Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Dragon.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Welcome back, Brannie.
Speaker 3 (00:03):
I'm checking in from the beautiful red state of Texas.
Speaker 4 (00:06):
It is so refreshency in all these Trump flags flying.
Speaker 5 (00:14):
Texas. I hate Texas. It just makes us look even
worse than we really are. Drives me batty, like I
don't know, probably everything else associated with Harvard, the Harvard
Law Review has really been subvert, subvert kent, subverted by
(00:40):
a bunch of useful idiots, and it's really just subordinated
itself to Marxism. Harvard Law. Consequently, because of that, the
selection of articles for publication is largely determined by diversity, equity,
and inclusion. They right, the Review, the Harvard Law Review
(01:04):
does not consider race, ethnicity, gender, or any other protected
characteristic as a basis for recommending or selecting a piece
for publication. That's what they wrote in a fact sheet
that they provided on May twenty seven. But the Free
Beacon decided to go in and dig and see what
was really going on, and they found a whole bunch
(01:27):
of new cases and new documents where the Law Review
eliminates more than eighty five percent of submissions using a
rubric that asked about the author's diversity in at least
eighty seven of the cases identified by The Free Beacon,
including seventy five from the volume published last year alone,
(01:51):
the journal considered protected traits or encouraged its members to
do so. Now protected traits that secures you membership in
an identity group that enjoys the favor of the Marxists.
The editors complained that a piece had cited, quote, a
lot of old white men. I wonder who the old
(02:17):
white men were, because anytime I hear people bitching them
moaning about old white men, I usually think, oh, they're
talking about Washington and the founding fathers, a lot of
old white men. And the same piece that complained the
editors that complained about that attempted to guess whether a
(02:37):
scholar was Latina, and complained that an author was quote
not from an underrepresented background, but did praise an article
for citing predominantly black singers, rappers and members of Twitter.
Now I didn't going to read that article, but I thought,
(02:58):
what in the hell is the Harvard Law Review, or
for that matter, any law review praising because you cite
predominantly black singers, which you know, I always think to myself.
But I'm trying to figure out an answer to a
question of law, I usually go to black singers and
rappers or Twitter. Yeah, no, actually I do not. And
(03:23):
then another article was recommended in part because it cites
a Kendrick song in the conclusion, Wow.
Speaker 6 (03:34):
How far Harvard law has fallen.
Speaker 5 (03:39):
Now this is not some moronic, you know, pop music
publication that's targeting teenagers.
Speaker 6 (03:44):
It's the Harvard Law Review.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
There is nothing that Marxism will not reduce to farce
in the process of destroying it. Not only the authors,
but all the citations. So in a law review, you know,
you you're making your contention. You know you're you're arguing,
you know, for or against something, or maybe you're just
giving a treatise on something. Well, there's there are usually
(04:11):
citations to case law, other law review articles, you know,
dictionary terms, just any number of things to support your
contentions that you're making. In the body of the of
the article, Well, the citations, you know, the footnotes, you
(04:33):
may relate more to a footnote. The footnote must also
comply with dei quote. While some editors recommended pieces on
the grounds that the author was a minority, others paid
more attention to the article's footnotes, coming through the citations
to see how many sources were white, black, or transgender. Now,
(05:00):
I I thought to myself, you know, in writing a
brief for a trial, writing a brief, you know, an
ap pellet brief, whatever it might be, and I would
cite cases, or I would cite, you know, a law
review article I never thought of putting in there somehow
(05:21):
helping whoever the reader was.
Speaker 6 (05:23):
Let's say it.
Speaker 5 (05:23):
Look, let's say it's an appellate court judge, of somehow
helping an appellate court judge determined that the person I'm
citing is a white person or a black person, or
an Asian person, or a gay person, or a transgender person,
or a confused person, or a lay person or just
I don't know what. How would you do that without specifying? Oh,
(05:46):
by the way, the source just cited in footnote too,
footnote number two happens to be a black transgender man. Well, okay,
so what is the argument valid or valid? And then
the content itself, the content must conform and not even
(06:08):
the Marxists, or I guess Marxist enough for the Harvard
Law Review listen to this. An editor, Jennifer West complained
that a feminist analysis of anti trust law. Now, I'm
not much of any at all of an anti trust lawyer.
I know the general parameters anti trust law, but I
(06:31):
don't consider myself well versed at all anti trust law.
But I didn't know that there was a feminist side
to anti trust law. I didn't know that there was
like a male chauvinus aspect of anti trust law. I
thought anti trust law was okay, monopolies bad, let's break
companies up. No, The editor and editor of the Harvard
(06:55):
Law Review, they got lots of editors complain that a
feminist analysis of anti trust law had not addressed racial
disparities in economic power or discussed the experiences of transgender people,
adding that the DEI values advanced by the peace are limited. Now,
(07:16):
I know these are just lawyers, and I know, you
know insert lawyer joke here, and I know there's probably
too damn many lawyers, and I know kill all the lawyers.
But do you really want to be represented by a
lawyer who graduates from Harvard who writing an article about
anti trust.
Speaker 6 (07:36):
Just didn't add enough.
Speaker 5 (07:37):
In to discuss the experiences of transgender people? She write?
This editor wrote, despite now remember that the articles apparently
about and I trust law. The editor wrote in her
critique of the article. You know, the the editors sitting
(07:58):
around the you know, the critique pieces, and then they
get together they decide what's going to go into the
law review. Well, her critique said this quote despite occasional
references to the siss gendered and the heterosexual power brokers
and power structures that dominate in our contemporary era, all right,
(08:20):
just stop right there. So our contemporary era, the power
structures and the power brokers, there's too many, says gender
and heterosexual power brokers.
Speaker 6 (08:35):
Well, how many is too many?
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Is it?
Speaker 6 (08:38):
Is it supposed to be?
