McAllen, Texas Mayor-Elect Javier Villalobos Talks Election, Baseball, Immigration, and Border Policy

McAllen, Texas Mayor-Elect Javier Villalobos Talks Election, Baseball, Immigration, and Border Policy

 

Live from Music Row Thursday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed Republican Mayor-elect Javier Villalobos of McAllen, Texas to the newsmakers line to discuss his background, border policy, and taking on federal immigration burdens in his community.

Leahy: We are delighted to welcome to our newsmaker line, the Mayor-elect of McAllen, Texas, Javier Villalobos. Welcome, Mr. Villalobos.

Villalobos: Hi. Good morning. And thank you very much for the invite.

Leahy: It has been a busy week for you, hasn’t it?

Villalobos: You know what? It’s been incredibly hectic, but in a wonderful way, though.

Leahy: So you were elected mayor of McAllen, Texas. It’s a very growing border city in the southeastern corner of Texas. Right across the border is Reynosa, Mexico. I’ve been to McCallen. It’s a great place. What’s the population of McCallen?

Villalobos: The population is about 150,000 right now.

Leahy: That’s a pretty big city.

Villalobos: It is considering, of course, when you take everything into consideration, the rest of the states, of course, everything is pretty much together have a population of close to about a million.

Leahy: What struck me about McCallen when I was there, which was about 10 years ago, a lot of new construction, a lot of sort of export-import business. And people there really seem to be growing businesses.

It’s still a thriving community, except for the past six or seven months have been a problem, haven’t they?

Villalobos: Well, you know what? It has been economically. You really should come to visit it again. After 10 years, we wouldn’t even recognize it. But, yes, of course, we’ve had some different issues. I think I know exactly what you’re talking about.

Six months ago, it was a little bit better. We are about 13 miles away from the border. And, of course, we’re having a few issues right now at any given time. McCallen has two international bridges.

Hidalgo-Reynosa and Anzalduas and at any given point we have hundreds, and I’m talking about hundreds of immigrants, which are transported, really to McAllen. Fortunately, we always say, look, immigration is not a municipal issue.

It’s a federal issue. But we’re kind of tied up. Border Patrol comes and they bring usually hundreds a day. We help process, even though we shouldn’t have to, but we do it for purposes of public safety.

Leahy: Yes, for safety.

Villalobos: To make sure the immigrants are ok. Yes, definitely. Because the Border Patrol comes, drops them off near the bus station. Unless we do something, we don’t know what’s going to happen or where they can be.

I’m not talking to whether pro or against the immigrants. However, we make sure that we take care of business, even though it’s not our responsibility. We keep on talking about it and asking the federal government, the president, Congress, Senate, to take care of the business.

It’s not our responsibility. Our taxpayers should not be burdening or have any responsibility for the issue. And it does. After a while, it becomes very burdensome.

Leahy: You said something there that kind of surprised me. Let me see if I understand this correctly. You said that the Border Patrol takes, I guess, is illegal aliens or who people have crossed the border illegally in buses and they take them in downtown McAllen and then just let him go. Did I get that right?

Villalobos: Fortunately, we have an organization that assists. Not a municipal organization. It’s a nonprofit that will assist and at least logistically keep assisting them until they are prepared to go to wherever they’re going to be going. And logistically, we assist the city assistant in transporting them to the bus station, to the airport, wherever we can. And that’s about it.

That is about it. I think the city has been doing a great job with a nonprofit where even though it’s not our responsibility, we keep on doing whatever we can for the purposes of maintaining peace and public safety and making sure that everybody is taken care of. Especially our residents.

Leahy: What is the nonprofit down there that helps process these I guess illegal aliens dropped off at the bus station by the Border Patrol?

Villalobos: They have been helpful. It’s a Catholic charity called the Respite Center here in downtown McAllen, and they have actually been assisting quite a bit. Without them, I don’t know what the city would do.

Leahy: Has the flow of illegal immigrants dropped off in downtown McAllen by the Border Patrol increased over the past year or so?

Villalobos: Of course. I think we all know probably about six months ago or five months ago they changed the federal policy and things became very different. I would venture to say it was a lot more comfortable five or six months ago.

So it has been different. Unfortunately, this is not the first time it occurred. Several years ago, the city spent close to about a million dollars. It’s different now. We’re not spending as much.

