10-21-25 - 8am - Race Based Voting

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good morning, gentlemen. I'm with Dragon on this one. I
do not use GPS for nearly anything. As matter of fact,
the only thing I use maps for is kind of
like how we used to use an at list. I
will map out my route ahead of time using maps
if necessary, but almost never do I use the GPS function.

(00:23):
I think it's more important to know where you're head.
And then, like Dragon said, leave with enough time.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
You me, buddy, we're the weird ones. It's okay, though,
we stand united.

Speaker 3 (00:38):
Leave with enough time, not knowing what obstacles may be
in your way. That regardless of how unless you just
leave two hours early for a five minute drive that wait,
you know, wait till the apocalypse hes and and you

(00:58):
know you're driving in, we'll still be required to get here.
If we don't get here, if we don't broadcast, we're
gonna get adopted and pay and probably chastise and get
in trouble. And we won't be able to broadcast because
you'll have zombies attacking surrounding your car. Oh wait a minute,
Oh that's Washington d C here. I'm maybe we'll just
be I don't know, real zombies and nothing.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
That you and I are essential employees.

Speaker 4 (01:22):
That's right, sent badges to prove it. That's right.

Speaker 3 (01:27):
I said my little card that says I'm an essential employee.
Martin Luther King, you know, dreamed of a time when
his little children would be judged, you know, by the
not by the color of their skin, but by the
content of their character. And for sixty plus years now

(01:47):
we've lived under the well intentioned, but I think fundamentally
racist assumption, and that is that black voters can only
be represented by black politicians. Hispanic voters can only be
represented by Hispanic politicians. But I can't really find any
cases where we make the argument that Asian voters Asian

(02:09):
Americans can only be represented by Asian Americans. The problem
is that the premise of that statement is enshrined in
Section two of the Voting Rights Act in nineteen sixty five,
and that provision has forced states to draw congressional districts

(02:30):
according to race, not citizenship, not the idea of what
is a community, or even competence. It began as an
attempt to expand opportunity that devolved into a mandate for
racial segregation in politics. Imagine that the voting's right the

(02:54):
Voting Rights Act actually had the unintended consequence of saying
that only blacks can be represented by black politicians. It
did something else too. He gave rise to a generation
of racial opportunists who used the people like Al Sharpton

(03:15):
began to emerge.

Speaker 4 (03:17):
And what were they doing.

Speaker 3 (03:18):
They were exploiting the new racial order so they can
inflame grievances and then they could profit from the perpetual outrage,
create even more outrage, profit even more, go on to
get their own TV programs, spill their racist diet tribes
on cable television, all of which proves that the Voting's
Right The Voting Rights Act did not heal America's racial wounds.

(03:43):
What it did it was it actually institutionalized them. The
Court has heard a case called Louisiana versus Calais. It
gave the justices a chance to correct this moral and
constitutional error. The idea that race determines representation, I think

(04:08):
contradicts the very foundation of American equality. The Equal Protection
Clause promises that government will treat all citizens alike without
regard to race, color, creed, anything. Equal protection. It's pretty simple,

(04:32):
but we've made it very complex and convoluted in its application.
So the Voting Rights Act for decades required states to
do the opposite. It required the states to treat voters
differently depending on the color of their skin because Section
two of the Voting Rights Act forced state legislatures to

(04:54):
draw so called majority minority districts.

Speaker 4 (05:00):
One of those.

Speaker 3 (05:01):
That's where racial identity, not a shared geography, not a
shared economy, not a shared culture, that it was simply
racial identity that defined political belonging. The logic was well,
the logic was probably pretty clear, but it was an

(05:22):
anathema to the idea of equal protection. If white voters
prefer white candidates and black voters prefer black candidates, then
the only fair system is one that guarantees each group
its own representative. White people should be able to just
select white people, and black people should just be able
to elect black people. That thinking is racial determinism masquerading

(05:51):
as equal rights as equal protection. And you know who
champions that idea, Democrats. Why because they found in those
arrangements a source of immense political power. Because if you
divide voters along racial lines, what do you do. You
create the illusion of some sort of moral virtue while

(06:14):
cementing partisan control. So that system where you, you know,
you encourage racial pandering and grievance politics. It further divides,
It keeps the you know we talk about the the
Church of the climate activists, Well you got the Church
of the racial division that is active all the time.

