Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Nobody's even talkbacks or Grant's just not back there paying
the attention. That's probably that's the more likely.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Thing after that last one. I don't know if I
want anymore.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Yeah, well true, I mean I knows, but you never know.
It may be a squirrel that I would want to chase,
you know, like women's wrestling. I want us to think
for a little bit about the essential pillars that sustain
this constitutional republic, and I came up with three mainly
(00:30):
for the purposes of this conversation. Assimilation, a sense of community,
and of course citizenship. But when you think about this
current political climate was just marked by what division you have,
all these stupid identity based grievances. You've got government institutions
that are wavering away from their constitutional purposes. That really
(00:54):
makes the idea of assimilation, community, and citizenship even more important.
So let's stop with Let's start with something I would
call civic communion. Now, I know it's a term that
may sound foreign or odd, perhaps even misplaced as a
(01:15):
religious reference, but I don't mean it that way. Civic
communion is nothing less than the belonging of citizens to
their nation and to their political system. It's more than
just you know, belonging. It's a sense that we're not
merely observers, but were actually active participants, that we, by
(01:38):
our collective and community action, can shape this country's fate.
Aristotle refer to that as philia. It's an attachment that
keeps society's cohesive, and without that cohesiveness, the bonds that
hold a republic together begin to dissolve. Can a free people?
(02:01):
Can we as a free people govern ourselves effectively? If
questions about family, education, and religion get answered solely by
hyper individualistic egalitarian ideology that says everybody in equity, that
everybody has to be the same, everything has to be
the same, then probably not. Because when elite factions in
(02:24):
government start to undermine the very institutions that keep this
country together, faith, family, education, the military, all of which
forms conscientious citizens, then they begin to erode the very
foundations of self government. Assimilation into these shared traditions is
(02:45):
not surrender, it's actually the basis for meaningful citizenship and community.
I think we're in a crisis. Progressive movements have over
the past one hundred years, they have been very successful
in fracturing the institutions that are necessary for self rule,
(03:06):
and the result of that is a political system where
morality becomes relative, multiculturalism overrides unity, and equity trumps the
common good. Then that community that I refer to gets lost,
and that gets replaced by atomized individuals, by these really
(03:28):
abstract ideals that are completely devoid of any sort of
natural attachment that would inspire the idea of sacrifice and devotion,
which is the last time you heard anybody talk about
sacrifice and devotion for the country. A French political theorist
one time reminded us that democracy requires more than rights
(03:52):
and equality. A republic based on democratic ideals is the
way I would put it, demands integration into a community.
A republic is not sustained by ever expanding entitlements endless
assertions of autonomy. I do believe that we have individual liberty.
(04:14):
I do believe that we have individual autonomy, which may
be redundant. But we also have these commonalities that bring
us together as citizens of this republic, and that is
it's based on education, it's rooted in family faith, There's
(04:35):
got to be some confidence in virtue, and then assimilation
to these traditions breeds and or results in responsible self government. Crucially,
that same French political theorists, Manette teaches that liberal political
(04:55):
orders should not be dismantled, but instead upheld by citizens
committed to civic peace and Liberty's it's not a postliberalism
that we're looking for, it's I think, a renewal a
civic communion, and that shapes virtuous, free individuals who then
participate in the common good. So to reclaim our constitutional republic,
(05:17):
we've got to do more than analyze the constitution or
elect like minded officials I think we have. We've got
to learn to understand that freedom comes alive only when
joined with civic communion, where citizens give and receive in
a spirit of fellowship. Real citizenship is realized not in
just total individual autonomy, but not also neither is it
(05:40):
recognized or realized in total collectivism. It's through the interplay
of our individual dignity and our communal our communal communal
communal responsibility. So I would encourage you to think of
the Founding this way. It was a strong understanding of
(06:02):
this civic communion underpinned the principles that the Founding fathers
put in the Constitution. So this nation assumes that wisdom
is broadly dispersed among the people. We the people, and
a republican small r form of government then presupposes that
will have deliberation, thoughtful participation, and not just tribal loyalty
(06:26):
or shallow individualism. So how do we if we don't
have that today, which I don't believe that we have,
and how do we restore it? How do we get
back to that? Can we actually survive where citizens have
detached themselves from the very institutions that nurtured responsibility and
conscience because modern liberalism has redefined those bonds in terms
(06:52):
of autonomy, abstract rights, eroding the community, just completely destroying
assimilation that's necessary for self rule. So for us to endure,
if we're going to take this grand experiment and last
even any longer, then we've got to recognize and affirm
our relational nature that's formed by families, faith, and community.
(07:14):
And so go back again to civic communion. It doesn't
mean total politicization, but a recognition that we flourish together,
that we sacrifice and thrive within a civil society that
balances freedom and belonging both both church and political community
bring us into closer connection with others. Do you I
(07:39):
think about my friends and in my sphere of influence
that are completely opposite of me politically, you may be
you as a listener, you may be that way. Is
there nothing at all that binds us together? Yes? What
(08:00):
drifts us apart is well, let me first say here's
what I think binds us together. A mutual agreement that
we want this country to be, in really broad generic terms,
the best that it can be, the greatest country that
it can be. Now, I think that means that we
create as much individual liberty, that we pursue as much
(08:23):
of legitimate capitalism, not crony capitalism, but true free markets,
and that we recognize that it is the responsibility of
us individually to help those who are less fortunate than us,
and that we don't, as I like to say, abdicate
our compassion to the government and not have the government
(08:47):
be the one that takes care of someone less fortunate.
