8-26-25 - 7am - Hate Crime and Land Acknowledgments

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, as boy Scouts will retire the US flag, Yes,
and you retire it by burning it, So I think
aren't you also allowed to bury it as well when
you retire a fight? Or is I honestly don't remember. Yeah,

(00:21):
I think I think you think.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
All right, So we're talking about this executive order that
Trump signed that has I think the intended effect of
just unnecessarily stirring people up. I wanted to see if
anything had changed. And I'm not picking on Jesse. I

(00:47):
considered Jesse Kelly to be a friend. And you know,
if they asked me to fill in for him again,
I'll happily fill in for him again. I don't you know.
He and I agree probably on ninety nine point nine
percent of stuff. But twenty one hours ago he texted,
I'm sorry, he posted on X I would never in
a million years harm the American flag, but a president

(01:10):
telling me I can't has me as close as I'll
ever be to lighting one on fire. Which, then, you know,
the haters come out, as they always do. You don't
think I haven't been watching the hate come out this
week if you know what this week is, of course,
I'm watching the hate come out and it's just like, yeah,
you know what, bite my ass.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
I don't care.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
Candae Rights, go spend a year in jail. Nobody's stopping you,
or Maverick goose Rights, go ahead, burn the flag, go
straight to jail.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
I disagree with.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
Trump on some stuff, but not this. It's obvious you
never served this great country. Hens you your lack of respect.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
For our flag.

Speaker 2 (01:50):
Well, you might want to check your facts about whether
or not Jesse Kelly has ever served in the United
States military, because you know, well, in fact, somebody says
in the in the comments he did serve as a marine.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
Maverick replies, you never know.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
From his liberal response, Uh, rusty Rights, I agree with Jesse.
The flag issue and the intel stock issue, which I'm
still making notes about, are two extremely stupid things Trump
has done the last couple of days. All Right, As
I said in the last hour, I think I would

(02:27):
venture to say realistically that ninety nine point nine percent
of the people who are all pissed off one way
or the other, they're oh, yeah, finally we can burn
the flag. No, let's know what it says, or those
oh yeah, you know what, way, you can't burn the
flag because the Supreme Court says, well, you can, because
the Supreme Court says you can't. Nobody's getting it right

(02:49):
because nobody took the time to read what the executive
order actually says. I gave you a little bit. I
should have printed it out, but I and I give
you a little of a little bit of the language
in the last hour. The way this is written is

(03:10):
I think designed to just get people.

Speaker 1 (03:17):
Riled up.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
And that's why I disagree, not with the content of
what the executive order says, because, as I said last hour,
the executive order is simply a restatement of the current
lawhing There's nothing novel in this executive order that I
can find. But think about just the title. If I

(03:39):
told you that Donald Trump yesterday signed an executive order,
the title of which is prosecuting burning of the American flag,
what's your conclusion. I think most people would conclude that
trumpp has decided that despite two landmark Supreme Court rulings

(04:05):
that protect the burning of the American flag, or, let
me be specific, the desecration of the American flag as
protected speech is protected under the First Amendment Freedom of
speech clause, except as the Court very clearly spells out. However,

(04:29):
if you engage in flag burning as a means of
inciting violence, that is not protected speech any more than
speech itself is protected when it's used to incite riots. Again,
if if I go down to the sixteenth Street mall,

(04:49):
he may u l and there's a you know, maybe
there's some union workers protesting, and they seem a little
riled up, but they're just you know, marching in the circle,
you know, on their airing their pre pended, preprinted protests signs,
and they're you know, stabbing them up in the air,
and they're marching and and you know, and I start

(05:09):
marching with them, and I start talking about, you know,
this isn't gonna get us anywhere. We really need to
show this company. You know, Let's say they're they're they're
out here front in front of iHeart, which may not
be hard to get people to do. Uh, it might
be pretty easy to get the employees to go protest
out front. But if if I did, and they're they're
marching around the circle drive out front, and they're all mad,

(05:32):
and they're screaming and yelling, but they're you know, they're peaceful,
they're just mad, you know, they're they're they're screaming at management,
they're they're they're screaming at POORO.

Speaker 1 (05:39):
Tepper. Well it's his heart.

Speaker 2 (05:40):
They're just screaming at Tepper because Temper did something that
has got them pissed off, or whoever.

Speaker 1 (05:45):
It might be.

