On this episode of Newtsworld, I'm joined by members of my Inner Circle Club for a fascinating conversation about a wide range of issues and topics on their minds. We hold these regular video conference calls so that we can have an honest discussion about what is happening in America today. I find it extraordinarily helpful to me personally in helping think through the issues that are facing us. So I hope you'll find this episode of Newts World informative. And if you'd like to become a member of my Inner Circle Club, please go to Newtsinnercircle dot com and sign up for a one or two year membership. Today a lot of things going on. I'm just going to share with you some quick overviews. There is today no natural majority in the US House. That's the big problem. The Speaker Johnson has well, he supposedly has a technical majority, which is important because it means that the Republicans are able to staff the various committees and hold the various investigations, and that's a big deal in the long run. The truth is that on any given day he doesn't really have a working majority because there are fifteen or twenty Republicans who wake up every morning saying, I know I'm going to vote no. I just don't know what the issue is. So it's very hard when you're down to a one or two or three vote majority to be able to get anything done. And because it's so difficult, it's also been hard as members decide just to leave. I'm very surprised. I don't remember in my own experiences members in the majority of resigning in the middle of a term. One resigned in Ohio to become president of State University for some reason. Congressman Buck and Colorado's resigning, whether he has a business deal or some other reason. And then the big surprise to me was the chairman, who's doing a great job on China, decided to resign and didn't just decide to resign, but decided he would resign after the date at which there could be a special election. And I checked with the Congressional Campaign Committee. It's a very Republican district. We would win the special election. And what Congressman Gallagher's scheduling decision means is that literally that seat will be vacant from the time he resigns in late April all the way up through the election. So he's depriving the Republicans of one of their reliable votes in a way that I frankly don't understand, because he's a good guy. He's been very significant on China, and yet all of a sudden he decides to go home, and to go home in a way which maximizes the disadvantage to his party. This gives Speaker Johnson an enormous challenge, and I have to say I've spent the last five or six days just trying to think about how you could solve his problems. When you have a Democratic sent with a weak Republican minority, the Republicans have plenty of votes to be effective in the Senate, but they're deeply split between an anti spending reform faction and a go along, get along faction, so the Senate's not reliable. Biden obviously wants to pay off the left. On's the biggest spending possible. I did find, to my surprise that there's a provision in the bill they just voted through that blocks US embassies from flying any flag other than American flag and the POW flag. So it'll be interesting this summer. There was a huge fight that was consistent when Callisto was the ambassador to the Vatican over whether or not to fire the gay Pride flag, because obviously, if you're representing the Vatican, putting up a gay Pride flag doesn't exactly help you. There was a very strong feeling in the State Department, which has a lot of left wing activists inside it. So all of a sudden this year it's a little bit of a rollback of the wing of the Democratic Party in that they're going to be told no, you can't fly the gay Pride flag this year. It's just an interesting small example of how change can occur. On the other hand, I'll tell you the scale of spending in the kind of pork barrel set asides. I think there were twenty one pages of specific goodies being given out. I'm going to do an entire podcast just reading various goodies that people would get. It's ridiculous. And I think that Senator Rick Scott's call for a moratorium on earmarks is the right direction to go in. We had a moratorium starting in twenty eleven and lasted about seven or eight years. Members couldn't get specific things for their districts. The members alimately decided they liked getting things for these districts, so they repealed them, and in retrospect that was a mistake. I think we have a huge problem between Biden and baby Net and Yahoo. The Biden administration is desperate, committed to appeasing the Iranians no matter what they do. They've been attacking Americans through their proxies, so he gave him another ten billion dollars in sanctioned relief. He's also shifted from total support for Israel after the attack last October to putting enormous pressure on Israel to not go into the last major city in Gaza. And here's the problem. If you create a sanctuary city for terrorists, Hamas is going to make sure that all of its troops are in that city. If Israel pulls back not having completely defeated Hamas, first of all, it will be portrayed as a victory for Hamas, proof has vindication that their strategy of terrorism is working. It will lead them to plan another attack on Israel. They already said this publicly. They've been on television saying this is the first of many attacks. So the Israeli position, which is that they're going to completely destroy Hamas I think is the right position, because if you have the next that's our neighbor who says every morning, I'm going to kill you, you should take them seriously, and particularly if they've proven it by having killed people in the neighborhood. And so I think that this is a deep fight. It will be interesting to see how it evolves. Prime Minister Natnya, who's a very tough guy, served in the equivalent of the commandos in the Israeli Army, lost his brother. The only Asraeli to die at the raidan and Tebby to rescue Israelis from terrorists was his brother, Sontnia, who has a deep firm feeling about this. A couple of other quick things. We have to find a way to get aid to Ukraine to stop Putin. No one should kid themselves. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he will threaten the three Baltic states, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. He will threaten Poland and the world will be dramatically more dangerous. The Ukrainians are willing to fight, they're prepared to fight, but they have to have the ammunition and they have to have the equipment to do it. Somehow, when the Congress comes back, we have to get that done. The war against Trump continues, and I think, once again he's proven to be amazingly resourceful. Imagine this. He had the cash to put up one hundred and fifty million dollar bond so that he could appeal the totally absurd real estate decision. Remember in that case where the judge is finding him over four hundred million dollars. No one was hurt, no one lost any money, and no one complained. This is a totally artificial made in the hate Trump factory in the New York Democratic Party and is a danger to the whole process of the rule of law. There are several other fights going on like this, and I think that it'll continue, and Trump just continues to show amazing resilience. But we shouldn't kill ourselves. This is a narrow race. It's not a decisive victory at this stage. It's going to be made more complicated both by Robert F. Kennedy Junior, who is becoming I think a serious candidate capable maybe of getting between ten and twenty percent, and the possibility of no labels finding a ticket that would be on every ballot in the country. So you have a lot of interesting things going on on that level. That's a very sweeping overview. Again, I want to thank everybody for belonging to the Inner Circle and toss it so all of you can ask or give us your comments.

