This is the FCNB podcast network. A praas masoda day that we won't to say, and then we won't to say, oh we gott it does. No one can tag that owen this gonna be okay? O preassday that we won't to say, and then we won't to say, oh we got it does. No one can take that oway don't say this don't be okay. Hey, everybody, welcome back to another episode of Just Listen to Yourself with Kia Davis. I am your host, of course, Cura Davis, and this is a podcast where we take hot topics, how bun issues, and we discuss the talking points on those issues, and we draw those things out all the way to their logical conclusion, because I think that sometimes when we think through the things that we're saying and our talking points, we rea we're not actually saying the things we thought we were. Today, I want to talk about the concept of pulling government funding from colleges and universities that are engaging in pro Hamas, pro or anti semite activities. Lately, that's what's been happening in the new cycle. There are a lot of particularly Republican politicians out there floating the idea of rescinding government funding for those colleges that we've seen and we've seen I don't have to rehash all this. You've seen the video and the instances out there. I've talked a little bit about this, I've written about it on my substack, but I wanted to explore it a little further. I think it's worth talking about because some of you, and I think this is really an episode for specifically for conservatives, because some of you are out there and you're seeing some of your favorite contrarian conservative pundits, and the contrarians are the people that I feel they're conservative in nature, but they always want to make sure that you know, we're not like those conservatives. So it feels like they're always trying to pander to the Beltway crowd. And so there is a class of conservatives who are saying, Oh, if you think the feds should foot pull school fundings for this type of thing, you're a hypocrite. You are not in favor of free speech, as violation of First Amendment rights. The federal government cannot pull funding from a no organization just because of the things that they say. I think this is absolutely not true. I don't understand the argument, but I've seen it going around, so I think some of us might need to think through this so that we can present some counterpoints. I really think that is it's false equivalency. This is not a free speech issue. It really isn't, because no one is well, we'll get into it. We'll get into it. So the question today, I suppose there's two questions. Should the federal government pull their dollars? Are tax dollars from colleges that are engaging in anti Semitic activities officially speaking, and that's a huge umbrella. I just I don't want to have to go through all of the little nuances of that protesting or abuse or whatever. That's one question, should they And is it a violation of our First Amendment rights, of anyone's First Amendment rights? So to get started, let's talk about the federal funding apparatus and how it works. I was looking up some statistics, had to boil down a lot of numbers for you, but basically, universities get about forty billion dollars per year from the federal government in the form of dollars from the NIH the National Institute of Health. As you can imagine, that is for activities like research and development, vaccines, that kind of stuff. And it's not hard to believe universities are institutions of higher education. They're doing a lot of research. That's where a lot of ground bake breaking discoveries happen. So they do that, then they do the beds give another one hundred and forty nine billion dollars in federal aid for student loans every year, so we could throw that into the mix. Although I wouldn't say the student loan debate is our student aid debate is necessarily on the table for this discussion. It does play a part when it comes to foreign students though, so just that's why I brought up the statistic. Keep that in mind, and there are about twenty million students engaged in college courses or on campuses throughout the United States in any given year. Here are some of the agencies in the government that give money. The Health Department that's that forty one billion, number forty billion. The National Science Foundation gives eleven zero point twenty seven billion, Department of Defense eight billion, Department of Energy four four point five at NASA four point four, Department of Education three point one, Department of Agriculture one point six, Department of Commerce eight hundred and forty six million, and the Agency for International Development gives four hundred and twenty million dollars every year. Those are just some some of the agencies that give money. So I was watching some commentary from a an acquaintance of mine, a Twitter friend of mine, and someone who's been a guest on the show, Brad Plumpo, And he's great on the fiscal issues. I love. I think he still works for fee dot org, so I love having him on to talk about policy and funding and how all of that stuff works. But he is also one of those contrarians and he's a libertarian, so there's that. But he was saying that conservatives calling for this type of action pulling funding from universities is hypocritical. It we're all for free speech until it's speech we don't like, and then we want to turn into these giant hypocrites and the federal government can't do this, and I fundamentally disagree. I do not see the logic in that argument at all. Before I break down the argument, though, let's clarify. We're talking about if the government can or should pull funding, and if that violates free speech, Not will they because those are two different conversations. Do I think the government would ever do that? No way. There's just too many lobbyists and too many faiths tied this money. And absolutely not. Once the government starts an entitlement, it never ends. And the government