0:00

Coming up ice on fire.

0:02

I'm going to show you how

0:04

sanctuary cities are getting their comeuppence

0:06

as ice launches a big raid

0:09

in Boston and Massachusetts I'll celebrate

0:11

the virtues of Pierre Pualev. Make

0:13

the case for why he's the

0:15

best choice for Prime Minister in

0:18

the upcoming Canadian election. And Representative

0:20

Marlon Stutzman of Indiana joins me.

0:22

We're going to talk about what

0:25

Congress can do to move the

0:27

Trump agenda forward this year. If

0:29

you're watching on X or YouTube

0:32

or rumble, listening on Apple or

0:34

Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.

0:36

Hit the subscribe or follow or

0:38

notifications button. This is the Danosa

0:41

podcast. America

0:45

needs this voice. The

0:47

times are crazy and

0:50

a time of confusion,

0:52

division, and lies. We

0:55

need a brave voice

0:57

of reason, understanding, and

1:00

truth. This is the

1:02

Denesha Sousa podcast.

1:05

The thumbnail or

1:07

title for today's

1:10

podcast, courtesy of

1:12

Debbie. is ice on fire. So you

1:14

can see Debbie here is pretty

1:17

impressed at the interesting

1:19

contrast between the word

1:21

ice and the word fire. She's

1:24

like, how about ice on fire?

1:26

And I was a little dubious.

1:28

I was trying to come up

1:30

with other. references to ice

1:33

but she is after all

1:35

the producer and so finally

1:37

I helplessly surrendered to ice

1:39

on fire but it's actually

1:42

a good title because ice

1:44

is in full gear and it's

1:46

in full gear and and

1:48

moving quickly and what a

1:51

contrast with ice under Biden

1:53

because ice was essentially

1:55

paralyzed ice was not

1:58

even allowed to do its

2:00

basic job. Ice was in

2:02

fact rendered the opposite of

2:04

what it's supposed to do. It

2:06

was not about border security. It

2:08

was not about enforcement. It was

2:11

about non-enforcement. It was about facilitating

2:13

non-enforcement. And not only was Ice

2:15

having problems with these sanctuary cities.

2:18

Sanctuary cities in California, where there's

2:20

more than one of them. Boston

2:22

and so on. And so you

2:25

had this horrible scenario. I mean,

2:27

imagine being a border patrol guy.

2:29

It's kind of like being a

2:32

cop and being told not only

2:34

are you not allowed to go

2:36

after the criminals, you're supposed to

2:39

help them. That's essentially the position

2:41

that ICE was placed in under

2:43

Biden. It was just downright appalling.

2:46

And we now have under Tom

2:48

Holman the exact opposite. And Tom

2:50

Holman is taking the position, which

2:53

I agree with, that coming into

2:55

America unlawfully, that's what makes you

2:57

a criminal, right there. So the

2:59

left's premise, which is that you

3:02

can't abhor this guy, he hasn't

3:04

committed any crimes, well yes he

3:06

has, he's illegal, isn't he? So

3:09

that's the crime right there. And

3:11

so one doesn't need to have

3:13

further crimes. And well, you know,

3:16

he's... He's a student and he's

3:18

abided by the law. Well, what

3:20

you mean is that he's abided

3:23

by all the other laws except

3:25

the immigration law. Let's remember immigration

3:27

itself is a law and not

3:30

only is it a law, but

3:32

coming to the country illegally is

3:34

a crime. I've seen a number

3:37

of democratic, in fact, congressman. I

3:39

think I heard Jasmine Crockett, I

3:41

was at AOC, saying coming to

3:44

the country illegally, illegally, and coming

3:46

to the country illegally. Stop right

3:48

there. That is in fact, that's

3:51

not a civil offense, a civil

3:53

offense. is when you owe someone

3:55

$500 and you haven't paid them

3:58

and they sue you for the

4:00

money, that's a civil offense. But

4:02

if you steal $500 out of

4:04

somebody else's wallet, that's a crime.

4:07

You're a thief. Similarly here, coming

4:09

to the country illegally falls into

4:11

that latter category. Now, that being

4:14

said, Thomas Holman's priority is not

4:16

the guy who overstayed his visa.

4:18

but rather criminal aliens. But I

4:21

think very importantly, he has decided

4:23

to target the sanctuary cities. And

4:25

he's targeting the sanctuary cities because

4:28

it's one thing to say you've

4:30

got a guy, let's just say

4:32

from Honduras or a guy from

4:35

Taiwan, they've come illegally to the

4:37

country, they're breaking the law. That's

4:39

bad. But you know what's worse?

4:42

the mayor of Denver, praising people

4:44

who break the law, declaring that

4:46

he's in solidarity with them, declaring

4:49

that he will stand and protect

4:51

them from ICE and from the

4:53

Trump administration, and similarly Michelle Wu,

4:56

the mayor of Boston, pretty much

4:58

taking the same defiant stance. And

5:00

so Tom Holman is essentially, when

5:03

he was speaking at CPAC, he

5:05

said something very interesting. He goes,

5:07

you know... When you have a

5:10

sanctuary city, they create an infrastructure

5:12

very often made up of illegals.

5:14

Like you have illegal stash houses,

5:16

you have places where these illegals

5:19

congregate and live, you have all

5:21

kinds of social services for these

5:23

illegals, and Tom Homan is like,

5:26

well, guess what? That provides a

5:28

target of opportunity, because you've got...