Speaker 2 (05:47):
And I say this, this isn't doing any good. See
all those rocks out there. We need to throw it
and break down we need we need to break these
doors down. We need we need to we need to
tear down that flag out there. They're there are three flags.
There's an American flag, a Colorado flag, and an iheartflag. Well,
let's tear them all down and let's burn them. Come on,

(06:07):
do it, do it, do it. I don't engage in it.
I don't tear the flags down. I don't throw a rock.
But I've egged them on. I've used my words to
incite violence. If indeed they tear the flags down and
burn them and they throw them to they start throwing.
You know, let's let's make it even better. They throw
some of the cinder blocks. So there's there's a big

(06:27):
trash can out front. They pick up that big gravel
covered trash can and they throw it through the windows,
and they break the windows open, and then they take
the flags and they start the flags on fire, and
they throw those into the into the into the into
the lobby. I would just well, my work is done here.
I can leave now, and the building burns down, and

(06:50):
of course management fires everybody, and then you know, life
goes on. I would be criminally charged for my speech.
And if I was the one who actually put the
lighter fluid on the flag, for burning the flag, even
though burning the flag is just speech is generally protected
because I did it in the context of inciting violence.

(07:16):
So let's go to the language in the executive order.
What's the purpose? Our great flag, he writes, is the
most sacred and cherry symbol of the United States of
America and of American freedom, identity, and strength. Over nearly
two and a half centuries, many thousands of American patriots
have fought, bled and dyed to keep the stars and
stripes waving proudly. The American flag is a special symbol

(07:40):
in our national life that should unite and represent all
Americans of every background and walk of life. Desecrating it
is uniquely offensive and provocative. It is a statement of
contempt hostility and violence against our nation the clearest possible
expression of oppositions of the political union that preserves our rights, liberty,

(08:04):
and security. Burning this representation of America may incite violence
and riot. American flag burning is also used by groups
of foreign nationals as a calculated act to intimidate and
threatened violence against Americans because of their nationality in place
of birth. Wow, I can see every red blooded American

(08:26):
standing him is going, yes, that's exactly right, that's exactly right.
And then, just like the headline, nobody reads the second paragraph.
Notwithstanding Supreme Court's rulings on First Amendment protections, the Court
has never held that American flag desecration conducted in a
manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action, or

(08:50):
that is an action amounting to quote fighting words close
quote is constitutionally protected. And in fact, they cite Texas v. Johnson,
giving the Court citation four ninety one US three ninety
seven at four oh eight. THAT'SH ten, pages four to eight.
THAT'SH ten in nineteen eighty nine. So what are the

(09:11):
measures that he wants the Attorney General to take to
prioritize the enforcement to the fullest extent possible of our
nation's criminal and civil laws against acts of American flag
desecration that violate applicable content neutral laws while causing harm
unrelated to expression consistent with the First Amendment. This may include,

(09:38):
but is not limited to, violent crimes, hate crimes, illegal
discrimination against American citizens or other violations of American civil rights,
and crimes against property and the peace, as well as
conspiracies and attempts to violate and aiding and abetting others
to violate such laws. And in those cases they want

(09:58):
the Attorney General and the Departmment of Justice, including the
US Attorneys to take action where appropriate. It's a nothing
burger other than, as I keep repeating, a restatement of
the law. Well on the text line, Well, Michael, why

(10:22):
is it that burning the flag, burning the Pride flag
is a federal hate crime? Your premise is incorrect. Burning
a Pride flag is not automatically classified as a hate
crime in this country.

Speaker 1 (10:38):
Now.

Speaker 2 (10:38):
It can be prosecuted as a hate crime under both
federal and state law if it is accompanied by targeted
conduct or an intent to intimidate, an intent to intimidate
or harass a protective group, especially when it is combined

(11:00):
with acts of violence like theft, vandalism, or threats. The
First Amendment broadly protects symbolic speech, including burning flags, including
the Pride flag, the Israeli flag, the Flag of Dave,
the Star anything, the Star of David, or for that matter,
the Quran, the Bible, whatever it is you want to

(11:23):
go burn, the First Amendment broadly protects that as part
of our freedom of speech. But unless the actions constitute
another crime, it is not protected. You are engaged in arson.
For example, I don't tear down the flag out here,

(11:45):
but I get an extender of some sort, and I
use the extender to pour gas or lighter fluid on
these three flags flying out here, and then I use
the same extender to light those flags on fire. Well, one,
that's arson, it's vandalism. It may be other crimes I