has a very robust college entitlement program, So I don't see it going anywhere. But let's just have the discussion anyway, Why would you fund a college? Why would governments fund What are the pros of our government giving money to colleges? Well, number one, first and foremost, as we just said, it's a research thing. Governments are funding research, research into important things, vaccines, studies. You know, a lot of the statistics I quote on this show come from research that's done at universities that is funded or aided at least by the government. So there's law and that's of course that benefits the government. And let's let's put that right in a context right here. Why is the government funding anything out a university in the first place, or anywhere for that matter, Because it benefits the government in some way. That is the reason to fund anything with tax dollars. It creates some net positive for the government and American society in general. An example of this is what we do in the nonprofit world. Now. The caveat to all this, of course, is that there's corruption and people lie and the government. You know, there's scientology, and the government gives nonprofit status to people that don't deserve it. YadA, YadA, YadA. I know all that. We're not here to litigate that part of the failings of American government. But one of the reasons they fund nonprofits like churches, for instance, is because or rehab programs. Let's use a rehab program, which a lot of churches run rehab programs. It's a net benefit for society, right the government. It's not good for any society to have a lot of drug addicts and alcoholics. That that is a detriment to society for many, many reasons I shouldn't have to explain. So it's good for the government to keep as many people as possible from being those people are falling into those vices. But if someone else is doing it and doing it better, that's not a job that the government has to do. But maybe the government would like to provide some kind of incentive and instead of starting their own rehab program They provide the incentive for rehab programs that are working. George Bush. President Bush made this point very saliently when he announced that he would be loosening the rules for nonprofits and making it easier for religious, particularly Christian nonprofits, to operate, because he said, look, you look at the recidivism rates for addicts or people getting out of prison and in non government programs, I mean in government programs that are way higher than non government programs. Now, it's still a very low number. The recidivism rates, I mean a very high number. The recidivism rates are like ninety percent or something like that. And I think, I think in private institutions, I think the rate of people not relapsing so success, first time success, I should say, because many it's very common to relapse, so first time success. I think with government institutions it's seven percent and with private it's twelve percent. I mean, it's not a huge difference, but it is a difference. So what Bush was saying was, why would we reinvent the wheel. Here are people who are doing it and doing it better. Makes sense to me. It makes sense for the government to support institutions and programs that have a net positive to benefit on American society. Forgive me for making this argument over and over again, but it stands true. This is why I have always felt the marriage battle was extremely important, that it wasn't for nothing. There were a lot of people during a lot of conservatives, particularly the contrarian crowd especially, who were so angsty about the argument around gay marriage. And I get that. You know, I have gay friends, and I don't want to appear unsupportive of them or or their desire to find love and romance and all of that. I also struggled with it. But the reason, and so the solution for a lot of people was, well, the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all. Just get them right out of government, or just get them right out of marriage, and marriage can be a private thing that people do between one another and it doesn't have any legal consequences. I don't actually think that that's a good idea. I think it is beneficial for the government to have a best interest in marriage because marriage is the bedrock of the nuclear family, and the nuclear family is the bedrock of a healthy, thriving, prosperous society. I mean, that's not even a moral value. That's just a statistical truth. So the more families any government has, the more taxpayers are going to have. That's the more capital the government's going to have. It just it benefits them to incentivize marriage and children. It benefits the government. So for me taking the government out of it, no, I see why the government is in marriage, and I think it should be in marriage. Now, what happened is the definition of marriage changed altogether, and that created a whole different point of view. But the argument that government has no place in sanction marriage, or at least legally sanctioning marriage, now I disagree with that. There is a logical place for government. Government makes all kinds of moral decisions, all kinds of values based decisions, and all of them have consequences. So the idea that government is some neutral system that just has people of certain values in it, No, there's no such thing as neutrality. Everything has a negative consequence or a positive consequence, and so the government needs to decide which of those things is going to support. So the government being involved in supporting education, particularly higher ed makes sense to me. You're investing in something that could have a net positive benefit for society. This is why activists established HBCUs in the post slavery days of America historically black colleges and universities because a black population needed to be educated. There was obviously still segregation, and the activists knew that educating