March 2, 2026

Well, a very good Monday morning to you here on the Reed Revolution on John Reed.

I am in New York City today, one of the things we've done up in the next couple of hours,

so that a big event tonight with bought majors from a lot of media outlets across Manhattan.

So this could be an interesting conversation.

The last time I was up here, they were focused on how anti-semitism is on the rise in the United

States and in the Republican Party.

And I think that's concerning, but so many people are beginning to see this.

I dismissed it.

I got to be honest with you, I kind of thought, I mean, I just didn't encounter that sentiment

when I was running for Lieutenant Governor, I was all across the state, but then I was just

in Virginia.

Now, maybe it's a good thing that in Virginia, I didn't see it and I didn't feel it during

the campaign, but I'll be curious, and once you've been in a cocktail party setting and

everybody kind of raises an issue, maybe that makes you a little more sensitive.

So I can't deny that I've seen some things like that as I've been on the internet and

interacted with people all across the country.

I still don't think it's a big issue, a pressing issue in Virginia.

Fortunately, thank goodness.

I think we don't need any more of that kind of hostility in our environment.

Now, we are waiting on a speaking of Virginia.

We are waiting on a ruling from the court in Lynchburg related to the gerrymandering issue.

We're going to talk to Delegate Tim Anderson a little bit about that.

And then, of course, we are continuing to watch all of the fallout from the attacks on

Iran.

Wow, you can tell them I'm kind of rigging this up here.

We can still waiting for the fallout after the attacks on Iran.

And I've been kind of shocked by the reaction from a lot of folks who don't seem to approve

of what President Trump has done.

I mean, these are people who are all in for Donald Trump.

And I think they believed him when he said, you know, no more foreign wars, I don't think

we're in a war.

I think he has taken action against an enemy to make sure that they don't get a nuclear

weapon, which is pretty important because these are the people who have for 47 years said

death to America, death to the West, death to the Great Satan.

And I think they mean it.

And if, you know, they've taken out probably thousands of lives of individuals that they

have terrorized or had killed over these many decades, and if they get a nuclear weapon,

they'll want a seat at the table where you have to deal with them in a different way.

But listen, I think they're religious crazies, and they would love to usher in the death

of millions of Westerners, of millions of individuals.

And I don't think we have been very blessed in America that we haven't had to deal with

the realities of the radical Islamic movement around the world.

Europe has faced it in ways that we haven't had to face it.

It's been an academic conversation for Americans, and with the rising number of adherents

to Islam in the United States, and a percentage of those people, not everybody, but a percentage

of those people becoming radicalized and becoming of the belief that the infidel's deserve

to be either converted or killed.

And I know that's shocking to Americans because we just don't live that way, but that is the

mindset of a lot of people around the world, dealing with Iran in this way, and the Supreme

Leader, the Ayatollah, I think is long overdue.

And I am very pleased that President Trump has taken the action that he's taken.

Is it complicated?

Is it expensive?

Is it horrible to see the damage?

Yes, but I don't live in a fantasy world.

I live in the real world, and I think that a lot of American leaders haven't had the

guts to do what needed to be done to try to protect our people.

Unsponsored Spakowski is with us this morning, and he's been following these stories for

a very, very long time.

What was your reaction, Hans, when you heard the news that the president, I mean, I think

we knew this was coming.

It was just a question of what day, and then on Saturday, the action was taken, what

you thinking, and good morning to you.

Well, what I was thinking was, it was about time.

Look, for 50 years, Iran has been the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world.

It has killed, either itself or through the proxy terrorist organizations.

It has kept supplied with weapons and arms, including Hezbollah, thousands of Americans.

And anyone who doubts that if they developed a nuclear capacity, that they wouldn't use

it, either against Israel, other parts of Europe, or even if the US, if they could smuggle

it in, obviously has no grasp of reality.

This was needed.

And for those who say, oh my gosh, we're going to get stuck for years, wrong.