That instead, our churches, our civic our private charities, all
of those should be doing it. We did the food
drive last week out at King Soupers, and I was
amazed at the number of people that you know, contribute
to the Food Bank of the Rockies. That's as it
(09:07):
should be as opposed to the you know, billions of
dollars that we send that we spend on food stamps,
and that the food stamps, the snap program that oftentimes
goes to people that we frankly should not be providing for.
Because the people that we should not be providing for
because they're able bodied men capable of doing some sort
(09:30):
of work, just choose not to. Then those of us
who do choose to engage in legitimate employment, who do
work our butts off to provide for ourselves, should not
then have to be the ones that provide for those
who make the choice to not provide for themselves. If
you want to do that, then go find some charitable
(09:51):
organization that's willing to you know, support you, But don't
ask me as a taxpayer to do that. Other people
would say that disagree with me politically. Oh but no,
that's wrong, Michael. The only place that we can do
that and do that equitably. Wait a minute, there's that
nasty word. How can we do that equitably and make
sure everybody's treated the same as how the government do it? Well,
(10:12):
I don't think everybody should be treated the same, because
if we treat everybody the same, that that presupposes that
everybody is the same and that we are not. The
founder said that many will lead because human nature gives
every single one of us the capacity for self government,
(10:33):
and that our system depends on broad participation. But then
we start to lose that. If we're going to remain
a constitutional republic, then we have to recommit to assimilation,
community citizenship, not as outdated concepts, but as the living
principles that are essential for liberty and self government. We've
got to do it that way. I want to give
(10:55):
you an example of why I think that or what
caused me start to think about this kind of generic
idea of self participation and that we have a community.
Take many people who've come to this country illegally, or
even for that matter, there are some who have come
(11:16):
to this country legally, made me under a temporary protected status.
And I'm thinking in particular about the Somalians because they're
in the news today. Well they've been in the news
for several days, but over the past couple of days
they've been high in the news. Trump has suspended their
temporary protected status and we're now looking into a lot
(11:37):
of We've talked about this on the Saturday program, huge
amounts of fraud going on in Minnesota where you have
little microca you have little almost like no go zones
like they had in Seattle, where the Somalis rule everything.
The Somalis in particular seem to not be immigrants, but
(12:02):
seem to come here wanting to be conquerors. Where they
have displaced us. It doesn't become your country anymore. It
becomes their country, and they don't even pretend otherwise. I
want you to learn, as an example from a deputy
sheriff in Minnesota who denounces his fellow American officers as foreigners. Now,
(12:32):
I'm going to grant. Can I get that on? I'm
going to play this. I'm going to try to lower
the volume a little bit because he's speaking in Somalian,
but I've got the subtitles to tell you what he says,
and I want you to hear what he says because
it's pretty disgusting. Can I get that mic on?
Speaker 3 (13:02):
Here we go, I'm gone have any mon.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
We stand for you and serve because you know, we
came to this country as.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
And there were no police looking at Now that we
have been higher, it means we are now working for
our own people.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
We are now working for our own people, so.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Family not we understand the culture.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
We understand, we understand the way of going. That's why
we're not from foreigners. White officers. Foreigners are white officers.
You mean your fellow officers.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Okay, we got helped.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Bridge that gap.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Thank you again and again that Hey, I know this.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Every sman police officer, whether you're in the home land
or broad works for you. Somans can look to dad
when you are asleep at night, when you are west resting.
We are the ones protecting.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Our chief tomb In.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Can't he taking the hate?
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Now, it's unclear who this guy is or what Minnesota
county he has helped conquer, but is very clear where
his loyalties are. He is a deputy sheriff. He's there
in his uniform. You can see this account over on
x it's one of the libs of TikTok postings, and
in the community notes it notes that he is not
(14:34):
a sheriff. And I don't claim that he's a sheriff.
He is a deputy sheriff. And here he is describing
that he's there because these other officers, these white officers,
are foreigners and I'm here to protect the Somalians. Now,
if we take his rationale to its logical conclusion, then
(15:00):
black officers only represent and protect black people Asians the same,
and then we start dividing it up by country, whether
you're a black individual from a particular country or you're
an Asian person from a particular country. I don't know
what we do with the white people in the country,
because are they just from Western Europe or are they
(15:21):
from particular countries, And we break it down that way,
this is where we lose the assimilation, and this is
where we lose the sense of community. Not opposed to immigration,
I think immigration is an absolutely vital part of this country.
We need people to come to this country. One reason
(15:42):
is because our birth rate is so low, and if
we're going to continue to grow, then we need people
to come here. But I want people to come here
who want to assimilate, to be a part of the
community and to be a part of this grand experiment
of this constitutional republic. Guys like this do not represent that,
and people like Elon Omar, who represents Minnesota in Congress,
(16:08):
people like her do not represent this constitutional republic. Instead,
they represent their particular nationality. Well, wait a minute. If
you've come here and you have been elected to the
United States Congress, then you are an American. Now, I
(16:28):
don't care if your interest in his interest is in
Somalians who have come here and immigrated to this country,
if indeed they want to become citizens and assimilate into
the country. But if you come here expecting to bring
all of your culture, bringing all of your ways of life,
and then you want to build a wall around you
(16:50):
literally and figuratively, and never assimilate and become part of
the grand experiment, then we no longer govern ourselves. Now
we've taken identity politics the Democrats have been enforcing on us.