Speaker 5 (08:39):
Like you know, there's often stats like when it comes
to gun crimes. You know, certain percentage of murders are
committed by a certain percentage of blacks, and that percentage
is usually higher than the number of blacks as a
percentage percentage in the population as a whole. So are
(09:02):
we supposed to then base our critique or our understanding
of antitrust law on a.
Speaker 6 (09:10):
Number of.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Gay or transgendered whatever it might be, and that has
to reflect a certain percentage of the general population of
lawyers or the public at all.
Speaker 6 (09:24):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (09:27):
This woman is this Jennifer West. She's co chair of
the journal's Articles Committee, so she has the final say
on which pieces advanced past the first, second, and third
stages of the article selection process. Now, why should we
as taxpayers be forced to subsidize an institution as pernicious,
(09:49):
not to mention, well endowed insert sexual joke there too,
as ostensibly private Harvard? Yet we have been by the
billionsizing them. And what does that do? That creates a
I hope not all, but it creates a class of
(10:11):
lawyers that graduate from ostensibly the most prestigious law school
in the entire country.
Speaker 6 (10:19):
Who see the law only through the.
Speaker 5 (10:21):
Lens of someone's sexuality, or someone's gender or their transgenderism.
Is that?
Speaker 6 (10:30):
And of course you know what.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
They will do, because people always bitch about there's too
many lawyers in the legislature. Well, they will go on
to become leaders in the political world. They'll become state legislators,
they'll become governors, they'll become congressmen, they'll become senators, and
they'll take that ideology that they write about and that
(10:52):
they've been trained about and their brains have been absolutely
perverted by, and they will carry that over into their
legislative affairs. They'll carry that over into how they write laws,
how they write legislation until we fundamentally completely and by
fundamentally I mean blow up. You know what, We need
(11:15):
some bunker busters metaphorically speaking just sit down and calm down,
but we metaphorically need some bunker buster bombs on public
and higher education in this country, because as much as
we might be continuing to try to rein in the Marxism,
(11:35):
it's taking over the country. They're producing a bunch of
students that that's all they get indoctrinated by. And it's
not just at Harvard. You know what's at CU. It's
probably at CSU too. I know it's at CSU too.
And then it's in public education. And I know I've
got to thill this caveati and every single time where
I'll have teachers scream at, I mean, I know, you're
(11:56):
the best Civics teacher, and you're the most objective government
history teacher in the history of mankind. And I'm glad
you're there. Look around you, look at your cohorts. How
many of your cohorts think that you're the outlier? And
in fact, when it comes to just sheer numbers, you
probably are the outlier. So all those rug rats, with
(12:16):
all those you know, mush filled brains getting indoctrinated by
teachers go on to become I would hope, productive adults.
But the problem is they become productive adults that are
indoctrinated with Marxism, and we just move along and like, okay, well,
nothing going, nothing to see here.
Speaker 6 (12:34):
And speaking of.
Speaker 5 (12:34):
Marxism, Brandon Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, well, and in
a video he's holding a town hall or maybe it's
up one of the city council meetings. Some of the
blacks in Chicago, who have kept Democrats in power, have
(12:58):
figured out that chicago massive black vote does not empower blacks,
it empowers Democrats, and then the Democrats keep their thumb
on the black community. So Johnson, who has helped them
understand that by lavishly assisting all the illegal aliens that
come into his citizens into his city, have decided they've
(13:20):
had enough, so they have an organization called Chicago Flips Red.
Wouldn't that be amazing, Well, Johnson's gone to the community
and asked for a property tax increase. They won't have
anything to do with it. Dragon, I want to warn you.
(13:42):
I think there is a spot here where I'm convinced
it's not. But it sounds like she says a whole.
But I don't think that's what it is. But if
you believe it is, you can you can doubt it.
Speaker 7 (13:54):
When we get to that point, you all sat up
there and say it. I allow Trump to come in here.
Speaker 6 (14:02):
And get these illegals.
Speaker 7 (14:04):
Yeah, you can smell. We're in a billion dollar deficit
and you spent half of our moneys, half of that
only legals. You campaign, You campaign and bumble down that
you would not raise property taxes.
Speaker 6 (14:19):
I won't raise your property taxes.
Speaker 7 (14:21):
You wanted to raise our taxes three hundred million, They
shout it down. Now we're back here for one hundred
and fifty million. Okay, see this is what we're asking now.
Sis you want to crash out. Some of y'all said,
y'all wanting to go to jail for it.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
Trump, Tom Holman.
Speaker 7 (14:41):
Make a dumple our fifty right here first, Please come
here first, so spend our tax dollars to go like
a rod Ready. You said to take Trump to court
to protect these illegals. That's cool, because we about to
make all of y'all.
Speaker 6 (14:57):
All of this is famous.
Speaker 7 (14:58):
Y'all think thisis Han's gonna r I think not Chicago
with We're not playing.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
You got cash, Patail and Pam Bundy that you're gonna
have to deal with sooner than later.
Speaker 6 (15:13):
Then it's gonna be an autist.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Next it's gonna be an investing investigation. Then it's gonna
be an indictment deposition. That's what's gonna happen to you.
This is Brandon Johnson. I'm up here, I am speaking
right now.
Speaker 5 (15:32):
This this gentleman, black man, big dreads on his head,
has a make America Great Again like a fedora or
not a baseball cat, but a fedora. He's got a
nice black suit, red tie red Fedora hat that says
make America great again. And Johnson's not looking at him
(15:52):
and that takes him off.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
And Johnson, I'm up here, I am speaking right now,
so I will love your under attention.
Speaker 6 (16:01):
Please all wait, So this just.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
Proves to you the lack of leadership that you show
in this city.
