September 12, 2025 • 38 mins
News anchors Nichole Deal and Mike Eiland discuss this week's major stories on today's podcast.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's been another busy news week and we like to
review the major stories of the week here on the
bi In Today, we are joined by bi In News
anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Island to discuss this week's
major stories. This is the QR Code and I am
Rams's jah. All right, Mike Island, Nicole Deal, welcome back
to the show. It's been a week, Nicole. How are
(00:24):
you feeling.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
I'm feeling awesome.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Okay, all right, all right, glad to hear that. Mike,
how about you?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Man, I'm filling with my hands like everybody else.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
I'm going pretty good.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
I like that. I need a little humor today, Man,
yesterday was a rough one for me, if I'm honest, yes,
but yeah, okay, all right, let's get into it. So
first up, in a recently released excerpt from her new book,
former Vice President Kamala Harris didn't hold back her thoughts
on the inner turmoil within the Democratic Party and the
role Joe Biden played in her failed presidential run. Nicole,
(00:56):
Let's get today's show started with you tell us more
about this excerpt from the VP's book, and then Mike
will get your thoughts next.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
All right, So, Kamala Harris's new book is called One
hundred seven Days, and from the few excerpts that are
being released and talked about, it looks like Harris is
spilling all the tea. It is unexpectedly do say, and
I'm surprised. In the past, she seemed like a loyalist.
(01:25):
I remember her being asked on the view what she
would have done differently than Biden, and she said, nothing
came to mind. And it almost seems like this book
is a complete contradiction of that. She criticizes President Biden's
decision to run for reelection. She called it reckless. She
(01:47):
said it should not have been left to an individual ego.
And she says she didn't push the issue for him
to step down sooner because she thought it would make
her look like, you know, she was, you know, going
after her own ambition. I think she called it naked ambition. Also,
what I'm seeing online, she seems to point to a
(02:09):
lack of support from Biden's inner circle. There was a
quote that from the book that says, when Poles indicated
that I was getting more popular, the people around him
didn't like the contrast that was emerging. So none of
them grasp that if I did well, he did well.
She says, they let negative stories about her go unchecked.
(02:31):
They didn't defend her against sexist, racist whatever. You know.
They seem to be fine with her being quote unquote
not down. So there is one thing she appeared to
defend about Biden, and that was his mental or cognitive
decline during his debate with Trump. It looks like she
(02:53):
is still going to stay with what she originally said
on that, just blaming that on exhaustion after so much time.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Oh blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
But anyway, online she's getting some criticism, people saying she's
deflecting blame, she's failing, she's not taking responsibility for her
own shortcomings, things of that nature. So I guess we
just have to wait and see get the fullness of
the book. And of course she has lots of supporters
(03:21):
too that's saying, oh, yeah, good for you for coming
out and speaking the truth and things of that nature.
So the book is due out later this month.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Fantastic, Well, Mike.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Yeah'ta can't wait to read the book. But just like
Nicole said, the excerpts tell a lot, but it shouldn't
be too surprising. I mean, she had some problems in
her vice presidential office with some of her staff members,
and as you remember, there were departures and they weren't
all amicable. So it kind of reflected a little bit
(03:53):
on maybe problems with you know, her leadership maybe in
some case. But the things that she said about Joe Biden,
I think she wanted to say them all along. We
were saying them as people on the outside looking in.
We noticed the change in his delivery, and we noticed
(04:14):
that some things just seemed to sit on the show
for a long time until near the end of his presidency.
Then things that came up that we should have been
on long ago that could have stopped some of the
things that are happening right now. So just looking on
a surface level, not too much of the book should
(04:36):
be surprised, except for the details that she's giving about
things that I think that we already knew. I think
that she was being a loyalist, as Nicole said, because
that's her job. Her job is to be loyalty. But
when at the end of the day, when she clocks out,
she probably breathes a sigh of relief. You know, I
(04:59):
got to an other day with this mess. You know,
and then her real thoughts were at home, but she
for the public, she had to be loyal because that
would affect votes, you know, if she showed any disloyalty
at that time. I'm just thinking that way again on
a surface level, that her book probably won't unleash a
(05:22):
lot of surprises except for some of the background details
of their day to day. So I think I'll think
it'll roll on from there.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Yeah, yeah, And I think you're right. I feel like
there's nothing that she can do that and I guess
that's that's appropriate. But there's nothing that she can do
that is above criticism. You know. On the one hand,
there was a lot of people that were saying, you know,
(05:54):
Democrats need to be on the same page, they need
to have a singular message, they need to be aligned.
And this was a charge from many people, myself included,
you know, And that makes sense, and you know, her actually,
Kamala Harris actually falling in line and being in alignment
with the Democratic agenda. With Joe Biden, he's going to
(06:18):
keep running. He is the president, and he says he
wants to run again. That's not what he promised us.
But here we are, and he's already in the office.
He already beat this guy one time. He says he
wants to do it again. I mean, we can talk
to him, we can ask him not to, we can
ask him to reconsider. But if he says that, then
that's what's happening here. He's, for all intents and purposes,
(06:38):
the leader of the Democratic Party, and so he needs
our support. Let's go. So her going on to the
view and then saying, yeah, you know, I do so
many different things from Joe Biden. He did this wrong,
and he did that wrong, and you know, Israel was
wrong and blah blah blah. It just we haven't charged
her with that. We've charged her with and all Democrats
(07:00):
we've charged them with being in alignment, right, like Republicans
are you know what I mean, they have a I
mean there are some dissenters over there, but for the
most part, when you think of Republicans, they are the
Project twenty twenty five and like, this is what we're
on and you know, and they got to the ground
and got to work. So, you know, she went along
(07:22):
with some stuff apparently that she didn't personally agree with,
but she was doing what was the right thing to do.
To protect the country and to fight for the country.
And so again I don't think that Kamala Harrison. And
you know, there's an argument to be made that she's
getting attacked because people might perceive her as being more
vulnerable because she's a woman, or people are just more
(07:47):
accustomed to attacking women. You know, maybe there's some truth
there too, But the fact is is that there was
no version of this where she could have done right
enough by people to where people would just be like, yeah, okay,
that makes it. And she fought the good fight. She
had one hundred and seven days to do it. She
didn't emerge victorious, but she was still a strong candidate. Man,
(08:07):
I stand by my vote. People are just going to
be critical of her personally, and you know, I don't
know that that's really the wisest thing to do, because again,
there was something to be said about Democrats being in alignment.
And just another note I'd like to add here, you know,
as she tours this book, you know, in hindsight of
you know, the events with Charlie Kirk being assassinated, you know,
(08:30):
and this was a note from Chris, the show's producer.
