8-22-25 - 7am - Texas vs California and The Concept of Freedom

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Ratty yesterday you were talking about targeted advertise, while I
here at a bunch of commercials this morning about schizo
franny and medicine and hitting to everybody knows, I'm a sign.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
O sociopath and psycho. You're both. You know.

Speaker 3 (00:20):
We had this picture of him of being this you know,
this kind of large, you know, big, kind of somewhat
heavy set truck driver. You know, who's got a baseball
cap on or maybe a cowboy hat.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (00:32):
It's probably got a lot of facial hair, not a
beerd but just you know, facial.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Hair and super scraggly and un just scraggly.

Speaker 3 (00:38):
And unkempt and just you know, just barreling down the highway,
just looking for cars to run over. Turns out he's
probably wearing, you know, white shoes, white socks, white shorts,
Uh Tommy Mohamma's shirt of some sort, and you know
some you know.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
The ultra short shorts.

Speaker 3 (00:56):
Yeah, the ultra short shorts, you know, and it's probably
about five to weighs about eighty seven pounds. Can barely
see all he's like the little old lady. Can barely
see over the steering wheel.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
He's all that is man. Yeah, yeah, that's what he
really is.

Speaker 3 (01:11):
Cycle nonetheless, just a different physical body. So back to
Newsom and Abbott Texas, California redistorting, this battle that's going on,
and Newsom has decided that this is his way to

(01:34):
increase his stature, place himself as the front runner for
the twenty twenty eight Democrat nomination, and perhaps drag a
bunch of people across the line in the twenty twenty
six midterm elections, and recapture the House and the Senate,
which would again further catapult him into the lead for

(01:55):
twenty twenty eight. I think he's making a horrendous political
misis when when the when the two propositions in California
to establish this redistricting commission were passed, it was vehemently
opposed by partisan groups because they wanted the power to
draw district maps to remain with the legislators, because they

(02:18):
could influence those legislators with campaign donations, and that's now
gone away, and in both parties they were against it.
It barely passed by a margin to fifty point eight
percent to forty nine point two percent. But then two
years later with Proposition twenty, which extended that map drawing
authority to include congressional seats. Now the margin increased sixty

(02:44):
one point three percent to thirty eight point seven percent.
California voters started to like the process. They began politicians
always make a mistake. They think we're stupid. Now, don't
get me wrong, I still maintained that most of the
people you and I run into are really stupid. They're

(03:04):
just stupid people in the world. But when you present
the average American citizen who's half asked, paying attention to
what's going on, some basic facts about Look, we're doing
this because we want to get rid of all the
gamesmanship that's being played, all the influence of the special interests,
they perk up and they wake up and they realize, oh, yes,

(03:26):
this is true. So Politico did an article this week,
and the polling in the article shows that voters across
the entire political spectrum remain supportive.

Speaker 2 (03:36):
Not just the California Independent Commission, but.

Speaker 3 (03:39):
They're beginning to like the idea of commissions themselves overall.
Because they've even though they like what Texas did and
they think what Texas did is right, they're now thinking,
wait a minute, why do we keep allowing these yahoos
that we elect to these pull up bureas in all
these states to have all this power. Thirty six percent

(04:03):
favor returning only thirty six percent. I should say this
is a national polling favor returning drawing maps back to
state lawmakers. Now, this is the reason why Newsom and
the Democrats are limiting the initiative to only three election
cycles twenty six, twenty eight, and twenty thirty. And the

(04:26):
authority remains with the commission if Texas fails to redraw
its maps, which Texas did not. Texas redrew the maps. Interestingly,
as the country further divides into thirds, Democrats, independents are unaffiliateds,
and Republicans, independent voters are the most enthusiastic supporters of

(04:46):
taking this out of the hands of legislators and having
commissions do it. Seventy two percent of independents favor that.
But guess what, Republicans Democrat voters are not far behind.
Republicans sixty six percent, Democrats sixty one percent. So they've
now California and k Newsom in particular, have decided to, oh,

(05:10):
let's kind of revamp our strategy. Let's cast this fight
as against Trump because Trump still remains the lightning rod.
If you can be against Trump, the stupid people in
the country are like, oh yeah, oh, their brains go
totally dead. Well they're dead to begin with, but they
kind of they, I don't know, they poop the matter something.

(05:32):
Their brains completely disappear, because to be against Trump is
the holy Grail. It's their pathway to heaven.

Speaker 2 (05:40):
I think.