What they're doing is they're decapitating the political, military, and secret police

leadership of this country, and degrading its military capacity to the point where no

matter what happens, whether the military takes over and other dictatorship forms or democracy

actually is formed, they are not going to have the capability to do what they've been

doing for a very long time.

And that's the key to this.

I think it is a fair question to ask, who does replace this tyrannical religious regime?

I mean, is there an heir apparent that is prepared to step in and take over the basics of governance

that will be better for the United States and maybe even for the people on the ground

that are on, or we just kind of betten that the people have had enough and they'll figure

it out on their own.

That's a big bet.

Look, the key question always in these kinds of situations and revolutions is whether

is the military going to use its remaining power to take over and force some kind of military

dictatorship?

Are there, is there a big enough resistance to prevent that and try to establish a democracy?

I don't know the answer to that.

I don't think there actually is an heir apparent.

I don't think the son of the former Shaw, yeah, maybe he can initially be there for a transition,

but he's got no governing experience.

I just don't think he can do it.

But again, yeah, we should be concerned about it, but look, we're not going to put big

forces boots on the ground like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq because I think Donald Trump

realizes that was a big mistake.

In both of those cases, we should have done the same.

Decapitate the political leadership, destroy their military capacities and get out, trying

to bring a 14th century culture into the modern world, that is a losing proposition.

When you look at the damage that's been done, the deaths so far, American deaths so far,

how do you evaluate that?

It does not strike me as, strikes me as a successful operation even with those deaths and that

I hope I'm expressing appropriate sympathy for our fellow Americans who have been in the

military who've been killed, but this looks like a successful operation to me.

Oh, oh, yeah, and look, it's still going on, but it clearly already is been very successful.

But they are launching missile attacks on our embassies and other locations, but they

could only do that for a very limited amount of time, one because of the overall damage

being done to them and in particular because of the damage being done to their control over

those features.

Look, every time they launch a missile, we have the capacity to find out where it was

launched from and then destroy that area.

They only have a very limited capacity to strike back and we're continuing to damage and destroy

that.

What's been your reaction to other nations and their statements about the American action

here?

Well, you know, I thought it was interesting that the United Kingdom finally cleared the

use of our American bases in the United Kingdom for this and they have a fairly liberal

government over there and yet they, I think, finally agreed.

You've even had a small number of Democrats speak out and say, look, this has been needed

in the president's doing the right thing.

Anyone who objects to this does not have a grasp of reality, the dangers of Iran and

it's achieving a nuclear capability and all of the deaths it has caused by being such a

sponsor of terrorism, you know, anyone who's against this probably thinks that Neville

Chamberlain was a great prime minister in England.

If they even know who Neville Chamberlain was, I have to tell you, on watching the reaction

from younger Republicans and younger conservatives who, you know, want to be careful here because

I'm not trying to be overtly rude, but I had to check a few of them and say, how old

are you again?

You're 28 years old, no disrespect, but you haven't been tracking what's happened

for 47 years.

You haven't traveled around the world and suddenly found that there have been terrorist warnings

that have caused you to have to change your business plans or your vacation plans because

somebody from Iran decided that they'd put a fatwa on you or someone you knew or that

just generally Americans had to watch themselves.

You can't name the names of the Americans like Robert Steedham and Mr. Klinghofer and

these people that we watched murdered over these decades.

What do we do with that group though that I think is very sincere and passionate in their

desire for the United States not to be aggressive overseas with military action, certainly not

long-term military action.

Their reaction to President Trump is to feel betrayed by this.

I think all we can do is try to educate them because they obviously have missed the

kind of education they need in history and particularly looking at what happened in

the 1930s when the Allies could have acted very early to stop Hitler and refuse to do it.

And that's the kind of reeducation, frankly, that they need to make them understand that

the term piece through strength, that's a real term.

It's one that really applies to history and if they don't know that history then they

are going to repeat the terrible mistakes that occurred in the past that led to the

unnecessary deaths of millions of people.

