The following is a transcript from the Pro America Report.
Welcome, welcome. Welcome, Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report. Awesome. Awesome. To be together. I didn’t design it this way, but we have two guests today that are going to be talking about how we all get along, marriage, family, all sorts of stuff. Both guys are leaders in the field and I’m kind of pumped to reconnect with one of them, Scott Phelps, who has been a longtime leader in education, abstinence education, sex education from the side of being smart and good, not a Planned Parenthood wanting to promote bad behavior and abortion. So we’ll talk with him today. It’s been a while since I’ve caught up with him.
We also will have a chance to visit with. Let me see if I can say it correctly. His name is J.P. He’s the head of communio.org J.P. and it is. Ohh, hold on. Hold on. Wait for me. Wait for me. Don’t give up on me. Don’t. Give up on me. It is De Gance De Gance and very good guy. So we’ll talk with him too. Alright?
But today what you need to know what you need to know today is that it is very, very important to pause and let me explain to you what exactly is happening in terms. Of lawfare. Because Donald Trump is spending the first part of the week in court in New York with a very liberal judge who seems so happy to have him in court and to have a chance to make him suffer through it as well as the the backdrop is it’s a civil case about his business practices and that they are going to the. The Attorney general, who said she’s gonna get uh Trump is leading this charge. This is. The one about. How much it’s worth. How much Mar-a-Lago is worth, and that the the civil crime. It’s not a crime. But so the civil infraction is that they, somehow Trump didn’t put the right amount for the value of Mar a Lago. And the banks didn’t complain. They got paid back. The insurance companies didn’t complain. They got paid. Probably more. It’s a it’s a sort of an alleged violation of the law with no victim, no victim, no victim at all. So here we are.
This is the definition of lawfare. Lawfare is using the process, the court process to make you spend time and money and spend your energy. And right now, we have New York State. You know, there’s a woman who alleges all sorts of things against Trump and the the courts, the civil, the criminal. Statute of limitations long ago ran, so it’s just a civil complaint. Trump did something to her. The court came back, and the jury said he did not do that to her. I think it was assault. But that he did defame her.
How can you defame somebody for something she’s saying that you did this and you’re saying no, I didn’t. And they say he defamed her anyway. So he’s in court for that.
He’s in court for this one. This is about valuation of Mar-a-lago. He’s in court in New York, in D.C. over the the documents cases. He’s in court in Georgia. He’s in court in Florida. He’s in court, in court, in court. This is the process is the penalty and this is what I want you to know. What you need to know is pause for a second and let me explain to you this.
In the last 50 years. Let’s go back 50 years ago, there was an increase of what I would say was the use of the courts. To try to get judicial decisions to accomplish what should be done through the electoral process and through governing, the best example is Roe V Wade, which has now been reversed. But there have been many, many other examples, and there was a cottage industry. Of lawyers who sprung up and were complaining. And I wanna go back and I wanna actually cite this. I wanna make it clear to you.
One of the places this happened was the sort of Ralph Nader revolution where there were activists who were complaining about certain things to try to change behavior. They didn’t like automobiles. They didn’t like pollution. Therefore, they were alleging these safety violations. You can think of Greenpeace that was using sort of protest Tactics and at a certain point they realized, hey, wait, we can sue, we can use the courts of law to assert rights that we want them to either find or we want them to expand under the current law. And here’s the trick. Here’s what you need to know. We’re all the way down to today and we’re in the process. The problem spot we’re in because judges took it upon themselves. They accepted the argument that they could be arbiters of things bigger than what they should have been. In other words, you had people who started saying, judges, who started saying the Constitution is a living document. Therefore, I’m the one who can say that in 1986 we should have this meaning for the Constitution. It’s a living document. And what the logical extension of that was is I’m the judge. I can decide not just what the law is and what the words mean, but what is right, what is equitable, what is fair. That’s not supposed to be what our legal system does. Our legal system is supposed to put into place a set, the Constitution, the rule of law, and our founding values put in place a system and within the system you could count on things you could count on. There was reliability. If you signed a contract and you breached it. You could then make a claim against It if you hurt someone by hitting them over the head with a a a bat, you could be charged with battery. If you if someone was murdered, you could find the murderer and charge them with murder. There was a whole sets of way we could be together and would work together and it was very easy to have reliability. It didn’t mean that there weren’t times that there was some sort of crazy decision made. A decision that was way out of line. But there was then a a courts of appeals. And ultimately, there might be cases where you’d say, boy, that was not fair, that was not the that. That was not a just result. But you didn’t gut the system.
What happened over time was more, more and more judges took it upon themselves to be actors in the play, to be activists from the bench, to decide things like Roe V Wade, to decide things like the abortion case, Obergfell to decide to. To take upon themselves the right. And the prerogative to act in this way.
And what happened is the lawyers adjusted too. And so now you have prosecutors who ran for office and said I’m not gonna be an officer of the court. I’m gonna be a political player. I’m not gonna be someone who enforces the law. I’m gonna be a political player. You don’t have to look far. To see that we had more and more elected officials either in the executive branch or in the in the prosecutorial side. I guess that’s executive branch in places who prosecutors as well as executives, governors or others who are just gonna do what they want to do.
They don’t care what the law is.
You know Joe Biden doesn’t care what the law intended. When we said we’d have a secure border, he’s just gonna. He’s gonna say everybody’s welcome. Everyone can get asylum. We’re gonna make it so easy. And he think ohh I’m doing the right thing. I’m the one that can decide attorneys general or better. Prosecutors. Prosecutors in Big city. They say. I know that there’s laws passed. I know the laws were passed by the legislature, signed by the governor. But I don’t wanna enforce them. I don’t wanna Enforce them in These ways. No, I’m not gonna do it. And they’re making their preference put and again at one point it was policy preferences, then it became political preferences. It became political ideology, a campaign preference. And that’s where we are today.
And we’re watching absolutely, positively, the abuse of the system, if not the the, the, the abuse of the system, if not The actual breakdown of the system.
Because the the reality is You cannot sustain this.
What you need to know is you cannot sustain this system. This system of living together, if it becomes simply a matter of who’s the judge. And frankly, more and more, you’re hearing people say. Get out of the states where you can’t trust the system. So it’s no longer just ohh they they tax higher in in New York, they tax higher in certain blue states, no. They’re they’re they’re they’re willing to make your life Miserable. They’re willing to make you Spend your resources to defend yourself in manners that are, if not frivolous, they’re silly. And the judges should be the ones that are enforcing The system working better. And that’s what we’re seeing breaking down.
And again, my my point here is that it there was a time where there was some of this activism. And then over the last, you know, 25 years and then accelerating the last 10 and then it’s been the last Two years that they’ve actually used specifically against Trump.
It’s another example of something that Trump has laid bare. It’s not exactly pleasant. I don’t think he would have wanted it to go like this, but he certainly has his, the hate they have for Trump. Has forced these people to act Way outside of what would be expected and to the detriment of the country. Let me be clear, but also to the embarrassment of themselves. You would think you would think, although it may not be working that well, because I don’t know if they’re ever gonna stop. And I don’t know why they would.
As someone said about them, the incentives to act like this are aligned for reelection in a blue city for campaign support in a blue city. And and from blue supporters.
If you don’t have to pay a cost for being so wrong. And you get benefits that are so significant, we’re going to see more, not less. That’s what you Need to know.
All right We got to take a break, we will be right back. It’s Ed Martin here on The Pro America Report, back in a moment.