We've now taken multiculturalism which Democrats have been enforcing upon us,
and it is now reaching its logical conclusion. And that
(17:11):
is every single one of those verticals. However you want
to divide up, an individual no longer becomes out of many,
one e pluribus unum. Instead it becomes, oh, we're just
a nation of immigrants, each in our own silo, each
operating under a own set of laws, under a own
set of morays, under our own set of standards, and
(17:32):
we don't operate as Americans. It's absolutely insane, totally insane.
And i'll tell you the other problem with it. We
can't survive as a nation if we allow that to continue.
You've got to assimilate. And I don't care whether this
guy is an under sheriff or a deputy sheriff or what.
(17:54):
I don't care. But when he tells me that he
believes his mission is just to take care of the
smallions and those white guys on his force are the foreigners,
then you've told me you have no business being here whatsoever,
and particularly you have no business being in law enforcement.
So again, it is assimilation. It is community that is
(18:18):
required for self governance, and without it, the republic will
not survive. You'd have to work with me five days
a week.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Yeah, that'd be the real downfall.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
See that's the problem.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
I'm not worried about, but being with you every day you.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Go to three fifty, you cannot work with me.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Yeah, as long as I didn't have to be here
every morning, Yeah, it would be worth it to gain
the extra one hundred and fifty pounds.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Wait a minute, the extra one hundred and fifty to
get to three fifty.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
You don't weigh two hundred pounds eighty pounds.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
You're not anywhere near two hundred pounds seventy. You're back
there like, okay that now, I might believe that, Yeah,
I believe that.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Well. By the way, Dragon, when I first started working
with it, I'm here, was at least three hundred old.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Don't you remember? Sometimes you've seen him coming down the hallways.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
You have to dart into the door.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Seems to pass by, Otherwise he'd just mow you down.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Now it looks great. I'm proud of him.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
I am so proud of him. It's amazing what he
could do. But you, yeah, I'm not. You're not or
two hundred fifty pounds. There's no way if you can
weigh two hundred fifty pounds and look like you do that,
I wouldn't know what that secret is. I don't know how.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
You pulled that off weighing two hundred pounds.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Yeah, but actually not weighing two hundred pounds exactly. Yeah,
one seventy sounds more like it. Grand will make it.
Are you here tomorrow too?
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I am not with you tomorrow?
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Who's with me tomorrow?
Speaker 2 (19:39):
I don't This is just like auld care less really well.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
I know I really, and I fully appreciate and understand that.
I'm just always curious, like what do I have to
work with? Like is it going to be a good
day or a bad day? And when I heard there
was going to be you today, I almost called in.
Sick me too. It's nice to have somebody it's as
(20:05):
smart ass as you are to come in. I'd like
to talk about how I deal in reality, which I do,
which I know pisses off a lot of people. And
by the way, let me remind you one more time
because I don't see them, but I not because we
on this computer that Koa has. I don't see their
(20:25):
text line, but I see when texts pop up, so
I know some of you. Maybe you're not texting me,
but if you are texting me, I'm not seeing it
because you're using the wrong number three three one zero three.
So if you've said something nice to me or nasty
to me, or you don't like me or whatever, three
three one zero three keyword micro Michael. Okay, So get
(20:48):
with it. Even though I like to deal in reality
for a moment, at least for maybe a couple of segments,
I'm going to drift off into what ifs what IFFs
for a moment, because there's this attitude or not attitude
that's too strong of the term. There's kind of a
feeling that Trump is Okay, We're glad it was Trump
(21:13):
and not Kamala, but many people still, including me, don't
like necessarily like Trump the personality, but like Trump the policies.
Or you don't like Trump's background, but you like what
he's doing in terms of, you know, trying to really
put America first, or maybe you have disagreements with both.
(21:36):
You don't like him and you don't like the policies,
which is another reason to play what if? What if
after Donald Trump had won North Carolina that gets him
to the core two hundred and thirty five vote electoral
votes he needs. But then we talked about Atlanta earlier.
What if Metro Atlanta slipped a few points further left
(22:00):
that would deny Trump election, That would deny him sixteen
electoral votes and the shortest pathway to an electoral majority
if you combine that loss in Atlanta with winning Pennsylvania.
So instead of a performance lagging Clinton in Philadelphia County, Sayah,
Kamala Harris performance was more like Biden's there and in
(22:22):
the Caller counties around Philadelphia took away Pennsylvania's nineteen you
then be looking at a scenario in which Trump would
have to have Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and with Pennsylvania
the furthest right of the Big three in the Midwest.
Then it becomes obvious that Kamala Harris would have emerged
the victor in such a scenario. And while he did
(22:45):
win a significant portion of the electoral college, and he
did win the popular vote, still when you look at
it in that vein, it was a close election. Imagine
President Kamala Harris. Honestly, when it comes to just her
(23:08):
as a mental package, it's pretty unimpressive from the get go.
She would get to work with an understanding that I
believe the electorate would quickly tire of her, just like
they quickly tired of her during the campaign. They quickly
tired of Kamala Harris every time she came out and talked,
(23:30):
and her handlers, especially if the House and the Senate
remained in Republican control, would have prepped her for some
really bold executive action designed to do exactly just one thing,
and that would be to ensure Democrat dominance of elections
and key policy positions for the twenty first century. That
would have been the only goal. Everything else that you
(23:53):
see going on right now would not be occurring. She
would only do everything that she could to make make
sure that in the twenty twenty six and the twenty
twenty eight election, in where she would have no agenda
of her own other than making certain that twenty twenty
six twenty twenty eight went Democrats. Now, even though FDR
(24:14):
and to some degree later Harry Truman, we're eventually replaced
by Republicans, the New Deal agenda is part of our
economic and social problem today, and it's something that's got
to be worked around no matter what ideologies are attached
to any particular candidate. Imagine trying to get her a
social security today. You just simply can't do it. But
(24:37):
you could if somebody was willing to take it on.