You know, I mentioned I'm in Manhattan today for a couple of meetings.

I got here yesterday afternoon and I was walking around with my head on a swivel because

I do think at some point they're going to be acts of retribution in the United States

maybe from people who are here already who I don't know why we haven't taken their

threats seriously over the last few years.

But it appears to me that there's a rising group of radical islamists in our own population.

And this may be an opportunity to ferret them out and invite them to leave the country

in my opinion.

Well, look, I agree and it might be an unfortunate and tragic lesson for those who think we

ought to have a completely open border and completely open immigration policy and realize

that we need a much stricter one that is much more interested in security and ensuring

that individuals who are going to become domestic terrorists do not get into the United

States.

Is there an appropriate legitimate legal way to vet people to understand that?

I mean, this is controversial, say other than saying we're not going to allow anybody

of this space from this part of the world into the country.

Is there a legitimate reasonable way to try to figure this out before something bad?

Well, yeah, I mean, one of the ways is something, I don't know if you recall this, prior democratic

administrations told the Department of Homeland Security, for example, that it was not

allowed to review social media posts by individuals who are applying to come in.

The Trump administration fortunately changed that, but that's the kind of investigation.

You know, a lot of people, they're very revealing in what they post.

And frankly, anyone who you find social media posts who are praising, for example, Hamas

and other terrorists, they should not be led into the country.

That's just plain common sense.

And that's the kind of thing we need to be doing in the immigration area.

Yeah, maybe maybe some retrospective reviews of that would be important.

When I worked here in Manhattan, Hans, I was doing a radio program up here on occasion,

I was shocked by some of the people who were working for the sister station.

I was doing conservative talk, and there were a couple of other stations.

And I remember on 9-11, the anniversary of 9-11, one of the young women came in and said,

oh, I bet you're going to talk about a 9-11 today.

And I said, well, yeah, I mean, it's the big anniversary, and I would think people here

in Midtown would kind of be mad if you didn't talk about all the lives that were lost.

And she went on to talk about what a glorious day it was for the martyrs.

Not Americans, but her comrades or allies.

And I remember kind of being shocked.

Here's a woman who has a good job who's living here in the United States in Midtown, Manhattan,

who is bold enough to tell the guy who's about to host a radio talk show on 9-11, that

what happened there was good and just and that we deserved it.

That always has been in the bend.

This is 15 years ago.

This has always been in the back of my head like, how did this woman get in and how is

she meant to stay?

And how many people like her are living right down the street that I don't know?

I mean, look, that is a problem, John, and what's even worse is all of the advocacy organizations,

for example, you know, that have gone to court to try to prevent the current administration

from removing individuals, aliens who are here on visas and otherwise, who are vocal

supporters of terrorist groups like Hamas and unfortunately judges have been giving in

and refusing to enforce immigration laws, which allow us to remove aliens with those views.

That is an ongoing problem that's going to feed into the kind of potential attacks that

you were just talking about.

Yeah.

Hans, I really appreciate the chance to talk to you, Hans von Spakowski, Advancing American

Freedom.

We'll talk again soon.

Thank you.

Great.

Thanks, John.

Thanks very much.

Let's take a break and we'll be back with more of the Read Revolution in just a moment.

So much to talk about on this Monday, but one of the big issues that everyone in politics

and in government and businesses been tracking is whether we're actually going to have this

gerrymandering referendum that the Democrats are jamming through or whether someone in the

courts is going to step in and make the Democrats obey the rules that they themselves set

up.

Tim Anderson is a former member of the Virginia House of delegates and he's the attorney

who's going to drive the resistance movement if you want to put it that way and he's with

us this morning.

We're expecting to hear some sort of ruling this morning that could derail the whole process,

Tim.

What's the update?

Good morning, John.

So last week, the city of Lynchburg by resolution voted to hire me to represent the

city in a municipality dispute with the Commonwealth.

And what they they're in limbo as is every municipality because we have a order out of

TAS well that tells the Department of Elections that it can't prepare for this election.

