our form of government. we erase it when we allow on to unelected bureaucrats to make the decision. so that's why i'm optimistic because i think we're talking about things i've been talking about this for 25 years, but i a practicing attorney who had to fight it every day but a lot of people don't know where it from. now we have ways in which to fight back and my friend dan bishop i right now we're trying to find a way to put forward push forward with a bill that would hold individual federal if they violate someone's first amendment right they can be held personally accountable. we're trying to create the federal version of 42 u.s.c. section 1983 because we believe that these folks are actually held accountable for violating the constitution. they're going be a lot less

inclined to violate the constitution. i think that's a step in the right direction. i think you just. yeah. mr. bishop. mr. maybe you can pick up from there reins act that has been proposed for many. we'd like to know your opinion on that. and what would be the next step after that there are tens of thousands of hostile bureaucrats want to limit stymie everything that we do even if it so happens we recapture the white of arthur. it's a great question. the reins act is a great idea and it's been here but it's been around as an intellectual notion 1520 years and and we proposed it as part of the limited save grow package that we got actually got 218 votes on before the debt ceiling negotiations. this but the idea is it just that right now can define it by different thresholds but a regulation having major impact

can't go forward. it's approved by congress and and that makes all the sense in the world we have right now epa proposing a rule on cafe standards that would radically alter the marketplace for automobiles in the united states basically and i forget the numbers but it would require something like two thirds of them to be evs and impractical effect. and let me tell you among other things automobile know that people don't want them, they don't want to buy them. and so they know that that's that's range that wouldn't permit that to happen. because what's happening is a member members of congress are getting on letters to beseech the epa not to go forward with a rule making law that congress would never do, wouldn't have, because the people would be thrown out of office for it. and yet epa is just going to roll on under a conception of their power that no one ever thought they had to to to radically alter the ability of american people to automobiles.

one of the keys, frankly, to freedom and so so the range, that would be a great idea. but again we put it in a piece of legislation, but we weren't prepared to fight for it. we weren't prepared to stand in the breach to, see to it that it got done. that's why. and then slip into a parallel concept your last panel made reference to the corrupted civil rights regime. well, the reason that we see action having been taken on the bar and what what harriet and i are proposing but action being taken on the what the district in louisiana called the most mass of attack on free speech u.s. history in the missouri versus biden is that that was left that was required state attorneys general to take action that congress has not taken firm action to deal with. i had in a subcommittee hearing last week the assistant attorney general for the civil rights of the department of justice was there. and my question was whether

there's any criminal investigation, prosecution ongoing within, the justice department on those with respect to those persons who to undertake what that district court described, a case that's been affirmed by the fifth circuit is now on further appeal to the united states supreme court. and her answer, not whether or not there was an investigation or prosecution, she said, i'm congressman, i don't know what litigation is and followed up because i was so dumbfounded. i said you do have said again, this is what the district said the case was about. it's it's on its in the united states supreme now you don't know what that is. i'm sorry, congressman. maybe if you could describe it more. i would so that is the first is the first amendment a civil right. so in other words, we have a we have a very ideal ideology, governance. what the department of justice is doing in civil rights. so it's become a weapon of ideological warfare by one segment of the of the country against another. what the justice department

should be doing is to enforce our basic civil rights and said the justice department has become the of attacking them, as you say. well, i'll say first, you know, harriet, i have this built there's a there's that little the supreme court has decided there's no bivens action for those who know what that is for a first amendment claim, it's totally irremediable by someone who's injured by that deprivation of which has been at scale. so congress won't take a step. members of congress can't be to stand in the breach and and reduce the the appropriations to the justice or the fbi or otherwise reform that in the radical way that it obviously needs to be done if is a republican administration question you have to ask yourself is whether there'll be an attorney general confirmable by the senate who will take the remedial action is necessary and i mean hunter biden's protection in the in the department of

justice occurred across the trump administration. i'm saying there's got to be a different they have to be a fairly radical reset the mind to be able to take the actions necessary move the needle otherwise we're all standing there gross gross. greatly upset about any number of phenomena but completely impotent to do something about it. and and that's why think to not hit it again but i mean that missouri versus biden attorney general litigation as i say i'm going to do try to do that that's not actually a healthy thing either that we're looking to a road, frankly a transformed state office, the attorneys general offices to litigate issues that ought to be able to be solved as a matter of policy through sensible exercise of congress. and instead, we members of congress sit here like unix asking the please epa, do not destroy the car market. and i just think something that

