Capitol Report Full Broadcast (Nov. 5)

Good evening and welcome to the Capital Report on N2D television. I'm Steve Lance. Here's what's coming up. President Trump saying after the GOP losses on election night and about communism and common sense and the Trump administration's response to the president's tariff case. Major U.S. airports will have to reduce capacity by this Friday. That's if the government shutdown continues, what the FAA is saying. And 24 years after the 9-11 terror attacks that took down the World Trade Towers in New York City, the Big Apple has elected its first Muslim mayor, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. What's next for the largest city in America? And what lessons will each party learn from the results? In the Supreme Court weighing President Trump's emergency tariff authority, but what's at stake? Former federal prosecutor Jim Trustee will join us to discuss. This is Capital Report, live from our global headquarters in our nation's capital. Here's Steve Lance. And the Trump administration saying that it is optimistic after attending the SCOTUS arguments on President Trump's global tariffs and President Trump himself speaking to business leaders in Miami today reacting to last night's election results. We now go live to NTD's Washington correspondent, Mari Otsu, who is live at the White House. Good evening, Mari. So what is the administration saying about the president's major tariff case in front of the Supreme Court? Steve, good evening. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant is saying that he's very optimistic about the Supreme Court case that's considering the legality of President Trump's global tariffs. Besant attended the arguments today and he said that the solicitor general presented, quote, strong and persuasive arguments. Besant also claimed that the plaintiffs' arguments fundamentally misunderstood and misrepresented the goal of President Trump's tariffs. And here's the president himself commenting on the case today. Watch. Well, I heard the court case went well today, but it'd be devastating for our country if we lost that. That wasn't a threat against us, that was a threat against the entire world. I did this for the world, and I can guarantee you this, if I didn't put a 100% tariff immediately on China, the entire world would be closed up. Every camera, every iPhone here would have been subject to a Chinese patrol. Because he had the ability to threaten a 100% tariff, he was able to successfully execute on foreign policy. President Trump has repeatedly emphasized that without his tariffs, there would be no national security. And meanwhile, President Trump today is reminiscing on his election victory exactly a year ago today, while lamenting the Republican election losses of last night. Take a look. I'm a very modest person, I would never say this. The single most consequential election victory in American history. President Trump celebrates the anniversary of his 2024 election win and proclaims the golden age of America. November 5th, 2024, the American people reclaimed our government. We restored our sovereignty. We lost a little bit of sovereignty last night in New York, but we'll take care of it, don't worry about it. While reacting to Republican losses on election night with a focus on New York City's new mayor-elect. After last night's results, the decision facing all Americans could not be more clear. We have a choice between communism and common sense. The president says that communism, Marxism and globalism have never worked. And as long as I'm in the White House, the United States is not going communist in any way, shape or form. We'll stop it, we're going to stop it. Stop this nonsense. And blames the government shutdown and his name not being on the ticket for the election losses last night. Meanwhile, President Trump urges Senate Republicans to get rid of the filibuster, saying it's the only way to end the government shutdown. I think it's very important, we have to get the country open and the way we're going to do it this afternoon is to terminate the filibuster. It's time, it's time. And we'll end up with two, three years and we'll have this country so perfect. And President Trump is now formally announcing that he's directing the Department of War to start testing nuclear weapons on what he calls an equal basis with other countries, mentioning explicitly both Russia and China. Steve, back to you. Entities, Mariotsu live at the White House. Thank you, Mari. And President Trump's tariffs were at the top of the Supreme Court's oral argument schedule today. The justices peppering the government's solicitor general with questions about the president's power to impose those global tariffs. Entities Arlene Richards explains. The Trump administration's solicitor general defended the president's power to impose global tariffs on Wednesday before a skeptical panel of Supreme Court justices. On April 2nd, President Trump determined that our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe. He further pronounced that the traffic of fentanyl and other opioids into our country has created a public health crisis taking hundreds of thousands of American lives. President Trump has declared that these emergencies are country-killing and not sustainable, that they threaten the bedrock of our national and economic security, and that fixing them will make America a strong, financially viable, and respected country again. A handful of small businesses in 12 Democratic states have accused the president of overstepping his authority by imposing global tariffs where the law doesn't allow it. They maintain that only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Tariffs are taxes. They take dollars from Americans' pockets and deposit them in the U.S. Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress below. Yet here, the president bypassed Congress and imposed one of the largest tax increases in our lifetimes. Many doctrines explain why this is illegal, like the presumption that Congress speaks clearly when it imposes taxes and duties and the major questions doctrine. But it comes down to common sense. It's simply implausible that in enacting IEPA, Congress handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process. The court is not expected to make a ruling today, but it appears that the justices are concerned about the Trump administration's regulation of tariffs globally, with several justices questioning whether he properly interpreted the statute in question. Arlene Richards, NTD News. New Yorkers have chosen their new mayor in an election that broke records and set precedents. NTD correspondent Luis Martinez has New Yorkers' reactions to those results New Yorkers have elected Sohan Mamdani to be their next mayor. Mamdani will be the city's first Muslim mayor and the second youngest in its history. Mamdani won with just over 50% of the popular vote here in New York City, while close to half of New Yorkers also voted for a more moderate alternative in Andrew Cuomo. I spoke with New Yorkers about what the election results mean for them and for the city. But he has some type of energy where he has eyes. He just has that where we're going to go with this young guy, just like a young Obama. We got a president, a young president, the energy. Now we have a mayor, and this is a great mayor. People got to realize, take a real good look. Because I'm from communist country, and I'm scared a little bit what is going on. So I escaped from communists, and so to escape again, I don't think is right. But I hope he's not doing what he's promised. It's their choice. I don't know if they know what they are doing. So I escaped in 1989 when the communists was there, claiming they are socialists, because they are hiding behind socialist more, and communists, and then became dictatorship. But I hope Zoran is not becoming this way. I'm actually very happy and satisfied that change is coming. I don't think a mayor can make a city like New York really communist or socialist, as they say. I don't think so. This is my opinion. And then maybe most of you were afraid the fact I was too young. I was young in experience so far. Well, we weren't pleased, but whatever. We're scared of Trump too, so we just go with it and see what happens. That's all we can do. We hope for the best. I don't know about his idea about city-run grocery stores, but whatever it takes, I don't know. We'll see where it goes. Or a flat tax for everybody right across the board. Everybody pay the same, I think. Everybody ought to be taxed equally. It remains to be seen how Mayor Alexa Horne-Mamdani will fulfill his promises of expanding by a massive amount welfare programs in the city. Any revenue through increased taxes would have to go through the state legislature and then be signed by the governor. And Governor Hochul has already expressed her opposition to any increased taxes. Reporting from New York City, New York, Luis Eduardo Martinez, NTD News. Mamdani says if ICE agents or anyone else breaks the law, they'll be held accountable. Just while the Department of Homeland Security says many of those video clips of ICE agents showing actions are all done in self-defense. NTD correspondent Jason Blair has more. In response to a question New York Mayor-elect Zoran Mamdani shares a message to ICE agents and quote, everyone across the city. Everyone will be held to the same standard of the law. If you violate the law, you must be held accountable. And there is sadly a sense that is growing across this country that certain people are allowed to violate that law. On Sunday, Mamdani also shared his view on a possible National Guard deployment. I agree with Police Commissioner Tist that we do not need the National Guard in New York City. The Department of Homeland Security had been reporting a 1,000% increase of attacks on ICE agents. However, recently they're now saying that number is an 8,000% increase. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons told Fox News that U.S. leaders need to tone down the rhetoric. And the problem is so many on the left and there are so many people opposed to us that a lot of the tactics that you are seeing are in self-defense. So what I say to any elected official that doesn't like immigration action right now is to work with us. Tone down the rhetoric. Stop putting targets on ICE agents' backs. And Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says that this October a record was broken related to border crossings. Noem says, quote, history made the lowest border crossings in October history and the sixth straight month of zero releases. This is the most secure border ever. In a document, the DHS reports that this October broke the previous record by 29%, which was set in 2012. Jason Blair, NTD News. Major airports across the country will have to reduce capacity by this Friday. That is, if the government shutdown persists. Here's more from the FAA. We've identified 40 high traffic environment markets. We'll be happy to share that later. We have decided that a 10% reduction in scheduled capacity would be appropriate to, again, continue to take the pressure off of our controllers. And as we continue to see staffing triggers, there will be additional measures that will be taken in those specific markets. Bedford says that air traffic controllers have been working without pay for five weeks and fatigue is building in the system, adding that his agency needs to relieve some of that pressure. The FAA chief says that his holistic measure will ensure the safety of the United States airspace. And he says he wants American travelers to know that it is still safe to fly. The ongoing government shutdown breaking records at 36 days, now becoming the longest in American history. President Trump is doubling down on calls for Republicans to change a major Senate rule, the filibuster, to bypass Democrats and reopen the government with only GOP votes. NTV's Melina Weisskopf reports. Remember, this is the first time in the history of America that any party has had the audacity to close down the government over a totally