You could start your reform it and make it sustainable
into the future. But nobody even wants to touch it.
They're that scared of it. What do I think, President
Kamala Harris, I mean, this is Thanksgiving week, so you're
into the eleventh month month of a new presidency. So
(25:03):
something to be thankful for is to think about what
would a Kamala Harris presidency been like. Other than what
I just said, which I think the focus would have
been on how do we rig the election for twenty
twenty six and twenty twenty eight to make Democrats the
dominant party. Let's think about immigration in the border. Ironically,
(25:27):
you know, Trump solving those key campaign issues early, I
think has led to the current restlessness in the base.
For the twenty twenty six midterm campaigns, Republicans are going
to have to pivot to really finer policy points dish
out a lot less red meat because the electorate, I think,
(25:50):
really does view immigration and border enforcement as under control.
That was not the case just thirteen months ago, when
everybody in our mother was bitching and complaining about how
we could not survive four more years of a wide
open border. Well, guess what. Kamala Harris would have continued
Biden's reckless border policies, resulting in a mass run for
(26:12):
the border that would destroy the border towns that had
already been ravaged by illegal immigration. And instead of focusing
on mass removals like we are right now, we'd be
doing the humane processing bit and negotiating with both chambers
of Congress to try to end the humanitarian crisis in
the country, all under a Kamala Harris presidency, because we
(26:34):
would have been flooded. And if you think we're spending
a boatload of money right now on illegal immigration, imagine
if that border had been opened again because of Kamala
Harris win. And to keep it in perspective, I again say,
that's why I think the base is getting restless, because hey,
we look at that as solved, and the deportations is
(26:59):
an effort to continue to solve the problem. Okay, we've
as I always used, I use the bathtub in analogy,
illegal immigration prior to Donald Trump was a bathtub with
the stopper closed. It was overflowing, but nobody wanted to
turn off the water. You got it, You had to
(27:20):
turn the water off to stop the water from flooding
the bathroom and having to call discount bath You wanted
to stop the water flowing and then you could start
on the next phase of getting rid of the excess
water in the bathtub. And that's what we're doing today.
The water's been turned off and now we're deporting the
(27:42):
excess water, so to speak. But Harris would not have
done any of that. What we have right now is
the quietest border that I've recognized in decades, and quite frankly,
we now have a public all of you that no
longer needs to hear a bunch of political speeches about
the border. When you look at the Darien Gap, that's
(28:05):
the area in Panama that most illegals came through, an
incredibly dangerous place for them to travel. In twenty twenty two,
illegal crossings in the Darien Gap were more than two
hundred and forty eight thousand. In twenty twenty three, it
almost doubled. It skyrocketed to more than five hundred and
twenty thousand in twenty twenty four. It dropped to three
(28:29):
hundred two thousand in twenty twenty five. So far this
year slightly over two thousand. It has come down to
a trickle. It is effectively closed. You'll never get to
one hundred percent. But the Daryan Gap is a good
example because they still have to traverse Mexico. They're just
that's just to get through Panama. But at the border
(28:52):
itself California and New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, it is virtually closed.
So I think That's why that's been a accomplished and
now we move on to the next issue, and people
are getting restless about it. But what about other issues?
Let's take for example, energy and the environment next. Sometimes
(29:15):
it's worth your time to change your perspective just a
little bit and play what if. So we played a
little what if about Kamala Harris and we went through
the border. Let's think about the environment, because let's go
to Pennsylvania, a key win for Donald Trump. I'm always
amazed at how and it's primarily because of Pittsburgh and
(29:36):
Philadelphia and the Caller counties around Philadelphia, but I'm always
amazed at how Pennsylvania still remains on Team Blue when
they're candidates, the Blue candidates the Democrats campaign on destroying
the very energy industry. This is the lifeblood of the
(29:58):
entire western part of the state. And so while this
Trump administration has been moving to tap the vast energy
resources of the entire United States, starting with Alaska, on
the very first day in office, I think you can
rest assure that Americans would be dealing with so many
executive actions that would be imposing from her home state,
(30:21):
those California style mandates on truckers and plants, and you know,
every sector of the economy that deemed dangerous for the environment.
There would be executive order after executive order. You think
that the whole thing about Look, the electric vehicle market
is collapsing, and part of that is because, well, the
marketplace doesn't want to buy electric vehicles, but also because
(30:45):
we got rid of the stupid subsidies. They would have
doubled the subsidies. The day to day cost of simply
getting around to do you know, your work, your job,
your chores, everything else. All of those costs would pile
up and make today Day's complaints about a weekend inflation
rate seemed very petty. By comparison Kamala Harris's actions shifting
(31:12):
the Overton window, this country would move quickly toward the
environmental police state that London, for example, deals with today,
as everyday Americans would find it too expensive to drive
to just get to work. That's a great what if,
a very strong wadif that you recognize that maybe we
(31:32):
shouldn't be bitching quite so much, and realize that it's
only November, it's only Thanksgiving.