so i'm very drawn the idea that there is a that we we must i think you take president trump's history he someone said at one point in time he's teaching the gop how to fight. and i think what what you're talking about in this conference bringing the intellectual heft to the same general attitude. the idea i mean i'm not trying liken it to president trump. i'm simply saying. after you sit in congress for 25 years and see meaningful impact, the status quo. i don't see doing the same thing over again should lead anybody to expect a different result, there must a change of mind there. it must be that members of who get elected serving the status quo or worsening it, even if they go out, talk in election time about what we want to do, should find that incompatible

with remaining in congress or with rising to leadership congress. just my view, just to follow up very briefly on this, i mean, surely you make this case to some of your colleagues, private a right now in room in the capitol, we're talking about what pfizer reform bill will come the floor tomorrow and we're going to see what's going to happen tomorrow is we're going see a bill, a pfizer reform bill, which is in the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee. they're going to put up one coming out of the intel which is supposed to exercise oversight over until it's to come. they're going to handle their own bill, judiciary jurisdiction on the floor. it's never been done before, not ever. so you're going to get two bills on the floor, whichever one gets some greater votes, is going to go forward. but one of them that comes out of the judiciary, which after all of the abuses, five of section seven or two will expire, the authority of the intel state.

that law, their bill, write their bill, but the one that must proceed. that's the point. and i will say, i actually think one other thing and this one's a little frightening, but i think that for us to begin make progress, it's going to start first. it's going to sound inconsistent with what i've said. it's going to start in that area where you're to attract bipartisan support against against orthodoxy or against convention or wisdom. and that may be one if if the judiciary finds, a reform bill goes forward tomorrow, it's going to be because democrat, frankly, farther left democrats, have the same concerns that with the intel state that that civil libertarians on the right here. so we'll see what happens but you're absolutely right it it is it is it is ubiquitous in the matters that here there's a

meaningful reform that gets blunted every time by sort of a you know a notion that i don't know whether hand-wringing republicans or conservatives frankly they will speak at length. they will worry a great deal. all these phenomena that threaten the american people. but they they will not meet the moment when it comes down to something that that requires shutting the down for a period of time or requires negotiating over the debt limit, something or in the end, the thing that we see going forward perhaps soon, h.r. two, in exchange further aid to ukraine. i've never voted for any aid to ukraine. but what what i think that actually sounds like it's devolving into is perhaps some gesture border security if it's not h.r. two if it's not a fundamental change it's not going to fix anything. and i think the american people

i can tell you this, i go around, i see it, i see voters a lot, republican. and it's amazing much farther. they are ahead than congress. yes. and in fact, all the folks that we're working together with in washington need to take a lesson from the people who are out there. i don't think it's pandering to say it. they have figured things and they are so beside themselves with frustration that. they see time after time. give us another chamber. give us the white house. we're to fix it when we have the white house and it never comes. pass. i will say this last night, unless there is a move, a unless the kind of reexamination happens quickly and it produces real courage will be talked about and ruthlessness. i know if i use those terms of vehemence certainly if that doesn't happen whole swathes what otherwise is going to it would be the to a general to general conservatism in general

will fall away because it's wholly useless to continue to pursue it if it can if that can be talked about and cosmetically and, you know, presented. but never actually pursued one the when the chips are down. thank you, mr. bevin. you know that australia some years ago birthright citizenship and then they got rid of it and. you also note that president trump for long time discussed putting forth executive order to change our current understanding of birthright citizenship, and that also, well, was brushed under the rug, was forgotten. it's not entirely clear, but you have been thinking about this presented a bill on it could. you tell us a little bit about it and why this is so. well, it's it's extremely hard. i mean, again, the border and immigration are destroying our

great republic. that's what's happening. and so much so that even though i'm on transportation and infrastructure and space science and technology, i serve as one of the co-chairs on the house security caucus and also serve on the task force on mexican drug cartels. but i feel so strongly the birthright citizenship, as you said, i have introduced to the birthright citizenship act of 2023. and for a period this just comes out of the 14th amendment for a period following the enactment, the 14th amendment, section one, it was properly as written, is as intended to ensure that all american citizens were afforded the sacred protections that they deserve. and this after the civil war. and while these are important protections, they remain in decades.

