Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Michael Brown joins me here the former FEMA director talk
show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
You're doing a heck of a job the Weekend with
Michael Brown.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Hey broadcasting life from Denver, Colorado. You're listening to the
Weekend of Michael Brown. Really glad to have you with me.
I appreciate you tuning in. You know the rules. If
you want to send me a text message anytime you're
listening or even thinking about what we've talked about, doesn't
make any difference. It's open twenty four hours a day,
seven days a week, and I read them all. I
want to make sure you understand I read every text
message that gets sent. I don't reply to all of them,
(00:32):
but I read every single one of them. The number
on your message app is three three one zero three
three three one zero three, and just use the keyword
Mike or Michael. That's all very easy to do. Go
follow me on X. It's at Michael Brown USA.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
You know.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Ex's really Since since Musk took over X, I have
found it particularly useful for show prep, but also for
gathering different perspectives on what's going on in the news.
As I've said, many times you have to learn how
to control that app, that platform, and if you have,
(01:14):
you know, lots of followers are or you're following a
lot of people. Either way, it can become very unwieldy.
But you can make lists, and for example, I have
lists on my account of what I consider to be
radical leftists, individuals and organizations and media outlets that I
can always go see what they're saying, so I don't
(01:35):
have to, like I don't have to sit down and
just watch MSNBC all day long or CNN all day
long for that matter, I don't have to watch Fox
because there are a lot of programs on Fox that
I just don't find all that informative, or I find
them to be way too shrill or to be way
too well. Let's just what are the GOP talking points today,
(01:57):
and let's just go out and spew them out again.
I don't want that. I wants some real, live analysis
about what are the news stories of the day. So
if you learn to control X, it's a great way
to consume news or to find little tidbits about what
people think about things, and you can look at those
(02:18):
tidbits from almost any perspective. There's something going on kind
of writ large in the country that some and I
think probably this is a fairly decent description of a
judicial coup. These cherry picked federal district court judges across
the country using what are called nationwide injunctions. And what
(02:41):
they're doing is they're tying up the executive branch. My
wife and never going to dinner to meet some friends.
Last night and I had not yet turned over to music,
still had the news on, and the news was breaking
about another judge. It issued another injunction number I forget
what the number was, sixty seven, eighty seven whatever, Who
(03:02):
cares what other number was, some giant number of injunctions,
nationwide injunctions issued by a judge stopping Donald Trump from
doing something. And I thought, I really do want to
talk about this today, because there is somewhat of a
coup going on, and these judges, for some reason, believe
(03:22):
that they sitting in a district court. Let me use
Colorado's example as an example. Colorado's comprised of one federal
district court. Some states have two, some have, you know,
ten twenty. We have one covers the entire state. We'll
(03:43):
eventually get another one, I'm sure but right now we're one.
So that judge sitting in federal District court in downtown
Denver has jurisdiction over the parties that are in front
of the judge. Now that party could be a nonprofit,
(04:05):
a non government organization, it could be an individual, it
could be a company, whatever it is. And on the
other side, it could be we the people. So it
might be a case, it might be a criminal case
the United States of America versus Michael Brown. Hope that
never occurs, but if it did, the jurisdiction that that
(04:27):
judge has is over those people in his courtroom. If
a judge sitting in Denver, Colorado is hearing a case,
a bankruptcy case, a criminal case, a case where they
think that someone has been deported illegally, I don't care
what it is. Any case, their jurisdiction extends to those
(04:49):
parties that are in that courtroom that have met the
jurisdictional requirement by either living in that state or living
in a separate state, and they've sued in that court,
so they've subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of that court. Now,
let's say that that's let's say that it's talk show
(05:15):
hosts versus the I'm trying to think it's just something
absurd here talk show hosts of America versus Larraza. And
I'm the lead plaintiff, and I have sued Larraza right
here in Colorado. You're living in Los Angeles, or you're
(05:41):
living in New York, or you're living in Savannah, Georgia.
I don't care any place other than Colorado. The judge
has no jurisdiction over you, none whatsoever. It's just the
parties right there in that courtroom. Now, let's take one
of these real life examples. A real life example would
(06:02):
be the ACLU versus the Department of Full of Insecurity
over some deportation issue. Well, when a judge decides that
case and said, you know, and let's say that the
ACLU has sued seeking an injunction stopping DHS from deporting, Well,
(06:24):
I'll give you a classic example. We have a woman
in this state who has been subject to deportation for years.
She's lied, she's she's crossed the border several times illegally,
she lied on her visa application. She went into hiding
in a church, and she's been hiding in this church
(06:47):
for years. She stepped out of the church and Ice
captured her and then in the process of deporting her. Okay,
so those are the circumstances, Those are the basic facts,
and that case involves the ACLU, that woman, and DHS,
(07:08):
nobody else. But what if the judge decides that, oh,
the facts of this case, I'm going to take my
ruling and I'm going to apply it to every federal
district across the country, from Seattle to Portland, Maine, from
(07:28):
San Diego to Miami, from Bismarck to San Antonio. I'm
going to apply it to all fifty states, every federal
jurisdiction across the country. No, you have no authority to
do that. In fact, it's kind of interesting because Justice
(07:54):
Elena Kagan, who is considered obviously one of the more
liberal judges. Let's put it that way. Here's what Justice
Kagan said about these nationwide injunctions. This is as reported
by Politico a couple of years ago, Political Rights. During
(08:19):
her remarks Justice Kagan's on Wednesday, in a conversation with
Northwestern law Dean Harry Osofsky, Justice Kagan took a notably
hostile and forceful stand against a practice that has not
generated much public debate, but has royaled the legal community
(08:39):
in recent years. Colon now before I tell you what
follows next, Remember just for perspective, this is from several
years ago, and it's before the controversy is now facing
Donald Trump's administration, because we got to stop Donald Trump
(09:00):
by all any means necessary. Right, here's what the controversy was,
and she believes that they shouldn't do it. Individual US
district Court judges blocking federal government policies nationally nationwide. She's
(09:22):
got a real problem with that. Justice Kegan, one of
the more liberal, most liberal judges on the Court, has
a real problem with one judge sitting in Denver, Colorado,
in a case of ACLU versus DHS involving that woman,
that they can issue an injunction saying you can't do this,
and I'm going to apply my ruling in Denver to
(09:45):
every federal judge across to every district across the country.
