8-11-25 - 7am - Propper Representation on Congress

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Roddy, I'd like to leave a talk back to you
once or twice a.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Week, and you'll always seem to make fun of me.

Speaker 3 (00:06):
When I do it, But I understand why because of
the Jews.

Speaker 4 (00:13):
Again makes perfect sense.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
Oh, that was classic. That was that. You know, I'm
not even gonna make fun of that, not even going
to make fun of that. Do you ever do this? Dragon?
You ever do this? Do you ever go to the
grocery store like you're I don't.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Mean, like you know missus Redbeard has said, look, go
pick up a can of pork and beans. But you're
grocery shopping. You know, you've you've got your list, and
you've got all the things you're getting, and so there's
you know, you're looking for an item and you get
to that section of the grocery store and you stand
there and there's just a thousand different choices, And do
you ever just stand there like.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
Which one? All the time? Do you really?

Speaker 4 (00:58):
Quite quite often all the time? Yeah, looking for the
I need the right kind of soup that's low sodium
but extra salt, no sodium but extra salt. I'm glad
you caught that thing. Yeah, okay, that's as bet as
funny as I'm gonna get today, all.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
Right, Yeah, well that's not bad for you because normally
you'll never find me at all.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
But that was okay. Do you ever go to Trader Joe's. Unfortunately,
we have never been to Trader Joe's.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
Okay, Well, I've been to Trader Joe's a few times,
and I've come to like Trader Joe's because it's it's
the kind of place like Tamra does this kind of
odd grocery shopping, except that it makes perfect sense to me.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
Now, she goes to Queen.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
Supers, except well, we don't live up there, so she
goes to the King Supers down there. You know, there's
a Queen Supers up in Capitol Hill. You knew that, right,
is okay, yeah, apparently that's for all the gays go shop. Sure,
when it's known as Queen Supers. Okay, it's so we're
up in Capitol Hill. But she goes to the King Supers.

(02:04):
So Mike, Queen goes to the King Supers, right, But
then occasionally she'll go across the street to Whole Foods
because she likes some of their frustulation things better. And
then now then she started going to Trader Joe's because
our daughter goes to Trader Joe's a lot, because they
have some things that are like frozen things and other
things that are easy to like if you want a

(02:25):
quick dinner and you don't have to do a lot
of preparation. Okay, they got things like that. Then I
read a story that and don't hold me to these numbers.
But your typical say grocery store like King Supers may
have something like, you know, one hundred thousand items. Trader
Joe's has like ten thousand items. Okay, but they have

(02:46):
and the reason they have fear is pork and beans.
They'll just be one brand or just one thing of
pork and bear and that's it. Well, I started going
to Trader jose a couple of times because she asked
me to go pick up some things, and then I
started wandering around the store looking at it, trying to understand,
you know, what their whole system was. And I kind

(03:06):
of like it because if I'm going in, for example,
I have maybe maybe this is TMI, but I like
water crackers because there's no sugar in them whatsoever, low
and carbs, and it makes a great like if you
want peanut butter and jelly crackers, you know for a snack,
perfect snack. Well, so I'll go in there because they're cheaper,

(03:28):
and you just you know where they are. You don't
have to look through that five thousand brands or crackers.
Oh there's the water crackers. Grab one gum.

Speaker 1 (03:36):
But what I did not know is you can also
do other things that Trader Joe's, uh huh.

Speaker 2 (03:42):
Like A thirty three year old man was arrested after
allegedly making threats with a knife and getting up close
and personal with a refrigerator inside a Trader Joe's grocery
store in Seattle. Now this is according to Seattle Police Department,
and I quote, here are the cold hard facts.

Speaker 4 (04:03):
Uh huh.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
According to Popa, they responded following reports of a man
using racial slurs, brandish in life as security agents, threatening
to kill everyone. He was initially confronted for allegedly his words,
humping a refrigerator and attempting to do the same to
a customer. When challenged, the suspect became upset, kicking a

(04:27):
flower display and throwing apples.

Speaker 1 (04:31):
So if you're you know, kind of a little you know,
in the mood.

Speaker 4 (04:37):
If you want to find the most attractive refrigerator, you
go to Trader Joe's rather than the King Super.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
Exactly exactly, So if that's what you're looking for, you
go to Trader Joe's.

Speaker 1 (04:48):
So one more reason.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
So I'm thinking, after the program, I gotta drop some drag,
theening off and do a few other things before I
go home and start show prep for tomorrow. So I
think I'll just stop at Trader Joe's and just hump
a refrigerator. What could possibly go wrong? So how am
I here tomorrow?

