May 5, 2025 • 52 mins
Recorded May 5, 2025
In this episode, we dive headfirst into the most explosive controversies rocking the political scene! From President Trump's staggering $200 billion spending explosion-covering defense, border security, and the astonishing Stargate AI project-to his groundbreaking $1,000 self-deportation plan for undocumented immigrants, we break down the facts and their massive repercussions. Plus, we explore the Trump Organization's expanding footprint in the Middle East, and the wild misinformation swirling around online. Don't miss our raw and real take on these contentious topics! #TrumpSpending #SelfDeportation #ImmigrationPolicy #TrumpOrganization #MiddleEastDeals #GunViolenceMemorial #Misinformation #ElianGonzalez #MediaBias #PoliticalPodcast #TrumpNews #AIInvestment #BorderSecurity
Trump Administration, Government Spending, Immigration Policy, Self-Deportation Program, Trump Organization Middle East, ATF Memorial Removal, Gun Violence Debate, Misinformation Social Media, Elian Gonzalez Case, New York Times Bias, Political News 2025, Stargate AI Project, Border Wall Funding, Federal Budget, National Debt, Podcast Episode
Chapters
00:00 Introduction and Personal Updates
03:45 Government Spending and Political Hypocrisy
06:53 Defense Spending and National Debt
09:45 AI Investments and Economic Growth
12:58 Immigration Policies and Self-Deportation
15:53 Trump Organization's Business Ventures
18:54 Ethical Concerns and Conflicts of Interest
21:46 Gun Violence Memorial Removal and Political Implications
28:25 Balancing Agency Concerns and Public Memorials
30:53 The Impact of Misinformation
36:20 Historical Context of Deportation Policies
43:34 Political Posturing vs. Humanitarian Concerns
46:02 Media Responsibility and Public Trust
51:41 Education and Content Oversight
56:42 Outro Video Updated 021325.mp4
CONTACT US
Newsletter - https://substack.com/@reasonablearguments
Website - https://reasonablearguments.com/
________________________________________________________________________
OUR CHANNELS
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@Reasonablearguments
Jamie - https://www.facebook.com/repjam
Jennifer - https://www.facebook.com/jenniferbashsrq
Reasonable Arguments - https://www.facebook.com/reasonableargument/
Jamie – https://www.instagram.com/repjam/
Jennifer - https://www.instagram.com/jennifer_srq/
Reasonable Arguments - https://www.instagram.com/reasonable_arguments/
TIKTOK
Jamie - https://www.tiktok.com/@repjam
Jennifer - https://www.tiktok.com/@jenniferbashsrq
Reasonable Arguments - https://www.tiktok.com/@reasonablearguments
X
Jamie – https://x.com/repjam
Jennifer - https://x.com/jennifer_srq
Reasonable Arguments - https://x.com/reasonableargue
_________________________________________________________________________
HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT US?
Please Subscribe and Share!! It means more than you will ever know.<
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:49):
All right.
So we are back after a over a week hiatus to we went to go see the birth of our newestgranddaughter.
Reagan Sloan Miller born born on May 1st.
(01:17):
pause
He did not hit the pause button.
so today we're going to be talking about spending.
We're going to be talking about immigration, which I'm so tired of talking about, but itis just so prevalent.
Nuggy
Okay.
(01:38):
All right.
And you've shared none of this with me, by the way.
So we're just winging it.
I'm winging it.
You're prepared.
we have a lot to go through.
Okay, so the first thing we're going to talk about is the $200 billion or 200 billion morethan the same period last year that Trump has spent.
(01:58):
he also promised to slash government spending, let's talk about what he's done in thefirst 100 days.
So he has spent significant increases on the defense spending, which includes investmentsin the military systems and modernization efforts, border security and immigration
(02:18):
enforcement.
He has spent approximately 46 and a half billion, which was allocated to expand theUS-Mexico
border wall.
hire border patrol agents and implement stricter immigration policies.
He spent initial funding of 100 billion committed to the Stargate AI project aiming toestablish a major AI data center.
(02:43):
And nobody's talking about this, but despite announcements of layoffs and spending cuts,federal salaries have actually gone up.
I think they received, everybody in the federal government received a 2 % raise, which...
nobody's talking about, but that's in there.
And then interest on a national debt.
So with the national debt standing at 36 trillion, interest payments have increased,adding the overall federal expenditure.
(03:10):
giving these spending increases, how do they align with the administration's stated actsof they are going to decrease government spending?
So you didn't include the Doge cuts, which I think stands around $130 or $140 billion
right now.
(03:34):
Okay, so I was unaware of that.
So it sounds like there's a lot of spending in there that are one-time allocations, notongoing allocations.
The salary part, of course, you know,
people being people, you want to keep employees at some level, right?
Even though you're cutting government employees.
(03:55):
So two things, one is that a 2 % raise is not in, you know, not out of the ordinary.
Number two, because Democrats sued Trump and didn't let him, you know, cut everywhere hewanted to with employees, he cut all entry level employees.
(04:17):
All those entry level employees, you can guess, are at the lower end of the pay scale.
So when you average the salaries for federal employees, it's going to increase the averagesalary.
So that to me is a math issue, not necessarily a policy issue that will flatten out overtime.
And so you start looking at the 100 million implementation for AI and things like that.
(04:44):
moving the military, which probably did not have a line item for border security, becausewe didn't have the military on the border and he moved the military to the border.
So moving all that equipment and men, know, moving the equipment and men is a one-timeallocation versus, you know, now we're going to maintain that.
(05:05):
So it sounds like a lot of this and a lot of Trump's first 100 days chaotic as it hasbeen.
Number one seems to be leveling out.
Number two seems to be playing the long game.
He has made short term, I don't think there's any question people can say, it's beenchaotic the first 100 days, but I think there has been a plan.
(05:26):
I think they implemented the plan to the best of their ability with knowing that a lot ofthis was going to.
probably get not stopped in the course of that may be a surprise to them.
don't know.
I wasn't there to know, this is how much they thought they would, how far they thoughtthey would get before judges slowed things down.
(05:47):
But I do think that they have certainly were prepared for that and have implementedstrategies to overcome it.
So, and you kind of answered the question of what the potential long-term implications ofthe spending pattern would be on the federal budget and national debt, which we know the
national debt will, you know, will have the interest on that.
(06:07):
wrote in the Substack newsletter, you know, the way we really come out of our debtsituation, the way we've come out of our debt situation in the past is through economic
growth, increasing the GDP.
You know, we are currently at a ratio of 123 percent
debt to GDP.
(06:28):
The last time we were here was following World War II.
We carried this much debt.
innovation, think of all the inventions that came out of World War II, all the economicboom we had after World War II.
We have that type of opportunity with AI.
(06:49):
And so now you're saying 100 million of the 200 billion.
is an investment in AI.
There's no question we probably need to double or triple that.
We need to double or triple the amount of energy that we're capable of creating.
China is way ahead of us in developing thorium nuclear power, which is way safer, notnuclear-grade waste.
(07:19):
safer waste and...
We developed that in the 1950s and we basically put it on the shelf because we went withuranium because we could get the weapon grade nuclear capabilities out of that.
And so now we're way behind.
And the only way we're going to power AI into the future is probably through nuclear.
Wind's not going to get there.
Solar is certainly not going to get there.
And people are wanting to go away from fossil fuels to save the earth.
(07:43):
So uh
is only clean energy that can power us into the future and into this new AI economy.
And there's no question that the AI economy can be that internet economy on steroids.
Remember, that's the last time we balanced our budget.
Yeah, like 2001 or something like that.
(08:04):
at the end of the Clinton administration, beginning of the George W.
administration.
I think we last balanced the budget in 2002.
We last
had a budget in 1998 that went through the budget process and was delivered to thepresident on time.
(08:25):
we've had a generation of leaders not balance the budget, not present a budget on time,not go through the proper budget process, just one continuing resolution after another.
that's insane.
Well, you have to think that, especially moving forward,
If you get younger presidents in who are more technology and all of that this is gonnathis is gonna continue to be
(08:49):
to hear the 100 billion investment in AI.
You know, I'd like to see another 100 billion at least in thorium nuclear technologybecause we have to develop that because China is developing it.
Whoever is able to empower AI for the next 20 years is going to capture the economicgrowth like we saw in the late 1990s.
(09:11):
with, it's funny to talk about now, internet, websites, and email, right?
But think of all of the things that happened around that and the economic productivitythat happened around it.
And we have that opportunity again.
We should not squander it.
All right, so that kind of leads into the next one.
So breaking news today was that Trump has introduced a program offering undocumentedimmigrants $1,000 to basically self-deport.
(09:36):
Right.
