10-15-25 - 9am - Interfering with Federal Law Enforcement

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael Tom from South Dakota. I had PTSD yesterday for
Indigenous People's Day in South Dakota because now I'm confused
when I look at my ancestry. I'm part Norwegian, par Denmark,
part German, part Poland, part Zech, part Austria, part French,
part in Dutch, part Irish. Oh and then someone on

(00:24):
my mom's side of the family threw in one percent
of Southern Italian.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Go figure, you're a mut, Holy cow, you're a mutt.
You're a non native native native, non native native.

Speaker 3 (00:39):
That's so perfect. I love that one.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Yes, seventy one sixty, rote Michael. Even in recent years,
individuals representing the Sioux s i owe Ux the Sioux
Indians still petition to get the Black Hills returned because
of the violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty. I always
wonder if they would be willing to reatur in the
hills to the people that the Sioux stole them from.

(01:04):
Indians greatly affect wildlife populations, creating sources and sinks based
on the distance between the territory boundaries of feuding tribes.
Nothing says wildlife conversation like running a bison herd over
a cliff yes or nine seven nine eight, Michael she Kamala.

(01:25):
She wants the whole story. How about an Africa who
also sold slaves? Non white Africans sold slaves. Yep, they
profited from selling their own people. And didn't you say
that she her family had slaves.

Speaker 4 (01:43):
Yes, I believe it was her uncle or great uncle.
But that's fine, that's fine. Everybody's got that crazy uncle
in their family.

Speaker 5 (01:49):
Well, yeah, I'm just selling slaves. I mean, he wants
the big deal selling slaves. I mean, come on, was
it the was he black or was he South Asian?

Speaker 4 (02:03):
I think the mother is the in the South Asian,
So I don't know if it's the uncle Jamaican.

Speaker 2 (02:12):
Because I think like every people's sold slaves. The Chinese
had slaves, Japanese had slaves, South Americans, tribes down there
had slaves, uh twenty five thirty two.

Speaker 6 (02:30):
And then we'll move on. It's funny.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
I just you know, Kabos has been president vice president.

Speaker 6 (02:36):
For well she hasn't been anything for like a long time.

Speaker 3 (02:40):
But she's an author. She wrote that book.

Speaker 6 (02:45):
Well that went off the newsfast, didn't it?

Speaker 3 (02:47):
Sure did that? Just like you believe forgot about it.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
I did forget about it, and come to think of it,
I passed a couple of bookstores, and I mean I
just kind of glanced in the display in the window.
I don't remember seeing the book. I think I would
have seen what's it called one hundred and seven days.

Speaker 3 (03:04):
Or just because they were all sold out?

Speaker 2 (03:06):
Oh oh, okay, all right, uh twenty five thirty two, Mike, Like,
I kept waiting to hear Kamlas say that if the
Indigenous people had had a decent border control program, then
those things wouldn't have happened. Brilliant, Absolutely brilliant. I don't
I don't know why they didn't have a border control program,
so we get a border control program. Excuse me, Broat.

(03:33):
It really did kind of begin as an exercise of
virtue signaling when all of these y'allhoo's in the Blue
states and blue cities started adopting the sanctuary state city
policies during Trump one point zero. If you recall your

(03:53):
ancient history from Trump one point oh, it was mostly
a pledge, and the pledge was we weren't going to
have to in local resources, including law enforcement, get involved
in any efforts by the Trump administration to enforce immigration
laws in the aftermath of eight years of Obama administration
of just lax border enforcement and efforts to regularize the

(04:18):
status of millions of illegal aliens that were already here
in the country. Then Obama created DOCA deferred deportation under
the program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and DOACA
was just It was truly emblematic of his way of

(04:40):
using executive branch control of immigration enforcement to adopt overt
policies of.