Justice Kegan's got a problem with that, and rightfully so
rightfully so, it's the weekend with Mychael Brown text the
word Michael Michael of three three one zero three follow
me on exit that Michael Brown, USA. We'll explain why next. Hey,
(10:13):
welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to
have you with me. Be sure to subscribe to the
podcast on your podcast app search for the Situation with
Michael Brown. The Situation with Michael Brown. Once you find that,
hit subscribe EVE a five star review, and then you
get all five days of the weekday program plus the
weekend program. Funny that you know, when you go all
(10:35):
the way back to twenty twenty and you think about
all the lawsuits that were pending at that time when
Trump lost the twenty twenty election, and then you know,
we get a four year interlude and then we come
back and then boom, they all start popping up again.
And this kind of what I kind of refer to
(10:55):
as this judicial revolution against Donald Trump actually start at
the top. I know that right now we're seeing at
the federal trial court level most the lowest court level
at all for the federal judiciary, the trial courts, but
it also exists at the top as of this moment.
(11:19):
In case you're listening later in the week and something
else happens, but as of this moment, Chief Justice John
Roberts Supreme Court is engaged in I think can only
be called a calculated collusive in action, and that inaction
is their failure or they're in action from forcing those
(11:42):
district court judges. They're issuing all of these injunctions nationally
back into their constitutional lane. You guys are stepping outside
the bounds of your jurisdiction. Get back in it. And
they're not doing anything about it. Now. Lawyers in the audience,
I know you can argue that, well, you know, we've
(12:03):
got to wait for the appellate Court. We gotta wait
for the Ninth Circuit here, we gotta wait for the
DC Appellate Court. You gotta wait for all of this.
You know what. Yes, However, Justice Roberts could be signaling
instead of you know, weighing in on you know, stop
talking about impeaching judges. He could be weighing in and
in a simple conference call say guys, ladies, listen, you
(12:27):
know you might be a little overstepping your bounds here,
but they're not going to do that. I think a
plausible speculation is that, besides the immediate benefits of delaying,
if not hobbling, the America First Agenda of Trump, the
goals of this particular revolution of this law fair include
setting up contempt of court traps because at some point
(12:51):
Trump's going to have to make a decision. Pam Bondy,
the attorney Jones, is going to have to make a decision.
Do we ignore the court, do we follow through with
the regular procedure, or for example, the plane's going to
El Salvador, do we turn the planes around or do
we say keep on flying? That sets up a potential
(13:14):
contempt of court trap, which would then establish what a
pretext for yet another impeachment of Donald Trump. Now doesn't
that sound absurd? It sounds absurd to me, But why
would you think it's absurd if you understand the history
of Donald Trump and the left and how the left
(13:35):
will do anything now to destroy Donald Trump, anything, And
if you put this law fare into context, it is
just a most recent tactic in a now over century
long revolution, a progressive revolution, executing at a progressive incremental
(13:55):
scheme designed to accomplish an eventual overthrow of this constitutional republic.
And they're doing it by making certain the left is
by nominating radically leftist judges. Now we've got control of
the Senate, albeit we don't have enough to stop debate
(14:18):
to invoke cloture, which requires sixty one votes. But we
I think by taking this battle public can stop it.
Let me give you an example. So Senator John Kennedy
for Louisiana has before him a nominee. She's a magistrate judge.
(14:40):
I'm not quite dismay the difference where she's from. She's
a magistrate judge. What's a magistrate judge? A federal magistrate
judge is almost like a an associate. You've got the
trial judges, and then you have these magistrate judges that
you know, take care of some routine ale matters, or
(15:01):
they might take care of some routine hearings on some
motions or something very limited jurisdiction. But oftentimes federal magistrate
judges get nominated to become federal trial judges. And why well,
they've already been through one confirmation process and they've they've
(15:21):
gotten appointed by you know, these judges all agree that
this person ought to be a magistrate. By the way,
they're not confirmed, they get through, the judges select them.
But now they've got a federal judicial position. So now
it's easy for the president to pluck somebody out and say, oh,
I'm going to put this person in as a new
trial judge, so they start working their way up the
(15:44):
latter so to speak. Well, Senator Kennedy just mopped the
floor with this WoT judge, total Trump style domination. In
my opinion, I think the woman is a disgrace to justice.
It was a real clown show. They got to lock
her up and throw her away. She should never be
(16:05):
anywhere near a judge ship whatsoever. Now she's not currently
up for nomination, I use her as an example of
Trump's need to drain the swamp as much as possible
of these leftist, lunatic judges that are being considered. Let's
(16:29):
start it because this is a fairly long sound bite,
so we'll carry it over to the listeners break. But
I want you to hear the insanity of what goes on.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
I was looking at your your resume.
Speaker 5 (16:45):
You went to Brown Universities, I did, and then you
want to launch school in California.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
That's correct.
Speaker 5 (16:51):
And you've worked for the Brennan Center I interned. I
was a law student in turn Okay. And you worked
for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
I was a los student intern there for eight weeks
during my one al.
Speaker 5 (17:08):
Summer, Okay, And you are a political activisiar.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
You I am not. I'm a sity in United States
magistrate judge.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
Okay, all right, do you remember an inmate named William McLain,
also known as July Justine Shelby.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
Yes, I know who you're referring to.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Okay, mister McLain raped a child? Didn't he?
Speaker 4 (17:36):
Thirty years ago? The petitioner in the habeas case before me,
did he rape the child? He pled guilty to that crime.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Yes, did he rape a child? The answer is yes.
They'll try to explain it away. The answer is yes,
he raped a child. Oh, it gets worse. Hangtight, We'll
be right back.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Tonight.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Talk show host Michael Brown.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
Brownie, No, Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job
The Weekend with Michael Brown. Hey, so begin with Michael Brown.
Glad to have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in.
I really, I mean, I really do I Maybe I
don't say it enough, maybe I say it too much,
but I do appreciate you listening, downloading the podcast, follow
me on X, sending me text messages, you know, doing
all the stuff you're supposed to do. You have a
(18:25):
responsibility too. You can't just you can't be a slacker
you have I can't do it all by myself. You've
got to listen, all right, So do your job as
a good goober and do whatever it is that goober's
are supposed to do. This this sound bite. Her name
is Sarah Netburn. Can I be I don't know whether
(18:47):
it's sexist or racist, or closed minded or what, but
she just looks like a lefty. She just looks like it.
So you know, judge me don't care. But I particularly
love this particular person because she just personifies I mean,
everybody thinks that once you put on that black robe
(19:09):
that you really do just set aside. And as a judge,
you should. You should set aside all of your personal beliefs.
You should apply the law to the facts of the case,
and then you should make a determination based on the
facts of the case is applied to the law, and
come up with an objective decision. It being a judge
(19:30):
takes a really special kind of personality. I don't think
this woman has a personality or the character to be
a judge, but yet here she is being considered to
become a trial judge. One of these that are that
are kind of leading this what I call a judicial
revolution against Donald Trump. And she's being grilled by Senator Kennedy.