5:30

dozens and some cases hundreds of

5:33

these illegals in one place boom

5:35

let's swoop in on them and

5:37

you know what then we're not

5:40

going to be making distinctions between

5:42

this guy overstate his visa you

5:44

know that guy's got you know

5:47

he's got a girlfriend who's a

5:49

US citizen no these people are

5:51

illegal once you've established that they

5:54

don't have a right to be

5:56

here the simple fact of it

5:58

is they can be rounded up

6:01

and so Boston is now a

6:03

target and ICE Boston has announced

6:05

that they have just arrested 205

6:08

of 370 illegal aliens. And these

6:10

are the people who have serious

6:12

criminal convictions or serious pending criminal

6:15

charges. And these wall people wandering

6:17

the streets of Massachusetts under the

6:19

protection of the mayor and the

6:21

infrastructure of Boston. But look at

6:24

the kind of people that they

6:26

are protecting, because this is not

6:28

your sort of run-of-the-mill. You know,

6:31

this is a guy who owes

6:33

some money on child support. No,

6:35

let's look at this. Previously deported

6:38

Dominican illegal alien charged with fentanyl

6:40

trafficking. Previously deported Honduran alien convicted

6:42

of child rape arrested in Salem,

6:45

Massachusetts. Two Brazilians wanted for murder

6:47

in their home countries arrested in

6:49

Lowell, Mass and Milford Mass. Guatemala

6:52

and Alien charged with rape of

6:54

minor released by New Bedford District

6:56

Court. Without the ice detainer being

6:59

honored. This is part of what

7:01

the sanctuary jurisdictions do is they

7:03

act like listen the federal government

7:06

can enforce the federal law, but

7:08

if it's not We in the

7:10

States don't have to cooperate with

7:13

that. That's their job. That's their

7:15

problem. So we're going to be

7:17

releasing these criminals into the streets

7:20

because it's not our job to

7:22

apprehend them. Dominican alien wanted for

7:24

homicide arrested in Dorchester. Brazilian alien

7:27

charged with manslaughter arrested in Worcester.

7:29

Brazilian fugitive who fled serving murder

7:31

sentence in Brazil, arrested in Marlborough.

7:33

Previously deported Jamaican. alien convicted of

7:36

armed robbery possession of a firearm

7:38

and an assault arrested in Pittsfield

7:40

and it goes on like this

7:43

ice Boston says five kilos of

7:45

fentanyl which equates to more than

7:47

two million lethal doses also seized

7:50

in the operation I mean look

7:52

America And I mean, look, look

7:54

Massachusetts, look Boston, do you want

7:57

these people on your street? Do

7:59

you really think you're advancing some

8:01

noble cause, social justice, what harmony,

8:04

protection of due process? What principle

8:06

are you trying to uphold here?

8:08

The answer is the only principle

8:11

that I can think of is

8:13

that these sanctuary cities were set

8:15

up to protect. the political scheme

8:18

of the left and the Biden

8:20

administration, which is import large numbers

8:22

of illegals and with the long-term

8:25

goal of converting them into supporters

8:27

and reliable voters in the Democratic

8:29

Party. And everything else is the

8:32

acceptable level of damage for doing

8:34

this. Not that they want gang

8:36

members, but they're willing to have

8:38

them. Not that they want fentanyl

8:41

trafficking, but they're willing to put

8:43

up with it. Why? Because the

8:45

overriding goal is the goal of

8:48

creating a permanent Democratic majority. Part

8:50

of the reason that the sanctuary

8:52

mayors are so flustered is Trump

8:55

has disrupted that larger goal. And

8:57

that goal has nothing to do

8:59

with social justice and everything to

9:02

do with protecting the political interests

9:04

of the democratic part. Looking to

9:06

do something to better your health,

9:09

look no further than Kimchi 1

9:11

from bright core nutrition. Kimchi 1

9:13

packs all the fermented nutrition of

9:16

Kimchi in convenient capsules, arming your

9:18

gut with over 900 unique strains

9:20

of probiotics, supporting gut flora, and

9:23

digestion. I highly recommend this product

9:25

because all health starts in the

9:27

gut. So putting the right fermented

9:30

super food in your gut improves

9:32

every aspect of your health, your

9:34

skin, your hair, your mental performance.

9:37

Kim Chi has even been shown

9:39

to reduce your risk of obesity

9:41

and promote smaller waistline. So all

9:44

good. Kim Chi One is all

9:46

natural. It's made in the USA.

9:48

It's non-G. and today you can

9:50

get an exclusive offer just from

9:53

my viewers and listeners 25% off

9:55

with code denesh by going to

9:57

my brightcore.com/denesh or take note of

10:00

this here is an even better

10:02

deal a special incentive if you

10:04

call them you get 50% off

10:07

your order and free shipping so

10:09

you got to do it give

10:11

him a call here's the number

10:14

write it down 888 927 5980.

10:16

Their educated staff will educate you

10:18

on Kim Chi-1 and show you

10:21

why it's right for you. Again,

10:23

the number to call, 888-927-5980. Terror

10:25

wars, recession fears, stubborn inflation, and

10:28

this turbulent environment, gold has been

10:30

routinely hitting all-time highs. In volatile

10:32

markets right now, don't sit on

10:35

the sidelines with your head in

10:37

the sand. Take control, safeguard your

10:39

savings. And that's why so many

10:42

Americans today are turning to Birch

10:44

Gold Group, like Debbie and I

10:46

have. They've helped tens of thousands

10:49

convert an existing IRA or 401K

10:51

into an IRA in physical gold.

10:53

Isn't it time for you to

10:55

find out if you can hedge

10:58

against inflation and economic instability with

11:00

gold? To learn how to own

11:02

physical gold in a tax sheltered

11:05

account. Text to Nash. 98, 98,

11:07

98, 98. Birch Gold will send

11:09

you a free, no obligation information

11:12

kit. Again, text my name to

11:14

1,9, 98, 98. Birch Gold has

11:16

an A-plus rating with the Better

11:19

Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews. I

11:21

count on Birch Gold to help

11:23

me protect my savings with gold,

11:26

and you can too. Text Denesh

11:28

to 98, 98, 98, today. I

11:30

want to speak in praise of

11:33

the... Apple eating guy. You might

11:35

wonder what is Danesh even talking

11:37

about? I'm talking about the guy,

11:40

the Canadian, the guy who's running

11:42

for Prime Minister, the leader of

11:44

the Conservative Party. His name is

11:47

Pierre Paulav. And you've surely seen,

11:49

I hope you've seen, if not

11:51

look it up, the video where

11:54

he's confronted by a journalist who

11:56

was accusing him of being a

11:58

Trumpster and he just very, in

12:00

a very sardonic but restrained an

12:03

effective way, demolishes the journalist. It

12:05

is worth noting that Pierre Paulav

12:07

is not in fact a Trumpster.

12:10

He has certain elements that remind

12:12

one of Trump, but at the

12:14

same time he is really more

12:17

of a conventional right-winger in Canada.

12:19

And let's remember that being a

12:21

right-winger in Canada is a little

12:24

different than being a right-winger in

12:26

the United States. I would say

12:28

that in some ways Pierre Poisellev

12:31

is more of a Reaganite in

12:33

his approach and style. He's a

12:35

he's a decorous guy. He's measured.