Speaker 3 (05:44):
The even when the question is put to the most
partisan of Democrats in California and you cast it as
a response to Trump, now, think about what's the connection
between Trump and what's going on in Texas. Trump simply
pointed out to Governor Abbot that, hey, the census data

(06:08):
shows that they way overcounted illegal aliens and way undercounted
US citizens. You ought to go in and look at
your account and redraw your districts. And Abbot looked at
it and said, shazam, that's right, we should do that.

(06:28):
So this fight against Trump being a power grab and
then trying to fight fire with fight fire with fire
in so far as the Texas Republican Party is concerned,
that is going to backfire on newsom it is far
real quickly and let me just end sort of footnote.

(06:50):
Newsom has only ten weeks available for them to push
this constitutional amendment, and I don't think they can get
it done now.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
Failing to pass.

Speaker 3 (07:02):
The measure might not be fatal to Newsom's twenty twenty
eight presidential aspirations, but here's what it would do. It
would expose the fact that Newsom's political instincts are not
very good. He is another Kamala Harris. When Harris exposed,

(07:23):
When Harris was exposed to scrutiny, you think about those
four years in the wilderness behind Biden. So Biden's wandering
around not knowing where he is or what he's doing.
Kamala Harris remained a quiet I told you a bazillion time.
You know why she doesn't go to the border because
the White House press pool would follow her and she

(07:46):
would have to answer questions. She can't answer questions. The
same thing is true with Newsom. Why is it safe
for Newsom to run on X and hire a bunch
of pimple faced kids to start posting on his behalf
because he doesn't have to deal with you know, you
go an X and you got a team over here,
a social media team that's doing it all for you.

(08:08):
You don't have to do anything. You just sit back
and just let you know, let them do their little job.
And he draws all this attention. It sucks a bunch
of oxygen out of the room, and he can remain quiet.
But if he pushes this constitutional amendment in California, he's
going to have to go out and campaign for it.

(08:29):
That could be fatal. If you pile on top of
that the initiative fails, that exposes him again. But what
if he does pull it off. What if newsm pulls
this off? Could he end up being worse off in
twenty twenty eight If he actually gets the ballot measure passed,
Texas redraws its map as they have done, and the

(08:52):
California legislature follows suit, so they can cancel out any
gains in Texas with new gains in californ Now, the
practical part of that is this Democrat blue states have
pretty much gerrymandered to the fullest extent they probably can,

(09:13):
so much so that if they attempt any further gerrymandering,
they may run a foul of Supreme Court decisions and
they may be violating the Voting Rights Act. So their
little tip for tat here may come back to haunt them,
but they're so infused with Trump derangement syndrome that they

(09:35):
they don't think that far ahead. The reality is, this
is just the reality. The historically blue states have already
been jerrymandered by Democrats to such a degree that there
really is much more to be gained from further efforts.
And in fact, as I said, it can probably backfire
because if they push it far enough, they may start

(09:55):
isolating and deluding the black vote, of the Hispanic voter,
the Asian voter, the game vote, whatever kind of vote
you want to put out there. They may start diluting that,
and a court's going to look at it and say,
wait a minute, you've gone beyond jerry mandering to the
point that you're actually violating the voting's right, the Voting
Rights Act.

Speaker 2 (10:18):
The reality.

Speaker 3 (10:19):
Think about the reality for California in particular, California's Republican
representation in Congress has fallen from as high as twenty
four representatives in two thousand to only nine in just
the past twelve election cycles. So newsance plan is to
try to take that down to as low as only

(10:40):
four congressmen. How much more juice can you squeeze in California.
Critics of Democrat jerry mandering are rightfully so, pointing to
states like Illinois fourteen to three in favor of Democrats,
New York twenty sixty seven in favorite Democrats US as

(11:01):
examples of this long history of partisan jerry mandaring in
their congressional districts.

Speaker 2 (11:07):
But there are some others.

Speaker 3 (11:08):
Maryland seven to one, Massachusetts nine to zero, New Jersey
nine to three. Trump only lost New Jersey by six percent,
yet they only have three, you know, Republican congressmen. Oregon
is five to one, Washington is eight to two. So
partisan jerry mandering might be slightly possible in states, but
there's no need to do it in those states because

(11:30):
one party controls both the legislature and the governor. There
are currently thirty eight states where that is the situation.
Twenty three of those states are controlled by the Republican
and fifteen are controlled by the Democrats. Unfortunately for Democrats,
of those fifteen states they control, eight are listed in
the in that this I gave you above Maryland and
the others, And for the most part, they've already realized

(11:53):
most of the game. They could possibly get from partisan
jerry mandring, which gets me to the following states under
Republican control that have not been jerry mandered to the
maximum extent possible to gain even more Republican voters. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee,

(12:14):
and Texas, Texas. You can probably take.