Speaker 6 (16:12):
You can't even get me straight eye contact.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Now I'm gonna let you know now, the people Chicago,
We're done with you. It is insane how we have
been voting Democrat forward sixty plus years, and we've never
seen a change from people like you, Lori Lightfoot, Robbie Manuel.
It is insane. Chicago was thirty seven percent read in
twenty twenty, it was only fifteen percent. So we're waking up.
(16:37):
So you can pretend that this isn't happening. But I
know for a fact that you will not have that
seat the next election.
Speaker 7 (16:45):
You're so strong about protecting those amiens, but you won't
do nothing by the US citizens.
Speaker 6 (16:54):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (16:55):
Now if you were, you know, feeling a little despair,
like you know, you know Chicago is lost. Well, there's
a spark. It may be a tiny spark, but nonetheless
there is a spark. Those are black residents of Chicago
who want to turn Chicago red.
Speaker 6 (17:15):
You see it.
Speaker 5 (17:16):
I think it's proof that the current iteration of the
Democrat Party has gone so far left on Mark's illegal
immigration that the black community is waking up and they're saying,
you know what, we want nothing to do with you.
Speaker 6 (17:35):
You're out of here.
Speaker 8 (17:40):
Michael, Welcome back, dragon, Michael. I think Congress has completely
proved itself to be an unstable force. They can't hold
their emotions under control, they go and protests our own facilities.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
And with that and the requirements that the operations over
the weekend demanded secrecy and no leaking, Congress should not
be trusted and doesn't deserve a briefing A great day.
Speaker 5 (18:06):
I guess I totally agree. I mean, can you imagine,
and I'm throwing Republicans in this, going into one of
the skiffs, the secure compartment compartmentalized information facilities that are
located in the US capital by one time, along with
(18:31):
several others, brief the entire US Senate in a skiff
that's upstairs above the Senate chambers. All hundred senators were there.
Can you imagine, let's just say both House and Senate.
Let be very conservative, ten from each, so twenty members
of Congress, the chairman of the appropriate committees, and the
(18:56):
ranking member. So you would have if there were ten committees,
two each, the chairman and the ranking member. So ten
times too is twenty. So you've got twenty people, half Republicans,
half Democrats, and Trump, Hesath Rubio and the Chairman of
(19:17):
the Joint Chiefs General Kine and perhaps Sean Ratcliffe, CIA
Director because they would have intelligence questions go into that
skiff and you know, they flee their phones out, they
put them in the little lockers and then they brief
on all the details about what's going to take place
(19:38):
with Operation Midnight Hammer. You know, we're you know, the
President has not made the decision yet. This would be predecisional,
but he's going to say yes or no. And if
he says yes, here are the plans. And that was
like last Wednesday. How long do you think it would
(19:59):
take before and I don't even want to say the
first Democrat, but the first Republican or Democrat that would
run to you know, their favorite talking head. Some Republican
would run to Sean Hannity or run to you know,
somebody over on Fox News or Newsmax or somewhere and
(20:22):
over here. A Democrat would run over to somebody on CNN,
talk to Wolf Blitzer or talk to Jake Tapper. Then
they go over to MSNBC and and talk to somebody
over there and just say, I can't tell you what
was said, but you might start like get some get
some cameras to Missouri, to the to the Air Force base,
(20:46):
or watch for this or watch for that, and start
outlining what to watch for, which would give them the
roadmap about what's going to take place.
Speaker 6 (20:58):
Now, I don't think.
Speaker 5 (21:00):
That even well, basically some Wall Street journal reporting that
Hegsath didn't know, he knew that two weeks was a
head fake. That Trump could take a full two weeks.
He could have taken two hours. He took two days.
So I don't think that the Secretary of Defense knew
whether it was thumbs up or thumbs down on the operation.
(21:23):
And apparently Trump was on Marine one going from one
golf course or one facility to another facility when he
called Hegsath and said go so that I'm talking about
everything prior to that, it would have destroyed the operation.
(21:45):
All the speculation, everything would have destroyed the operation. Remember,
we had enough discussion about the the b ones and
the B twos, We had lots of discussion about the
refueling planes. We had all the discussion about the Chinese planes,
which turned to be a nothing burger. They may have
been taking some of they may have been doing some
(22:08):
repatriation of some of their citizens out of Iran or
neighboring countries.
Speaker 6 (22:14):
It would have never worked.
Speaker 5 (22:16):
And I think that shows that members of Congress don't
take their oaths seriously. And I'm sure that if any
of them are listening right now, I'm sure you know,
if Jason Crower to hear me say that, he go ballistic.
But I don't think they take their oaths seriously, and
I think that they are so infused with ideology that
(22:39):
regardless of me, I don't care if you're liberal, I
don't care if you're a conservative, make your points, make
your arguments. We'll have the policy discussions. But they've all
become ideologues, and they're like the congregates in the Church
of the climate activists. They believe what they believe, and
they're going to push that regardless of the facts, regardless
(22:59):
of the reasons, regardless of the logic, regardless of anything else.
They're going to push their ideology. And we would have
never ever been able to pull that off. And the
mere fact that Trump kept certain people like I don't
think Kelsea Gabbard was a part of the final decision making.