Nobody's even talkbacks or Grant's just not back there paying
the attention. That's probably that's the more likely.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Thing after that last one. I don't know if I
want anymore.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Yeah, well true, I mean I knows, but you never know.
It may be a squirrel that I would want to chase,
you know, like women's wrestling. I want us to think
for a little bit about the essential pillars that sustain
this constitutional republic, and I came up with three mainly
(00:30):
for the purposes of this conversation. Assimilation, a sense of community,
and of course citizenship. But when you think about this
current political climate was just marked by what division you have,
all these stupid identity based grievances. You've got government institutions
that are wavering away from their constitutional purposes. That really
(00:54):
makes the idea of assimilation, community, and citizenship even more important.
So let's stop with Let's start with something I would
call civic communion. Now, I know it's a term that
may sound foreign or odd, perhaps even misplaced as a
(01:15):
religious reference, but I don't mean it that way. Civic
communion is nothing less than the belonging of citizens to
their nation and to their political system. It's more than
just you know, belonging. It's a sense that we're not
merely observers, but were actually active participants, that we, by
(01:38):
our collective and community action, can shape this country's fate.
Aristotle refer to that as philia. It's an attachment that
keeps society's cohesive, and without that cohesiveness, the bonds that
hold a republic together begin to dissolve. Can a free people?
(02:01):
Can we as a free people govern ourselves effectively? If
questions about family, education, and religion get answered solely by
hyper individualistic egalitarian ideology that says everybody in equity, that
everybody has to be the same, everything has to be
the same, then probably not. Because when elite factions in
(02:24):
government start to undermine the very institutions that keep this
country together, faith, family, education, the military, all of which
forms conscientious citizens, then they begin to erode the very
foundations of self government. Assimilation into these shared traditions is
(02:45):
not surrender, it's actually the basis for meaningful citizenship and community.
I think we're in a crisis. Progressive movements have over
the past one hundred years, they have been very successful
in fracturing the institutions that are necessary for self rule,
(03:06):
and the result of that is a political system where
morality becomes relative, multiculturalism overrides unity, and equity trumps the
common good. Then that community that I refer to gets lost,
and that gets replaced by atomized individuals, by these really
(03:28):
abstract ideals that are completely devoid of any sort of
natural attachment that would inspire the idea of sacrifice and devotion,
which is the last time you heard anybody talk about
sacrifice and devotion for the country. A French political theorist
one time reminded us that democracy requires more than rights
(03:52):
and equality. A republic based on democratic ideals is the
way I would put it, demands integration into a community.
A republic is not sustained by ever expanding entitlements endless
assertions of autonomy. I do believe that we have individual liberty.
(04:14):
I do believe that we have individual autonomy, which may
be redundant. But we also have these commonalities that bring
us together as citizens of this republic, and that is
it's based on education, it's rooted in family faith, There's
(04:35):
got to be some confidence in virtue, and then assimilation
to these traditions breeds and or results in responsible self government. Crucially,
that same French political theorists, Manette teaches that liberal political
(04:55):
orders should not be dismantled, but instead upheld by citizens
committed to civic peace and Liberty's it's not a postliberalism
that we're looking for, it's I think, a renewal a
civic communion, and that shapes virtuous, free individuals who then
participate in the common good. So to reclaim our constitutional republic,
(05:17):
we've got to do more than analyze the constitution or
elect like minded officials I think we have. We've got
to learn to understand that freedom comes alive only when
joined with civic communion, where citizens give and receive in
a spirit of fellowship. Real citizenship is realized not in
just total individual autonomy, but not also neither is it
(05:40):
recognized or realized in total collectivism. It's through the interplay
of our individual dignity and our communal our communal communal
communal responsibility. So I would encourage you to think of
the Founding this way. It was a strong understanding of
(06:02):
this civic communion underpinned the principles that the Founding fathers
put in the Constitution. So this nation assumes that wisdom
is broadly dispersed among the people. We the people, and
a republican small r form of government then presupposes that
will have deliberation, thoughtful participation, and not just tribal loyalty
(06:26):
or shallow individualism. So how do we if we don't
have that today, which I don't believe that we have,
and how do we restore it? How do we get
back to that? Can we actually survive where citizens have
detached themselves from the very institutions that nurtured responsibility and
conscience because modern liberalism has redefined those bonds in terms
(06:52):
of autonomy, abstract rights, eroding the community, just completely destroying
assimilation that's necessary for self rule. So for us to endure,
if we're going to take this grand experiment and last
even any longer, then we've got to recognize and affirm
our relational nature that's formed by families, faith, and community.
(07:14):
And so go back again to civic communion. It doesn't
mean total politicization, but a recognition that we flourish together,
that we sacrifice and thrive within a civil society that
balances freedom and belonging both both church and political community
bring us into closer connection with others. Do you I
(07:39):
think about my friends and in my sphere of influence
that are completely opposite of me politically, you may be
you as a listener, you may be that way. Is
there nothing at all that binds us together? Yes? What
(08:00):
drifts us apart is well, let me first say here's
what I think binds us together. A mutual agreement that
we want this country to be, in really broad generic terms,
the best that it can be, the greatest country that
it can be. Now, I think that means that we
create as much individual liberty, that we pursue as much
(08:23):
of legitimate capitalism, not crony capitalism, but true free markets,
and that we recognize that it is the responsibility of
us individually to help those who are less fortunate than us,
and that we don't, as I like to say, abdicate
our compassion to the government and not have the government
(08:47):
be the one that takes care of someone less fortunate.
