8-2-25 The Weekend Hour 3: Why Are The Federal Courts Interfering In Trade Negotiations?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night. Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA
director of talk.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
Show host Michael Brown.

Speaker 3 (00:04):
Brownie, no Brownie, You're doing a heck of a jumb
the Weekend with Michael Brown broadcasting Life in Denver, Colorado.

Speaker 1 (00:11):
You're listening to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to
have you joining the program today. If you want to
participate in the program, the easiest way to get through
to me is to send me a text message. On
your message at the number is three three one zero
three three three one zero three, use the keyword Mike
or Michael. Tell me anything, Ask me anything. If you
want to interact on social media, the best place to
do that is X formerly Twitter, and my name on

(00:34):
X is at Michael Brown USA at Michael Brown USA.
And then, last but not least, please go subscribe to
the podcast. If you like what we do on the weekend,
you'd like the weekday podcast so you can get the
show that we do Monday through Friday out of Denver.
Search for on your podcast app, search for the Situation
with Michael Brown, The Situation with Michael Brown. Get that

(00:54):
subscribe button, leave a five star review because that helps
us in the rankings and then you'll get all five
days of the weekday program plus the weekend program. Although
Michael Brown, you need so go get that done right now.
So this this week, this past week, the US Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit located in DC, heard
arguments in what may be the most consequential trade appeal

(01:16):
in decades. Trump's Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam
Bondi argued that the lower court's ruling in a case
called State of Oregon versus Trump was not only legally indefensible,
but it was actually an assault on the lawful authority
of the presidency, which seems to be the theme running
through all these lawsuits. No matter what Trump does, there's

(01:38):
somebody there's either some politician, are there some in goo
or there's some you know, organization of some sort that
wants to challenge the authority of the of the president
to you know, act as the president. But this was
all I mean, Not only is in this case is
the argument that it was legally indefensible but and an

(02:01):
attack on the lawful authority of the president, but it
was also an attack on the economic well being of
the American people at stake. Is this whether the judicial
system will completely gut the president's ability to use tariffs
as leverage in trade negotiations, negotiations that under Trump so

(02:24):
far have produced history quinns for American workers. I'm just
I know, as as a lawyer myself, I know how
litigious this society is. But really this is the continuation
of the law fair that was set upon Trump during

(02:46):
his first term, that carried all the way through the
Biden presidency or the Biden nap until now, and it
still continues. The decision by the US Court of National
Trade to strike down Trump's use of terrace as a
tool of negotiation, I think it's very deeply flawed into

(03:09):
legal reasoning. It's the case study of how the judiciary
has put on its blinders and has judicial myopia. I
know that's pretty strong to accuse the federal judiciary, but
I mean, look a what Judge Boseburg's been doing. Look

(03:29):
at the national injunctions everywhere. When a court disregards explicit
statutory delegation, when it ignores Congress's own vote to preserve
flexibility for another branch of government, in this case, the presidency,
the executive branch. In doing so, it threatens the gains

(03:52):
of successful international negotiations. Well, then I'm kind of left
wondering what exactly, then is the row that these judges
imagine their role is supposed to be. We can't function
this way. So let's let's start with what it's just
simply not contestable. The Constitution grants Congress. Listen closely, the

(04:18):
Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce. Yet
it is also equally well established that Congress can't and
has delegated aspects of that power through the executive, especially
in those domains that involve foreign policy, national security, and

(04:39):
economic diplomacy. Now, why would Congress do that? Because when
the founder said that, hey, we think that Congress should
regulate foreign commerce, the operative word there is regulate. Congress
should regulate, you know, foreign commerce. Well, you can't have

(04:59):
five undred and thirty five members regulating, regulating, negotiating foreign policy,
national security, economic diplomacy. So Congress, in its wisdom says, yes,
that's something that we need to have the executive do
on behalf of us. And so they delegate that authority