But regardless of whether it’s a million, whether it’s $10,000 or $5,000 it is not a municipal responsibility, and we shouldn’t be burdened. That’s our position.

Leahy: Tell us a little bit about your background.

Villalobos: Oh, certainly. I’ve been here in McAllen for 26 years and I’m originally from here. Actually, not a son of immigrants, but a son of migrants. So I’ve been around. I was a Republican chairman 10 years ago, which surprises a lot of people knowing my background or where I come from.

I ran for office and became commissioner. And then, surprisingly, to a lot of people, I ran for Mayor and against all odds as some people say. Because even though it’s a non-partisan race, everybody here votes Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

Everybody knew I was a former Republican chairman, and fortunately, I was elected. It was a close one. It was a very close one, but I was elected.

Leahy: Now, what do you do for a living, Javier?

Villalobos: Mostly the main business is that I’m a lawyer.

Leahy: You’re an attorney?

Villalobos: Yes, sir. What area of law do you specialize in?

Villalobos: Pretty much a lot of governmental work representing cities, schools, housing authorities, economic development, and corporations. But I like to dabble in trial work also, some of the criminal and litigation.

Leahy: So how did you personally decide to become an attorney?

Villalobos: As I said, I’m not from there. I’m from Crystal City, a small little place about 250 miles from here. I remember coming from a barrio. And that is the truth. But I played baseball.

And I remember one of the coaches, he was a lawyer, and I always looked up to him and I thought maybe one day. Of course, I didn’t think so because we were from the barrio.  But you know what it was?

I always say education is a great equalizer, and I really believe in that. And that’s what happened. That’s how we did it.

Leahy: So Crystal City is a barrio in El Paso? Where is Crystal City?

Villalobos: No, it’s about 250 miles North West of San Antonio, but it’s a small little place, a population of about 8,000 people back when I was a kid and still the same.

Leahy: So you’re a baseball guy? Did you grow up playing baseball as a kid?

Villalobos: (Laughs) And I love it. Still coaching. My kid doesn’t like to play with me anymore because he’s a senior in high school. So we started another team again with T-Ballers. So here we go again.

Leahy: I’m a big baseball fan. I love playing it. I was in high school. I was probably I was a good field no-hit guy right infielder. I hit about 240 s you can see why I didn’t make it past high school playing baseball. What position did you play?

Villalobos: I used to play second base and outfield.

Leahy: I was a second basement and a third baseman, too, so it was kind of fun. Who’s your team now?

Villalobos: Even when my kids were little. Now, if you’re talking about our local team, we’re called the Villalobos. Of course, I got The Lobos.

Leahy: There you go.

Villalobos: Once again, brand new kids because our kids grew up and they don’t want to hang out with dad anymore. So we got a new batch of kids. (Leahy laughs) Let’s see what we can do with them.

Leahy: Let’s talk a little bit about baseball for a minute in youth development. When I was a kid, many years ago, in the summer, I lived on a hill and there was a valley. I would ride my bike down the playground and people would be there.

And we would just play pick-up baseball. I did it every day. Today, it seems a lot harder for kids to play baseball.

Villalobos: It’s totally different nowadays for kids. I did exactly the same back then. You just get a bunch of kids and there’s an empty lot and here we go. Let’s play ball. It’s a little bit different nowadays.

But now the ones that are organized, there’s baseball all year round now. And if it’s organized, I mean, that’s a beautiful thing. The issue we have a lot of the times not just here, McAllen but everywhere is finding spaces for practice.

Leahy: Exactly. Hey, hold on to that thought. The Mayor-elect Javier Villalobos. I want to talk about baseball. I want to talk about immigration. And I want to talk about border policy.

Listen to the full first hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Javier Villalobos” by Javier Villalobos Campaign. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Huey Talks Gavin Newsom Recall and His Potential Replacement as Governor of California

Craig Huey Talks Gavin Newsom Recall and His Potential Replacement as Governor of California

 

Live from Music Row Thursday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed creator of the Huey Report and direct mail expert, Craig Huey, in-studio to discuss the recall efforts in California and the most likely candidate to replace Newsom.

Leahy: In the studio with us right now, Craig Huey, digital marketing wizard and our most recent refugee from California. He went behind enemy lines.