On this episode of Newtsworld, I'm joined by members of my Inner Circle Club for a fascinating conversation about a wide range of issues and topics on their minds. We hold these regular video conference calls so that we can have an honest discussion about what is happening in America today. I find it extraordinarily helpful to me personally in helping think through the issues that are facing us. So I hope you'll find this episode of Newts World informative. And if you'd like to become a member of my Inner Circle Club, please go to Newtsinnercircle dot com and sign up for a one or two year membership. Today a lot of things going on. I'm just going to share with you some quick overviews. There is today no natural majority in the US House. That's the big problem. The Speaker Johnson has well, he supposedly has a technical majority, which is important because it means that the Republicans are able to staff the various committees and hold the various investigations, and that's a big deal in the long run. The truth is that on any given day he doesn't really have a working majority because there are fifteen or twenty Republicans who wake up every morning saying, I know I'm going to vote no. I just don't know what the issue is. So it's very hard when you're down to a one or two or three vote majority to be able to get anything done. And because it's so difficult, it's also been hard as members decide just to leave. I'm very surprised. I don't remember in my own experiences members in the majority of resigning in the middle of a term. One resigned in Ohio to become president of State University for some reason. Congressman Buck and Colorado's resigning, whether he has a business deal or some other reason. And then the big surprise to me was the chairman, who's doing a great job on China, decided to resign and didn't just decide to resign, but decided he would resign after the date at which there could be a special election. And I checked with the Congressional Campaign Committee. It's a very Republican district. We would win the special election. And what Congressman Gallagher's scheduling decision means is that literally that seat will be vacant from the time he resigns in late April all the way up through the election. So he's depriving the Republicans of one of their reliable votes in a way that I frankly don't understand, because he's a good guy. He's been very significant on China, and yet all of a sudden he decides to go home, and to go home in a way which maximizes the disadvantage to his party. This gives Speaker Johnson an enormous challenge, and I have to say I've spent the last five or six days just trying to think about how you could solve his problems. When you have a Democratic sent with a weak Republican minority, the Republicans have plenty of votes to be effective in the Senate, but they're deeply split between an anti spending reform faction and a go along, get along faction, so the Senate's not reliable. Biden obviously wants to pay off the left. On's the biggest spending possible. I did find, to my surprise that there's a provision in the bill they just voted through that blocks US embassies from flying any flag other than American flag and the POW flag. So it'll be interesting this summer. There was a huge fight that was consistent when Callisto was the ambassador to the Vatican over whether or not to fire the gay Pride flag, because obviously, if you're representing the Vatican, putting up a gay Pride flag doesn't exactly help you. There was a very strong feeling in the State Department, which has a lot of left wing activists inside it. So all of a sudden this year it's a little bit of a rollback of the wing of the Democratic Party in that they're going to be told no, you can't fly the gay Pride flag this year. It's just an interesting small example of how change can occur. On the other hand, I'll tell you the scale of spending in the kind of pork barrel set asides. I think there were twenty one pages of specific goodies being given out. I'm going to do an entire podcast just reading various goodies that people would get. It's ridiculous. And I think that Senator Rick Scott's call for a moratorium on earmarks is the right direction to go in. We had a moratorium starting in twenty eleven and lasted about seven or eight years. Members couldn't get specific things for their districts. The members alimately decided they liked getting things for these districts, so they repealed them, and in retrospect that was a mistake. I think we have a huge problem between Biden and baby Net and Yahoo. The Biden administration is desperate, committed to appeasing the Iranians no matter what they do. They've been attacking Americans through their proxies, so he gave him another ten billion dollars in sanctioned relief. He's also shifted from total support for Israel after the attack last October to putting enormous pressure on Israel to not go into the last major city in Gaza. And here's the problem. If you create a sanctuary city for terrorists, Hamas is going to make sure that all of its troops are in that city. If Israel pulls back not having completely defeated Hamas, first of all, it will be portrayed as a victory for Hamas, proof has vindication that their strategy of terrorism is working. It will lead them to plan another attack on Israel. They already said this publicly. They've been on television saying this is the first of many attacks. So the Israeli position, which is that they're going to completely destroy Hamas I think is the right position, because if you have the next that's our neighbor who says every morning, I'm going to kill you, you should take them seriously, and particularly if they've proven it by having killed people in the neighborhood. And so I think that this is a deep fight. It will be interesting to see how it evolves. Prime Minister Natnya, who's a very tough guy, served in the equivalent of the commandos in the Israeli Army, lost his brother. The only Asraeli to die at the raidan and Tebby to rescue Israelis from terrorists was his brother, Sontnia, who has a deep firm feeling about this. A couple of other quick things. We have to find a way to get aid to Ukraine to stop Putin. No one should kid themselves. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he will threaten the three Baltic states, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. He will threaten Poland and the world will be dramatically more dangerous. The Ukrainians are willing to fight, they're prepared to fight, but they have to have the ammunition and they have to have the equipment to do it. Somehow, when the Congress comes back, we have to get that done. The war against Trump continues, and I think, once again he's proven to be amazingly resourceful. Imagine this. He had the cash to put up one hundred and fifty million dollar bond so that he could appeal the totally absurd real estate decision. Remember in that case where the judge is finding him over four hundred million dollars. No one was hurt, no one lost any money, and no one complained. This is a totally artificial made in the hate Trump factory in the New York Democratic Party and is a danger to the whole process of the rule of law. There are several other fights going on like this, and I think that it'll continue, and Trump just continues to show amazing resilience. But we shouldn't kill ourselves. This is a narrow race. It's not a decisive victory at this stage. It's going to be made more complicated both by Robert F. Kennedy Junior, who is becoming I think a serious candidate capable maybe of getting between ten and twenty percent, and the possibility of no labels finding a ticket that would be on every ballot in the country. So you have a lot of interesting things going on on that level. That's a very sweeping overview. Again, I want to thank everybody for belonging to the Inner Circle and toss it so all of you can ask or give us your comments.