And so the Department of Elections is gone dark and the way our system works in Virginia

and elections is you have the Department of Elections appear and then in every locality

there's a local registrar and that local registrar is basically the lieutenant carrying

out the orders of the general, the general in this case is the Department of Elections.

Well, Department of Elections is offline and in Lynchburg specifically the registrar

emailed the elections people and said, hey, I need guidance and they literally wrote

them back and said, we can't give you any, do the best again with what you have.

That's insane because obviously different localities may act differently in some cases

and in certain places some of just said they're not even going to do it.

Campbell County, Pastor Resolution, we're not going to do it.

Spots of Whitney, Pastor Resolution with County, Pastor Resolutions.

And so we have all these counties going in different directions and there's no guidance

from elections.

And so Lynchburg hired me and said, look, we want the courts to tell us what to do.

We need the court to declare what our responsibilities are here.

We need the court to answer some important constitutional questions.

And so we spun all that up on Wednesday and filed that with the courts and we had an emergency

hearing Thursday morning in Lynchburg.

We were in Lynchburg for about five hours putting on evidence.

And you know, I mean, a lot of people think that the law is like that.

It's not, it's not like it is on TV.

There was usually a lot of preparation and getting people ready and all this came together

at record speed.

So it was me versus the Attorney General's Office.

And then another lawyer who represented Don Scott in the, the task well, one case.

She was there in another lawyer with her.

So it was me versus three.

And we put the case on and, you know, the judge was, they threw everything at us.

They threw sovereign immunity.

They threw venue.

They threw the non-judicial, but judicial controversy.

They threw everything at us multiple ways, multiple times.

I was able to deflect all of those and back.

But the judge had ample opportunity to do anything to even delay our case.

We could have done anything on Thursday, but after we said and done, he submitted it.

He asked us to alter right.

We all did.

We were all up until midnight over the weekend, writing and submitting.

And now we are in a position where he said he's going to rule today 11 a.m.

And that's our, our thing, you know, the judge is going to make some very, very critical

and important decisions before the, you know, that apply to Lynchburg.

But when he does, it's going to really give a lot of guidance to the rest of the state,

especially the municipality.

We argued what does 90 days mean, which is something that you and I have talked about.

You know, the Constitution says that you can't submit a ballot on a constitutional amendment

any sooner than 90 days to a voter.

And the constitutional amendment passed on January 16th.

That means that 90 days from there and is April 16th, but they're going to be submitting

those ballots as soon as March 6th under the current schedule.

And you know, the Democrats are saying, well, that's because the election is on April

21.

So that's the data counts.

What we're arguing is is that when you vote on March 6, you are revocably voting.

You can't take that back.

You're answering the question.

And the Constitution says you can't do that.

The Democrats, these are the rules that Democrats agreed to from the beginning.

They set the rules here.

They're the ones who set up 45 days of early voting.

They're the ones who have put the parameters in place.

And they're very clearly just trying to jam this through and come up with excuses to get

it started.

Well, that's right.

And so the Constitution was enacted in the 70s, and there was no 45 day early voting in

the 70s.

And so the words say, shall not be submitted to voters any sooner.

And then, you know, obviously post-COVID, they ran these 45 days of early voting through,

which is fine.

I mean, if that's what they're doing, that's what they're doing.

But the question still remains, what does submission to voters mean?

And we think it's pretty clear early voting can't start any sooner than April 16th.

Can't start on March 6th.

And that's a big deal for reasons we can talk about in a minute.

But then the other big thing is this is that the entire election schedule is over a

House Bill, House Bill 1384, which creates all of this.

This is the bill that Abigail Spamberger was laughing when she was signing, you know, that

we saw the viral video of her, you know, her first bill that she signed.

So 1384 does a lot of things.

It suspends all the laws that prohibit what they're doing right now.

It suspends all of them.

It sets up the date of April 21 for early voting or for the election day.

It sets up the money.

