August 13, 2025 • 39 mins
Listen to The Next-Gen Report live! Sundays at 7:00 p.m. on AM950, KPRC.
The Texas House Democrats quorum break continues. The question is, how long can they keep it up, and what do they hope to gain? State Representative Briscoe Cain joins to discuss. Leftists are still upset about the President surging federal law enforcement and other personnel into D.C. to crackdown on the out-of-control crime there, but residents seem to be happy about it.
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
The Texas House Democrats quorum break continues. The question is, how long can they keep it up, and what do they hope to gain? State Representative Briscoe Cain joins to discuss. Leftists are still upset about the President surging federal law enforcement and other personnel into D.C. to crackdown on the out-of-control crime there, but residents seem to be happy about it.
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
From the heart of the Space City to the heart
of gen Z. Welcome to Next Gen Conversation, not Dad's
Talk Radio. Ethan talks to you about the issues and
events that men are to our generation. This is the
Next Gen Report put Ethan Buchanan.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Hey everybody, welcome, Good day to you all. It's a
pleasure to be with you. We've got a lot to
talk about today. Obviously, there is still a whole lot
of stuff going on in the Texas House, a lot
of back and forth there from the Texas House Democrats.
State Representative Brisco Caine will join us in a third
(00:45):
segment to break down all of that. Very excited to
have him with us a little bit later, so stay tuned. First,
I want to talk about some big news. Actually first,
first go follow me on x right now at Underscore
Ethan Buchanan.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Follow me there because that's where you get all.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Of the most important information first, and of course we
also like to have fun, joke around, share some memes.
It's a good time over there. Check me out at Underscore.
Ethan Buchanan Bucha n An. All right now, First, now
we're going to talk about this possible overturning of the
Obergefel v Hodges decision, which, of course, as you may
(01:26):
or may not know, came in twenty fifteen and legalized
same sex marriage across the country. And I'm using marriage
in quotes because I believe that marriage is an institution
of God and not the state, and is defined as
a man and a woman. And let me just make
clear right here on the outset, I don't even think
(01:49):
the state should be involved in regular marriage, marriage marriage,
heterosexual marriage. I think the entire idea, just as a libertarian,
of you to go and get a marriage license from
the government is gross and vomitous. I hate that. But
if the state is going to be issuing marriage licenses,
(02:12):
it should at least be issuing them only to the
people who God has said, yes, this is a marriage.
That's my religious opinion. I don't think anything less of
gay people. I don't think anybody really does. But I
religiously believe that marriages between a man and a woman.
I don't think the state should be involved at all,
let alone involved in same sex marriages. That's my thoughts
(02:36):
on it. Anyway, this could now be overturned, possibly, I mean,
the chances right now I think of this actually happening are.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
Slim to none.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
I don't see the obershfel Via Hodge's decision actually getting overturned,
but there's at least the chance for it to be overturned,
and the Left is losing their mind over this Supreme
Court this, according to ABC News, Supreme Court formally asked
to overturn landmark same sex marriage ruling. Ten years ago,
(03:06):
the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same sex couples nationwide.
The justices this fall will consider for the first time
whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them
to overturn that decision. Kim Davis, the former Kentucky County
clerk who has jailed for six days and twenty fifteen
after refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on
religious grounds, is appealing a one hundred thousand dollars jury
(03:30):
verdict for emotional damages plus two hundred and sixty thousand
dollars for attorney fees. In a petition for writ of
suteriori or however you pronounce that weird Latin word filed
last month, Davis argues First Amendment protections for free exercise
of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial
(03:50):
of marriage licenses. I think that's a fair argument. This
lady essentially said, hey, I believe that marriage is this
because of my religion, and because of my religion, which
I have a First Amendment right to exercise whenever and wherever,
including in my capacity as a county clerk or whatever
(04:11):
she was, I'm not going to issue these licenses. The
idea that that should cost her six days in jail
and three hundred thousand dollars is ridiculous. Maybe you fire
her and just get somebody else to issue the marriage licenses. Maybe,
But the idea that she should have to pay three
hundred thousand dollars nearly four hundred thousand dollars for exercising
(04:32):
her religious beliefs, which, by the way, were commonly held
by everybody until like basically twenty fifteen. I mean, you
can find videos of even wild leftists like Hillary Clinton
and Barack Obama saying yes, marriages between a man and
a woman. This wasn't controversial to say until this ruling
(04:53):
came out of nowhere. So the idea that this lady
should have to pay nearly four hundred thousand dollars for
ex exercizing this opinion that basically everyone until maybe twenty
five years ago agreed on is crazy. Now, of course,
the left is, like I said, going nuts over this.
(05:13):
News Wire posted a report about this, and the first
thing I saw about this was some leftists who said,
guess what goes with Obershefel interracial marriage. So essentially, if
gay marriage is on its way out, so is interracial marriage.
I don't buy that even slightly. I don't believe you.
(05:34):
I think you're lying to me. As a matter of fact,
I know you're lying to me. This is how confident
I am. I am willing to bet anyone one thousand
dollars right now that if the Obergefell vi Hodge's decision
is overturned, my interracial marriage will not be annuld.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
I have skin in the game here. I'm in an
interracial marriage.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
If you didn't know this about me, my wife is
Chinese ethnically, not nationally.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
She's an American, but she's an ethnic Chinese woman. She
was born in China.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
I guarantee you my marriage will be fine if Oberstfel
v Hodges is overturned.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Here's how I know this.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Bands on interracial marriages were struck down in a completely
different Supreme Court case, Loving v.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
Virginia, not Oberstfel v. Hodges. So I think you're lying
to me. I'm positive you're lying to me.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Also, the main dissenting opinion in Obersfel was written by
Chief Justice John Roberts, who went out of his way
to say, hey, this is a completely separate issue from
the interracial marriage issue. This is a favored tactic by
the left. They take their radical agenda and they try
(06:42):
to equate it to something that most normal people all
agree is okay, and then they push for that. They
basically put a kind of normal centrist mask on their radicalism.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
And I don't think it's gonna work anymore.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
I don't think there'll be a lot of people out
there that are really and truly concerned that, oh, intermarriage
will be abolished if gay marriage is. And again, this
won't even abolish gay marriage. Gay people will still be
able to go and get quote unquote married in left
wing states just like they were before. All this does
is say, hey, if you're a more religious and conservative state,
(07:20):
like for example, Texas that didn't allow gay marriage before,
you don't have to allow gay marriage now. I mean,
this used to be considered a good thing, the fact
that you didn't have to necessarily live under a bunch
of laws that you didn't agree with. You could just
move to another part of the country. If you want
to be governed and you want your state to do
certain things, you can just go to a state that
(07:40):
does that. But no, the Left hates that. They want
everything to be a monolith, and I don't think they're.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Gonna get it. All right, We've got a lot coming up,
so stay tuned.
Speaker 5 (07:49):
We'll be right back with the next General coort.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Hey, everybody, welcome back.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
We have got some interesting US China news. Of course,
negotiations are ongoing, so you know, nothing huge yet, But
I think this is actually a positive sign. We had
this announcement that the US and China trade deal deadline
(08:51):
has essentially been extended by another yeah, ninety days. So this,
I believe is a sign that negotiations are underway going well.
Just from what I've seen in the past from Donald
Trump and his negotiating style, he seems to be the
type of person that if you're actually working with him
and you're kind of playing the ballgame, he'll give you
(09:14):
some concessions Whereas if you throw your hands up and
say no, I'm not gonna work with you, I'm not
gonna negotiate, I'm not gonna play nice. Donald Trump is
usually far more likely to say, all right, well here's
the deadline. Then if you don't want to negotiate, pay
the tariffs. So this is, I think is a positive sign.