(05:20):
in very specific and limited ways to the presidency. And
tariffs in the Trump administration's hands, we're not a protectionist reflex.
He's been using him as a tool of negotiation, and
he's been calibrating them in order to pressure our allies
and our rivals into fairer trade agreements. I think I

(05:45):
know why the American public is confused by this, because
we've gone for decades since the North and the closest
I can think of is the North American Free Trade
Agreement NAFTA. And when that was done back in the
nineteen nineties, you know, all it took was Ross burot

(06:07):
in a debate between himself, George hw Bush and Bill
Clinton to describe that. Look, businesses have a choice. Now
they can spend and I'll just pull numbers out of
my butt. I can pay five dollars an hour for
labor to create a widget, say in Ohio, or I
can move it to Jalisco, Mexico and pay fifty cents

(06:29):
an hour and get the exact same widget for four
dollars and fifty cents an hour less. So that's when
Perro said, and that's when you're going to hear the
giant sucking sound of everything going south. And we've been
and since that time, what have you least, let's think
about this, Bill Clinton, or let's just come back to

(06:51):
George W.

Speaker 3 (06:52):
Bush.

Speaker 1 (06:52):
George HW. Bush, Bill Clinton, you got Barack Obama. George W. Bush,
You've got Joe Biden. Did do you recall any of
them actively engaged or the cabal actively reporting on trade

(07:13):
negotiations to make trade between US and foreign countries fair
better or even more in our favor, even if it's
still not in our favor, moving it more toward the
middle as opposed to just letting it be. No, most
of them just sat there and didn't do anything. So
back to the Court. So, the International Court of Trade

(07:35):
claimed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act passed by Congress, was insufficient for
the president's actions, despite the broad language in that statue,

(07:55):
because in that statue, Congress gave the executive authority to
deal with unusual and extraordinary threats to the US economy
and did so knowingly that the modern global economy is
interconnected its adversarial It's subject to persistent manipulation either through

(08:17):
currency or non tariff barriers by our enemies and our
allies alike. And Trump's identification of the trade deficit in
the Industrial hallowing as a national security threat is not
merely plausible. I think it's prescient and what makes the
courts ruling especially troubling. I'll tell you about that next.

(08:40):
It's the Weekend with Michael Brown. Text lines open three
three one zero three keyword micro Michael, be right back. Hey,
welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. I was
just scrolling through the text messages and I came across
this from guber number zero four. Mike, what did you say?

(09:01):
The title of her, uh, Kamala Harris's book is one
hundred and seven Vodka Shots. No, that's what you will
need to either get through the book or what you'll
need to recover after you read the book, one hundred
and seven vodka shots. What are you implying Kamala has

(09:23):
got a drinking problem?

Speaker 2 (09:25):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (09:26):
I think so. So this decision by the US Court
of International Trade to go after Trump is is really
troubling because of the practical outcomes of the policies that
it's nullifying. Now go back to Liberation Day and you

(09:47):
know his announcement, I'm gonna do all these tariffs. The
United States successfully concluded trade negotiations with Mexico, Canada, China, Japan,
and the EU. And that's not Those are no symbolic
those are quantifiable wins. China, even though we're still in negotiations,
has committed to two hundred billion dollars in purchases of

(10:09):
US goods, the European Union seven hundred and fifty billion
dollars in energy contracts. They're learning their lesson about green energy,
and we've told them stop buying Russian oil. This is
all intertwined. India, China, and Europe have in es. I

(10:32):
find the European thing especially confounding. Europe has been buying
Russian oil. Russian oil is the primarily the only source
of money for Putin to continue the war in Ukraine.
So I would expect China to But India and the EU, well,

(10:53):
the EU has recognized that, Yeah, we're funding the very
guy that we're funding to try to stop I mean,
it's insanity under insanity. Well, they've pledged seven hundred and
fifty billion dollars in energy contracts, in six hundred billion
dollars in industrial investments. The USMCA replaced NAFTA with a