First, thank you again for having us, and thank you for your wisdom. The question is, and it's been irritating me since this has been going on, is how are we going to prevail when we have a crew of representatives who are basically narcissists, humiliating the people they represent, and undermining any traction new When you were a speaker, you got an amazing amount of things done, and the wisdom that you imparted to our current speakers was incredibly helpful. And unfortunately we have some little ankle biters that are causing trouble.

First, thank you again for having us, and thank you for your wisdom. The question is, and it's been irritating me since this has been going on, is how are we going to prevail when we have a crew of representatives who are basically narcissists, humiliating the people they represent, and undermining any traction new When you were a speaker, you got an amazing amount of things done, and the wisdom that you imparted to our current speakers was incredibly helpful. And unfortunately we have some little ankle biters that are causing trouble.

You went right to the heart of it. This is part of what I've been spending the last week thinking about. First of all, I realized when Joe Gaylor and I wrote March to the Majority, which is the book that came out late last year, which outlined a sixteen year project to create a Republican majority, we had three advantages. One, we were standing on Ronald Reagan's shoulders. So we were able to take ideas. For example, welfare reform was first articulated by Reagan running for governor of California in nineteen sixty five. We passed it in nineteen ninety six, so it had been maturing for over thirty years. We had a base of ideas that people agreed to. Two, we had a training program called Gopak where we sent out fifty five thousand audio tapes and tells you how much the world has changed. You don't have audio tape players in your car anymore, so now we stream everything, but literally we sent out fifty five thousand audio tapes every month, and that was designed to sort of train the party, create a culture of positive majority orientation. And then, Third, because we had spent sixteen years doing it, we had a team and a network and an understanding that enabled us to govern. The other big difference was we had a big enough majority. We had two hundred and thirty seats in nineteen ninety four and two hundred and thirty six seats in nineteen ninety six. Well, when you have that big a majority, for example, two hundred and thirty to two hundred and five, you can have five or ten people who are nuts, and you can still govern. When you're down at a majority of one or two or three or four, any crazy person can cause hav it. And I think that Matt Gates unleashed the demons when he decided to attack Kevin McCarthy, who had worked very hard, had I think earned the speakership, actually had a reasonably rational strategy for dealing with a difficult situation. And ever since then, the House Republican Party has had a number of people who are noisy, and the technology has changed. Nowadays you can go on television say harsh things, send out an email, raise money, and social media creates a series of independent little princes and princesses who run around being noisy and sounding important, and when you have a very narrow majority two or three or four votes, they are important. And mostly have concluded that they're totally unreliable, that you can't count on passing anything on a Republican only basis, and that Johnson would be better off to just be honest about that and say to people, look, I'd love to have a purely Republican House, and if you'll help me get thirty or forty more seats, we'll do it. But at the current margin, we're going to be constantly negotiating with the Democrats because the most destructive members of the House Revolving Conference don't give them any choice. That's sort of my overview. Is a great question, and I really appreciate your involvement.

You went right to the heart of it. This is part of what I've been spending the last week thinking about. First of all, I realized when Joe Gaylor and I wrote March to the Majority, which is the book that came out late last year, which outlined a sixteen year project to create a Republican majority, we had three advantages. One, we were standing on Ronald Reagan's shoulders. So we were able to take ideas. For example, welfare reform was first articulated by Reagan running for governor of California in nineteen sixty five. We passed it in nineteen ninety six, so it had been maturing for over thirty years. We had a base of ideas that people agreed to. Two, we had a training program called Gopak where we sent out fifty five thousand audio tapes and tells you how much the world has changed. You don't have audio tape players in your car anymore, so now we stream everything, but literally we sent out fifty five thousand audio tapes every month, and that was designed to sort of train the party, create a culture of positive majority orientation. And then, Third, because we had spent sixteen years doing it, we had a team and a network and an understanding that enabled us to govern. The other big difference was we had a big enough majority. We had two hundred and thirty seats in nineteen ninety four and two hundred and thirty six seats in nineteen ninety six. Well, when you have that big a majority, for example, two hundred and thirty to two hundred and five, you can have five or ten people who are nuts, and you can still govern. When you're down at a majority of one or two or three or four, any crazy person can cause hav it. And I think that Matt Gates unleashed the demons when he decided to attack Kevin McCarthy, who had worked very hard, had I think earned the speakership, actually had a reasonably rational strategy for dealing with a difficult situation. And ever since then, the House Republican Party has had a number of people who are noisy, and the technology has changed. Nowadays you can go on television say harsh things, send out an email, raise money, and social media creates a series of independent little princes and princesses who run around being noisy and sounding important, and when you have a very narrow majority two or three or four votes, they are important. And mostly have concluded that they're totally unreliable, that you can't count on passing anything on a Republican only basis, and that Johnson would be better off to just be honest about that and say to people, look, I'd love to have a purely Republican House, and if you'll help me get thirty or forty more seats, we'll do it. But at the current margin, we're going to be constantly negotiating with the Democrats because the most destructive members of the House Revolving Conference don't give them any choice. That's sort of my overview. Is a great question, and I really appreciate your involvement.

I would like your perspective on the problem that seems to exist with the immigrants that are coming across the border having paid cartels a fee or partially paid a fee, and then continue to be obligated to them by sending them more money after they're over here to protect themselves and their families back in their native country. What do you see an administration and the.