Speaker 1 (05:06):
That's why it froze off?

Speaker 2 (05:09):
fRoots off? Well, those are the cold hard facts. By
the way, according to the Sea have a police department.
You got to at least give the Sea have a
police department. They got some sense of humor. I want
to talk about the census and the Texas thing for
a moment, but before we get to the Texas thing,
and before you start clicking off the dial, because there
I go, because you've already made your made up your
mind about it. I want you to step back, and

(05:31):
I want you to I want to give you a
little different perspective. And I'm not I don't even agree
with everything I'm about to say, but I think it's
important to put some things in perspective about what's going on.
As you know, Trump's call for a mid decade census
has been met with that's been met with a predictable outcry,

(05:54):
outcry of objections and of course law fair and the
my favorite claim of all partisanship no Fece Sherlock. What
is not partisan in our world? I Politics unfortunately infuses everything.

(06:21):
But as I've said many times, I don't necessarily believe
in by partisanship because there are some things that I'm
pretty partisan about because I think I'm right. I think
we're right, and i think that our way is the way,
and I'm going to push push push for that, and

(06:42):
I'm not and I'm not interested in negotiating. But when
you strip away politics, you actually find a more elemental issue,
and that would be simply this, do we want representation
in Congress that's rooted in reality? Or do you want

(07:04):
representation in Congress that is power propped up by deliberate error,
malicious error? Now go back to twenty twenty. To its credit,
the Census Bureau admitted that probably what's the most consequential

(07:25):
mistake in its modern history through their they do something
called a post enumeration survey. They found that they had
severely undercounted Republican Republican leaning states like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee,
and that they had mistakenly substantially overcounted Democrat strongholds like Minnesota, Rhode.

Speaker 1 (07:47):
Island, and New York. Huh, shazam, how could that pause?

Speaker 2 (07:51):
You know, I feel I'm so grateful they discovered that mistake.
It's kind of like, oh, the jobs numbers during the
Biden stration were they were fantastic, and then we discovered, oh, well,
we're sorry, we overcounted those bike I don't know, a
million jobs. I'm sure that these I'm sure that in

(08:12):
their post enumeration survey that they were like shazamne imagine
that we undercounted Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and we overcounted Minnesota,
Rhode Island and New York. Now, let's think for a moment.
What does that do.

Speaker 1 (08:34):
Well? That distorts.

Speaker 2 (08:39):
And strip states like Texas and Florida of seats that, huh,
based on your post enumeration survey, you actually should have
been awarded those seats. You had earned those seats, and
you rightly awarded phantom or fake or over counted representation

(09:02):
to states like Minnesota, Rhode Island.

Speaker 1 (09:04):
In New York.

Speaker 2 (09:06):
Let's be honest, this is not a statistical quibble. This
is a systemic fracture in a representative republic. Forget that
damn word democracy. We are a representative republic, meaning that
you and I have the ultimate power, and we elect
our representatives to represent us in the Congress and in

(09:31):
the Senate too. But every state gets too, so in
the Congress based upon the apportionment of those four hundred
and thirty five members of Congress based upon the US census.
So when population counts determine congressional seats and electoral votes,
those errors do not necessarily just skew the data. They

(09:55):
rig the elections. Yes, I use the term rig, because
how could you do a post enumerate You know, I
still haven't quite figured out the mechanics of this, and
I and I dug, and I dug and I dug.
But I can't find any precedent. But if you do
a post enumeration survey and you find that you did

(10:16):
an overcount or an undercount, wouldn't you go back and
do a recount? We do that in elections if if
in fact, in some states you have laws that say
if if the difference between the winner and the loser
is a certain percentage, there is an automatic recount. And
then if it's outside those parameters, then either party, the

(10:39):
losing or the I don't know why the winning party would,
but the losing party could ask for a recount. How
come we don't do that with the census. So set aside.

Speaker 4 (10:49):
All of.

Speaker 2 (10:51):
Your you know, oh, this is a threat to democracy,
and this is going to lead to the Democrats doing
the same things to us, and everything stop. Go back
to the original problem. And the original problem is the census.
Eft it up. That's why Trump posted something to the

(11:11):
effect that you know, he'd what was, he had instructed
the Department of Commerce to begin work on a new
and highly accurate census blah blah blah, and that you know,
illegal aliens would not be counted.

Speaker 1 (11:22):
And that's when and that's when the fight started.