That instead, our churches, our civic our private charities, all
of those should be doing it. We did the food
drive last week out at King Soupers, and I was
amazed at the number of people that you know, contribute
to the Food Bank of the Rockies. That's as it
(09:07):
should be as opposed to the you know, billions of
dollars that we send that we spend on food stamps,
and that the food stamps, the snap program that oftentimes
goes to people that we frankly should not be providing for.
Because the people that we should not be providing for
because they're able bodied men capable of doing some sort
(09:30):
of work, just choose not to. Then those of us
who do choose to engage in legitimate employment, who do
work our butts off to provide for ourselves, should not
then have to be the ones that provide for those
who make the choice to not provide for themselves. If
you want to do that, then go find some charitable
(09:51):
organization that's willing to you know, support you, But don't
ask me as a taxpayer to do that. Other people
would say that disagree with me politically. Oh but no,
that's wrong, Michael. The only place that we can do
that and do that equitably. Wait a minute, there's that
nasty word. How can we do that equitably and make
sure everybody's treated the same as how the government do it? Well,
(10:12):
I don't think everybody should be treated the same, because
if we treat everybody the same, that that presupposes that
everybody is the same and that we are not. The
founder said that many will lead because human nature gives
every single one of us the capacity for self government,
(10:33):
and that our system depends on broad participation. But then
we start to lose that. If we're going to remain
a constitutional republic, then we have to recommit to assimilation,
community citizenship, not as outdated concepts, but as the living
principles that are essential for liberty and self government. We've
got to do it that way. I want to give
(10:55):
you an example of why I think that or what
caused me start to think about this kind of generic
idea of self participation and that we have a community.
Take many people who've come to this country illegally, or
even for that matter, there are some who have come
(11:16):
to this country legally, made me under a temporary protected status.
And I'm thinking in particular about the Somalians because they're
in the news today. Well they've been in the news
for several days, but over the past couple of days
they've been high in the news. Trump has suspended their
temporary protected status and we're now looking into a lot
(11:37):
of We've talked about this on the Saturday program, huge
amounts of fraud going on in Minnesota where you have
little microca you have little almost like no go zones
like they had in Seattle, where the Somalis rule everything.
The Somalis in particular seem to not be immigrants, but
(12:02):
seem to come here wanting to be conquerors. Where they
have displaced us. It doesn't become your country anymore. It
becomes their country, and they don't even pretend otherwise. I
want you to learn, as an example from a deputy
sheriff in Minnesota who denounces his fellow American officers as foreigners. Now,
(12:32):
I'm going to grant. Can I get that on? I'm
going to play this. I'm going to try to lower
the volume a little bit because he's speaking in Somalian,
but I've got the subtitles to tell you what he says,
and I want you to hear what he says because
it's pretty disgusting. Can I get that mic on?
Speaker 3 (13:02):
Here we go, I'm gone have any mon.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
We stand for you and serve because you know, we
came to this country as.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
And there were no police looking at Now that we
have been higher, it means we are now working for
our own people.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
We are now working for our own people, so.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Family not we understand the culture.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
We understand, we understand the way of going. That's why
we're not from foreigners. White officers. Foreigners are white officers.
You mean your fellow officers.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Okay, we got helped.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Bridge that gap.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Thank you again and again that Hey, I know this.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Every sman police officer, whether you're in the home land
or broad works for you. Somans can look to dad
when you are asleep at night, when you are west resting.
We are the ones protecting.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Our chief tomb In.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Can't he taking the hate?
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Now, it's unclear who this guy is or what Minnesota
county he has helped conquer, but is very clear where
his loyalties are. He is a deputy sheriff. He's there
in his uniform. You can see this account over on
x it's one of the libs of TikTok postings, and
in the community notes it notes that he is not
(14:34):
a sheriff. And I don't claim that he's a sheriff.
He is a deputy sheriff. And here he is describing
that he's there because these other officers, these white officers,
are foreigners and I'm here to protect the Somalians. Now,
if we take his rationale to its logical conclusion, then
(15:00):
black officers only represent and protect black people Asians the same,
and then we start dividing it up by country, whether
you're a black individual from a particular country or you're
an Asian person from a particular country. I don't know
what we do with the white people in the country,
because are they just from Western Europe or are they
(15:21):
from particular countries, And we break it down that way,
this is where we lose the assimilation, and this is
where we lose the sense of community. Not opposed to immigration,
I think immigration is an absolutely vital part of this country.
We need people to come to this country. One reason
(15:42):
is because our birth rate is so low, and if
we're going to continue to grow, then we need people
to come here. But I want people to come here
who want to assimilate, to be a part of the
community and to be a part of this grand experiment
of this constitutional republic. Guys like this do not represent that,
and people like Elon Omar, who represents Minnesota in Congress,
(16:08):
people like her do not represent this constitutional republic. Instead,
they represent their particular nationality. Well, wait a minute. If
you've come here and you have been elected to the
United States Congress, then you are an American. Now, I
(16:28):
don't care if your interest in his interest is in
Somalians who have come here and immigrated to this country,
if indeed they want to become citizens and assimilate into
the country. But if you come here expecting to bring
all of your culture, bringing all of your ways of life,
and then you want to build a wall around you
(16:50):
literally and figuratively, and never assimilate and become part of
the grand experiment, then we no longer govern ourselves. Now
we've taken identity politics the Democrats have been enforcing on us.