I would like your perspective on the problem that seems to exist with the immigrants that are coming across the border having paid cartels a fee or partially paid a fee, and then continue to be obligated to them by sending them more money after they're over here to protect themselves and their families back in their native country. What do you see an administration and the.

Justice Department being able to do to solve this problem.

Justice Department being able to do to solve this problem.

First of all, I think we have to recognize that our current problem with the legal immigration is deliberate. This is not an accident, not in competence. This is the Biden policy of favoring mass of illegal immigration, basically an invasion, having the maximum number of unknown people coming in, and then taking care of them. I think in New York they asked him that they spend three hundred and nineteen dollars a day housing illegal immigrants. We don't have enough money for veterans. We don't have enough money for the American homeless. We don't have enough money to make sure our schools succeed, but weing find billions to take care of people who are breaking the law, coming to the US illegally, and a number of them. As you point out our criminals, there's no question, for example, that there is at least one Venezuelan gang. We know that there's an El Salvadorian gang. We know that the cartel increasingly is penetrating the US. We are presently going to have as big a problem with organized crime in the United States as Italy has had for one hundred years with the mafia. It's all being tolerated and in effect supported by the Democrats, who are the pro illegal immigration party. And you now have the New York City Council petitioning the New York Supreme Court to allow illegal immigrants to vote in washingt d C. They've already passed a rule that illegal immigrants can vote in the city elections. I think we ought to have a congressional law that says one, no illegal immigrant can vote anywhere in any election in the United States. They are by definition illegal and second, I think that we have to have a commitment to have a ballot where you have to prove who you are. A friend of mine went to get a book out of the library in Alexandria, Virginia, and they required him to show a driver's license with his picture, and he said, so I can vote without reproving who I am, but I can't borrow a book. The whole thing's absurd. And the Attorney General is part of the Biden pro illegal immigration program, and I think pro trying to steal the election with the votes of illegal immigrants. Attorney General has been clear that he's against having voter ID. Now the American people, as we prove, and you can see this if you go to America's New Majority Project dot com, which is a program we run. At America's New Majority Project dot com. We have a huge amount of polling data. The American people get it. The American people want the border control. The American people want to see who you are and believe you should have a voter ID. So it's an interesting problem, and you raise a really, really good question, but don't kid yourself. This is the deliberate policy of the left to try to drown the United States and people who are here illegally.

First of all, I think we have to recognize that our current problem with the legal immigration is deliberate. This is not an accident, not in competence. This is the Biden policy of favoring mass of illegal immigration, basically an invasion, having the maximum number of unknown people coming in, and then taking care of them. I think in New York they asked him that they spend three hundred and nineteen dollars a day housing illegal immigrants. We don't have enough money for veterans. We don't have enough money for the American homeless. We don't have enough money to make sure our schools succeed, but weing find billions to take care of people who are breaking the law, coming to the US illegally, and a number of them. As you point out our criminals, there's no question, for example, that there is at least one Venezuelan gang. We know that there's an El Salvadorian gang. We know that the cartel increasingly is penetrating the US. We are presently going to have as big a problem with organized crime in the United States as Italy has had for one hundred years with the mafia. It's all being tolerated and in effect supported by the Democrats, who are the pro illegal immigration party. And you now have the New York City Council petitioning the New York Supreme Court to allow illegal immigrants to vote in washingt d C. They've already passed a rule that illegal immigrants can vote in the city elections. I think we ought to have a congressional law that says one, no illegal immigrant can vote anywhere in any election in the United States. They are by definition illegal and second, I think that we have to have a commitment to have a ballot where you have to prove who you are. A friend of mine went to get a book out of the library in Alexandria, Virginia, and they required him to show a driver's license with his picture, and he said, so I can vote without reproving who I am, but I can't borrow a book. The whole thing's absurd. And the Attorney General is part of the Biden pro illegal immigration program, and I think pro trying to steal the election with the votes of illegal immigrants. Attorney General has been clear that he's against having voter ID. Now the American people, as we prove, and you can see this if you go to America's New Majority Project dot com, which is a program we run. At America's New Majority Project dot com. We have a huge amount of polling data. The American people get it. The American people want the border control. The American people want to see who you are and believe you should have a voter ID. So it's an interesting problem, and you raise a really, really good question, but don't kid yourself. This is the deliberate policy of the left to try to drown the United States and people who are here illegally.

The next question is a write in from Shane in Iowa. Shane writes RFK Junior chose Nicole Shanahan as his vice presidential running mate. His announcement event opened with a quote land acknowledgment of the alone Indian tribe. Many theorize that his campaign will attract more Democratic fees votes than Republican votes due to this choice. What are your thoughts.

The next question is a write in from Shane in Iowa. Shane writes RFK Junior chose Nicole Shanahan as his vice presidential running mate. His announcement event opened with a quote land acknowledgment of the alone Indian tribe. Many theorize that his campaign will attract more Democratic fees votes than Republican votes due to this choice. What are your thoughts.

I think he will get more Democrats and Republicans. I think he's a greater danger to Biden than he is the Trump. As you watch the campaign unfold, virtually every left wing goofy ideal will show up on Robert F. Kennedy's agenda. The fact is that the logic of the left leads you to policies that are unsustainable for the vast majority of Americans, but policies which the left really deeply believes in. And Robert F. Kennedy Junior both represents a very famous family name, but also is unencumbered by having to deal with reality. I think he'll end up being very appealing to young people, and I think he'll be very appealing to left wingers who are unhappy with Joe Biden. It'll be interesting to see where Robert F. Kennedy Junior comes down in the case of Israel versus Samas, because he has an opportunity to steal much of the Muslim community away from Biden if he's willing to take an anti Israeli positioned. I just have no idea what his views are on that. But overall, I thought he did a video which I recommend to all of you and go to YouTube, and it's Robert F. Kennedy Junior's report on the State of the Union. I thought it was one of the best political videos I've ever seen. I mean, it's really really well done. I think that he is formidable and a genuine threat.