Let's dig into it. President Donald Trump extended a trade
(09:35):
deal truce or trade truce with China for ninety days
on Monday, again at least delaying a dangerous showdown between
the world's two biggest economies. He announced, I have just
signed an executive order that will extend tariff's suspension on
China for another ninety days. All other elements of the
agreement will remain the same. The previous deadline was, of course,
(09:57):
twelve oh one am Tuesday, that would be today. Had
that happened, the US would have raised taxes on Chinese
imports from an already high thirty percent, and Beijing could
have responded by increasing retaliatory levies on US exports to China.
So essentially, what this does is it buys time for
(10:19):
more negotiations.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
I think that's generally viewed as a good thing, and
I'm not alone in that. Here Sean Stein, president of
the US China Business Council. He says the extension is
critical to give the two governments time to negotiate a
trade agreement that US businesses hope would improve their market
access in China and provide the certainty needed for companies
(10:43):
to make medium and long term plans. So again, this
definitely seems like, Hey, the two sides are working to
hammer out a deal, and because China is playing ball
with us, Donald Trump is rewarding them with a little
bit more time. That seems to be the opinion of
(11:05):
Scott Bessett. Here, he's the Treasury Secretary, and here he
is on Fox Business Today, sitting here saying, Yeah, we're
working together, we're negotiating. This is all part of Donald
Trump's leverage. This is just how we move closer towards
a deal.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Take a listen.
Speaker 6 (11:24):
There's so much left to do. And look the success
of all the success of the trade deals, the success
of the tax deial. That's President Trump. President Trump applying
maximum leverage. But we're going to be working on affordability.
I think there's a lot to do on housing. We're
going to be given the student loan portfolio. I think
(11:44):
that there is a firm but humane way to work
on that. It is the largest single asset of the
US government. It's up to one point seven trillion now,
so there's always plenty to do. And the China negotiations
will be continuing.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Okay, So essentially there's a lot of basically a lot
of things going on all at the same time. We're
working on several different major projects, and China is playing
ball with us. We think we're going to get a deal,
we think we're probably going to get it soon, so
we'll give them a little bit more time.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
That I think is fair.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
I think, I mean, it makes sense just from a
strategy perspective. If you're trying to negotiate with these people
and there's maybe some good faith, you don't want to
ruin that necessarily by letting some deadlines that you sent
months ago take effect and kind of run a truck
through all the good faith that you've built up. This
requires give and take. That's what negotiation is. I think
(12:41):
this is part of that. All right, here's some more.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Economic good news.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
July inflation numbers lower than expected. This, of course came
out this morning as well. Tariffs are not leading to
more inflation after all, which won't make you an inter
MSNBC happy. This is a report I'm reading Jeff now
by Cliff. Of course, I was in the newsroom this
morning reporting on this, but here is the hard article.
(13:06):
You can read it right now for yourself at Katerras
dot com. The Bureau of Labor Statistics on Tuesday said
that the CPI for July rose zero point two percent
compared with last month, while it rose two point seven
percent from a year ago. The monthly figure was in
line with estimates of economists pulled by ls EG, while
(13:27):
the headline was cooler than the two point eight expected.
So what does this mean? In Layman's terms? Essentially, we
haven't completely fixed the economy, because of course we haven't.
It's hard to just immediately turn around and fix something
that's that messed up. Because I think we all kind
of understand it was pretty messed up the inflation that
(13:51):
we've seen that that doesn't just turn around overnight, It
doesn't just disappear immediately. You have to start working your
way down, and that's kind of what we've seen from
the trumpet. Missiration. Inflation is slowing down. It's not going
to stop all at once. It would be kind of
ridiculous to expect that. This also tells us that those
terrifts that we were talking about also are not causing
(14:13):
the economy to inflate. That's been the line that we've
heard right from leftists and the mainstream media constantly. They
keep saying, oh, all of Trump's tariffs are going to
cause inflation to skyrocket even higher than it is. Well,
what this tells us is that hasn't actually happened. We've
had plenty of time for this to take effect. This
is the position of K t H moneyman Pat Shin.
(14:35):
I talked with him about this this morning in the
newsroom when we got these numbers. I asked him, Okay, well,
you know, obviously the tariff inflation, if it happens, is
going to take time to happen, right, So are we
kind of reaching that point where if this would cause inflation,
we would have seen it. He says yes. So the
fact that we're not seeing this inflation now means we
(14:56):
probably aren't going to see a bunch of terror inflation.
And of course this expands to all sorts of other
good news, you know, this could result in US finally
getting that rate cut that we so desperately desire. Here's
Peter Navarro talking about, Hey, this is a very good
report despite all the kind of economic fear mongering we've
(15:19):
been getting from the mainstream media. Peter Navarro, thanks, this
is actually pretty great.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Take a listen.
Speaker 7 (15:25):
Yes, I'm buying the numbers, and I want to amplify
a little bit what Romayne said. This wasn't a bad
report or just an okay report.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
It is a very good report. Let me explain the core.
Speaker 7 (15:38):
The CPI came in at two point seven percent, which
seems significantly above target, but in fact, the Federal Reserve
uses another gauge called the personal consumption expenditures in debt.
We love the piece, and that one runs to point
two to point four lower.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Okay, so we get closer to target.
Speaker 7 (15:59):
Next, if you look at the annualize based on a
six month basis since Trump took office, you know what
it is too, one point nine percent.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
One point nine percent.
Speaker 7 (16:11):
So then when you dive into the individual numbers, you
had energy prices down, that's a very big deal. You
had food prices flat, that's good. Shelter costs were up,
but that's a mirage because the way the shelter costs
is calculated, it's very much a lagging indicator if you
(16:32):
look at like the.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
So essentially what he's saying here is things may even
be better than this report says it is. And Trump
is frankly fulfilling a lot of his campaign promises. Energy
prices are down. That's causing the rest of inflation to
kind of start working its way down, like.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
Trump said it would.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
The main cause of inflation right now in kh money
Man Passion agreed on this as well, is housing costs,
which are probably lower right now than this report.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
Says they are.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
So there's a lot to be happy about here in
terms of economics. Again, is everything going to be exactly
how we want it immediately? No, obviously not. Remember we're
only about six or seven months into this term right now.
We've got four, well three and a half more years
of Donald Trump working on these problems in order to
(17:23):
kind of see all of the perfect results that the
left is mad we haven't gotten on day one. Just
give it some time. The economy seems to be healing,
but again, just like you can't cure cancer overnight, you
can't stop massive inflation and economic hardship that we've seen
under the Biden administration overnight either all right, I gotta
take a quick break, but we will be right back.
(17:44):
If you're watching the Facebook livestream right now, stay tuned.
We will be right back in about four maybe five minutes,
probably less.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
Stay tuned with.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
All right, So, the craziness in the Texas House refuses
to stop. And if you're kind of a political novice,
if you only follow politics casually, you may very well
get kind of lost in all the lingo and the rhetorics.
So it's very difficult for the average person to really
have a firm grasp on what exactly is going on
(18:36):
in the Texas House. So here to explain it all
and make sense of all of this for us is
State Representative Briscoe Caine Briscoe, let me start with this.
This seems to be more than anything else, just more
political grand standing from the Democrats. Is there actually anything
they can practically achieve by doing this massive weeks long
(18:59):
quorum break or is this just an attention move?