clean, nonpartisan, continued resolution. As the shutdown breaks record for the longest in history, President Trump is pushing for a change in course. At a breakfast meeting this morning with Republican senators, President Trump doubled down on his calls for Republicans to change Senate rules to bypass Democrats on this. He said that yesterday's elections didn't go well for Republicans because of the shutdown and predicts the midterms could go badly for Republicans if nothing changes soon. It's time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that's terminate the filibuster. It's the only way you can do it. And if you don't terminate the filibuster, you'll be in bad shape. We won't pass any legislation. The filibuster is what requires 60 votes for legislation to pass in the Senate, which means that with the current makeup, at least seven Democrats are needed to pass the short-term funding bill. Now, Republican leaders have previously brushed off Trump's calls to end the filibuster, being concerned about what it would mean if they lose power to Democrats and they're able to pass their agenda easier in the future. And I'm not going to vote to change it. I don't think soon we'll even bring it to the floor. I don't think that's going to necessarily stop the president from asking. We'll see if Trump's insistent pushing on this front will ultimately change their minds. Now, some Democrats have joined Republicans on this short-term funding bill, but not enough to get it across the finish line. I still don't know exactly what it is they want. We have accommodated a lot of their questions and concerns. They want to have a discussion about health care. We offered that up a long time ago. Now, there are bipartisan talks underway among a small group of rank-and-file senators, but no leaders involved. It's unclear at this point if that will make a difference. Democrat leader Schumer wouldn't say where he stands on these backdoor negotiations. Look, as I said, we had a great caucus. We discussed all of the options. Thank you. Now, some lawmakers are predicting the shutdown could come to an end by this week, especially since the election is over now. Senator Mullen saying Democrats have told him they got the green light to vote with the Republicans on this after yesterday's election. Listen. Schumer told Dick Durbin that, listen, after the election, we'll let you guys go, let you vote on how you want to vote, and open the government back up. Pretty soon lawmakers will have to look at a new bill to extend government funding even further than the November 21st deadline, but it's unclear at this point if anything in that new bill will be different beyond the extended timeline. Reporting from Washington, D.C., Melina Weisskopf, NTV News. And coming up, the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments on President Trump's authority to issue emergency tariffs. Which side does the court seem to be leaning toward? Former federal prosecutor Jim Trustee will join us with analysis after the break. What you've been waiting for. Shen Yun. Get tickets now at ShenYun.com. They're just young people. Hungry, homeless, and vulnerable. Covenant House is helping young adults facing homelessness. We're providing safe shelter to thousands. But the need is overwhelming. Please call or go online now. With your gift of $19 a month, we'll send you this blanket as a reminder of the comfort your gift provides a young person tonight. You'll provide safe shelter, hot meals, and medical care. Call the number on your screen or go online to safeplacetosleep.org. Judge Napolitano here. Are you watching gold prices? They're not just rising, they're soaring. In just 12 months, gold has surged to more than $3,700 an ounce. And now Goldman Sachs, the same experts who predicted that rise, are saying gold could reach $4,500 or more in the next year. So what's behind this historic move? Global currencies are falling and big money is in a panic. That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts. And as long as paper money keeps losing value, they'll keep buying. So do what I did. Buy gold from the only company I trust, Lear Capital. Give them a call today, you'll be glad you did. Claim your free gold investor kit now. Discover how easy it is to own gold, ship to you, or add it to your IRA. Also ask how you can get up to $20,000 in bonus gold with a qualified purchase. Call 800-885-6000. 800-885-6000. Hi, I'm Smokey Bear, and I made an assistant to help you out. Because only you can prevent wildfires. Hey, Assistant Smokey Bear, call me Papa Bear because I'm grilling up dinner. Did you get it? Yes, good job. So what should I do with all these coals? Don't just toss them out. Put them in a metal container because those embers can start a wildfire. I understand. The stakes are high. Ha, ha, ha, ha. See, Smokey thinks I'm funny. Welcome back to the Capital Report. I'm Steve Lance. Today, the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments on President Trump's authority to issue emergency tariffs. What might come out of the case? Joining us now to discuss is Jim Trustee, former federal prosecutor. Jim, great to have you back with us. So the justices had really tough questions for both sides. How are you reading this case based on the line of questioning? Are there any indications when the justices are sort of giving both sides a hard time? Yeah, I mean, look, it's tough because these guys are professional interlocutors, and there's times where there's devil's advocacy, and they can be pretty good at masking where they're coming from. But I think this is going to be a problematic case for the administration. I think I thought that before, and really hearing what some of Justice Coney Barrett and Justice Roberts had to say today was pretty worrisome in terms of the use of this particular law for tariffs. You know, this is a law that's based on the idea that in emergencies, Congress will delegate the power to control trade to the president. And it's very unclear, and that's what this argument was all about, very