I think he will get more Democrats and Republicans. I think he's a greater danger to Biden than he is the Trump. As you watch the campaign unfold, virtually every left wing goofy ideal will show up on Robert F. Kennedy's agenda. The fact is that the logic of the left leads you to policies that are unsustainable for the vast majority of Americans, but policies which the left really deeply believes in. And Robert F. Kennedy Junior both represents a very famous family name, but also is unencumbered by having to deal with reality. I think he'll end up being very appealing to young people, and I think he'll be very appealing to left wingers who are unhappy with Joe Biden. It'll be interesting to see where Robert F. Kennedy Junior comes down in the case of Israel versus Samas, because he has an opportunity to steal much of the Muslim community away from Biden if he's willing to take an anti Israeli positioned. I just have no idea what his views are on that. But overall, I thought he did a video which I recommend to all of you and go to YouTube, and it's Robert F. Kennedy Junior's report on the State of the Union. I thought it was one of the best political videos I've ever seen. I mean, it's really really well done. I think that he is formidable and a genuine threat.

The next question is another write in from Sean in Nevada. Sean writes in just recently, Yale Engineering and Yale Law School have teamed up to democratize the legal system with artificial intelligence labots. I believe that getting reliable information that isn't cost or time prohibitive empowers the average person to understand their rights and make more informed decisions. Would you agree with this use of artificial intelligence?

The next question is another write in from Sean in Nevada. Sean writes in just recently, Yale Engineering and Yale Law School have teamed up to democratize the legal system with artificial intelligence labots. I believe that getting reliable information that isn't cost or time prohibitive empowers the average person to understand their rights and make more informed decisions. Would you agree with this use of artificial intelligence?

Sure? I find myself going to Google over and over again. Will be watching some movie and try to figure out, you know, when was it made? You immediately just pull it up. Or we're trying to figure out is there a really good restaurant somewhere? You pull it up. Most of the law is the codified set of rules and experiences and precedents that have grown up starting with the English common law and with Blackstone's great work in the seventeen sixties. Most of it's knowable. I wouldn't recommend that individuals try their own cases. As a famous rule that a lawyer who represents himself as a fool for a client, you need a person who's not emotional and a person who's capable of bringing their skills to bear. But I do think that you can have in terms of advice, in terms of a great deal of everyday non conflict law. There's no reason that you couldn't have a system of artificial intelligence that enabled you to learn and to walk through it and ask questions and to have a surprising level of information of relatively high accuracy. And I think that's going to be true of everything that's going true of medicine, it's going to be true of learning math. I mean you name it. We're going to have better and better tools to help us, just as we have physical tools to help us, say the invention of the wheel. I think we're going to have mental tools to help our brain, and we should think of it in that same context.

Sure? I find myself going to Google over and over again. Will be watching some movie and try to figure out, you know, when was it made? You immediately just pull it up. Or we're trying to figure out is there a really good restaurant somewhere? You pull it up. Most of the law is the codified set of rules and experiences and precedents that have grown up starting with the English common law and with Blackstone's great work in the seventeen sixties. Most of it's knowable. I wouldn't recommend that individuals try their own cases. As a famous rule that a lawyer who represents himself as a fool for a client, you need a person who's not emotional and a person who's capable of bringing their skills to bear. But I do think that you can have in terms of advice, in terms of a great deal of everyday non conflict law. There's no reason that you couldn't have a system of artificial intelligence that enabled you to learn and to walk through it and ask questions and to have a surprising level of information of relatively high accuracy. And I think that's going to be true of everything that's going true of medicine, it's going to be true of learning math. I mean you name it. We're going to have better and better tools to help us, just as we have physical tools to help us, say the invention of the wheel. I think we're going to have mental tools to help our brain, and we should think of it in that same context.

Hello, we've spoken before.

Hello, we've spoken before.

Good to have you with us.

Good to have you with us.

I asked you got the endgame for the illegal immigration, and you shared your hopes that these X million people anywhere from seven to twelve whatever the estimate is, ultimately become assimilated, productive patriotic Americans. I hope for all of them when we look at the thirty to forty percent of those that are a single male, unemployed, non English speaking military age, if that's a term, males, as your hope changed any And the specific question is is repatriation and option thinking at the end of the Civil War, the repatriation of the slaves movement, which failed, first off because the United States was broke and we couldn't afford it, and the moral implications of that. And so I would ask your opinion about the repatriation or deportation, whatever word you want to use for this many people.

I asked you got the endgame for the illegal immigration, and you shared your hopes that these X million people anywhere from seven to twelve whatever the estimate is, ultimately become assimilated, productive patriotic Americans. I hope for all of them when we look at the thirty to forty percent of those that are a single male, unemployed, non English speaking military age, if that's a term, males, as your hope changed any And the specific question is is repatriation and option thinking at the end of the Civil War, the repatriation of the slaves movement, which failed, first off because the United States was broke and we couldn't afford it, and the moral implications of that. And so I would ask your opinion about the repatriation or deportation, whatever word you want to use for this many people.

