on this. political enemies using the irs because they attack government. if there s one thing the first amendment doesn t allow you to do, under the circumstances to criticize government. that s the whole point. right. free speech. leave that out. don t criticize government. let s not get crazy here. these comments from senator chuck shchumer comes just days after the government s review of the irs and say there likely will not be any criminal charges involved in this. so i guess it was a phony scandal. so you re saying that the administration, after using the irs to crush people who are opposing the president s re-election, isn t going to punish itself for doing that? um, shocking. wow. i wonder what the method is behind that madness. he paid the ultimate sacrifice fighting for our freedom and now this soldier s identity is stolen. his sisters are sick about it. you re going to hear from them live. they came out in full force.
actually very interesting statistic, seeing as that the administration has, again, kind of applauded and touted the fact that young people under the age of 26 can stay on their parent s health care plans. so why is it that they feel they would be worse off under this insurance policy? certainly finding out that it s a different program than what was peddled and pushed. so probably losing some support there because of that. what about just the federal government in general and the way that millennials are feeling disenchant disenchanted? doesn t it come down to trying to find a job even right now? yeah, i mean, you find unemployment for the youth, 6.3%. it s extremely high. they re saddled with student loan debt. the national debt per capita, $55,000 per person. and that s huge. and they re facing that economic crisis. and then you see 48% of young people today are very distressing of government and believe that government is too big as opposed to 4% that think that it s too small.
south. you are disruption our happy region with your northern idea about the way we should run our lives. that isn t surprising. what is surprising and always is surprising, lawrence. people on the right, constitutional scholars. they don t get it. you said it before on the show. seems like it is said all the time. the first amendment doesn t guarantee the right to say what you want. and have an employer go for it. his first amendment rights are not being vie late e violated b people object i remember when tv networks believe in the first amendment. tv net works have never believed in the first amendment. i can prove tight you right here. by using some of the language i would use outside of the, the range of the microphone. phil robertson issued a statement written by handlers.
a lot of the argument made by eastland, senators from the south. you are disruption our happy region with your northern idea about the way we should run our lives. that isn t surprising. what is surprising and always is surprising, lawrence. people on the right, constitutional scholars. they don t get it. you said it before on the show. seems like it is said all the time. the first amendment doesn t guarantee the right to say what you want. and have an employer go for it. his first amendment rights are not being violated because people object i remember when tv networks believe in the first amendment. tv net works have never believed in the first amendment. i can prove tight you right here.
attorneys have but interests of reporters like john roberts, when doctor edward r. murrow. you know you relied on confidential sources, this is matter of great interest to the public. i will protect your identity if you provide me with this information. apparently that is what happened in this case. this judge says, the first amendment doesn t prevail and i want her on the stand. when she goes on the stand and refuses under the shield law in the state of colorado to provide the information, i will put that young journalist in jail. i don t think that is going to happen in this case. john: one other quick point. this notebook that was sent to a doctor, the center of the case here over whether or not he had