Huey: Behind the enemy lines for our listeners.

Leahy: And just got back. And we talked a little bit about the fear going on there. There’s something else going on down there. And my question for you, there’s a recall.

Huey: There is.

Leahy: And it looks like the challenges to the recall will not be sufficient to knock it off the ballot.

Huey: That’s correct.

Leahy: So October?

Huey: Newsom would like to have the election as soon as possible. October would probably be the earliest date. Maybe it’ll be in November. And he spent millions of dollars to try to have people who signed the petition have their names removed. And it was a total failure.

Leahy: That’s kind of the old classic Barack Obama move. That’s how Barack Obama actually first got on the ballot when he ran for the state senate in Illinois. There were several other people, and they went in, and they just disqualified the petitions on the other folks.

A tried and true Democrat establishment trick. Now, here’s the question I pose to you. Caitlyn Jenner. Formerly Bruce Jenner. The 1976 Olympic decathlete champion. Decathlon champion on the mail side.

Huey: Yes.

Leahy: Now is Caitlin?

Huey: Yes.

Leahy: Apparently has had that surgery. Yikes. (Laughs) He is now Caitlyn. Kind of a screwed up person, I think I would say.

Huey: Emotionally, physically, mentally, a lot of problems.

Leahy: A lot of problems. The former husband of the mom of the Kardashian. What was her name?

Huey: Kim.

Leahy: Is Kim the mom? Who’s the mom.

Huey: I believe Kim is mom.

Leahy: Okay, well, anyway, the Kardashian mom, it’s hard to keep them all straight, but nonetheless, one thing I have to say about them, they know how to make money.

Huey: They make lots of money.

Leahy: They make lots of money.

Huey: Money that you can’t believe. So if they put that money behind her, she will have a war chest like you can’t believe.

Leahy: But there’s a little bit of I don’t know. I don’t think they ended on good terms.

Huey: No. According to Caitlyn Jenner, she had a lot of conversations with the Kardashian family about running for governor. They were against it, and she’s doing it anyway.

Leahy: Well, you can see why. I don’t know what the right word is. A spectacle, I suppose you could say. Although having said all this, Caitlyn Jenner has the highest profile of any of the challengers.

Huey: Oh, yeah. Everybody knows her name. Everybody knows she’s running for governor. She doesn’t have to worry about name identification. She’s on the news all the time, and she’s making herself available.

She’s speaking before Republican Party groups and conservative groups. She’s going out on the local media and the national media. She says I’ll do an interview and they flock to her.

Leahy: Well because it’s a little bit like looking at a traffic accident.

Huey: (Chuckles) Yes.

Leahy: A little bit.

Huey: Yes. Well, there’s going to be about 100 candidates on the ballot, and there’s maybe half a dozen that are serious candidates. And then there’s Caitlin, and she’s getting all the publicity. And in California, here’s what happens. They will vote yes or no on the recall.

Leahy: Right. You go in and you cast two ballots. The first one yes or no. Do we get rid of this Gavin Newsom character or do we keep him? Then you have a second vote, which is okay, if we get rid of this Gavin Newsome character, which of these hundred people do you want as governor?

Huey: That’s right. And so if you go down that list, you’re not going to recognize most of the names until you see Caitlin.

Leahy: You see Caitlyn Jenner, the name recognition is off the charts. Not necessarily in a good way.

Huey: No because the transgender gay community is kind of against her because she’s against transgenders, for example, girls playing sports.

Leahy: She kind of qualifies that a little bit. But still, it’s weird. It’s California.

Huey: But here’s the thing. She’s running as a conservative.

Leahy: Pretty much all straight down the line. It’s a Trumpian philosophy. That she is supporting. Caitlin, formerly Bruce Jenner. I still can’t. I watched as a kid the 1976 Olympics in Montreal. The winner of the Decathlon is considered the greatest male athlete in the world.

Huey: That’s right.

Leahy: And there was Bruce Jenner waving the American flag, winning the decathlon. Two weeks later, he was on the cover of every Wheaties box in America. Very well known. And just, like, totally screwed up as a person. So it’s a circus.

Huey: It really is a recall circus. There are porn stars, there are rappers, there are entertainment people. Because the second vote where your voting a candidate, all you need is a majority.