(06:38):
They really don't want us to get along. They want
racial division. So what happens then is that candidates learned
that appealing to racial solidarity could win them office parties
learned that protecting racially gerrymandered congressional districts could preserve their dominance.

(07:01):
The result of that is not Martin Luther King's dream
of a country where his children would be judged by
the content of their character. Instead, it created a country
where you're judged by the color of your skin. It
wasn't racial harmony. It was actually it was a form
of political apartheid, a system in which the color of

(07:23):
one's district dictated the color of one's representative. That meant,
in practice that white, black, Hispanic and Asian voters were
encouraged to see themselves not as citizens bound by some
sort of shared interest, but instead you were a member

(07:44):
of a competing tribe vying for its state sanctioned power.
That's why the Equal Protection Clause is so vitally important
to this republic. Everyone gets treated equally. Doesn't make any difference.
How much money is in your bank account, doesn't make
any difference. What color your skin is. Does it make

(08:05):
a difference who you sleep with, None of it. We're
supposed to have these shared values, and one of those
shared values is that we're all made in the image
of God. We're all treated equally, and in all aspects
of our lives, we are going to treat each other equally.

(08:27):
You know, one thing interesting, just as a parenthetical before
I get into more details about this case, is whenever
the Voting Rights Act or the Civil Rights Act, in
any of these acts from the sixties get renewed, they

(08:48):
get renewed for say, twenty years, and then they come
back twenty years later and they review it again. They
review it for another twenty years, and then another twenty years,
and then another twenty years. Well, what does that mean.
That means that in practice, we're never going to reach
racial equality. It means that we're always going to be
dividing ourselves based upon racial lines.

Speaker 4 (09:10):
And if we're always going.

Speaker 3 (09:11):
To continue to continue to renew these that means that
we're going to continue dividing the country along racial lines,
which means that the Church of the racial activists, well,
they'll be able to continue to raise money, sow division,
and make money on racial divides. This racialization of representation

(09:39):
in congressional seats and in state districts has distorted this
republic for decades now, because it's rewarded racial entrepreneurs, think
Al Sharpton, and it's punished anybody that's genuinely trying to
build a coalition among all Americans based upon a geography

(10:00):
or community or like minded interests. It's turned elections into
the equivalent of a census count, and in doing that,
it has allowed the Democrat Party to claim permanent ownership
over minority voters.

Speaker 4 (10:16):
And portraying any effort to reform.

Speaker 3 (10:19):
Oh my gosh, if we want to reform or redraw
these maps, or we want to get rid of the
Voting Rights Act and just treat everybody the same, regardless
of skin color, oh my gosh, that's an attack on
civil rights and that's racist, and that's bigotry.

Speaker 4 (10:33):
Wait a minute.

Speaker 3 (10:34):
The truth is the Voting Rights Act, at least in
section two form codifies discrimination. It doesn't cure discrimination. It
makes discrimination the law. It told Americans. It told us
that justice requires sorting people into congressional districts based on race.

Speaker 4 (10:53):
Well, isn't that the very definition of racism?

Speaker 3 (10:58):
The injury to the constitution equal protection clause and the
idea that we're all created equal. That injury is deep.
And as long as we keep dividing ourselves this way,
that division is going to get even deeper. The equal
Protection clause forbids prevents prohibit states from classifying citizens by

(11:23):
race unless they can show a compelling government interest that
is narrowly tailored to that specific classification.

Speaker 4 (11:34):
I don't know that there is a compelling government.