the black community would create prosperity for the black community. And so what would you want to do to create prosperity? Fund avenues of education and provide education has a net benefit for the whole community. It's not putting twenty dollars in the pocket of every person in the community, but it's it's spreading skills and knowledge and information and all of the things you need to earn. So the government being involved in education absolutely one percent makes sense to me. It has a net positive value for society, research and development studies, even doing things like supporting underprov students or programs to attract minority students. I think all of those things have value for the government to do that. Hey, y'all, this is Ali Michelle. I'm a conservative social media influencer that has been censored by big tech. So I broke away from the restrictions and started a podcast called pillow Talk with Ali Michell. My show is a space to have real conversations about the issues that impact our everyday lives without the fear of being canceled by the big tech tyrants. Subscribe to Pillow Talk with Alian Michelle and FCB podcast on Apple, Spotify, iHeart, or wherever you getch podcasts. That's Ali a LII. Come check out my show. I'll see you there. Another argument I looked up some arguments from people about why federal the federal government should fund university is that government should support the creation of highly skilled workers. This is why we had the big college push in our country in the first place. It's the idea AND's why we have public school. We create a shared set of very basic values and knowledge, and then we create a workforce that's basically a tax paying force out of that. Yes, it behooves the government to have highly trained, highly educated people. Highly educated people are valued so much so that we will go kidnap them from other countries. We did that in World War Two. I think it's not a secret that a lot of our military technology comes from Communist and Nazi scientists who we kidnapped and forced to do research for us. So the point is is that our government places a high value on knowledge and information. Yes, of course it makes sense that we would want to fund the creation of highly skilled workers and thinkers to lead this country. And then there's an equal opportunity argument government funding universities makes them more accessible to underprivileged people. I disagree. I think it's the opposite. I think I explained that position multiple times over the years. The government making something free makes it more expensive and makes it more scarce. Actually, it's not the opposite, despite what the progressives would have you believe. Well, let's break down some of these talking points, or I'll tell you what I was thinking on some of these, and we'll slide into the free speech angle as we move along. I want to start by talking about why this particular argument is so poignant, is so important, because we're not just talking about people who are disagreeing about whether or not the election is stolen. We're talking about real rabbit anti semitism. We're talking about watch you've seen it all by now, but watching students by the hundreds and thousands on their campuses. I mean, it blows my mind that these people are here, but on campuses, actively, openly, publicly and without chain calling for the extermination of Jews. Just saying that they are vermin. I was watching a university student at Harvard calls somebook called Jews vermin. That's Nazi talk, everybody. These people are literally turning into Nazis in front of our eyes. Should we be funding Nazis? Everybody? Well, these are the arguments I'm going I'm going to make. But where I stand, and I made it very clear, Israel is our ally. Israel is a free, democratic state in a sea of tyranny. Israel is the bastion of freedom and rights, human rights in the Middle East. That goes without saying. There are some people, some conservative punnans out there who are seeing opposite, which blows my mind. But anyways, that's not what this show is. Israel was attacked. Hamas is a terrorist organization committed to wiping Jews from the face of the earth. It's their state admission they have made. It's no secret. Just because you didn't see it on CNN doesn't mean it's out there. Just do a search. I don't even want to say do a Google search anymore because Google is so the results are so strangled. But this is evil. So whatever Israel is doing is doing to defend itself and You personally might disagree with that, but that has always been the position of the United States of America. We do not negotiate with terrorists, and we support Israel unequivocally. So it's really important I want everyone to know that what we are talking about here is blatant anti Semitism. What we are talking about here is, in my book, the oldest form of racism in the book, in the book, the Good Book. Yes, and what we are talking about is vile hatred towards a group of people, the Jews, Jewish people. We created the Jewish State of Israel after the war, or recreated it, because we believe the Jewish people should have a place to go, a land to call their own, where they don't have to try to survive in someone else's world, which is what was happening pre World War Two. It wasn't working out very well. In case you remember, we as America supported that, and we as America support diversity whole. There's a whole industry that has sprung up around diversity. It's a huge American value, as twisted as it's become. So no, we don't call for the extermination of any people, eliminating an entire group of people based on their race, ethnicity, bait nationality is not an American value and is held with absolute contempt in American society. It is one of the things that absolutely defines us as a Western power. When we see groups of university students marching and openly calling for the harm and extermination of another group of religious people