unclear as to whether the emergency power to regulate commerce means you can levy taxes or tariffs across the board against a whole bunch of different countries. So I think they have real issues with what the intent of this statute, this International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEPA, whether it's supposed to allow you to do tariffs in the first place. And then is it really an emergency if you're imposing tariffs on almost every country in the world? You know, it's one thing for Canada, Mexico, China to say this is an emergency based on fentanyl. But when you get down to, you know, Trinidad and Tobago and Australia, and you're saying, I just want to make trade fair, that sounds like something that creates this separation of powers issue that the court seems to be leaning against. That's just it, Jim. You know, when it appears to be perhaps somewhat subjective, yet you have very pressing issues on the table, like you said, the fentanyl crisis. Trump says that he used the tariffs to leverage India and Pakistan to stop, you know, potentially both nuclear powers from a major clash. And then, of course, China that infiltrates the United States in various asymmetric ways that we can't do over there. And so another way we can push back on them is tariffs. Are there any other avenues to protect our sovereignty in these particular cases? Yeah, it's a great question, and I don't pretend to have a perfect answer for it. I mean, look, there are other areas of delegation that we might be able to use instead of the IEPA, the Emergency Economics Power Act. And frankly, you know, I think the safest bet here, if you could pull it off politically, would be to have Congress backing it up every step of the way. You know, Congress, if that's where the primary authority to levy tariffs is, you know, have them kind of cleaning up behind the elephants a little bit, you know, as the parade marches on of, I think, pretty undeniable success in using tariffs without harming the American economy. If Congress would somehow validate it on the back end, maybe that would be a way to keep this in place. But you're right to point to the problem, which is, you know, this has been used apparently quite successfully in a number of different avenues. And the disruption by saying he no longer can use this statute, does not have this power, has to give money back to importers, it could be a very disruptive moment where, I guess, only if you're a complete free trade person that doesn't believe in tariffs are you going to be happy with that outcome. And I mean, I don't know about the Supreme Court's daily briefings. Do they get an intel briefing that perhaps could open their eyes to some of this? I don't know. But you raise, you know, another important question with regard to the economy, another subjective item. Trump's, you know, legal team warning that a ruling against him could have catastrophic consequences for the nation's economic health. In simple terms, can you help explain this and would it be viable for that reason? Well, I mean, I think the starting point is the court is going to view this as, you know, kind of a self-created problem. If they rule against the administration, they're going to say, yes, this is disruptive as heck, and it's going to create problems where the Treasury has to calculate refunds to a number of importers who have essentially paid the tax. But it's a strange scenario. I mean, you've had, you know, months of these probably billions and billions, at least in the dozens, if not hundreds of billions, that have been imposed by way of these tariffs, and suddenly you're being told Treasury has to let go of all that. I know the Supreme Court cares about practical consequences, but I think from the questioning, again, from Roberts and from Coney Barrett, asking questions like, you know, to John Sauer, the representative for the administration, you're saying that this president under IEPA can basically levy taxes for every country in the world for unlimited times and unlimited amounts. I mean, that type of question tells me they realize that the separation of powers issue is so powerful to them that they're not going to care too much or they're not going to be overwhelmed by the practical consequences. So, you know, we'll see, but it's not, didn't look like a great day for the administration. You know, the CCP has been out in full, full-fledged on K Street in Korea and really lobbying against these tariffs. Now, if the court rules against Trump, would the government need to refund the $195 billion as it's being reported that it's collected so far since September in tariff revenue? Yeah, I mean, that's the big devil in the details. It does suggest that that's a possible outcome, and how that gets calculated, how that gets distributed, when that gets distributed, seems like there's going to be a cottage industry of litigation that blows up after that. And Jim, how would such a ruling affect our national security? And do you think it might prompt some of these foreign governments that we've made close deals with or solidified deals with to perhaps renegotiate some of these recent trade agreements? Yeah, it does give them that leverage, and that's a worrisome moment. And again, maybe the force of personality wins out when President Trump can keep all those deals in place. But it's going to be a real temptation, excuse me, and a real opportunity for some of our less friendly countries to say, well, you know, you've been undercut by your own court. Let's start from scratch. Now, Jim, I want to turn our attention to the Big Apple, New York City's new mayor-elect, Democratic Socialist Zoran Mamdani. President Trump posted on Truth Social after Mamdani's win saying, and so it begins, just, you know, four short words with an exclamation point. Can the president withhold federal funding or deploy the National Guard there? And could he increase ICE operations within the city? How do you see this all playing out? Probably with a lot of litigation and a lot of lawyers, unfortunately. I