And so the initiative is facilitated through the CBP Home App, which is what Biden hadstarted to bring people in.
And now it's been what was the CBP
app now it's the CBP home app because now you're going home you're not staying here.
So the Department of Homeland Security estimates that this approach could reducedeportation costs by approximately 70 % lowering the average expense from $17,121 to
(10:10):
$4,500 per individual.
What was the first number?
um
So the cost efficiency is traditional deportation involves arrest, detention, legalproceedings and transportation.
(10:34):
By incentivizing voluntary departures, the administration aims to alleviate financialburden on taxpayers.
The legal implications are while the program suggests that self-deportation might preservethe option for legal reentry, some people are concerned that they could face the mandatory
10-year ban if they leave.
And then ethical considerations are critics argue that offering financial incentives forself-deportation may be perceived as coercive, especially if individuals are unaware of
(11:04):
the potential long-term legal consequences.
So, you know, things that really need to be looked at is, you know, does the financialincentive for self-deportation represent a pragmatic solution to immigration or does it
raise ethical concerns?
about coercion and informs?
Well, I don't know about the ethical concerns.
(11:24):
To me, it seems as ethical as anything.
It's not ethical.
We've heard from four immigration experts.
They all said it's not ethical to have illegal immigrants here.
to sit there and say, hey, people to leave is unethical is just hypocrisy at its finest.
(11:45):
ridiculous argument in my humble opinion.
Now, if you look at whether $1,000 gets it done or $5,000 gets it done, it's probably thebetter part of valor is to pay them to self-deport versus going through this entire
process where George Soros and all these
(12:06):
NGOs and liberals are financing to try to keep people here.
then clog up our
judicial system.
know sometime over the weekend Donald Trump said, are we supposed to do?
We four million trials.
Like, that's what they want.
And it's all ridiculous.
Yeah.
They're just trying to make the problem so big.
(12:26):
And they did.
They made the problem so big by allowing so many people across our border that it's like,what do do now?
Yeah.
And they did it intentionally.
to negatively impact our country for their own short-term political gain.
Short-term political gain.
And it's ridiculous.
so, um, they, you know, I hope people continue to remember this and punish Democrats atthe ballot box for, for this completely unethical, illegal entry into the United States
(12:57):
that they all supported.
Everybody with a D by their name running for mayor all the way up to president of theUnited States supported this.
Well, and you have the other representative the state representative who's said she'sgonna stay in El Salvador until What's his face is released?
so How might this program impact legal standing of participants particularly concerningthe future of eligibility for US residency or citizenship?
(13:23):
Listen I'm not an expert on legal or illegal immigration.
You know my personal opinion is if you deport you know today
you're now the first person at the bottom of the list.
So there's a, let's pretend that there's a list of people who are allowed to immigrate.
Let's pretend that it's a million people long.
If you're the first person to sign up, you're on the list at 1,000,001.
(13:46):
Right?
And then you can, so what legally has to happen for that, whether that's a true act ofCongress or whether that's administrative or uh executive order, I don't know.
But to me, that's the way this should work.
that, you know, hey, listen, not only do get your money, there's no in your band, there'sno anything you are coming in, you get you are the person line that the list, you know,
(14:12):
bottom of the list that occurs today, right?
And if you're, you know, the 1 million person who signs up
this, well, then you're number 2 million.
And then you come back through the proper process.
Listen, we're, letting 1 million people in 1.2 million people in per year legally.
So.
you know I don't know how long that list is but we certainly you know people may have toreport for a period of years but it's probably not decades yeah you know and so take your
(14:39):
money and run it'll be interesting to see how many people sign up for this and and do this
whether a thousand dollars is enough, so you get a thousand dollars cash when you'rethere.
Well,
then they'll still send you home they'll put you on a plane and send you Yeah, well that'swhat they're saying the 40 the 4500 or whatever it is per person to get them back so Yeah,
(15:14):
exactly
But I think the practical application is so many people are here working, sending moneyhome.
So now if you're not able to send that, you know, are you taking enough with you $1,000 toreally support what you're supporting now?
And so, again, we'll see.
Okay, all right, so the next thing we're gonna talk about is while President Trumpoccupies the Oval Office his family business is expanding its footprint in the Middle East
(15:44):
So we have the Trump Organization announced the partnership with Qatar How do you say it?
Q a tar guitar
A government owned company in a Saudi-based Dar Global to develop a luxury golf resort inQatar.
(16:10):
I will seriously punch you.
The project includes Trump branded villas and an 18 hole golf course, marking thecompany's first real estate venture in Qatar.
An expansion in Saudi Arabia in the UAE.
The Trump Organization is expanding in the Middle East in Dubai plans are underway for theTrump International Hotel and Tower and 80 story skyscraper featuring the world's highest
(16:33):
rooftop infinity pool.
Additionally, the company is developing a second high-end residential tower in Judea SaudiArabia ethical concerns and conflicts of interest You know these foreign business plus I
think Trump had said we're not doing any kind of business with foreign companies rightwith foreign countries
(16:56):
don't know that he said that but if he said it he said it I don't recall that.
uh
(17:17):
pledges to avoid new foreign deals during his presidency How do you think these recentventures align with that?
So here's the thing the optics aren't great right but but what what we're seeing is theTrump Organization which is a development a development company for luxury properties is
(17:38):
developing luxury properties
So this is not a Hunter Biden situation where, you know, he's, he's bringing ingovernment, you know, access now, you know, if they tie it into government access or
something like that, then okay.
But, but to me, what everything you've read here is an American company doing legalbusiness in a foreign country with what their main source of income is, which is building
(18:08):
luxury.
hotels and golf courses.
if you want to ask me if the optics are bad, yeah.
So of course I'm a partisan, right?
(18:29):
So it would be worse.
But but the difference is we're looking at apples and oranges.
Biden sold access as vice president.
I'm not I wasn't talking about that.
I was just saying in general if Biden was opening a hotel in a foreign country.
has the right to question whether...
I think the questions you asked are relevant questions.
(18:50):
I think they're fair questions about how, what kind of firewall there exists between theTrump organization and the White House and knowing that family members are running the
Trump organization.
So that's, I think those are fair questions.
Those are on the table and are fair to ask.
But until there is...
(19:11):
a line that breaks that firewall, I think we're looking at, it sounds like, Americancompany doing their core business, which isn't government relations in a foreign country.
Okay, I don't know if I agree with that.
Like I think that this, I think this is bad.
I just don't think that, you know, hold off for four years and then go and do it.
(19:35):
Don't do it now.
You know, I mean, it just.
I think that's fair.
Yeah, I just.
So and I guess that's next question.
So what what mechanisms would, you know, are in place to ensure that the president'sprivate business interests do not influence US foreign policy decisions?
You know, and I don't know that they've said this, and maybe they have, and you you and Iconsume a lot of news, you consume a lot more news than you used to.
(20:02):
But, you know, many, many businesses have firewalls, right?
Businesses, you know, have firewalls.
And so I think it's fair for people to ask and for the Trump Organization to explain.
(20:27):
.
know, they should not, you know, I'll get probably vilified for this, you know, Jeb Bushin Florida did it right.
He took his entire financial interests and put it in a blind trust when he was governor.
And that blind trust invested the money.
didn't know until he came back out what he had invested in, well, how well, you know, Ithink he had to know how well it did because it, had to report it annually.
(20:52):
But, um, you know, but, but you have.
Jeb Bush also didn't have all of his children working for, for that.
And so, and so the children, it's not like the children just started working for the Trumporganization.
This has been an ongoing decades long.
relationship with the children and the Trump organization.
(21:12):
So it's not like they just showed up and like, daddy's president.
Let's go do stuff overseas.
And it's not like this is a company that has never done things overseas.
This has been part of their business plan.
I'm assuming for some time and they're implementing a business plan or the optics bad.
Sure.
But, are they as bad as Hunter Biden selling access to the vice president of the UnitedStates?
(21:32):
It is not.
Okay.
The next thing we're going to talk about is the disappearing faces, the ATF's memorialremoval.
Brian Tyler Cohen posted today that the Trump administration just removed the federalgovernment's memorial to victim of gun violence.
They took down 120 portraits of dead Americans, including police officers and children.
(21:58):
So the memorials
purpose in 2024 the Faces of Gun Violence Memorial was installed at the ATV headquartersto honor victims of gun violence and serve as a reminder of the agency's mission.
The removal and justification is the memorial was taken down, the DOJ stated that thedecision wasn't political and that they are considering alternative ways to honor the
(22:21):
victims.
Some ATF officials expressed that the memorial's prominent placement could be distressingfor staff who had responded to violent crimes potentially influencing the decision to
remove it.