Leahy: Because when the last recall in 2,003 took place, Gray Davis, he was thrown out, like, with 55 percent of the vote. And then Schwarzenegger, he actually got, what, 45 or 46 percent?

Huey: About 45 to 46 percent and he was able to win. Theoretically, you could get 20, 30%.

Leahy: In theory.

Huey: If the votes are spread out enough.

Leahy: But I think in terms of name ID, Caitlyn Jenner is like, I don’t know, two or three times higher than any of the challengers.

Huey: So just think of this. Caitlyn Jenner becomes governor of California. It has a pro-socialist Democrat Supermajority in both houses that are not going to do anything. She will be having a Lieutenant governor that is almost a Marxist.

Leahy: Is it the current lieutenant governor?

Huey: Yes.

Leahy: Who’s that? Her name is, I can’t pronounce it.

Leahy: A Marxist basically.

Huey: She’s a Marxist.

Leahy: So she can’t leave the state. Now I’ll make a Nashville connection here. One of the very first California refugees was a music producer, Mike Curb.

Huey: That’s right.

Leahy: And Curb was the Lieutenant governor.

Huey: That’s right.

Leahy: In California back in the 70s? I think it was under Jerry Brown. Curb is a conservative Republican. Jerry Brown leaves the state. And then Mike Curb, he was like, 29 30, something like that. He would do all these things that Jerry Brown hated. It was a big drama.

Huey: I was so excited at that because I remember that well. I couldn’t wait for Jerry Brown to leave the state because he knew fun things would happen.

Leahy: But anyway, so Mike Curb came here, like in 1982 or 1983 I guess, and has this huge music Empire. He’s put the Curb Center for the music business at Belmont. A big supporter of the community here in Nashville. His offices are just down the road on Music Row. We gotta get Mike Curb in-studio here some time.

Huey: It would be great to see his insight. But he was a hero of Conservatives and Republicans. They were shocked that he moved to Tennessee and left California.

Leahy: He was smart.

Huey: Between then and now than on the people who have gone to Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Tennessee, and other States, it is an exodus.

Leahy: So the way it stands right now, it seems to me that the California recall is going to be very, very close.

Huey: Yes.

Leahy: Gavin Newsom has huge money. You’re telling me a huge amount of money coming in.

Huey: So right now, he officially and there are several different committees he has. He probably officially has about $50 million. He’s going to have $100 million. The other candidates, the Republican establishment Liberal Republican, will probably have about $10 to $12 million. John Cox, the former candidate for governor that lost, was wiped out terribly. He’ll have probably maybe $8 million or $9 million.

Leahy: John Cox is the guy with a branding problem, right? What is he calling himself? The Bear or the Beast? Didn’t think to call you and say, Craig, what kind of branding should I use?

Huey: I’ve talked to him. I’ve criticized him about what he was doing. I told him not to do it. And he did it anyway.

Leahy: Oh, you did talk to him. So just pretend I’m him.

Huey: Sure.

Leahy: And I’m saying I’m gonna go with the beast.

Huey: And you would say, I would say, John, you don’t want to have this image. You want to talk about why people are frustrated with Newsom and concentrate on that and be a serious candidate. And in addition to that, don’t waste your money. You can win this race. But don’t waste your money on TV.

Leahy: It does nothing.

Huey: It does nothing. What you want to do is create data of who it is that’s going to vote for you.

Leahy: And he didn’t listen to your advice. So this guy is never going to be governor. I’m just going to tell you right now.

Huey: He’s not.

Leahy: You got to listen to Craig Huey’s advice if you want to be governor of California.

Listen to the full second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Gov. Gavin Newsom” by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crom Carmichael Exposes the Real Conspiracy Theorist Jake Tapper

Crom Carmichael Exposes the Real Conspiracy Theorist Jake Tapper

 

Live from Music Row Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to discuss Jake Tapper’s position on denying Republicans a platform because they refuse to acknowledge Janauary 6 as an insurrection.

Leahy: In studio, the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael. Crom, you were just having a field day pointing out the hypocrisy of mainstream media figures, one of whom is Jake Tapper at CNN.

Carmichael: Jake Tapper was interviewed the other day and he said that he would not give a platform to Republicans who won’t adhere to the doctrine that Biden won the election fair and square and that there was no cheating whatsoever.