(11:20):
more balanced labor protecting framework. If that's not what you
should be doing in terms of diplomatic leverage that's authorized
under the Act, then what is And I know some
people are going to object arguing that success does not
retroactively authorize any sort of unconstitutional action. That is fair

(11:42):
in theory, but it's misapplied in this situation because there
was nothing unconstitutional originally about the delegation under the International
Economic Act or under Section two thirty two of the
Trade Expansion Act. Both were products of deliberate legislative debate

(12:03):
and passage of bills. And I think as importantly, Congress
had every opportunity if they didn't like what was going on,
they could rescind or narrow that authority during Trump's first term.
They could have done it during Biden's term, they could
have done it in his second term, but they did not.

(12:25):
In fact, there was some effort to limit Section two
thirty two that was explicitly voted down, including Democrat votes.
So legislative and action in the face of executive action
is not always just acquiescence, but legislative rejection of curtailment
measures is as clear as a signal as you can
get from Congress that yeah, we approve of what you're doing. Now.

(12:48):
Individual Congressman. Republicans and Democrats may disagree with certain things
and certain tactics and whatever else, but they know that
they gave the president the authority to do that. So
they took it out of their authority, delegated to the president.
And they may quibble about it, but that's fine. If
you don't want him to have that authority, then take
it back. But they're not going to do it. It's

(13:14):
let us examine who sue. Think about who's suing Congress
isn't suing. If Congress thought that there was overreach, Congress
could sue. Congress could also go in and legislate. You
could do something to withdraw and take back some of
that authority. They've done neither one of those things. Do
you know who it is who's suing Trump? Do you know,

(13:38):
because I think this is important for you to understand.
It's not an aggrieved American manufacturer. It's not some company somewhere.
It's not even a coalition of consumer groups. It's a
cadre of Democrat governors. I'd say, I shouldn't laugh. I'll

(14:00):
give you three guesses. It's a coalition of let's see,
I got one, two, what I thought five? Yeah, I
got five governors. Can you name the five governors? Come on,
park on it, you can do it? Uh, Tina Kotak
and Oregon, Kathy Holkal in New York, Gavin Newsom in California, JB.

(14:24):
Printzker and Illinois, and last but not least, that fabulous
governor from Minnesota, Tim Walls. Now, do you think they
brought this case because they wanted to vindicate the constitutional
order of things? Or do you think they brought this
case because they were trying to sabotage a policy that
they politically opposed and saw as being politically oh favorable,

(14:48):
not to them but to Trump's voters. I don't think
a single one of those think about this. I find
this incredibly ironic. Do you think any of those governors
are actually defenders of the rule of law? Well, let's
think about that. You've got Antifa and all the crap

(15:08):
that goes on in Oregon. You've got crime ridd in
New York with Kathy Hokeel and the revolving door syndrome there.
Do I even have to say anything about California Governor
Gavin Newsom and his disrespect for the rule of law?
Give me a break. Oh and JB. Pritzker another Illinois,

(15:30):
another revolving door when it comes to sanctuary cities, when
it comes to illegal immigration, when it comes to the
revolving door, when it comes to crime in Chicago, that
the war zone there, and then Minnesota, give me a break.
These governors are not defenders of the rule of law.
They are hostile partisans, and they're using the courts to

(15:52):
try to undo the outcomes of a national election, and
they're actually trying to reverse the economic policies that are
benefiting millions of Americans outside theirnctuary states, which then naturally
leads to a deeper question. What happens when court sided
with Democrat governors to thwart an international agreement negotiated by

(16:14):
a sitting president with the backing of a Congress comprised
of both Democrats and Republicans who approved his authority to
go do that. You get chaos, absolute chaos, because if
you're on the other side of the negotiating table, if
you're one of our partners that's negotiating on the other side,
you're going to doubt whether a deal struck with a