Speaker 6 (04:46):
Non enforcement of immigration law.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
You got to give Obama credit, he's pretty good at
doing that kind of crap. When the Trump administration moved
in in twenty seventeen, they signaled an attempt to stop
those policies, to end those policies, and to start removing
illegal aliens rather than make some sort of deal to
create a path for citizenship. When that happened, well, the

(05:11):
reaction on the Democrat Party's progressive left was to resist.
And if you recall that was the word they used, well,
kind of like resistance became the watch word for pretty
much every change or any change in federal policy that
was sought by Trump during his first term. Remember resistance,

(05:32):
We are the resistance that's the background. But what Trump
two point zero is facing is truly dramatically different than
the simple non cooperation policies that were put in place
by those Democrat mayors and governors back twenty seventeen. Releasing

(05:58):
individuals from state customs rather than turning them over to
Ice for deportation is fundamentally different from directing ordering state
and local enforcements to not respond to unlawful activity by

(06:18):
the population in response to efforts by federal officers to
enforce federal law. In other words, what's really changed now
is they're actually directing state and law law enforcement the
Denver Police warm or or was it was Chicago where
we had the transmission over the radio of do not respond.

(06:41):
That's certainly different because now you're basically saying, don't respond
to unlawful activity, actual crimes that are being committed by
American citizens and maybe in some cases by illegal aliens too,
But I'm focused on American citizen here in response to

(07:04):
these ICE agents just trying to enforce federal law. There's
been a dramatic shift, and I think we've kind of
lost sight of that dramatic shift.

Speaker 6 (07:15):
So Trump two point zero.

Speaker 2 (07:18):
Is in essence facing the consequences of an invasion by
by tens of millions or whatever the freaking number is
of illegal aliens from all around the world that Biden
simply opened the gates for. That is an unprecedented factual
set of circumstances. But at the same time, it is

(07:42):
being met with a never before seen in my entire life,
I had never.

Speaker 6 (07:48):
Before seen.

Speaker 2 (07:50):
Of official conduct, actual official, authorized conduct by state and
local officers to enter fear now it's not just ignoring,
but now to actually engage in interfear with federal law enforcement,
or on the other hand, to actually adopt policies that

(08:11):
assist the population, just everyday citizens, that actually assist them
in interfering with enforcement of federal law.

Speaker 6 (08:21):
That is.

Speaker 2 (08:23):
I'm really not trying to be I'm trying to draw
a reference here. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic.

Speaker 6 (08:29):
But that's like it's like a civil war of sorts.

Speaker 2 (08:33):
We've got the federal government, under its constitutional mandates, immigration
is one of their enumerated powers. We've let this go
on for decades, so that now there are tens of millions,
whatever the freaking number is of illegal aliens in the country.
We've said and we've voted for someone to come in

(08:55):
and enforce it, and we've gone from okay back in
toothenty seventeen Denver, Colorado will become a sanctuary city and
sanctuary state simply because we just don't want to cooperate.
And that has gone across the entire spectrum to where
now two things actual interference with federal enforcement and then

(09:19):
adopting policies that assist all of the protesters and the
NGOs and everybody else to actually help them interfere with
enforcement of federal law. That's chaos, that is civil war.
And then not only use civil war as an example.

(09:40):
I'm not saying that this is, you know, people shooting
each other. Well, I guess we are in some cases,
but it's the kind of things that break the bonds
of federalism. It's the kind of thing that breaks what
keeps the country together, the constitutional order and the rule
of law.

Speaker 6 (10:00):
So the fundamental principle.

Speaker 2 (10:03):
That the Trump administrate has got to drive home as simple,
and that is, if you live in if you're a
resident of say Portland, Chicago, New York, California, Oregon, Washington,
and Colorado, whatever, you do not have veto power over
the federal government's enforcement of federal law.

Speaker 6 (10:22):
You don't. The only power that you have if you.

Speaker 2 (10:26):
Don't like what the federal government's doing with regard to
enforcing existing federal law is to convince either existing members
of Congress to change the law or to vote those
people out and vote people in. That will change the
law to what you wanted to change to. But otherwise
we don't have any veto there's no veto power. The

(10:48):
ultimate solution if you don't like what's going on is
not to go beat up ice agents. Is not to
as a governor or a mayor to stop and actually
interfere with the enforcement of federal law. Is not to
assist the citizens in your state to get by with
breaking the law. It's if you really want to follow

(11:10):
the constitutional order, it is to elect different people and
turn us into just a well we're already turning into
a crab whole country. But just to elect the people,
they will just eliminate immigration laws. How I should have
saved it. When I was doing show prep on the
plane last night, I ran across the.

Speaker 6 (11:32):
Let me see if I can find it real quick.