mean, look at Chicago, that might be a bit of a preview. And so, look, the National Guard part is certainly inflammatory. It leads to litigation. I think it actually leads to a reduction in crime just based on deterrence because they're not there to make arrests. They're there to support other federal agents. Whether he plays that part or not, I'm not sure. But, you know, a surge in federal investigations and federal resources being poured into any particular locality is a completely fair game. And most fair-minded politicians would realize, hey, you know, if they want to give us more ICE, more DEA, more FBI to take on street crime in our city, we'll take it. So that one I think, you know, not only is it constitutionally protected, there's no such thing as sanctuary cities in the eyes of the Constitution. But I think practically that's a move that would be hard for any mayor to really thwart. He can complain, he can moan, he can sue, he can find some friendly judges maybe like they did in Chicago at first. But eventually that's going to bubble up to an appellate court that says, you know, you do not have the power as a local governor or mayor to thwart federal law enforcement taking place in your jurisdiction. So I think the president has some options that are safe in terms of trying to fight crime. In terms of funding, you know, the shutdown might be a part of this. We can kind of use the shutdown as a vehicle for also thwarting particularized local spending. But at the end of the day, you know, the president's power over the purse is very limited. And when he wants to fight, when he wants to have rescission of funding that's already been delegated by Congress, you're limited to essentially the same fiscal year. So if you really want to get the money rescinded, you have to go through Congress and get them to say we take everything back from last year. That's a tough sell. But if you have the ability of stuff that's in stream to delay it, you're allowed to do that for several months at a time. So maybe the president does that on some of the macroeconomic ideas in terms of grants and spending that's in New York City. But I'm not sure. I think he might have been commenting more broadly that New York has actually succumbed to the foolishness of putting a socialist in power, and it was more of a ruining the day for New York than any sort of announcement of a plan. Time will certainly tell. We'll have a clearer idea come January when the new mayor officially takes office. Jim Trustee, as always, appreciate your insight. And just one day after Prop 50 passing in California, a group of Republicans filed a lawsuit challenging the state's new congressional maps. Opponents of the measure say the maps favor Democrats and give an advantage to certain groups of voters. Entity's Christina Corona reports. California state Republicans filed a lawsuit Wednesday after voters approved Prop 50 for the next three election cycles. The measure allows Democratic lawmakers to redraw congressional districts, which could affect as many as five U.S. House seats. Assemblyman David Tanguipah, the state GOP, and 18 voters filed the lawsuit arguing the maps violate the U.S. Constitution. This violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law and the right under the 15th Amendment to not have one's vote abridged on account of race. The lawsuit seeks to block Prop 50's new maps arguing they're unconstitutional for using race in redistricting. The map is designed to favor one race of California voters over others. Attorney Mike Colombo says officials focused on increasing the power of Latino voters, the largest voter group in the state. When drawing the Proposition 50 map, the chief consultant who drew the map has stated that the first thing that he did was to increase the power of Latino voters. The Supreme Court allows states to consider race in redistricting, but Colombo says the intent is to help minority voters pick their preferred candidates. There is no majority race in California more than Hispanics. Hispanics have had fantastic success in electing candidates of their choice. Colombo says the new maps appear to give certain groups more influence. They are asking the court to keep California's current maps for the 2026 midterms. They have weaponized this entire process and have lied to the California voters. The chair of the Elections Committee didn't even know that the maps had changed while we were voting on them. They are asking a federal three-judge panel to strike down the Prop 50 maps and restore the commission's maps. Prop 50 passed Tuesday night with 63 percent of voters in favor and 36 percent opposed. Democrats say the measure was designed to counter efforts in other states to add Republican seats in Congress. And the U.S. Court of Appeals has cleared the way for Florida to enforce its ban on Chinese land buyers, a law that nearly blocks them from buying property in the state of Florida. Find out more tonight on China In Focus with Tiffany Meyer at 9 p.m. Eastern. And coming up, we'll sit down with Terry Smith, who shares her story of leaving the progressive left. She'll unpack the ideology's underpinnings and the movement and what ultimately led her to shift her worldview. That's just after the break. We come from a long line of farmers and there's a sense of pride in being part of these multigenerational businesses. But there's also a significant amount of pressure. My senior year of high school, my dad made the decision that this world no longer needed him. I don't know if he was overwhelmed by the bills and checks that weren't going to be coming in because of the strawberries dying off, but it breaks my heart that my dad made a permanent decision for a temporary issue. Don't feel like you have to go through it alone. Farmers have to take care of their physical and their mental health, because what's a farm without a farmer? The mornings, that's my time. Watching the sun come up, I can have a cup of coffee and exercise if I want to. It helps me start the day with a sense of gratitude. Every day is