this. 14th amendment has been misapplied and misinterpreted. the specific language the amendment has led to that at the of the practice of birthright citizenship by which children born foreign nationals from, illegal immigrants to tourists to, refugees are automatically granted united states citizenship. it has created birth tourism. there's been an entire industry on this right now. unsurprising only birthright citizenship is a very, very powerful incentive for illegal immigration. and over time it has been wrongly accepted as the law, with supporters claiming that our constitution guarantees it. it does not. i am a dentist. i am an attorney. but read that 14th amendment. you don't have to an attorney to see that this thing is being totally misapplied and misinterpreted. i think this issue has to be

brought to supreme court. we cannot guarantee success. i think right. with the the current membership of the court, i think we have a good shot at having this thing reinterred in a way that would do would do some real good but we will never have the opportunity unless we stand up and fight for birthright citizenship to be reinterpreted in a way that makes sense our immigration is supposed to benefit the united states of america. it is not there to benefit foreign nationals who want to come in to the united states. and as you've both of these other individuals tonight say, it's going to take courage. we've got to stand because no one likes to be called xenophobe, homophobe islamophobe. yeah, yeah. all kinds, folks.

dentist, phobe. i dealt with that. i dealt with that for 38 years. but birthright citizenship has enabled, by this faulty legal application, ending the practice by clarifying the eligibility of birthright citizenship is a necessary step and. fixing this broken immigration system that we have and stopping the complete exploitation and of the generosity of the united for america. thank you, sir. we have just a few minutes remaining and mrs. segment, i want to talk a little about what you would see from your constituents i mean, as i said before, they resounding we voted for something different. these frustrations have been going on for so long throughout the country, especially visible in your district, but throughout the country, what do you see mean this cannot build forever or, you know, it either goes in one direction or in another.

what do you see? so i didn't intend to run for congress, but when i watched our representative fail on so many different levels and failed to listen to the citizens of wyoming, i realized it was time to step up and actually become engaged on a completely different level than i had been as a private attorney. so i have often said i not running against liz cheney, but i running for wyoming. and i think it's important for every representative to feel that way. we aren't running against things are running for something and there are so many things in the united states and especially now to take that position. so while i was running, had the opportunity to give a speech and it was called the we're fed up speech and i don't know many of you may have seen the video it i didn't expect it to to become the story that it has or to be seen as much as it has but all i did was describe a litany or set

forth a litany of the things that we are fed up with and. that is where the wyoming people are. it's where the american public is. and that's why i will agree with dan and i agree with brian both that the public and conservatives and and parents and, business owners are further ahead, that we we are in terms of recognize where we're going if we don't change. and this isn't something about changing course in 2027 or 2032, it is about changing course right now because we don't have a lot of runway left. we are fed up with a government that doesn't seem to work for the american public anymore. this seems to work very well. the elitists in washington dc, we are fed up with the department of education that believes that boys should be able participate in girls sports and that girls should simply put up with that. we are fed with the nancy pelosi's of the world. we're fed up with the hunter biden's of the world. we're fed up with the way that our government is no longer

working for us, but working for some of people in washington dc, in new york and los angeles and them to amalgamate and and stockpile more, more and more power for them and their their friends, while the rest of are left further behind. i come from the what, the largest energy producing states in, the nation, and i'm extremely proud of that. we make everybody's lives better. we're the largest coal producers in the nation. we produce 250 million tons last year and. i hope it's double that next year we produce oil and gas. we have the ability to produce uranium. we are somewhat one of the top cattle producers in nation. everything that we do increases our prosperity. and the fact is our constitution gave us the foundation freedom and liberty. but it is energy, housing and, food that has given us the prosperity that we have enjoyed in this country that is unrivaled in human history. we have a certain segment of the

population right now that wants to take that away and using everything from the u.n. to the cop 28 to to john kerry and all of these other things to try to destroy our prosperity, to do exactly what brian has said, which is to implement marxist state of that none of us want. and that the people who are attempting to impose will never have to live under. so what are what are the american what are the wyoming people say right now. they say, we're fed up. we're fed up. the nonsense that comes out this place where we can't fix problems, which are really not unsurmountable. i'm the chairman of the subcommittee on indian and insular affairs. i could list off 15 things right now that are bipartisan, bicameral that we could fix if we simply got the words down on paper, move back and forth. that little place out there, that little concrete island out there, about six times we'd have it done and we'd solve problems. we have the ability to solve problems we don't because there is there there is a disincentive to solve problems there is an