Speaker 3 (11:36):
Interest in dividing us up based on race for any reason.
College admissions Wait a minute, I thought college admissions were
supposed to be based on merit. Admissions to a private school.
I thought was supposed to be based on merit, admissions
to anything. I thought it was supposed to be based
on merit. But over the years, the court stretched that

(11:56):
standard of having to show you know you can you
can discriminate if you can show a compelling government interest. Well,
the court stretched that standard beyond recognition because all they
wanted to do was try to justify the Voting Rights
Acts demands that we create districts that are racially identified.

(12:17):
They treated racial gerrymandering, Well, that's just a necessary evil.
It's a temporary which keeps getting extended and extended and extended.
It's a temporary correction to a past injustice. But if
a temporary solution gets renewed, renewed, renewed, renewed, it soon

(12:39):
becomes an essence permanent, and it becomes permanent because nobody
has the cajones to stand up and say, wait a minute,
what we're doing is we're creating. We're telling the state
legislatures that when they start drawing up congressional districts that
rather than focus on geography and community and cohesion, No,

(13:02):
if you've got a certain percentage of blacks, then you
ought to have a certain percentage of congressional districts that
represent those blacks. You divide people up based on race.
So what became, or what began, I should say, as
a measure to try to overcome Jim Crow, actually became

(13:22):
a system of racial entrenchment. I mean, I wouldn't go
so far as to say it installed Jim Crow, because
Jim Crow was way way worse than what we're talking
about here in terms of Jerry Manderin. But even after
black and Hispanic candidates started winning office without the crutch
of racial districts, they continue to renew and renew and

(13:47):
renew Section two of the Voting Rights Act as justification
for perpetuating. Now, the case heard by the Supreme Court
Louisiana versus Kayak Calais could actually end that contradiction because
the case asks a simple question whether the states must

(14:08):
continue creating majority minority districts under Section two when doing
so requires the states to explicitly sort people by race. Now,
if the Court overturns Section two's current interpretation, there could

(14:30):
be as many or more than twenty seven congressional districts
across the entire country that could be redrawn. Now, that
would not be racial regression. It would be constitutional restoration.
You know, we would get back to the idea of
equal protection under the law and that all citizens are

(14:53):
in fact, all men are created equal. It would affirm
that every American doesn't make it a difference with your coloring,
is can vote for him, be represented by any candidate
who goes out campaigns and earns that person's trust and
therefore asks for and gets their vote. Why shouldn't we
have Why why shouldn't it be that way? Well, because

(15:18):
the opponents of reforming by eliminating section two says that's
going to disenfranchise minority voters. That's false, and that's false
because it means recognizing that minority voters are not a
monolith and that their political rights are individual not collective.

(15:40):
It means acknowledging that black Hispanic Asian citizens do not
require separate districts to have a voice. In fact, I
would argue that by eliminating this majority minority requirement, it's
actually going to increase participation. It means that if you're
a black candidate, you have to go out and try

(16:02):
to earn even more white votes. If you're a white candidate,
you have to go out and try to earn even
more black votes.

Speaker 4 (16:09):
Same true of the Asians.

Speaker 3 (16:10):
It means it means that candidates treat every voter as
an equal participant in self government. The way we're doing
it now, we're playing politics by demographics. We're not playing
politics based on I'm in this congressional district. This congressional

(16:31):
district's boundaries have been drawn based upon natural geographic lines,
natural community lines, and natural lines that exist based on
just how where those voters reside, not on the demographics
of those voters. Somehow, the claim that a black citizen

(16:53):
cannot be represented by a white legislator or vice versa, that.

Speaker 4 (16:58):
Itself is racist. So the Supreme Court should.

Speaker 3 (17:02):
Reject this majority minority district bull crap decisively.

Speaker 4 (17:07):
Now.

Speaker 3 (17:08):
I know that there's one member of the so called
liberal wing of the Supreme Court, Katanji Jackson Brown, that
will never vote for this. I doubt the other two
will either, so to my Or and Kagan, but they
should because they should recognize that what we're doing is
we're saying that We're literally saying that blacks can only

(17:30):
be represented by blacks and whites can only be represented
by whites. How much more racist can you get than that?
I mean, it's truly absurd. Don't you think at some
point will outgrow the logic of racial representation?