a new opportunity. Don't forget to check in on yourself. Love, your mind. During high school, I hung with the wrong crowd and I never graduated. I helped Santiago in many different ways like all fathers do, because he always wanted to go to college. I felt a little embarrassed to come back to school, but eventually, once I came here, I knew that it's for a bigger goal. He was very dedicated, hardworking. He connected with his teachers. He connected with other students. That was one of the key reasons why he was able to keep forging ahead. It was amazing to see him graduate. This was one thing that meant so much to him, and of course, it meant so much to us too. With the help of my father and having my son, that was all the motivation that I needed. That support is everything. Find free adult education classes near you at finishyourdiploma.org. And now to a preview of NTD's new program, One on One. Today, I sat down with Kerri Smith, host of Deprogrammed with Kerri Smith. She shares how she changed her perspective from a social justice warrior to now calling it a cult-like belief system. Kerri Smith, thank you so much for sitting down with us. Thank you for having me. It's great to have you with us, Kerri. Zoran Mamdani, going to be the next mayor of New York City. What do you think this says about the political climate right now in the United States and ultimately for New York? I think it says that young people especially are very concerned about affordability. And they should be because young people today are, the dollar doesn't go as far as it did for their parents. A lot of them are faced with a future where they may never be able to own anything, to own a home, to own a car. And so I think he really spoke to that, to that disaffected young population. But what I think is a problem, what's concerning to me is that his solution for these problems is socialism. It's something that we know throughout history has failed. And it sounds very good on the surface. It sounds, you know, everything's going to be free. Don't worry. Nothing is free. Somebody's paying for it. Even you, you're going to be paying for it or the kids are going to be paying for it down the road. But young people, I think, they haven't had a good understanding of history. In part, I think the public schools have failed them. So they don't know. They don't have any real-world experience of socialism within their lifetimes, in their country. But to that mindset, to that, you know, I guess young, liberal-minded person, isn't the billionaire class going to pay for it, not me? Yes. I think that, you know, it's very convenient. The politics of resentment is usually, it's usually sold to people as, you know, all of your problems, your situation in life, all of these issues are the fault of this one scapegoat class. Like it's this one scapegoat group, right? And so he's been very effective at saying, it's billionaires, billionaires are to blame. What happens is over time, when you give in to that politics of resentment, is that group, the scapegoat group, the definition grows and it expands. We've seen this throughout history. And so, you know, to people in other parts of the world, for example, here in the US, you may as well be a part of the billionaire class. You know, you, you're going to be in with that group at some point. And so, I think he's been really effective at selling the idea that it's, we need to take the fruits of other people's labor and give it to you without people realizing that at some point, they're going to be taking the fruits of your labor as well. So. In the meantime, going viral, post election is his photograph at his campaign watch party with the billionaire, George Soros, his son, Alex. So maybe certain ones are okay to mingle with. We don't have to get into that. How would you say sort of the Marxist worldview influenced you growing up? So I went to, I was blessed to go to two really great schools. I went to a science and math school in South Carolina. The government school for science and math for 11th and 12th grade. And then I went to Duke university and I got a very good education, but even I did not learn anything really about Marxism, socialism, communism. And so I, I didn't know about these things until later in life. However, at college, I was also picking up this, what is now colloquially called woke ideology. Back then we were calling it social justice, but I was introduced to Marxist concepts and it was presented in a positive way. And I was reading a lot of, we were reading a lot of feminist theory, critical theory that was derived from Marx. and so that whole belief system that I was in woke ideology, it, it's, it's based on, it has roots in Marxism. And so how did it affect me? Well, I mean, over time it convinced me that I was part of an oppressed group. It, it gave me this sense of this victimhood politics of resentment, victimhood identity. It told me that there was a scapegoat group that, you know, men were a scapegoat group. White people, I myself was in one of these groups, an oppressor group. And so it shaped my entire worldview. I ended up, after picking that up at college, I was in that belief system for about 20 years. And you mentioned the disaffected young people that came out from Mamdani, the democratic socialist, you know, that could be, I guess, you know, the same thing as somebody viewing themselves as being oppressed. And with his sort of, you know, rhetoric, it can really tap into people's emotions and situation. Yeah. I think he, he actually, it's interesting. In 2020, he online, if you look at a lot of stuff he was talking about, then he really was pushing the identity Marxism, the woke stuff more about things about race and sex and sexuality, all the different identity Marxist categories. And. Possibly because I do, I do believe woke is on the decline in, in Trump's election is evidence of that. To me, I think politics is downstream from culture, like a lot of people say. And so it's interesting to me that Mamdani kind of went back to more of the, like the bare