incentive to continue to have them in play. and there is also decent there is an incentive to the american public. but again, why i'm optimistic is i'm not alone in saying things. i'm not just screaming the dark. there are a lot of leaders out there at the local, state and level. my many of my freshmen that came into this class with feel exactly the same way that i do status. quo is no longer acceptable. the status quo is no longer going to be tolerable because the american people have moved. just saying we'll fix it next time. we can't just fix it next time. next time is now. next time is right now. we've got to fix these things. they insurmountable. we have a document tells us how to do it. we should have judiciary who would help us to do it. and we need to have a legislative branch willing to push forward with what our common sense solutions to. so some difficult issues and of them are going to be harder than others, but doggone it we got to

try. thank you. thank you very much. and please our panelists. so. thank you. go vote vote. finally, i want to welcome to the podium the person who's brainchild this conference really is our friend the former republican study committee chair the founder of the anti-woke caucus and the future from indiana. jim banks. thank you very much. thank you to all of you for being here today. how about that panel? i thought i thought they were terrific. we've had a great crowd. we've a great discussion. i just want to share a few closing thoughts with all of you. something that we all have in common. i think you have come here to be a part of this today is that we all agree that america is a in a

war to preserve this country is the greatest country in the history of the world. and that's my big takeaway from up from conservativism today's panel and why i think it's so important that so many more of my colleagues digest this book so many more of you go out and share the contents of this, because that's also the difference between, i believe, between the old gop and the new gop. and you got a you just got a flavor of that from three of my colleagues who i respect so greatly. and it's why we hand-selected them to come and speak to all of you today because they understand that we are in a war, that this is a battle to save the country and and they operate in that way each every day in their service on capitol hill. the woke left has declared war on america. they are trying to destroy our country so that they can rebuild it from the ground up according to their rules, not according to the constitution congress or the

law. and i think all of us understand, especially after this discussion, if you've read if you've read the contents of the book, you understand this even, even more. this isn't partial war. this is a total. war. the isn't demanding, unconditional surrender. so we have to stop for truces. and we can't we have to stop backing down to the left in the way that the old gop would do every single time that had even a little bit of power to fight back. the other side isn't interested in honest negotiating, so really cares about arguing over tax credits when they illegal immigrants to be able to vote. the left believes in chemically castrating children and they want parents who disagree with them to lose custody of their kids. so i've been a war.

i served in a war in afghanistan and you know, when you when you've been to a war, you know that when you're in a war, you've got to see through the fog of war. i think this is really important. i think what up from conservativism does more than anything it helps us see through the fog of war so we need to assess the situation that we're in truthfully. so let's be honest about a few things. you just heard from three of my esteemed colleagues, i mean, one of them did a great service america when she defeated liz cheney in the election last. we just talked about it. she did it by the largest margin victory that any challenger has beat an incumbent member of congress beat liz cheney, that margin and even a whole lot more. you heard from dan bishop who i believe is one of the has has one of the strongest backbone ons of anyone who serves in congress. the guy never down. and you heard from dr. who i

believe is the most decent man to walk the halls of congress. in all three of them. you got a flavor this already. all three of them know that we've been in the majority one year and we don't have a whole lot of share to show for it. and i think this is harriet, i think this is shameful. we've had we've had the majority for year. we don't have a whole lot to show for it. so let's be honest. it what what have we accomplished over the last year? i suppose one thing we accomplished is we turned a five seat majority into two seat majority. no one's ever done before. we've really fallen flat on our face in holding my caucus and. biden accountable. we we sure got that. santos guy right. maybe those are the two accomplishments of this. now, i'm really the cameo video. so that's what it took to get the fun cameo videos. maybe, maybe that was worth it, i don't know. but a five seat majority and a to see majority and literally

nothing legislative wise after one year in the majority that this republican majority can show to the american people that we've done with it that we've done what they gave us when they gave us the power of the of the gavels and the majority. but on the flip side think this is really important what a lot of people think of and look at when they look at the house and the republican majority, what a lot of people call chaos, i think is progress. why do i say that? because my grandpa always said two things. he said, why is it that? the democrats go do what nancy pelosi tells them to do and republicans just kind of, you know, flap in the wind and fight with themselves in this case, i think that chaos, those internal fights are a sign of the new gop winning. i mean, i really do. i think the fights that we've had in the house, this congress with the new republicans like harriet and other new republicans, the house show some