First of all, if you simply passed an effective worker ID program, and made it prohibitively expensive for businesses to hire anybody who didn't have an ID proving they were legally in the United States, either an American citizen or a Green card holder. You'd have a surprising number start back home. If you cut off the various welfare programs, you'd have a surprising number going back home. If you said, look, we will fly you for free one way back to your home country, or we will take you to the border, or in some cases, we'll have a ship that will take people back. I think you could probably repatriate the vast majority of the people who've come here illegally. I think in some cases you also have a clear case of simply saying, the minute you commit a felony, Y're gone. I think you would find a significant minority. I wouldn't overstate it. You'd find a significant minority people like the Venezuelan gang members who beat up the policeman in New York, or the Venezuelan who killed the student at the University of Georgia. All of those folks would be out of here. In the case, of course, the murderers, they shouldn't be out of here. They ought to be in prison or be given the death penalty. But I think that overall, if you can't earn a living here, and if the welfare state won't take care of you, and if at the same time there's some kind of easy access to repatriation, then I think that program could work, and you could probably have six or seven million out of the eight million decide to go home.

First of all, if you simply passed an effective worker ID program, and made it prohibitively expensive for businesses to hire anybody who didn't have an ID proving they were legally in the United States, either an American citizen or a Green card holder. You'd have a surprising number start back home. If you cut off the various welfare programs, you'd have a surprising number going back home. If you said, look, we will fly you for free one way back to your home country, or we will take you to the border, or in some cases, we'll have a ship that will take people back. I think you could probably repatriate the vast majority of the people who've come here illegally. I think in some cases you also have a clear case of simply saying, the minute you commit a felony, Y're gone. I think you would find a significant minority. I wouldn't overstate it. You'd find a significant minority people like the Venezuelan gang members who beat up the policeman in New York, or the Venezuelan who killed the student at the University of Georgia. All of those folks would be out of here. In the case, of course, the murderers, they shouldn't be out of here. They ought to be in prison or be given the death penalty. But I think that overall, if you can't earn a living here, and if the welfare state won't take care of you, and if at the same time there's some kind of easy access to repatriation, then I think that program could work, and you could probably have six or seven million out of the eight million decide to go home.

I'm going to read a question that was written in from Gordon. Austin. Gordon writes the number of abortions has increased since the overturning of roe versus Wade. This is due to a large increase of telemedicine use of abortion pills, a rule change by the FDA. It is now back before the Supreme Court. I think the rule should be changed, but I don't think the Supreme Court is the right forum. This is a legislative issue.

I'm going to read a question that was written in from Gordon. Austin. Gordon writes the number of abortions has increased since the overturning of roe versus Wade. This is due to a large increase of telemedicine use of abortion pills, a rule change by the FDA. It is now back before the Supreme Court. I think the rule should be changed, but I don't think the Supreme Court is the right forum. This is a legislative issue.

Your thoughts, I think that's exactly right.

Your thoughts, I think that's exactly right.

I think it's very interesting that in the mid nineteen nineties, when she was a judge but not yet a justice, Ruth Ginsburg, hardly a conservative, gave a speech in which she said that roe versus Wade was a mistake because it took a legitimate political question, which is the nature of life, how life can be ended, and it took it out of the political process where people had to argue with each other and find some common agreement, and instead it turned it into a legal issue where nine lawyers were deciding for the whole country. I would say the same principle applies here that should be remanded back to really the Congress in this case, because the question involves interstate commerce. There's not one state, but it's whether or not you can in fact send across state lines and have postal delivery. But I do think there are times when a society has to slow down and have a debate and find a solution. And it may not be a solution all of us like, but it gets to be a solution that we can live with because we've all had an opportunity to have our voices heard. And I think this is one of those kinds of cases. I think that's exactly right.

I think it's very interesting that in the mid nineteen nineties, when she was a judge but not yet a justice, Ruth Ginsburg, hardly a conservative, gave a speech in which she said that roe versus Wade was a mistake because it took a legitimate political question, which is the nature of life, how life can be ended, and it took it out of the political process where people had to argue with each other and find some common agreement, and instead it turned it into a legal issue where nine lawyers were deciding for the whole country. I would say the same principle applies here that should be remanded back to really the Congress in this case, because the question involves interstate commerce. There's not one state, but it's whether or not you can in fact send across state lines and have postal delivery. But I do think there are times when a society has to slow down and have a debate and find a solution. And it may not be a solution all of us like, but it gets to be a solution that we can live with because we've all had an opportunity to have our voices heard. And I think this is one of those kinds of cases. I think that's exactly right.

And we have another write in question from Paul Melvin in Florida. He says I was surprised to hear what Kevin Warsh of the Hoover Institute said about government jobs. He stated the government has grown forty percent since the first day after the response for COVID. I have watched over months of employment reports, and government jobs were always the second highest contributor to job growth in Biden's administration. Would you care to comment on it? Don't you think Trump should do what President Reagan did and put a freeze on all government hiring, exception being armed forces.

And we have another write in question from Paul Melvin in Florida. He says I was surprised to hear what Kevin Warsh of the Hoover Institute said about government jobs. He stated the government has grown forty percent since the first day after the response for COVID. I have watched over months of employment reports, and government jobs were always the second highest contributor to job growth in Biden's administration. Would you care to comment on it? Don't you think Trump should do what President Reagan did and put a freeze on all government hiring, exception being armed forces.

I just wrote a piece for The New York Sun in which I took Lincoln, who, when he became president, dismissed something like fifteen hundred and nineteen out of nineteen hundred policymakers understood that he could not possibly govern in a civil war if you had people who were opposed to you, the bureaucracy. Remember the Republican Party's brand new it's really only formed in the eighteen fifties. Lincoln is the first Republican president. The bureaucracy, even though it was a very tiny bureaucracy. The bureaucracy was overwhelmingly Southern and Democrat. So the northern Democrats who opposed Republicans and the Southerners who opposed Lincoln bitterly. If he had allowed all of them to stay in office, he literally could not have run the government. And so in a sweeping effort. In his first year, he fundamentally changed who was running the government. And I outlined that and compared it to the size of the current government and made the argument that you're probably talking about a minimum of fifty five thousand jobs being changed to match Lincoln. That's a minimum fifty five thousand jobs because the current government's so big. I would say that that kind of aggressive change. And then frankly, not just a job freeze, but a dramatic shrinkage. A large part of the Biden economy is government deficit spending to keep things pumped up, which is, by the way, undermined the Federal reserve effort to raise interest rates to stop inflation, because the government's been feeding inflation while the Federal Reserve has been trying to stop it. And then second, about forty percent of all the new jobs have been government and that's not sustainable unless you want to live in a totally socialist country.