Speaker 2 (11:34):
Remember Barbara Jordan, the congresswoman that from Houston, Harris County.
She was replaced, She either retired or died, and she
was replaced by Sheila Jackson Sheila Jackson Lee. So we
went from an incredible immigration e clips Barbara Jordan. Let

(11:58):
me see where can find the video videos videos?

Speaker 6 (12:04):
Hang on, do do do do?

Speaker 7 (12:06):
Do?

Speaker 6 (12:06):
Do do do? Here we go, Let's listen to this
one enough.

Speaker 7 (12:13):
As Americans, in our culture, we should welcome the legal immigrant.

Speaker 3 (12:20):
We should be able to.

Speaker 7 (12:21):
Accommodate diversity in our society. Are we strong enough to
welcome those who ought to be in and retain a
commitment to the rule of law by keeping those out
who shouldn't get in? If we ought to preserve our
immigration tradition and our ability to say yes to the

(12:42):
people who want to get in and seek entrey, we've
got to have the strength to say no to the
people who are not supposed to get in. We need
to make deportation a part of a credible immigration policy.
As a nation committed to immigrants and the rule of law,

(13:04):
we've got to do that balancing act. The most urgent
immigration problem we face today is the unauthorized entry of
hundreds of thousands of illegals that undermines our commitment to
legal immigration. Although the illegal alien may be generally law abiding,

(13:30):
and particularly in good economic times, maybe we need the illegals.
Their entry and violation of the law is a violation
of our national interest.

Speaker 3 (13:42):
We believe a credible.

Speaker 7 (13:44):
Approach to immigration must be comprehensive. First, border management, We
support a very simple view about border management. Prevent illegal interests,
facilitate legal ones. The second part of our strategy work

(14:06):
site enforcement. Employment, we believe continues to be the principal
magnet for illegal aliens coming into the country.

Speaker 3 (14:17):
As long as.

Speaker 7 (14:19):
US businesses benefit from illegals on their workforce, they are
not going to try to help us get.

Speaker 3 (14:27):
On top of the problem.

Speaker 7 (14:29):
We believe that employer sanctions must be made to work
and enhanced labor standards enforcement essential components of a strategy
to reduce the job magnet. The third part of our

(14:51):
recommendations immigrant eligibility for public benefits.

Speaker 3 (14:56):
That's a major one.

Speaker 7 (14:59):
The command we should believes that decisions about eligibility should
support the objectives of immigration policy. Using these objectives as
a measure of benefit policy, we come to the following conclusions. First,
legal permanent residents should continue to be eligible for needs

(15:22):
tested assistance programs. Our views on eligibility for benefits of
illegal aliens are different from those benefits that are recommended
for legal aliens. If an alien is in this country lawfully,
he should receive whatever benefits a lawful resident receives. But

(15:49):
if a person is here unlawfully, he should be entitled
to no benefits.

Speaker 2 (15:58):
That's a Democrat. That's a black female Democrat to use
all of their identity politics. I don't know whether she
was straight or gay, but you got a black female
Democrat congresswoman from Houston, Texas, at doing her report on

(16:18):
immigration reform, she was the commissioner of this reform commission, saying, no,
we need to have border control, border management, We need
to enforce the law. If you're here illegally, you don't
get benefits. If you are here legally as a legal
permanent resident, then yes, you would get needs tested benefits

(16:39):
just like any other person would because we have allowed you.
You've come here the right way. You see how far
off the deep end the country is gone. It's it's
simply amazing. It's amazing to me that we allow all

(17:00):
this to go on, and nobody seems to recognize that. Wow,
Democrats are really undermine They're truly.

Speaker 6 (17:11):
Undermining law enforcement.

Speaker 2 (17:14):
They're encouraging criminal activity to mark my words, they know
exactly what they're doing.

Speaker 7 (17:30):
Hey, Michael, here's to Christopher Columbus, the only illegal immigrant
that left ever hated?

Speaker 3 (17:38):
That left what ever hated ever?

Speaker 4 (17:41):
Oh?

Speaker 6 (17:42):
Oh, the left, that's the left ever hated again it.

Speaker 2 (17:46):
Yeah, yeah, for old Columbus. So there's Barbara Jordan basically
explaining that that had to be back in the in
the in the early eighties. And think about how far
the Democrat Party's gone from. And she was a leader

(18:07):
of the Democrat Party, very well respected, obviously, very articulate.