(16:37):
sitting president will survive a judicial review. That's the chaos
that the Democrats want. So that would erode any incentive
that our partners, whether they're allies, I'm talking about trading partners,
So they could be allies and they could be enemies,
what incentive would they have to cooperate? So the likelihood

(16:58):
of an enduring bilateral agreement between US and China, between
US and India, between US and the EU, between US
and Mexico, between US and Singapore, between US and anybody
foreign powers, whether they're friendly or hostile, would conclude that, yeah,
stupid United States. They can't speak with a single voice,
and they would be right. But not to get too

(17:22):
much in the weeds. There's also a jurisprudential problem. There's
a legal problem here too, the opinion of the International
Trade Court. That opinion does not rest on a clear
contextual contradiction or even a procedural failure. It just rests
on the speculative theory of overreach. The judiciary has been

(17:44):
weaponized against Donald Trump, and it's got to stop. It's
the weekend with Michael Brown. Text lines open, be sure
and follow me on except Michael Brown, USA, hangtied. I'll
be right back tonight. Michael Brown joins me. Here the
former FEMA director of.

Speaker 4 (18:02):
Talk show host Michael Brown.

Speaker 3 (18:03):
Brownie, No, Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job
the Weekend with Michael Brown.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
Hey, welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Lead
to have you with me. You want to send me
a text message. The message number is three three one
zero three, keyword Mica or Michael, and then go follow
me on social media. Go follow me on ex formally
Twitter at Michael Brown USA. Let's clear out my pos No,
not my piece of that, my pile of stuff. I
got a bunch of stuff left over from this week.

(18:31):
Let's get through some of it. Let's start with this one. Well,
when Democrats are out there shrieking all the time about
Republicans or denying people their Medicaid benefits, who do you
think they're referring to. They're referring to illegal aliens and
scammers and Democrats know, but they don't care about that.

(18:52):
Let me give him example. A Medicaid beneficiary by the
name of Candice Taylor of slide Al, Louisiana between twenty
twenty and twenty twenty four U Candae Taylor. This comes
to us from Fox eight Live down in Baton, Rouge
between twenty twenty and twenty twenty four, Taylor's accused of misrepresenting, concealing,

(19:16):
and failing to disclose financial information so that she could
receive government healthcare assistance. During that time, investigators alleged that
her various businesses generated more than nine point five million
dollars in revenue across multiple accounts under her control. That's

(19:36):
some damn fine fraud right there now. Despite claiming zero
income in twenty twenty, investigators said that Taylor's financial records
showed that more than four hundred and eighty thousand dollars
in deposits that year alone, including luxury expenditures. She spent
more than forty five thousand dollars in vehicle cars to

(19:57):
Audi finance, multiple six figure cashier's checks used to buy property,
cosmetic oh and cosmetic surgery, and high end jewelry. She
also reportedly wired more than one hundred thousand dollars from
an exotic car dealership and made a thirteen thousand dollars
debit card payment toward a twenty twenty two Lamborghini. That

(20:24):
is fraud now if other people are being forced through
their taxes, through their payroll taxes to help pay for
your health care. It frees up all those funds for
other uses. And to show you how stupid these people are,
she showcased her luxury purchases on Facebook and on Instagram.

(20:48):
I love social media and I love the idiocy of
some people. You know, if you were, if you're going
to be a scammer, come on, be a little more discreet,
you know, because it's that would make it more difficult
for us to eject you from the gravy train. That
would make it more difficult for us to push you
off the box car. May you're riding in collecting all

(21:08):
these benefits, but when you get the Democrats in your corner,
it's kind of hard to do.

Speaker 5 (21:13):
On a Lamborghini and property and got plastic surgery while
fraudulently receiving Medicaid benefits. Louisiana's Attorney General's office says Candice
Taylor's business is brought in more than nine million dollars
in revenue during a nearly five year span. Investigators say
at the same time she under reported her income under
a fake name. Agents arrested the thirty five year old

(21:35):
yesterday and booked her with government benefits fraud.