that is explicitly anti American, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with them, because you might personally. I hope you don't, but you might. That's not the point as a society as a whole. That is not an American value. Okay, So if we agree that there's important things happening on these campuses, research, development, vaccines, studies, all of that stuff that benefits the government to support. If we agree, then we also must agree that we need people of good moral reputation who are loyal to their country, who are patriots, who value Western values and American values, right of equality and women's rights and desegregation, all of the things that we've been fighting for for the last two hundred and fifty years. The people in charge of these very important studies and very important medical breakthroughs that could have deep, deep consequences for Americans and the global population. Isn't it important that those people ultimately with their research not be harming America in any way, so their research can't be slanted by or or shouldn't be slanted by personal biases or or like. For instance, we wouldn't want the government funding research that was aimed at proving that black Americans are incapable of earning college degrees because they're too stupid, right, would that's not American value, It doesn't reflect what we've been through. We wouldn't even want to pay somebody who thinks that way, right, So it's the same thing when we're finding anything right we want. These people are ultimately researching things that are meant to help America, meant to help Americans. Their mindset is important, their values are important, what they believe in is important. And if they believe that the American government is an enemy for supporting Israel, if they believe that two million people or ever many Jews there are in this country are subhuman and maybe not in not deserving of these medical breakthroughs, these have consequences. These things have consequences, and that is not a net positive for the American government. So the American government is going to fund research that's going to change the face of this nation and change our capabilities, then yeah, they do have a vested interest in making sure that the people do doing the researcher, at least supporters of this country and have American values, because that will affect how they conduct their research and what research is conducted. And so if that research is no longer providing a net benefit for American society, absolutely the government can pull their funding. Why not. I don't want someone who believes that black children are intellectually inferior to white children in charge of an education study at the federal level, because that matters. So absolutely, I'm beating this horse. It's dead. I got it, you get it right. Another net benefit is creating students and workers who can fit into the diverse workplace of America. Modern America is very diverse, diverse, diverse, diverse, diversity. Right, It's been shoved into every orifice for the last ten years. We have entire departments dedicated to dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion. So even from the left, we are lectured every day. The diversity is the golden calf that we're all supposed to bow down to. So we're supposed to be creating a population of students who are prepared to go out into a diverse world and a diverse culture in which many people from all over the world live and many different races and religions live in a way that you cannot that is not replicated in any other place on Earth as it is here in the US. Then that that's a net positive for American society, right when you stop creating those people, when you it benefits the government for American universities to create highly skilled education, educated, knowledgeable, and patriotic to a degree. Again, I understand we all have different views of how we view the country, but I mean on the most basic level of that word, patriotic people basically people who will be interested in furthering the interests of the American dream, be it in government or be it in just their own personal life, but people who will will propel that forward because they love being in this country and they want to take advantage of the opportunities of this country. That benefits our government. Those people become taxpayers, they become business owners, they create jobs, YadA, YadA, YadA, and they do it in one of the most diverse workplaces in the world. Well, if you're not creating students anymore that can go out there and work side by side with Jewish people, which they will everybody at some point, Or you're creating students who can't go out and black students who can't go out and work side by side with white people, which you will have to Black people were only thirteen percent of this nation. Or you're creating students who cannot function in a workplace in which people believe different things from you, and you're creating a population of students who go out into the workplace and will ostracize or abuse a certain segment of that workplace because you've produced racists and bigots and anti semites. Those people are no longer a net benefit to American society. Is let's forget about the conservative definition of what's in that benefit. That doesn't even fit into the progressive version of what is a net benefit. Those people cannot be prepared to function properly in a diverse workplace. When you're talking about a school like Harvard, let's get a little stereotypical here for just a second. And Harvard, and I think Stanford did this too, there are I think law firms that are sending letters to their law departments, because these are very prestigious law schools, saying if we find out that your students sign this and this letter, oh, this public letter calling for the extermination of Jewish people, yet we're not taking any interns from your program. We're not taking any Harvard interns at this