And the removal sparked criticism from gun violence prevention advocates and victims'families who viewed it as a step back in acknowledging the human toll of gun violence.
Now, I saw this in two different ways.
(22:43):
You know, they were saying that having this memorial
in a government agency, you know, of course goes against the Second Amendment and that iswhat, you know, this administration is for the Second Amendment.
removing that, because I said, well, who is the person that brought this to someone'sattention to remove this memorial?
(23:05):
Like Trump just didn't automatically say, hey, you know what, I think there's a memorialthere, so let's get rid of it.
That's not what happens.
And I think that, you know, people just automatically assume that Trump is involved ineverything.
He probably doesn't even know about this, right?
So who was the person that brought this to someone's attention to now take this down?
um So I kind of did my comparison, you know how I love to do comparisons on, you know,Democrat and Republican things.
(23:33):
So
you know back under the Biden administration efforts were made to remain military basespreviously named after Confederate leaders.
for example, instance, Fort Bragg was renamed to Fort Liberty in 2023.
And then the Obama administration supported the removal of the Confederate symbols fromfederal properties including national parks and military installations.
(23:55):
And we all remember them taking the statues down and you know.
Violent protests ripping them down, public destruction of property.
oh The politics that brought this thing to occur just one year ago.
(24:22):
So this thing sounds like it came about in 2024, probably very political.
You know, they're trying to make this political.
It was a political.
memorial it sounds like.
so, you know, to say that it's not political to remove it is a little bit...
probably disingenuous, but you have to say that publicly.
And, but it doesn't matter.
(24:44):
mean, it's to answer your question.
My guess is that, you know, when president Trump has appointed secretaries and agencyheads, you know, the directive is, Hey, what did Biden do that doesn't fit our
what we want for our country and what I was elected to do and remove it.
And so my guess is the agency head or one of his lieutenants said, why did we, why did we,why are we keeping this Biden political memorial?
(25:13):
Unless nobody's for gun violence.
Nobody's for not memorializing those who are victims of gun violence.
But the truth of the matter is, know,
It's the agency of alcohol, tobacco and firearms.
And, know, there is a fear on the right that, you know, the first thing the governmentdoes when they try to, you know, take away people's rights is you take away their guns and
(25:36):
you take away their voice and you take the guns first.
And so, so that's a real fear that people have.
And, you know, and Biden tried to do six ways to Sunday executive orders.
So it got overturned.
all sorts of ways to try to reach into our homes and grab our guns Right So how dointernal agency concerns balance with public memorials?
(26:06):
Intended to honor victims and raise awareness.
Now.
I know that that people have said that you know
and things like that, because they should not be political, should not be in governmentoffices and agencies and firms.
You know, there's always the wall of the CIA stars for the unknown agents who died in theline of duty, right?
(26:30):
There are times where we have these memorials and they're seen as not political, you know,because the stars in the CIA doesn't have names.
It's just a star saying that this is someone who died in service to our country, whoserved in the CIA.
And so we certainly have memorials, know, Washington, D.C.'s full of them.
(26:53):
The Lincoln Memorial, the Washington...
So, so, so I don't, I'm not against it.
uh from a major standpoint, but everything shouldn't be a memorial.
We shouldn't politicize it.
it seems like this was probably a political decision by the Biden administration that justneeded to be reversed.
(27:17):
So the next thing we're going to talk about is misinformation.
So.
I was on TikTok or actually I didn't find it on TikTok.
found it on Facebook because it had been shared.
So a recent TikTok video user by the name of Greg Dude Vor talking to you buddy.
(28:02):
has been circulating presenting the deportation of Marine veteran Jose Segovia Benitez asa current event when in reality this incident occurred in 2019.
So he was a US Marine Corps veteran who served two tours in Iraq and this has nothing todo with anything but I'm just gonna give you the backstory.
He was deported to El Salvador on October 15th of 2019.
(28:26):
After serving a prison sentence for felony convictions, including assault with a deadlyweapon and domestic violence, he was detained by ICE in January of 2018.
An immigration judge ordered his deportation in October 2018, classifying his convictionsas aggravated felonies under immigration law.
Following the judge's orders, appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals,which dismissed his appeal.
(28:50):
He subsequently filed a petition for review with the US Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit, which denied part and dismissed part of his petition in November of 2020.
So this just truly pissed me off because all of these people all over Facebook were the
the common theme was, a U.S.
(29:13):
vet has now been deported.
Who's it gonna be next?
Who's it gonna be next?
And it's been shared.
Last time I looked, it was over 5,000 times.
It's been reposted.
There were 5,000 comments on it.
it's just a, just again, just how misinformation gets out there and it creates this angerin people.
(29:38):
And, you know, everybody wonders why people are so mad.
But it's not misinformation.
It is Democrats trying to scare the American public.
that US citizens can be deported.
And we heard, like we said on this very podcast, we heard from four experts, all who saidthat there's no mechanism for US citizens to be deported.
(30:02):
So is there a mechanism for non-citizens to become members of the military?
And the answer is yes.
This seems to be one of them.
And so, you know, the question becomes, do you...
by joining the military, do you reach a higher status of legal immigrant thannon-military?
Well, this isn't even my question.
(30:23):
My question is more about how do we get through to the public when they see things likethis to research before you forward it?
People just automatically, and I guess I'm guilty of
too.
I've done it probably more in the past than I do now because now I've seen it so oftenwhere information is truly not correct that I'll research it first before I forward it.
(30:51):
And you know, in what responsibilities do content creators have when they
are giving this type of information and when it's not correct?
Well, and let's face it, and I don't know this user on TikTok.
I've never heard of him.
I've never heard of this user on TikTok.
You you know, I have no idea if he's a reasonable person or made an honest mistake or justfound an old story and decided.
(31:20):
to repurpose it for today and to get click.
To get clicks, yep.
You know, we know that the latter happens, whether this user did it or not, not reallyrelevant to the conversation.
What's relevant is that people are constantly just saying, hey, I want to be a creator.
The only way for me to create is to get clicks.
(31:40):
The only way to monetize it is to get clicks.
And so, so they, that's why people do stupid things.
That's why
girls parade around in bathing suits.
That's why people, you know, take old stories that had a lot of clicks and repurpose them.
so.
he literally put on today's date.
It was one of those things that, and I didn't look back in his videos to see if this wassomething that he posted before.
(32:08):
but it was, mean, it definitely got around and I don't know if it was specifically fromhim, but.
saw it all over Facebook and so I'm not sure where the original thing came from, but a lotof people reposted it.
So that kind of leads me into...
(32:30):
talking about deportation and I'm gonna hold this up because do you remember?
Ilyen Gonzalez.
answer is yes yes nugget does which happens to be um 25 years wow that's hard to believeyeah in April 25 years so
(34:10):
So, of 2000.
Yep, April 22 of 2000.
Yes.
happened under janet reno as attorney general
that's exactly right.
So Janet Reno and Clinton, they gave the authorized the pre-dawn raid to seize asix-year-old boy at gunpoint.
(34:32):
I will be playing his video here too from a relative's home in Miami.
Fast forward to today in the same party's.
same, know, Democrats were screaming about deporting these criminals and everything elseand here's this six-year-old boy who has a automatic weapon.
(34:54):
not at his face, but right in front of him.
And then I don't, I don't know if you remember the video, but they, you know, they carriedhim out of this house with there were
men with camouflage, their faces covered, they threw him into a minivan with a woman hedidn't know.
All of these other military men got in the car, they slammed the doors, they're trying toback up, they're pepper spraying anybody who's getting in the way.
(35:20):
It was a three minute ordeal to get this boy out of the house, into the car and out of theway.
And just thinking about just the hypocrisy of what everybody is
screaming about today and but yet Janet Reno was advert or interviewed again about itasking you know have her thoughts changed on it and she said I regret nothing and Clinton
(35:46):
basically said the same thing you know it was a it was a based on parental custody itthat's the you know he needed to go back to his father regardless of whether or not
you know it was a dictatorship under fidel castro this boy was taken from a safe home inmiami taken out of the house by military people with guns thrown into a van and taken back
(36:10):
and returned to communism and you know it just it really m
it just infuriates me how quickly people forget and how quickly they are to...
hate something that somebody does based on their personality.
And that's truly what it is with Trump, what I'm getting from this.
(36:31):
So how did Democrats reconcile their past support for aggressive deportation actions likeGonzalez's raid with their current stance against reporting convicted criminals?
Yeah, I mean, you can play that both sides, right?
Republicans were outraged over killing before today's, right?
So there's plenty of...