Speaker 2 (12:16):
Off the list.

Speaker 3 (12:17):
Now what they're doing is California. Newsom selfishly. This is
so typical of Democrats. He is selfishly trying to start
a partisan jerry mandering war that if he starts it,
he first faces losing it in California, which diminishes his

(12:40):
stature among the Democrats. Then the next thing that happens,
if he wins in California or he is able to
start this partisan jerry mandarin war, he's likely to lose
that because of those states that I just listed Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee,
and Texas Texas.

Speaker 2 (13:00):
Already you can.

Speaker 3 (13:02):
Take off the list, and they have gained Republican congressmen
in time for the twenty twenty six midterm elections. His gambit.
Newsom's gambit in doing this, I think is part of
the overall problem with the Democrat Party. Republicans have got

(13:26):
to learn to recognize that if if your enemy is dying,
they're digging a hole. They've got cancer, and it's metastasizing.
If you want your enemy to die, and in politics
it's win or lose, that's it.

Speaker 2 (13:43):
You either live or you die.

Speaker 3 (13:46):
If they really want Democrats to continue this downward spiral,
then shut up, shut up, and let them do it.
I want them to do it. I want the Democrat
Party to die. And what we see going on is
a Trump realignment that the Democrats have yet to come

(14:09):
up with any sort of messaging, strategy, tactics, plan or anything.
And in the absence of any overall Democrat leadership, what
do we see cropping up? Power abhors a vacuum. Politics
abhor vacuums. And when you have vacuums in place like

(14:32):
we have in New York, like we have in Minnesota,
you start to see the crazies come out. As much
as I despise Zoefram mom Dami or Omar Fatah in Minnesota,
the really sick political part of me.

Speaker 2 (14:54):
Once Fox News.

Speaker 3 (14:56):
And An and Newsmax and News Nation and and for
that matter, myself. This may be the last I talk
about this, to just shut up about it, because the
best antidote to socialism, Marxism and communism. The next story
I want to do is about Great Britain and how

(15:19):
all we have to do is look at Great Britain
to see how dangerous this tyranny is that of all places,
I mean, the home of the Magna Carta is turning
into a tyrannical dictatorship all because of the Labor Party. Well,
the Brits are beginning to realize that and rebel against it.

Speaker 2 (15:38):
I'll get into.

Speaker 3 (15:38):
Details later, but I want the same thing to happen here.
So I understand why it's going to hurt New York.
I don't care.

Speaker 2 (15:50):
One.

Speaker 3 (15:50):
I don't live in New York, so I don't care.
I don't live in Minnesota, so I don't care. I
already live in a blue state. This date, I think
can be saved. It's not gonna happen, Don't.

Speaker 2 (16:06):
Get me wrong.

Speaker 3 (16:06):
It's not gonna happen in these midterms. It's not gonna
happen in the next general election. But I do believe
that we are pricing ourselves out of business. We are
regulating ourselves out of business, and we are beginning to
californicate this place to such a degree that I think
there will be a backlash.

Speaker 2 (16:25):
Now.

Speaker 3 (16:25):
It will take time, but we will get there. The
rest of the country is not at that point yet.
They're at the point where as much as I despise
Jared Polus, and as much as I think he's just
a dufus, Jared Polus is not a full on Marxist,
but Mandami Zofran and Omar in Minnesota are actual Communists.

(16:50):
I want them to win, because then we've got it
in our back door, and people will wake up and
people will fight, absolutely fight Charlie Wilson's war. Don't forget that. Then,
mastering the Little Boy, we shall see.

Speaker 2 (17:19):
Dragon.

Speaker 1 (17:19):
You'd better just go ahead and fill out a trouble
ticket to get that website fixed.

Speaker 2 (17:24):
Can't have incomplete information on there. I'll pass, and that
ticket will be completed in well.

Speaker 3 (17:35):
By the time the sea levels rise eight feet, that
ticket will be completed.

Speaker 2 (17:39):
Yeah. By that time, we won't need to worry about
it anymore. Servers will be underwater. There was a time.