(19:52):
Now we're only twenty seconds into the sound bite, but
I want you to listen to it closely. Well, I
want you to listen to all my soundbites closely, but
this in particular because I want you to listen just
how much of a dirt bag this particular defendant is
that she dealt with as a magistrate judge. Now we
already know these raped a child. That's really all you
(20:17):
need to know about him. Will we hear what else
he's done?
Speaker 2 (20:21):
And you worked for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
I was a lostudent intern there for eight weeks during
my one al summer.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
Okay, And you are a political actificial I am not.
Speaker 4 (20:33):
I'm a city in United States, Magistrate judge, all right.
Speaker 5 (20:38):
Do you remember an inmate named William McClain, also known
as July Justine Shelby.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
Yes, I know who you're referring to.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Okay, mister McLain, Uh rape a child? Did he?
Speaker 4 (20:56):
Thirty years ago? The petitioner in the habeas case before me,
did he rape for child? He pled guilty to that crime.
Speaker 5 (21:03):
Yes, it's a poor and then he raped a seventeen
He raped a little boy, right.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
I believe that's correct. I believe he pled guilty to
two hours of second violence.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
And then he raped a seventeen year old girl.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Right again. This case was handled by the state court
in India.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Why can't she just say yes? Why can't she just
say yes? Well, you'll find out why in a minute.
He raped a child, he's raped a boy, he's raped
a seventeen year old girl. This guy's's coming back, right.
Can we all agree this this guy's a dirt bag. Well,
I kind of think this magistrate judge is a dirt bag.
(21:43):
Just answer, you're a judge. Did this guy who was
in your courtroom did he rape a child? Yes? Because
he was found guilty, so yes, he raped a child.
Do you rape a little boy? Yes? Did you rape
a seventeen year old girl? Yes? Why do you have
to do everything else? You're not impressing everybody. In fact,
you are obfuscating and trying to make up an excuse
(22:06):
for him or what Now?
Speaker 2 (22:07):
But I haven't just shashed into the facts.
Speaker 4 (22:09):
I believe.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Don't stall on me.
Speaker 5 (22:11):
Now, did he rape a seventeen year old girl or
not after raping a nine year old boy.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
I believe that's what he pled guilty.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Too, Okay. And then he went to prison, didn't.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
He yes, the petition and then he came out and
he sent child porn basically adults raping little children to
another sex offender, and he was sent back to prison.
Speaker 4 (22:35):
Right the petitioner pled guilty.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
She can't just say yes, that's exactly yes, Senator Kennedy,
that's exactly what happened.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
To when he shent back to prison.
Speaker 4 (22:47):
Well, that case was in the federal system.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
So was it shn back to prison?
Speaker 4 (22:51):
Yes, this time to federal prison.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
He had asked three times. Was he sent back to prison?
Was he sent back? Yes? Just answer thee.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Can question, thank you.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
And then he decided to transition and he became a
female and started going by Jami Justine Shelby.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
Is that right?
Speaker 4 (23:13):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (23:14):
And miss Shelby said, I don't want to go to
a male prison.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
I want to go to a female prison.
Speaker 5 (23:23):
And the board of prison said, what planet did you
parachute in from. You're going to a male prison with
this kind of record, and you sent him to.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
A female prison. Didn't you?
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Pretty simple question. He transitions after raping three people dealing
in child porn of children being raped with other sex offenders,
and then he transitions and he wanted to go to
a female prison, and the Board of Prisons federal level
said no, no, you're going to a male prison. And uh,
(24:00):
but you sent him Senator to Kennedy as But you
sent him to a female prison. Isn't that right?
Speaker 2 (24:05):
And that the Board of Prisons was trying to violate.
Speaker 5 (24:12):
Mischell be former mister McCain's constitutional rights, didn't you.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
I issued a report and recommendation to the district judge
recommending that the district judge transfer the petitioner to a
women's facility.
Speaker 5 (24:26):
The district judge, you shot that reward DA was trying
to violate mischell bes mister McClain's constitutional rights, didn't you.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
So I based my decision on the facts that were
presented to me in the record.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
But it wasn't that you're ruling.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
I recommended finding that under a Stelle versus game.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
I won't you admit that was your ruling? Are you
ashamed of it? I'm not.
Speaker 4 (24:49):
I'm answering the question I applied to Stell versus you're ruling.
My recommendation was that the petitioner's serious medical needs were
being denied by keeping her naman's facility.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
On violation of the eighth of Men. Right, that's correct, okay?
And how big was miss Shelby, Mister McLain.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
I don't have a specific recollection. Your colleague just suggested
that she was more than six feet tall, and.
Speaker 5 (25:17):
You told the Board of Prisons, well, she'll be okay,
that the other women in the female prison will be okay,
because because it's only hypothetical that miss Shelby, mister McLain
would reoffend again after he's already raped a nine year
old boy and a seventeen year old girl and there's
(25:38):
been sending child porn through the mail, you said there's
no chance you'll reoffend again. Did you say.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
That, Senator Kay I based my decision on the record.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
But am I right? Did you conclude that?
Speaker 4 (25:51):
I don't have a specific recollection of that. I did
recommend that after finding a constitutional violation and.
Speaker 5 (25:58):
Thinking and saying there's no it's only hypothetical video that
she would re offend.
Speaker 4 (26:06):
The facts of the case, or that the petitioner had
last to engage in a contact offense thirty years ago.
The petitioner had not engaged in any contact offense. In addition,
the medical.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Act, well, he hadn't physically done it in thirty years.
But oh, let's discount or ignore the acquisition of and
the transmittle of those same acts just on photographs or videos.
(26:40):
I would say, in my worldview, that's the same as
committing the act, which is one reason why we outlawed
child pornography. Because you engaging in that, you are supporting
the very act that you're seeing on the video or
the photograph. You might as well have been the one
one either engaged in those horrific acts, or you might
(27:04):
as well have been the one behind the camera. This
woman should not be anywhere near a courtroom.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
Evidence made clear that for the last five years the
petitioner was sober and hormonally entirely a female, and there
was no evidence or to prove.
Speaker 5 (27:22):
She didn't agree with you. Let me, I'm going to
run out of time here. You're really a political actifficion launcher.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
I'm not, sir, but your record demonstrated to the watch
I disagree. I apply the law to the facts and
come to a fair decision, all of my decisions that
have been appealed, particularly this one that the district judge
adopted my report and recommendation in full and the government
did not move for a stay of the decision.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
Well, of course, under Democrat administration, they would never do that.