(12:13):
can't think of off the top of my head. But
that's not my flag. Now, if I bring my own
flag and I'm out here on the sidewalk, not on
the driveway, because now when I'm on the driveway, I'm
on private property. But when I'm out here on the
sidewalk of public easement, and I decide to burn my
own American flag, or my own Pride flag, or my

(12:34):
own Star of David. If I decide to burn that,
and I'm not violating any other laws or any other
ordinance such as you know, prohibitions against open fires, and
I just burn it, I'm probably not. I'm just expressing,
you know, whatever I want, whatever is I'm ostensibly expressing,
and that is not a hate crime. The federal hate

(12:58):
crime statutes. The couple will come to mind, the Matthew
Shepard Law out of the killing that kid up in Wyoming,
the James Byrd Hate Crime Prevention Act. Those two federal
laws criminalize acts of violence or intimidation that is motivated
by bias against protected characteristics, including sexual orientation, but does

(13:23):
not directly criminalize expressive conduct like burning a flag, unless
that burning of the flag is linked to the threats,
the vandalism, or the harassment. I know it's a lot
of legalese to comprehend and understand, but don't let the

(13:46):
cabal convince you that somehow Donald Trump has overruled the
US Supreme Court and outlawed and is now going to
prosecute the burning of the American flag. And I don't
think that it is just a hate crime just to
burn a Pride flag or an Israeli flag. But I

(14:09):
if I go to let me think of a you know,
our Jewish friend, if we look up his address, I
mean this is equivalent to the KKK. If I look
up his address and I go to his house, and

(14:29):
I step onto his property, and I like an Israeli
flag or rather than a cross, I put up a
Star of David and I cover it in gas and
I burn it. That's intimidation. I am purposely trying to
intimidate someone based upon their race and their religion. And

(14:53):
that is a hate crime. Now I don't like hate crimes,
and I think in it's dead. Now, intimidation I might
be able to agree with. I think that is a
legitimate criminal offense, but to call it a hate crime
kind of bugs me. But because there are plenty of

(15:14):
other things. First of all, I'm committing potential arson, I'm
certainly violating his private property rights, and I am clearly
trying to intimidate him based solely on his religion. Now
let's say he's a Jewish gay man, and so I decide, oh,

(15:35):
I'm going to burn the Star of David. I'm going
to burn the Israeli flag, and I'm going to throw
in for good measure of Pride flag too. Clearly intimidation.
It's not the burning of the flag itself, It's that
I'm burning the flag to intimidate, and that's a huge distinction.
Context is crucial. Now, some inc in Colorado other states

(16:01):
have charged individuals with hate crimes after burning Pride flags,
but the acts included stealing the flag, burning it on
somebody else's property, or expressing a clear unequivocal intent by
words or deeds to threaten or harass particular religious groups

(16:23):
or particular groups based upon their sexual preferences. So you see,
the context is absolutely crucial. If a flag is somebody
else's property and the act is accompanied by anti gay speech,
anti Semitic speech, threats, or vandalism, then the prosecutors could
probably charge the individual with property crimes and hate crime enhancements.

(16:48):
I found one example just briefly during the break and
Iowa stealing and burning a Pride flag led to a
fifteen year hate crime sentence when the act was motivated
by animal towards some LGBTQ plus person. Washington, Louisiana, burning
a stolen Pride flag along with derogatory statements resulted in

(17:09):
hate crime charges plus others. The Colorado Attorney General, which
I don't agree with about anything, but I do hear,
says that burning a Pride flag could be a crime
if if I underline, it constitutes vandalism, harassment, or intimidation.

(17:31):
But just again, a simple expressive act is not going
to reach the threshold of a hate crime. But vandalizing
or threatening or targeting religious or sexual preference groups or
their property may indeed be a crime. Those idea say
hate crime, but a crime. So burning a flag, no threats,

(17:56):
no other violations. No, it's not a federal or it's
not is rare. If a state club, learning another body's
another person's flag with neutral intent, probably not a federal crime.
But it's state law, it probably is. It's fat vandalism,
but probably not a hate club. You don't think you've
gone off the def yet.

Speaker 1 (18:16):
Let me give you a little shove. Is he gonna
shove me like with his arms?