I just wrote a piece for The New York Sun in which I took Lincoln, who, when he became president, dismissed something like fifteen hundred and nineteen out of nineteen hundred policymakers understood that he could not possibly govern in a civil war if you had people who were opposed to you, the bureaucracy. Remember the Republican Party's brand new it's really only formed in the eighteen fifties. Lincoln is the first Republican president. The bureaucracy, even though it was a very tiny bureaucracy. The bureaucracy was overwhelmingly Southern and Democrat. So the northern Democrats who opposed Republicans and the Southerners who opposed Lincoln bitterly. If he had allowed all of them to stay in office, he literally could not have run the government. And so in a sweeping effort. In his first year, he fundamentally changed who was running the government. And I outlined that and compared it to the size of the current government and made the argument that you're probably talking about a minimum of fifty five thousand jobs being changed to match Lincoln. That's a minimum fifty five thousand jobs because the current government's so big. I would say that that kind of aggressive change. And then frankly, not just a job freeze, but a dramatic shrinkage. A large part of the Biden economy is government deficit spending to keep things pumped up, which is, by the way, undermined the Federal reserve effort to raise interest rates to stop inflation, because the government's been feeding inflation while the Federal Reserve has been trying to stop it. And then second, about forty percent of all the new jobs have been government and that's not sustainable unless you want to live in a totally socialist country.

The next question comes from d and Idaho. Signatures are being collected to put an open primary with ranked choice voting bill on the November ballot. I've noticed this is being implemented in other states. Can you share your thoughts on this approach? To a primary. It's pros and cons Is it giving advantages to one party over another? Thank you.

The next question comes from d and Idaho. Signatures are being collected to put an open primary with ranked choice voting bill on the November ballot. I've noticed this is being implemented in other states. Can you share your thoughts on this approach? To a primary. It's pros and cons Is it giving advantages to one party over another? Thank you.

What it primarily does is it weekends the strength of the stronger wing of each party. If you have a ranked choice primary, if nobody gets fifty percent in the first round, you redistribute the votes, so you vote for number one, two, three, four over many candidates there are, and the bias is away from conservatives and liberals towards the center. It's being tried in Alaska and in Maine. I think it's very dangerous, and I think that it, in the long run, leads to a very complicated voting system. And I think that I would personally hope that it doesn't become the national model.

What it primarily does is it weekends the strength of the stronger wing of each party. If you have a ranked choice primary, if nobody gets fifty percent in the first round, you redistribute the votes, so you vote for number one, two, three, four over many candidates there are, and the bias is away from conservatives and liberals towards the center. It's being tried in Alaska and in Maine. I think it's very dangerous, and I think that it, in the long run, leads to a very complicated voting system. And I think that I would personally hope that it doesn't become the national model.

Okay, I have two questions. First of all, in reference to your comments earlier, the tiered resignations of Republican congressman like Ken Buck and Mike Gallagher split. The timing of Gallagher's resignation, which makes it impossible to get another Republican to a seat before January two or two five, suggests there is a plan a foot to strip the Republicans in the House of their majority by way of more resignations, and in that scenario, HOCKEM. Jefferies would then be in a position to not certify Trump's elections, which he's already promised that he would do. Do you put much credence to this.

Okay, I have two questions. First of all, in reference to your comments earlier, the tiered resignations of Republican congressman like Ken Buck and Mike Gallagher split. The timing of Gallagher's resignation, which makes it impossible to get another Republican to a seat before January two or two five, suggests there is a plan a foot to strip the Republicans in the House of their majority by way of more resignations, and in that scenario, HOCKEM. Jefferies would then be in a position to not certify Trump's elections, which he's already promised that he would do. Do you put much credence to this.

Well, not necessarily, because it'll be a new Congress, and I think if Trump wins the general election, he will almost certainly carry in a Republican majority because Trump turns out a lot of voters who don't normally vote. What you're living through is a profound political revolution in which the Democrats, who under Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the New Deal, had become the party of working Americans versus the party of the rich, the Republicans. That's actually an enormous transition now with people who are high school or say one year of college education are overwhelmingly moving to the Republican Party, and people who have graduate degrees are overwhelmingly moving to the Democratic Party. So it's a very profound realignment, and they are actually getting what used to be a Republican pattern. In the old days, Republicans tended to vote more than Democrats, and so in off your elections and special elections, the Republicans had an advantage which they lost in presidential elections, when you get really big turnouts, Well, what's happening is when Trump's on the ticket, you get a much bigger turnout than when he's not, and that's because he is attracting all of these folks who historically were not Republicans. So I start with the idea that the next Congress, if Trump does win, he will almost certainly carry in a Senate and a House that are a Republican and so Hakim Jeffries would go back to being the minority leader. The greater short term danger is that if the Republicans lose their majority, that Hakim Jeffries will immediately close down every investigation, the investigation of the border and homeland security, the investigation into the Biden family corruption, the investigation into the FBI. All of these things would be stopped if Hakim Jeffries became the leader and the Democrats took over. So that's the big short term problem. But I think in the long run, if Trump wins the significant majority, he's going to carry in a Republican House and a Republican Senate, and that'll set the stage. We're a very tumultuous twenty twenty five because the left isn't just going to roll over and play dead. They're not going to say, oh gee, I guess we lost the election. Just the opposite. As Scott Rasmussen has pointed out, they will bitterly fight to stop the Conservatives from shaping government. And I think that's a much bigger challenge.