(36:52):
of hypocrisy to go around.
you're looking at that was a child that was a child we're dealing with convicted criminalsyes
so and we're dealing with, you know, mayors from sanctuary cities, judges, you know,literally hiding these criminals or trying to move them out the back door to try to hide
(37:12):
them from deportation, our own government officials going against our federal governmentto to it makes no sense.
It's bizarre world.
So but you could in this particular instance, you know, I've always said that
We've said it multiple times that we have to try to find a way to, and I think it maybewas Roy Beck who probably had the best answer in our immigration series.
(37:34):
It's like at some level, we said in 1980s this was the last time we were gonna haveamnesty and at some level maybe that's where we end up.
But as part of that amnesty, it's hard to even say that we would agree to that.
because we just don't believe that Democrats will even negotiate on this issue in goodfaith.
But if we were able to get voter ID, fair voter, no more same day voter registration, andsome of these things, and future illegal immigrants don't qualify for any federal funds,
(38:07):
any type of assistance whatsoever, and if we could encode that and come up with somethingthat makes sense.
.
take Trump and Biden out of it.
You know, if you're here prior to the Trump and first Trump administration, maybe there'ssome level of, you know, you can, pay your, you know, instead of being paid a thousand
(38:36):
dollars to leave, you could pay the government $5,000 and have a level of citizenship, youknow, and
.
I think it was Roy who said that on our podcast.
(38:57):
And if it wasn't, I apologize for, using the wrong expert, but, but I believe he, youknow, he said, you know, we're, we're at this stage where both sides are so opposed to
each other that, you know, they're.
We're either going to stay completely opposed to each other and both of these problems getworse.
Or we try to come together and say, okay, where, where can we, where can we, if somebody'sbeen in our country for 10 years or they have children in our country or they, know,
(39:24):
whatever those numbers end up being, you know, we can come to a legitimate number of,think, of course, the people who illegally entered over the Southern border, that's a line
in the sand for Republicans and we're not going back.
(39:53):
.
that line from 2020 changing.
Yeah.
And so that takes me into the next question.
So is the opposition.
to current deportation policies genuinely about humanitarian concerns or is it more aboutpolitical posturing against the current administration?
Well, we've talked about this, you know, and again, I think there's Roy Beck and in thegumball's video that it says...
(40:17):
know, we cannot base our immigration policy based on humanitarian efforts in other placesin the world.
We can't bring in enough people, you know, 20 million people in the world are born intopoverty.
We are allowing too many people in legally in the United States per year at 1.2 million.
(40:38):
These experts said it should be probably somewhere around 600,000 even.
you know, so every year there's 19 million more people born into poverty than we're ableto bring into the United States.
And we don't bring all the poor.
Sometimes we bring the best.
Sometimes we give student visas to the best and brightest.
But even that is not humanitarian.
(40:59):
Because what we're doing is we're taking the best and brightest out of a country wheremaybe the best and brightest should stay and fix the problems and have a better economic
status, know, build a better economic status for their own countries.
And so our immigration policy just simply cannot be based on world humanitarian issuesbecause the numbers just don't add up.
(41:23):
okay so this next story goes kind of about misinformation and immigration so
There was a recent incident involving Felix Rojas, who was arrested for allegedlycommitting a heinous act on a deceased individual aboard a New York City subway train.
(41:43):
Rojas, who was reportedly entered the US illegally multiple times since 1998, was chargedwith rape and grand larceny.
So the New York Times reported on this disturbing event, but completely omitted that hewas an illegal alien.
And why this matters is obviously this raises questions about journalistic standards andthe responsibility of media outlets to provide comprehensive information.
(42:09):
When the critical details are left out, you the public, you don't know that he's anillegal alien.
You're like, okay, he's just some psycho New York resident issue.
So what this man did is there was a deceased person on the subway.
(42:29):
He went in, he robbed them, and then he raped them, a man.
It was another man.
so should media outlets include all available information such as a subject's immigrationstatus to complete the picture?
Well, let's ask this question.
If that person was wearing a red hat that said, make America great again, would the NewYork Times had included.
(42:50):
%
So complete hypocrisy.
The New York Times has become a source of, they used to be the standard bearer for fairand fair news, you know, in depth reporting and they've become nothing but a little bit
more than clickbait themselves.
And it's a shame that, you know, the gray lady has fallen so short of
(43:11):
of its past glory, but that's where it is.
And so, you know, just because it says the New York times is not necessarily mean it's astory you can trust anymore.
And that's not the way I grew up.
mean, if the New York times said something, Associated Press said something, you canbelieve it, you know, and that's just not the case anymore.
Cause there's just too much.
There's too many people making political who are in jobs at these organizations, makingpolitical statements with, with their, with their words.
(43:39):
Right.
So how does selective reporting impact a public trust?
I think you see it, know, more
alternative news, and I don't know the word news, I'd like to think we're entertainment.
we try to bring alternative sources of news, facts, to the table for our audience.
(44:03):
And so more and more people are turning to people they trust.
And people they may know, or, you know, and almost everybody who listens to our podcast atthis point, we probably personally know or know over there on the sub stack news
you know, but, or, have been for some time.
uh it's, you know, people don't trust, people are not trusting the mainstream news, likeeven at the local level, it's become.
(44:34):
saw that they that they are taking away the funding for NPR and PBS yeah
I'm not opposed to NPR and PBS existing.
The problem is, the problem is you look at somebody like Ken Burns who is, you know, andyou maybe look it up right now.
(44:56):
What's Ken Burns net worth?
50 million, 100 million.
And he's, he's never done anything but PBS.
Like how does somebody become if somebody's doing public education?
How they become worth 50 or a hundred million dollars on PBS?
And so the truth is, know, is that PBS gets this money.
They set up separate corporations for, you know, Sesame Street is one of the best brandedwealthiest brands in the world.
(45:21):
And yet that money doesn't go back into PBS.
That money goes to a separate corporation that's I think privately owned and you know, theChildren Television Network.
network, one is the for-profit corporation that does the branding.
Barney, all of these things that were on PBS.
(45:45):
end up not, you know, the actual public doesn't benefit from their success.
Private individuals benefit from their success.
So it's our dollars who are going to that.
Then you can look at things like the news and even Sesame street, you know,
the number of
(46:05):
very liberal ideas that are presented to children at a very young age on Sesame Street andon these programs.
so, you know, what we've decided is, or what Trump has decided is that, or I've advocatedfor my entire political career, is to defund, take the federal tax dollars out.
If you want to do that, that's fine.
(46:26):
And, you you have access to, I'm not saying take their airwaves away.
but- Have somebody else pay for it.
They have fundraisers.
year, and then require that the profitable programs pay back into the system.
That's what they believe.
Why aren't they practicing it?
(46:47):
Because they're making money off of it.
And so it's just a level of hypocrisy that I don't want my federal tax dollars going toeducate and to...
issues in which I disagree.
so you can't say that.
mean, because you can't control that.
(47:08):
I mean, even in school systems, you can't control that.
You can to some degree.
We certainly don't think anybody needs to know algebra.
I mean, I think unless you're going into something that requires that, I don't.
Okay.
But algebra is not political, right?
But my tax dollars are being paid to the school district and they're teaching subjectsthat I don't agree with.
(47:29):
Very well.
Very well argued.
That was a reasonable argument.
Well, I think that, you know, when you start talking about
things like we have faced in Florida and Florida has been run by Republicans for 25 yearsat the state level.
(47:54):
And then we still have pornographic gay books in our elementary school libraries.
These aren't public libraries.
You and I can't go check a book out from these libraries.
We're not even allowed on that campus without a reason.
Go look at what they've had.
This is, these are, you know, because oftentimes the librarian orders whatever they order.
(48:17):
and there's not, there's no oversight.
I don't know how they got in there, but they're there and that's why Ron DeSantis had toban them.
because they had, and then they're like, you're, you're banning books.
You're removing books.
Yes.
We're banning pornography.
We're not allowed.
We're not, we don't allow hustler and playboy in elementary school libraries.
We don't even let those in high school libraries.
out of Florida completely for adults
(48:41):
That's true.
Well, you have to sign up.
Insanity.
Yeah, exactly.
How are they indeed?
And so, I mean, those to me, the people who brought those books in are criminals.
they're they they violated the very code of conduct that we've entrusted them.
(49:07):
to protect our children from this very type of stuff.
Right.
And so if you break, mean, I don't know that there was a law against it.
So maybe they're not criminals.
Maybe that's too strong a language.
Yeah.
But it certainly is horrible activities.
If you did that in the church, for instance, we're going to teach this in Sunday school.
(49:29):
They would call that Sunday school teacher a pedophile.
Yeah.
And have them arrested.