They're different reports, but my guess is she probably was not,
(23:23):
And in fact, it looks to me like it was
a very close knit circle, probably Southern Command, Central Command,
European Command. Obviously they mentioned the Space Force, Space Command
and then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and they
had already had these you know, they had plans like
(23:43):
this in place anyway, but they had tweaked the plans
for this particular operation. So the President, the Vice president
of the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, those generals,
and the White House Chief of Staff, and I think
that was it. I don't even know that Stephen Miller,
the deputy White House Chief of Staff, who really is
(24:06):
probably the driver of policy in the White House, I'm
not really sure he even knew about it. That's how
tight nipped, and that's how disciplined Trump was. The stories
that I've consumed over the weekend said that Trump had
hundreds and hundreds of questions and every answer led to Okay, well,
(24:30):
if that's your answer, then what if? So every answer
led to one or two more questions, and the tentacles
just kept growing. Well, for those that think when Trump's
doing his trolling in the media and saying the outrageous
things that he says, probably smart as a fox, absolutely
(24:54):
as sly as a fox. And something's happened since Trump one. Oh,
I think the assassination attempt. I think the knowing that
there is a limit. And I think also having seen
what Biden or whomever was running the White House for
(25:16):
four years, I think Trump knows he has a limited
amount of time and a lot to do, and he
loves the country enough and he's going to do everything
he possibly can to save the country. That's why he's
doing everything on immigration. I think that's way he made
the decision about the nuclear plants in in Iran. It's
(25:36):
just Trump two point zero is different than Trump one point. Oh, Dragon,
let's take a break.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Early, Michael mcat's really excited about the future of a
non nuclear Iran that I passed it along to you.
Speaker 6 (25:57):
It's the talk back cat.
Speaker 5 (26:01):
That's just hungry. The cat doesn't care about Iran. It
just wants food, poor starving cat. So back on June seven,
Trump nationalized about four thousand California National Guard troops deployed
them to Los Angeles, and the reason was he was
(26:23):
citing the mostly peaceful protests against immigrations and customs enforcement raids.
He declared it to be a rebellion or a danger
of a rebellion. Under Title ten of the US Code,
That particular statute permits the president to federalize state, national
Guard units in case of invasion, rebellion, or when federal
(26:44):
laws cannot be executed cannot be enforced. In addition to that,
he ordered seven hundred US Marines to la Gavin Newsom,
of course, opposed the deployment. He argued that it was unnecessary,
violated state sovereign and risk escalating tensions. Everybody's suddenly all
(27:04):
used world. Everybody's worried about escalating tensions. So California, supported
by you know, people like the Mayor of Los Angeles,
Karen Bess, they filed a lawsuit to challenge the legality
of Trump's action, and the US District Court on June
twelve issued a temporary restraining order that directed Trump to
(27:25):
return control of the California National Guard to Newsom by
June thirteen. I think that was completely wrong. Then the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay against
the lower court. It was a three judge panel. I'm
(27:46):
trying to remember. I think there were I think there
were two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee. So what
they did was they paused the temporary restraining order, allowing
the court to go ahead and proceed with the cases
at the trial the case at the trial level, but
lifting the temporary restraining order allowing Trump to go ahead
(28:09):
and deploy the National Guard in the interim. Then there's
some maneuvering going on with the scheduling and everything else.
Speaker 6 (28:18):
But eventually.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
The Ninth Circuit last week in June nineteenth allowed the
President to retain control of the California National Guard while
the lawsuit proceeds. Now, I just want to emphasize that,
because procedurally what's happened is the lower court tried to
restrain Trump from deploying the National Guard, issued a temporary
(28:45):
restraining order in advance of having an injunction hearing. The
Ninth Circuit took the federal government's case on appeal and
overruled the lower court and said, no, this is not
worthy of a restraining order, a temporary restraining order, or
an injunction. You can proceed on the merits of the case,
but you can't stop Trump from doing that. So the
(29:09):
four thousand National Guard troops remain under federal command, deployed
in lah Or protect federal buildings and to protect the
ICE agents, you know, amid these stupid protest going on.
I just want to emphasize that the Ninth Circuit, in
that unanimous decision, gave at least some indication that they
(29:30):
might uphold it, which I believe they should. Now, the
Ninth Circuit's decision is not a final ruling on the
merits of California's lawsuit. It's just an extension of the
stay on Briar's temporary restraining order, which is a way
of saying, you can't do that. Now. You can have
a trial, but you can't stop Trump from doing it
(29:51):
while the trial is pending. So that means the legality
of Trump's federalization and the Guard's activity could still be
challenged in ongoing litigation, and I'm sure California.
Speaker 6 (30:02):
Will do that.
Speaker 5 (30:03):
But the court did not rule on the Marines deployment
or whether the Guard's actions, like you know, going along
with the Ice agents that somehow that violates the Posse
Commatatis Act, which prevents the use of federal troops on
federal soil to enforce laws. Now, those issues could be
addressed in future hearings and even potentially in front of
(30:28):
the same judge, Judge Brier, or eventually make its way
to the Ninth Circuit. But I just want you to
think about California's position because Governor Newsoen and the Attorney
General Rob Bonton of California, they just keep pursuing the
lawsuit arguing that Trump's actions are unlawful and authoritarian. Well,
(30:51):
first of all, that and that's the language they use
in their in their lawsuit. Now, to claim that something's
unlawful in a law suit is fine by me, because, okay,
we'll show us where the statute is, show us where
the case law is, and show us where he's against.
He's going against the statute or the case law. But
to argue that it's authoritarian, that's a political issue. The
(31:15):
court should throw that argument out on its face.
Speaker 6 (31:20):
Now.
Speaker 5 (31:20):
Unfortunately, eighteen other states, including the dumbass attorney general in
Colorado and a bunch of other local officials have joined
in that lawsuit, you know, filing their amekus briefs because
they all view the deployment as an overreach. We know
(31:41):
the first now, Johnson, I think may have been the
nineteen sixty five Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard.
He was trying to protect the civil rights demonstrators because
what's his name, George Wallace was you know, clamping down
(32:01):
on them forty eight percent of Americans. According to a
Reuter's ipsos poe, forty eight percent of Americans support the
use of the military forty one percent of post it.
But regardless of the poll numbers, this is just a
plain reading of Title ten. Let's the president make the
(32:25):
decision whether there's an emergency, and he can federalize it
on his own volition.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
It's up to him. I'm sick of the court's interfering
in there.