Speaker 2 (11:28):
So if you want to understand the stakes involved, then
we have to be honest with ourselves. The Census Bureau's
own post enumeration survey that audit estimated that Texas was
undercounted by more than half a million people, four To
by more than seven hundred and sixty thousand people, and

(11:50):
Tennessee by nearly three hundred thousand people.

Speaker 1 (11:53):
So those errors alone.

Speaker 2 (11:56):
Deprived each of those states of not one, but two
congressional seats each. So had there been an accurate account,
or had the post enumeration survey said, oops, we kind
of screwed it up. Let's go back and recount again,
we wouldn't be having this fight today. So you can

(12:19):
blame the twenty twenty census for the fight that we're
having right now. In the meantime, Rhode Island, which was
projected to lose a seat, managed to cling to both
of its seats by a margin nineteen thousand, again, only
to have that post enumeration survey revealed that oopsy, we

(12:44):
overcounted you by fifty five thousand, which allowed them to
keep those two seats. Minnesota retained its eighth congressional seat
by only eighty nine people. It was later shown to
have been overcounted. So originally, in the original census, they

(13:09):
kept that eighth congressional seat by eighty nine people. That
was just enough to maintain that seat, but the post
enumeration survey said that in Minnesota, oh we overcounted by
two hundred thousand. Now, had the Census Bureau counted with

(13:31):
precision or gone back and done the recount or readjusted
the numbers, Rhode Island and Minnesota both would have lost
a congressional seat. Now Colorado we gained a new seat,
but only because the undercounts in the Republican states like

(13:52):
Texas and Florida and Tennessee freed up enough seats to
permit Colorado to get an extra seat. So we got
ours by accident. There are analyzes that you can find
online from both the Heritage Foundation and the House Oversight
Committee that have concluded that upwards of seven congressional seats

(14:16):
were misallocated, which does want that distorts the margin of
the majorities in the House, and of course it secures
the electoral college when it comes to who wins the presidency.
I don't think this is a mistake. I actually think
this is a scandal because when you look at the funding,

(14:40):
the coordination, and the deliberate politicization that preceded it, you
realize that this is once again, I don't care put
your ten foil hat on. I think this is the
administrative state manipulating the numbers to get the results they want.

(15:02):
California taxpayers, for example, spent more than one hundred and
eighty seven million dollars on census outreach efforts. Now, why
would you spend that much money on an outreach effort
for something that when you think, you know, maybe you don't.

Speaker 1 (15:19):
Remember back to the twenty twenty census.

Speaker 2 (15:21):
But there there's just an onslaught of public service announcements.
Then there is all the earned media because the Census Bureau,
the Department of Commerce will send out and of course
the states will do it too. State governments will also
do it. They'll send all these PSAs to newsrooms just
like this newsroom right out here, and that becomes a

(15:43):
news story about oh my gosh, you know, be kind,
to be kind, to be can watch for your form,
Watch for your form, Listen for the door knockers. If
the door knockers come, be sure an add to the door.
Do everything. Oh we got to can, we got to count.
We're in California. A lot of that one hundred and
eighty seven million dollars dollars was targeted by those kinds
of PSAs at illegal aliens. They wanted to make sure

(16:08):
they got counted. Now, part of one hundred and eighty
seven million dollars was also added who bought because Mark
Zuckerberg and Brisilla Chan added millions more to that. Read
Hastings poured money into nonprofits that worked to support illegal
aliens entering the country unlawfully, and then did everything they

(16:30):
could to make sure that those same aliens were counted
in the census. So this was not a so called
disinterested exercise in civic engagement.

Speaker 1 (16:41):
It was a partisan power play for power.

Speaker 2 (16:45):
Flood blue states with illegal aliens, count them whether or
not they able legal right to be here, inflate the
representation of states with pro migrant policies, and even if
one avoids impugning motives, the INCENTI structure is perverted.

Speaker 5 (17:00):
Good morning, Michael. You know the census topic just tickles
my fancy as I worked as an enumerator in twenty twenty,
going door to door wearing a mask and the incredible
heat in June, July, and August. It was the most
awful experience I've had in a very long time. But

(17:20):
I will agree they wanted any warm body and don't
you dare ask about their citizenship?

Speaker 1 (17:27):
Hi, Dragon, I maybe.