Speaker 6 (18:13):
And stood for the rule of law.

Speaker 2 (18:16):
And now you actually have Democrat leadership advocating breaking the law.
The Congress of the United States has obviously passed laws
regarding immigration procedures, and they've passed laws about how illegal
aliens found in this country, who are here without authorization

(18:40):
or who are here illegally, how they are to be removed.
And then Congress gave plenary power, well, i should say,
nearly clenary power to the executive branch in devising the
policies and the processes by which those responsibilities.

Speaker 6 (18:58):
Will be performed. How will we deport them? Now?

Speaker 2 (19:03):
If a state or local government interferes with that federal authority,
here's where you end up. You end up at Title ten,
section two fifty two. If you've listened to the weekend
program where you're paying the intention last weekend, you know
what Title ten, section two fifty two is. Title ten.

(19:28):
Come on, think about it. Use of militia and armed
forces to enforce federal authority is the title of section
two fifty two, and it says verb baden whenever the
President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion

(19:51):
against the authority of the United States, seems to me
that you have some Democrat members of Congress, You've got
democratic city councilmen. You've got Democrat mayors, You've got Democrat governors.
You've got a lot of Democrats of all stripes, of
all positions, doing that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or

(20:11):
rebellion against the authority of the United States make it
impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in
any state by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, He
the President may call into federal service such of the
militia of any state, and use such of the armed
forces as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or

(20:35):
to suppress the rebellion.

Speaker 6 (20:38):
I don't know. Seems pretty clear to me.

Speaker 2 (20:43):
Obstructions, combinations, or assemblages rebellions against the authority of the
United States. Now that's quite a distance short of an
insurrection against the federal government. Instead, what it does, what

(21:04):
it recognizes, is facts on the ground. The state and
local authorities are not capable of or are unwilling to,
maintain an environment in their communities where the federal government
is able to enforce the law. In other words, if
you allow chaos or encourage chaos to the point that

(21:28):
it is showing an unwillingness to allow federal officials to
do their job, Title Tank comes into play, and that
is the only extent of the justification required for the
President to impose the conditions under which federal law can
be enforced. Doesn't mean, despite what you hear, it does

(21:53):
not mean taking over policing versus or via the military.
It means that you're going to use the military to
enforce federal law. Now, there's a second statutory provision sometimes
gets more attention again Title ten, but not section two

(22:14):
fifty two. Let's go to section two fifty three, the
very next section. Now, if you understand legislation, and you
understand the flow at how legislation is written, one follows
the other. So you've got the baseline in section two
fifty two. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce

(22:36):
federal authority. Huh, Well, what's section two fifty three interference
with state and federal law? Verbatim? The President, by using
the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by
any other means, shall take such measures as he considers

(22:59):
necessary to suppress in a state any insurrection, domestic violence,
unlawful combination, or conspiracy if it and there's two requirements.
If if that insurrection, domestic violence, or unlawful combination of
any of those, or there's a conspiracy, if it hinders

(23:21):
the execution of the laws of that state.

Speaker 6 (23:25):
And of the United States.

Speaker 2 (23:27):
Within that state, that any part or class of its
people is deprived of a right, a privilege, an immunity,
or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law,
and the constitute of authorities of that state are unable
or they fail or they refuse to protect that right, privilege,

(23:49):
or immunity, or to give that protection. It's number one
or two or that state whatever opposes or abstruct the
execution of the laws of the United States, or impedes
the course of justice under those laws, in any situation

(24:10):
covered by Clause IE, the state shall have considered to
have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by
the Constitution.

Speaker 6 (24:21):
Hm.

Speaker 2 (24:24):
You know what's Democrats upset? Just like I was upset
sitting on Air Force one, wanting to invoke this law
with regard to Katrina and all of the failure to
enforce the law and to actually deny equal protection of

(24:48):
the laws to the citizens of New Orleans. Take it
out to I went it to the entire state of Louisiana,
White House Council approval to part a justice, Attorney General approval.
All we needed was for President Bush to sign off
on it, and he wouldn't do it. I read an

(25:08):
article yesday. I don't have it in my stuff today,
but I'll try to find it where somebody from an American
Conservative or heritage or someplace had written an article about that.
Was the biggest failure of Katrine was the failure to
invoke the Insurrection Act. So let's think about those provisions