prestigious law firm. Yeah, absolutely they should do that. They're absolutely right to do that because if there's there are a lot of Jewish people in the law, that's the long and short of it. That's where the stereotyping comes in. But there are I mean, I live in southern California. I know this to be true, and I have a lot of friends, particularly in New York. There are a lot of Jewish people in the law. So you're gonna come up, You're gonna rub elbows with these people. They're gonna be the judge you're standing in front of. They're gonna to be your fellow intern, they're gonna be the partner that you work for. You damn well better know how to work with these people, and you better keep your bigoted expressions to yourself. You can't properly defend a Jewish defendant. If you're a racist and a bigot, you can't work well in the environ I don't have to I don't have to break down all the reasons why you don't want to hire a racist at your office. You already know this. But yeah, they're absolutely right to do that. Why because it doesn't have a net benefit for them. Forget about the moral value of it, which I'm sure, of course a lot of these these firms are thinking about a lot of these people are genuinely offended by the actions of some of these students. But forget about that. It's just not good business and the government needs to think the same way. And and so yeah, absolutely, why should we fund We're funding universities because we want a highly skilled and diverse workforce. And what we're getting is people who can't read. They know sixty two different pronouns, but they can't read cursive. What's the net benefit that? Why should the government pay for that? What are they getting? They're losing more than they're getting. We're definitely not getting high skilled workers anymore out of the university system, are we hardly? I had my AC inspector out the other day. You have to get the air conditioner inspected every few years. Here in California. It's the same. I call him a kid. He's a young man, same kid every year. But he's a young man. And why he's talking to him one day and I forget how the topic even came up, but he said he never even went to school. He graduated college and I mean high school and went directly into ac repair. And he said, Ow, this guy had a business. I think he was his neighbor or something, and he had room. He said, I could apprentice. And he's like, I make more money than most of my friends that are now out with college degrees. And I've been making that money since I was eighteen years old. That's a highly skilled worker who is very successful. So the net benefit of a university degree has gone down. I don't think that that is the university's I mean, the government is gaining anything from that. If that's an argument for funding research and development, I already went through that talking point. Hey, y'all, this is Ali Michelle. I'm a conservative social media influencer that has been censored by a big tech So I broke away from the restrictions and started a podcast called pillow Talk with Ali Maschell. My show is a space to have real conversations about the issues that impact everyday lives without the fear of being canceled by the big tech tyrants. Subscribe to Pillow Talk with Alian Michelle and FCB podcast on Apple, Spotify, iHeart, or wherever you get podcasts. That's Ali, Ali. Come check out my show. I'll see you there. Some people say, if you if the government polls are funding from universities, they'll fail or decline, Well, then that's probably a sign they shouldn't be open. Because if you can't survive without the government, then you're probably not very good at your job. Right. If I couldn't make a living podcasting, well I guess I really can't. I don't really make a living podcasting, but you know what I mean. If I couldn't make a living being a political punnet without the government sending me a check every month, then maybe that's not the job I'm supposed to be doing. That's another problem with government funding, isn't it is that the government funding everything is that it creates. It creates people who don't belong in those jobs. It creates unqualified people or underqualified people, people doing jobs where they really shouldn't be doing that job, but they're just getting money to do the job, so they keep doing the job. All right. Is it a free speech violation if the government pulls money from an organization because the organization is promoting values or making statements they don't like. I'm not a legal scholar, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I cannot, for the life of me think of why on earth that is an argument at all? How could it possibly violate anyone's free speech right for the government to remove funding from somebody just because they don't like what they say said. Now, if the government said we're shutting down Harvard because they're letting their students run rampant with their anti semitism, that's one thing. If the government said we're shutting down Stanford because this group of faculty members is exhibiting anti Semitic behavior or making statements that are problematic, yeah, that is an issue. That If that's the issue, that's the whole issue we had during COVID, isn't it with our churches and our right free freedom of association all of that. But that's not what's being spoken about. And again, there's a difference between what they will do and what they're just talking about doing. But this is just an intellectual exercise, Okay, So say whatever you want. I don't have to give you my money to say it. Are people like Brad and other concern servative contrarians out there? Do they expect me to believe that I should be okay with my government funding the KKK if the if the KKK is providing some service, right, I don't know what it is, what providing whatever service, and they're getting government dollars, and I say, you know what, KKK is a hate group. I don't know if the government should be giving