12:38

He can be whimsical. He is

12:40

rhetorically very effective. He's in his

12:42

own way, as people would say,

12:45

of Reagan, a great communicator. But

12:47

he is also a proud Canadian.

12:49

He is somebody who, and I'm

12:52

now quoting him, puts Canada first.

12:54

And he is somebody who supports

12:56

the very straightforward conservative agenda, which

12:59

is to say a pro-growth economic

13:01

opportunity. tax cuts, entrepreneurship. He wants

13:03

Canada to move in a more

13:06

conservative direction and he couldn't be

13:08

a better alternative to the absolutely

13:10

disastrous Justin Trudeau regime or this

13:12

guy Mark Kearney who has been

13:15

pulled in from England, a nominal

13:17

Canadian, a poser and a fraud.

13:19

And having said all this, I

13:22

was, I have to admit, getting

13:24

quite worried about Canada for this

13:26

reason. The Conservatives were all poised

13:29

and ready to win the election.

13:31

In fact, it... didn't seem possible

13:33

for them to lose. People were

13:36

really sick of Justin Trudeau. The

13:38

labor party was in a mess.

13:40

But then comes Trump's tariffs. And

13:43

Trump has some pretty belligerent. rhetoric

13:45

about taking over Canada, they need

13:47

to be the 51state, and so

13:50

the Canadians get a little riled

13:52

up about this, and what happens

13:54

is that Justin Trudeau stays around

13:57

and now makes himself the great

13:59

defender of Canada against the evil

14:01

influence of the United States is

14:04

trying to somehow usurp the sovereignty

14:06

of Canada and Trump wants to

14:08

put on tariffs and we Canadians

14:11

are gonna We're not gonna bend

14:13

and we're not gonna bow the

14:15

knee and Interestingly we began to

14:17

see something happen which is that

14:20

the fortunes of the Labour Party

14:22

politically began to improve and Suddenly

14:24

we were looking rather with some

14:27

dismay and seeing that the Labour

14:29

Party the Trudeau party was pulling

14:31

ahead of the Conservatives and it

14:34

looked like a Pierre Poilev's chance

14:36

of becoming the Prime Minister was

14:38

beginning to diminish. A good indication

14:41

of this was the betting site

14:43

polymarket. I was looking on polymarket

14:45

and I was like wow it

14:48

looks like Poilev is now dropping

14:50

into the 30s and it looks

14:52

like he may have an uphill

14:55

task when it looked like he

14:57

had it made. It looked like

14:59

it was going to be smooth

15:02

sailing for him. Now, I'm happy

15:04

to see that Canadians have sort

15:06

of come back to their senses.

15:09

I'm looking at the latest numbers

15:11

from Polymarket. This is just from

15:13

a day ago. Pierre Polav, 51%

15:16

chance. Mark Kearney, 49%. Now this

15:18

is really close. I mean, Paulav

15:20

is just, you know, a, you

15:23

can say a nose ahead. But

15:25

let's remember, a week ago, just

15:27

a week ago, Pierre Paulav, 40%

15:29

chance. Mark Kearney. 60% so carnit

15:32

looked like was going to win

15:34

and and remember to me This

15:36

kind of stuff, these betting markets

15:39

are better than polls. They're better

15:41

than polls for a very simple

15:43

reason. When people reply to a

15:46

poll, they're putting nothing on the

15:48

line. They're saying, they're supposed to

15:50

say what they think, but sometimes

15:53

they say what they, what the

15:55

media wants you to think, or

15:57

what they feel like they ought

16:00

to think. It's entirely different when

16:02

you ask somebody, listen, who do

16:04

you think is going to win

16:07

the Canadian election? And can you

16:09

take two $20 bills out of

16:11

your wallet and put it on

16:14

the table and you're in a

16:16

sense making a bet? So if

16:18

you're right, you get your money

16:21

back and then some, and if

16:23

you're wrong, your money gets confiscated.

16:25

Well, you find that that kind

16:28

of approach causes people to pay

16:30

attention. and be very careful in

16:32

the kind of bets and predictions

16:34

that they make. And so as

16:37

a result, Polymarket has shown that

16:39

not just in political races, but

16:41

all kinds of stuff, they're able

16:44

to quite accurately forecast or call

16:46

what's going to happen because they

16:48

are relying on the intelligent assessment

16:51

of people who have skin in

16:53

the game, who have a stake

16:55

in the outcome. So I take

16:58

these betting odds as... pretty reliable

17:00

predictors of what's going to happen.

17:02

Now the election is not tomorrow.

17:05

It is, if I am not

17:07

mistaken, at the end of April,

17:09

so it's a full month away,

17:12

but I think that this all

17:14

bodes pretty well for Pierre Poilev.

17:16

Why? Because the sober assessment of

17:19

Canada is that there needs to

17:21

be new leadership. It has been

17:23

very poorly run. under the labor

17:26

government under Trudeau. This carnie is

17:28

no improvement over Trudeau in some

17:30

respects. He may be better, but

17:33

in other respects he is clearly

17:35

worse. And Pualev is basically the

17:37

real deal. Yeah, he's gotten into

17:40

some skirmishes with Trump at one

17:42

point. Trump somewhat peevish. He said,

17:44

well, I don't care if it's

17:46

the conservative or it's the labor

17:49

guy. Maybe from Trump's point of

17:51

view, which is looking at it.

17:53

through the tariff lens. Trump is

17:56

saying, you know, look, in some

17:58

ways the conservative may be a

18:00

harder guy to bargain with on

18:03

tariffs than the labor guy. So

18:05

looked at from that perspective alone,

18:07

but I'm actually looking at it

18:10

from a broader perspective, which is

18:12

to say, it's good for Canada

18:14

to have a conservative government. And

18:17

I think long term it's good

18:19

for the right globally. In other

18:21

words, we want conservative leaders around

18:24

the world. We want to get

18:26

rid of albiniz. In Australia and

18:28

have a, well, they call it

18:31

a liberal government. We want to

18:33

have, we want to have conservative

18:35

policies. We want to have, we

18:38

want to avoid the depredations of

18:40

the left. We like Georgia Maloney

18:42

in Italy. We obviously like Malay

18:45

in Argentina. We like Bukali in

18:47

El Salvador. And so. This trend

18:49

would be fortified if Pierre Poilev

18:51

made it across the finish line

18:54

in Canada and so regardless of

18:56

Trump's Doubt and ambivalence about it.