bones Marxist. He went back to the class focused Marxism instead of making it as much about, he still talked about, he still brought woke stuff into it, but he really made it about that class resentment instead of identity group resentment. What do you say to the folks that say, Hey, that's what Trump did in terms of going after the forgotten man and, and worker to, to really create a new Republican party. There's a difference between talking to people who are forgotten and are overlooked. And then telling those people that their sense of value and worth and identity and their status in society is related to their race or their sex or their sexuality, or even their class. And when you do that, you're telling them in a sense, like you are uniquely oppressed, you know, more than anyone else. And it's because of these immutable characteristics, or it's because of this. And it, and that puts you into this place of rooting your whole identity. And some of the things that are, I mean, arguably some of the least important things about you that don't speak to your character at all. You discussed before how language is a powerful tool in the process of, you know, this type of discourse. Why do you think that is? Well, I think Orwell wrote about this a lot. He talked about how in some of his, his nonfiction writing about how, if you want to control people, you have to control their thoughts. You have to control how they think and how do you control the way we, people think you control the language. And let's take woke ideology as an example, my old religion, right? Like all cults, it's very focused on your language. And it's come up with a number of new terms. It coins new terms and new phrases to shape how we think. So it's come up with words, phrases like toxic masculinity, like cisgender, you know, white privilege, white fragility. It coins all these new terms and tells you these are things we've now put a label to it, right? And the other thing it does that cults do is they redefine existing terms. And so you can see that woke has done that as well. They woke has redefined what it even means to be a woman where you have, and it's been so influential that, I mean, we have politicians now, people who are running the country who can't define what a woman is. We have a Supreme court justice who is a woman who can't define what a woman is. And so it really controls once you start abiding by a cult dictionary or a cult lexicon, you learn very quickly in this kind of cult, that there are things you can't say anymore and things that you have to say now. And you will abide by that. And over time it will shape the way you think, look at, look at. So back when I was in woke, we were very focused on at the time. One of the things we were doing is we were writing complaints. We had these different campaigns I was involved in to write complaints to journalists, to encourage them to quit using the phrase illegal alien, and to instead use the phrase undocumented Americans. Now, why would you do that? Well, because over time, if everyone starts calling them undocumented Americans, you're now thinking of them as American citizens. They're not, but you, so you've shaped the way people think. It sounds like a bit of a slate of hands. It is. So you, you, you refer to it as sort of a, this ideology, as this cult, like being part of the cult. Talk to us about how you were able to break through or break free from it through your spirituality. Yeah. So at the time I didn't realize that spirituality had anything to do with me leaving it. I actually, the, the breakthroughs happened because it it ramped up and, and, and so I started my, my awakening, I guess, if you will, or when I started becoming aware that this ideology was not what I thought it was for so long. That happened for me around 2016 and 2017. And it was when I was confronted with evidence that caused such a severe, like cognitive dissonance for me, for me, it was seeing videos of people on my side, but that quote, like people on the left attacking Trump supporters violently. I saw videos. I went on this rabbit hole of people on the left attacking Trump supporters, like chasing them down outside of Trump events, mobbing from bricks at them. I saw this one guy bloodied. I saw them egging this girl and I didn't know any of that was happening. And I had, I was so plugged into my echo chamber, this little social justice world and all the media I consumed was in that world. All the people I knew were in that world. I had done the cult thing. I had done all the unfriendings of people who were not in my cult. And, and so I had believed this narrative that Trump supporters were violent, the right was violent. And then when I saw these videos, like it left me shaken. It left, it affected me emotionally. Um, but my first response was not to think, Oh, I'm in the wrong belief system. I should leave. No. At first I was thinking, Oh, we have to stop this. Things are going wrong. This is not who we are. And so I tried talking about that. And, um, I, it took me a while, but over time I realized that that kind of, uh, violence, political violence is not, uh, a bug for, for woke ideology or social justice. It's a feature. It's part of it. It's built into it because the response I got from people in my belief system was that this was justified. And pretty soon after that, I saw footage of the, um, BLM protest in Dallas where a sniper assassinated, I think it was six police officers and some civilians died as well. And the people in my cult were saying things like, well, some old white men are going to have to die during the revolution. And I was like, well, I thought we, I thought we were liberals. Like I thought part of the reason we don't like the right is because we, you know, we say they're violent. We think they're violent. Why are we doing this? And so that was the beginning of me leaving the spirituality for me. Didn't come in until later. No, you have said that the belief belief in God is really the only anecdote to communism. Um, throughout your journey, were you always