So I think it probably does.
equate to criminal activity by whoever it is who brought these books into our elementaryschool library.
That's it.
We're going to drop off the cliff?
(50:01):
So what were you planning on doing?
well, that I could do that another day.
So I'm not telling you.
But I mean, it just yeah, this
I'm prepared.
Yeah, it's, it's, it is crazy to think that our American elected officials are somehowsiding with people who are here illegally breaking the law.
(50:24):
Like it makes no sense.
Like it just, I would love to have a Democrat on who could explain it to us.
Like, you know, they now I know there's plenty of Democrats are like, they need dueprocess.
No, tell me why someone, why you're advocating for a criminal to be here.
Number one.
And stay here number two, because that's what you're arguing when you say you want dueprocess.
(50:47):
You're saying I want them to stay here.
It makes no sense.
And, you know, the, uh, such a, to me, completely unpatriotic stance.
I don't even understand how someone who believes that can call themselves a patriot.
You know, all right.
(51:08):
Well, hopefully we'll have more.
things to talk about.
It sounds like you already have a list of Well, Trump is not slowing down.
He is out there making waves everywhere he goes.
he gives us lots of topics, for sure.
And welcome our newest family member.
We can't show you a picture.
No.
(51:28):
She said, don't know what she did on her first day, but she's already grounded from socialmedia.
but, Reagan Sloan Miller to the world, uh, May 1st.
So five days old.
sweetest little thing you've ever seen.
Yes.
All right.
Well, we will be back later this week.
All right.
So we are back after a over a week hiatus to we went to go see the birth of our newestgranddaughter.
Reagan Sloan Miller born born on May 1st.
(01:17):
pause
He did not hit the pause button.
so today we're going to be talking about spending.
We're going to be talking about immigration, which I'm so tired of talking about, but itis just so prevalent.
Nuggy
Okay.
(01:38):
All right.
And you've shared none of this with me, by the way.
So we're just winging it.
I'm winging it.
You're prepared.
we have a lot to go through.
Okay, so the first thing we're going to talk about is the $200 billion or 200 billion morethan the same period last year that Trump has spent.
(01:58):
he also promised to slash government spending, let's talk about what he's done in thefirst 100 days.
So he has spent significant increases on the defense spending, which includes investmentsin the military systems and modernization efforts, border security and immigration
(02:18):
enforcement.
He has spent approximately 46 and a half billion, which was allocated to expand theUS-Mexico
border wall.
hire border patrol agents and implement stricter immigration policies.
He spent initial funding of 100 billion committed to the Stargate AI project aiming toestablish a major AI data center.
(02:43):
And nobody's talking about this, but despite announcements of layoffs and spending cuts,federal salaries have actually gone up.
I think they received, everybody in the federal government received a 2 % raise, which...
nobody's talking about, but that's in there.
And then interest on a national debt.
So with the national debt standing at 36 trillion, interest payments have increased,adding the overall federal expenditure.
(03:10):
giving these spending increases, how do they align with the administration's stated actsof they are going to decrease government spending?
So you didn't include the Doge cuts, which I think stands around $130 or $140 billion
right now.
(03:34):
Okay, so I was unaware of that.
So it sounds like there's a lot of spending in there that are one-time allocations, notongoing allocations.
The salary part, of course, you know,
people being people, you want to keep employees at some level, right?
Even though you're cutting government employees.
(03:55):
So two things, one is that a 2 % raise is not in, you know, not out of the ordinary.
Number two, because Democrats sued Trump and didn't let him, you know, cut everywhere hewanted to with employees, he cut all entry level employees.
(04:17):
All those entry level employees, you can guess, are at the lower end of the pay scale.
So when you average the salaries for federal employees, it's going to increase the averagesalary.
So that to me is a math issue, not necessarily a policy issue that will flatten out overtime.
And so you start looking at the 100 million implementation for AI and things like that.
(04:44):
moving the military, which probably did not have a line item for border security, becausewe didn't have the military on the border and he moved the military to the border.
So moving all that equipment and men, know, moving the equipment and men is a one-timeallocation versus, you know, now we're going to maintain that.
(05:05):
So it sounds like a lot of this and a lot of Trump's first 100 days chaotic as it hasbeen.
Number one seems to be leveling out.
Number two seems to be playing the long game.
He has made short term, I don't think there's any question people can say, it's beenchaotic the first 100 days, but I think there has been a plan.
(05:26):
I think they implemented the plan to the best of their ability with knowing that a lot ofthis was going to.
probably get not stopped in the course of that may be a surprise to them.
don't know.
I wasn't there to know, this is how much they thought they would, how far they thoughtthey would get before judges slowed things down.
(05:47):
But I do think that they have certainly were prepared for that and have implementedstrategies to overcome it.
So, and you kind of answered the question of what the potential long-term implications ofthe spending pattern would be on the federal budget and national debt, which we know the
national debt will, you know, will have the interest on that.
(06:07):
wrote in the Substack newsletter, you know, the way we really come out of our debtsituation, the way we've come out of our debt situation in the past is through economic
growth, increasing the GDP.
You know, we are currently at a ratio of 123 percent
debt to GDP.
(06:28):
The last time we were here was following World War II.
We carried this much debt.
innovation, think of all the inventions that came out of World War II, all the economicboom we had after World War II.
We have that type of opportunity with AI.
(06:49):
And so now you're saying 100 million of the 200 billion.
is an investment in AI.
There's no question we probably need to double or triple that.
We need to double or triple the amount of energy that we're capable of creating.
China is way ahead of us in developing thorium nuclear power, which is way safer, notnuclear-grade waste.
(07:19):
safer waste and...
We developed that in the 1950s and we basically put it on the shelf because we went withuranium because we could get the weapon grade nuclear capabilities out of that.
And so now we're way behind.
And the only way we're going to power AI into the future is probably through nuclear.
Wind's not going to get there.
Solar is certainly not going to get there.
And people are wanting to go away from fossil fuels to save the earth.
(07:43):
So uh
is only clean energy that can power us into the future and into this new AI economy.
And there's no question that the AI economy can be that internet economy on steroids.
Remember, that's the last time we balanced our budget.
Yeah, like 2001 or something like that.
(08:04):
at the end of the Clinton administration, beginning of the George W.
administration.
I think we last balanced the budget in 2002.
We last
had a budget in 1998 that went through the budget process and was delivered to thepresident on time.
(08:25):
we've had a generation of leaders not balance the budget, not present a budget on time,not go through the proper budget process, just one continuing resolution after another.
that's insane.
Well, you have to think that, especially moving forward,
If you get younger presidents in who are more technology and all of that this is gonnathis is gonna continue to be
(08:49):
to hear the 100 billion investment in AI.
You know, I'd like to see another 100 billion at least in thorium nuclear technologybecause we have to develop that because China is developing it.
Whoever is able to empower AI for the next 20 years is going to capture the economicgrowth like we saw in the late 1990s.
(09:11):
with, it's funny to talk about now, internet, websites, and email, right?
But think of all of the things that happened around that and the economic productivitythat happened around it.
And we have that opportunity again.
We should not squander it.
All right, so that kind of leads into the next one.
So breaking news today was that Trump has introduced a program offering undocumentedimmigrants $1,000 to basically self-deport.
(09:36):
Right.
And so the initiative is facilitated through the CBP Home App, which is what Biden hadstarted to bring people in.
And now it's been what was the CBP
app now it's the CBP home app because now you're going home you're not staying here.
So the Department of Homeland Security estimates that this approach could reducedeportation costs by approximately 70 % lowering the average expense from $17,121 to
(10:10):
$4,500 per individual.
What was the first number?
um
So the cost efficiency is traditional deportation involves arrest, detention, legalproceedings and transportation.
(10:34):
By incentivizing voluntary departures, the administration aims to alleviate financialburden on taxpayers.
The legal implications are while the program suggests that self-deportation might preservethe option for legal reentry, some people are concerned that they could face the mandatory
10-year ban if they leave.
And then ethical considerations are critics argue that offering financial incentives forself-deportation may be perceived as coercive, especially if individuals are unaware of
(11:04):
the potential long-term legal consequences.
So, you know, things that really need to be looked at is, you know, does the financialincentive for self-deportation represent a pragmatic solution to immigration or does it
raise ethical concerns?
about coercion and informs?
Well, I don't know about the ethical concerns.
(11:24):
To me, it seems as ethical as anything.
It's not ethical.
We've heard from four immigration experts.
They all said it's not ethical to have illegal immigrants here.
to sit there and say, hey, people to leave is unethical is just hypocrisy at its finest.
(11:45):
ridiculous argument in my humble opinion.