And what the Democrats did is they called that a general appropriations bill and general

appropriations bills become effective immediately.

But it's not a general appropriations bill.

And so we argue that and therefore it doesn't become effective immediately even if the

Democrats call it something even if the Democrats say it's effective immediately, it's

not.

It's not effective.

And that case, then what's the difference?

What is the distinction in the way the general assembly runs?

So in order for something to become immediate, that's not an appropriations bill.

You have to have four fifths of the general assembly vote for it.

It's called an emergency car.

And they did it.

They got party line votes so they did not have four fifths votes.

And so they just they just they literally titled it appropriations bill.

But it's not the appropriate.

It's not the bill, the appropriations act of the 2026 general assembly session.

And so they've literally done everything to sneak around and work around.

And so we argued at the hearing that it's unconstitutionally passed and that mattered.

The judge already kind of ruled on that because one of the provisions of this bill is is

that no circuit court can litigate any of these issues except for Richmond.

And so the Commonwealth was trying to move it to Richmond and I and we said you can't

do that.

You can maybe do that after July one, but you can't do it today.

And the judge will greet with that and kept the case.

And so he's already leaned into the idea that 1384 is not valid.

And if 1384 is not valid, this whole election is invalid and that's what I've been saying

from the beginning.

This whole thing is so illegal and unconstitutional how they've done it, how they've got here.

They've cut corners.

They've done everything they can.

And we're just asking the court to say it, to say it that you can't do it.

I mean, he asked me in the hearing, he asked me two questions.

He said, well, yes, the other attorneys who said they can't even intervene.

The other attorney said the judge can't even intervene in this election.

And the judge said, well, what if, you know, what if the question was only men vote?

No, nobody else just men.

We have to wait for the election to go through and then decide that that was an improper

or can I stop that?

And then even their side said, well, that's different, your honor.

Well, that's crazy because it's not different because the Constitution, we're talking about

a different part of the Constitution that they don't want to talk about.

But he talked about that.

But then he asked me, he said, what's worse, an imperfect election or no election?

And I said, I think it's a third option.

I think an unconstitutional election is the worst thing that we can do in the Commonwealth.

Having voters vote is something that is so defective that it has to be said aside, is

worse than anything.

And I said, we're not trying to stop the election.

We just want it to be done correctly.

They've got it.

Do it in the proper steps and the proper procedures.

And really, they probably can't even do this until mid-August.

Right.

And would then be too late for the gerrymandering and the rigging of the federal elections, is

their ultimate goal?

That's right.

That's exactly what this is about.

If we don't have elections till August, then on this constitutional amendment, they can't

rig the election this year.

And that's why they're reigning it through in the timetable that they're reigning it

through.

And that also means that the candidates that you currently have, the incumbents and the

people who are already announced that they're going to challenge the incumbents, Republican

and Democrat alike, would still run and the people of Virginia could decide whether they

like those people and whether they're going to use them to send a message to Washington

or to Donald Trump.

You still have an election.

It's still valid.

It's just with the established lines.

And with the established signs, it should be noted that Abigail Spanberger won Rob Whitman's

district, won Gen Tuygens district.

So if the will of the voters in these currently drawn districts is that they want to send Donald

Trump a message, then there's still plenty of voters that could do that in the current

lines.

They don't have to pull all these, look, they're putting Guteland where you are, Guteland

into Arlington.

I mean, it's crazy.

It's shocking.

Yeah.

Geographically, it's a huge distance between those two places.

They have nothing in common.

They're all the rules of good and map drawing for legislative representation are thrown

out the window because they're trying to anchor it in quote unquote blue areas so that they

can rig the, rig the election here.

Do you think that the Democrats, when they put this through, just figured that the Republicans

were going to be lazy or listless and not challenge them aggressively like this case is

doing?

You know, we've not really seen Republicans engage like we're doing right now in the

past.

And I think that they made a calculus that it didn't happen.