Speaker 4 (17:45):
In fact, I think we have.

Speaker 3 (17:48):
Look at the twenty twenty four election, it showed that
voters increasingly defied racial stereotypes. Trump earned record support among
black and Hispanic voters. That is self demon straits that
political identity is not bound by race, and then white
voters and states like South Carolina, Utah in Florida, they

(18:09):
have repeatedly elected black and Hispanic concervatives to high office.
That exposes the lie at the heart of section two
that racial identity determines political allegiance all inner credity.

Speaker 5 (18:25):
You're right about checking that traffic on the GPS. Hell,
I look at the traffic on the phone more than
I look at the traffic in front of me. Ain't
nothing better than trying to diter erect but cut through
a neighborhood in this rig, driving through the church parking lot,
cutting across the.

Speaker 2 (18:39):
Park, and yet I'm the weird one.

Speaker 3 (18:51):
The problem with his talkbacks is that my brain and
meat immediately goals into imagination mode.

Speaker 4 (19:00):
I can just see him doing it. It's just this, they'll.

Speaker 3 (19:03):
Can't you just see him swarming through the parking lot
of the church and tearing up, you know, some poor
little playground somewhere because he's in a hurry to get someplace.
He's got to deliver that crap so he can dump
it off and then you know, go drink the rest
of the day, or you know, look for lot lizards
or whatever he does.

Speaker 4 (19:20):
I mean, good grief.

Speaker 3 (19:22):
Oh yes, I saw that the diver Posts has been
operating rent free in the city own building for some
time now. But this one twenty two to ninety three
is at is spot on, Mike. If Section two of
the Voting Rights Act stays, then what do we do
with ninety seven percent white Boulder represented by a black man.

(19:46):
I hadn't even thought about in a goose that just
your honor, I arrest my case. They ought to use
that in their oral arguments about why this whole minority
majority districting Jerry Mannery needs to stop. But I want

(20:09):
you to think about what I wanted to prepare you.

Speaker 4 (20:12):
Now. We obviously won't get this ruling until later in
the year.

Speaker 3 (20:17):
But if the Supreme Court were to strike down Section two,
can't you just hear the howls of Democrats. Oh my god,
we're gonna go it's the pre Civil rights era. Donald
Trump is a racist, He's a fascist, and he is
going to go out and kill black people and brown people.
But really the reality is the opposite, because if we

(20:40):
abolish race based districts, that would finally, finally, after all
these decades of all these voting rights and civil rights acts.
It would bring the civil rights law in line with
the principle that gave it birth to begin with, that
government should and must be color blind. It would also

(21:03):
do it also has some other effects. It would end
the practice of racial cartography, racial map drawing, where the
politicians carve up communities because they want to engineer specific
racial outcomes. And it would replace the math of skin

(21:24):
color with the math of citizenship. And it would restore
to the states their constitutional authority so they can graw
draw congressional and for that matter, state representative state senate
districts too, on traditional neutral criteria compactness, contiguity, geography, community,

(21:56):
and not the headcount of how many Blacks do we
have in this how many Asians do we have, how
many white people do we have? And it's not going
to silence minority voices, it would actually dignify them. I
still for those who for those in the black community

(22:20):
who genuflect in front of the al Sharptons of the world.
You know, Jesse Jackson's kind of disappeared, hasn't he? Is
he ill or something? Anyway, those who genuflect in front
of all the race baters. I always think, stop it,
dignify yourself. And most blacks have. They've realized the American dream.