We've now taken multiculturalism which Democrats have been enforcing upon us,
and it is now reaching its logical conclusion. And that
(17:11):
is every single one of those verticals. However you want
to divide up, an individual no longer becomes out of many,
one e pluribus unum. Instead it becomes, oh, we're just
a nation of immigrants, each in our own silo, each
operating under a own set of laws, under a own
set of morays, under our own set of standards, and
(17:32):
we don't operate as Americans. It's absolutely insane, totally insane.
And i'll tell you the other problem with it. We
can't survive as a nation if we allow that to continue.
You've got to assimilate. And I don't care whether this
guy is an under sheriff or a deputy sheriff or what.
(17:54):
I don't care. But when he tells me that he
believes his mission is just to take care of the
smallions and those white guys on his force are the foreigners,
then you've told me you have no business being here whatsoever,
and particularly you have no business being in law enforcement.
So again, it is assimilation. It is community that is
(18:18):
required for self governance, and without it, the republic will
not survive. You'd have to work with me five days
a week.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Yeah, that'd be the real downfall.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
See that's the problem.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
I'm not worried about, but being with you every day you.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Go to three fifty, you cannot work with me.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Yeah, as long as I didn't have to be here
every morning, Yeah, it would be worth it to gain
the extra one hundred and fifty pounds.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Wait a minute, the extra one hundred and fifty to
get to three fifty.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
You don't weigh two hundred pounds eighty pounds.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
You're not anywhere near two hundred pounds seventy. You're back
there like, okay that now, I might believe that, Yeah,
I believe that.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Well. By the way, Dragon, when I first started working
with it, I'm here, was at least three hundred old.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Don't you remember? Sometimes you've seen him coming down the hallways.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
You have to dart into the door.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Seems to pass by, Otherwise he'd just mow you down.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Now it looks great. I'm proud of him.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
I am so proud of him. It's amazing what he
could do. But you, yeah, I'm not. You're not or
two hundred fifty pounds. There's no way if you can
weigh two hundred fifty pounds and look like you do that,
I wouldn't know what that secret is. I don't know how.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
You pulled that off weighing two hundred pounds.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Yeah, but actually not weighing two hundred pounds exactly. Yeah,
one seventy sounds more like it. Grand will make it.
Are you here tomorrow too?
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I am not with you tomorrow?
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Who's with me tomorrow?
Speaker 2 (19:39):
I don't This is just like auld care less really well.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
I know I really, and I fully appreciate and understand that.
I'm just always curious, like what do I have to
work with? Like is it going to be a good
day or a bad day? And when I heard there
was going to be you today, I almost called in.
Sick me too. It's nice to have somebody it's as
(20:05):
smart ass as you are to come in. I'd like
to talk about how I deal in reality, which I do,
which I know pisses off a lot of people. And
by the way, let me remind you one more time
because I don't see them, but I not because we
on this computer that Koa has. I don't see their
(20:25):
text line, but I see when texts pop up, so
I know some of you. Maybe you're not texting me,
but if you are texting me, I'm not seeing it
because you're using the wrong number three three one zero three.
So if you've said something nice to me or nasty
to me, or you don't like me or whatever, three
three one zero three keyword micro Michael. Okay, So get
(20:48):
with it. Even though I like to deal in reality
for a moment, at least for maybe a couple of segments,
I'm going to drift off into what ifs what IFFs
for a moment, because there's this attitude or not attitude
that's too strong of the term. There's kind of a
feeling that Trump is Okay, We're glad it was Trump
(21:13):
and not Kamala, but many people still, including me, don't
like necessarily like Trump the personality, but like Trump the policies.
Or you don't like Trump's background, but you like what
he's doing in terms of, you know, trying to really
put America first, or maybe you have disagreements with both.
(21:36):
You don't like him and you don't like the policies,
which is another reason to play what if? What if
after Donald Trump had won North Carolina that gets him
to the core two hundred and thirty five vote electoral
votes he needs. But then we talked about Atlanta earlier.
What if Metro Atlanta slipped a few points further left
(22:00):
that would deny Trump election, That would deny him sixteen
electoral votes and the shortest pathway to an electoral majority
if you combine that loss in Atlanta with winning Pennsylvania.
So instead of a performance lagging Clinton in Philadelphia County, Sayah,
Kamala Harris performance was more like Biden's there and in
(22:22):
the Caller counties around Philadelphia took away Pennsylvania's nineteen you
then be looking at a scenario in which Trump would
have to have Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and with Pennsylvania
the furthest right of the Big three in the Midwest.
Then it becomes obvious that Kamala Harris would have emerged
the victor in such a scenario. And while he did
(22:45):
win a significant portion of the electoral college, and he
did win the popular vote, still when you look at
it in that vein, it was a close election. Imagine
President Kamala Harris. Honestly, when it comes to just her
(23:08):
as a mental package, it's pretty unimpressive from the get go.
She would get to work with an understanding that I
believe the electorate would quickly tire of her, just like
they quickly tired of her during the campaign. They quickly
tired of Kamala Harris every time she came out and talked,
(23:30):
and her handlers, especially if the House and the Senate
remained in Republican control, would have prepped her for some
really bold executive action designed to do exactly just one thing,
and that would be to ensure Democrat dominance of elections
and key policy positions for the twenty first century. That
would have been the only goal. Everything else that you
(23:53):
see going on right now would not be occurring. She
would only do everything that she could to make make
sure that in the twenty twenty six and the twenty
twenty eight election, in where she would have no agenda
of her own other than making certain that twenty twenty
six twenty twenty eight went Democrats. Now, even though FDR
(24:14):
and to some degree later Harry Truman, we're eventually replaced
by Republicans, the New Deal agenda is part of our
economic and social problem today, and it's something that's got
to be worked around no matter what ideologies are attached
to any particular candidate. Imagine trying to get her a
social security today. You just simply can't do it. But
(24:37):
you could if somebody was willing to take it on.