Speaker 8 (19:04):
Well, it's actually kind of childish. They've certainly they've seized
the ball and ran off the field and prohibited anybody
for playing they're trying to hold onto power. They didn't
earn its the ballot box that you could say as well,
and ultimately history is shown that it's futile and it's
just really something that's expensive to the taxpayers, delays legitimate
(19:25):
policies that the people need adopted, and ultimately the end
it's futile and that they end up happening anyways. And
so the only legitimate thing that they could have done,
and I think they've ultimately felt was actually engaged in
a form of warfare. That they were hoping to drag
this out as long as they could so that when
the courts, you know, because there will be litigation over
the maps, and hopes that by dragging it out as
(19:48):
long as they can that a resolution wouldn't be brought
until it was too late. But I think they felt
so this is.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
All essentially in service of trying to make sure that,
you know, even if we only delay the passage of
these new district maps, we still won't have them kind
of in place and have them be the official maps
by the twenty twenty six midterms. So you know, if
we delay the passage of the maps by a week
or two weeks. That ultimately delays the outcome of the
(20:18):
inevitable lawsuits by another two weeks. So this just kind
of stacks and stacks and stacks until eventually twenty twenty
six rolls around and the new maps are maybe still
held up in the courts.
Speaker 8 (20:30):
Yeah, that's the only kind of logical thing that they
could be doing it for anything else. They realize again,
it's futile that many of the members don't even want
to be doing this because they realize that they'll be
punished over it. But they're doing so because you know,
the Democratic National Committee is making them because if they don't,
someone more socialists will run their place.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Yeah, and you mentioned policies that we need passed that
the thing that really came to my mind was the flooding.
I believe that was supposed to be on the flo
lore yesterday and voted on by the members of the
House yesterday, the flood relief. But because the Democrats weren't there,
that couldn't happen. And at the same time, they're trying
to campaign on the fact that we haven't passed flood relief.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 8 (21:16):
Now their vocracy knows no bound. They flew off to
states and cities that have true and actual jerrymandering where
even though Trump have run Illinois in the upper forty
centile that only thirteen percent of their congressmen are Republicans.
It's completely lappable and they're not serious. You know, they're
(21:37):
trying to say that they would be there from your
past flood relief. Well, they're the reason we weren't able
to do it, and they're the reason that it's delayed now.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
One thing that they keep trying to say is well,
the flood relief should have been first, that should have
been the top priority for the legislature. And I think
now we're kind of getting into sort of the procedural
much of everything. So how exactly does this process work?
Was you know, the fact that flood relief wasn't at
(22:08):
the very very top of the list, Was that actually
why we still don't have it?
Speaker 3 (22:12):
Or is this just more rhetoric.
Speaker 8 (22:15):
Yeah, you can't possibly believe that people that at the
same time calling as coward, you're saying that they're taking
a stand by running away, and certainly we can chew
gum and walk at the same time, all those bills
will be heard and it's their presence or their lack
of participation rather or even worse, kind of getting in
(22:36):
the way at the Legislative Department. I mean, it is
the body of a constitutional body that they're lyric preventing
from functioning. It certainly can't be allowed.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
So on the topic of punishments, a lot of people
are upset with the perceived lack of action, or maybe
it is a legitimate lack of action from Speaker Burrows.
I know a lot of people are complaining that these
representatives are still members of the House. I know a
lot of people are still complaining that these people are
still on committees. So let's start with this, just according
(23:12):
to the rules, what exactly can Speaker Burroughs do? What
does he have the power to do to these Democrats
that maybe he hasn't done already.
Speaker 8 (23:26):
Well, been a good question, and it's one that some
would say is difficult to answer. There's multiple views on this.
There's some that would say that we believe that the
Speaker has the authority to remove chairmanships, and others would
that would say, due to amendments in the past, that
he no longer does. Either way, though, there is something
for sure is that Article three, Session ten of the Constitution,
(23:49):
which sets forth our form requirement, says that you know
that two thirds shot constitute for them, but less than
that number may adjourn from day to day, and can
the attendance of absent members under such penalties as each
House may provide. And so we say that the House
may also do these things, and may be the better
(24:10):
opportunity for it. They certainly should lose their vice chairmanships,
something that they see is very important to them and
powerful there as well. But punishment must also come, and
that would include vacating some of their seats who will
abandon it. And that's the only way to look at it.
If you run off to another state and say that
(24:30):
you don't have any president in tens or return under
other law like a residency challenge, that person would be
considered to have moved, and it's hard not to see
why they've not abandoned their seats.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
And then that, of course becomes an issue of the courts,
which I think maybe they were counting on right. They
know that it's going to take i think probably Supreme
Court action to form a Texas Supreme Court action, that is,
to formally say yes, these seats are vacant, and so.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
They know, oh, hey, I can get away with.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Just scampering off for a week, two weeks, maybe three,
because I know that the Texas Supreme Court is not
going to be able to act on that in time.
Speaker 8 (25:12):
Right, that could be a problem, and so listeners may understand.
The Governor as well as the Attorney General have filed
certain actions with the Texas Supreme Court to have certain
Democrat members seats declared vacant, most notably jem Wu of Houston,
who's the chairman of the House Democratic concuss And not
(25:34):
surprisingly the text Supreme Court either today or yesterday set
a forty five day schedule essentially before they may do anything.
And so you're right that it'll be drug out. Myself
and Sabers to miss Little have filed an Amika's letter
at support of the Governor's arguments that he has standing
and that they should do this thing. But you know,
(25:56):
hopefully look that the Supreme Court doesn't call it mood.
They could try and say, well, the cases over the
Democrats in return, which is likely to happen very soon,
but there's exceptions to that and they need to ultimately
answer the question.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Yeah, and that brings up a good point of what
happens if the Democrats sneak right back in right at
the deadline, Like you pointed out, We've heard rumors that
and those rumors may be confirmed as of now that
the Democrats will be coming back for the last few
days of this session or the beginning of the next
(26:30):
special session. So I think a lot of people are
concerned that this will just set the precedent that as
long as you just managed to squeak back in at
the very end, there won't be any consequences.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Do you see that happening?
Speaker 2 (26:43):
Do you see that being the case and the precedent
that we start having to work with, where now every
single session, if there's something the Democrats don't like, they
just throw their hands up and leave for two weeks.
Speaker 8 (26:55):
Yeah. Well, in twenty twenty one we saw really no
flap on the wrists and the members. It's a Republican delegation,
remember it all too well, and it may be one
reason they're even more upset this time and unwilling to,
you know, take somebody showing back up to work after
they've done all these delayed tactics and called us terrible
(27:15):
terrible names like racists, that they have to be consequences,
and I think the speaker knows that.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Yeah, and again it I think it'll come down to
the voters. Do you think the voters will let this slide?
Do you think the voters will buy this crap that, oh,
we're we're really sticking up for you and fighting for
you by just turning our tails and running away.
Speaker 8 (27:37):
The history shows the opposite, right, or rather, it doesn't
do well after four when they broke form, and after
twenty twenty one the Republicans increase their control in the
Texas House. That could be proof enough that voters reject
people not showing for work. It's really simple. They've got
to go to work as well. You do a bunch
of no cult, no shows, unexcused absences, you're fired too.
(28:00):
And the voters, I think they're smart enough to realize that,
you know, we're running away is not the texting thing
to do.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
All right, in this last minute?
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Is there anything less that you think people should really
know about this quorum break or about the goings on
in the house.
Speaker 8 (28:17):
Okay, again, I believe that the voters, the people of
Texas is smart enough to know legitimate policy disputes versus Theeter,
and all the Democrats are doing right now is theeter
and as you will see a week from now or so,
maybe less, when we have a quorum and accomplish everything
we said we were going to accomplish. The Democrats did
(28:38):
nothing but waste their money and delay serving the people
of Texas.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
All righty, State Representative Briscocaine, thank you very much for
taking the time to join us and talk with me
about all of this. Really appreciate your expertise and insights.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
Stay tuned. We've got one more segment coming up.
Speaker 9 (28:55):
We will be right back after this break.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Alrighty, and we are back. Okay, let's talk a little bit.