Speaker 1 (21:38):
Wow, that's who Democrats are defending yes, maybe not may
they're not all on that level. I know they're not
all on that level. But if there's one, you know,
there's more. It's to the airports. I have to go
to the airport tomorrow for something. There's a problem when

(21:59):
you choose use your Secretary of Transportation who oversees error
traffic control system overseas or ARA reports overseas. You know, well,
Secretary of Transportation. When you select a Secretary of Transportation
based on diversity equity inclusion, the basis of his being
ostentatiously gay is that incompetence entailed could be a threat

(22:22):
to public safety. Could be yes, not because he's gay,
but because he could not qualified. At least thirty three
safety recommendations originally made to place wind turbines farther away
from critical infrastructure was overruled between twenty twenty three and
twenty twenty four. Meanwhile, under Budajig, the Department Transportation blew

(22:48):
eighty billion dollars of your money on diversity, equity and
inclusion initiatives. And that's eighty billion dollars that was not
but could have been spent on airline safety. While airline
safety deteriorated under the Biden administration, So maybe we just

(23:08):
shouldn't attribute to incompetence what can be explained by leftist radicalism.
The current Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy noted that quote
Joe Biden and Pete Budajig put climate religion ahead of safety,
blatantly ignoring engineers who warned the danger of constructing wind
turbines near railroads and highways. Now, obviously, you know Trump

(23:33):
doesn't have any patience whatsoever for the wind turbine nonsense.
He's made that abundantly clear in the past.

Speaker 3 (23:42):
He just.

Speaker 2 (23:45):
Well, thank you very much. It's a beautiful sunday in Scotland,
and we thought we could cut things short by and
certainly travel distance by having our meeting here. And the
other thing I say to Europe, we will not allow
a windmill to be built in the United States. They're
killing us, They're killing the beauty of our scenery. Our

(24:07):
valleys are beautiful planes and I'm not talking about airplanes.
I'm talking about beautiful planes, beautiful areas in the United States.
And you look up then you see windmills all over
the place. It's a horrible thing. It's the most expensive
form of energy. It's no good. They're made in China,
almost all of them. When they start to rust and

(24:30):
rod in eight years, you can't really turn them off.
You can't bear them. They won't let you bury the propellers,
you know, the props, because there are a certain type
of fiber that doesn't go well with the land. That's
what they say, the environmental iss say you can't bury
them because the fiber doesn't.

Speaker 1 (24:45):
Go well with the land.

Speaker 2 (24:47):
In other words, if you bury it, it will harm
our soil. The whole thing is a conjob. It's very
expensive and in all fairness, Germany tried it and wind
doesn't work. Subsidy for wind and energy should not need sepsy.
With energy, you make money, you don't lose money. But
more important than that is it ruins the landscape. It

(25:09):
kills the birds. They're noisy.

Speaker 3 (25:12):
You know.

Speaker 2 (25:12):
You have a certain place in the Massachusetts area that
over the last twenty years had one or two whales
Washingshaw and over the last short period of time they
at eighteen. Okay, because it's driving them loco, it's driving
them crazy.

Speaker 1 (25:31):
They're driving me crazy too. You know what's great about this?
I know you can't see it. But this was when
he was in Scotland. He's negotiating the trade deal with
the EU President vander Erlin, whatever her name is, and
she's sitting there listening to this, and I just find
it so powerful that somebody with Trump's cajonies will sit

(25:57):
there in a power position. They're sitting there, you know,
with a nice table flat, you know, the bouquet of
flowers between them, and their bottles of water and you know,
nice crystal glasses for their water. And she's sitting there
with the Knight, her hands nicely folded, and she knows
that she's been pushing this kind of bull crap onto

(26:17):
those what thirty seven members of the EU, that she's
been pushing it, and then the countries like Germany are
suffering from it, and that he's telling the truth and
she can't stand it. And I find it hilarious. But
in addition to that, the new federal regulations that Sean
Duffy and Donald Trump have approval mandate at least one