And more importantly, if they won’t adhere to the doctrine that January 6 was an insurrection. And the definition of an insurrection includes people being armed. And there wasn’t a single weapon.

Leahy: There was a guy wearing a Viking hat. (Laughs)

Carmichael: And he had some interesting paint on his face. He was saying that he wouldn’t interview, and he was asked to name people. He said, I wouldn’t interview Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, or Elise Stefanik, who’s now the number three Republican having replaced Liz Cheney, who has gone to pastures unknown because now that she’s had her day in the sun, nobody wants to interview her anymore. Elise Stefanik sent out a tweet saying, this is hysterical because his producer has begged me to come on the show.

Leahy: Begged!

Carmichael: When that was brought up to Tapper he said, I can’t be responsible for every email that my bookers send.

Leahy: What a bunch of weasel words.

Carmichael: Here’s what’s so silly about it. Who does Jake Tapper’s Booker work for?

Leahy: Jake Tapper. He’s not responsible for them.

Carmichael: Jake Tapper. If you can’t be responsible for a person that is a direct report, then it shows that you can’t be responsible for anything, including what you say on your own show, apparently.

I found that whole thing to be hysterical because he calls them conspiracy theorists. Let’s review the record. Jake Tapper believed that Russia and Trump colluded in the 2016 election. He was a leader of that conspiracy, which turned out to be false.

Jake Tapper believed when Anthony Fauci said that there’s no way that the coronavirus originated from a lab in Wuhan that Tapper called anybody who believed that that was a conspiracy. Well, it turns out he looks like he’s dead wrong. So he was once again the leader of that conspiracy.

Leahy: I got another one for you. It’s even better. He wrote a book. (Laughter) He wrote a book about the 2000 election. Do you know what he called it? This was George W. Bush. versus Al Gore. Ended up narrowly decided by the Supreme Court. The title of the book, Down and Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency.

Carmichael: Oh god that’s great! (Laughter) Michael, great catch. great catch. So now what we have is a 20-year history of Jake Tapper being on the wrong side of every so-called conspiracy.

That one actually is a conspiracy because everything there, it’s the opposite. In Florida it was exactly the opposite of all the other elections were in 2020 were. Let’s remind our listeners about that. They actually did sit and recount the balance.

And they tried to determine with each hanging-chad what the voter meant when that voter voted. And so they looked at each one, every single vote they looked at in Florida. Three times.

And Gore never could get to where he had the majority. And the Supreme Court didn’t decide the election. The Supreme Court said, you’ve run out of time, and so you have to accept the results. The Supreme Court didn’t rule in favor of Bush. They ruled in favor of the results that came in for the same person three times in a row.

Leahy: Here’s the description of that book that Jake Tapper road in 2000. Acclaimed journalist Jake Tapper explains what actually happened. Who got away with what and how both sides, Democrats and Republicans plotted to steal the presidency in 2000. He can’t even interview himself apparently according to his standards. (Laughs)

Carmichael: And by the way, we’re using Jake Tapper. But you could substitute the name Jake Tapper for anybody at CNN or MSNBC.

Leahy: (Low voice) Jon Meacham. (Laughter)

Carmichael: I haven’t seen him all lately.

Leahy: He’s not a paid contributor because he got caught praising his own speech.

Carmichael: Praising his own speech.

Leahy: Jon Meacham! You live here in Nashville. Come on in. Let’s talk. We’ll have fun. We’ll make fun of you. You deserve it.

Listen to the full third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Jake Tapper” by nrkbeta. CC BY-SA 2.0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professor of Law Phillip Hamburger Talks Constitutional Covenants and the Administrative Overreach by Unelected Bureaucrats

Professor of Law Phillip Hamburger Talks Constitutional Covenants and the Administrative Overreach by Unelected Bureaucrats

 

Live from Music Row Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed Philip Hamburger who is a Professor of Law at Columbia Law School to the newsmakers line to discuss constitutional covenants and abuses of administrative law.

Leahy: We are delighted to welcome on our newsmaker line, one of my intellectual heroes. I’ve never had a chance to interview him. But Professor of law at Columbia Law School, Philip Hamburger. A leading intellectual in America today on issues of the Constitution. Welcome to The Tennessee Star Report Professor Hamburger.

Hamburger: Thank you. It’s a great pleasure to be here. Thank you so much.