Chris you know, mentioned that he really hopes that she's
going to be very careful. I know, and you know
everyone in the public eye is going to be more
careful moving forward, because it's we live in a dangerous time.
So so yeah, moving on. Earlier this week, the Supreme
(08:55):
Court issued a ruling on a case involving the enforcement
powers of ICE agents. For This ruling is not only controversial,
but also demonstrates a clear sign of support by the
High Court of the policies for the Trump administration. Mike,
this sounds get started with you tell us more about
the Court's ruling, and then Nicole will get your thoughts next.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
All right, For some reason, the words unchecked power come
into play here, and I'll tell you why. Of course,
Kamala Harris first introduced that term when describing President Trump
and what he was going to do in his presidency.
Spilled her down to law enforcement, because the Supreme Court
(09:32):
ruled that immigration and Customs enforcement agents can detain individuals
without reasonable suspicion in certain cases, allowing race, language, location,
and job type to be considered in immigration stops. That
is unchecked power. You can stop anyone for any reason
and they don't have to tell you what the reason is.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
You know.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
So it was a sixty three ruling and that just happened,
and the Supreme Court lifted a low court order that
blocked ICE agents and Los Angeles in LA from targeting
individuals based on four factors. They actually outlined them, including ethnicity,
language or accent, location, and employment type. And that was
a I think that came from the Huffington Post where
(10:16):
I saw that. So it's I don't know, it's going
to be quite a mess. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh, he
cited the Immigration and Nationality Act, and of course that
continues to allow them to interrogate or briefly detain a
person believed to be an alien. So based on what
(10:38):
they think, based on their it's just like someone charging
you based on their projections what they think it might cost,
you know, just things like that. It's just unchecked and
there's no there's no fighting against.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
This.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
You can't cite they fixed it, so you can't really cite,
you know, racism or anything like that, or profiling. All
that's all that's done now because of the ruling. We
can only say, oh, this is very bad, Oh this
is not right, Oh this shit never happened. That's all
we can do. We're only we're left to talk about it,
(11:14):
but we really can't do anything about it because the
laws were set up, you know, to make sure that
you can't fight against the sunchecked power.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Yeah, Well, first of all, the decision was a sixty
three vote ruling that ICE agents can use factors like race, language, location,
and job type when deciding who to stop in immigration enforcement.
So six out of nine, six out of nine. To
(11:45):
put that into a percentage, that's sixty seven percent. I
remember when I was in school. I'm going to show
my age, but seventy percent was passing. So sixty seven percent.
Just let that sink in. That is absolutely crushing to
me that highest court in our nation can use race
as a basis for immigration enforcement or who or deciding
(12:09):
who to stop. To me, that is a violation of
civil rights, its overreach. Judge Kavanaugh basically argue that these
factors can be relevant in areas with high undocumented populations. Huh,
what I mean again, We're going back to race, language, location,
(12:35):
job type. Okay, So he's saying that these things can
be relevant in areas with high undocumented populations. Okay. Justice
Sotomeyer's dissent made a lot more sense to me. She
warns that the decision effectively legalizes racial profiling, putting Latino communities,
(12:58):
whether they are citizens or nonsense citizens, just Latino communities,
because again, I can look at your race, I can
look at your language. If you don't speak English, that's
a factor. Now, So I think again, it effectively, like
she said, effectively legalizes racial profiling, putting Latino communities, citizens
and non citizens at risk of being unfairly targeted. And
(13:23):
that's just how I see it as well. I agree
with just A Soto mayor.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Yeah, legalizing prejudicial and racist behavior is it's crazy. You know.
One of the things that we we say from time
to time around here when it's parent that this could
(13:50):
have all been avoided, is elections have consequences. You know.
The people that are in power right now in the
United States of America are people that justify this behavior
because it doesn't affect them. They have no concept of
what it means to be prejudged based on the color
(14:16):
of your skin, the language you speak, none of that.
And I'm sure that some of them, well intentioned, some
of them, you know, that have a modicum of empathy,
can look at this and say, well, you know, sure
it is a little racist, but this is how we
go about getting the things that we need in terms
(14:37):
of security for this country. Right. I think that Justice
Kavanaugh his sentiments sort of reflected that when he you know, summarized,
you know, the Court's decision, but you know, as a
person that recognizes is the trauma that stopping frisk has on,
(15:05):
you know people, as a person that was on the
ground in Arizona during SB ten seventy and the subsequent protests,
as a person that is connected with many people who
are here legally. Most Mexican people live here legally because
(15:27):
this used to be Mexico, and they still look like
the people that lived here, because there's still the people
that live here, and all of those people are now
on the menu because of the sensibilities of the people
that we buy our protest vote or our third party vote,
(15:48):
or our couch vote, those of us that decided to
stay on the couch. You know, there are people in
power that can reshape the world to their sensibilities, and
they don't look at it as racist, They don't look
at it as prejudicial at all. They look at it like, well,
this is a necessary evil that we need to rid
the immigrant scourge from this country. And for them, I
(16:16):
don't even know that they're performing mental gymnastics on purpose.
You know. Q might argue that they are absolutely and
they know better, but maybe they don't. Maybe their worldview
doesn't expand to encompass the reality that other people are
subjected to based on these decisions. So again, most of
(16:38):
the people here who are Mexican people are indeed American citizens,
but all of them are now subjected to a federal
police force. And let's be honest, this will have local
law enforcement implications too, But a federal police force that
covers their face, don't know who they are, that can
(17:01):
violate your civil rights, They can violate your autonomy as
a human being, and indeed do that and overstep constantly.
They are bullies and they've been weaponized against one of
the most vulnerable groups in this country based on I
(17:26):
would say vibes to be funny, but it's not even
based on vibes, based on how you look. So, you know,
my heart breaks for women because women get violated by
these masked men all the time. And what can they say,
what defense, what recourse do they have if their bodies
(17:48):
are violated by these people. They don't even know who's
doing it, you know. And on that side, they like
to assume that everybody's doing the right job, and you know,
they got the right people for the job. That's probably
a better way to say that. And there might be
a handful of bad apples. And on this side, we
(18:09):
know better that it is a corrupt system that protects itself.