Now, if you look at whether $1,000 gets it done or $5,000 gets it done, it's probably thebetter part of valor is to pay them to self-deport versus going through this entire
process where George Soros and all these
(12:06):
NGOs and liberals are financing to try to keep people here.
then clog up our
judicial system.
know sometime over the weekend Donald Trump said, are we supposed to do?
We four million trials.
Like, that's what they want.
And it's all ridiculous.
Yeah.
They're just trying to make the problem so big.
(12:26):
And they did.
They made the problem so big by allowing so many people across our border that it's like,what do do now?
Yeah.
And they did it intentionally.
to negatively impact our country for their own short-term political gain.
Short-term political gain.
And it's ridiculous.
so, um, they, you know, I hope people continue to remember this and punish Democrats atthe ballot box for, for this completely unethical, illegal entry into the United States
(12:57):
that they all supported.
Everybody with a D by their name running for mayor all the way up to president of theUnited States supported this.
Well, and you have the other representative the state representative who's said she'sgonna stay in El Salvador until What's his face is released?
so How might this program impact legal standing of participants particularly concerningthe future of eligibility for US residency or citizenship?
(13:23):
Listen I'm not an expert on legal or illegal immigration.
You know my personal opinion is if you deport you know today
you're now the first person at the bottom of the list.
So there's a, let's pretend that there's a list of people who are allowed to immigrate.
Let's pretend that it's a million people long.
If you're the first person to sign up, you're on the list at 1,000,001.
(13:46):
Right?
And then you can, so what legally has to happen for that, whether that's a true act ofCongress or whether that's administrative or uh executive order, I don't know.
But to me, that's the way this should work.
that, you know, hey, listen, not only do get your money, there's no in your band, there'sno anything you are coming in, you get you are the person line that the list, you know,
(14:12):
bottom of the list that occurs today, right?
And if you're, you know, the 1 million person who signs up
this, well, then you're number 2 million.
And then you come back through the proper process.
Listen, we're, letting 1 million people in 1.2 million people in per year legally.
So.
you know I don't know how long that list is but we certainly you know people may have toreport for a period of years but it's probably not decades yeah you know and so take your
(14:39):
money and run it'll be interesting to see how many people sign up for this and and do this
whether a thousand dollars is enough, so you get a thousand dollars cash when you'rethere.
Well,
then they'll still send you home they'll put you on a plane and send you Yeah, well that'swhat they're saying the 40 the 4500 or whatever it is per person to get them back so Yeah,
(15:14):
exactly
But I think the practical application is so many people are here working, sending moneyhome.
So now if you're not able to send that, you know, are you taking enough with you $1,000 toreally support what you're supporting now?
And so, again, we'll see.
Okay, all right, so the next thing we're gonna talk about is while President Trumpoccupies the Oval Office his family business is expanding its footprint in the Middle East
(15:44):
So we have the Trump Organization announced the partnership with Qatar How do you say it?
Q a tar guitar
A government owned company in a Saudi-based Dar Global to develop a luxury golf resort inQatar.
(16:10):
I will seriously punch you.
The project includes Trump branded villas and an 18 hole golf course, marking thecompany's first real estate venture in Qatar.
An expansion in Saudi Arabia in the UAE.
The Trump Organization is expanding in the Middle East in Dubai plans are underway for theTrump International Hotel and Tower and 80 story skyscraper featuring the world's highest
(16:33):
rooftop infinity pool.
Additionally, the company is developing a second high-end residential tower in Judea SaudiArabia ethical concerns and conflicts of interest You know these foreign business plus I
think Trump had said we're not doing any kind of business with foreign companies rightwith foreign countries
(16:56):
don't know that he said that but if he said it he said it I don't recall that.
uh
(17:17):
pledges to avoid new foreign deals during his presidency How do you think these recentventures align with that?
So here's the thing the optics aren't great right but but what what we're seeing is theTrump Organization which is a development a development company for luxury properties is
(17:38):
developing luxury properties
So this is not a Hunter Biden situation where, you know, he's, he's bringing ingovernment, you know, access now, you know, if they tie it into government access or
something like that, then okay.
But, but to me, what everything you've read here is an American company doing legalbusiness in a foreign country with what their main source of income is, which is building
(18:08):
luxury.
hotels and golf courses.
if you want to ask me if the optics are bad, yeah.
So of course I'm a partisan, right?
(18:29):
So it would be worse.
But but the difference is we're looking at apples and oranges.
Biden sold access as vice president.
I'm not I wasn't talking about that.
I was just saying in general if Biden was opening a hotel in a foreign country.
has the right to question whether...
I think the questions you asked are relevant questions.
(18:50):
I think they're fair questions about how, what kind of firewall there exists between theTrump organization and the White House and knowing that family members are running the
Trump organization.
So that's, I think those are fair questions.
Those are on the table and are fair to ask.
But until there is...
(19:11):
a line that breaks that firewall, I think we're looking at, it sounds like, Americancompany doing their core business, which isn't government relations in a foreign country.
Okay, I don't know if I agree with that.
Like I think that this, I think this is bad.
I just don't think that, you know, hold off for four years and then go and do it.
(19:35):
Don't do it now.
You know, I mean, it just.
I think that's fair.
Yeah, I just.
So and I guess that's next question.
So what what mechanisms would, you know, are in place to ensure that the president'sprivate business interests do not influence US foreign policy decisions?
You know, and I don't know that they've said this, and maybe they have, and you you and Iconsume a lot of news, you consume a lot more news than you used to.
(20:02):
But, you know, many, many businesses have firewalls, right?
Businesses, you know, have firewalls.
And so I think it's fair for people to ask and for the Trump Organization to explain.
(20:27):
.
know, they should not, you know, I'll get probably vilified for this, you know, Jeb Bushin Florida did it right.
He took his entire financial interests and put it in a blind trust when he was governor.
And that blind trust invested the money.
didn't know until he came back out what he had invested in, well, how well, you know, Ithink he had to know how well it did because it, had to report it annually.
(20:52):
But, um, you know, but, but you have.
Jeb Bush also didn't have all of his children working for, for that.
And so, and so the children, it's not like the children just started working for the Trumporganization.
This has been an ongoing decades long.
relationship with the children and the Trump organization.
(21:12):
So it's not like they just showed up and like, daddy's president.
Let's go do stuff overseas.
And it's not like this is a company that has never done things overseas.
This has been part of their business plan.
I'm assuming for some time and they're implementing a business plan or the optics bad.
Sure.
But, are they as bad as Hunter Biden selling access to the vice president of the UnitedStates?
(21:32):
It is not.
Okay.
The next thing we're going to talk about is the disappearing faces, the ATF's memorialremoval.
Brian Tyler Cohen posted today that the Trump administration just removed the federalgovernment's memorial to victim of gun violence.
They took down 120 portraits of dead Americans, including police officers and children.
(21:58):
So the memorials
purpose in 2024 the Faces of Gun Violence Memorial was installed at the ATV headquartersto honor victims of gun violence and serve as a reminder of the agency's mission.
The removal and justification is the memorial was taken down, the DOJ stated that thedecision wasn't political and that they are considering alternative ways to honor the
(22:21):
victims.
Some ATF officials expressed that the memorial's prominent placement could be distressingfor staff who had responded to violent crimes potentially influencing the decision to
remove it.
And the removal sparked criticism from gun violence prevention advocates and victims'families who viewed it as a step back in acknowledging the human toll of gun violence.
Now, I saw this in two different ways.
(22:43):
You know, they were saying that having this memorial
in a government agency, you know, of course goes against the Second Amendment and that iswhat, you know, this administration is for the Second Amendment.
removing that, because I said, well, who is the person that brought this to someone'sattention to remove this memorial?
(23:05):
Like Trump just didn't automatically say, hey, you know what, I think there's a memorialthere, so let's get rid of it.
That's not what happens.
And I think that, you know, people just automatically assume that Trump is involved ineverything.
He probably doesn't even know about this, right?
So who was the person that brought this to someone's attention to now take this down?
um So I kind of did my comparison, you know how I love to do comparisons on, you know,Democrat and Republican things.
(23:33):
So
you know back under the Biden administration efforts were made to remain military basespreviously named after Confederate leaders.
for example, instance, Fort Bragg was renamed to Fort Liberty in 2023.
And then the Obama administration supported the removal of the Confederate symbols fromfederal properties including national parks and military installations.
(23:55):
And we all remember them taking the statues down and you know.
Violent protests ripping them down, public destruction of property.
oh The politics that brought this thing to occur just one year ago.
(24:22):
So this thing sounds like it came about in 2024, probably very political.
You know, they're trying to make this political.