Christian? And then, or did you, and, and it was just sort of through a process of saying, Hey, this doesn't align with my Christian values or, um, did you find spirituality? And then that was what helped, you know, kind of open your eyes to what you're seeing. No, I was, I was very explicitly anti-Christian. I was very bigoted. I had become very bigoted towards Christians. Um, the, the younger version of me would be horrified that I've become a Christian. So I had a lot, I picked up this and I think a lot of people who, who claim to be agnostic. I, I thought I was agnostic, but in actuality, I was, I was a bigot towards Christians. And, um, I thought I was smarter than them. A lot of people who, um, especially young people, I think, um, think that, you know, only dumb people believe in God. And, um, and so I thought I was smarter. And that's, that's a belief or a thought perpetuating. Oh yes. How many times? So now that I am a believer, which again, old me would be like cringe, you know, but, but now that I'm a believer and I've gotten over that embarrassment of like, oh, I guess people are going to learn I'm a weirdo Christian now. Right. And the, you know, online and stuff. And even in real life, sometimes you get these comments all the time where people are like, oh, you believe in a sky daddy. These kind of condescending, um, comments. And they're definitely coming from a place of false intellectual and moral superiority. Yeah. Where they look down on you and think you're, you know, gullible and, you know, only a dumb person could believe that. And, um, so I had a lot of that. I had a lot of their like anti-Christian sentiment. Um, can I share an anecdote with you? Yes, please. So I had become so anti-Christian that I, I mean, Christmas, I would go out of my way to send offensive anti-Christian cards to my family. Like I would find cards that kind of made fun of Christianity. I had, I remember I sent one that was a picture of baby Jesus in the manger. And then, um, Jesus was saying, don't Bush, you know, I made it political. It was like a, you know, in your face kind of like, who does that? Um, you know, if I was at a family gathering and my aunt or someone was praying, I would pointedly like not the painting, that kind of thing. And, um, it was just very angry. Wait, do you think that that stemmed from something that was, was learned through being more political on the left? Yes, because now that I've had the benefit of time and distance from it, I, I do believe that woke ideology functions as a belief system as a religion itself. And it's threatened by a belief in the creator. That's why I say God is an antidote to tyranny. God's an antidote to Marxism because, um, and, and I was just talking about this with someone, um, in your green room. If you look at history and you look at every communist dictatorship, um, they always do what they can to suppress, um, religion. They always do what they can to suppress a belief in a creator. They find those things to be a threat. Um, because if you believe in something that's bigger than yourself and bigger than government, there's nothing that a tyrannical government can take from you that matters more than that. They can take things from you. They can even take your life, but they can't take your faith in God. They can't rip that from you. You believe in something higher than them. That's more important than government. so that's why, that's why God is a threat to tyranny because they want you to fear them. They want you to worship them. When I was leaving this belief system, as I mentioned, Jordan Peterson really helped me as he did a lot of people as he had a lot of people. And I heard a lecture of his from the eighties. I saw an old lecture of his and it was about the Bible. It was about the story of Cain and Abel. And at that time, of course, like I said, I had a lot of prejudice towards Christianity and he talked about that story and he said, even if you don't believe in God or believe that these stories are like really happened, that you could look at these Bible stories as some of the oldest stories ever told. Why have they survived? If you're not a believer, why have they survived? Is there any value in them? And he, he was arguing that there's value in them as a way of understanding human nature. And he said the story of Cain and Abel, even if you're nonbeliever, you could look at that as a story of two different ways of being in the world and Cain's way of being in the world. It was resentful of resentment, full of entitlement. I deserve this. Why don't I have this? Why does my brother have it? I don't have it. Anger, that sort of path. And the other path is if you look at the Abel, Abel was, it was, he was full of gratitude. He was hardworking. He made sacrifices that were pleasing to the Lord. And when I heard that and I heard about these two ways of being, even though I wasn't a believer at that time, I started thinking about myself and I started evaluating every day. We have a myriad of choices that we make. And in all of those cases, I started thinking, am I behaving like Cain in this choice or am I behaving like Abel? And if you do that and you do that kind of evaluation, like you will root the Cain out of yourself. And it will be because you will start to realize the ways in which you have maybe given yourself over to the politics of resentment and the politics of blaming others. And you will become happier person. You will become a more grateful person. And, and I don't think you will be as easily tricked and fooled by ideologies that prey upon that resentment that is growing in you. Sounds like real, honest self-reflection can yield some really profound results. As it can. Terry Smith, really appreciate you sitting down with us. Thank you very much, Steve. And that is all we have for you tonight on the Capitol report for round the clock, original news coverage. Be sure to visit us at ntd.com and download the entity mobile app from the nation's Capitol. I'm Steve Lance. Have a nice evening. We'll see you back here tomorrow.