So she's basically saying because because the judge that I
submitted the recon to follow my recommendation, that I'm okay, Well,
I would say we got two problems. Now we've got you,
and we've got the judge that followed your recommendation, and
(28:10):
we have a problem with the Biden administration, who, under
Merrick Garland did not appeal that decision. These people are
I was gonna say pathetic, That's not good enough word.
These people are utterly destroying the fabric of this society.
(28:31):
And so we can talk about gang bangers out there,
and we can talk about illegal aliens, and we can
talk about the criminals, the people steal cars, that deal
in drugs, and we can talk about all of those people,
but let's stop and talk for a moment about those
people that wear the black robes. Because what I'm saying,
which may offend some of you, is that the people
(28:52):
in the black robes are as destructive to our society
as the people are committing these crimes. Is there bending
over backwards to accommodate the stupidity, the savagery of what
they've done. And this becomes the judiciary, This becomes the
(29:15):
judicial branch. And this is the revolution that we're facing
right now. It's just that Donald Trump, surprise, surprise, guess
what Democrats he won last November. And now what you're
doing is you're taking what's occurred all the way back.
I don't care. You can go back as far as Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Obama,
(29:37):
all of them appointing radical judges to the judiciary. And
now we're seeing the effect of it in all these
nationwide injunctions and all these attacks. Everything that the judiciary
is doing is a revolution trying to stop Donald Trump.
So The Weekend with Michael Brown takes the word Michael
(29:58):
Michael to three three one zero three. Be sure and
follow me on X at Michael Brown USSA. I'll be
right back. Hey, welcome back to the Weekend of Michael Brown.
Got to have you with me. The text lines open
as always. The number on your message app is three
three one zero three. Use keyword either Mike or Michael.
(30:19):
If you're not following me on x formerly Twitter, go
do that right now, don't put it off any longer.
At Michael Brown USA, At Michael Brown USA. So I
think there's this revolution going, a color revolution, if you will.
But revolutionary tactics don't necessarily repeat. They might rhyme. All
(30:41):
of this the counter revolution. It's hard for us to
see because of the cabal. If all you do is
watch the network news, read the major newspapers, then you
don't hear about the things. All you hear is Donald
(31:02):
Trump was stopped today by a federal an injunction issued
nationally is issued nationwide by Judge so and so in
the Federal District Cort of Wyoming, and you know Trump.
The allegation was that Trump violated the constitutional rights of
somebody by doing X Y Z, or violated the due
process rights, or exceeded his executive authority. And we in
(31:26):
the black robes have decided that that's the case. Well,
here's what you don't hear. Because you don't, people don't
tend to think of we the people, still having the
authority to actually affect the change. So again we have
to go back in history all of this started with
(31:49):
the founding fathers. They knew that we would develop factions,
that we would develop parties, which is why they established
a government that has a constant up to separation of powers,
and that there will be a natural tension between the legislative,
the executive, and the judicial branch, and within each of
(32:11):
those there are checks and balances among all of it. Progressives,
starting particularly with Woodrow Wilson and the elimination and the
adoption of the seventeenth Amendment and eliminating the direct election
and implementing the direct election of senators is one of
those little progressive steps that sounds good. Well, you know
it's one person, one vote, and you know, well, we
(32:33):
ought to be electing the senators instead of having state
instead of having state legislators vote for those people. And
in the media, the Kabal existed back in nearly nineteen hundreds.
I mean, the cabal has been around forever pushing the
collectivist agenda of the progressives, and the progressives have known
(32:54):
that they have which is why it's called progressivism. They
have to do things incrementally and in steps. This is
why when someone like Donald Trump comes along and says,
I'm gonna take a couple of giant steps here. I'm
not gonna do this little progressive, incremental inch by inch thing.
I'm just gonna whack some stuff off, or I'm just gonna,
(33:15):
you know, hit a grand slam and really start changing
things dramatically. The reason I think it's successful is you
don't hear enough in the polling numbers about the numbers
of people that support what he is doing. Whether it's immigration,
(33:39):
or whether it's even the tariffs or taxes, or lowering
the price of eggs, whatever it might be. There are
all of these things. There is so much going on
that it's easy. I mean it, really, I could do it.
There are certain things that Trump's doing that I could
(34:00):
sit here and nitpick for three hours about this issue
or that issue, or whatever it might be, and get
you all kind of discouraged that, Oh, there's all these
little things. Let's just say it's a thousand things that
Trump's doing right now, which is probably underestimating a thousand
(34:21):
things that he's trying to do. This is a man
who is in a hurry. This is a man and
an administration that are all in a hurry. They know
that yes, they've got four years, but they may only
have two years, so let's just wham bam, bam, bam bam,
get everything that we can do. And he has selected
some really good people. I don't always agree with everything
(34:43):
they're doing, but generally speaking, bite as much off as
you can because you're going to lose some battles. But
the American people right now are behind the majority. Do
we quibble about stuff, Yes, of course we quibble. We
wouldn't be human if we didn't quibble. We wouldn't be
(35:04):
human if we didn't look at some of the things
he's doing in question and go, really, you know, I'm
gonna talk about Greenland in the next hour. I don't
necessarily agree with the approach that jd Vance has been
taking or some of the things that he's been saying,
even though I think that some of the speeches he
gives he gives about Eurocentric stupidity is absolutely marvelous. But Greenland.
(35:32):
Most Americans here, Oh, we want to take over Greenland,
And many Americans think, well, that's kind of stupid idea
until you step back and realize we're not really wanting
to take it over. Oh we would. I mean I'd
be for it if we could. If Greenland wanted to
become a fifty first state, I'd be for that and
heartbeat for our national security reasons, for geopolitical reasons, for
(35:56):
just for the land mass and the resources. I'd be
for that the heartbeat. But the majority of the issues
that I would say are the bread and butter issues
for most Americans. Most Americans right now are generally speaking
in favor of it, but not if you listen to
the dominant media. The cabal wants you to be convinced
(36:17):
that Trump is overstepping his authority. And you know what,
in some cases he may actually be. But let's say
there's twenty things and in four of those he's overstepped
his authority. Well, don't ignore the other sixteen things he's done,
but don't sit and get focused on the four things
that maybe was a little overstepping of his boundaries. The
(36:42):
counter revolution is alive and well, and I think most
Americans are absolutely like, Wow, this is pretty good. Someone's
actually doing what they said they were going to do.