It was a political.
memorial it sounds like.
so, you know, to say that it's not political to remove it is a little bit...
probably disingenuous, but you have to say that publicly.
And, but it doesn't matter.
(24:44):
mean, it's to answer your question.
My guess is that, you know, when president Trump has appointed secretaries and agencyheads, you know, the directive is, Hey, what did Biden do that doesn't fit our
what we want for our country and what I was elected to do and remove it.
And so my guess is the agency head or one of his lieutenants said, why did we, why did we,why are we keeping this Biden political memorial?
(25:13):
Unless nobody's for gun violence.
Nobody's for not memorializing those who are victims of gun violence.
But the truth of the matter is, know,
It's the agency of alcohol, tobacco and firearms.
And, know, there is a fear on the right that, you know, the first thing the governmentdoes when they try to, you know, take away people's rights is you take away their guns and
(25:36):
you take away their voice and you take the guns first.
And so, so that's a real fear that people have.
And, you know, and Biden tried to do six ways to Sunday executive orders.
So it got overturned.
all sorts of ways to try to reach into our homes and grab our guns Right So how dointernal agency concerns balance with public memorials?
(26:06):
Intended to honor victims and raise awareness.
Now.
I know that that people have said that you know
and things like that, because they should not be political, should not be in governmentoffices and agencies and firms.
You know, there's always the wall of the CIA stars for the unknown agents who died in theline of duty, right?
(26:30):
There are times where we have these memorials and they're seen as not political, you know,because the stars in the CIA doesn't have names.
It's just a star saying that this is someone who died in service to our country, whoserved in the CIA.
And so we certainly have memorials, know, Washington, D.C.'s full of them.
(26:53):
The Lincoln Memorial, the Washington...
So, so, so I don't, I'm not against it.
uh from a major standpoint, but everything shouldn't be a memorial.
We shouldn't politicize it.
it seems like this was probably a political decision by the Biden administration that justneeded to be reversed.
(27:17):
So the next thing we're going to talk about is misinformation.
So.
I was on TikTok or actually I didn't find it on TikTok.
found it on Facebook because it had been shared.
So a recent TikTok video user by the name of Greg Dude Vor talking to you buddy.
(28:02):
has been circulating presenting the deportation of Marine veteran Jose Segovia Benitez asa current event when in reality this incident occurred in 2019.
So he was a US Marine Corps veteran who served two tours in Iraq and this has nothing todo with anything but I'm just gonna give you the backstory.
He was deported to El Salvador on October 15th of 2019.
(28:26):
After serving a prison sentence for felony convictions, including assault with a deadlyweapon and domestic violence, he was detained by ICE in January of 2018.
An immigration judge ordered his deportation in October 2018, classifying his convictionsas aggravated felonies under immigration law.
Following the judge's orders, appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals,which dismissed his appeal.
(28:50):
He subsequently filed a petition for review with the US Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit, which denied part and dismissed part of his petition in November of 2020.
So this just truly pissed me off because all of these people all over Facebook were the
the common theme was, a U.S.
(29:13):
vet has now been deported.
Who's it gonna be next?
Who's it gonna be next?
And it's been shared.
Last time I looked, it was over 5,000 times.
It's been reposted.
There were 5,000 comments on it.
it's just a, just again, just how misinformation gets out there and it creates this angerin people.
(29:38):
And, you know, everybody wonders why people are so mad.
But it's not misinformation.
It is Democrats trying to scare the American public.
that US citizens can be deported.
And we heard, like we said on this very podcast, we heard from four experts, all who saidthat there's no mechanism for US citizens to be deported.
(30:02):
So is there a mechanism for non-citizens to become members of the military?
And the answer is yes.
This seems to be one of them.
And so, you know, the question becomes, do you...
by joining the military, do you reach a higher status of legal immigrant thannon-military?
Well, this isn't even my question.
(30:23):
My question is more about how do we get through to the public when they see things likethis to research before you forward it?
People just automatically, and I guess I'm guilty of
too.
I've done it probably more in the past than I do now because now I've seen it so oftenwhere information is truly not correct that I'll research it first before I forward it.
(30:51):
And you know, in what responsibilities do content creators have when they
are giving this type of information and when it's not correct?
Well, and let's face it, and I don't know this user on TikTok.
I've never heard of him.
I've never heard of this user on TikTok.
You you know, I have no idea if he's a reasonable person or made an honest mistake or justfound an old story and decided.
(31:20):
to repurpose it for today and to get click.
To get clicks, yep.
You know, we know that the latter happens, whether this user did it or not, not reallyrelevant to the conversation.
What's relevant is that people are constantly just saying, hey, I want to be a creator.
The only way for me to create is to get clicks.
(31:40):
The only way to monetize it is to get clicks.
And so, so they, that's why people do stupid things.
That's why
girls parade around in bathing suits.
That's why people, you know, take old stories that had a lot of clicks and repurpose them.
so.
he literally put on today's date.
It was one of those things that, and I didn't look back in his videos to see if this wassomething that he posted before.
(32:08):
but it was, mean, it definitely got around and I don't know if it was specifically fromhim, but.
saw it all over Facebook and so I'm not sure where the original thing came from, but a lotof people reposted it.
So that kind of leads me into...
(32:30):
talking about deportation and I'm gonna hold this up because do you remember?
Ilyen Gonzalez.
answer is yes yes nugget does which happens to be um 25 years wow that's hard to believeyeah in April 25 years so
(34:10):
So, of 2000.
Yep, April 22 of 2000.
Yes.
happened under janet reno as attorney general
that's exactly right.
So Janet Reno and Clinton, they gave the authorized the pre-dawn raid to seize asix-year-old boy at gunpoint.
(34:32):
I will be playing his video here too from a relative's home in Miami.
Fast forward to today in the same party's.
same, know, Democrats were screaming about deporting these criminals and everything elseand here's this six-year-old boy who has a automatic weapon.
(34:54):
not at his face, but right in front of him.
And then I don't, I don't know if you remember the video, but they, you know, they carriedhim out of this house with there were
men with camouflage, their faces covered, they threw him into a minivan with a woman hedidn't know.
All of these other military men got in the car, they slammed the doors, they're trying toback up, they're pepper spraying anybody who's getting in the way.
(35:20):
It was a three minute ordeal to get this boy out of the house, into the car and out of theway.
And just thinking about just the hypocrisy of what everybody is
screaming about today and but yet Janet Reno was advert or interviewed again about itasking you know have her thoughts changed on it and she said I regret nothing and Clinton
(35:46):
basically said the same thing you know it was a it was a based on parental custody itthat's the you know he needed to go back to his father regardless of whether or not
you know it was a dictatorship under fidel castro this boy was taken from a safe home inmiami taken out of the house by military people with guns thrown into a van and taken back
(36:10):
and returned to communism and you know it just it really m
it just infuriates me how quickly people forget and how quickly they are to...
hate something that somebody does based on their personality.
And that's truly what it is with Trump, what I'm getting from this.
(36:31):
So how did Democrats reconcile their past support for aggressive deportation actions likeGonzalez's raid with their current stance against reporting convicted criminals?
Yeah, I mean, you can play that both sides, right?
Republicans were outraged over killing before today's, right?
So there's plenty of...
(36:52):
of hypocrisy to go around.
you're looking at that was a child that was a child we're dealing with convicted criminalsyes
so and we're dealing with, you know, mayors from sanctuary cities, judges, you know,literally hiding these criminals or trying to move them out the back door to try to hide
(37:12):
them from deportation, our own government officials going against our federal governmentto to it makes no sense.
It's bizarre world.
So but you could in this particular instance, you know, I've always said that
We've said it multiple times that we have to try to find a way to, and I think it maybewas Roy Beck who probably had the best answer in our immigration series.
(37:34):
It's like at some level, we said in 1980s this was the last time we were gonna haveamnesty and at some level maybe that's where we end up.
But as part of that amnesty, it's hard to even say that we would agree to that.
because we just don't believe that Democrats will even negotiate on this issue in goodfaith.
But if we were able to get voter ID, fair voter, no more same day voter registration, andsome of these things, and future illegal immigrants don't qualify for any federal funds,
(38:07):
any type of assistance whatsoever, and if we could encode that and come up with somethingthat makes sense.
.
take Trump and Biden out of it.
You know, if you're here prior to the Trump and first Trump administration, maybe there'ssome level of, you know, you can, pay your, you know, instead of being paid a thousand
(38:36):
dollars to leave, you could pay the government $5,000 and have a level of citizenship, youknow, and
.
I think it was Roy who said that on our podcast.
(38:57):
And if it wasn't, I apologize for, using the wrong expert, but, but I believe he, youknow, he said, you know, we're, we're at this stage where both sides are so opposed to
each other that, you know, they're.