Look, it's not just me, you know, the RNC brought a new lawsuit in task well, which is

before the Virginia Supreme Court.

And you know, you had Terry Kilgore and Ryan McDougall bring the first lawsuit in task

well.

And so, you know, these are, it's not just me.

There are other people out there fighting for this.

And I don't think that the Democrats anticipated that was going to happen.

You know, it's great to be part of something, you know, we also saw John McWire and Rob

Whitman file a lawsuit in Richmond, which has not moved yet, which this is why they wanted

it to get stuck in Richmond, it has not moved.

You know, their lawsuit is about restoring fairness as to whether or not that is a constitutionally

valid question hasn't moved.

And that's why the Democrats, you know, tied all this to have to be filed in Richmond

is because they knew they can bury it out there and, you know, before an election, you

know, once the first vote is passed on Friday, if courts haven't stopped this, we're in

a big trouble.

But, you know, what we expect out of Judge Eats today in Flint, Lynchburg is some kind

of direction.

And, you know, I can't promise anybody who's watching your show that it's going to go

our way.

But what he's going to have to answer is, is what does 90 days mean?

Does 90 days mean 90 days, or does 90 days mean 44 days?

And so, we're going to have to see what he says, and if he says 90 days means 90 days,

which we think he will, I'm hopeful, praying, but he will, then Lynchburg is not going

to be able to have an election by court order, and that's going to create some chaos in

the entire election, and I don't know how they could legally do it.

I think this Supreme Court would then have to ask, they would, they've not ruled on anything

at this point.

I think they would have to act as to whether a statewide injunction is in place.

Or they're going to stay the order out of Lynchburg, but I think the Supreme Court would

have to do something before Friday, if the court enjoins Lynchburg from moving forward.

And if Lynchburg, if the judge in Lynchburg does put some sort of stop here, does it only

apply to Lynchburg?

You know, that was one of the issues in Tazwell was originally, it appeared to apply

just to Tazwell, and then there was this seemed like confusion from the people I was talking

to about whether the whole state had to slam on the brakes.

How does that work?

But it does only apply to Tazwell, and it does apply to the Department of Elections

overall, where they can't even provide voting books to the registrars.

You know, one other thing you talked about, like the registrars are going to have to use

the November voting books in November 2025.

And certainly people have died, certainly people have moved, certainly new people have moved

in and registered.

They can't, none of that's going to be, it's all going to be completely off by months.

And so that's a big issue, but when a city is told by a court, you can't proceed, and

you're going to now take 58,000 voters out of the equation by court order.

Not just, you know, the registrar or anything like that, but the actual city is offline.

I think that will cause the Supreme Court to have to rule one way or the other.

What's been their reticence in this?

I would think that for their own reputation and for good governance, they would feel obligated

to have stepped in to clear all this up weeks ago.

Well, it's just a general theme that courts don't want to get in the middle of elections.

They want people to make their own decisions.

They don't want the courts to put thumbs on the scales of political questions.

That's a, that's a bedrock theme in courts.

And so that's not uncommon, but, you know, like I told the judge, I said, you know, let

the people vote.

That's fine, but let the people vote with a correct procedural question, not something

that was just ran through for political gain by one party.

And that's what's really gross about this is, you know, they're trying to say restoring

fairness when they have literally broken every rule that matters.

Every rule that matters has been broken by the Democrats.

This is such an illegal process that we've got to, we've got to see something come out

of a high court of what we're supposed to do here.

And I think ultimately this thing's going to have to stop.

It's just going to have to stop.

And then we're going to have to let everybody do this the right way, you know, like I said

to you before the other day, you know, there's three other amendments.

There's the abortion amendment, the gay right marriage amendment, and the voting amendment.

I don't like those amendments, but they all, they all were directly at least, they were

all passed in year one and year two, and they're going to go on the November ballot.

But, you know, those are, those were done right.

And we're going to have to rally people together to vote accordingly, you know, the gay

marriage thing.