money to somebody who is openly, openly calling for the death and murder and segregation of people like me a fellow American citizens. Am I to believe you would tell me that that would be violating their free speech rights? Now, if I went and said the government needs to throw those people in jail for saying bad things about black people, yes, that is a free speech violation. I believe the KKK has every right to exist. As a matter of fact, I'm glad that they do, because it's very important to shine a light into the dark places. So let the darkness make them stand out on the light of day with the rest of us. I'm all for it, but I see no reason on earth why any organization is entitled to taxpayer dollars for any reason. That is the very definition of a privilege. It's a privilege I frankly don't think the government should have, but they do. That's how it works. The government can decide who they prefer to incentivize and help, and they can decide who they don't want to and sometimes it's not fair. Sometimes it might feel not fair. But the idea that the government is because of free speech is now required. Free speech has nothing to do with money. There's no requirement for entitlements in the constitution. Entitlements, in fact, are anti constitutional. So if you're saying that the government, if you say the government's not allowed to pull funding from a university because of the things they say, what you're saying is the government is actually obligated to fund higher education, that that is a constitutional obligation. Because you're saying the government cannot remove funding. Can the government can't not fund higher education? Of course they they shouldn't and don't have to and have an always so no, of course, not. It just it blows my mind that that's even an argument and that anyone is even taking that seriously. It's only a violation of free speech if you're telling that organization that they have to close their doors because they're saying things that you don't like, which we saw a lot of during COVID. By the way, a lot of those same contrarians weren't very supportive of the people trying just to exercise their free speech rights. During COVID. I looked up a couple of legal cases regarding this issue, and there's a lot of back and forth in the Supreme Court archives about this type of thing. But one of the cases that came up was a case from the from nineteen ninety eight, the National Endowment for the Arts versus Finley, and the courts determined that the government had wide latitude in determining how its money would be spent in cases where funding was linked to speech. Finley dealt with a change in the government's funding procedures for grants provided through the NEA. After the NEA funded the display of controversial photographs, Congress amended the funding bill to require it to take into account general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public when making grant determinations. That is from our government. Our Congress actually passed that law. So that's law. Congress, by the way, holds the purse strings, and Congress has a wide latitude. They can do a lot what they're spending. Frankly, they don't do enough. And I don't mean they don't spend enough. I mean they don't not spend enough. Do you know what I mean? They have a belt they never sent it. But Congress absolutely, the Supreme Court has ruled it, and Congress has actually legislated it for itself. Congress absolutely can tell a federal organization whether or not they will give funds based on should I mean, yeah, should they fund art that is pornographic in nature? You know what I mean? Like just that argument. The fact that anyone's making that argument is blowing my mind. It's blowing my mind that anyone could think that argument is sale. It doesn't even have any legal basis. Yes, of course, now again it can't shut down the NEA, but it can. And by the way, progressives or conservative contrarians, if you're sitting around going I just the government telling artists what they can and can't do. The government saying we'll give you money, but you have to say things a certain way. That doesn't seem right. No, it's not right. That's why the government has no business in the arts. I talk about things that do benefit the government, right, Owning the arts sector or the creative sector of the society has massive benefits for the government, massive benefits. But in that case, I think that that is a net negative for the population. Right. Yes, if you're making art and you're taking money from the government, then yeah, you're tied to them. So artists don't take money from the government, which is hard obviously not to do. And that's the other thing that we're talking about here, because there's a lot of people who are like, well, government should fund this or shouldn't fund that. So everything changes when money gets involved everything. People's values change a lot when money gets involved. So another reason why just the government shouldn't be funding certain things. So if you don't want the government involved in how you're spending the money in your organization when it comes to your free speech rights, then don't take the government's money. That's the easy solution, one that doesn't involve violating our entire constitution to make right in your mind. I don't see congressional spending as having to do having anything to do with your First Endment rights unless Congress is spending money to shut down your speech, shutting down your church, shutting down your business, pressing social media to shut down your accounts so you can't speak out those things. Otherwise, I just I don't another dead horse I'm beating. I do not see the connection. Perhaps you do, correct me, correct me if I'm wrong. I want to hear your argument, make me believe it. Tell me something that's going to convince me, because I just don't see it here. Jlty at proton mail dot com. J L. T Y at ProtonMail dot com. Now, the other side