Speaker 2 (18:26):
Or am I gonna be sitting on the edge of
the precipice or sitting on the precipice I catch the
edge of the precipice. Is redundant. So I'm on the
precipice of going over the edge, and is he just
like foolishly not thinking to himself, think I'm just gonna
push him off with my eighteen wheeler. And he just
comes charging at me at eighty miles an hour in

(18:46):
the eighteen wheeler. And then he realizes as he he's
kind of like the you know, the roadrunner and the coyote,
and suddenly he realizes that, yeah, I'm going over the edge,
but so is he.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
I picture it more of a this is Sparta kick.
Oh you think that's it? Yeah, huh, well in that case,
I just step aside real quickly, and then he just
go flying. Uh.

Speaker 2 (19:13):
We're dragon, and I are quite aware about the problem
with the top of the hour news. You don't think
this stuff doesn't drive us crazy. We come in here
and I know you don't think it's a quality product.
But in our minds we try to put together what
we think is a quality product, the best that our
stupid little brains can come up with, and we come

(19:33):
up with what we think is the best we can do,
you know, at least on our report card we get
you know, puts out the effort, what was that phrasing
your grade school report card? Try as hard or whatever
we're trying. We're trying. We can't help it. If somebody
that's sitting in I don't know, Islamabad is the one

(19:53):
putting up the ABC news. So dragons on top of it, dragons.

Speaker 1 (19:59):
On top of it. I don't know what that means,
but he's on top of it. He's to find those
in charge and I will replace with other news.

Speaker 2 (20:08):
Why don't you just give us? Won't you just take
that cart out?

Speaker 1 (20:14):
Figuratively speaking, because.

Speaker 2 (20:16):
We don't really have you know, what did we call
him carts?

Speaker 1 (20:18):
We don't have carts anymore? Right, yeah, well what do
we call it? Rolling down the window? Right? But right,
so we don't have cards, so we don't actually ring anymore.
So why don't you just take that cart out? And
you know, I'll just do our own news for that
two or three minutes. You want to do more work, Well,
we'll just make up crap. Oh okay, that sounds pretty

(20:39):
easy in my brain.

Speaker 2 (20:40):
As I said, we'll make up crap, you know what
I was thinking, Right, we'll just make up you know,
feaces dig Yeah, so let's go to CNN. This guy
that does the polling at CNN is absolutely hilarious. He

(21:01):
I don't know whether he's a former gymnast, he's a
former dancer or what. But this guy, I mean, I
know that I'm on air and you can't see me,
and yet Dragon will confirm that I talk with my
hands incessantly at quite a lot while I'm sitting here.
My hands are flying the entire time that I'm talking.

Speaker 1 (21:25):
Some of those every now and again.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
Yeah, because I accidentally hit the microphone. I tried to,
you know, I tried to keep it at the appropriate distance.
Yet my hands just kind of getting away sometimes, or
you might hear my elbows hit the console. But yeah, Uh,
what was I saying about a quality program? We try,
we try, we try, and that's all, you know, in
today's world, just trying is the same as doing a

(21:51):
fantastic job anyway, CNN.

Speaker 3 (21:54):
Look, the Democratic brand right now has about the appeal
with the American voter as the cracker barrel rebrand has.

Speaker 2 (22:03):
CNN's making fun of the cracker barrel rebrand. Oh, just glorious,
Absolutely glorious.

Speaker 3 (22:11):
Look the Democratic brand right now has about the appeal
with the American voter as the cracker barrel rebrand has
with the American consumers.

Speaker 1 (22:20):
Bad, bad, bad. What are you doing?

Speaker 3 (22:22):
Oh my goodness, gracious, what are we talking about here
in terms of big party registration changes in the key
swing states. Let's look at the key four swing states
that in fact do keep tract of registration by party. Look,
the Republican Party is in their best position at this
point in the cycle since at least two thousand and five,
and all four of these key battleground states. We go
out to the southwest, Arizona, how about Nevada, Republicans haven't

(22:46):
done this well since two thousand and five.

Speaker 1 (22:49):
Oh, my goodness, Gracio, at.

Speaker 3 (22:50):
This point of cycle, North Carolina. I couldn't find the
point at which Republicans were doing better at this point
in cycle. It's at least this century, probably goes way
back in the last century. Sylvania, very similar. Republicans doing
better at this point than at any point at any
point this century, at least as far as I could find. Now,
what types of gains are we talking about here for

(23:11):
the Republican Party. Well, let's compare it to this point
during the first Trump administration, all the way back in
twenty seventeen. Look at this the Republican party gains and
party registration compared to this point back in twenty seventeen
during the Trump first administration. In Arizona, you got a
Republican gain of three points. Okay, how about Nevada. Up
the hill we go, even though we're sticking in the Southwest,

(23:32):
a gain of six points. How About again we come
to the east coast North Carolina, a gain of eight
points for the Republicans. And in the Keystone State, in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, again we're talking about a gain
of eight points. My goodness, gracious for Republicans. They are
converting old former Democrats to their side of the ledger
as well as picking up new voters, registering new voters,

(23:53):
and it absolutely paid off for them back in the
twenty twenty four election.