Speaker 2 (17:30):
That's why she's lost so many brain cells. She was
out in the heat wearing a mask, and that's why
now she's just a kind of a squishy, little quiet
never you know, she's just so meek and mild and
mild mannered and can scare the crap out. Yeah, now,

(17:54):
let's go back for just a moment. Some people insist,
I think erroneously that the Constitution requires counting everybody in
the country, regardless of your citizenship status. But I don't
think that interpretation is necessarily and I don't think it's

(18:14):
grounded in our history. The constitutional language explicitly calls for
an actual enumeration of persons. It doesn't say citizens, nor
exclusively of legal residents. So you can make an argument,
I clearly you know this is what troubles me. You

(18:36):
can make an argument that it means everybody in the country.
But what about context? Now, why would the framers not
specify citizens? Have you ever thought about that? Why would
they not say, let's do a census count every decade
of the citizens of this nation. Well, that's because illegal

(18:58):
immigration did not exist as a legal category in seventeen
eighty seven. They never thought about and influx a flood
and invasion, if you will, of people who come to
this country illegally. They never thought about it, just wasn't
it wasn't even part of their of the environment in

(19:19):
which they thought. But they did do this. They made
clear that representation based upon that sentence, that census was
indeed supposed to be based on those who comprise the polity.

(19:40):
That word specific, the polity po l t y, that's
the body politic. Those are citizens that make up the
governance of a country, or of a group, it could
be a group, the body politic, the body polity.

Speaker 1 (20:02):
So they make.

Speaker 2 (20:03):
Clear that representation was to be based upon those who
were a part of our body politic, not a transient population,
not foreign nationals residing unlawfully within this republic, not ambassadors,
you know, not people who were transients. In fact, James

(20:26):
Madison in Federalist number fifty four explicitly ties representation to
those who are a part of a body politic. So
think about it this way. A foreign national arrives unlawfully,
resides in the country temporarily outside the protection of the
law was not envisioned as a constituent unit of representation.

(20:49):
If you make the opposite argument, that's to indulge in
some sort of an anachronism that just doesn't make any
sense whatsoever. But even if one grants the current interpretation,
all right, let's just go with that for a moment,
it doesn't necessarily follow that the government has to count
illegal aliens for purposes of apportionment.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
For purposes of apportionment.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
You can count everybody in the country at any given
time if you want to, But it doesn't mean you
have to count those who are not residents, who are
not citizens, for the purposes of dividing up to four
hundred and thirty five members of Congress or the state
senators with the state House members. So that's what Trump
tried to do in his first term. He wanted to
exclude the illegal aliens from the census derived apportionment count.

(21:40):
But that got blocked not on constitutional grounds, it got
blocked on technical grounds because the administration had not done
its work in time. In the case of Trump versus
New York, Justice Alito wrote in his descent that the
Constitution does not pre excluding those who are here unlawfully

(22:04):
from the basis of representation. It merely requires that Congress
and the executive act with clarity and statutory authority, which
is what Trump's trying to do now. I would argue
that a mid decade census is both statutorily permitted based

(22:27):
upon the acts of Congress and upon the wording in
the Constitution. But critics argue that the apportionment can only
occur once every ten years, and that is incorrect. Article one,
Section two of the Constitution mandates that an enumeration occur

(22:48):
at least every ten years. It does not forbid additional counts.
If the founding fathers wanted to say there can only
be one, they would have special there can be only
one and there can be no others. Instead, they wrote
that an enumeration occur at least every ten years. Now,

(23:12):
the Census Act passed by Congress actually allows for a
mid decade census. It just currently prohibits that count from
being used for apportionment. So that's a matter of legislation,
that's not a constitutional requirement. Congress should and can change

(23:35):
that law.

Speaker 1 (23:37):
And you would think, but then again, who's thinking in
this country?

Speaker 2 (23:43):
If you have based on the post enumeration survey, you
realize you have all these errors, and if errors as
massive and consequential as those in twenty twenty. If that
happened in any other area of our government, say like
counting ballots for example, duh, or recording I don't know,

(24:05):
GDP growth or jobs numbers, there would be grounds for
an audit, a correction, and likely I don't know, maybe
firing those are responsible.

Speaker 1 (24:17):
For doing it.

Speaker 2 (24:19):
Yet, in the most fundamental count, the federal government performs
the the literal counting of those who live here and
who is going to be represented, we are told that
we got to accept known errors for a decade before
we can fix the problem. Well, that's the way it's

(24:41):
always been done. Mine, Who've always done that? You don't
listen to. You don't have an argument. So it's always
been done that way? Yeah, Well, if your argument is
it's always been done that way, you don't have the argument,
because I would counter with this. If the founding principle
of a republic, a small or republican form of government

(25:03):
is that representation follows citizenship follows population of those who
are citizens of this body polity, then we're bound to
make certain that the popula population counts are accurate. And
if they're not accurate, and we know they're not accurate,
there is a legal and a moral obligation to fix that. Well.