18:58

I certainly hope he does My

19:02

pillow is excited to announce they

19:04

are extending the mega sale on

19:06

overstock on clearance Also on brand

19:08

new products This is your chance

19:10

to grab some incredible deals on

19:13

some of my pillow's most popular

19:15

and newly released items For example

19:17

save $40 on the new spring

19:19

My Pillar bed sheets available in

19:21

any size in any color these

19:23

luxurious sheets are designed for maximum

19:25

comfort and breathability perfect for a

19:27

great night's sleep. Looking for a

19:30

meaningful gift, save 30% on the

19:32

brand new my crosses inspired by

19:34

the one Mike Lindell has worn

19:36

every day for over 20 years.

19:38

These beautifully crafted crosses come in

19:40

both men's and women's designs. They're

19:42

proudly made in the USA. Get

19:44

the six-piece bath, a kitchen towel

19:47

sets, just 3998. Initial quantities are

19:49

low, so act now. And don't

19:51

forget the best selling standard my

19:53

pillow. Now just 1798. Plus orders

19:55

over $75 ship free. Call 80760227.

19:57

The number again, 887. or go

19:59

to my pillow.com. Don't forget to

20:01

use the promo code. It's D-I-N-E-S-H-D-N-S.

20:04

Guys, I'm delighted to welcome to

20:06

the podcast, a new guest, Congressman

20:08

Marlin Stutzman. He is the U.S.

20:10

Congressman for Indiana, District 3, and

20:12

he is in fact in his

20:14

fourth term. He is a successful

20:16

entrepreneur in the manufacturing and agricultural

20:18

and food service spaces. You can

20:20

follow him on X at Rep.

20:23

Stutzman. And Congressman Stutzman, welcome. Thank

20:25

you for joining me as I

20:27

mentioned to you a moment ago.

20:29

My wife Debbie is high school

20:31

buddies with the henvies. Rick and

20:33

Karen Henvie who are in your

20:35

district. And I think you mentioned

20:37

to me that Rick is going

20:40

to be dropping by to see

20:42

you shortly, right? He is. He's

20:44

the CEO of Parkview Health, which

20:46

is one of the large health

20:48

care providers in the Fort Wayne

20:50

area. And Rick and Karen and

20:52

their family are wonderful people. They've

20:54

been friends for a long time.

20:57

So what a small world. It

20:59

is a small world. And then

21:01

you mentioned to me also that

21:03

you have crossed paths with my

21:05

son-in-law, Brandon Gil. I didn't know.

21:07

Congress is a big place with

21:09

400 or so members. I didn't

21:11

know if you two had... had

21:14

any dealings but you've met both

21:16

Brandon and Daniel right? Oh yeah

21:18

wonderful people in fact both Brandon

21:20

and I we were supported by

21:22

the Freedom Fund the the political

21:24

arm of the Freedom Caucus and

21:26

so Brandon and I got to

21:28

know each other but I'll tell

21:31

you Denesh first of all I

21:33

was a big fan of yours

21:35

for much longer than I knew

21:37

any of those and appreciated your

21:39

work we saw your documentaries back

21:41

during the Obama days and all

21:43

the work that you've done for

21:45

the conservative cause for many many

21:48

years but and your daughter Danielle

21:50

she's just a sweet lady but

21:52

don't take her I've learned not

21:54

to take her lightly because all

21:56

of a sudden she's got smarts

21:58

and wit and a great following

22:00

and is making an impact as

22:02

well for the conservative cause. But

22:05

I'm really excited to be working

22:07

with Brandon, just a sharp, sharp

22:09

Texan, and comes from a similar

22:11

background from an ag community, but

22:13

he went to Dartmouth. I stayed

22:15

local, so he's a much smarter

22:17

guy than I am. I'm discovering

22:19

you know Marlin just with the

22:21

congressman in the family that this

22:24

is a kind of a complicated

22:26

life right because you typically you

22:28

got to maintain a presence in

22:30

the district at the same time

22:32

you're you know quote working in

22:34

Washington DC how have you managed

22:36

to kind of pull that off

22:38

you are you mainly DC based

22:41

or do you end up trafficking

22:43

back and forth all the time?

22:45

Generally back and forth, but I

22:47

was first elected in 2010 with

22:49

the big T party wave from

22:51

northeast Indiana, which my district is

22:53

basically north and south of Fort

22:55

Wayne. It's a wonderful district, wonderful

22:58

community, God-fearing people, hardworking people, great

23:00

family values. But so my wife

23:02

Christy and myself we have two

23:04

boys Peyton and Preston and they

23:06

were both young so when I

23:08

see Brandon and Danielle with young

23:10

children I have like we we've

23:12

been there and it's it's a

23:15

challenge. And we were here for

23:17

six years and we tried you

23:19

know different ways of making it

23:21

work as family was our top

23:23

priority. and me being a husband

23:25

and father was a top priority.

23:27

And then I eventually ran for

23:29

the Senate in 2016 and I

23:32

lost. But it was kind of

23:34

one of those situations where I

23:36

was like, you know what, God's

23:38

going to either open the door,

23:40

he's going to tell us time

23:42

to go home and be a

23:44

family man and a businessman, and

23:46

that was the opportunity I had

23:49

for the last eight years. And

23:51

I told our family that I

23:53

wouldn't run again until our boys

23:55

were out of high school. Well,

23:57

our youngest graduated in 2024 and

23:59

the seat opened back up when

24:01

Jim Banks ran for the Senate.

24:03

So it being here with older

24:05

children is much easier than being

24:08

here with young children. So whenever

24:10

I see Brandon help being a

24:12

dad and taking care of the

24:14

kids, if I can carry the

24:16

diaper back, I'm always going to

24:18

offer to it. Oh, very nice

24:20

of you. Hey, let's talk about

24:22

Congress because it has the reputation

24:25

of being this. tightly divided and

24:27

somewhat dysfunctional institution and public approbation

24:29

of Congress is often very low.