Enough national headlines. Let's talk about what's going on locally
here in Houston. We are seeing some major progress on
our own immigration problems. Of course, as I'm sure you know,
if you're a follower of the station, if you're a listener,
(29:42):
if you're regularly tuning into Houston's morning news as you
should be, you know that criminal illegal aliens have made
Houston into one of their favorite places to be. This
has become a hotbed. Of course, we've been talking for
years at this point about Colony Ridge, which is just
(30:02):
outside of Houston, and there's a lot of concerns about that.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
So, you know, Houston has very much become.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
A problem area, and I think it's very difficult to
argue that point. But we are seeing major progress thanks
to the Trump administration. They are taking action here in
the city of Houston. Homeland Security DHS they posted on
their official ex page this clip of I believe this
is Fox News.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
Let's take a peek. Hundred Yeah, it's Fox News.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
They're talking about what they have seen happen here in
the city of Houston, all of the major deportations that
we have had huge numbers of criminal illegal aliens being
taken out of this city thanks to the work of
the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Take a listen.
Speaker 10 (30:47):
Under Trump, three hundred and fifty six criminal illegal alien
gang members were arrested in Houston, compared that to seventy
five in the same time period under the Biden administration.
That's a three hundred and seventy five percent increase. Total
number of crimes committed by those three hundred and fifty
six one thousand, six hundred and eighty five included murder,
child sex crimes, sex trafficking, arson and theft. And I'm
(31:10):
sure that those numbers are reflected across the country, Todd.
Speaker 4 (31:14):
These are the people that.
Speaker 10 (31:15):
You're apprehending and targeting prioritization for removal.
Speaker 11 (31:20):
Yeah, one hundred percent, cho on, and you see that
with the numbers out of the Houston office. You know,
just nationwide, we've arrested more than thirty five hundred TDA
gang members who are some of the worst, the worst
criminals with the organization that's been designated a foreign terrorist
group by the President. So you can see that those
are the ones that we are focused on.
Speaker 4 (31:37):
So you know, it's.
Speaker 11 (31:39):
Great that I can come on like today and highlight
the good work the men and women of ICE are doing,
because I don't think the American public as a whole
realizes just exactly who ICE is going out to every day,
and these numbers show it.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
And yeah, I think that's a that's a great point.
The people that ICE is removing from the city, they're
not folks that you want here. They're not hard workers,
they're criminals.
Speaker 12 (32:02):
They are.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Of course, I don't feel like I need to bring
out up but I will. We all know here in Houston,
we had the Jocelyn nungery case. Those are the people
that ICE is going after here. Yet here we have
Mayor Karen Bass, Like he pointed out, this is happening
all of the country, so I will go national again.
This is Mary Karen Bass of LA She says that
ICE doing this across the country, and I'm sure she
(32:24):
would say this about Houston too. She thinks that this
is a sign that we're gonna destroy our economy. We're
destabilizing neighborhoods and businesses. She thinks we should just leave
these criminals alone.
Speaker 8 (32:40):
Here.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
She is saying that in a press conference in her
city of Los Angeles.
Speaker 8 (32:43):
In the past.
Speaker 13 (32:44):
Several weeks, we've seen the chaos and cruelty of immigration
raids in this city. We have seen how they have
impacted families. I am frankly worried about those families and
if they're still hanging together, especially economically and talking to
families that have impacted when one breadwinner, one wage earner
(33:07):
is gone and disappears. To survive in our city economically,
you need two, three and four wage earners to keep housing,
to keep food on the table.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
All right, Is that really going to be the pitch
from democrats? I feel like that kind of kneecaps them.
I mean, if you're sitting here going, hey, we need
three or four people per household to be earning an
income in order to live in this city, why is
that that seems like a lot, right? I mean, this
is a Democrat run city. Why is it so expensive
(33:42):
to live there? For the last twenty years, Democrats have
been campaigning about how affordable they're going to make things.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
Why is it that, after years of.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Hard left Democrat rule, it requires three people earning a
paycheck in order to just survive in the city. And again,
why are you concerned about the families of illegal aliens?
Speaker 3 (34:04):
Shouldn't you be more.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Concerned about families of the American citizens who elected you?
But no, that's not what Karen bass is concerned about.
She's concerned about, Oh, these poor illegal aliens, these criminals
that are being arrested by DHS. They're the ones we
need to look out for, not the citizens, Not the
American citizens who can't afford to live in my city
(34:27):
because of my bad policies. I'm concerned about the illegal
alien criminals, the trend a ROGWA members. That's why I'm
worried about. Is that really going to be a great
electoral pitch Democrats, do you think heading into the big terms,
do you want that to be your message? I mean,
maybe it'll play out. Maybe I don't know. I wouldn't
put money on it. Let's see, all right, let's talk
(34:49):
about DC. Get out of here, car Ed, let's talk
about DC. Obviously, the Trump takeover of DC is underway.
Of of Courseocrats, like everything else, they're losing their mind
about it. The new picture of law enforcement in the
nation's capital began taking shape Tuesday, as some of the
(35:11):
eight hundred National Guard members deployed by the Trump administration
began arriving. The city's police and federal officials projecting cooperation
took the first steps in an uneasy partnership to reduce
crime and what President Donald Trump called, without substantiation, a
lawless city. Now, of course, this is an associated press
report that is mainstream media, so you can understand the
(35:34):
fact that they're saying, oh, without substantiation, Donald Trump is
calling this a lawless city. All right, So let's add
some substantiation.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
Here.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Here are residents or a resident. Here is a resident
of Washington, d C. Saying, yeah, we need more law enforcement,
we need to take a stronger stance on crime because
it is bad. So I mean, the Associated Press could
say this is unsubstantiated. All they want. The residents of Washington.
Speaker 8 (36:02):
D c.
Speaker 3 (36:02):
Are disagreeing. Take a listen.
Speaker 12 (36:04):
We need all the protection that we can get in
the city. Recall, the city is really getting dangerous. A
person like me at this age, I has to make
sure to come home before sundown. We need all the protection.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
I have to make sure to come home before Sundown's
that's sad for an American city. The fact that we,
as probably the most powerful first world country in the world,
can't let our grandmas out after dark because they might
get murdered in the streets of our nation's capital. That's
(36:39):
a problem. And I guarantee you she is not the
only one that feels that way. Thankfully, Donald Trump is
taking action. Of course, we've got federal law enforcement and
the National Guards, Surgeon DEA, the actual Drug Enforcement Administration
is also going to be getting involved here. Take a
listen to DA Administrator Terry Cole talking about the work
that they're going to be doing in Washing.
Speaker 14 (37:01):
It's not safe. People do not feel safe. The amount
of citizens that have come up to me on the
street and said thank you for what you're doing, thank
you for taking on another responsibility. We appreciate the federal
agents that are out there every single night. And now,
starting tonight, we will be embedded with the Metropolitan Police Department.
You will see federal agents working hand in hand on
(37:25):
patrol with the Metropolitan Police Department. You will all sale
see an increase of activity, patrol activity in certain sectors
to go after the violent criminal offenders that are the
drivers of this crime. We cannot afford to turn a
blind eye, Martha, and.
Speaker 2 (37:42):
All of that seems completely practical and reasonable. It's going
to be very hard for the Democrats in the midterms
to campaign against this. Donald Trump saying, hey, we're going
to increase law enforcement present, We're going to get the
DEA out there to crack down on our cities where
grandmothers literally can't leave their homes after dark because of
how scared they are, and you want to tell those
(38:02):
same people they shouldn't vote for Republicans in the midterms.
Speaker 3 (38:06):
I don't think it's going to play out as much
as you wanted to. I really don't.
Speaker 2 (38:09):
I think this is a eighty twenty issue. And Donald
Trump and the Republicans are absolutely right on this. I
think most people are gonna come away from this thinking, yes,
I like safety. I like getting drugs off the streets,
especially the streets of our nation's capital. Well, okay, that
is just about all that I have for today. Thank
(38:29):
you very much. If you're watching the live stream, I
appreciate it. If you're here on the podcast, I appreciate
that as well. Remember stay tuned to KPRC nine point
fifty on Sunday at seven pm. I'll be back there
with the Next Gen Report from seven to eight pm.