That in and of itself is an accomplishment. So he
came with Michael Brown, hang type, I'll be back in
a minute, waiting.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Ever, when wing home
To night.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Michael Brown joins me here the former FEMA director talk
show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
You're doing a heck of a job the Weekend with
Michael Brown.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Hey broadcasting life from Denver, Colorado. You're listening to the
Weekend of Michael Brown. Really glad to have you with me.
I appreciate you tuning in. You know the rules. If
you want to send me a text message anytime you're
listening or even thinking about what we've talked about, doesn't
make any difference. It's open twenty four hours a day,
seven days a week, and I read them all. I
want to make sure you understand I read every text
message that gets sent. I don't reply to all of them,
(00:32):
but I read every single one of them. The number
on your message app is three three one zero three
three three one zero three, and just use the keyword
Mike or Michael. That's all very easy to do. Go
follow me on X. It's at Michael Brown USA.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
You know.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Ex's really Since since Musk took over X, I have
found it particularly useful for show prep, but also for
gathering different perspectives on what's going on in the news.
As I've said, many times you have to learn how
to control that app, that platform, and if you have,
(01:14):
you know, lots of followers are or you're following a
lot of people. Either way, it can become very unwieldy.
But you can make lists, and for example, I have
lists on my account of what I consider to be
radical leftists, individuals and organizations and media outlets that I
can always go see what they're saying, so I don't
(01:35):
have to, like I don't have to sit down and
just watch MSNBC all day long or CNN all day
long for that matter, I don't have to watch Fox
because there are a lot of programs on Fox that
I just don't find all that informative, or I find
them to be way too shrill or to be way
too well. Let's just what are the GOP talking points today,
(01:57):
and let's just go out and spew them out again.
I don't want that. I wants some real, live analysis
about what are the news stories of the day. So
if you learn to control X, it's a great way
to consume news or to find little tidbits about what
people think about things, and you can look at those
(02:18):
tidbits from almost any perspective. There's something going on kind
of writ large in the country that some and I
think probably this is a fairly decent description of a
judicial coup. These cherry picked federal district court judges across
the country using what are called nationwide injunctions. And what
(02:41):
they're doing is they're tying up the executive branch. My
wife and never going to dinner to meet some friends.
Last night and I had not yet turned over to music,
still had the news on, and the news was breaking
about another judge. It issued another injunction number I forget
what the number was, sixty seven, eighty seven whatever, Who
(03:02):
cares what other number was, some giant number of injunctions,
nationwide injunctions issued by a judge stopping Donald Trump from
doing something. And I thought, I really do want to
talk about this today, because there is somewhat of a
coup going on, and these judges, for some reason, believe
(03:22):
that they sitting in a district court. Let me use
Colorado's example as an example. Colorado's comprised of one federal
district court. Some states have two, some have, you know,
ten twenty. We have one covers the entire state. We'll
(03:43):
eventually get another one, I'm sure but right now we're one.
So that judge sitting in federal District court in downtown
Denver has jurisdiction over the parties that are in front
of the judge. Now that party could be a nonprofit,
(04:05):
a non government organization, it could be an individual, it
could be a company, whatever it is. And on the
other side, it could be we the people. So it
might be a case, it might be a criminal case
the United States of America versus Michael Brown. Hope that
never occurs, but if it did, the jurisdiction that that
(04:27):
judge has is over those people in his courtroom. If
a judge sitting in Denver, Colorado is hearing a case,
a bankruptcy case, a criminal case, a case where they
think that someone has been deported illegally, I don't care
what it is. Any case, their jurisdiction extends to those
(04:49):
parties that are in that courtroom that have met the
jurisdictional requirement by either living in that state or living
in a separate state, and they've sued in that court,
so they've subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of that court. Now,
let's say that that's let's say that it's talk show
(05:15):
hosts versus the I'm trying to think it's just something
absurd here talk show hosts of America versus Larraza. And
I'm the lead plaintiff, and I have sued Larraza right
here in Colorado. You're living in Los Angeles, or you're
(05:41):
living in New York, or you're living in Savannah, Georgia.
I don't care any place other than Colorado. The judge
has no jurisdiction over you, none whatsoever. It's just the
parties right there in that courtroom. Now, let's take one
of these real life examples. A real life example would
(06:02):
be the ACLU versus the Department of Full of Insecurity
over some deportation issue. Well, when a judge decides that
case and said, you know, and let's say that the
ACLU has sued seeking an injunction stopping DHS from deporting, Well,
(06:24):
I'll give you a classic example. We have a woman
in this state who has been subject to deportation for years.
She's lied, she's she's crossed the border several times illegally,
she lied on her visa application. She went into hiding
in a church, and she's been hiding in this church
(06:47):
for years. She stepped out of the church and Ice
captured her and then in the process of deporting her. Okay,
so those are the circumstances, Those are the basic facts,
and that case involves the ACLU, that woman, and DHS,
(07:08):
nobody else. But what if the judge decides that, oh,
the facts of this case, I'm going to take my
ruling and I'm going to apply it to every federal
district across the country, from Seattle to Portland, Maine, from
(07:28):
San Diego to Miami, from Bismarck to San Antonio. I'm
going to apply it to all fifty states, every federal
jurisdiction across the country. No, you have no authority to
do that. In fact, it's kind of interesting because Justice
(07:54):
Elena Kagan, who is considered obviously one of the more
liberal judges. Let's put it that way. Here's what Justice
Kagan said about these nationwide injunctions. This is as reported
by Politico a couple of years ago, Political Rights. During
(08:19):
her remarks Justice Kagan's on Wednesday, in a conversation with
Northwestern law Dean Harry Osofsky, Justice Kagan took a notably
hostile and forceful stand against a practice that has not
generated much public debate, but has royaled the legal community
(08:39):
in recent years. Colon now before I tell you what
follows next, Remember just for perspective, this is from several
years ago, and it's before the controversy is now facing
Donald Trump's administration, because we got to stop Donald Trump
(09:00):
by all any means necessary. Right, here's what the controversy was,
and she believes that they shouldn't do it. Individual US
district Court judges blocking federal government policies nationally nationwide. She's
(09:22):
got a real problem with that. Justice Kegan, one of
the more liberal, most liberal judges on the Court, has
a real problem with one judge sitting in Denver, Colorado,
in a case of ACLU versus DHS involving that woman,
that they can issue an injunction saying you can't do this,
and I'm going to apply my ruling in Denver to
(09:45):
every federal judge across to every district across the country.