Speaker 1 (23:58):
Wow, those are really some amazing That means that this
is incredible to me.

Speaker 2 (24:03):
It's incredible not just because of the numbers, but it's
amazing that CNN keeps letting this guy keep discussing these
heresies to the CNN role as the propaganda wing of
the Democrat Party. It's like, is he their token truth teller?
Is that what's going on?

Speaker 1 (24:22):
It's got to drive.

Speaker 2 (24:24):
Everybody to Democrat National Committee Headquarters. Absolutely completely totally insane.
But wait a minute, that was stupid of me, because
everybody at the DNC is already complete, totally, absolutely backcrap crazy.
Just this is how they kicked off their bi annual

(24:48):
strategy meeting on Monday.

Speaker 1 (24:51):
These are the Democrats.

Speaker 3 (24:54):
Is Lyndy Somak, who is from the Sagona Ojibwe nation,
and she's going to deliver for our land acknowledgment today, Lindy.

Speaker 2 (25:03):
RG and I think we should start every program with
a land acknowledgment. What does that mean, Well, just listen
and you'll hear. But I think we should do it
to clans. iHeart this Indian woman's coming.

Speaker 1 (25:21):
Up to the stage.

Speaker 4 (25:22):
Bouju, Lindy Samic needed Digiti cause amicdotum Uh, sag Dosaba
and sabe Quay.

Speaker 5 (25:30):
And now good morning DNC members, friends and relatives. Let's
talk about the land for a second. Uh. The DNC
acknowledges and honors the Dakota Yata, the Dakota people who
are the original stewards of the lands and waters of Minneapolis.
The Dakota cared for the lands lakes in the Wakatanka,

(25:50):
the Great River, the Mississippi River. For thousands of years
before colonization, this land was not cleaned or traded. It's
a part of a history of broken treaty and promises,
and in many ways we still live in a system
built to suppress Indigenous people's cultural and spiritual history.

Speaker 2 (26:08):
As democrats, they stole the land. They they literally are
claiming that they stole the land and they want to
ignow this is a land acknowledgment that we acknowledge that
we are here.

Speaker 1 (26:23):
On stolen land. This is unbelievable to me. So when
they listen, listening Nation and.

Speaker 3 (26:39):
She's going to deliver our land acknowledgment today, Lindy.

Speaker 2 (26:42):
Our land acknowledgement. She's going to deliver the land acknowledgement.

Speaker 4 (26:48):
Boju uh indigen cause amicdotum uh sag and and now
good morning DNC members from and relatives.

Speaker 5 (27:01):
Let's talk about the land for a second. The DNC
acknowledges and honors the Dakota YadA, the Dakota people who
are the original stewards of the lands and waters of Minneapolis.
The Dakota cared for the lands lakes in the Wakatanka,
the Great River, the Mississippi, River. For thousands of years
before colonization, this land was not cleaned or traded. It's

(27:24):
a part of a history of broken treaties and promises,
and in many ways we still live in a system
built to suppress indigenous people's cultural and spiritual history as democrats.

Speaker 2 (27:36):
So the land was stolen Lindy, so give it back
to them. Just give the land back to them. Here's
my take on it. No one even so called Indians
in America. I don't like to tame term Native Americans.
They're Indians. I have Cherokee blood coursing through my veins.

(28:00):
They're Indians. We conquered those. Those Indians are not Native.
They all moved everybody, No, no one isn't. Everybody moves
since the beginning of civilization. Civilizations have moved all around
the globe. And there are conquerors. There've always been conquerors. Now,

(28:21):
if you want to bitch about how after we conquered
Indians in the Great you know, westward expansion, then I
would say that's a legitimate subject to discuss.

Speaker 1 (28:34):
But either shut.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
Up about stolen lands or give Minneapolis back to just
give Minneapolis back and all that tax revenue and all
that property and all those property rights. Give it back,
give it back to the Dakotas, give it back to them,
or sit down and shut up.