The bad apples are well insulated, and the only way
to engage in a democracy is to vote. Elections have consequences. Yeah,
end News anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Island are here
with us discussing this week's major stories. All right, up next,
(18:37):
A recent post on X has gone viral and ignited
some heated debates on social media on the subject of
race and black identity. Nicole, let's go back to you
give us some more details on this social media post,
and then Mike will get your.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Thoughts next, Yes, sir, All right, So this is awakening
and riveting and disturbing all at the same time. There's
a post that has gone viral on X about black
identity and black culture being erased. The post was shared
(19:08):
by someone called at Joe Underscore Underscore Bassie. I think
he is boldly claiming that it only takes three generations
to wipe out a black person. There's a video of
a white woman speaking, I think it's a woman speaking,
basically saying that cultural and physical traits associated with being
black can fade over time through interracial marriages and assimilation,
(19:34):
et cetera. The post has over a million views, lots
and lots of intense reactions online, lots of talk about
interracial marriages, et cetera. The supporters around this are saying
that it's a wake up call, right, it's time to
preserve black heritage, et cetera. But critics are arguing that
(19:58):
this claim is oversimplifying identity, saying that culture is learned
and passed down in many ways. And I suppose that
that's true about culture, not just race. But the conversation
gets deep. I'm talking about deep over race, over history,
over who we are as a people, and how easily
(20:20):
that can be lost if it's not actively protected, nurtured, celebrated,
et cetera. So I really I don't really know where
I stand on this. I mean, the conversation is so intense.
Of course, some of it is racist, and it's it's
(20:42):
a debate. I mean, it's it's a real debate. I
just think that it's a wake up call at this
point as as a people, for us to be aware
of who we are, how we got here, what we
need to do to fight for our civil liberties and
civil rights to remain and not have those things stripped away,
(21:03):
be it publicly or privately, or system systematically or whatever.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Yeah, Mike, Well, I think I said a year ago
that we're moving into an age where we can say
so I'm a racist. You know, we won't feel bad
or hold back any you know, without fear. We will
be able to say certain things and not hold back
without fear because of things like this. To protect my
(21:32):
emotions on it, I like to say this is fake news.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
You know.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
Somebody just put up put it up here to get
a reaction, a lot of it. You know, when I
look at it in the from a twenty thousand foot
view from up in the air, I'm looking at it like, well,
wait a minute. You know, if anyone has an ounce
of like in an interracial marriage, an ounce of ethnicity
(21:59):
in them, they are that ethnic group, you know, just
like some people. I think it was I can't remember
some names, but there was somebody who had announced like
one fourth of ethnicity in their being, and they were
considered that and their racial identity and how they retreated
(22:23):
was based on that little ounce of stuff. So how
can we really wipe that out when we're always going
to be categorized by the little bit of ethnicity that
we may have in us? If you see what I mean,
how it doesn't make sense from that twenty thousand foot view.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Yeah, I can probably do you one better, if I'm
being honest. This is kind of like a nothing burger
to me. Like, I get that, you know, this is
something that a lot of people like talking about. I
recognize and respect Black women are the least married woman
(23:02):
in this country. Asian men are the least married men
in this country. I recognize that there are often fiscal
implications that go along with that form of partnership, and
you know, I realize that that is one strategy that
you know, people feel is appropriate one pathway to get
(23:24):
to you know, I guess, economic success in this country.
But this argument, I don't think really this argument is
not as strong. In fact, I think it's very weak.
But it's not as strong as people are making it
out to be because let's say, for instance, this is factual,
(23:46):
and indeed, it does take three generations to wipe out
you know, a black person, you know, and your lineage
is no longer black. I'll tell you what. Take a
page out of my dad's book. One doubt to say
the story about my dad. But this is something I
know to be true. Okay, So I'll put myself in
(24:09):
the middle of this story. Let's say I'm a black man.
It should be easy for you to imagine. But let's
say I'm a black man, okay, And let's say I
want to create the next generation of children for myself,
for my lineage, and I choose a white woman, I
(24:29):
choose an Asian woman, I choose a Native woman, I
choose a Mexican woman, I choose a black woman, I
choose a I don't know, I'm running out, but you
get what I'm trying to say, right, all these different
types of women, all of those women, all those different races,
are going to give birth to a black baby, full stop.
(24:53):
Take a white woman. The only way she's having a
white baby is if her husband is white or the
person that makes her pregnant is white. Outside of that
white is kind of like the mixer. I think, yeah,
you know, so this argument that it takes three generations
to wipe out black people, if I argue it takes
one generation to wipe out white folks. I know plenty
(25:15):
of women. I know plenty of humans, but you know,
we're talking about you know, women giving birth. But I
know plenty of people who are half white. Biologically speaking,
they didn't carry none of that whiteness into their who
they are as a person, you know what I mean.
They are identify as black, they feel black, they look black,
(25:35):
they interact with the world as a black person. And
I recognize that even this conversation is kind of silly,
but we black people have to have it because this
label blackness has been imposed on us, and many people
don't know. This is a recent term. This came about
in the late fifteen hundreds early sixteen hundreds to delineate
(25:57):
the slave class Black African from the non slave class.
Whereas prior to this day, you were just the person
from your country. You were an Englishman or a Scotsman
or a you know, a Roman or whatever, you know,
an Ethiopia and you were an Egyptian. You know, there
was no such thing as black people in mass So
(26:18):
because that has been imposed on us, it forces us
to have these sorts of conversations like who are we
relative to everyone else? And how do we galvanize our
strength and push back against this oppressive system that exists,
this white supremacist system. So, you know, I guess I
understand why people have these thought experiments, but this one
(26:39):
feels a little goofy because if you wanted to flip
this on its head, you could just grab somebody white,
wipe out the white folks. And it doesn't take three
generations to do that. You can do it in a
cool weekend.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
Anyway, Well, I have to give you extra points. Well,
we'll have the producer give extra points to you for
doing one better. That was very, very intriguing.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
Yeah, but I needed I needed that foundation that you
provided me because that sparked the thoughts. So thank you, sir,
I appreciate you.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
You're welcome.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
All right, all right, let's wrap it up for our
final story this week. It comes from the nation's capital,
where students from various colleges organized a unified protest against
federal troops occupying the city. Mike, let's get started. On
this one with you tell us the latest on this,
and then Nicole, we'll get your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Well, a lot of college students in d C walking
out to protest this the federal thurge on Washington, d C.
These students are coming from you know, Georgetown and you
know Howard HBCU, my daughter's alma mater, so she's been
(27:46):
hearing a lot about it and shared some thoughts with
me about some of the alums who have gone down
to also join in the protest and what it's about.