Leahy: Well, look, we have talked often on this program about the overreach of the administrative state. And you’ve talked about administrative law. You’ve written about when administrative agencies regulate us, they exercise the legislative power that the Constitution gives to Congress un-elected bureaucrats, thus displace elected representatives.

This has been a dangerous trend. You’ve written about it extensively. Can you briefly describe what kind of difficulties this is cause for our constitutional Republic?

Hamburger: Well, there are so many. I don’t know. We can take the whole program listing the problems. (Chuckles) The real danger is that we are established as a Republic in which we elect our lawmakers.

We govern ourselves. Our laws are binding on us because we consent to them through elections. And we don’t always win the election. We don’t always get our way. But we know we participate in a process in which we get to elect those who make our laws.

And the problem, of course, is that much of the law-making, in fact, I’d say about 90 percent of it these days is not made by legislators who were elected but by unelected bureaucrats. And their tastes and their interests don’t coincide with ours and even if they did, they’re not terribly responsive to our needs. So that’s a disaster.

Leahy: It’s entirely a disaster. Professor Hamburger. Crom Carmichael, our original all-star panelist and another big fan of yours has a question for you.

Carmichael: Professor, the question that I have is this. Suppose an administration came into power and I would assume it would have to be a Republic administration but they haven’t done much better on the subject that you’re addressing. (Hamburger chuckles)

But suppose one did come into power that proclaimed during the inaugural address that under this person’s administration that the practice of administrative law will be believed to be unconstitutional on its face, and that any bureaucrat who presumes that they have the power of the legislature and tries to assert that power shall be terminated. Is that legal?

Hamburger: It certainly is up to the point of termination where there are some complicated questions. But I entirely agree with you. I think this is absolutely on point. You don’t have to wait for the Supreme Court.

A President who understood the problem could, I think, quite wisely, decide simply to instruct all federal officers not to pursue administrative power at all. And by the way, I think the President has a duty to do this.

The President has a duty to take care that the laws are faithfully enforced in the highest law of the Constitution. Although the question I think constitutionally, the President should be able to fire such officers, there would be a legal battle over that.

But the President, I think, could quite easily simply insist that administrative power not be exercised. It’s complicated but possible.

Carmichael: Well, then what I think I’m hearing you say is that the laws protecting government bureaucrats are a powerful law. But if a President did assert in the inaugural address and then a bureaucrat shortly after that, I’m sure somebody would test it.

And if he fired that person, that person would then have to sue to get their job back. And the court would then resolve whether or not a bureaucrat has a power greater than that of Congress.

Hamburger: That’s right. I must say I actually have proposed something like this in the past, and I think ideally it would be done in a proclamation followed up with executive orders.

I think one would have different orders and proclamations for different agencies because in some cases it would be a clearer path than others. But constitutionally, in the end, I think the President certainly has the power to do this. The real question is whether President would have the fortitude and the wisdom to do it.

Leahy: Absolutely. You started in 2017, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, and you’re using the courts to stop this administrative overreach by bureaucrats. How is that succeeding? And are you stopping this growing tide of bureaucratic power?

Hamburger: Well, as a friend told me, Rome was not burned in one night. (Leahy laughs)

Leahy: I love that line.

Hamburger: (Chuckles) Yes. I wish I had thought of it. But we are having some remarkable success with such a young organization. The New Civil Liberties Alliance now has about 20 employees who are litigating every day.

I’ll give you just one example of where I think we’re having a real effect on the ground. I just learned that the Security and Exchange Commission has greatly reduced the number of prosecutions it conducts in its own in-house administrative tribunals, these Kangaroo courts that are biased, that don’t give juries.

They now only have 12 of these proceedings. And I think that’s very much in response to our litigation against the Security Exchange Commission. Our goal is to have that effect across the administrative state.

And it’s actually very gratifying that already they’ve been forced to cut back so much at such a leading administrative agency. So I think we are having a very real effect, but we just want to keep on pushing and pushing until we restore constitutional covenants.

Leahy: We have a couple of our friends who are on the board of advisors at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, our good friend, Professor Randy Barnett from Georgetown University and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit is on your advisory board. That’s a great lineup.

Hamburger: And we are honored to have them on board. And we actually also been gratified not only by our success but also the backing we’ve had from intellectual such as these.