(26:39):
point two miles between wind farms and train tracks of
roads after an independent study found that the former interfered
with radio signals that were necessary to operate transportation infrastructure. Well,
you can also find that those new regulations will be
repealed in the name of the weather gods. If the
Democrats ever retained power, the Church, the Congress, and the
churchy climate activists will say, all on, oh no, we

(27:00):
got to get rid of it. We got to rebuilding
them again. Otherwise, safety restrictions could put a crimp in
the next inflationary Green New Deal spending blowout, which might
be entitled, you know, Inflation Reduction Act Part two. This
is why we cannot lose the midterm elections. Cannot do that.

(27:23):
Donald Trump also announced which I find hilarious. I'll tell
you about the East wing of the White House and
this ballroom that he wants to build in just a minute,
and I'll tell you my take on it. But once
it was announced, Chuck Schumer went ballistic. How in the

(27:43):
heck could Donald Trump go out and do something like that?

Speaker 4 (27:47):
He is even something more confounding. Some breaking news just now,
The White House announced construction of a two hundred million
dollar White House ballroom that will begin in September. A
two million dollar ballroom. Where did this money come from?
Did Congress appropriate it? I don't think so. It's almost

(28:07):
like Doge was never about waste it all.

Speaker 5 (28:10):
President Trump and other donors have generously committed to donating
the funds necessary to build this approximately two hundred million
dollar structure.

Speaker 1 (28:19):
Yeah, Chucky taxpayers aren't paying for it. No, Trump and
donors are paying for this new ballroom. Now. I just
want to say this. I've been in the East Wing,
and I've been in the East Room and it is
even when I was there twenty years ago, it was
getting writing and it was old. And yes, it does

(28:42):
need a ballroom, and I'm glad these found donors to
do it. And I think I don't know for certain,
but I think he's had, like the White House, you know,
historical society and others involved in the design of it,
which is good. But I think there should have been
a little more maybe public input, or maybe Congress should

(29:06):
have had some say in it, not pay for it.
But after all, it is the White House and I
think we ought to know more about it. You can
find all sorts of pictures about it on the interwebs,
and i'd encourage you to go look at it, and
it is needed. I just think the process was like
wam bam, thank you, ma'am. Which in this case, I'll
be right back. Hey, welcome back to the Weekend with

(29:35):
Michael Brown. I want to say it once again how
much I appreciate all of you tuning in. I know
you have other things you could be doing on a Saturday,
and you choose or whenever your affiliate, their is the program.
You could be doing other things and you're listening to
this program, and I greatly appreciate it. I would encourage
you that if you like what we do on the weekend,

(29:56):
that you listen weekdays too, because I do a morning
drive program from Denver Monday through Friday from six to
ten mountain time. So on your iHeart app just search
for this station six thirty KHOW, six thirty KHOW and
you can listen mountain time six to ten mountain time
Monday through Friday. And then of course you can listen

(30:18):
on the weekends too, so you get six days of
Michael Brown, which is well, probably more than enough for
most people. But I would appreciate it if you'd listened
to the weekday program too, because we have a lot
of fun over there, and I think you'd like that program.
I think it was John Wayne one time that said,
you know, life's hard, but it's harder if you're stupid,

(30:40):
and sometimes the stupidity is right in front of us. Again.
Another reason to follow me on next at Michael Brown
USA is because I tend to find this stuff and
it's absolutely hilarious. This is a crazy story, and it
comes to us from Spain. A Spanish leftist, you know,
a liberal, a liberal Spaniard has had her life completely

(31:03):
destroyed because you know, oftentimes when we talk about illegal immigration,
well we'll say to liberals in this country, well, then
you know, like people on Cape Cod, people in Martha's Vineyard.
You know, the minute that they ship I think it
was Governor Abbot of Texas shipped a bunch of illegal

(31:24):
aliens to Martha's vineyard, they got all upset and had
them immediately transferred to some air naval station so they
could be taken out of Cape Cod and get out.
You know, don't wait, don't know them here. Well wait
a minute. If you think that the country out to
bring them in, why don't you bring them into your
own home. Well, this is what this nut job, this
stupid person did in Spain because she took in a

(31:46):
homeless illegal alien because she thought it was the right
thing to do. Then what happened once she took him in?
He refused to pay rent, vandalized her property, refused to leave. Now,
in this country, we would do what well, we would
immediately go try to have them evicted. Wait a minute, evicted.