I can't wait to see you there, and of course
check me out on x at Underscore.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
Ethan B. Cannon thank you very much again for watching
or for listening.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
And uh yeah, you'll have a good one.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
The Beg put them on the Pater to tre
From the heart of the Space City to the heart
of gen Z. Welcome to Next Gen Conversation, not Dad's
Talk Radio. Ethan talks to you about the issues and
events that men are to our generation. This is the
Next Gen Report put Ethan Buchanan.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Hey everybody, welcome, Good day to you all. It's a
pleasure to be with you. We've got a lot to
talk about today. Obviously, there is still a whole lot
of stuff going on in the Texas House, a lot
of back and forth there from the Texas House Democrats.
State Representative Brisco Caine will join us in a third
(00:45):
segment to break down all of that. Very excited to
have him with us a little bit later, so stay tuned. First,
I want to talk about some big news. Actually first,
first go follow me on x right now at Underscore
Ethan Buchanan.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Follow me there because that's where you get all.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Of the most important information first, and of course we
also like to have fun, joke around, share some memes.
It's a good time over there. Check me out at Underscore.
Ethan Buchanan Bucha n An. All right now, First, now
we're going to talk about this possible overturning of the
Obergefel v Hodges decision, which, of course, as you may
(01:26):
or may not know, came in twenty fifteen and legalized
same sex marriage across the country. And I'm using marriage
in quotes because I believe that marriage is an institution
of God and not the state, and is defined as
a man and a woman. And let me just make
clear right here on the outset, I don't even think
(01:49):
the state should be involved in regular marriage, marriage marriage,
heterosexual marriage. I think the entire idea, just as a libertarian,
of you to go and get a marriage license from
the government is gross and vomitous. I hate that. But
if the state is going to be issuing marriage licenses,
(02:12):
it should at least be issuing them only to the
people who God has said, yes, this is a marriage.
That's my religious opinion. I don't think anything less of
gay people. I don't think anybody really does. But I
religiously believe that marriages between a man and a woman.
I don't think the state should be involved at all,
let alone involved in same sex marriages. That's my thoughts
(02:36):
on it. Anyway, this could now be overturned, possibly, I mean,
the chances right now I think of this actually happening are.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
Slim to none.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
I don't see the obershfel Via Hodge's decision actually getting overturned,
but there's at least the chance for it to be overturned,
and the Left is losing their mind over this Supreme
Court this, according to ABC News, Supreme Court formally asked
to overturn landmark same sex marriage ruling. Ten years ago,
(03:06):
the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same sex couples nationwide.
The justices this fall will consider for the first time
whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them
to overturn that decision. Kim Davis, the former Kentucky County
clerk who has jailed for six days and twenty fifteen
after refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on
religious grounds, is appealing a one hundred thousand dollars jury
(03:30):
verdict for emotional damages plus two hundred and sixty thousand
dollars for attorney fees. In a petition for writ of
suteriori or however you pronounce that weird Latin word filed
last month, Davis argues First Amendment protections for free exercise
of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial
(03:50):
of marriage licenses. I think that's a fair argument. This
lady essentially said, hey, I believe that marriage is this
because of my religion, and because of my religion, which
I have a First Amendment right to exercise whenever and wherever,
including in my capacity as a county clerk or whatever
(04:11):
she was, I'm not going to issue these licenses. The
idea that that should cost her six days in jail
and three hundred thousand dollars is ridiculous. Maybe you fire
her and just get somebody else to issue the marriage licenses. Maybe,
But the idea that she should have to pay three
hundred thousand dollars nearly four hundred thousand dollars for exercising
(04:32):
her religious beliefs, which, by the way, were commonly held
by everybody until like basically twenty fifteen. I mean, you
can find videos of even wild leftists like Hillary Clinton
and Barack Obama saying yes, marriages between a man and
a woman. This wasn't controversial to say until this ruling
(04:53):
came out of nowhere. So the idea that this lady
should have to pay nearly four hundred thousand dollars for
ex exercizing this opinion that basically everyone until maybe twenty
five years ago agreed on is crazy. Now, of course,
the left is, like I said, going nuts over this.
(05:13):
News Wire posted a report about this, and the first
thing I saw about this was some leftists who said,
guess what goes with Obershefel interracial marriage. So essentially, if
gay marriage is on its way out, so is interracial marriage.
I don't buy that even slightly. I don't believe you.
(05:34):
I think you're lying to me. As a matter of fact,
I know you're lying to me. This is how confident
I am. I am willing to bet anyone one thousand
dollars right now that if the Obergefell vi Hodge's decision
is overturned, my interracial marriage will not be annuld.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
I have skin in the game here. I'm in an
interracial marriage.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
If you didn't know this about me, my wife is
Chinese ethnically, not nationally.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
She's an American, but she's an ethnic Chinese woman. She
was born in China.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
I guarantee you my marriage will be fine if Oberstfel
v Hodges is overturned.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Here's how I know this.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Bands on interracial marriages were struck down in a completely
different Supreme Court case, Loving v.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
Virginia, not Oberstfel v. Hodges. So I think you're lying
to me. I'm positive you're lying to me.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Also, the main dissenting opinion in Obersfel was written by
Chief Justice John Roberts, who went out of his way
to say, hey, this is a completely separate issue from
the interracial marriage issue. This is a favored tactic by
the left. They take their radical agenda and they try
(06:42):
to equate it to something that most normal people all
agree is okay, and then they push for that. They
basically put a kind of normal centrist mask on their radicalism.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
And I don't think it's gonna work anymore.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
I don't think there'll be a lot of people out
there that are really and truly concerned that, oh, intermarriage
will be abolished if gay marriage is. And again, this
won't even abolish gay marriage. Gay people will still be
able to go and get quote unquote married in left
wing states just like they were before. All this does
is say, hey, if you're a more religious and conservative state,
(07:20):
like for example, Texas that didn't allow gay marriage before,
you don't have to allow gay marriage now. I mean,
this used to be considered a good thing, the fact
that you didn't have to necessarily live under a bunch
of laws that you didn't agree with. You could just
move to another part of the country. If you want
to be governed and you want your state to do
certain things, you can just go to a state that
(07:40):
does that. But no, the Left hates that. They want
everything to be a monolith, and I don't think they're.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Gonna get it. All right, We've got a lot coming up,
so stay tuned.
Speaker 5 (07:49):
We'll be right back with the next General coort.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Hey, everybody, welcome back.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
We have got some interesting US China news. Of course,
negotiations are ongoing, so you know, nothing huge yet, But
I think this is actually a positive sign. We had
this announcement that the US and China trade deal deadline
(08:51):
has essentially been extended by another yeah, ninety days. So this,
I believe is a sign that negotiations are underway going well.
Just from what I've seen in the past from Donald
Trump and his negotiating style, he seems to be the
type of person that if you're actually working with him
and you're kind of playing the ballgame, he'll give you
(09:14):
some concessions Whereas if you throw your hands up and
say no, I'm not gonna work with you, I'm not
gonna negotiate, I'm not gonna play nice. Donald Trump is
usually far more likely to say, all right, well here's
the deadline. Then if you don't want to negotiate, pay
the tariffs. So this is, I think is a positive sign.
Let's dig into it. President Donald Trump extended a trade
(09:35):
deal truce or trade truce with China for ninety days
on Monday, again at least delaying a dangerous showdown between
the world's two biggest economies. He announced, I have just
signed an executive order that will extend tariff's suspension on
China for another ninety days. All other elements of the
agreement will remain the same. The previous deadline was, of course,
(09:57):
twelve oh one am Tuesday, that would be today. Had
that happened, the US would have raised taxes on Chinese
imports from an already high thirty percent, and Beijing could
have responded by increasing retaliatory levies on US exports to China.