In case we didn't summarize that, it's a part of
the federal takeover of Washington, d C.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Most of its most.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
Terms, you hear trump takeover, but it's a federal takeover
organized by Donald Trump. They want to well, they came
out with a note to the protesters, the schools did,
and it basically said, our university administration will fight for
students by resisting cooperation with Trump's goons every step of
(28:27):
the way. And another point they made Congress to reverse
the state of exception and refuse to extend Trump's takeover
of our city. So they see they see it as
under attack. So students from various colleges and it looks
like from videos, a good mix of students are protesting this.
It's not just black students, but heavily from Howard University
(28:52):
and of course and it's I don't know how far
this is going to go, but they are making their
voices heard. With this, Mayor Bowser can do nothing more
than the mayor of DC can do nothing more than refuting,
you know, claims that have gone on about the the
(29:16):
federal officers being staying in the district indefinitely. I think
the latest I heard they're going to stay through November.
But she doesn't think that the National of Art deployment
in DC is appropriate. And again we're left to say,
this is very bad, this really shouldn't happen, but what
can we do about it? So that that's pretty much
(29:37):
what the message is there. It is what it is, unfortunately,
but we can speak out against it and bring attention
to it. And so somebody with some sense, who has
some smarts to go against this in a big way
and actually do something about it. Maybe that's why the
voices have to be heard. Otherwise we're just speaking against it.
(29:59):
But I like to see what someone can come up
with in terms of action, you know, yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Nicole, Well, these the walkouts are not just protests. They
are rallying christ for civil rights, for local control, for
student power, and frankly democracy. I am only interested in
what the students who decided to hold these protests are saying,
(30:31):
versus what reactions others are having to the students hosting
their holding the protest. As a government, as a university,
as Americans, we need to listen. We need to listen
to their words, we need to listen to their actions.
They're being proactive about this. The students say Trump's takeover,
(30:51):
and they use those words threaten civil liberties and community safety.
Some of the organizers, which includes a group called I
think it's called the Sunrise Movement, they're demanding that university
leaders resist cooperation with federal agencies and and that Congress
in the emergency powers granted to President Trump over DC's
(31:12):
law enforcement, et cetera, et cetera. Of course, social media
is buzzing all around this. They're posting videos and photos.
Just listen. I mean, I think this is a great opportunity.
College students are listening. These people, these children, these kids,
these young young adults are our future, and they are speaking.
They're using hashtags like a hashtag free d C hashtag
(31:36):
we keep us safe. The crowds are channing and holding
signs and in there they're they're just saying, hey, we
want to be safe. They're like I said, it's just
it's all over social media. The students are saying that
we're rising up together and they're going to resist Trump's
occupation of the city and things of this nature. I
think there's a lot of frustration. I think there's a
(31:58):
lot of fear, and frankly, I don't even know if
if the presence of the National Guard or ice, I
don't know. I don't even know if it's really necessary.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
Yeah, here's what I'll say. Uh, And one of the
things that that you and I say quite frequently on
this show, these protests are not nothing. Indeed nothing is nothing.
So this is not nothing. But for anybody looking to
(32:31):
make an impact above and beyond a protest, above and
beyond having the same conversations over and over again. Obviously,
let me make sure that I'm compliant here. I don't
want to get anybody in trouble. I'll say it. I'll
(32:53):
say it this way. I've read or I've heard that
a good piece of advice from yester year is that
if the government is not governing correctly, they're not governing morally,
(33:18):
they're not governing ethically, they're not governing to your governing
to your standards, then be ungovernable. And I just thought
there's like a sort of poetic quality to that. Now,
what does that mean. It's not for me to tell
you what that means. I don't know. But one of
(33:44):
the things that I really liked was how we reminded
target who has the power. Okay, I like that these
corporations live and die on the razor thinnest of margins,
and since they're publicly traded, they're always pushing to get
(34:08):
more and more to return to their shareholders. That that's
how they stay in business. So a small deviation from
a small segment of the population can have huge implications.
People get fired, businesses go out of business. They default
that all these things happen just because a small little
section takes issue with you know, what they got going on. Now,
(34:33):
Some businesses are more solvent, they can ride out a wave.
But people will be here longer than businesses will be here.
Black people will certainly be here longer than every business
been here longer than every business, will be here longer
than every president, you know, and if we get on
the same page about stuff, then we can't. There's other
ways to be ungovernable. Again, protest is one of them.
(34:56):
We're going to walk out of school and make sure
that there are some economic or other repercussions that are
felt as a result of our decision and our collective
you know action. But I read something about this was
from the LAPD, I think, or one of the high
(35:17):
ups in LAPD, and what they said was, you know,
a protest of one hundred thousand people, we can handle that.
It'd be tough, but we could handle it. Ten protests
of ten thousand people would cripple us. So there's something
(35:40):
to be said about how you're protesting, right. Obviously, if
we have to be the ones that hold the line,
then we have to be the ones that hold the
line in terms of decency, and you know how to
go about doing that. I recognize some people are really
well past the line, but you know, there's other ways
(36:04):
to do this, to move the needle. And fortunately these
kids are the ones that are not doing nothing. So
with a little bit of strategy, a little bit of consistency,
a little bit more focus. I think that becoming ungovernable
(36:24):
will make the governing powers wildly uncomfortable, as they should be,
because they should always live in fear of the people,
not the people living in fear of the government. This indeed,
this country was founded. The Second Amendment exists so that
people never have to live in fear of their government.
Now it hasn't aged well because guns outgrew kind of
(36:48):
the thrust of that amendment in terms of their scope
and capacity and deadly force and so forth. But you know,
I guess the basic premise of that was is that,
you know, the people should always be able to strike
fear in the heart of the government, and I think
when we lose sight of that, the real terrorist win.
(37:11):
So I think I'll leave that there and do with
that what you will. I think that I'm still legally
client there, so I won't hear it from Chris, but
uh if I if I misspoke, I definitely will, So
in anyway, we'll leave it right there. Yeah, So thank
you both very much for your time and your inside.
As always, Q is going to be back, I promised.
(37:32):
Q still here. Just we just have a lot of
stuff going on right now, obviously, but I thank you
both for giving your you know your your brilliant UH
takes on these and you know your insights. So again,
once again, Today's guest our b I N News and
anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Island. This has been a
production of The b I In. Today's show was produced
(37:54):
by Chris Thompson. Have some thoughts you'd like to share,
use the red microphone talkback feature on the iHeartRadio app.