Dragon.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Welcome back, Brannie.
Speaker 3 (00:03):
I'm checking in from the beautiful red state of Texas.
Speaker 4 (00:06):
It is so refreshency in all these Trump flags flying.
Speaker 5 (00:14):
Texas. I hate Texas. It just makes us look even
worse than we really are. Drives me batty, like I
don't know, probably everything else associated with Harvard, the Harvard
Law Review has really been subvert, subvert kent, subverted by
(00:40):
a bunch of useful idiots, and it's really just subordinated
itself to Marxism. Harvard Law. Consequently, because of that, the
selection of articles for publication is largely determined by diversity, equity,
and inclusion. They right, the Review, the Harvard Law Review
(01:04):
does not consider race, ethnicity, gender, or any other protected
characteristic as a basis for recommending or selecting a piece
for publication. That's what they wrote in a fact sheet
that they provided on May twenty seven. But the Free
Beacon decided to go in and dig and see what
was really going on, and they found a whole bunch
(01:27):
of new cases and new documents where the Law Review
eliminates more than eighty five percent of submissions using a
rubric that asked about the author's diversity in at least
eighty seven of the cases identified by The Free Beacon,
including seventy five from the volume published last year alone,
(01:51):
the journal considered protected traits or encouraged its members to
do so. Now protected traits that secures you membership in
an identity group that enjoys the favor of the Marxists.
The editors complained that a piece had cited, quote, a
lot of old white men. I wonder who the old
(02:17):
white men were, because anytime I hear people bitching them
moaning about old white men, I usually think, oh, they're
talking about Washington and the founding fathers, a lot of
old white men. And the same piece that complained the
editors that complained about that attempted to guess whether a
(02:37):
scholar was Latina, and complained that an author was quote
not from an underrepresented background, but did praise an article
for citing predominantly black singers, rappers and members of Twitter.
Now I didn't going to read that article, but I thought,
(02:58):
what in the hell is the Harvard Law Review, or
for that matter, any law review praising because you cite
predominantly black singers, which you know, I always think to myself.
But I'm trying to figure out an answer to a
question of law, I usually go to black singers and
rappers or Twitter. Yeah, no, actually I do not. And
(03:23):
then another article was recommended in part because it cites
a Kendrick song in the conclusion, Wow.
Speaker 6 (03:34):
How far Harvard law has fallen.
Speaker 5 (03:39):
Now this is not some moronic, you know, pop music
publication that's targeting teenagers.
Speaker 6 (03:44):
It's the Harvard Law Review.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
There is nothing that Marxism will not reduce to farce
in the process of destroying it. Not only the authors,
but all the citations. So in a law review, you know,
you you're making your contention. You know you're you're arguing,
you know, for or against something, or maybe you're just
giving a treatise on something. Well, there's there are usually
(04:11):
citations to case law, other law review articles, you know,
dictionary terms, just any number of things to support your
contentions that you're making. In the body of the of
the article, Well, the citations, you know, the footnotes, you
(04:33):
may relate more to a footnote. The footnote must also
comply with dei quote. While some editors recommended pieces on
the grounds that the author was a minority, others paid
more attention to the article's footnotes, coming through the citations
to see how many sources were white, black, or transgender. Now,
(05:00):
I I thought to myself, you know, in writing a
brief for a trial, writing a brief, you know, an
ap pellet brief, whatever it might be, and I would
cite cases, or I would cite, you know, a law
review article I never thought of putting in there somehow
(05:21):
helping whoever the reader was.
Speaker 6 (05:23):
Let's say it.
Speaker 5 (05:23):
Look, let's say it's an appellate court judge, of somehow
helping an appellate court judge determined that the person I'm
citing is a white person or a black person, or
an Asian person, or a gay person, or a transgender person,
or a confused person, or a lay person or just
I don't know what. How would you do that without specifying? Oh,
(05:46):
by the way, the source just cited in footnote too,
footnote number two happens to be a black transgender man. Well, okay,
so what is the argument valid or valid? And then
the content itself, the content must conform and not even
(06:08):
the Marxists, or I guess Marxist enough for the Harvard
Law Review listen to this. An editor, Jennifer West complained
that a feminist analysis of anti trust law. Now, I'm
not much of any at all of an anti trust lawyer.
I know the general parameters anti trust law, but I
(06:31):
don't consider myself well versed at all anti trust law.
But I didn't know that there was a feminist side
to anti trust law. I didn't know that there was
like a male chauvinus aspect of anti trust law. I
thought anti trust law was okay, monopolies bad, let's break
companies up. No, The editor and editor of the Harvard
(06:55):
Law Review, they got lots of editors complain that a
feminist analysis of anti trust law had not addressed racial
disparities in economic power or discussed the experiences of transgender people,
adding that the DEI values advanced by the peace are limited. Now,
(07:16):
I know these are just lawyers, and I know, you
know insert lawyer joke here, and I know there's probably
too damn many lawyers, and I know kill all the lawyers.
But do you really want to be represented by a
lawyer who graduates from Harvard who writing an article about
anti trust.
Speaker 6 (07:36):
Just didn't add enough.
Speaker 5 (07:37):
In to discuss the experiences of transgender people? She write?
This editor wrote, despite now remember that the articles apparently
about and I trust law. The editor wrote in her
critique of the article. You know, the the editors sitting
(07:58):
around the you know, the critique pieces, and then they
get together they decide what's going to go into the
law review. Well, her critique said this quote despite occasional
references to the siss gendered and the heterosexual power brokers
and power structures that dominate in our contemporary era, all right,
(08:20):
just stop right there. So our contemporary era, the power
structures and the power brokers, there's too many, says gender
and heterosexual power brokers.
Speaker 6 (08:35):
Well, how many is too many?
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Is it?
Speaker 6 (08:38):
Is it supposed to be?