So essentially, what this does is it buys time for
(10:19):
more negotiations.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
I think that's generally viewed as a good thing, and
I'm not alone in that. Here Sean Stein, president of
the US China Business Council. He says the extension is
critical to give the two governments time to negotiate a
trade agreement that US businesses hope would improve their market
access in China and provide the certainty needed for companies
(10:43):
to make medium and long term plans. So again, this
definitely seems like, Hey, the two sides are working to
hammer out a deal, and because China is playing ball
with us, Donald Trump is rewarding them with a little
bit more time. That seems to be the opinion of
(11:05):
Scott Bessett. Here, he's the Treasury Secretary, and here he
is on Fox Business Today, sitting here saying, Yeah, we're
working together, we're negotiating. This is all part of Donald
Trump's leverage. This is just how we move closer towards
a deal.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Take a listen.
Speaker 6 (11:24):
There's so much left to do. And look the success
of all the success of the trade deals, the success
of the tax deial. That's President Trump. President Trump applying
maximum leverage. But we're going to be working on affordability.
I think there's a lot to do on housing. We're
going to be given the student loan portfolio. I think
(11:44):
that there is a firm but humane way to work
on that. It is the largest single asset of the
US government. It's up to one point seven trillion now,
so there's always plenty to do. And the China negotiations
will be continuing.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Okay, So essentially there's a lot of basically a lot
of things going on all at the same time. We're
working on several different major projects, and China is playing
ball with us. We think we're going to get a deal,
we think we're probably going to get it soon, so
we'll give them a little bit more time.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
That I think is fair.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
I think, I mean, it makes sense just from a
strategy perspective. If you're trying to negotiate with these people
and there's maybe some good faith, you don't want to
ruin that necessarily by letting some deadlines that you sent
months ago take effect and kind of run a truck
through all the good faith that you've built up. This
requires give and take. That's what negotiation is. I think
(12:41):
this is part of that. All right, here's some more.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Economic good news.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
July inflation numbers lower than expected. This, of course came
out this morning as well. Tariffs are not leading to
more inflation after all, which won't make you an inter
MSNBC happy. This is a report I'm reading Jeff now
by Cliff. Of course, I was in the newsroom this
morning reporting on this, but here is the hard article.
(13:06):
You can read it right now for yourself at Katerras
dot com. The Bureau of Labor Statistics on Tuesday said
that the CPI for July rose zero point two percent
compared with last month, while it rose two point seven
percent from a year ago. The monthly figure was in
line with estimates of economists pulled by ls EG, while
(13:27):
the headline was cooler than the two point eight expected.
So what does this mean? In Layman's terms? Essentially, we
haven't completely fixed the economy, because of course we haven't.
It's hard to just immediately turn around and fix something
that's that messed up. Because I think we all kind
of understand it was pretty messed up the inflation that
(13:51):
we've seen that that doesn't just turn around overnight, It
doesn't just disappear immediately. You have to start working your
way down, and that's kind of what we've seen from
the trumpet. Missiration. Inflation is slowing down. It's not going
to stop all at once. It would be kind of
ridiculous to expect that. This also tells us that those
terrifts that we were talking about also are not causing
(14:13):
the economy to inflate. That's been the line that we've
heard right from leftists and the mainstream media constantly. They
keep saying, oh, all of Trump's tariffs are going to
cause inflation to skyrocket even higher than it is. Well,
what this tells us is that hasn't actually happened. We've
had plenty of time for this to take effect. This
is the position of K t H moneyman Pat Shin.
(14:35):
I talked with him about this this morning in the
newsroom when we got these numbers. I asked him, Okay, well,
you know, obviously the tariff inflation, if it happens, is
going to take time to happen, right, So are we
kind of reaching that point where if this would cause inflation,
we would have seen it. He says yes. So the
fact that we're not seeing this inflation now means we
(14:56):
probably aren't going to see a bunch of terror inflation.
And of course this expands to all sorts of other
good news, you know, this could result in US finally
getting that rate cut that we so desperately desire. Here's
Peter Navarro talking about, Hey, this is a very good
report despite all the kind of economic fear mongering we've
(15:19):
been getting from the mainstream media. Peter Navarro, thanks, this
is actually pretty great.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Take a listen.
Speaker 7 (15:25):
Yes, I'm buying the numbers, and I want to amplify
a little bit what Romayne said. This wasn't a bad
report or just an okay report.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
It is a very good report. Let me explain the core.
Speaker 7 (15:38):
The CPI came in at two point seven percent, which
seems significantly above target, but in fact, the Federal Reserve
uses another gauge called the personal consumption expenditures in debt.
We love the piece, and that one runs to point
two to point four lower.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Okay, so we get closer to target.
Speaker 7 (15:59):
Next, if you look at the annualize based on a
six month basis since Trump took office, you know what
it is too, one point nine percent.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
One point nine percent.
Speaker 7 (16:11):
So then when you dive into the individual numbers, you
had energy prices down, that's a very big deal. You
had food prices flat, that's good. Shelter costs were up,
but that's a mirage because the way the shelter costs
is calculated, it's very much a lagging indicator if you
(16:32):
look at like the.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
So essentially what he's saying here is things may even
be better than this report says it is. And Trump
is frankly fulfilling a lot of his campaign promises. Energy
prices are down. That's causing the rest of inflation to
kind of start working its way down, like.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
Trump said it would.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
The main cause of inflation right now in kh money
Man Passion agreed on this as well, is housing costs,
which are probably lower right now than this report.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
Says they are.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
So there's a lot to be happy about here in
terms of economics. Again, is everything going to be exactly
how we want it immediately? No, obviously not. Remember we're
only about six or seven months into this term right now.
We've got four, well three and a half more years
of Donald Trump working on these problems in order to
(17:23):
kind of see all of the perfect results that the
left is mad we haven't gotten on day one. Just
give it some time. The economy seems to be healing,
but again, just like you can't cure cancer overnight, you
can't stop massive inflation and economic hardship that we've seen
under the Biden administration overnight either all right, I gotta
take a quick break, but we will be right back.
(17:44):
If you're watching the Facebook livestream right now, stay tuned.
We will be right back in about four maybe five minutes,
probably less.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
Stay tuned with.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
All right, So, the craziness in the Texas House refuses
to stop. And if you're kind of a political novice,
if you only follow politics casually, you may very well
get kind of lost in all the lingo and the rhetorics.
So it's very difficult for the average person to really
have a firm grasp on what exactly is going on
(18:36):
in the Texas House. So here to explain it all
and make sense of all of this for us is
State Representative Briscoe Caine Briscoe, let me start with this.
This seems to be more than anything else, just more
political grand standing from the Democrats. Is there actually anything
they can practically achieve by doing this massive weeks long
(18:59):
quorum break or is this just an attention move?
Speaker 8 (19:04):
Well, it's actually kind of childish. They've certainly they've seized
the ball and ran off the field and prohibited anybody
for playing they're trying to hold onto power. They didn't
earn its the ballot box that you could say as well,
and ultimately history is shown that it's futile and it's
just really something that's expensive to the taxpayers, delays legitimate
(19:25):
policies that the people need adopted, and ultimately the end
it's futile and that they end up happening anyways. And
so the only legitimate thing that they could have done,
and I think they've ultimately felt was actually engaged in
a form of warfare. That they were hoping to drag
this out as long as they could so that when
the courts, you know, because there will be litigation over
the maps, and hopes that by dragging it out as
(19:48):
long as they can that a resolution wouldn't be brought
until it was too late. But I think they felt
so this is.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
All essentially in service of trying to make sure that,
you know, even if we only delay the passage of
these new district maps, we still won't have them kind
of in place and have them be the official maps
by the twenty twenty six midterms. So you know, if
we delay the passage of the maps by a week
or two weeks. That ultimately delays the outcome of the
(20:18):
inevitable lawsuits by another two weeks. So this just kind
of stacks and stacks and stacks until eventually twenty twenty
six rolls around and the new maps are maybe still
held up in the courts.