Well, not necessarily, because it'll be a new Congress, and I think if Trump wins the general election, he will almost certainly carry in a Republican majority because Trump turns out a lot of voters who don't normally vote. What you're living through is a profound political revolution in which the Democrats, who under Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the New Deal, had become the party of working Americans versus the party of the rich, the Republicans. That's actually an enormous transition now with people who are high school or say one year of college education are overwhelmingly moving to the Republican Party, and people who have graduate degrees are overwhelmingly moving to the Democratic Party. So it's a very profound realignment, and they are actually getting what used to be a Republican pattern. In the old days, Republicans tended to vote more than Democrats, and so in off your elections and special elections, the Republicans had an advantage which they lost in presidential elections, when you get really big turnouts, Well, what's happening is when Trump's on the ticket, you get a much bigger turnout than when he's not, and that's because he is attracting all of these folks who historically were not Republicans. So I start with the idea that the next Congress, if Trump does win, he will almost certainly carry in a Senate and a House that are a Republican and so Hakim Jeffries would go back to being the minority leader. The greater short term danger is that if the Republicans lose their majority, that Hakim Jeffries will immediately close down every investigation, the investigation of the border and homeland security, the investigation into the Biden family corruption, the investigation into the FBI. All of these things would be stopped if Hakim Jeffries became the leader and the Democrats took over. So that's the big short term problem. But I think in the long run, if Trump wins the significant majority, he's going to carry in a Republican House and a Republican Senate, and that'll set the stage. We're a very tumultuous twenty twenty five because the left isn't just going to roll over and play dead. They're not going to say, oh gee, I guess we lost the election. Just the opposite. As Scott Rasmussen has pointed out, they will bitterly fight to stop the Conservatives from shaping government. And I think that's a much bigger challenge.

The question I have is why can't we pass a constitutional amendment on naturalization? So I think that would take the wind out of the sales of what they're doing with the migrants. So that would have three parts. The first part would be you have to be naturalized or birth citizen in the United States. The second thing is to limit the amount of people who are naturalized every year to the percentage of what Obama had, which is one quarter of one percent. And the third thing is to change the census so that non citizens would not be counted for purpose of basically allocation of seats and so forth. What do you think about that.

The question I have is why can't we pass a constitutional amendment on naturalization? So I think that would take the wind out of the sales of what they're doing with the migrants. So that would have three parts. The first part would be you have to be naturalized or birth citizen in the United States. The second thing is to limit the amount of people who are naturalized every year to the percentage of what Obama had, which is one quarter of one percent. And the third thing is to change the census so that non citizens would not be counted for purpose of basically allocation of seats and so forth. What do you think about that.

I agree with all three principles. I think all three can actually be accomplished by law and don't require an amendment unless the Supreme Court ruled that the census had to include inhabitants and not just citizens, in which case you would then have to overrule them with a constitutional amendment. I agree with the principle. I think one of the reasons that the left is so eager to have millions of illegal immigrants is that they're going to the big cities, and their hope is that in the next census that they will give these cities more representation. As you know, California, Illinois, New York are all losing population, and that population is migrating towards Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas, and so you're seeing a really profound shift, all of it to the advantage of the Republicans and the disadvantage of the Democrats. And I think a lot of Democrats see illegal immigration as the counter force that will keep them in power. My hunch is it won't. And as I've said earlier, I'm in favor of finding a way to repatriate. I think if you're here illegally, it's illegal, and that we have a right to say that we're very much for legal immigration, but we're very much against illegal immigration. And closing, let me thank all of you for taking the time to be with us. Also, I want to remind you, if you find this useful it helps us if you tell your friends about it and have them go to gingrishtree sixty and join up. And I look forward to our future conversation that I find them very helpful. Thank you all, very very much, Thank you for listening, and thank you to members of my Inner Circle club. If you'd like to become a member, please go to Newtsinner Circle dot com and sign up for a one or two year membership today. Newts World is produced by Gingers three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan and our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Gingers three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of newts World can sign up for my three free weekly columns at gingrishthree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm Newt Gingrich. This is Newtsworld.

I agree with all three principles. I think all three can actually be accomplished by law and don't require an amendment unless the Supreme Court ruled that the census had to include inhabitants and not just citizens, in which case you would then have to overrule them with a constitutional amendment. I agree with the principle. I think one of the reasons that the left is so eager to have millions of illegal immigrants is that they're going to the big cities, and their hope is that in the next census that they will give these cities more representation. As you know, California, Illinois, New York are all losing population, and that population is migrating towards Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas, and so you're seeing a really profound shift, all of it to the advantage of the Republicans and the disadvantage of the Democrats. And I think a lot of Democrats see illegal immigration as the counter force that will keep them in power. My hunch is it won't. And as I've said earlier, I'm in favor of finding a way to repatriate. I think if you're here illegally, it's illegal, and that we have a right to say that we're very much for legal immigration, but we're very much against illegal immigration. And closing, let me thank all of you for taking the time to be with us. Also, I want to remind you, if you find this useful it helps us if you tell your friends about it and have them go to gingrishtree sixty and join up. And I look forward to our future conversation that I find them very helpful. Thank you all, very very much, Thank you for listening, and thank you to members of my Inner Circle club. If you'd like to become a member, please go to Newtsinner Circle dot com and sign up for a one or two year membership today. Newts World is produced by Gingers three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan and our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Gingers three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of newts World can sign up for my three free weekly columns at gingrishthree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm Newt Gingrich. This is Newtsworld.