I'm obviously, I don't have any problem with gay marriage, but I do have problems with

them putting gender into the Constitution as a court's to tinker with that as a constitutionally

protected class, because gender is a problem, obviously.

They know what they're doing with the wording there.

Yeah.

That's right.

That's right.

So, you know, there's, you know, there's all these things that we have to, you know,

that are spinning.

And I think if Lynchburg punches the brakes at 11 o'clock today, just a little bit from

now, we're going to see, see something very big happen in Virginia.

Yeah.

I really appreciate you bringing this up today and we'll be monitoring that throughout

the morning.

I suspect that while we're focused on this huge issue, and it is a big issue, and I'm glad

that the RNC, the Republican National Committees, finally paying some attention to what's happening

in Virginia, because it's going to have huge impact on them going forward and on President

Trump and his ability to get anything done in the last two years of this term.

What's, what else is happening at the Capitol?

I see on social media these large classes that you're teaching for concealed carry permits.

And I have some of my friends who were very big in the two-A community are beside themselves.

What, what are you tracking that we need to not let slip under the radar?

So there's a bill, I can't remember the exact number.

I think it's going to go 114.

It's 115.

And it's something in the, it's one 10, it's in the teens between 110 and 120.

That it has passed the Senate and has gotten through a subcommittee in the House and is

now in appropriations.

And essentially it's going to allow the Attorney General in Virginia to revoke reciprocity

agreements with other states.

So our concealed carry permit is about to collapse, assuming that, that, you know, this becomes

law.

I started back in 2016 back when Mark Herring was the Attorney General and he just unilaterally

decided he was going to revoke reciprocity agreements because he's the Attorney General.

This is going to codify what Mark Herring did and allow the Attorney General to do it.

Although I think the Attorney General can probably do it anyway.

You know, our permit for Virginia permits work in other states like North Carolina, West

Virginia, Tennessee, Florida.

They're going to go through and revoke.

We have 30 states, our permit works and it's going to get revoked probably down to six.

So what we're doing is we're, I'm teaching the Utah concealed carry class all over the state

and by plugging into Utah as a non-resident, you get access to all of Utah states, which

are 35 in total.

And so people are basically hedging that the, their Virginia permit is probably not going

to be very good anymore.

They're getting the Utah permit so that when they travel, they have something that works

in other places.

Is it remarkable that you can't count on the legislators in your home state to protect

you as a law-abiding citizen?

They're going to try to strip you of your rights and turn you into a felon should you cross

an imaginary line from state to state and you've got to take these extraordinary efforts

to protect yourself.

It's pretty important.

Jim Anderson, a former member of the House of delegates, I appreciate the fact that you're

being so aggressive on, on all of these issues, but especially this one, which has national

ramifications if it goes through with the gerrymandering that's Democrats are pushing.

Thanks for talking to us and we'll check back in with you later this week.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Pretty remarkable to be in this situation and thank goodness there's some people who

will go to the wall on this and in all fairness, this is not a case where Tim Anderson and

the Republicans are just fighting to fight and come up the works and throw a monkey wrench

into things.

They're asking everybody, the legislature, the governor, the judges, the board of elections,

the local registrars.

You just read the plain English of the law and follow it please and let me compare it

to something that people do seem to care about sports.

If this was the Super Bowl or if this were the World Series, I think people would be very

adamant that you actually obey the rules that are written in the rule book and they would

be turning their head saying, well, we'll just work this out later now.

I mean, the game's being played right now and we need your ruling on this and it needs

to be factual and not just based on emotion.

And I think the courts, I will see what happens today, but I think the courts have been letting

us down and Supreme Court's decision, look, who wants the Supreme Court to get in between

the voters and the will of the voters?

I concur with that, but that's not what's happening here.

The Supreme Court is allowing something to occur that is wrong.

I mean, it just is based on what's written down in the law.

There is a process.

It's very clear.

It's not like, oh, wish we had thought of this part because this has kind of put us

in an awkward position.