of this question is could they revoke student foreign student visas or would that be a violation of First Amendment rights? And I do think that's a little hazier because I did look up what some of the protections are for visa holders Green card holders. That's how I came to Well, actually I came to the US as a minor for so it is my father's daughter. But when I returned at eighteen, I came on a green card as a student on a visa as a student. It terms out I didn't need that visa down the road because of my heritage, but that's how I came. So I wanted to look up some of the protections. And if you're here in visa a green card, you have all the same constitutional protections as every other American citizen, I believe, except for the right to vote. So that makes the whole situation a little hazier, doesn't it. It makes it a little different. Now if you're if you're telling someone I'm going to we're going to kick you out of our country because of what you say or the things you think, that is a violation of free speech, I do think so. That being said, there is also a matter of national security, which is an issue, and there is precedent to the beginning of our nation's history and to the beginning of time, but particularly in this republic, there is precedent for removing foreign nationals from our population population who pose a threat to the general wellbeing of American society via their activities, their beliefs, they're funding, whatever. So would that be a violation to revokes student pieces. I think that that is a legal question. I do think from the very little I know about the issue, that lawyers on either side could definitely mount a good battle. But my friend Tara, and faithful listener of this show, heard me talk talking about this, and so she did a little research. There's a smart lady, she's one of those smarty pants who likes research and information and knowledge but weirdo, and so she looked it up. She looked up information about student visas and she sent me this text, and she sent me a couple of pictures to confirm. She said, I heard in your discussion about revoking visas for students foreign students for participating in protests that support hamas about it violating their visa terms because of the questions on the I one sixty. That's an immigration form. I was looking for that form when I was going to respond to your question, she said. I didn't remember the form number, but she did find it. It explicitly states financial support for other or other support to tearized organizations, and it also asks about inciting violent acts and genocide. So this is one of the questions on the visa application, the government visa application. Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide. Another question, have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in torture? Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in extra judicial killings, political killings, or other acts of violence? You tell me if someone says yes, in my country, I legally because I was working for the government, murdered a political dissident, and now I want to be educated at Harvard. Does our government have the right to revoke that student visa? How do you make the moral argument that we don't. We're not. This is how far down this rabbit hole of tolerance and diversity and multiculturalism we have fallen. They've somehow come to this idea that America is supposed to be this a country, that it basically exists to advocate and provide, advocate for and provide human rights and prosperity for everyone else in the world. So we keep looking at our country as some kind of social experiment. There were some kind of experiment, and everyone can come here and try the things that they think works for them. We'll see how it works. We're still a country, We're still a nation. We still have boundaries, we still have to act within our own best interests. So, yes, we have this amazing document that is the single greatest document, next to the Bible, in human history, and yes we should follow it to the letter. Of course, I am a free speech absolutist as you know. Of course, and we also have that document because we have a country. And if we want to keep that document, we have to keep our country. Our country has boundaries. Why does the country have boundaries because those boundaries protect the people inside. Why do the people inside have to be protected? Because we all share a heritage, a national heritage, a state heritage. In America, it's not an ethnic heritage, but it's an emotional, intellectual, societal heritage. We are Americans. We share that. And so in order to preserve that, you have to keep the enemy at bay. You have to create boundaries. You have to create borders. So absolutely our government does. The government's job job is not to make sure that everyone in the world is treated fairly on our chores or anywhere. That's not our governments. The government's job is not to make everything in America equitable for everybody else who comes here or who might want to come here. That's the government's job, isn't even to make things equitable everybody. I hate to tell you that that's absolutely not the government's job. The government's job is to provide for the national security and the daily provision of American life, so roads, bridges, borders, a security force, and a governing body to govern the laws and taxes of our nation. That's the government's job. But we just have this idea, we have this twisted idea of what America is now and when you look at our nation through that lens, and yes, of course the government should give money to whoever, whenever and do whatever ever, have any standards for every anyone. But most other countries do this, do this, and we should do this too, which is, we have expectations for you as a member of our society, particularly as a citizen. So if you take, if you take our vows of citizenship, then you we have standards for you. And if you don't fit within