24:31

And yet I've actually been impressed

24:33

in 2025 to see that Mike

24:35

Johnson has been able to hold

24:37

the narrow congressional majority together. It

24:39

appears like Congress is working much

24:42

more closely hand in hand with

24:44

the Trump administration than perhaps before

24:46

is my is my you know

24:48

it's spectatorial and distant impression correct

24:50

what is your view of what's

24:52

going on from the inside yeah

24:54

no it's a great question and

24:56

it's been interesting because I came

24:59

in in 2010 and I served

25:01

under John Boehner as Speaker of

25:03

the House and then eventually He

25:05

stepped down, there was already kind

25:07

of a push to push him

25:09

back out because of the frustration

25:11

that a lot of us had

25:13

in the negotiations that happened with

25:16

Obama. It seemed like Obama always

25:18

would win, and the American people

25:20

would always lose. And then now

25:22

with Paul Ryan, I left when

25:24

Paul Ryan, I was here while

25:26

he was speaker, but I left

25:28

when President Trump came in the

25:30

first. first time in 2017 and

25:33

they just didn't ever seem to

25:35

be on the same page and

25:37

I would actually I saw them

25:39

a couple of times where you

25:41

know Speaker Ryan was disagreeing with

25:43

with tactics of President Trump's campaign

25:45

but President Trump's tactics were they

25:47

were successful and you know at

25:49

some point I think it's important,

25:52

like, hey, I may have been

25:54

wrong, but let's get back on

25:56

board on the team, and that

25:58

didn't seem to happen during Trump

26:00

won administration, but with Trump too,

26:02

I think it's just a different

26:04

game. I mean, it's a different

26:06

makeup, and I'll give Mike Johnson,

26:09

Speaker Johnson, a ton of credit.

26:11

He brings people together, he listens

26:13

to all, you know, the four

26:15

corners of the conference. He takes

26:17

everybody's perspective. But then he says,

26:19

okay, we've got to move forward.

26:21

And, you know, him and his

26:23

relationship, the relationship he has with

26:26

President Trump is really strong. And

26:28

I think that's really what helps

26:30

Speaker Johnson move the ball forward

26:32

in the House. But he's been

26:34

very strong on spending policy, on

26:36

fiscal policy, but what I appreciate

26:38

about Speaker Johnson is He lets

26:40

his faith lead it and he

26:43

really is a man of faith,

26:45

a man of love and patriotism

26:47

for America and it comes from

26:49

a very conservative part of Louisiana.

26:51

So that has definitely I think

26:53

been a difference maker in the

26:55

sense that he's got a strong

26:57

president in leadership with President Trump

27:00

and then he's also got a

27:02

very strong freshman class. This freshman

27:04

class that I just came in

27:06

with in 2024. Every one of

27:08

them, I mean, even from the

27:10

tight, you know, swing seats to

27:12

the strong Republican seats, everybody understands

27:14

the threat that we have internally

27:17

inside America, whether it's woke ideology

27:19

or whether it's debt and deficits

27:21

that are out of control. A

27:23

lot of them have told me,

27:25

they said, look, I came here

27:27

to cast tough votes, but don't

27:29

make me vote for nothing. You

27:31

know, don't make me vote for

27:34

something that doesn't happen. So I

27:36

think that with all of that

27:38

is kind of coming to a

27:40

head. And then we have outside

27:42

forces as well. You know, Elon

27:44

Musk is talking about debt and

27:46

deficit and we'll. ideology and today

27:48

we had Mr. Ray Daleyo come

27:50

in and speak to members of

27:53

Congress who's not your typical, you

27:55

know, person on the hill, but

27:57

he's talking about debt and deficit.

27:59

And so I think this is

28:01

a very unique time and we've

28:03

got the right leadership in place

28:05

to make some huge reforms and

28:07

changes in Washington that have needed

28:10

to happen for a long time

28:12

as you've spoken about them for

28:14

many married years as well. It

28:16

seems to me like there is

28:18

a shifting of people sometimes use

28:20

the phrase the overton window I

28:22

think what they mean by that

28:24

is the that there are topics

28:27

that were previously off the table

28:29

that are now on the table

28:31

and that there are possibilities things

28:33

like well You can't really cut

28:35

the size of government or you

28:37

can't really do anything if you've

28:39

got career bureaucrats. They're there to

28:41

stay. They've got lifetime appointments get

28:44

used to it and it looks

28:46

like the new attitude is well

28:48

guess what we have a constitutional

28:50

structure we got to stay within

28:52

that But there's no reason to

28:54

accept doing things just because that's

28:56

the way they've been done before.

28:58

And to me, Elon Musk, well,

29:01

not to mention another factor, I'd

29:03

like you to, your thoughts about

29:05

this, that, you know, Republicans are

29:07

used to being castigated by the

29:09

media. I'm sure that you experienced

29:11

this. That, you know, the conservative

29:13

outlets just ought to have the

29:15

same kind of reach. But I

29:18

think a crucial new factor is

29:20

the X platform. because the dismantling

29:22

of the censorship and the fact

29:24

that you can now speak freely

29:26

on it not to mention Elon

29:28

Muskism himself himself speaking freely on

29:30

it has really changed the rules

29:32

of the game. Do you agree?

29:34

Has that has that made its

29:37

way? Is it now felt in

29:39

Congress like we are not quite

29:41

to the same degree captives to

29:43

the the ransom of the media?

29:45

Yeah, absolutely. You know, what we

29:47

felt over the last four years

29:49

during the Biden administration, and we

29:51

felt it a little bit, you

29:54

know, maybe during the Obama years,

29:56

but not to the extent that

29:58

we felt that during the Biden

30:00

administration, where This is ideology that

30:02

come about that if you disagree

30:04

with me, we are going to

30:06

cancel you, we're going to shut

30:08

you down. And I know we

30:11

were all kind of sitting here

30:13

like, is this what America is

30:15

going to be like? We all

30:17

knew that that's not what America

30:19

was built on. And the principles

30:21

and the foundations of the Constitution,

30:23

you know, always protected freedom of

30:25

speech. And on both sides. But

30:28

what I think has really happened

30:30

is that the left has moved

30:32

so far left, when you have

30:34

Bill Maher, becoming a voice of

30:36

reason in the Democrat Party, and

30:38

Stephen A. Smith, becoming the voice

30:40

of reason in the Democrat Party,

30:42

you know, and the view has

30:45

just fallen off the edge going

30:47

to the left. I think that

30:49

that's what people are starting to

30:51

recognize. And the other thing, too,

30:53

I've mentioned this, Danesh, is that...

30:55

You know, during the Biden years,

30:57

all of the job growth happened

30:59

primarily in the government sector. It

31:02

didn't happen in the private sector.