Speaker 5 (08:39):
Like you know, there's often stats like when it comes
to gun crimes. You know, certain percentage of murders are
committed by a certain percentage of blacks, and that percentage
is usually higher than the number of blacks as a
percentage percentage in the population as a whole. So are
(09:02):
we supposed to then base our critique or our understanding
of antitrust law on a.
Speaker 6 (09:10):
Number of.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Gay or transgendered whatever it might be, and that has
to reflect a certain percentage of the general population of
lawyers or the public at all.
Speaker 6 (09:24):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (09:27):
This woman is this Jennifer West. She's co chair of
the journal's Articles Committee, so she has the final say
on which pieces advanced past the first, second, and third
stages of the article selection process. Now, why should we
as taxpayers be forced to subsidize an institution as pernicious,
(09:49):
not to mention, well endowed insert sexual joke there too,
as ostensibly private Harvard? Yet we have been by the
billionsizing them. And what does that do? That creates a
I hope not all, but it creates a class of
(10:11):
lawyers that graduate from ostensibly the most prestigious law school
in the entire country.
Speaker 6 (10:19):
Who see the law only through the.
Speaker 5 (10:21):
Lens of someone's sexuality, or someone's gender or their transgenderism.
Is that?
Speaker 6 (10:30):
And of course you know what.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
They will do, because people always bitch about there's too
many lawyers in the legislature. Well, they will go on
to become leaders in the political world. They'll become state legislators,
they'll become governors, they'll become congressmen, they'll become senators, and
they'll take that ideology that they write about and that
(10:52):
they've been trained about and their brains have been absolutely
perverted by, and they will carry that over into their
legislative affairs. They'll carry that over into how they write laws,
how they write legislation until we fundamentally completely and by
fundamentally I mean blow up. You know what, We need
(11:15):
some bunker busters metaphorically speaking just sit down and calm down,
but we metaphorically need some bunker buster bombs on public
and higher education in this country, because as much as
we might be continuing to try to rein in the Marxism,
(11:35):
it's taking over the country. They're producing a bunch of
students that that's all they get indoctrinated by. And it's
not just at Harvard. You know what's at CU. It's
probably at CSU too. I know it's at CSU too.
And then it's in public education. And I know I've
got to thill this caveati and every single time where
I'll have teachers scream at, I mean, I know, you're
(11:56):
the best Civics teacher, and you're the most objective government
history teacher in the history of mankind. And I'm glad
you're there. Look around you, look at your cohorts. How
many of your cohorts think that you're the outlier? And
in fact, when it comes to just sheer numbers, you
probably are the outlier. So all those rug rats, with
(12:16):
all those you know, mush filled brains getting indoctrinated by
teachers go on to become I would hope, productive adults.
But the problem is they become productive adults that are
indoctrinated with Marxism, and we just move along and like, okay, well,
nothing going, nothing to see here.
Speaker 6 (12:34):
And speaking of.
Speaker 5 (12:34):
Marxism, Brandon Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, well, and in
a video he's holding a town hall or maybe it's
up one of the city council meetings. Some of the
blacks in Chicago, who have kept Democrats in power, have
(12:58):
figured out that chicago massive black vote does not empower blacks,
it empowers Democrats, and then the Democrats keep their thumb
on the black community. So Johnson, who has helped them
understand that by lavishly assisting all the illegal aliens that
come into his citizens into his city, have decided they've
(13:20):
had enough, so they have an organization called Chicago Flips Red.
Wouldn't that be amazing, Well, Johnson's gone to the community
and asked for a property tax increase. They won't have
anything to do with it. Dragon, I want to warn you.
(13:42):
I think there is a spot here where I'm convinced
it's not. But it sounds like she says a whole.
But I don't think that's what it is. But if
you believe it is, you can you can doubt it.
Speaker 7 (13:54):
When we get to that point, you all sat up
there and say it. I allow Trump to come in here.
Speaker 6 (14:02):
And get these illegals.
Speaker 7 (14:04):
Yeah, you can smell. We're in a billion dollar deficit
and you spent half of our moneys, half of that
only legals. You campaign, You campaign and bumble down that
you would not raise property taxes.
Speaker 6 (14:19):
I won't raise your property taxes.
Speaker 7 (14:21):
You wanted to raise our taxes three hundred million, They
shout it down. Now we're back here for one hundred
and fifty million. Okay, see this is what we're asking now.
Sis you want to crash out. Some of y'all said,
y'all wanting to go to jail for it.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
Trump, Tom Holman.
Speaker 7 (14:41):
Make a dumple our fifty right here first, Please come
here first, so spend our tax dollars to go like
a rod Ready. You said to take Trump to court
to protect these illegals. That's cool, because we about to
make all of y'all.
Speaker 6 (14:57):
All of this is famous.
Speaker 7 (14:58):
Y'all think thisis Han's gonna r I think not Chicago
with We're not playing.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
You got cash, Patail and Pam Bundy that you're gonna
have to deal with sooner than later.
Speaker 6 (15:13):
Then it's gonna be an autist.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Next it's gonna be an investing investigation. Then it's gonna
be an indictment deposition. That's what's gonna happen to you.
This is Brandon Johnson. I'm up here, I am speaking
right now.
Speaker 5 (15:32):
This this gentleman, black man, big dreads on his head,
has a make America Great Again like a fedora or
not a baseball cat, but a fedora. He's got a
nice black suit, red tie red Fedora hat that says
make America great again. And Johnson's not looking at him
(15:52):
and that takes him off.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
And Johnson, I'm up here, I am speaking right now,
so I will love your under attention.
Speaker 6 (16:01):
Please all wait, So this just.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
Proves to you the lack of leadership that you show
in this city.