Justice Kegan's got a problem with that, and rightfully so
rightfully so, it's the weekend with Mychael Brown text the
word Michael Michael of three three one zero three follow
me on exit that Michael Brown, USA. We'll explain why next. Hey,
(10:13):
welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to
have you with me. Be sure to subscribe to the
podcast on your podcast app search for the Situation with
Michael Brown. The Situation with Michael Brown. Once you find that,
hit subscribe EVE a five star review, and then you
get all five days of the weekday program plus the
weekend program. Funny that you know, when you go all
(10:35):
the way back to twenty twenty and you think about
all the lawsuits that were pending at that time when
Trump lost the twenty twenty election, and then you know,
we get a four year interlude and then we come
back and then boom, they all start popping up again.
And this kind of what I kind of refer to
(10:55):
as this judicial revolution against Donald Trump actually start at
the top. I know that right now we're seeing at
the federal trial court level most the lowest court level
at all for the federal judiciary, the trial courts, but
it also exists at the top as of this moment.
(11:19):
In case you're listening later in the week and something
else happens, but as of this moment, Chief Justice John
Roberts Supreme Court is engaged in I think can only
be called a calculated collusive in action, and that inaction
is their failure or they're in action from forcing those
(11:42):
district court judges. They're issuing all of these injunctions nationally
back into their constitutional lane. You guys are stepping outside
the bounds of your jurisdiction. Get back in it. And
they're not doing anything about it. Now. Lawyers in the audience,
I know you can argue that, well, you know, we've
(12:03):
got to wait for the appellate Court. We gotta wait
for the Ninth Circuit here, we gotta wait for the
DC Appellate Court. You gotta wait for all of this.
You know what. Yes, However, Justice Roberts could be signaling
instead of you know, weighing in on you know, stop
talking about impeaching judges. He could be weighing in and
in a simple conference call say guys, ladies, listen, you
(12:27):
know you might be a little overstepping your bounds here,
but they're not going to do that. I think a
plausible speculation is that, besides the immediate benefits of delaying,
if not hobbling, the America First Agenda of Trump, the
goals of this particular revolution of this law fair include
setting up contempt of court traps because at some point
(12:51):
Trump's going to have to make a decision. Pam Bondy,
the attorney Jones, is going to have to make a decision.
Do we ignore the court, do we follow through with
the regular procedure, or for example, the plane's going to
El Salvador, do we turn the planes around or do
we say keep on flying? That sets up a potential
(13:14):
contempt of court trap, which would then establish what a
pretext for yet another impeachment of Donald Trump. Now doesn't
that sound absurd? It sounds absurd to me, But why
would you think it's absurd if you understand the history
of Donald Trump and the left and how the left
(13:35):
will do anything now to destroy Donald Trump, anything, And
if you put this law fare into context, it is
just a most recent tactic in a now over century
long revolution, a progressive revolution, executing at a progressive incremental
(13:55):
scheme designed to accomplish an eventual overthrow of this constitutional republic.
And they're doing it by making certain the left is
by nominating radically leftist judges. Now we've got control of
the Senate, albeit we don't have enough to stop debate
(14:18):
to invoke cloture, which requires sixty one votes. But we
I think by taking this battle public can stop it.
Let me give you an example. So Senator John Kennedy
for Louisiana has before him a nominee. She's a magistrate judge.
(14:40):
I'm not quite dismay the difference where she's from. She's
a magistrate judge. What's a magistrate judge? A federal magistrate
judge is almost like a an associate. You've got the
trial judges, and then you have these magistrate judges that
you know, take care of some routine ale matters, or
(15:01):
they might take care of some routine hearings on some
motions or something very limited jurisdiction. But oftentimes federal magistrate
judges get nominated to become federal trial judges. And why well,
they've already been through one confirmation process and they've they've
(15:21):
gotten appointed by you know, these judges all agree that
this person ought to be a magistrate. By the way,
they're not confirmed, they get through, the judges select them.
But now they've got a federal judicial position. So now
it's easy for the president to pluck somebody out and say, oh,
I'm going to put this person in as a new
trial judge, so they start working their way up the
(15:44):
latter so to speak. Well, Senator Kennedy just mopped the
floor with this WoT judge, total Trump style domination. In
my opinion, I think the woman is a disgrace to justice.
It was a real clown show. They got to lock
her up and throw her away. She should never be
(16:05):
anywhere near a judge ship whatsoever. Now she's not currently
up for nomination, I use her as an example of
Trump's need to drain the swamp as much as possible
of these leftist, lunatic judges that are being considered. Let's
(16:29):
start it because this is a fairly long sound bite,
so we'll carry it over to the listeners break. But
I want you to hear the insanity of what goes on.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
I was looking at your your resume.
Speaker 5 (16:45):
You went to Brown Universities, I did, and then you
want to launch school in California.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
That's correct.
Speaker 5 (16:51):
And you've worked for the Brennan Center I interned. I
was a law student in turn Okay. And you worked
for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
I was a los student intern there for eight weeks
during my one al.
Speaker 5 (17:08):
Summer, Okay, And you are a political activisiar.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
You I am not. I'm a sity in United States
magistrate judge.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
Okay, all right, do you remember an inmate named William McLain,
also known as July Justine Shelby.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
Yes, I know who you're referring to.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Okay, mister McLain raped a child? Didn't he?
Speaker 4 (17:36):
Thirty years ago? The petitioner in the habeas case before me,
did he rape the child? He pled guilty to that crime.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Yes, did he rape a child? The answer is yes.
They'll try to explain it away. The answer is yes,
he raped a child. Oh, it gets worse. Hangtight, We'll
be right back.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Tonight.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Talk show host Michael Brown.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
Brownie, No, Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job
The Weekend with Michael Brown. Hey, so begin with Michael Brown.
Glad to have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in.
I really, I mean, I really do I Maybe I
don't say it enough, maybe I say it too much,
but I do appreciate you listening, downloading the podcast, follow
me on X, sending me text messages, you know, doing
all the stuff you're supposed to do. You have a
(18:25):
responsibility too. You can't just you can't be a slacker
you have I can't do it all by myself. You've
got to listen, all right, So do your job as
a good goober and do whatever it is that goober's
are supposed to do. This this sound bite. Her name
is Sarah Netburn. Can I be I don't know whether
(18:47):
it's sexist or racist, or closed minded or what, but
she just looks like a lefty. She just looks like it.
So you know, judge me don't care. But I particularly
love this particular person because she just personifies I mean,
everybody thinks that once you put on that black robe
(19:09):
that you really do just set aside. And as a judge,
you should. You should set aside all of your personal beliefs.
You should apply the law to the facts of the case,
and then you should make a determination based on the
facts of the case is applied to the law, and
come up with an objective decision. It being a judge
(19:30):
takes a really special kind of personality. I don't think
this woman has a personality or the character to be
a judge, but yet here she is being considered to
become a trial judge. One of these that are that
are kind of leading this what I call a judicial
revolution against Donald Trump. And she's being grilled by Senator Kennedy.