You could start your reform it and make it sustainable
into the future. But nobody even wants to touch it.
They're that scared of it. What do I think, President
Kamala Harris, I mean, this is Thanksgiving week, so you're
into the eleventh month month of a new presidency. So
(25:03):
something to be thankful for is to think about what
would a Kamala Harris presidency been like. Other than what
I just said, which I think the focus would have
been on how do we rig the election for twenty
twenty six and twenty twenty eight to make Democrats the
dominant party. Let's think about immigration in the border. Ironically,
(25:27):
you know, Trump solving those key campaign issues early, I
think has led to the current restlessness in the base.
For the twenty twenty six midterm campaigns, Republicans are going
to have to pivot to really finer policy points dish
out a lot less red meat because the electorate, I think,
(25:50):
really does view immigration and border enforcement as under control.
That was not the case just thirteen months ago, when
everybody in our mother was bitching and complaining about how
we could not survive four more years of a wide
open border. Well, guess what. Kamala Harris would have continued
Biden's reckless border policies, resulting in a mass run for
(26:12):
the border that would destroy the border towns that had
already been ravaged by illegal immigration. And instead of focusing
on mass removals like we are right now, we'd be
doing the humane processing bit and negotiating with both chambers
of Congress to try to end the humanitarian crisis in
the country, all under a Kamala Harris presidency, because we
(26:34):
would have been flooded. And if you think we're spending
a boatload of money right now on illegal immigration, imagine
if that border had been opened again because of Kamala
Harris win. And to keep it in perspective, I again say,
that's why I think the base is getting restless, because hey,
we look at that as solved, and the deportations is
(26:59):
an effort to continue to solve the problem. Okay, we've
as I always used, I use the bathtub in analogy,
illegal immigration prior to Donald Trump was a bathtub with
the stopper closed. It was overflowing, but nobody wanted to
turn off the water. You got it, You had to
(27:20):
turn the water off to stop the water from flooding
the bathroom and having to call discount bath You wanted
to stop the water flowing and then you could start
on the next phase of getting rid of the excess
water in the bathtub. And that's what we're doing today.
The water's been turned off and now we're deporting the
(27:42):
excess water, so to speak. But Harris would not have
done any of that. What we have right now is
the quietest border that I've recognized in decades, and quite frankly,
we now have a public all of you that no
longer needs to hear a bunch of political speeches about
the border. When you look at the Darien Gap, that's
(28:05):
the area in Panama that most illegals came through, an
incredibly dangerous place for them to travel. In twenty twenty two,
illegal crossings in the Darien Gap were more than two
hundred and forty eight thousand. In twenty twenty three, it
almost doubled. It skyrocketed to more than five hundred and
twenty thousand in twenty twenty four. It dropped to three
(28:29):
hundred two thousand in twenty twenty five. So far this
year slightly over two thousand. It has come down to
a trickle. It is effectively closed. You'll never get to
one hundred percent. But the Daryan Gap is a good
example because they still have to traverse Mexico. They're just
that's just to get through Panama. But at the border
(28:52):
itself California and New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, it is virtually closed.
So I think That's why that's been a accomplished and
now we move on to the next issue, and people
are getting restless about it. But what about other issues?
Let's take for example, energy and the environment next. Sometimes
(29:15):
it's worth your time to change your perspective just a
little bit and play what if. So we played a
little what if about Kamala Harris and we went through
the border. Let's think about the environment, because let's go
to Pennsylvania, a key win for Donald Trump. I'm always
amazed at how and it's primarily because of Pittsburgh and
(29:36):
Philadelphia and the Caller counties around Philadelphia, but I'm always
amazed at how Pennsylvania still remains on Team Blue when
they're candidates, the Blue candidates the Democrats campaign on destroying
the very energy industry. This is the lifeblood of the
(29:58):
entire western part of the state. And so while this
Trump administration has been moving to tap the vast energy
resources of the entire United States, starting with Alaska, on
the very first day in office, I think you can
rest assure that Americans would be dealing with so many
executive actions that would be imposing from her home state,
(30:21):
those California style mandates on truckers and plants, and you know,
every sector of the economy that deemed dangerous for the environment.
There would be executive order after executive order. You think
that the whole thing about Look, the electric vehicle market
is collapsing, and part of that is because, well, the
marketplace doesn't want to buy electric vehicles, but also because
(30:45):
we got rid of the stupid subsidies. They would have
doubled the subsidies. The day to day cost of simply
getting around to do you know, your work, your job,
your chores, everything else. All of those costs would pile
up and make today Day's complaints about a weekend inflation
rate seemed very petty. By comparison Kamala Harris's actions shifting
(31:12):
the Overton window, this country would move quickly toward the
environmental police state that London, for example, deals with today,
as everyday Americans would find it too expensive to drive
to just get to work. That's a great what if,
a very strong wadif that you recognize that maybe we
(31:32):
shouldn't be bitching quite so much, and realize that it's
only November, it's only Thanksgiving.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.