Speaker 8 (20:30):
Yeah, that's the only kind of logical thing that they
could be doing it for anything else. They realize again,
it's futile that many of the members don't even want
to be doing this because they realize that they'll be
punished over it. But they're doing so because you know,
the Democratic National Committee is making them because if they don't,
someone more socialists will run their place.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Yeah, and you mentioned policies that we need passed that
the thing that really came to my mind was the flooding.
I believe that was supposed to be on the flo
lore yesterday and voted on by the members of the
House yesterday, the flood relief. But because the Democrats weren't there,
that couldn't happen. And at the same time, they're trying
to campaign on the fact that we haven't passed flood relief.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 8 (21:16):
Now their vocracy knows no bound. They flew off to
states and cities that have true and actual jerrymandering where
even though Trump have run Illinois in the upper forty
centile that only thirteen percent of their congressmen are Republicans.
It's completely lappable and they're not serious. You know, they're
(21:37):
trying to say that they would be there from your
past flood relief. Well, they're the reason we weren't able
to do it, and they're the reason that it's delayed now.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
One thing that they keep trying to say is well,
the flood relief should have been first, that should have
been the top priority for the legislature. And I think
now we're kind of getting into sort of the procedural
much of everything. So how exactly does this process work?
Was you know, the fact that flood relief wasn't at
(22:08):
the very very top of the list, Was that actually
why we still don't have it?
Speaker 3 (22:12):
Or is this just more rhetoric.
Speaker 8 (22:15):
Yeah, you can't possibly believe that people that at the
same time calling as coward, you're saying that they're taking
a stand by running away, and certainly we can chew
gum and walk at the same time, all those bills
will be heard and it's their presence or their lack
of participation rather or even worse, kind of getting in
(22:36):
the way at the Legislative Department. I mean, it is
the body of a constitutional body that they're lyric preventing
from functioning. It certainly can't be allowed.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
So on the topic of punishments, a lot of people
are upset with the perceived lack of action, or maybe
it is a legitimate lack of action from Speaker Burrows.
I know a lot of people are complaining that these
representatives are still members of the House. I know a
lot of people are still complaining that these people are
still on committees. So let's start with this, just according
(23:12):
to the rules, what exactly can Speaker Burroughs do? What
does he have the power to do to these Democrats
that maybe he hasn't done already.
Speaker 8 (23:26):
Well, been a good question, and it's one that some
would say is difficult to answer. There's multiple views on this.
There's some that would say that we believe that the
Speaker has the authority to remove chairmanships, and others would
that would say, due to amendments in the past, that
he no longer does. Either way, though, there is something
for sure is that Article three, Session ten of the Constitution,
(23:49):
which sets forth our form requirement, says that you know
that two thirds shot constitute for them, but less than
that number may adjourn from day to day, and can
the attendance of absent members under such penalties as each
House may provide. And so we say that the House
may also do these things, and may be the better
(24:10):
opportunity for it. They certainly should lose their vice chairmanships,
something that they see is very important to them and
powerful there as well. But punishment must also come, and
that would include vacating some of their seats who will
abandon it. And that's the only way to look at it.
If you run off to another state and say that
(24:30):
you don't have any president in tens or return under
other law like a residency challenge, that person would be
considered to have moved, and it's hard not to see
why they've not abandoned their seats.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
And then that, of course becomes an issue of the courts,
which I think maybe they were counting on right. They
know that it's going to take i think probably Supreme
Court action to form a Texas Supreme Court action, that is,
to formally say yes, these seats are vacant, and so.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
They know, oh, hey, I can get away with.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Just scampering off for a week, two weeks, maybe three,
because I know that the Texas Supreme Court is not
going to be able to act on that in time.
Speaker 8 (25:12):
Right, that could be a problem, and so listeners may understand.
The Governor as well as the Attorney General have filed
certain actions with the Texas Supreme Court to have certain
Democrat members seats declared vacant, most notably jem Wu of Houston,
who's the chairman of the House Democratic concuss And not
(25:34):
surprisingly the text Supreme Court either today or yesterday set
a forty five day schedule essentially before they may do anything.
And so you're right that it'll be drug out. Myself
and Sabers to miss Little have filed an Amika's letter
at support of the Governor's arguments that he has standing
and that they should do this thing. But you know,
(25:56):
hopefully look that the Supreme Court doesn't call it mood.
They could try and say, well, the cases over the
Democrats in return, which is likely to happen very soon,
but there's exceptions to that and they need to ultimately
answer the question.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Yeah, and that brings up a good point of what
happens if the Democrats sneak right back in right at
the deadline, Like you pointed out, We've heard rumors that
and those rumors may be confirmed as of now that
the Democrats will be coming back for the last few
days of this session or the beginning of the next
(26:30):
special session. So I think a lot of people are
concerned that this will just set the precedent that as
long as you just managed to squeak back in at
the very end, there won't be any consequences.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Do you see that happening?
Speaker 2 (26:43):
Do you see that being the case and the precedent
that we start having to work with, where now every
single session, if there's something the Democrats don't like, they
just throw their hands up and leave for two weeks.
Speaker 8 (26:55):
Yeah. Well, in twenty twenty one we saw really no
flap on the wrists and the members. It's a Republican delegation,
remember it all too well, and it may be one
reason they're even more upset this time and unwilling to,
you know, take somebody showing back up to work after
they've done all these delayed tactics and called us terrible
(27:15):
terrible names like racists, that they have to be consequences,
and I think the speaker knows that.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Yeah, and again it I think it'll come down to
the voters. Do you think the voters will let this slide?
Do you think the voters will buy this crap that, oh,
we're we're really sticking up for you and fighting for
you by just turning our tails and running away.
Speaker 8 (27:37):
The history shows the opposite, right, or rather, it doesn't
do well after four when they broke form, and after
twenty twenty one the Republicans increase their control in the
Texas House. That could be proof enough that voters reject
people not showing for work. It's really simple. They've got
to go to work as well. You do a bunch
of no cult, no shows, unexcused absences, you're fired too.
(28:00):
And the voters, I think they're smart enough to realize that,
you know, we're running away is not the texting thing
to do.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
All right, in this last minute?
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Is there anything less that you think people should really
know about this quorum break or about the goings on
in the house.
Speaker 8 (28:17):
Okay, again, I believe that the voters, the people of
Texas is smart enough to know legitimate policy disputes versus Theeter,
and all the Democrats are doing right now is theeter
and as you will see a week from now or so,
maybe less, when we have a quorum and accomplish everything
we said we were going to accomplish. The Democrats did
(28:38):
nothing but waste their money and delay serving the people
of Texas.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
All righty, State Representative Briscocaine, thank you very much for
taking the time to join us and talk with me
about all of this. Really appreciate your expertise and insights.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
Stay tuned. We've got one more segment coming up.
Speaker 9 (28:55):
We will be right back after this break.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Alrighty, and we are back. Okay, let's talk a little bit.
Enough national headlines. Let's talk about what's going on locally
here in Houston. We are seeing some major progress on
our own immigration problems. Of course, as I'm sure you know,
if you're a follower of the station, if you're a listener,
(29:42):
if you're regularly tuning into Houston's morning news as you
should be, you know that criminal illegal aliens have made
Houston into one of their favorite places to be. This
has become a hotbed. Of course, we've been talking for
years at this point about Colony Ridge, which is just
(30:02):
outside of Houston, and there's a lot of concerns about that.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
So, you know, Houston has very much become.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
A problem area, and I think it's very difficult to
argue that point. But we are seeing major progress thanks
to the Trump administration. They are taking action here in
the city of Houston. Homeland Security DHS they posted on
their official ex page this clip of I believe this
is Fox News.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
Let's take a peek. Hundred Yeah, it's Fox News.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
They're talking about what they have seen happen here in
the city of Houston, all of the major deportations that
we have had huge numbers of criminal illegal aliens being
taken out of this city thanks to the work of
the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Take a listen.