(22:47):
They have gone out, they've worked hard, they've studied hard,
they've made lives for themselves, and yet over here we
treat them as if they've got to be treated with
kid gloves, that somehow we have to treat them differently.
How the meaning can you be to a black person
or to an Asian person. I mean that when I

(23:08):
think it would dignify them, it would say that, you
know what, Joe de Goose, I don't agree with virtually
any of his policy or his politics. If he represents
the people's republic of Bouldroom. How much more dignified can

(23:29):
you get than that? And speaking of the congressional district
based on community, yes, there you've got a liberal congressional
district and look at it represent mostly white represented by
a black man. How much more dignity do you need?
That says that black and Hispanic Americans don't need government

(23:53):
mandated racial safe spaces in order to compete in politics.
They can and do when and he's proof of that.
And unfortunately, but I mean that sarcastically. Fortunately, they went
on the strength of their ideas. I don't necessarily like
his ideas, but he won based on his ideas, his positions.

(24:15):
So eliminating Section two with free black people and Asians for.

Speaker 4 (24:20):
That matter, from the.

Speaker 3 (24:22):
Patronizing assumption that only Democrats, or only Democrats of their
own candidates of their own race, can speak for them
based on their race. And quite frankly, it would free
white and Asian voters from this stupid guilt that many
of them carry around that's been bred by decades of
race based policymaking. I want us to be a nation

(24:49):
that is color blind, and this is a great place
to start, because the irony of the Voting Rights Act
is that when they try to cure racial discrimination, they're
actually institutionalizing it. When we divide Americans to categories and
then we demand that we have political boundaries to match

(25:09):
the categories. That entrenches the very divisions that they claim
that they're trying to heal. We've been living within this
Orwellian language for decades now. Now that's not to say
that at a time that there was a time and
a place for the Voting Rights Act.

Speaker 4 (25:28):
I believe there was.

Speaker 3 (25:30):
But since then we have proven both black candidates and
black candidates being elected by white voters, and black voters
electing a white candidate Donald Trump. I think we've moved
beyond that point by dividing Americans into these categories. In

(25:52):
continuing to do so year after year after year, and
then demanding political boundaries to match, entrenches the very divisions
that back in the nineteen sixties we said we needed
to stop. Section two is done. It is simply outlived
its moral and constitutional justification. So the time has come

(26:13):
to replace racial math with just civic equality. We're never
going to move beyond racial and identity politics until we
take a bold move, which I hope the Supreme Court
does and says, wait a minute, you're institutionalizing racism here.

(26:33):
So when the court hears, when the Court searts deciding
Louisiana versus Cala, it will face not just a legal
question in the back of their minds, they have to
look at the moral question facing them too. And it's
pretty simple. Are we going to cling to some sort

(26:55):
of mid twentieth century logic the sease Americans as racial blocks,
or is it going to finally affirm a twenty first
century truth that we are one people, that we are
equal under the law and that we actually are a
color blind society. Well, I think the answer ought to
be clear of fact. I think the answer is clear.

(27:18):
Equality means representation without regard to race, and freedom means
voting for anybody you choose, not for those chosen for
you by math racial math. Justice actually means a color
blind republic. So if the Court does have the courage

(27:40):
to strike down Section two, history will remember, well, remember
that day last week when they heard this case as
the day that America desegregated its politics for the first time,
and for the first time in six decades. Citizens will

(28:00):
not be told that their vote is bound to their
skin color. They will be told rightfully so that their
vote is bound only to their conscience. The cabal, the left,
the Democrat Party will cling with their fingernails as they

(28:21):
hang over the edge. And if the Court does eliminate
Section two, I just want you to prepare if they
announce this decision in September or October, that you will
recognize that they did the right thing. Otherwise we're never
ever going to become a colorblind society.

Speaker 6 (28:41):
You know, guys, Day to day, I don't really know
the point of driving with the GPS. I mean, I
can pretty much get around anywhere in town. I haven't
sat in traffic in the entire year i've been here.
I can get from my house to the other side
of town, across city limits in about twenty minutes. And really,
since I'm not running into traffic, the only thing I
might want to stop for is to take a look
at a moose or a bear. But if I'm in

(29:04):
a hurry, I'll just drive past and see the next one.
Not really a question, no GPS here.

Speaker 4 (29:11):
How much do we hate him?

Speaker 2 (29:13):
I'm pretty good with him right now.