Speaker 6 (28:51):
Michael, how you thought that maybe this whole thing with
the flag burning is Donald Trump's way of exonerating himself
over janeu recy. He spoke he did not inside a riot,
therefore he shouldn't be charged with anything.

Speaker 2 (29:06):
Just the thought, well, this is not your number, but
zero ninety three eight, writes Mike. I've been thinking about
the flag EO for a bit. I think that it's
a very calculated move by Trump. It galvanizes his base,
taunts his Trump Derangement syndrome, suffering haters into burning flags,
which also brings in people that still love America even

(29:28):
if they don't care for him.

Speaker 1 (29:30):
Oh, there's no.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
Question in my mind that it's absolutely designed to troll. Now,
whether it's working or not work, well, it's clearly trolling,
and it's clearly showing that people don't pay attention to
what it really means. And to your point, yeah, it
may be a way of exonerating him because well, but

(29:51):
somebody else also wrote, where is it that if he
had or I just see somebody says Ross's trademark semi
professional radio.

Speaker 1 (30:08):
Yeah, so we can't use that.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
Someone says we should coin quasi professional radio. How about
we just don't give a ratsas radio.

Speaker 1 (30:19):
Yeah, that sounds about right now. I think that would
be a more appropriate Yeah, I think that's it.

Speaker 2 (30:23):
Anyway, somebody else had something. I can't find it right now.
But let's get back to the land acknowledgement UH five
seven ninety two. Rights Mike. I did a tour of
Colorado State University with my daughter and the land acknowledgment
was the first thing that they spent time on during
the welcome I immediately removed CSU from from our list of schools,
and my daughter will be attending an SEC school. They're

(30:47):
really serious about this stuff, and I'm really serious too.
As somebody pointed out, there is no stolen land. It's
either conquered or it's squatted. Yes, well, but stolen is
a much better word than conquered or squatted. We stole
it from those Indians. We stole it. It's a meaningless

(31:09):
exercise in which all these stupid old white boomers in
any Democrat crowd somehow get to make themselves feel better
by giving someone that they may or may not actually
have a drop of real Indian blood flowing in their veins.
About a minute to remind all of those aging boomers
that their ancestors stole the land they're standing on, even

(31:33):
though there are no land records in existence to prove
that those particular lands were ever actually owned by anyone
prior to the arrival of Europeans on this continent. That
was a long, no breath sentence. But stop and think

(31:54):
about it. Did think about all the tribes, whether you
had the five civilized tribes or they, or you had
the roaming tribes of the West, you had the Comanches
and Apaches and all of those versus the Cherokees and
the Siouxs. You know, just think of all the tribes.

(32:17):
Do they have a system of land titles?

Speaker 1 (32:20):
No? And in fact, what did they do.

Speaker 2 (32:23):
They would conquer and claim territory for their own, and
then when some other tribe would come in and drive
them out, they would move somewhere else and they would
claim that territory for their own. And then we come
in and we claim the territory for ourselves. As I
said earlier, stop the bull crap about whether or not
it's stolen land.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
Yes, did we conquer the land. Yes, because just as.

Speaker 2 (32:47):
Every tribe of people Indian or No Indian, European, Middle Eastern,
whatever you know, African, whatever you want to use, they've
all moved, conquered and taken over land. Now, if you
want to bitch and moan about how we treated the
Indians after we conquered this land, I think that's a

(33:09):
legitimate discussion to have. I think we were awful. I
think it was horrific how we treated Indians. But don't
tell me that we owe them anything, because we don't.
There's a huge difference between reparations and repatriation, and what
they're talking about here is repatriating those lands back to

(33:33):
the Indians. Are they really going to do it? No,
it's a bunch of bull crap. The acknowledgment that the
DNC used came barely a minute into the meeting. Did
any one of those stupid boomer lefties stand up and
become the very first old white lefty boomer in American
history to commit to giving back the land they own,

(33:57):
whether it's where I'm sitting right now or the land
that I own in Island Ranch, Colorado. But do I
really own it? Since I've always owned property taxes on
it or in New Mexico. Should I just you know, look,
and by the way, who.

Speaker 1 (34:12):
Would I give it to? Who? And I'm not going
to do it.

Speaker 2 (34:18):
I conquered that land. I didn't conquer it with you know,
a bow and arrow. I didn't conquer it with a gun.
I conquered it with a mortgage and payment.

Speaker 1 (34:28):
How about that?

Speaker 2 (34:28):
That's how I conquered the land.