Speaker 3 (17:49):
Not so long ago when freedom defined the United Kingdom.
We want to believe that freedom still defines this country.
But in Great Britain, the concept of freedom is being dismantled,
and it's being dismantled as we were warned that those

(18:14):
who will trade, you know, a little bit of freedom
for some security will end up with neither. That's what's
happening in the UK, that freedom is being dismantled under
the comforting guise of safety and progress. What was once

(18:34):
absolutely unthinkable has simply become routine because state power grows,
and the state power is growing because speech, speech is
being silenced in plain sight of those who fought the Nazis,
those who stood firm against communism, do you think that

(18:58):
any of those men, or the women that worked in
the hospitals, the nurses, or anybody else, do you believe
that any of them believe that their sacrifice would one
day end with modern Britain not just sliding intotality totalitarianism,
but actually celebrating it with pride. There are thirty people

(19:21):
every single day in the UK that are arrested on
a daily basis for this horrific crime of expressing their views. Now,
I don't know ten years ago, twenty years ago, those
kinds of headlines, those kinds of stories, those kind of

(19:43):
little factoids, would have belonged to the most backward to
spotty corners of the world, in all the Third World
craphole countries. But here we are twenty twenty five in
the United Kingdom, in Britain. In their quotes, here, Great Britain,
this is the headline while their economy collapses and the
once great public services wrought from within over on ex

(20:09):
the British patriot breaking Labour's crackdown on offensive social media
posts has searched over thirty arrests daily. That's roughly eleven
thousand yearly for expressing views, including anti immigration sentiments. This
isn't democracy, it's authoritarian control. And don't make any mistake here.

(20:34):
The rock that started and kind of fermented this dystopia
didn't begin in ancient history. It's really recent. Can you
remember Prime Minister Teresa May. That's a name out of
the past. It really started under her leadership, because under
her reign is when we got the Online Safety Act

(20:58):
that was sold to the British public as a shield
to protect the children.

Speaker 2 (21:04):
We did.

Speaker 3 (21:05):
They did it for the children to protect them from harm.
But what did that Online Safety Act.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
Really, do please think of the children.

Speaker 3 (21:14):
That Online Safety Act birth the surveillan state where everybody
in Great Bentain really now lives under the fear of
a knock at the door. Bobby's here now. Of course
they don't come with guns because they're so stupid. They
don't carry guns. You're now at the spot.

Speaker 2 (21:38):
Have you?

Speaker 3 (21:39):
Have you watched the whole fiasco over cracker barrel? In't
that freaking hilarious? I I when I first saw the story,
I was like I. I looked at the logo, I
just didn't care. And then I start reading Robbie Starbucks
and I follow each other on X and I start
reading Robbie Starbuck, who has who has really dug down

(22:02):
in and found that, Oh it's the board, the marketing director.
They're pulling the same Budweiser crap and they lost two
hundred million dollars in market cap yesterday. Yeah, stock just
went right down. They're trying to implement d I A
d I A DI. So when you when you when

(22:25):
you birth a surveillance state, people really do live in
fear of saying anything, thinking anything. Whispring to your neighbors,
whispring to your family and so where companies like Crocker
Barrel or others will preemptively censor themselves to avoid fines.
Where you think twice, maybe three times before posting anything

(22:47):
that might deviate from the official government line. Can you
imagine having an official government line? Yeah, I know, we
can can't wait. That's the sad part. Glob'll get over
an affairs posted. The UK's Online Safety Act, while intended
to protect users, risk severe infringement on freedom of speech

(23:09):
by empowered by empowering regulators to mandate broad content removal.
Platforms face immense pressure to over censor legal expression just
to avoid the hefty fines stifling open discourse and in
individual liberties worldwide. At X, we remain committed to defending
our users against such overrea. But let's get real. While

(23:34):
X is doing that, they're walking a tightrope. Hey, and
I firmly believe that Elon Musk will fight it tooth
and nail. He'll try to dance a fine line. He'll
try to dance on the pen, on the head of
the the the pin of the needle. He'll he'll he'll
try to do the best he can. But at some

(23:55):
point he'll just say, here's the check, but go fight them. Well,
let's get this is political persecution, that's what it really is.
Over thirty rest a day for speech crimes and more
than two hundred and fifty thousand non crime hate incidents,

(24:15):
two hundred and fifty thousand arrests for hate. How many
times do I call people stupid? Do I refer to
someone as stupid? I suppose that if there's somebody out
there that's offended by it, If we were in the UK,
I'd be expecting a knock on the you know, well,
they can't get in right now because they haven't opened

(24:37):
the elevators yet. But they still couldn't get in here,
but they could get up to the fourth floor once
the elevators go off, the lockdown, and I'd walk out
because I have well, I guess I could think the
stairs are still avoid them, but the speech police would
show up. Most of those so called offenses are not
even close, in my opinion, at least to hate speech.