31:04

So in districts like mine, where

31:06

we don't have a lot of

31:08

government, you know, employees, everybody's saying,

31:10

well, you're talking about job employment

31:12

and growth, but I don't, we

31:14

don't see it. Where are you

31:16

talking? And so it's kind of

31:18

like, you know, we hear what

31:21

you're saying, but it's not translating

31:23

into. people's everyday lives across the

31:25

country. I think that's what the

31:27

voters really sensed is that in

31:29

the private sector, it's not that

31:31

strong. I don't think the economy

31:33

is that strong today. I think

31:35

there's some weaknesses. People don't have

31:38

disposable income, credit card debt is

31:40

at all-time highs. It's going to

31:42

take some time for Trump policies

31:44

to take its effect on the

31:46

economy and help our economy get

31:48

back on track. But the damage

31:50

that was done over the past

31:52

four years whether it's an oak

31:55

ideology or whether it's the terrible

31:57

regulatory policy from the Biden administration,

31:59

it has really set America back.

32:01

And so I thank God that.

32:03

You know, Trump won and that

32:05

we have a majority in the

32:07

House, you know, that we've been

32:09

able to stick together. And really

32:12

now the pressure is starting to

32:14

mount on the Senate to see

32:16

what the Senate can pass when

32:18

it comes to the budget and

32:20

other policies. But I think Trump's,

32:22

you know, his presence in Washington,

32:24

his support across the country is

32:26

so strong that I believe we're

32:29

going to get a lot done

32:31

with his leadership. What would you

32:33

say looking ahead for the nine

32:35

months that are remaining in 2025?

32:37

You know I've got on my

32:39

plate There's the border. There's the

32:41

the comprehensive tax plan including of

32:43

course some of the tariffs There

32:46

is this issue of the runaway

32:48

and rogue judges that I've been

32:50

talking about on the podcast. There's

32:52

the idea of legislatively consolidating some

32:54

of the Doge findings with regard

32:56

to waste and fraud. So there's

32:58

a lot on the plate, but

33:00

if you had to structure like

33:03

what are the three things that

33:05

are the most important to you

33:07

and what do you think the

33:09

Congress can actually get done? uh...

33:11

because it seems like in the

33:13

past on certain issues people would

33:15

take positions and pontificate you know

33:17

i'm pro-life and so on but

33:19

congress wasn't really in a position

33:22

to pass laws because we had

33:24

row versus weight in place or

33:26

people would say well this is

33:28

what we need to do but

33:30

there was no realistic we need

33:32

a balanced budget amendment but there's

33:34

no realistic possibility of doing any

33:36

of that so what do you

33:39

think congress can accomplish Let's just

33:41

say in 2025 that we'll make,

33:43

not just the country in general,

33:45

but also the Trump supporters out

33:47

there go, wow, those guys really

33:49

this time did get something done.

33:51

Yeah, well, you know, with Trump's

33:53

leadership, I mean, he is moving

33:56

so fast. It's incredible. And that's

33:58

going to help, but now we

34:00

in Congress have to codify as

34:02

many of these pieces as we

34:04

can. step is the reconciliation package

34:06

that we passed out of the

34:08

budget committee and passed it off

34:10

the House floor and now is

34:13

over in the Senate and it

34:15

is one big beautiful bill and

34:17

that's what Trump had kind of

34:19

said at the very beginning you

34:21

know one thing that I've learned

34:23

is that you know Trump is

34:25

you know a lot of people

34:27

want to depict him like it's

34:30

his way or the highway that's

34:32

not the case at all he

34:34

really does bring people together and

34:36

he hears from all sides and

34:38

says hey What can we get

34:40

done? And I think a lot

34:42

of the pressure was on the

34:44

House to be able to pass

34:47

the budget reconciliation package. And I

34:49

think a lot of folks didn't

34:51

think it happened and we got

34:53

it done. So now it's on

34:55

the Senate to do that. But

34:57

that's where a lot of these

34:59

pieces can happen. to, you know,

35:01

on the tax rates, keeping those,

35:03

extend the tax rates. You know,

35:06

even make them permanent if possible,

35:08

but I think, you know, we

35:10

have to be realistic as well.