While you're there, be sure to hit subscribe and download
all of our episodes. I'm your host Ramsey's Jah on
all social media, and I'll be hosting another episode of
Civic Cipher this weekend on a station near you. For stations, showtimes,
and podcast info, check Civiccipher dot com. It's our fifth
(38:16):
anniversary and be sure to join us Monday as we
share our news with our voice from our perspective right
here on the QR code
It's been another busy news week and we like to
review the major stories of the week here on the
bi In Today, we are joined by bi In News
anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Island to discuss this week's
major stories. This is the QR Code and I am
Rams's jah. All right, Mike Island, Nicole Deal, welcome back
to the show. It's been a week, Nicole. How are
(00:24):
you feeling.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
I'm feeling awesome.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Okay, all right, all right, glad to hear that. Mike,
how about you?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Man, I'm filling with my hands like everybody else.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
I'm going pretty good.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
I like that. I need a little humor today, Man,
yesterday was a rough one for me, if I'm honest, yes,
but yeah, okay, all right, let's get into it. So
first up, in a recently released excerpt from her new book,
former Vice President Kamala Harris didn't hold back her thoughts
on the inner turmoil within the Democratic Party and the
role Joe Biden played in her failed presidential run. Nicole,
(00:56):
Let's get today's show started with you tell us more
about this excerpt from the VP's book, and then Mike
will get your thoughts next.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
All right, So, Kamala Harris's new book is called One
hundred seven Days, and from the few excerpts that are
being released and talked about, it looks like Harris is
spilling all the tea. It is unexpectedly do say, and
I'm surprised. In the past, she seemed like a loyalist.
(01:25):
I remember her being asked on the view what she
would have done differently than Biden, and she said, nothing
came to mind. And it almost seems like this book
is a complete contradiction of that. She criticizes President Biden's
decision to run for reelection. She called it reckless. She
(01:47):
said it should not have been left to an individual ego.
And she says she didn't push the issue for him
to step down sooner because she thought it would make
her look like, you know, she was, you know, going
after her own ambition. I think she called it naked ambition. Also,
what I'm seeing online, she seems to point to a
(02:09):
lack of support from Biden's inner circle. There was a
quote that from the book that says, when Poles indicated
that I was getting more popular, the people around him
didn't like the contrast that was emerging. So none of
them grasp that if I did well, he did well.
She says, they let negative stories about her go unchecked.
(02:31):
They didn't defend her against sexist, racist whatever. You know.
They seem to be fine with her being quote unquote
not down. So there is one thing she appeared to
defend about Biden, and that was his mental or cognitive
decline during his debate with Trump. It looks like she
(02:53):
is still going to stay with what she originally said
on that, just blaming that on exhaustion after so much time.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Oh blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
But anyway, online she's getting some criticism, people saying she's
deflecting blame, she's failing, she's not taking responsibility for her
own shortcomings, things of that nature. So I guess we
just have to wait and see get the fullness of
the book. And of course she has lots of supporters
(03:21):
too that's saying, oh, yeah, good for you for coming
out and speaking the truth and things of that nature.
So the book is due out later this month.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Fantastic, Well, Mike.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Yeah'ta can't wait to read the book. But just like
Nicole said, the excerpts tell a lot, but it shouldn't
be too surprising. I mean, she had some problems in
her vice presidential office with some of her staff members,
and as you remember, there were departures and they weren't
all amicable. So it kind of reflected a little bit
(03:53):
on maybe problems with you know, her leadership maybe in
some case. But the things that she said about Joe Biden,
I think she wanted to say them all along. We
were saying them as people on the outside looking in.
We noticed the change in his delivery, and we noticed
(04:14):
that some things just seemed to sit on the show
for a long time until near the end of his presidency.
Then things that came up that we should have been
on long ago that could have stopped some of the
things that are happening right now. So just looking on
a surface level, not too much of the book should
(04:36):
be surprised, except for the details that she's giving about
things that I think that we already knew. I think
that she was being a loyalist, as Nicole said, because
that's her job. Her job is to be loyalty. But
when at the end of the day, when she clocks out,
she probably breathes a sigh of relief. You know, I
(04:59):
got to an other day with this mess. You know,
and then her real thoughts were at home, but she
for the public, she had to be loyal because that
would affect votes, you know, if she showed any disloyalty
at that time. I'm just thinking that way again on
a surface level, that her book probably won't unleash a
(05:22):
lot of surprises except for some of the background details
of their day to day. So I think I'll think
it'll roll on from there.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Yeah, yeah, And I think you're right. I feel like
there's nothing that she can do that and I guess
that's that's appropriate. But there's nothing that she can do
that is above criticism. You know. On the one hand,
there was a lot of people that were saying, you know,
(05:54):
Democrats need to be on the same page, they need
to have a singular message, they need to be aligned.
And this was a charge from many people, myself included,
you know, And that makes sense, and you know, her actually,
Kamala Harris actually falling in line and being in alignment
with the Democratic agenda. With Joe Biden, he's going to
(06:18):
keep running. He is the president, and he says he
wants to run again. That's not what he promised us.
But here we are, and he's already in the office.
He already beat this guy one time. He says he
wants to do it again. I mean, we can talk
to him, we can ask him not to, we can
ask him to reconsider. But if he says that, then
that's what's happening here. He's, for all intents and purposes,
(06:38):
the leader of the Democratic Party, and so he needs
our support. Let's go. So her going on to the
view and then saying, yeah, you know, I do so
many different things from Joe Biden. He did this wrong,
and he did that wrong, and you know, Israel was
wrong and blah blah blah. It just we haven't charged
her with that. We've charged her with and all Democrats
(07:00):
we've charged them with being in alignment, right, like Republicans
are you know what I mean, they have a I
mean there are some dissenters over there, but for the
most part, when you think of Republicans, they are the
Project twenty twenty five and like, this is what we're
on and you know, and they got to the ground
and got to work. So, you know, she went along
(07:22):
with some stuff apparently that she didn't personally agree with,
but she was doing what was the right thing to do.
To protect the country and to fight for the country.
And so again I don't think that Kamala Harrison. And
you know, there's an argument to be made that she's
getting attacked because people might perceive her as being more
vulnerable because she's a woman, or people are just more
(07:47):
accustomed to attacking women. You know, maybe there's some truth
there too, But the fact is is that there was
no version of this where she could have done right
enough by people to where people would just be like, yeah, okay,
that makes it. And she fought the good fight. She
had one hundred and seven days to do it. She
didn't emerge victorious, but she was still a strong candidate. Man,
(08:07):
I stand by my vote. People are just going to
be critical of her personally, and you know, I don't
know that that's really the wisest thing to do, because again,
there was something to be said about Democrats being in alignment.
And just another note I'd like to add here, you know,
as she tours this book, you know, in hindsight of
you know, the events with Charlie Kirk being assassinated, you know,
(08:30):
and this was a note from Chris, the show's producer.