(25:30):
that I just told you about and think about I'm
that issue in the current standoff between sanctuary cities and
states and the Trump administration. It is the President shall
take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress in
a state any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy

(25:53):
if it opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws
of the United States. Isn't that precisely what's going on?
The import is that Congress has already considered how a
president shall be allowed to respond to unlawful or illegal

(26:13):
conduct by state or local officials that interferes with federal
law enforcement. Congress has already cited that decades ago. And
it's pretty clear if you just read the plain text
of the statute that the president has preenery power to

(26:35):
make the decision. Who want rare win and why there's
no exception. There is no exception written into statutes for
demonstrations given support officially or tacitly by state and local
politicians of the opposition party. There's no Tenth Amendment protection

(26:56):
for this. There is no exception. Neither Section two fifty
two or two fifty three that I've read you for
the state of Illinois or Oregon, or cities like Chicago
or Portland or Denver to enter into any combination with
protest organizers who use violence or otherwise oppose or obstruct
DHS slash ICE in carrying out the congressionally directed law

(27:21):
for deporting illegal aliens.

Speaker 6 (27:24):
Nothing.

Speaker 2 (27:26):
I've mulled this over sitting on a stupid airplane, sitting
in stupid airport lounge, thinking about talking about this today,
and I cannot combined with a single reason why that
Trump can't do these things. Now, this whole process begins
after arrest steps or quote, unlawful combinations taken in advance

(27:53):
of an arrest that interferes with those arrests. Oh, guess
what you're doing. You're obstructing to execution of federal law.
You're obstructing justice in particular, you're obstruction to execution of
federal law. In Layman's terms, you're engaged in obstruction of justice.

(28:13):
So it is entirely appropriate for the federal government to
arrest state and local officials, governors, mayors, city councilmen involved
in those efforts. Now, I know, don't get me wrong
for every action, there's a reaction. And so if this
is actually enforced, if Trump really wants to go down

(28:35):
this path, which I wish he would, oh my god,
the screams of tyranny are going to just echo everywhere.
Wait a minute, isn't this what we voted for? Isn't
this what we wanted to do?

Speaker 6 (28:54):
Huh? Yes, and it's been done before. Well, you're back, two.
What have I missed? Anything? Good? Oh?

Speaker 3 (29:03):
I guess I'll catch you tonight.

Speaker 6 (29:06):
Good heavy back, Michael. Good to be back, well said,
But I should have taken the day off and slept
all day. But I'll catch up. I'll catch up.

Speaker 2 (29:24):
We've talked about the Insurrection Act before, but it's been
primarily under the President's authority under different sections, not under
the very specific statues of the Insurrection part of the
Insurrection Act. And it's been used before. I've gone through
different examples of where it's been used before. And don't

(29:48):
let the fact that, well, somebod these aren't that old. Uh.
Bush forty one federalized the National Guard in ninety two
to suppress the riots following the verdicts in the Dney
King case. And of course we went through Kennedy. He
ordered various units of the one hundred and eighth Cavalry
Regiment and eventually told of more than thirteen thousand military

(30:10):
personnel to secure the campus at Old Miss and then
again to suppress the violent protests by about twenty five
hundred people that were opposing desegregation of the school. Eisenhower,
we talked about Eisenhower doing it in Little Rock Cleveland.
President Cleveland sent federal troops to the Pullman Railroad Company

(30:31):
strike to by those four thousand railway strikers back in
eighteen ninety. We'll just say eighteen nineties and we're in there.
President Grant invoked it. Why the KKK tried to enforce
the Reconstruction Acts in the former Confederate States.

Speaker 6 (30:50):
He did it multiple times after the Civil War.

Speaker 2 (30:54):
President Jackson did it to quell the Matt Turner slave Rebellion.

Speaker 6 (30:58):
I don't remember the year.

Speaker 2 (31:01):
The earliest that I can recall was in response to
the Whiskey Rebellion. In seventeen ninety one, President Washington marched
thirteen thousand militia out of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania into western Pennsylvania to suppress a rebellion over the
imposition of a federal tax on whiskey that wasn't in

(31:24):
opposition to the authority of the United States as a whole,
as District Judge April Perry and Chicago claimed last week
that it was necessary really talk about rewriting history.