35:12

We've got other issues, as you

35:14

know, with the CBO scoring. The

35:16

Congressional Budget Office is not our

35:18

friend when it comes to scoring

35:20

our budgets, but so we've got

35:23

to take that into context. But

35:25

we still need to do the

35:27

right thing and do what we

35:29

know is going to help the

35:31

economy, but then we've got energy

35:33

policy, we've got spending cuts. I

35:35

served on the Budget Committee for

35:37

several terms back in the 2010s

35:40

under the Obama administration, and I

35:42

told Chairman Jody Arrington last night

35:44

that the budget reconciliation package that

35:46

we voted for this year is

35:48

the most meaningful bill I have

35:50

ever voted on in Congress, and

35:52

because it actually cuts spending, and

35:54

that's, you know, back to even

35:57

Speaker Johnson, the numbers started, you

35:59

know, pretty low. We were, you

36:01

know, all kind of disappointed that

36:03

we got to increase these spending

36:05

cuts. from 300 billion and we

36:07

went into committee at one and

36:09

a half trillion and now it's

36:11

actually pushing two trillion and we

36:14

got to work through the tax

36:16

rates and what those do as

36:18

far as what CBO thinks it

36:20

does to the federal budget but

36:22

I think we're going to get

36:24

a lot of these policies enacted

36:26

and then the then the Doge

36:28

team is one of the greatest

36:31

pieces of information that Congress could

36:33

ever have because it gets us

36:35

closer to where the money is

36:37

actually going. We've asked these questions

36:39

you know many many times and

36:41

you know under the Obama administration

36:43

you know you ask where this

36:45

funding is going and they'll always

36:47

tell you these bureaucrats will always

36:50

tell you what they want you

36:52

to hear they don't tell us

36:54

what we you know, know what

36:56

we're looking for. And instinctively, we've

36:58

known that. And that's why the

37:00

work that Doge is doing is

37:02

incredible, not only for Congress, but

37:04

for the American people, so we

37:07

can see where our funding is

37:09

going. So I think from a

37:11

fiscal standpoint, that reconciliation package is

37:13

really critical. We've got to grow

37:15

the economy, cut spending, and then

37:17

we've already put funding towards the

37:19

border and towards the military, but

37:21

Trump has done just a remarkable

37:24

job. those at Homeland Security and

37:26

Border Patrol to shutting down this

37:28

illegal immigration. And some of the

37:30

findings that Elon Musk and Doge

37:32

are finding just simply shows a

37:34

blatant effort by the Democrat party

37:36

to bring illegals into this country

37:38

to transform America into a socialist

37:41

country. And so it's going to

37:43

be interesting to see what else

37:45

we find, what they find. and

37:47

Congress needs to act on that

37:49

and so uh... there's so much

37:51

information coming we need to move

37:53

now on the things that we

37:55

know so that we can start

37:58

moving the ball but uh... congress

38:00

we need to be busy over

38:02

the next year to enact as

38:04

many of these pro- trump pro-america

38:06

policies that uh... we know we're

38:08

right in front of us it

38:10

does seem based on all you're

38:12

saying that we do have some

38:15

reason for uh... if not optimism

38:17

at least for hope because at

38:19

one point it looked like you

38:21

know we're spending three and a

38:23

half trillion dollars I mean sorry

38:25

we're spending close to five trillion

38:27

dollars we're taking in three and

38:29

a half trillion dollars so we

38:32

have this galloping runaway deficit with

38:34

no end in sight and I

38:36

take you to saying listen if

38:38

we have a combination of budget

38:40

cuts savings through fraud and waste

38:42

and then we have a pro-growth

38:44

economic policy the the kind of

38:46

triangular combination of those three things

38:48

can in fact make real headway

38:51

in in dealing with this problem.

38:53

Guys, I've been talking to Representative

38:55

Marlin Stutzman. He is a congressman

38:57

in the third district of Indiana.

38:59

Follow him on X at Rep.

39:01

Stutzman, S-T-U-T-Z-M-A-N. Marlin, thank you very

39:03

much for joining me. Thank you,

39:05

Dennis. Great to be with you

39:08

today. My pleasure. I'm discussing the

39:10

opening section of my book, Ronald

39:12

Reagan Howe, an ordinary man, became

39:14

an extraordinary leader. And when we

39:16

left off yesterday, I was talking

39:18

about the issue of historical greatness,

39:20

and I not want to highlight

39:22

a few reasons why it is

39:25

difficult to appreciate that kind of

39:27

historical greatness, particularly when it occurs

39:29

right in front of you. And

39:31

by that I mean in your

39:33

own lifetime. It's kind of easy

39:35

to look back. with the privilege

39:37

of hindsight and say, oh, Alexander

39:39

the Great was a great man.

39:42

And oh, you know, Newton was

39:44

a great man. And Churchill was

39:46

a great man. But that's because

39:48

the long-term impact of what they

39:50

did in statesmanship or in science

39:52

is quite undeniable. So their greatness

39:54

becomes... manifest and not controversial. But

39:56

how do you ferret out greatness

39:59

when it's occurring in your own

40:01

day and when the full effect

40:03

of it has not really been

40:05

seen? It's hard to do. And

40:07

the proof of that would be

40:09

one Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill. the

40:11

great hero of World War II,

40:13

but you probably know 1945 he

40:16

runs for election and the British

40:18

people kick him out. they throw

40:20

him out of office and part

40:22

of it was that they associated

40:24

Churchill with the war with hardship

40:26

deprivation rations air raids sirens bombings

40:28

they're like you know we have

40:30

peace we want we want something

40:32

new and so they moved him

40:35

out now Churchill was in fact

40:37

reelected later and he came back

40:39

for a term later but the

40:41

fact that he was rudely ejected

40:43

gives you an idea of how

40:45

People say thank you at the

40:47

end of World War II, and

40:49

in this case they said thank

40:52

you by throwing him out of

40:54

there. So great leaders are sometimes

40:56

shortchanged by their contemporaries, and the

40:58

reason is that they abolish the

41:00

very problems that produced their greatness.

41:02

So in Churchill's case, it seemed

41:04

very difficult to believe, certainly in

41:06

1939, that the British would be

41:09

up to fighting the Nazis. In

41:11

fact, they really weren't. But they

41:13

were able to hold on until

41:15

America got into the war and

41:17

the war turned against the Nazis

41:19

in Russia. And so ultimately that

41:21

was Churchill's great strength is he

41:23

held the British nation together until

41:26

help came in from the outside.

41:28

But by 1945 the war was

41:30

over. The Nazis were gone and

41:32

so... what produced Churchill's greatness, which

41:34

was that heroic resistance, was no

41:36

longer in a sense needed. And

41:38

one could say the same with

41:40

regard to Reagan, that, you know

41:43

what, the Cold War is over,

41:45

and the problems of runaway inflation

41:47

of the 1970s, those problems are

41:49

not with us, at least not

41:51

quite in the same way. And

41:53

so suddenly we go, well, what

41:55

did Reagan really do? How is

41:57

he relevant to our time? Now,

42:00

that's obstacle. number one. Here's a

42:02

second obstacle to understanding

42:04

greatness. We live in a time

42:06

that's kind of cynical about greatness.

42:08

We're used to seeing the high

42:10

and mighty kind of pull down and

42:12

discredited and yet

42:14

we know that democratic societies

42:17

are capable of producing great

42:19

leaders. I mentioned, last time

42:21

Washington, I mentioned Lincoln, we

42:23

could add people like Churchill, so these

42:26

people are not common. They don't come

42:28

up all that often. If you look

42:30

at the great sweep of American

42:32

presidents, quite honestly most of

42:35

them are, as you would

42:37

expect, kind of mediocre. And

42:39

there are typically in each century,

42:41

you know, one, two, at most three

42:43

kind of shining examples of greatness.

42:46

Now, a third problem with

42:48

apprehending greatness is this.

42:50

The people who study it

42:52

apply, you can say biased or

42:55

self-interested or arbitrary

42:57

criteria that make their evaluations

43:00

suspect or at least incomplete.

43:02

Think of it this way.

43:04

Who are the people who

43:06

study greatness? Well, the answer

43:09

is by and large scholars,

43:11

intellectuals. And so intellectuals will

43:13

typically demand that a great

43:16

leader be an intellectual. Even

43:18

though you have highly intellectual leaders,

43:20

I mean Nixon was a very

43:22

smart guy, but his presidency ended,

43:24

we have to say, even though

43:27

he was elected for two terms,

43:29

and he's not without achievements. But

43:31

his presidency ended in disgrace. Watergate.