(32:11):
You took them in, you offered them like you know,
your basement apartment or you know, a bedroom or whatever.
Did you have a rental agreement? Because if you don't
have a rental agreement, if you don't have a lease agreement,
you got a squadron on your hand. And now you're
going to deal with that. But here's what happened in Spain.
Because of emergency laws that Spain adopted during the COVID pandemic,

(32:37):
she cannot enforce an eviction without a court order. She's
stuck with this guy, she says. He would take all
my cooking pots into his room and leave nothing for
me to use. He would turn up the television at
midnight so I couldn't sleep. He broke my furniture. He's

(32:58):
a psychopath and his only goal is to ruin my life.
He's not right in the head. He hasn't attacked me yet,
but I'm afraid he might you know, this is the
great thing about liberals. They always want the government to
do something. They never want to do it themselves. As

(33:19):
I've said many many times, liberals want to abdicate compassion
to the government. They want the government to do everything.
They don't have to do anything. They just want to,
you know, to say, hey, we adopted a really good,
feel good policy and it's then doing wonderful things. Well,
here's a woman who did what I said you should do.
If you're going to, you know, demand that you know,

(33:41):
everybody be allowed to come into the country, then why
don't liberals open their doors. I'm not going to open
my door. No, Well I've opened my door before for
you know, a friend or whomever that needs a place
to stay for a while. But I'm not going to
open it to a stranger. Sorry, just call it, call
me in a hole, but I'm just not going to
do it. Well, this woman has now had to move

(34:02):
out of her own home and go live with her brother,
and she's now launched a petition calling for a change
in the law. She writes, you don't know what it's
like to live under the same roof as the person
who's making your life miserable, watching them destroy your house
and your life, and feeling abandoned by your country's justice

(34:22):
system because the squatter who lives like a king has
more rights than you. Her name is Estherblize Codazar. She
now lives with her brother, and the illegalalien is still
living in her home. The comments to this post on

(34:43):
x are glorious. Someone who goes by the name of
Lord LJS Wrights quote, you don't know what it's like
to live under the same roof as the person who's
making your life miserable, watching them destroy your house, in
your life, and feeling abandoned by your country's justice system
just because the squatter who lives like a king has
more rights than you. Close quote love. He writes, you

(35:06):
just described how we all feel. The only difference is
you're talking about your house, we're talking about our country
black dubling rights. This reads like a comedy pitch. How
are we not all laughing about this? And Glady, he writes,

(35:26):
this is typically how leftists have to learn. They have
to experience the negative consequences of their policies. Personally, the
leftists that I know do not have the foresight and
do not learn from seeing others go through negative consequences
for similar decisions and similar policies. Well, I know what
is to go through this either, and I actually feel

(35:47):
sorry for this woman, but I can't help a little
part of me has to chuckle at the same time,
because well, she just thought it was the right thing
to do. We let them into the country, so why
should just take I should take one in too, Uh.
I guess I'd have to say this. The liberals in
this country must be a half a lot smarter than

(36:10):
the liberals that exist in Spain, because I don't know
of any liberals in this country that would allow this
kind of thing to occur, not in their own home,
can you imagine. And now she can't get him out,
and she's moved in with her brother. My, oh my,
the stupidity of liberal policies. So we came with Michael Brown.

(36:30):
I appreciate so very much you tuning in to listen. Everybody,
have a fantastic weekend, and guess what I'll see you
next weekend.