I mean, the law sets up a calendar and I get it.

The Democrats don't want to follow the calendar.

They want their way.

I certainly understand that and we don't Republicans don't want this to proceed, but it's

not based on just us not wanting it to proceed.

It's actually based on, are you going to follow the law or not?

And I think we're in dangerous territory when you've got judges who step back from their

job, which is not to put a thumb on the scale, but to look at the law and actually follow

the letter of the law.

This is where we're falling apart all over the country and I would have expected more

from Virginia.

So we'll see what happens as we continue.

Let's take a break.

We'll be back with more just a moment on the read revolution.

Yeah, back on this Monday, the re-revolution I'm John Reed in New York City today and ready

to have a whole afternoon of meeting.

So bear with me as we try to make this thing work.

Mr. Dan is back with us to talk about some of the news of the last few days.

How are you feeling about everything, Dan?

Well, I couldn't be happier about what happened over the weekend.

I think that Iran has posed kind of like what Hans von Spakowski said, I love his name

by the way, Hans von Spakowski, what a name, but Iran has been the danger, the great

danger to Western civilization for almost half a century.

And the fact that it's taken this long is troubling, but I'm glad that it was done.

Have you looked this morning with a Gzala Hashmi has said anything about this?

I have not seen anything from our esteemed lieutenant governor at this point.

I wonder what she thinks.

Anybody got the guts to ask her for her reaction to this?

Since she's made history as the first Muslim statewide leader in Virginia, minimally, I

wonder what she thinks.

Is she before protecting Americans or does she have dual allegiances here?

She doesn't think this is a good idea.

Wouldn't we find that interesting to know how she perceives this?

Well, certainly no shortage of Democrats who have come out in opposition to what happened.

I think that's a terrible indictment on their part, but yeah, we've had everyone from

this woman who ran on making history has an opinion about what's happened and whether

she's going to stand up for America or whether she's going to have dual allegiances here

and be defending the Iranian Islamic regime.

I think that would be a very interesting illuminating thing to discuss with her.

I'm not even really interested in a press release from her, although that would be a

start.

She issues press releases about just about everything else.

So I think a good reporter today should ask her find where she is at the Capitol and ask

her directly with a microphone in her face.

What her opinion is of protecting the United States of America and American freedom against

a radical Islamic regime.

And I would bet you that you will not get a clear answer.

That should, let's see, let's see, but if she doesn't have a clear answer that's supporting

freedom in the United States and she defaults to her normal answer about Islamophobia, like

asking her that question demonstrates Islam of them.

No, it's the same question we would ask anybody if they seem to maybe have some sort of

connection to people who are engaged in a conflict.

Let's see, I'd be very curious to know.

Anybody going to do that?

I doubt it.

Somebody just said, ask Mom Donnie, and Mom Donnie has already said that he was against

what happened.

That's correct.

Yeah.

I mean, maybe John, this will hit home for us.

Maybe we could get AI gizola to get a answer in person.

Maybe.

Yeah.

Well, I'll tell you, I'll be curious to see whether we've got that information tomorrow,

whether there's any kind of statement tomorrow.

And I would encourage folks to call her office and ask her that question, ask her staff

that question.

That's a very legitimate concern, especially since she is the one who has celebrated her

rise politically.

There's a downside to that if she's not 100% on the side of the United States.

And you see Mom Donnie, the same people who funded Mom Donnie becoming the mayor of New

York, funded her campaign and supported her.

And so I think we should know what we're getting.

What's the thought?

She's going to run for governor in four years.

We need to know what the answer is to that.

So we get close to the end of the time here, producer Dan, don't you think we should probably

say goodbye and we'll pick everything up tomorrow?

Yeah, that sounds good.

That sounds good.

We will continue where we have left off for today tomorrow.

That's fantastic.

Thank you very much.

Give us a like and a follow on our social media outlets on Facebook and across the social

media spectrum.

And we will see you bright and early tomorrow morning.

Have a great Monday.