Speaker 6 (16:12):
You can't even get me straight eye contact.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Now I'm gonna let you know now, the people Chicago,
We're done with you. It is insane how we have
been voting Democrat forward sixty plus years, and we've never
seen a change from people like you, Lori Lightfoot, Robbie Manuel.
It is insane. Chicago was thirty seven percent read in
twenty twenty, it was only fifteen percent. So we're waking up.
(16:37):
So you can pretend that this isn't happening. But I
know for a fact that you will not have that
seat the next election.
Speaker 7 (16:45):
You're so strong about protecting those amiens, but you won't
do nothing by the US citizens.
Speaker 6 (16:54):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (16:55):
Now if you were, you know, feeling a little despair,
like you know, you know Chicago is lost. Well, there's
a spark. It may be a tiny spark, but nonetheless
there is a spark. Those are black residents of Chicago
who want to turn Chicago red.
Speaker 6 (17:15):
You see it.
Speaker 5 (17:16):
I think it's proof that the current iteration of the
Democrat Party has gone so far left on Mark's illegal
immigration that the black community is waking up and they're saying,
you know what, we want nothing to do with you.
Speaker 6 (17:35):
You're out of here.
Speaker 8 (17:40):
Michael, Welcome back, dragon, Michael. I think Congress has completely
proved itself to be an unstable force. They can't hold
their emotions under control, they go and protests our own facilities.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
And with that and the requirements that the operations over
the weekend demanded secrecy and no leaking, Congress should not
be trusted and doesn't deserve a briefing A great day.
Speaker 5 (18:06):
I guess I totally agree. I mean, can you imagine,
and I'm throwing Republicans in this, going into one of
the skiffs, the secure compartment compartmentalized information facilities that are
located in the US capital by one time, along with
(18:31):
several others, brief the entire US Senate in a skiff
that's upstairs above the Senate chambers. All hundred senators were there.
Can you imagine, let's just say both House and Senate.
Let be very conservative, ten from each, so twenty members
of Congress, the chairman of the appropriate committees, and the
(18:56):
ranking member. So you would have if there were ten committees,
two each, the chairman and the ranking member. So ten
times too is twenty. So you've got twenty people, half Republicans,
half Democrats, and Trump, Hesath Rubio and the Chairman of
(19:17):
the Joint Chiefs General Kine and perhaps Sean Ratcliffe, CIA
Director because they would have intelligence questions go into that
skiff and you know, they flee their phones out, they
put them in the little lockers and then they brief
on all the details about what's going to take place
(19:38):
with Operation Midnight Hammer. You know, we're you know, the
President has not made the decision yet. This would be predecisional,
but he's going to say yes or no. And if
he says yes, here are the plans. And that was
like last Wednesday. How long do you think it would
(19:59):
take before and I don't even want to say the
first Democrat, but the first Republican or Democrat that would
run to you know, their favorite talking head. Some Republican
would run to Sean Hannity or run to you know,
somebody over on Fox News or Newsmax or somewhere and
(20:22):
over here. A Democrat would run over to somebody on CNN,
talk to Wolf Blitzer or talk to Jake Tapper. Then
they go over to MSNBC and and talk to somebody
over there and just say, I can't tell you what
was said, but you might start like get some get
some cameras to Missouri, to the to the Air Force base,
(20:46):
or watch for this or watch for that, and start
outlining what to watch for, which would give them the
roadmap about what's going to take place.
Speaker 6 (20:58):
Now, I don't think.
Speaker 5 (21:00):
That even well, basically some Wall Street journal reporting that
Hegsath didn't know, he knew that two weeks was a
head fake. That Trump could take a full two weeks.
He could have taken two hours. He took two days.
So I don't think that the Secretary of Defense knew
whether it was thumbs up or thumbs down on the operation.
(21:23):
And apparently Trump was on Marine one going from one
golf course or one facility to another facility when he
called Hegsath and said go so that I'm talking about
everything prior to that, it would have destroyed the operation.
(21:45):
All the speculation, everything would have destroyed the operation. Remember,
we had enough discussion about the the b ones and
the B twos, We had lots of discussion about the
refueling planes. We had all the discussion about the Chinese planes,
which turned to be a nothing burger. They may have
been taking some of they may have been doing some
(22:08):
repatriation of some of their citizens out of Iran or
neighboring countries.
Speaker 6 (22:14):
It would have never worked.
Speaker 5 (22:16):
And I think that shows that members of Congress don't
take their oaths seriously. And I'm sure that if any
of them are listening right now, I'm sure you know,
if Jason Crower to hear me say that, he go ballistic.
But I don't think they take their oaths seriously, and
I think that they are so infused with ideology that
(22:39):
regardless of me, I don't care if you're liberal, I
don't care if you're a conservative, make your points, make
your arguments. We'll have the policy discussions. But they've all
become ideologues, and they're like the congregates in the Church
of the climate activists. They believe what they believe, and
they're going to push that regardless of the facts, regardless
(22:59):
of the reasons, regardless of the logic, regardless of anything else.
They're going to push their ideology. And we would have
never ever been able to pull that off. And the
mere fact that Trump kept certain people like I don't
think Kelsea Gabbard was a part of the final decision making.