(19:52):
Now we're only twenty seconds into the sound bite, but
I want you to listen to it closely. Well, I
want you to listen to all my soundbites closely, but
this in particular because I want you to listen just
how much of a dirt bag this particular defendant is
that she dealt with as a magistrate judge. Now we
already know these raped a child. That's really all you
(20:17):
need to know about him. Will we hear what else
he's done?
Speaker 2 (20:21):
And you worked for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
I was a lostudent intern there for eight weeks during
my one al summer.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
Okay, And you are a political actificial I am not.
Speaker 4 (20:33):
I'm a city in United States, Magistrate judge, all right.
Speaker 5 (20:38):
Do you remember an inmate named William McClain, also known
as July Justine Shelby.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
Yes, I know who you're referring to.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Okay, mister McLain, Uh rape a child? Did he?
Speaker 4 (20:56):
Thirty years ago? The petitioner in the habeas case before me,
did he rape for child? He pled guilty to that crime.
Speaker 5 (21:03):
Yes, it's a poor and then he raped a seventeen
He raped a little boy, right.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
I believe that's correct. I believe he pled guilty to
two hours of second violence.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
And then he raped a seventeen year old girl.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Right again. This case was handled by the state court
in India.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Why can't she just say yes? Why can't she just
say yes? Well, you'll find out why in a minute.
He raped a child, he's raped a boy, he's raped
a seventeen year old girl. This guy's's coming back, right.
Can we all agree this this guy's a dirt bag. Well,
I kind of think this magistrate judge is a dirt bag.
(21:43):
Just answer, you're a judge. Did this guy who was
in your courtroom did he rape a child? Yes? Because
he was found guilty, so yes, he raped a child.
Do you rape a little boy? Yes? Did you rape
a seventeen year old girl? Yes? Why do you have
to do everything else? You're not impressing everybody. In fact,
you are obfuscating and trying to make up an excuse
(22:06):
for him or what Now?
Speaker 2 (22:07):
But I haven't just shashed into the facts.
Speaker 4 (22:09):
I believe.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Don't stall on me.
Speaker 5 (22:11):
Now, did he rape a seventeen year old girl or
not after raping a nine year old boy.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
I believe that's what he pled guilty.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Too, Okay. And then he went to prison, didn't.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
He yes, the petition and then he came out and
he sent child porn basically adults raping little children to
another sex offender, and he was sent back to prison.
Speaker 4 (22:35):
Right the petitioner pled guilty.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
She can't just say yes, that's exactly yes, Senator Kennedy,
that's exactly what happened.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
To when he shent back to prison.
Speaker 4 (22:47):
Well, that case was in the federal system.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
So was it shn back to prison?
Speaker 4 (22:51):
Yes, this time to federal prison.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
He had asked three times. Was he sent back to prison?
Was he sent back? Yes? Just answer thee.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Can question, thank you.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
And then he decided to transition and he became a
female and started going by Jami Justine Shelby.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
Is that right?
Speaker 4 (23:13):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (23:14):
And miss Shelby said, I don't want to go to
a male prison.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
I want to go to a female prison.
Speaker 5 (23:23):
And the board of prison said, what planet did you
parachute in from. You're going to a male prison with
this kind of record, and you sent him to.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
A female prison. Didn't you?
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Pretty simple question. He transitions after raping three people dealing
in child porn of children being raped with other sex offenders,
and then he transitions and he wanted to go to
a female prison, and the Board of Prisons federal level
said no, no, you're going to a male prison. And uh,
(24:00):
but you sent him Senator to Kennedy as But you
sent him to a female prison. Isn't that right?
Speaker 2 (24:05):
And that the Board of Prisons was trying to violate.
Speaker 5 (24:12):
Mischell be former mister McCain's constitutional rights, didn't you.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
I issued a report and recommendation to the district judge
recommending that the district judge transfer the petitioner to a
women's facility.
Speaker 5 (24:26):
The district judge, you shot that reward DA was trying
to violate mischell bes mister McClain's constitutional rights, didn't you.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
So I based my decision on the facts that were
presented to me in the record.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
But it wasn't that you're ruling.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
I recommended finding that under a Stelle versus game.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
I won't you admit that was your ruling? Are you
ashamed of it? I'm not.
Speaker 4 (24:49):
I'm answering the question I applied to Stell versus you're ruling.
My recommendation was that the petitioner's serious medical needs were
being denied by keeping her naman's facility.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
On violation of the eighth of Men. Right, that's correct, okay?
And how big was miss Shelby, Mister McLain.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
I don't have a specific recollection. Your colleague just suggested
that she was more than six feet tall, and.
Speaker 5 (25:17):
You told the Board of Prisons, well, she'll be okay,
that the other women in the female prison will be okay,
because because it's only hypothetical that miss Shelby, mister McLain
would reoffend again after he's already raped a nine year
old boy and a seventeen year old girl and there's
(25:38):
been sending child porn through the mail, you said there's
no chance you'll reoffend again. Did you say.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
That, Senator Kay I based my decision on the record.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
But am I right? Did you conclude that?
Speaker 4 (25:51):
I don't have a specific recollection of that. I did
recommend that after finding a constitutional violation and.
Speaker 5 (25:58):
Thinking and saying there's no it's only hypothetical video that
she would re offend.
Speaker 4 (26:06):
The facts of the case, or that the petitioner had
last to engage in a contact offense thirty years ago.
The petitioner had not engaged in any contact offense. In addition,
the medical.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Act, well, he hadn't physically done it in thirty years.
But oh, let's discount or ignore the acquisition of and
the transmittle of those same acts just on photographs or videos.
(26:40):
I would say, in my worldview, that's the same as
committing the act, which is one reason why we outlawed
child pornography. Because you engaging in that, you are supporting
the very act that you're seeing on the video or
the photograph. You might as well have been the one
one either engaged in those horrific acts, or you might
(27:04):
as well have been the one behind the camera. This
woman should not be anywhere near a courtroom.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
Evidence made clear that for the last five years the
petitioner was sober and hormonally entirely a female, and there
was no evidence or to prove.
Speaker 5 (27:22):
She didn't agree with you. Let me, I'm going to
run out of time here. You're really a political actifficion launcher.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
I'm not, sir, but your record demonstrated to the watch
I disagree. I apply the law to the facts and
come to a fair decision, all of my decisions that
have been appealed, particularly this one that the district judge
adopted my report and recommendation in full and the government
did not move for a stay of the decision.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
Well, of course, under Democrat administration, they would never do that.