43:33

Carter was said to be a

43:35

nuclear engineer. I never think of

43:38

Jimmy Carter as an intellectual, but

43:40

guess what? His presidency was also

43:42

a crash and burn. And also

43:44

intellectuals tend to be partisans of

43:46

government, supporters of big

43:48

government. So they tend to view

43:50

leaders like FDR who expanded the

43:53

size of government as, oh, that's

43:55

a great accomplishment. He expanded the

43:57

size of government. That's not in fact

43:59

in a... In fact, you could say

44:01

the opposite. And then Presidents, typically

44:03

Republican Presidents, who either did not

44:06

expand the size of government or

44:08

shrunk it. People like Coolidge or

44:10

Reagan, the progressives who write the

44:12

history books, go, well, that guy

44:14

was really lethargic. He was a

44:17

do-nothing president. He didn't expand the

44:19

size of government. So if that's

44:21

your criterion, if that's your measuring

44:23

stick, then you're going to be

44:26

at least biased in that. in

44:28

that regard. Now conservatives will often

44:30

demand of a president that he

44:32

be a man of high character

44:34

and some of the conservative animus

44:37

toward Bill Clinton was you know

44:39

what he's actually doing a pretty

44:41

good job he's not doing it

44:43

quite willingly he's being dragged by

44:45

the Republican Congress but he is

44:48

signing welfare reform and he is

44:50

uh... continuing the policies of privatization

44:52

and deregulation and the economy is

44:54

doing very well but you know

44:56

what he's just a shameless lecherous

44:59

bad guy so character the character

45:01

judgment uh... tends to be predominant

45:03

right uh... and uh... but The

45:05

problem with the character assessment per

45:08

se is that history has a

45:10

number of examples of people who

45:12

seem to have, at least in

45:14

personal life, pretty exemplary character. Think

45:16

of Jimmy Carter. He's got, he's

45:19

married at the same woman the

45:21

whole life. He seems to be

45:23

a family man. He's certainly devoted

45:25

to his family. George W. Bush,

45:27

you could say the same that

45:30

they were in many ways quite

45:32

exemplary as individuals and yet... Their

45:34

presidencies were either nondescript or in

45:36

some cases not so good and

45:39

in some cases terrible. And then

45:41

you've got other guys I mentioned

45:43

Clinton but you could say the

45:45

same of John F. Kennedy, his

45:47

character would have to be put

45:50

probably in the suspect category. And

45:52

yet he was a pretty effective

45:54

president, at least in the very

45:56

short in Kennedy's case, of course,

45:58

just two years in office. A

46:01

final obstacle to understanding greatness, we

46:03

use standards that are anachronistic. And

46:05

anachronistic means that we are making

46:07

judgments with the privilege of hindsight.

46:09

that is not available to the

46:12

people who are acting in the

46:14

moment. This is a very important

46:16

principle to keep in mind, not

46:18

just in thinking about leaders, but

46:21

also in looking at your own

46:23

life or looking at other people's

46:25

lives. People will say things like,

46:27

oh man, I shouldn't have taken

46:29

that job because I didn't know

46:32

how it was going to turn

46:34

out. Well, that's actually not a

46:36

good reason to say you shouldn't

46:38

have taken the job because nobody

46:40

knows how something will turn out.

46:43

How something turns out is the

46:45

result of hindsight. And so let's

46:47

just say that was a new

46:49

invention and the product that I

46:52

worked on for so many years

46:54

is obsolete. Yeah, but you didn't

46:56

know the new invention was coming.

46:58

You didn't waste your time. You

47:00

made the correct decision given the

47:03

information you had at the time.

47:05

It just turned out that new

47:07

factors emerged later. So this is

47:09

a an important principle of assessment

47:11

in life as in politics. And

47:14

it's a principle well understood by

47:16

of all people Winston Churchill when

47:18

Churchill wrote his great history of

47:20

World War II. He was very

47:22

harsh in his assessment of Chamberlain.

47:25

and of many other people, including

47:27

many members of his own party.

47:29

He was scathing on the labor

47:31

party, but he was also tough

47:34

on the Tory party. But Churchill

47:36

does say something very important. He

47:38

says, listen, he says, I am

47:40

going to be judging these people

47:42

very sternly, but I'm only going

47:45

to judge them based upon the

47:47

information that they had available to

47:49

them at the time. I'm not

47:51

going to judge... them based upon

47:53

things that they were in no

47:56

position to find out that we

47:58

all only found out about later.

48:00

So now that I'm writing the

48:02

history of World War II I

48:05

can use this information retroactively to

48:07

saying you idiots you didn't have

48:09

any idea about this and you

48:11

didn't have any idea about that.

48:13

Well neither did Winston Churchill have

48:16

any idea at the time. So

48:18

Churchill goes I'm going to use

48:20

the assessment that is based upon

48:22

information available commonly to all of

48:24

us at the time. So the

48:27

reason this applies to Reagan is

48:29

that you had people after the

48:31

Cold War saying things like you

48:33

know It's obvious the Soviet Union

48:36

was going to collapse. No, it

48:38

wasn't obvious You didn't think so

48:40

you didn't say so at the

48:42

time It's only afterward that you

48:44

use the privilege of hindsight to

48:47

claim that something was obvious even

48:49

though it was far from obvious

48:51

so So this kind of anachronistic

48:53

judgment that, you know, Reagan was

48:55

paranoid about the Soviet Union, he

48:58

exaggerated the threat of the Soviet

49:00

Union, you know, he should have

49:02

realized that the Soviets were much

49:04

weaker than he said and that

49:06

they were going to collapse, I

49:09

think we need to avoid this

49:11

kind of anachronistic reasoning. We need

49:13

to put ourselves in the, in

49:15

a sense, we need to flash

49:18

back. to the 1970s and 80s.

49:20

We need to see the world

49:22

as Reagan confronted it and the

49:24

problems that were evident at that

49:26

time to the people who were

49:29

who didn't weren't able to look

49:31

back and say this is how

49:33

it was in retrospect. So it's

49:35

that that I'm going to try

49:37

to do in the book. I'm

49:40

going to judge Reagan's legacy against

49:42

the conditions that he faced. at

49:44

the time. Subscribe to the Denesha

49:46

Sousa podcast on Apple, Google, and

49:49

Spotify, or watch on rumble, YouTube,

49:51

and salemnow.com.