We're either going to stay completely opposed to each other and both of these problems getworse.
Or we try to come together and say, okay, where, where can we, where can we, if somebody'sbeen in our country for 10 years or they have children in our country or they, know,
(39:24):
whatever those numbers end up being, you know, we can come to a legitimate number of,think, of course, the people who illegally entered over the Southern border, that's a line
in the sand for Republicans and we're not going back.
(39:53):
.
that line from 2020 changing.
Yeah.
And so that takes me into the next question.
So is the opposition.
to current deportation policies genuinely about humanitarian concerns or is it more aboutpolitical posturing against the current administration?
Well, we've talked about this, you know, and again, I think there's Roy Beck and in thegumball's video that it says...
(40:17):
know, we cannot base our immigration policy based on humanitarian efforts in other placesin the world.
We can't bring in enough people, you know, 20 million people in the world are born intopoverty.
We are allowing too many people in legally in the United States per year at 1.2 million.
(40:38):
These experts said it should be probably somewhere around 600,000 even.
you know, so every year there's 19 million more people born into poverty than we're ableto bring into the United States.
And we don't bring all the poor.
Sometimes we bring the best.
Sometimes we give student visas to the best and brightest.
But even that is not humanitarian.
(40:59):
Because what we're doing is we're taking the best and brightest out of a country wheremaybe the best and brightest should stay and fix the problems and have a better economic
status, know, build a better economic status for their own countries.
And so our immigration policy just simply cannot be based on world humanitarian issuesbecause the numbers just don't add up.
(41:23):
okay so this next story goes kind of about misinformation and immigration so
There was a recent incident involving Felix Rojas, who was arrested for allegedlycommitting a heinous act on a deceased individual aboard a New York City subway train.
(41:43):
Rojas, who was reportedly entered the US illegally multiple times since 1998, was chargedwith rape and grand larceny.
So the New York Times reported on this disturbing event, but completely omitted that hewas an illegal alien.
And why this matters is obviously this raises questions about journalistic standards andthe responsibility of media outlets to provide comprehensive information.
(42:09):
When the critical details are left out, you the public, you don't know that he's anillegal alien.
You're like, okay, he's just some psycho New York resident issue.
So what this man did is there was a deceased person on the subway.
(42:29):
He went in, he robbed them, and then he raped them, a man.
It was another man.
so should media outlets include all available information such as a subject's immigrationstatus to complete the picture?
Well, let's ask this question.
If that person was wearing a red hat that said, make America great again, would the NewYork Times had included.
(42:50):
%
So complete hypocrisy.
The New York Times has become a source of, they used to be the standard bearer for fairand fair news, you know, in depth reporting and they've become nothing but a little bit
more than clickbait themselves.
And it's a shame that, you know, the gray lady has fallen so short of
(43:11):
of its past glory, but that's where it is.
And so, you know, just because it says the New York times is not necessarily mean it's astory you can trust anymore.
And that's not the way I grew up.
mean, if the New York times said something, Associated Press said something, you canbelieve it, you know, and that's just not the case anymore.
Cause there's just too much.
There's too many people making political who are in jobs at these organizations, makingpolitical statements with, with their, with their words.
(43:39):
Right.
So how does selective reporting impact a public trust?
I think you see it, know, more
alternative news, and I don't know the word news, I'd like to think we're entertainment.
we try to bring alternative sources of news, facts, to the table for our audience.
(44:03):
And so more and more people are turning to people they trust.
And people they may know, or, you know, and almost everybody who listens to our podcast atthis point, we probably personally know or know over there on the sub stack news
you know, but, or, have been for some time.
uh it's, you know, people don't trust, people are not trusting the mainstream news, likeeven at the local level, it's become.
(44:34):
saw that they that they are taking away the funding for NPR and PBS yeah
I'm not opposed to NPR and PBS existing.
The problem is, the problem is you look at somebody like Ken Burns who is, you know, andyou maybe look it up right now.
(44:56):
What's Ken Burns net worth?
50 million, 100 million.
And he's, he's never done anything but PBS.
Like how does somebody become if somebody's doing public education?
How they become worth 50 or a hundred million dollars on PBS?
And so the truth is, know, is that PBS gets this money.
They set up separate corporations for, you know, Sesame Street is one of the best brandedwealthiest brands in the world.
(45:21):
And yet that money doesn't go back into PBS.
That money goes to a separate corporation that's I think privately owned and you know, theChildren Television Network.
network, one is the for-profit corporation that does the branding.
Barney, all of these things that were on PBS.
(45:45):
end up not, you know, the actual public doesn't benefit from their success.
Private individuals benefit from their success.
So it's our dollars who are going to that.
Then you can look at things like the news and even Sesame street, you know,
the number of
(46:05):
very liberal ideas that are presented to children at a very young age on Sesame Street andon these programs.
so, you know, what we've decided is, or what Trump has decided is that, or I've advocatedfor my entire political career, is to defund, take the federal tax dollars out.
If you want to do that, that's fine.
(46:26):
And, you you have access to, I'm not saying take their airwaves away.
but- Have somebody else pay for it.
They have fundraisers.
year, and then require that the profitable programs pay back into the system.
That's what they believe.
Why aren't they practicing it?
(46:47):
Because they're making money off of it.
And so it's just a level of hypocrisy that I don't want my federal tax dollars going toeducate and to...
issues in which I disagree.
so you can't say that.
mean, because you can't control that.
(47:08):
I mean, even in school systems, you can't control that.
You can to some degree.
We certainly don't think anybody needs to know algebra.
I mean, I think unless you're going into something that requires that, I don't.
Okay.
But algebra is not political, right?
But my tax dollars are being paid to the school district and they're teaching subjectsthat I don't agree with.
(47:29):
Very well.
Very well argued.
That was a reasonable argument.
Well, I think that, you know, when you start talking about
things like we have faced in Florida and Florida has been run by Republicans for 25 yearsat the state level.
(47:54):
And then we still have pornographic gay books in our elementary school libraries.
These aren't public libraries.
You and I can't go check a book out from these libraries.
We're not even allowed on that campus without a reason.
Go look at what they've had.
This is, these are, you know, because oftentimes the librarian orders whatever they order.
(48:17):
and there's not, there's no oversight.
I don't know how they got in there, but they're there and that's why Ron DeSantis had toban them.
because they had, and then they're like, you're, you're banning books.
You're removing books.
Yes.
We're banning pornography.
We're not allowed.
We're not, we don't allow hustler and playboy in elementary school libraries.
We don't even let those in high school libraries.
out of Florida completely for adults
(48:41):
That's true.
Well, you have to sign up.
Insanity.
Yeah, exactly.
How are they indeed?
And so, I mean, those to me, the people who brought those books in are criminals.
they're they they violated the very code of conduct that we've entrusted them.
(49:07):
to protect our children from this very type of stuff.
Right.
And so if you break, mean, I don't know that there was a law against it.
So maybe they're not criminals.
Maybe that's too strong a language.
Yeah.
But it certainly is horrible activities.
If you did that in the church, for instance, we're going to teach this in Sunday school.
(49:29):
They would call that Sunday school teacher a pedophile.
Yeah.
And have them arrested.
So I think it probably does.
equate to criminal activity by whoever it is who brought these books into our elementaryschool library.
That's it.
We're going to drop off the cliff?
(50:01):
So what were you planning on doing?
well, that I could do that another day.
So I'm not telling you.
But I mean, it just yeah, this
I'm prepared.
Yeah, it's, it's, it is crazy to think that our American elected officials are somehowsiding with people who are here illegally breaking the law.
(50:24):
Like it makes no sense.
Like it just, I would love to have a Democrat on who could explain it to us.
Like, you know, they now I know there's plenty of Democrats are like, they need dueprocess.
No, tell me why someone, why you're advocating for a criminal to be here.
Number one.
And stay here number two, because that's what you're arguing when you say you want dueprocess.
(50:47):
You're saying I want them to stay here.
It makes no sense.
And, you know, the, uh, such a, to me, completely unpatriotic stance.
I don't even understand how someone who believes that can call themselves a patriot.
You know, all right.
(51:08):
Well, hopefully we'll have more.
things to talk about.
It sounds like you already have a list of Well, Trump is not slowing down.
He is out there making waves everywhere he goes.
he gives us lots of topics, for sure.
And welcome our newest family member.
We can't show you a picture.
No.
(51:28):
She said, don't know what she did on her first day, but she's already grounded from socialmedia.
but, Reagan Sloan Miller to the world, uh, May 1st.
So five days old.
sweetest little thing you've ever seen.
Yes.
All right.
Well, we will be back later this week.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!