Chris you know, mentioned that he really hopes that she's
going to be very careful. I know, and you know
everyone in the public eye is going to be more
careful moving forward, because it's we live in a dangerous time.
So so yeah, moving on. Earlier this week, the Supreme
(08:55):
Court issued a ruling on a case involving the enforcement
powers of ICE agents. For This ruling is not only controversial,
but also demonstrates a clear sign of support by the
High Court of the policies for the Trump administration. Mike,
this sounds get started with you tell us more about
the Court's ruling, and then Nicole will get your thoughts next.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
All right, For some reason, the words unchecked power come
into play here, and I'll tell you why. Of course,
Kamala Harris first introduced that term when describing President Trump
and what he was going to do in his presidency.
Spilled her down to law enforcement, because the Supreme Court
(09:32):
ruled that immigration and Customs enforcement agents can detain individuals
without reasonable suspicion in certain cases, allowing race, language, location,
and job type to be considered in immigration stops. That
is unchecked power. You can stop anyone for any reason
and they don't have to tell you what the reason is.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
You know.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
So it was a sixty three ruling and that just happened,
and the Supreme Court lifted a low court order that
blocked ICE agents and Los Angeles in LA from targeting
individuals based on four factors. They actually outlined them, including ethnicity,
language or accent, location, and employment type. And that was
a I think that came from the Huffington Post where
(10:16):
I saw that. So it's I don't know, it's going
to be quite a mess. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh, he
cited the Immigration and Nationality Act, and of course that
continues to allow them to interrogate or briefly detain a
person believed to be an alien. So based on what
(10:38):
they think, based on their it's just like someone charging
you based on their projections what they think it might cost,
you know, just things like that. It's just unchecked and
there's no there's no fighting against.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
This.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
You can't cite they fixed it, so you can't really cite,
you know, racism or anything like that, or profiling. All
that's all that's done now because of the ruling. We
can only say, oh, this is very bad, Oh this
is not right, Oh this shit never happened. That's all
we can do. We're only we're left to talk about it,
(11:14):
but we really can't do anything about it because the
laws were set up, you know, to make sure that
you can't fight against the sunchecked power.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Yeah, Well, first of all, the decision was a sixty
three vote ruling that ICE agents can use factors like race, language, location,
and job type when deciding who to stop in immigration enforcement.
So six out of nine, six out of nine. To
(11:45):
put that into a percentage, that's sixty seven percent. I
remember when I was in school. I'm going to show
my age, but seventy percent was passing. So sixty seven percent.
Just let that sink in. That is absolutely crushing to
me that highest court in our nation can use race
as a basis for immigration enforcement or who or deciding
(12:09):
who to stop. To me, that is a violation of
civil rights, its overreach. Judge Kavanaugh basically argue that these
factors can be relevant in areas with high undocumented populations. Huh,
what I mean again, We're going back to race, language, location,
(12:35):
job type. Okay, So he's saying that these things can
be relevant in areas with high undocumented populations. Okay. Justice
Sotomeyer's dissent made a lot more sense to me. She
warns that the decision effectively legalizes racial profiling, putting Latino communities,
(12:58):
whether they are citizens or nonsense citizens, just Latino communities,
because again, I can look at your race, I can
look at your language. If you don't speak English, that's
a factor. Now, So I think again, it effectively, like
she said, effectively legalizes racial profiling, putting Latino communities, citizens
and non citizens at risk of being unfairly targeted. And
(13:23):
that's just how I see it as well. I agree
with just A Soto mayor.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Yeah, legalizing prejudicial and racist behavior is it's crazy. You know.
One of the things that we we say from time
to time around here when it's parent that this could
(13:50):
have all been avoided, is elections have consequences. You know.
The people that are in power right now in the
United States of America are people that justify this behavior
because it doesn't affect them. They have no concept of
what it means to be prejudged based on the color
(14:16):
of your skin, the language you speak, none of that.
And I'm sure that some of them, well intentioned, some
of them, you know, that have a modicum of empathy,
can look at this and say, well, you know, sure
it is a little racist, but this is how we
go about getting the things that we need in terms
(14:37):
of security for this country. Right. I think that Justice
Kavanaugh his sentiments sort of reflected that when he you know, summarized,
you know, the Court's decision, but you know, as a
person that recognizes is the trauma that stopping frisk has on,
(15:05):
you know people, as a person that was on the
ground in Arizona during SB ten seventy and the subsequent protests,
as a person that is connected with many people who
are here legally. Most Mexican people live here legally because
(15:27):
this used to be Mexico, and they still look like
the people that lived here, because there's still the people
that live here, and all of those people are now
on the menu because of the sensibilities of the people
that we buy our protest vote or our third party vote,
(15:48):
or our couch vote, those of us that decided to
stay on the couch. You know, there are people in
power that can reshape the world to their sensibilities, and
they don't look at it as racist, They don't look
at it as prejudicial at all. They look at it like, well,
this is a necessary evil that we need to rid
the immigrant scourge from this country. And for them, I
(16:16):
don't even know that they're performing mental gymnastics on purpose.
You know. Q might argue that they are absolutely and
they know better, but maybe they don't. Maybe their worldview
doesn't expand to encompass the reality that other people are
subjected to based on these decisions. So again, most of
(16:38):
the people here who are Mexican people are indeed American citizens,
but all of them are now subjected to a federal
police force. And let's be honest, this will have local
law enforcement implications too, But a federal police force that
covers their face, don't know who they are, that can
(17:01):
violate your civil rights, They can violate your autonomy as
a human being, and indeed do that and overstep constantly.
They are bullies and they've been weaponized against one of
the most vulnerable groups in this country based on I
(17:26):
would say vibes to be funny, but it's not even
based on vibes, based on how you look. So, you know,
my heart breaks for women because women get violated by
these masked men all the time. And what can they say,
what defense, what recourse do they have if their bodies
(17:48):
are violated by these people. They don't even know who's
doing it, you know. And on that side, they like
to assume that everybody's doing the right job, and you know,
they got the right people for the job. That's probably
a better way to say that. And there might be
a handful of bad apples. And on this side, we
(18:09):
know better that it is a corrupt system that protects itself.