(25:27):
Trump's mid decade census is a step in that correction.
But I would add this the exclusion of illegal aliens
from the new count It's not a distortion Democrats, once
you believe that that's going to distort the census. No,
it's actually a restoration of the accuracy of the censes.

(25:49):
It's in particular a restoration of the accuracy of the
census for purposes of apportionment. You know, Democrats have for
decades blurred the lines between citizens and non citizens, lawful
residents and unlawful entrants, because what are they doing. They're

(26:11):
trying to gain a demographic advantage. And in fact, it
is my firm belief that illegal immigration is being used
to attempt to obtain a permanent Democrat majority. So the
census becomes a tool of representation. It actually becomes not

(26:35):
a tool of representation, but an instrument of demographic engineering.

Speaker 1 (26:41):
So if you want to reverse that.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
And say that, no, the census should be indeed a
tool of representation, it shouldn't be used as a way
to engineer the apportionment of four hundred and thirty five
members of Congress if you want to fix that, that's
not being radical, that's being prudent. That's helping preserve the

(27:05):
concept of representative democracy of a republican form of government.
Always look at motivation. If you're the governor of California
or New York for that matter, let's just stay Texas.
That's sow Texas in the mix. And if you know

(27:29):
that you can increase your house seats by increasing your
population by counting by first this back, let's take a
step by step. If you know that you can increase
the number of congressional seats that you have in your
state by increasing your population by importing illegal aliens, then
that's an incentive to adopt a sanctuary policy. That's an

(27:53):
incentive to resist deportation. That's an incentive to go out
and try to pose immigrations and customs enforcement. That's an
incentive to fund all the NGOs that attract and count
the unlawful people in this country. Well, that's exactly what's
going on in California, New York, and Chicago or Illinois,

(28:15):
all these states that want to maintain all these illegal
alien populations. Texas is doing it, but Texas is doing
it for an entirely different reason. They want to discount
the illegal aliens because they want their fair representation of
those citizens who are in their state legally to represent

(28:36):
them in Congress. So all those organizations that aid the
illegal border crossings and they're now aiding the fight of
all the deportations. Why because they want to maintain the
status quo. Well, that's clearly, I think, legally and morally wrong.

Speaker 1 (28:56):
And it's breakdown.

Speaker 3 (28:57):
Hey, Michael, just kind of building off what you are
saying about illegal immigration not being a thing at the
time that the Constitution was written in which the census
was put forward. Do we know when naturalization as a
process became enshrined in the constitution or otherwise.

Speaker 2 (29:19):
It's not, it's it became enshrined in statute. And I
think nineteen thirty four, I think that's the first Immigration
and Naturalization Act was passed because we had this influx
of all these Europeans, you know, the Irish, and the Germans,
and the Brits and you know the Chinese. They were

(29:42):
all coming into the country. And it was nineteen thirty
four that we passed the Immigration I think again, I
have to go back and check, but for some reason
the year nineteen thirty four. It's the Immigration Act, I
think of nineteen thirty four. So that's it's the only
thing in the Constitution is is about immigration. Is Immigration

(30:04):
policy is an enumerated power of the Congress. It's not
a states. In fact, that's why I think sanctuary state
status is unconstitutional, because immigration policy is in an enumerated power
of the US Congress. But in the next hour, I

(30:25):
want to give some specifics about Texas because of what
happened over the weekend. But to sum up real quickly,
what we've come to. The conclusion we've come to here
is that the law currently prohibits mid decade apportionment adjustments.

(30:46):
It doesn't prohibit mid decade census, but it does prohibit
this mid decade apportionment. But that's an indictment of the law.
That's not an excuse, and it's not a defense.

Speaker 1 (30:59):
Of the law.

Speaker 2 (31:00):
Indictment of the law, which means that Congress needs to
change that. And when Republicans have the majority of the
need to get off their asses and they need.

Speaker 1 (31:07):
To go do that.

Speaker 2 (31:10):
There's no requirement of any constitutional amendment involved here. The
constitution permits it. It is inertia, and it is partisanship
that is preventing it, and why we should allow partisanship
to prevent it is well, I understand the why because
the cabal keeps pushing, oh my gosh, you can't do this,

(31:31):
which is under bull crap. On the other hand, Republicans,
what are you doing? Where's the bill, a simple single
subject bill on this to fix it? And according to
Trump v.

Speaker 1 (31:51):
New York Spreme Court said you can do that. So
why aren't you doing it? Why aren't you doing it?
You think of these people