They're different reports, but my guess is she probably was not,
(23:23):
And in fact, it looks to me like it was
a very close knit circle, probably Southern Command, Central Command,
European Command. Obviously they mentioned the Space Force, Space Command
and then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and they
had already had these you know, they had plans like
(23:43):
this in place anyway, but they had tweaked the plans
for this particular operation. So the President, the Vice president
of the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, those generals,
and the White House Chief of Staff, and I think
that was it. I don't even know that Stephen Miller,
the deputy White House Chief of Staff, who really is
(24:06):
probably the driver of policy in the White House, I'm
not really sure he even knew about it. That's how
tight nipped, and that's how disciplined Trump was. The stories
that I've consumed over the weekend said that Trump had
hundreds and hundreds of questions and every answer led to Okay, well,
(24:30):
if that's your answer, then what if? So every answer
led to one or two more questions, and the tentacles
just kept growing. Well, for those that think when Trump's
doing his trolling in the media and saying the outrageous
things that he says, probably smart as a fox, absolutely
(24:54):
as sly as a fox. And something's happened since Trump one. Oh,
I think the assassination attempt. I think the knowing that
there is a limit. And I think also having seen
what Biden or whomever was running the White House for
(25:16):
four years, I think Trump knows he has a limited
amount of time and a lot to do, and he
loves the country enough and he's going to do everything
he possibly can to save the country. That's why he's
doing everything on immigration. I think that's way he made
the decision about the nuclear plants in in Iran. It's
(25:36):
just Trump two point zero is different than Trump one point. Oh, Dragon,
let's take a break.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Early, Michael mcat's really excited about the future of a
non nuclear Iran that I passed it along to you.
Speaker 6 (25:57):
It's the talk back cat.
Speaker 5 (26:01):
That's just hungry. The cat doesn't care about Iran. It
just wants food, poor starving cat. So back on June seven,
Trump nationalized about four thousand California National Guard troops deployed
them to Los Angeles, and the reason was he was
(26:23):
citing the mostly peaceful protests against immigrations and customs enforcement raids.
He declared it to be a rebellion or a danger
of a rebellion. Under Title ten of the US Code,
That particular statute permits the president to federalize state, national
Guard units in case of invasion, rebellion, or when federal
(26:44):
laws cannot be executed cannot be enforced. In addition to that,
he ordered seven hundred US Marines to la Gavin Newsom,
of course, opposed the deployment. He argued that it was unnecessary,
violated state sovereign and risk escalating tensions. Everybody's suddenly all
(27:04):
used world. Everybody's worried about escalating tensions. So California, supported
by you know, people like the Mayor of Los Angeles,
Karen Bess, they filed a lawsuit to challenge the legality
of Trump's action, and the US District Court on June
twelve issued a temporary restraining order that directed Trump to
(27:25):
return control of the California National Guard to Newsom by
June thirteen. I think that was completely wrong. Then the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay against
the lower court. It was a three judge panel. I'm
(27:46):
trying to remember. I think there were I think there
were two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee. So what
they did was they paused the temporary restraining order, allowing
the court to go ahead and proceed with the cases
at the trial the case at the trial level, but
lifting the temporary restraining order allowing Trump to go ahead
(28:09):
and deploy the National Guard in the interim. Then there's
some maneuvering going on with the scheduling and everything else.
Speaker 6 (28:18):
But eventually.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
The Ninth Circuit last week in June nineteenth allowed the
President to retain control of the California National Guard while
the lawsuit proceeds. Now, I just want to emphasize that,
because procedurally what's happened is the lower court tried to
restrain Trump from deploying the National Guard, issued a temporary
(28:45):
restraining order in advance of having an injunction hearing. The
Ninth Circuit took the federal government's case on appeal and
overruled the lower court and said, no, this is not
worthy of a restraining order, a temporary restraining order, or
an injunction. You can proceed on the merits of the case,
but you can't stop Trump from doing that. So the
(29:09):
four thousand National Guard troops remain under federal command, deployed
in lah Or protect federal buildings and to protect the
ICE agents, you know, amid these stupid protest going on.
I just want to emphasize that the Ninth Circuit, in
that unanimous decision, gave at least some indication that they
(29:30):
might uphold it, which I believe they should. Now, the
Ninth Circuit's decision is not a final ruling on the
merits of California's lawsuit. It's just an extension of the
stay on Briar's temporary restraining order, which is a way
of saying, you can't do that. Now. You can have
a trial, but you can't stop Trump from doing it
(29:51):
while the trial is pending. So that means the legality
of Trump's federalization and the Guard's activity could still be
challenged in ongoing litigation, and I'm sure California.
Speaker 6 (30:02):
Will do that.
Speaker 5 (30:03):
But the court did not rule on the Marines deployment
or whether the Guard's actions, like you know, going along
with the Ice agents that somehow that violates the Posse
Commatatis Act, which prevents the use of federal troops on
federal soil to enforce laws. Now, those issues could be
addressed in future hearings and even potentially in front of
(30:28):
the same judge, Judge Brier, or eventually make its way
to the Ninth Circuit. But I just want you to
think about California's position because Governor Newsoen and the Attorney
General Rob Bonton of California, they just keep pursuing the
lawsuit arguing that Trump's actions are unlawful and authoritarian. Well,
(30:51):
first of all, that and that's the language they use
in their in their lawsuit. Now, to claim that something's
unlawful in a law suit is fine by me, because, okay,
we'll show us where the statute is, show us where
the case law is, and show us where he's against.
He's going against the statute or the case law. But
to argue that it's authoritarian, that's a political issue. The
(31:15):
court should throw that argument out on its face.
Speaker 6 (31:20):
Now.
Speaker 5 (31:20):
Unfortunately, eighteen other states, including the dumbass attorney general in
Colorado and a bunch of other local officials have joined
in that lawsuit, you know, filing their amekus briefs because
they all view the deployment as an overreach. We know
(31:41):
the first now, Johnson, I think may have been the
nineteen sixty five Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard.
He was trying to protect the civil rights demonstrators because
what's his name, George Wallace was you know, clamping down
(32:01):
on them forty eight percent of Americans. According to a
Reuter's ipsos poe, forty eight percent of Americans support the
use of the military forty one percent of post it.
But regardless of the poll numbers, this is just a
plain reading of Title ten. Let's the president make the
(32:25):
decision whether there's an emergency, and he can federalize it
on his own volition.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
It's up to him. I'm sick of the court's interfering
in there.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides.  Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer  Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
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
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.