(24:59):
There are people they're daring to question government narratives on immigration,
on gender, on their own national identity. But even that's
not enough for the globalist machine pulling the strings the
world economic for them that they're not that that backed regime.
They're not stopping. They're actually now pushing to outlaw banter.

(25:22):
At work, Dragon, we're in trouble. They're demanding backdoor access
to encrypted apps so they can listen in on your
private conversations, and they're inching towards what can only be
described as blasphemy laws, criminalizing criticism of Islam under the
banner of Islamophobia. So tell me how that's about safety.

(25:45):
It's like a Heckler's veto, Oh, you might offend an
Islamist somewhere. You might offend somebody that you know really
is stupid or they don't realize they're stupid, You stupid.

Speaker 2 (26:00):
I don't know. But it's not about safety.

Speaker 3 (26:03):
Britain right now is more dangerous than it's been in decades,
and they're not out there trying to protect the vulnerable.
It's the average citizen that cops that get the punishment
and the real criminals walk free. So what's the ingram
in endgame? Same as it is here with the Marxists
that are in control in parts of this country, and
it's about control. They want obedience, and you get obedience

(26:25):
by silencing people into submission, and then you wrap that
in the soft language of safety, inclusion and protecting the children.
But do you ever stop and ask yourself why the
government line was Joe Biden is the smartest man to

(26:46):
ever hold the presidency.

Speaker 2 (26:49):
He is sharp and own the ball right.

Speaker 3 (26:54):
And should be on Mount Rushmore and should be on
Mount Rushmore exactly. So why is this going on in
Great Britain? Control shutting you up? The cost of living
like it is in this country is just, you know,
astonishingly high. But the elites rake in the profits from

(27:15):
the chaos, and then they divide and they distract us.
So under this guise of safety, and this is something
we have to be very, very vigilant about because while
I support, approve, and watch what Trump is doing in
the District of Columbia, which is unique because he has

(27:37):
the authority to do that in the District of Columbia,
he could, under some very limited circumstances, do it in
other states, but we're not there yet. While I watch
what he does in DC and the crime rate plummet,

(27:57):
I applauded at the same time that I want additional
policing in Denver, I want it in Colorado. Obviously we
need it in Chicago. We need it in New York,
we need it everywhere because we've gone through the whole
defund the cops movement and that still is having It
is still reverberating throughout the country. In the United Kingdom,

(28:19):
it's turning into it's gone so far that they're now
criminalizing speech. And in addition to speech, they have a
two tier justice system.

Speaker 4 (28:33):
For example, And at two thirty in the morning, and
at two thirty in the morning the next morning, a
woman on the other side of Brother Edmond picks up
the phone and dialed nine ninety nine because she'd heard
a young girl screaming in the house next door, screaming.

Speaker 3 (28:52):
It's important to note they dialed ninety ninety nine because
they hurt a girl next door in the flats screaming.

Speaker 4 (29:01):
Police had gone around to the house. They found this
thirteen year old girl with another young girl. She was
almost completely naked, she was blind, drunk, and she was
with seven adult Pakistani men.

Speaker 2 (29:15):
She was drunken.

Speaker 4 (29:16):
Leary and Southwilch police arrested the thirteen year old girl
for being drunken disorderly. They took her back to the station,
put her in the cells, eventually charged her and she
was convicted.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
They didn't even question.

Speaker 4 (29:31):
For the men as to why they were in a
house with a thirteen year old girl who was nearly
naked from the early hours of the morning.

Speaker 3 (29:42):
So the response of the elites in Britain to this
public outrage is the censor, as if they didn't get
the memo regard on the outcome of the American Revolution.
They're even threatening to extradite in jail US citizens over
online post critical of Britain's Great Replacement, which continues at

(30:05):
full steam the leftist policies that if I criticize it,
if I had a high enough profile, they'd be coming
after me. We're losing Great Britain. The British empires disappearing physically,
and they're disappearing philosophically too. It could happen here, and

(30:31):
in some ways already is