The bad apples are well insulated, and the only way
to engage in a democracy is to vote. Elections have consequences. Yeah,
end News anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Island are here
with us discussing this week's major stories. All right, up next,
(18:37):
A recent post on X has gone viral and ignited
some heated debates on social media on the subject of
race and black identity. Nicole, let's go back to you
give us some more details on this social media post,
and then Mike will get your.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Thoughts next, Yes, sir, All right, So this is awakening
and riveting and disturbing all at the same time. There's
a post that has gone viral on X about black
identity and black culture being erased. The post was shared
(19:08):
by someone called at Joe Underscore Underscore Bassie. I think
he is boldly claiming that it only takes three generations
to wipe out a black person. There's a video of
a white woman speaking, I think it's a woman speaking,
basically saying that cultural and physical traits associated with being
black can fade over time through interracial marriages and assimilation,
(19:34):
et cetera. The post has over a million views, lots
and lots of intense reactions online, lots of talk about
interracial marriages, et cetera. The supporters around this are saying
that it's a wake up call, right, it's time to
preserve black heritage, et cetera. But critics are arguing that
(19:58):
this claim is oversimplifying identity, saying that culture is learned
and passed down in many ways. And I suppose that
that's true about culture, not just race. But the conversation
gets deep. I'm talking about deep over race, over history,
over who we are as a people, and how easily
(20:20):
that can be lost if it's not actively protected, nurtured, celebrated,
et cetera. So I really I don't really know where
I stand on this. I mean, the conversation is so intense.
Of course, some of it is racist, and it's it's
(20:42):
a debate. I mean, it's it's a real debate. I
just think that it's a wake up call at this
point as as a people, for us to be aware
of who we are, how we got here, what we
need to do to fight for our civil liberties and
civil rights to remain and not have those things stripped away,
(21:03):
be it publicly or privately, or system systematically or whatever.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Yeah, Mike, Well, I think I said a year ago
that we're moving into an age where we can say
so I'm a racist. You know, we won't feel bad
or hold back any you know, without fear. We will
be able to say certain things and not hold back
without fear because of things like this. To protect my
(21:32):
emotions on it, I like to say this is fake news.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
You know.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
Somebody just put up put it up here to get
a reaction, a lot of it. You know, when I
look at it in the from a twenty thousand foot
view from up in the air, I'm looking at it like, well,
wait a minute. You know, if anyone has an ounce
of like in an interracial marriage, an ounce of ethnicity
(21:59):
in them, they are that ethnic group, you know, just
like some people. I think it was I can't remember
some names, but there was somebody who had announced like
one fourth of ethnicity in their being, and they were
considered that and their racial identity and how they retreated
(22:23):
was based on that little ounce of stuff. So how
can we really wipe that out when we're always going
to be categorized by the little bit of ethnicity that
we may have in us? If you see what I mean,
how it doesn't make sense from that twenty thousand foot view.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Yeah, I can probably do you one better, if I'm
being honest. This is kind of like a nothing burger
to me. Like, I get that, you know, this is
something that a lot of people like talking about. I
recognize and respect Black women are the least married woman
(23:02):
in this country. Asian men are the least married men
in this country. I recognize that there are often fiscal
implications that go along with that form of partnership, and
you know, I realize that that is one strategy that
you know, people feel is appropriate one pathway to get
(23:24):
to you know, I guess, economic success in this country.
But this argument, I don't think really this argument is
not as strong. In fact, I think it's very weak.
But it's not as strong as people are making it
out to be because let's say, for instance, this is factual,
(23:46):
and indeed, it does take three generations to wipe out
you know, a black person, you know, and your lineage
is no longer black. I'll tell you what. Take a
page out of my dad's book. One doubt to say
the story about my dad. But this is something I
know to be true. Okay, So I'll put myself in
(24:09):
the middle of this story. Let's say I'm a black man.
It should be easy for you to imagine. But let's
say I'm a black man, okay, And let's say I
want to create the next generation of children for myself,
for my lineage, and I choose a white woman, I
(24:29):
choose an Asian woman, I choose a Native woman, I
choose a Mexican woman, I choose a black woman, I
choose a I don't know, I'm running out, but you
get what I'm trying to say, right, all these different
types of women, all of those women, all those different races,
are going to give birth to a black baby, full stop.
(24:53):
Take a white woman. The only way she's having a
white baby is if her husband is white or the
person that makes her pregnant is white. Outside of that
white is kind of like the mixer. I think, yeah,
you know, so this argument that it takes three generations
to wipe out black people, if I argue it takes
one generation to wipe out white folks. I know plenty
(25:15):
of women. I know plenty of humans, but you know,
we're talking about you know, women giving birth. But I
know plenty of people who are half white. Biologically speaking,
they didn't carry none of that whiteness into their who
they are as a person, you know what I mean.
They are identify as black, they feel black, they look black,
(25:35):
they interact with the world as a black person. And
I recognize that even this conversation is kind of silly,
but we black people have to have it because this
label blackness has been imposed on us, and many people
don't know. This is a recent term. This came about
in the late fifteen hundreds early sixteen hundreds to delineate
(25:57):
the slave class Black African from the non slave class.
Whereas prior to this day, you were just the person
from your country. You were an Englishman or a Scotsman
or a you know, a Roman or whatever, you know,
an Ethiopia and you were an Egyptian. You know, there
was no such thing as black people in mass So
(26:18):
because that has been imposed on us, it forces us
to have these sorts of conversations like who are we
relative to everyone else? And how do we galvanize our
strength and push back against this oppressive system that exists,
this white supremacist system. So, you know, I guess I
understand why people have these thought experiments, but this one
(26:39):
feels a little goofy because if you wanted to flip
this on its head, you could just grab somebody white,
wipe out the white folks. And it doesn't take three
generations to do that. You can do it in a
cool weekend.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
Anyway, Well, I have to give you extra points. Well,
we'll have the producer give extra points to you for
doing one better. That was very, very intriguing.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
Yeah, but I needed I needed that foundation that you
provided me because that sparked the thoughts. So thank you, sir,
I appreciate you.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
You're welcome.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
All right, all right, let's wrap it up for our
final story this week. It comes from the nation's capital,
where students from various colleges organized a unified protest against
federal troops occupying the city. Mike, let's get started. On
this one with you tell us the latest on this,
and then Nicole, we'll get your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Well, a lot of college students in d C walking
out to protest this the federal thurge on Washington, d C.
These students are coming from you know, Georgetown and you
know Howard HBCU, my daughter's alma mater, so she's been
(27:46):
hearing a lot about it and shared some thoughts with
me about some of the alums who have gone down
to also join in the protest and what it's about.
In case we didn't summarize that, it's a part of
the federal takeover of Washington, d C.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Most of its most.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
Terms, you hear trump takeover, but it's a federal takeover
organized by Donald Trump. They want to well, they came
out with a note to the protesters, the schools did,
and it basically said, our university administration will fight for
students by resisting cooperation with Trump's goons every step of
(28:27):
the way. And another point they made Congress to reverse
the state of exception and refuse to extend Trump's takeover
of our city. So they see they see it as
under attack. So students from various colleges and it looks
like from videos, a good mix of students are protesting this.