Leahy: Is this a 501 (c) (3) and can people donate to it?

Hamburger: That’s right. It’s a 501 (c) (3) and we’ve had a remarkable outpouring of support, some very large donations, but also small donations, but also the people, all walks of life who really get it and who realize there’s a danger. And we have a chance to overcome it.

Leahy: It’s on the web at Nclalegal.org. You can go there and hit the donate button for it. And Professor Hamburger, I want to extend an invitation to you, if you’re interested. Every October for the past five years we’ve been hosting for secondary school students a National Constitution Bee here in Tennessee.

It’s open to any student around the country. Last year Alan Dershowitz addressed the group. The winner of the Bee gets a $10,000. educational scholarship and second and third also. I want to invite you down. Come down and be one of the judges in that event.

Hamburger: I would love to do that. I’ll have to consult my wife because she is the chief administrator of this agency. (Laughter)

Carmichael: She would enjoy coming to Nashville also.

Leahy: Have you been to Nashville?

Hamburger: I have not. I have driven through it but I wasn’t able to stop.

Leahy: We are going to give you a tour of Nashville.

Carmichael: And your wife will love it.

Leahy: By the way, I know you are at Columbia Law School and you are probably paying state and city income tax. (Hamburger chuckles) I don’t know if you know this, but in Tennessee, we have no state income taxes.

Hamburger: I’m jealous. I’m very very jealous. (Laughter)

Leahy: Hey, look, will you come on again? Because as I said, you have been an intellectual hero of mine for many years. I’m just delighted to get to meet you here.

Hamburger: I would love to join you anytime. It would be a pleasure. And thank you so much. The more the word gets out of this stuff, and you guys seem to be doing a great job on that, the more we can actually restore our own self-governance. Thank you very much.

Listen to the full third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IWF’s Kelsey Bolsar Reveals Pregnant Women’s Concerns with Employer Mandated Vaccines and Safety

IWF’s Kelsey Bolsar Reveals Pregnant Women’s Concerns with Employer Mandated Vaccines and Safety

 

Live from Music Row Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed Independent Women’s Forum Senior Policy Analyst and a contributing writer to The Federalist Kelsey Bolsar to the newsmakers line to discuss employer vaccine mandates, safety, and pregnancy.

Leahy: On the newsmaker line. Kelsey Bolsar, who writes for The Federalist and is a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum. She has an article out called The Cost of Vaccine Mandates for Pregnant Women. Welcome, Kelsey.

Bolsar: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

Leahy: I understand that you are a graduate a Little Ivy College called Lafayette College in Easton Pennsylvania. I have been to Easton Pennsylvania a great place.

Bolsar: Absolutely. And it’s actually experiencing quite a boom right now, which is great for the surrounding area in addition to the college.

Leahy: Why is it experiencing a boom there, by the way?

Bolsar: Oh, it’s pandemic related. Individuals who used to live in New York City year-round now have more flexibility in their workplace and are looking to move to surrounding areas that might be a bit of drive but nothing crazy from New York and Easton Pennsylvania is one of them.

Leahy: Did you have fun attending Lafayette? Was it a good program?

Bolsar: Absolutely. Lafayette College is the smallest, Division one school. I was a Division one athlete for part of my college career and made a lot of close friends, had fun competing, and learned a lot.

But of course, it is one of these small liberal arts institutions that do very much lean to the left. So I’m grateful that I did come to my senses and stayed true to myself while I was there.

Leahy: I got to hear this. I did not know that it was a Division one school. For all sports is just for a few sports?

Bolsar: All sports.

Leahy: Wow. And what sport did you compete?

Bolsar: I played lacrosse.

Leahy: Oh! My girls play lacrosse. And I’ll tell you this, I never played lacrosse in my life. But when my daughter, who’s now in her early thirties, was in high school, she said, Dad, I want to play lacrosse.

We started a lacrosse team and I coached them. And by the way, if you’re a man and you played men’s sports, it’s probably not a good idea for your first time to coach a girls team, because it’s a whole different attitude, isn’t it?

Bolsar: It is. It’s a great sport, though very popular on the east coast, still picking up steam in other states across the country, but it’s very competitive on the east coast. And competing at one of the smallest division one schools in the country certainly presented its own challenges.