progress. now, another that i point to and i think of progress is very first speaker that we heard from today. j d vance i believe is the the very best of what we've got going for us in the new gop and the united senate. is this is the smartest man in the senate. he represents the new flavor of the gop that we're all looking for. and one thing that j.d. is doing, he didn't talk about it today, but he's blocking single biden department of justice nominee. we i think one of one of our claremont panelists talked about this not going along with nominees who don't stand for america and don't put america first and voting yes. then you got senator tuberville, who's holding up pentagon on nominees. i know he gave up on a lot of the holds last week, but there are still 11 very woke generals who are being blocked for promotion by senator tuberville and senator eric schmidt from

missouri, who's joined into that crusade to stop woke generals being elevated even further at the pentagon now. what do all three of those united states senators have in common? they're all freshmen. first year united states republican senators. and for me that gives me hope that. the new right is moving the party in the right direction. you even have mitch mcconnell and mitt romney now saying more blank checks for ukraine. how that that's progress, right? i can't name by the way i can't name three provinces in ukraine either, but i'm not voting money to go to ukraine and bankrupting my country while our our southern border remains open. so earlier this year in closing, we started the first ever anti-woke caucus in congress. i thought it was clever at the time we gathered dozens of my republican colleagues who feel like i that wokeism is a cancer

that eating america inside out and will do. so if we don't do something to stop it. harriet is a harriet hageman is a leader in the anti woke congressman bishop and congressman babin attend single one of our anti anti-war caucus meetings. we've been what we've done is we've come together strategize we don't we don't just get together and talk about it we strategize and then we write amendments and advance those amendments. and a lot of the the bills that move it move their way through the house and we passed amendments out of the house that aren't going in the senate but to reinstate covid vaccine discharges from the military. we've passed amendments to ban drag shows on department of defense bases, ending racial discrimination in the military academies, slash marching dea bureaucrats pay is of the few things that actually did survive in the ndaa that's going to pass

out of both the house and the senate is a an amendment that the anti-woke caucus led cap dci bureaucrat paid a very low amount at pentagon. we we prohibit the department of defense for paying disinformation firms like newsguard to censor americans. that's an amendment that actually did pass all the way through so we've had some big wins out of the house and some smaller wins that will pass all the way out of the congress of our our strategizing, coming together to work as an anti-war caucus representative. babin, by the way, passed a memo to zero out secretary mayorkas, his salary like that passed out of the house to completely zero out his pay. representative hagaman passing amendment to defund dhs is environmental justice and literacy strategy is crazy to say that out loud. but harriet hagaman passed an amendment out of out of the

entire house of representatives to do that. senator vance, i just introduced legislation pull federal student aid assistance from colleges that to comply with the supreme court's affirmative action ban. that's that's a bill that we've collectively worked on in the house and the senate. that is a product of the anti-woke caucus. so the big point here to summarize everything that we've talked about is this republicans are starting fight back like we haven't fought back before. we're doing it in an organized and we're going to keep doing it over the next year so that after 2024, we have a chance to end and win this war for america. once and for all. so let. because he didn't do it and i think it's really important. let me let me wrap this up. are there by reading an excerpt from. i think the most brilliant thing you've ever written. i say that with a lot of a lot of humility as someone who's

who's read a lot of the important work you and the claremont institute has done in its opening pages of up from conservativism, arthur milikh writes this the time calls for another renewal with new goals different, strategies and a disposition that fits a changing america, a marked change in. the new right is one in attitude. a growing that restores something near to real politics, overt contention concerning core questions of the common good. the new right recognizes the left as an enemy, not merely an oppose izing movement because the left today promotes a tyrannical conception of justice that is irreconcilable with the american idea of justice the establishment right hoped to be left alone the new right under stands. that that is impossible. the left is imperious, morally and politically.

the left cannot rest until all mind's institutions, traditions and laws are assimilated to its project. it has shown its willingness to tear, through all of america's accumulate. to social capital, to tear down all institutions, including churches and families, to humiliate corner and dissolve all opposition. it has not hesitated to. deploy violent mobs against cities suburbs and individual residences to subvert the rule of law, and to employ eliminationist rhetoric against the america. against america monuments, its symbols, its people that it hates. the relentless and intensifying assault on america has made many citizens question whether the nation can endure. millions have tried to move to safety out of blue cities and states or into suburbs and rural areas. others still hope that they will be left alone. but the new right sees that

hiding in the woods not a viable political strategy. only a few clever dissident may be able to swim alongside the shark like sucker fish. and even this will work for only a limited time. there must be a political force that earnestly opposes this tyranny and wields legitimate power. in a way, the right was allergic to. that is the goal of the new right. and with that you for participating today. please digest and share it. share the contents of it. have a good day.

now i am so pleased to introduce tonight's