It's not just black students, but heavily from Howard University
(28:52):
and of course and it's I don't know how far
this is going to go, but they are making their
voices heard. With this, Mayor Bowser can do nothing more
than the mayor of DC can do nothing more than refuting,
you know, claims that have gone on about the the
(29:16):
federal officers being staying in the district indefinitely. I think
the latest I heard they're going to stay through November.
But she doesn't think that the National of Art deployment
in DC is appropriate. And again we're left to say,
this is very bad, this really shouldn't happen, but what
can we do about it? So that that's pretty much
(29:37):
what the message is there. It is what it is, unfortunately,
but we can speak out against it and bring attention
to it. And so somebody with some sense, who has
some smarts to go against this in a big way
and actually do something about it. Maybe that's why the
voices have to be heard. Otherwise we're just speaking against it.
(29:59):
But I like to see what someone can come up
with in terms of action, you know, yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Nicole, Well, these the walkouts are not just protests. They
are rallying christ for civil rights, for local control, for
student power, and frankly democracy. I am only interested in
what the students who decided to hold these protests are saying,
(30:31):
versus what reactions others are having to the students hosting
their holding the protest. As a government, as a university,
as Americans, we need to listen. We need to listen
to their words, we need to listen to their actions.
They're being proactive about this. The students say Trump's takeover,
(30:51):
and they use those words threaten civil liberties and community safety.
Some of the organizers, which includes a group called I
think it's called the Sunrise Movement, they're demanding that university
leaders resist cooperation with federal agencies and and that Congress
in the emergency powers granted to President Trump over DC's
(31:12):
law enforcement, et cetera, et cetera. Of course, social media
is buzzing all around this. They're posting videos and photos.
Just listen. I mean, I think this is a great opportunity.
College students are listening. These people, these children, these kids,
these young young adults are our future, and they are speaking.
They're using hashtags like a hashtag free d C hashtag
(31:36):
we keep us safe. The crowds are channing and holding
signs and in there they're they're just saying, hey, we
want to be safe. They're like I said, it's just
it's all over social media. The students are saying that
we're rising up together and they're going to resist Trump's
occupation of the city and things of this nature. I
think there's a lot of frustration. I think there's a
(31:58):
lot of fear, and frankly, I don't even know if
if the presence of the National Guard or ice, I
don't know. I don't even know if it's really necessary.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
Yeah, here's what I'll say. Uh, And one of the
things that that you and I say quite frequently on
this show, these protests are not nothing. Indeed nothing is nothing.
So this is not nothing. But for anybody looking to
(32:31):
make an impact above and beyond a protest, above and
beyond having the same conversations over and over again. Obviously,
let me make sure that I'm compliant here. I don't
want to get anybody in trouble. I'll say it. I'll
(32:53):
say it this way. I've read or I've heard that
a good piece of advice from yester year is that
if the government is not governing correctly, they're not governing morally,
(33:18):
they're not governing ethically, they're not governing to your governing
to your standards, then be ungovernable. And I just thought
there's like a sort of poetic quality to that. Now,
what does that mean. It's not for me to tell
you what that means. I don't know. But one of
(33:44):
the things that I really liked was how we reminded
target who has the power. Okay, I like that these
corporations live and die on the razor thinnest of margins,
and since they're publicly traded, they're always pushing to get
(34:08):
more and more to return to their shareholders. That that's
how they stay in business. So a small deviation from
a small segment of the population can have huge implications.
People get fired, businesses go out of business. They default
that all these things happen just because a small little
section takes issue with you know, what they got going on. Now,
(34:33):
Some businesses are more solvent, they can ride out a wave.
But people will be here longer than businesses will be here.
Black people will certainly be here longer than every business
been here longer than every business, will be here longer
than every president, you know, and if we get on
the same page about stuff, then we can't. There's other
ways to be ungovernable. Again, protest is one of them.
(34:56):
We're going to walk out of school and make sure
that there are some economic or other repercussions that are
felt as a result of our decision and our collective
you know action. But I read something about this was
from the LAPD, I think, or one of the high
(35:17):
ups in LAPD, and what they said was, you know,
a protest of one hundred thousand people, we can handle that.
It'd be tough, but we could handle it. Ten protests
of ten thousand people would cripple us. So there's something
(35:40):
to be said about how you're protesting, right. Obviously, if
we have to be the ones that hold the line,
then we have to be the ones that hold the
line in terms of decency, and you know how to
go about doing that. I recognize some people are really
well past the line, but you know, there's other ways
(36:04):
to do this, to move the needle. And fortunately these
kids are the ones that are not doing nothing. So
with a little bit of strategy, a little bit of consistency,
a little bit more focus. I think that becoming ungovernable
(36:24):
will make the governing powers wildly uncomfortable, as they should be,
because they should always live in fear of the people,
not the people living in fear of the government. This indeed,
this country was founded. The Second Amendment exists so that
people never have to live in fear of their government.
Now it hasn't aged well because guns outgrew kind of
(36:48):
the thrust of that amendment in terms of their scope
and capacity and deadly force and so forth. But you know,
I guess the basic premise of that was is that,
you know, the people should always be able to strike
fear in the heart of the government, and I think
when we lose sight of that, the real terrorist win.
(37:11):
So I think I'll leave that there and do with
that what you will. I think that I'm still legally
client there, so I won't hear it from Chris, but
uh if I if I misspoke, I definitely will, So
in anyway, we'll leave it right there. Yeah, So thank
you both very much for your time and your inside.
As always, Q is going to be back, I promised.
(37:32):
Q still here. Just we just have a lot of
stuff going on right now, obviously, but I thank you
both for giving your you know your your brilliant UH
takes on these and you know your insights. So again,
once again, Today's guest our b I N News and
anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Island. This has been a
production of The b I In. Today's show was produced
(37:54):
by Chris Thompson. Have some thoughts you'd like to share,
use the red microphone talkback feature on the iHeartRadio app.
While you're there, be sure to hit subscribe and download
all of our episodes. I'm your host Ramsey's Jah on
all social media, and I'll be hosting another episode of
Civic Cipher this weekend on a station near you. For stations, showtimes,
and podcast info, check Civiccipher dot com. It's our fifth
(38:16):
anniversary and be sure to join us Monday as we
share our news with our voice from our perspective right
here on the QR code
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.