So she's basically saying because because the judge that I
submitted the recon to follow my recommendation, that I'm okay, Well,
I would say we got two problems. Now we've got you,
and we've got the judge that followed your recommendation, and
(28:10):
we have a problem with the Biden administration, who, under
Merrick Garland did not appeal that decision. These people are
I was gonna say pathetic, That's not good enough word.
These people are utterly destroying the fabric of this society.
(28:31):
And so we can talk about gang bangers out there,
and we can talk about illegal aliens, and we can
talk about the criminals, the people steal cars, that deal
in drugs, and we can talk about all of those people,
but let's stop and talk for a moment about those
people that wear the black robes. Because what I'm saying,
which may offend some of you, is that the people
(28:52):
in the black robes are as destructive to our society
as the people are committing these crimes. Is there bending
over backwards to accommodate the stupidity, the savagery of what
they've done. And this becomes the judiciary, This becomes the
(29:15):
judicial branch. And this is the revolution that we're facing
right now. It's just that Donald Trump, surprise, surprise, guess
what Democrats he won last November. And now what you're
doing is you're taking what's occurred all the way back.
I don't care. You can go back as far as Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Obama,
(29:37):
all of them appointing radical judges to the judiciary. And
now we're seeing the effect of it in all these
nationwide injunctions and all these attacks. Everything that the judiciary
is doing is a revolution trying to stop Donald Trump.
So The Weekend with Michael Brown takes the word Michael
(29:58):
Michael to three three one zero three. Be sure and
follow me on X at Michael Brown USSA. I'll be
right back. Hey, welcome back to the Weekend of Michael Brown.
Got to have you with me. The text lines open
as always. The number on your message app is three
three one zero three. Use keyword either Mike or Michael.
(30:19):
If you're not following me on x formerly Twitter, go
do that right now, don't put it off any longer.
At Michael Brown USA, At Michael Brown USA. So I
think there's this revolution going, a color revolution, if you will.
But revolutionary tactics don't necessarily repeat. They might rhyme. All
(30:41):
of this the counter revolution. It's hard for us to
see because of the cabal. If all you do is
watch the network news, read the major newspapers, then you
don't hear about the things. All you hear is Donald
(31:02):
Trump was stopped today by a federal an injunction issued
nationally is issued nationwide by Judge so and so in
the Federal District Cort of Wyoming, and you know Trump.
The allegation was that Trump violated the constitutional rights of
somebody by doing X Y Z, or violated the due
process rights, or exceeded his executive authority. And we in
(31:26):
the black robes have decided that that's the case. Well,
here's what you don't hear. Because you don't, people don't
tend to think of we the people, still having the
authority to actually affect the change. So again we have
to go back in history all of this started with
(31:49):
the founding fathers. They knew that we would develop factions,
that we would develop parties, which is why they established
a government that has a constant up to separation of powers,
and that there will be a natural tension between the legislative,
the executive, and the judicial branch, and within each of
(32:11):
those there are checks and balances among all of it. Progressives,
starting particularly with Woodrow Wilson and the elimination and the
adoption of the seventeenth Amendment and eliminating the direct election
and implementing the direct election of senators is one of
those little progressive steps that sounds good. Well, you know
it's one person, one vote, and you know, well, we
(32:33):
ought to be electing the senators instead of having state
instead of having state legislators vote for those people. And
in the media, the Kabal existed back in nearly nineteen hundreds.
I mean, the cabal has been around forever pushing the
collectivist agenda of the progressives, and the progressives have known
(32:54):
that they have which is why it's called progressivism. They
have to do things incrementally and in steps. This is
why when someone like Donald Trump comes along and says,
I'm gonna take a couple of giant steps here. I'm
not gonna do this little progressive, incremental inch by inch thing.
I'm just gonna whack some stuff off, or I'm just gonna,
(33:15):
you know, hit a grand slam and really start changing
things dramatically. The reason I think it's successful is you
don't hear enough in the polling numbers about the numbers
of people that support what he is doing. Whether it's immigration,
(33:39):
or whether it's even the tariffs or taxes, or lowering
the price of eggs, whatever it might be. There are
all of these things. There is so much going on
that it's easy. I mean it, really, I could do it.
There are certain things that Trump's doing that I could
(34:00):
sit here and nitpick for three hours about this issue
or that issue, or whatever it might be, and get
you all kind of discouraged that, Oh, there's all these
little things. Let's just say it's a thousand things that
Trump's doing right now, which is probably underestimating a thousand
(34:21):
things that he's trying to do. This is a man
who is in a hurry. This is a man and
an administration that are all in a hurry. They know
that yes, they've got four years, but they may only
have two years, so let's just wham bam, bam, bam bam,
get everything that we can do. And he has selected
some really good people. I don't always agree with everything
(34:43):
they're doing, but generally speaking, bite as much off as
you can because you're going to lose some battles. But
the American people right now are behind the majority. Do
we quibble about stuff, Yes, of course we quibble. We
wouldn't be human if we didn't quibble. We wouldn't be
(35:04):
human if we didn't look at some of the things
he's doing in question and go, really, you know, I'm
gonna talk about Greenland in the next hour. I don't
necessarily agree with the approach that jd Vance has been
taking or some of the things that he's been saying,
even though I think that some of the speeches he
gives he gives about Eurocentric stupidity is absolutely marvelous. But Greenland.
(35:32):
Most Americans here, Oh, we want to take over Greenland,
And many Americans think, well, that's kind of stupid idea
until you step back and realize we're not really wanting
to take it over. Oh we would. I mean I'd
be for it if we could. If Greenland wanted to
become a fifty first state, I'd be for that and
heartbeat for our national security reasons, for geopolitical reasons, for
(35:56):
just for the land mass and the resources. I'd be
for that the heartbeat. But the majority of the issues
that I would say are the bread and butter issues
for most Americans. Most Americans right now are generally speaking
in favor of it, but not if you listen to
the dominant media. The cabal wants you to be convinced
(36:17):
that Trump is overstepping his authority. And you know what,
in some cases he may actually be. But let's say
there's twenty things and in four of those he's overstepped
his authority. Well, don't ignore the other sixteen things he's done,
but don't sit and get focused on the four things
that maybe was a little overstepping of his boundaries. The
(36:42):
counter revolution is alive and well, and I think most
Americans are absolutely like, Wow, this is pretty good. Someone's
actually doing what they said they were going to do.
That in and of itself is an accomplishment. So he
came with Michael Brown, hang type, I'll be back in
a minute, waiting.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Ever, when wing home
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!