Speaker 3 (29:15):
He's on my side, yeah, but he's on your side
because he's bragging about Yeah, I just drive to work.
I go all the way across town in ten or
twenty minutes. Hell, you and I can't get to the
McDonald's in ten or twenty minutes, and it's a mile
from here.

Speaker 4 (29:29):
True.

Speaker 3 (29:30):
And do we see moose or bear or deer or
anything else.

Speaker 4 (29:36):
Up you know?

Speaker 3 (29:37):
No, we just see the homeless encampments, so we see, you.

Speaker 4 (29:42):
Know, and then the you know.

Speaker 3 (29:44):
So yesterday I'm coming back from a meeting and the
wind is blowing like you know, it's like a hurricane
blowing down the interstate and there's a sign that says caution.

Speaker 4 (29:55):
Street sweeping ahead.

Speaker 3 (29:57):
So I'm watching the wind all the dirt, you know,
there's all the dirt and trash and everything's accumulated along
the medians and along the shoulders, and it's all blowing
it out into the street, and the street sweepers just
you know, mosing along the side, not sweeping up anything
because it's all up in the air where it's now
in the middle of the street.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
I was actually pretty pleased with all of the wind
yesterday because now I no longer need to rake my
front yard.

Speaker 3 (30:24):
Why do people rake their yards because I like the
leaves in the yard. Well, I grew up in the
middle of the plains that you know we had. We
had in the entire county. We had four trees. So
when it turned fall and the leaves fell, we all
drove and look at the leaves on the ground. Not
like here, you know, where you have miles and miles

(30:45):
of backup traffic so you can go. Tamra wanted to
go look at the leaves. It's been a couple of
years ago, and I warned her. I said, maybe we
got to do it during the week there's no do
it on the weekend. No, I want to go this weekend. Okay,
So we went this one weekend.

Speaker 2 (31:00):
To use a GPS.

Speaker 3 (31:02):
No, because I knew where I was going. But I
wish I had. I could have shown look that's red.
Why don't we drive? Why don't we just drive around town?
Look at the leaves? In fact, yesterday, what it was like.
I was coming back from that meeting and I was
coming down uh, down by through wash Park that area.
My gosh, it was gorgeous. The leaves were just beautiful

(31:25):
because you know they haven't they have.

Speaker 4 (31:27):
All blown down, all fallen off. Yeah, yeah, they all
falling off. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (31:31):
The Republicans are demanding a investigation. There's a man that
was filmed actually urging people to murder Ice agents at
a No King's rally in Chicago. So they were mostly
peaceful because well, nobody was overturning cop cars and nobody
was vandalizing anything. Instead, they were shouting, you gotta grab

(31:54):
a gun. We got to turn around the guns on
this fascist system. These Ice agents gotta get shot and
wiped out. The same machinery that's on full display right
there has to get wiped out.

Speaker 4 (32:11):
Hmm.

Speaker 3 (32:13):
He happens to be a professor at a college in Chicago,
Wilbert Wright College, calling for ICE agents to get shot
and wiped out. That seems like a pretty direct criminal threat.
I mean, again, it's on video. You gotta grab a gun.

(32:33):
We got to turn around the guns on this fascist system.
These ICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out. The
same machinery that's on full display right there has to
get wiped out. Yeah, he can say it. He is

(32:54):
a First Amendment right to say that. Well he technically, yes,
he has a free speech right to say that, But
I think that's getting pretty close to inciting violence when
you say that, you've got to they've got to get
shot and they've got to get wiped out. That might
have crossed the line, but let's just say it doesn't.

(33:17):
He has the right to say it, So he says it,
and now he needs to suffer the consequences. Do you
think he should get fired from the college. I don't
think the college said anything about it yet. The Department
of Justice says that they're actively tracking these targeted assaults
against law enforcement and will hold defenders accountable to the
fullest extent of the law. Now, I don't know when

(33:42):
you've had snipers trying to shoot ICE agents, and then
you go out to a rally where people are already
hyped up and you say that I think it might
just cross the law.