these standards of American values, then no, you really don't have a place here, and we can't necessarily scream for that. But if you are in blatant violation of those things, and absolutely we have every right to say no, you're not one of us. We have to if the body can't expel a virus. If the body can't reject a virus, if the body can't can't create a defense against a bacteria, the body dies. And it's the same with our nations. We have to be able to expel poisons from our midst. So yeah, absolutely, I do think the government canon should revoke the student visus of anyone who seems like they pose a threat, either morally or physically to our national security, for sure. And that is not to say that you don't have free speech rights. You do have free speech rights. But if you sign a letter at a publicly funded university and you've received public aid, by the way, and if you have a green car, you've received public aid, because that's your public aid. If you sign a letter calling for the extermination of all the Jews on your earth, you're not one of us. You don't belong here. And that is what we have to be willing to say as America. There are some things that that will make you not one of us that we must reject. We have to reject. We had to reject the pro slavery crowd, right, We had to get rid of those people. We had to reject the Jim crow democrats. We had to get rid of them, right, We had to reject the misogynists. We've had to do a lot of that in American society. We had to reject Nazis, at least publicly, and then we went and kidnapped their scientists. So and we wouldn't be dealing with this. This is probably a bigger conversation for another show. But we wouldn't be dealing with this if we did immigration, right. But we don't assimilate our immigrants, and so we have immigrants who come in with non Western values that are absolutely contradictory. Do you know that the I saw a liberal on CNN the other day just absolutely flabbergasted talking about a statistic they saw that said child marriage rates have skyrocketed in America in the last forty years. And you know what that pundit, But that pundit thought she was talking about rednecks in Missouri or whatever wherever she imagines the toothless hicks litt. But that's not why child marriage is rising. Child marriage is rising. It's because we're because we're importing millions of people from countries where child marriage is not only legal but preferred, where pedophilia is not only legal, but preferred where it's actually institutionalized in their national values. We're importing those people and they bring the honor killings or on the rock? Who's doing honor killings? Have you ever even freaking heard of an honor killing before two thousand and one on American shores? But honor killings are on the rise. Why because we're it's not your average American that's suddenly into honor killings. It's not Christians that are killing their kids because they don't believe in God anymore. These are people coming from other cultures where these things are acceptable and haven't been properly similar assimilated into American values. That's how you get a thousand people on Harvard's campus calling for the extermination of the Jews. There are people they are either immigrants or the children of immigrants who were never required to assimilate to Western values or Western modern values. So no, they don't believe in gay marriage, they don't believe in trans they don't believe in integration, they don't believe they don't believe all the things that we you know, hold up as these great American values of tolerance and respect, we've just we've imported millions of millions and millions and millions of people don't think like that, and that, I think is really what is fundamentally at the base of the of this issue is that we've imported the enemy. We really have. We made assimilation a bad word, and it's not. It's a good word, and if you're trying to run a country, it's a great word. So that's where I stand on all of this. If you have a different position, Give me a ring. I always say this, Give me a ring, like anyone rings anyone anymore? Hit me up an email. Jltyat proton mail dot com. Jltyat ProtonMail dot com. Is pulling funding from universities for prohamas pro terrorist activities a violation of free speech rights and should we be allowed to pull the visas of students of foreign students who engage in those activities as well? Let me know what you think again, jltyat ProtonMail dot com. A Very Merry podcast is getting ready to start back up. Everybody. We've got some episodes we're getting ready to release them. We're getting into the heat of the Christmas season, so make sure you subscribe to A very Married podcast. So you don't listen, excuse me, you don't miss any of those new episodes by my book drawing lines why conservatives must begin to battle fiercely in the arena of ideas. Subscribe to my substack. Just look me up on substack, and as always, don't forget to hit that subscribe button on this podcast. I get a lot of messages every day from people who say I love what you say, I love your voice. I want to support your voice. One easy way you can do it without a dime costing you a dime is hitting that subscribe button and sharing the podcast. And if you want to go a step further, take two minutes and leave me a five star review on iTunes. Really would appreciate that. All right, everybody, Well, thanks for taking the time to listen. As always, remember until we talk again. Every once in a while, just stop and listen to yourself. Our prayers all mossolda day, that we won't to say then we won't to say oh we got it? Does no one can take that owen, dude, It's gonna be okay. Our prayers all Mossolda, that we won't with say then we won't to say, oh we got it does. No one can take that. Owen dud, don't pay. It's gonna be okay. This has been a presentation of the FCB podcast Network where real talk lifts visitors online at fcbpodcasts dot com.