But college athletics is something I recommend to anybody whose interested because it teaches you life lessons you can use both of on and off the field.

Leahy: Absolutely. Well, you’ve written about one life lesson, I suppose the cost of vaccine mandates for pregnant women. Tell us what those costs are. And why are you writing about this?

Bolsar: Absolutely. I actually wrote about this because of a personal experience. I initially was hesitant to come out with my story. I am very blessed to be expecting our second child later this year.

And I was one of the many women facing a difficult decision about whether to get vaccinated as a high-risk individual who was expecting. Of course, being pregnant puts you in that high-risk boat for COVID-19.

Unlike before, I was hopeful that I was one of these young and healthy individuals that wouldn’t face a severe case. But now I had more side effects to worry about. But also, we have no data about vaccines on women from the first trimester who have actually successfully given birth because, of course, this vaccine didn’t become available until December earliest.

And so anybody who got the vaccine who was expecting during their first trimester likely has not completed their pregnancy full term and given birth, which is kind of scary regarding the number of unknowns in terms of what these vaccines could do to the development of the child.

I want to be clear that every study that has been released thus far looks really good for pregnant women getting the vaccine. Researchers have not raised any medical concerns about women getting it at any point in their pregnancy.

But, of course, with so many unknowns with a vaccine that is still in the experimental stage, this is a very personal decision for women to make who are expecting and other Americans who have high-risk conditions that put them in the boat where they might not know exactly what could happen both short and long term if they get this vaccine.

And so in light of this being a personal decision, I was looking at the national rhetoric surrounding vaccine mandates and vaccine passports and I found it very ugly and dismissive of the very legitimate concerns and serious ways Americans are thinking through the decision of whether to get vaccinated and when.

Many of us are nothing but grateful for this medical miracle, we are far from any of the sort of anti-vaxxers that you hear being shamed in the national media. Many of them on the left recited a few remarks made on The View.

And I kind of raised the question, the point of so many young, healthy Americans getting vaccinated right now is to protect the more vulnerable who do face more difficult decisions about whether to get vaccinated.

Why don’t our policies and our rhetoric reflect that? Vaccine mandates requiring them to go back to work, but women specifically in a very difficult position if they are expecting or if they are trying to get pregnant and have questions about the vaccine long term.

And it kind of forces them to reveal to their bosses very private fertility information that should remain private. No woman should be pressured or forced into revealing their fertility status before they are ready.

And many of these policies just push women up against the wall and set this dangerous precedent that we have no choice but to get vaccinated. And until we have irrefutable data in terms of vaccines and pregnancy, this does need to remain a choice.

And I can tell you, as someone who is expecting, it is a very difficult choice that women are thinking very seriously through regarding the pros and cons of getting vaccinated or not.

Leahy: So walk us through your own personal decision. You have one child. Are you currently expecting another child?

Bolsar: Yes. And I am only just out of my first trimester. And so for the past few weeks, while I’ve been watching the rhetoric and these policies be handed down, I was in that boat where there’s not just a little bit of data on successful outcomes in terms of women who are vaccinated later and their pregnancy and successfully given birth.

There is no data. And that’s a very difficult position to be in. And I can tell you I am getting mixed recommendations from doctors. Some of them tell me to get it at all cost, while others told me, don’t.

Most definitely hold off, at least until you’re in the first trimester and risk assess after that. So there is not a clear consensus in the medical community. And it’s important that that the lack of that consensus is better reflected on the national stage in terms of our policies.

I do believe that women who are expecting are in that group where if there are vaccine mandates, they would be able to get a medical exemption. But once again, this is forcing women to reveal their fertility status and very private information early on in their pregnancy before some are ready.

I do know there’s a number of individuals out there that are especially prominent in the Black community where women are concerned about the long-term implications of the vaccine on their fertility.

And this does not mean they’re anti-vaxxers. All this means is they want to wait a bit longer for more information to be given to them that reassures them that this vaccine will have no negative implications for their fertility.

Leahy: Kelsey Bolsar, that’s a very articulate explanation of the concerns that pregnant women have about whether or not to take the COVID-19 vaccine. We certainly wish you well with your pregnancy and look forward to more of your reporting. Kelsey, thanks so much for joining us today on The Tennessee Star Report.

Bolsar: Thank you.

Listen to the full second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.