Speaker 10 (30:47):
Under Trump, three hundred and fifty six criminal illegal alien
gang members were arrested in Houston, compared that to seventy
five in the same time period under the Biden administration.
That's a three hundred and seventy five percent increase. Total
number of crimes committed by those three hundred and fifty
six one thousand, six hundred and eighty five included murder,
child sex crimes, sex trafficking, arson and theft. And I'm
(31:10):
sure that those numbers are reflected across the country, Todd.
Speaker 4 (31:14):
These are the people that.
Speaker 10 (31:15):
You're apprehending and targeting prioritization for removal.
Speaker 11 (31:20):
Yeah, one hundred percent, cho on, and you see that
with the numbers out of the Houston office. You know,
just nationwide, we've arrested more than thirty five hundred TDA
gang members who are some of the worst, the worst
criminals with the organization that's been designated a foreign terrorist
group by the President. So you can see that those
are the ones that we are focused on.
Speaker 4 (31:37):
So you know, it's.
Speaker 11 (31:39):
Great that I can come on like today and highlight
the good work the men and women of ICE are doing,
because I don't think the American public as a whole
realizes just exactly who ICE is going out to every day,
and these numbers show it.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
And yeah, I think that's a that's a great point.
The people that ICE is removing from the city, they're
not folks that you want here. They're not hard workers,
they're criminals.
Speaker 12 (32:02):
They are.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Of course, I don't feel like I need to bring
out up but I will. We all know here in Houston,
we had the Jocelyn nungery case. Those are the people
that ICE is going after here. Yet here we have
Mayor Karen Bass, Like he pointed out, this is happening
all of the country, so I will go national again.
This is Mary Karen Bass of LA She says that
ICE doing this across the country, and I'm sure she
(32:24):
would say this about Houston too. She thinks that this
is a sign that we're gonna destroy our economy. We're
destabilizing neighborhoods and businesses. She thinks we should just leave
these criminals alone.
Speaker 8 (32:40):
Here.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
She is saying that in a press conference in her
city of Los Angeles.
Speaker 8 (32:43):
In the past.
Speaker 13 (32:44):
Several weeks, we've seen the chaos and cruelty of immigration
raids in this city. We have seen how they have
impacted families. I am frankly worried about those families and
if they're still hanging together, especially economically and talking to
families that have impacted when one breadwinner, one wage earner
(33:07):
is gone and disappears. To survive in our city economically,
you need two, three and four wage earners to keep housing,
to keep food on the table.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
All right, Is that really going to be the pitch
from democrats? I feel like that kind of kneecaps them.
I mean, if you're sitting here going, hey, we need
three or four people per household to be earning an
income in order to live in this city, why is
that that seems like a lot, right? I mean, this
is a Democrat run city. Why is it so expensive
(33:42):
to live there? For the last twenty years, Democrats have
been campaigning about how affordable they're going to make things.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
Why is it that, after years of.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Hard left Democrat rule, it requires three people earning a
paycheck in order to just survive in the city. And again,
why are you concerned about the families of illegal aliens?
Speaker 3 (34:04):
Shouldn't you be more.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Concerned about families of the American citizens who elected you?
But no, that's not what Karen bass is concerned about.
She's concerned about, Oh, these poor illegal aliens, these criminals
that are being arrested by DHS. They're the ones we
need to look out for, not the citizens, Not the
American citizens who can't afford to live in my city
(34:27):
because of my bad policies. I'm concerned about the illegal
alien criminals, the trend a ROGWA members. That's why I'm
worried about. Is that really going to be a great
electoral pitch Democrats, do you think heading into the big terms,
do you want that to be your message? I mean,
maybe it'll play out. Maybe I don't know. I wouldn't
put money on it. Let's see, all right, let's talk
(34:49):
about DC. Get out of here, car Ed, let's talk
about DC. Obviously, the Trump takeover of DC is underway.
Of of Courseocrats, like everything else, they're losing their mind
about it. The new picture of law enforcement in the
nation's capital began taking shape Tuesday, as some of the
(35:11):
eight hundred National Guard members deployed by the Trump administration
began arriving. The city's police and federal officials projecting cooperation
took the first steps in an uneasy partnership to reduce
crime and what President Donald Trump called, without substantiation, a
lawless city. Now, of course, this is an associated press
report that is mainstream media, so you can understand the
(35:34):
fact that they're saying, oh, without substantiation, Donald Trump is
calling this a lawless city. All right, So let's add
some substantiation.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
Here.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Here are residents or a resident. Here is a resident
of Washington, d C. Saying, yeah, we need more law enforcement,
we need to take a stronger stance on crime because
it is bad. So I mean, the Associated Press could
say this is unsubstantiated. All they want. The residents of Washington.
Speaker 8 (36:02):
D c.
Speaker 3 (36:02):
Are disagreeing. Take a listen.
Speaker 12 (36:04):
We need all the protection that we can get in
the city. Recall, the city is really getting dangerous. A
person like me at this age, I has to make
sure to come home before sundown. We need all the protection.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
I have to make sure to come home before Sundown's
that's sad for an American city. The fact that we,
as probably the most powerful first world country in the world,
can't let our grandmas out after dark because they might
get murdered in the streets of our nation's capital. That's
(36:39):
a problem. And I guarantee you she is not the
only one that feels that way. Thankfully, Donald Trump is
taking action. Of course, we've got federal law enforcement and
the National Guards, Surgeon DEA, the actual Drug Enforcement Administration
is also going to be getting involved here. Take a
listen to DA Administrator Terry Cole talking about the work
that they're going to be doing in Washing.
Speaker 14 (37:01):
It's not safe. People do not feel safe. The amount
of citizens that have come up to me on the
street and said thank you for what you're doing, thank
you for taking on another responsibility. We appreciate the federal
agents that are out there every single night. And now,
starting tonight, we will be embedded with the Metropolitan Police Department.
You will see federal agents working hand in hand on
(37:25):
patrol with the Metropolitan Police Department. You will all sale
see an increase of activity, patrol activity in certain sectors
to go after the violent criminal offenders that are the
drivers of this crime. We cannot afford to turn a
blind eye, Martha, and.
Speaker 2 (37:42):
All of that seems completely practical and reasonable. It's going
to be very hard for the Democrats in the midterms
to campaign against this. Donald Trump saying, hey, we're going
to increase law enforcement present, We're going to get the
DEA out there to crack down on our cities where
grandmothers literally can't leave their homes after dark because of
how scared they are, and you want to tell those
(38:02):
same people they shouldn't vote for Republicans in the midterms.
Speaker 3 (38:06):
I don't think it's going to play out as much
as you wanted to. I really don't.
Speaker 2 (38:09):
I think this is a eighty twenty issue. And Donald
Trump and the Republicans are absolutely right on this. I
think most people are gonna come away from this thinking, yes,
I like safety. I like getting drugs off the streets,
especially the streets of our nation's capital. Well, okay, that
is just about all that I have for today. Thank
(38:29):
you very much. If you're watching the live stream, I
appreciate it. If you're here on the podcast, I appreciate
that as well. Remember stay tuned to KPRC nine point
fifty on Sunday at seven pm. I'll be back there
with the Next Gen Report from seven to eight pm.
I can't wait to see you there, and of course
check me out on x at Underscore.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
Ethan B. Cannon thank you very much again for watching
or for listening.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
And uh yeah, you'll have a good one.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
The Beg put them on the Pater to tre
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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