Constitution_Radio_07_12_25

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
It is a nice, warm summer day southern California on
the West coast, probably around the rest of the country.
Here on July twelfth, twenty twenty five, you are tuned
into Constitution Radio. I am Douglas V. Gibbs, your host,
mister Constitution. We're gonna be without Dennis Jackson's services today.

(00:26):
He's got some things going on. But you have Alan
Myers with me. Of course, if you get real loud, Allan,
we can call you Alan Jackson or you.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Know, there's there's only there's only one voice, and that's Tennis.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
So welcome to the program. There's there's always a lot
to talk about. What's the old Chinese curse? May you
live in interesting times? Yeah? And then and you know,
I was this morning and I and I actually got
a post titled the Happy Medium. And this morning I
was thinking about this while I was preparing for my day,

(01:06):
and my wife and I were talking and and I
can't remember what it was she asked me that got
me thinking about this, But uh, basically, I have a
motto that I use there's always three sides to every story.
But he said what she said and what really happened,

(01:26):
And so I'm you know, listening to the pundits out
there about the auto pin and about uh Brennan and
and uh kmy and you know, we're getting ready to
see some I think I think some orange jumpsuits might
be flying. We'll see. Uh. You know, we've we've you know,

(01:47):
the birthright citisenship has become an issue again, which I
think we'll talk at length about next week, maybe tomorrow
night on UH on for the republic and uh and
I'm watching all of this, and I'm watching these extremes.
You're either a Democrat or a Republican, either a right
wing or left wing. You're either completely crazy about ice

(02:09):
deporting people are absolutely crazy about the fact that they're
doing it and want it stop. But what about the balance?
What what about with see my belief system because of
me believing in balance and there are three sides every
story and all that that kind of keeps me from
just jumping having a knee jerk reaction whenever something just appears,

(02:33):
you know what I see on the surface. I try
not perfectly always, but I try to be as fair
as I can and not take things personally. And I
think that you know, there's more to it, you know,
against me. You just you know, I always try to
to iron things out, figure things out, look at what
the details are. And more often than not, you know,

(02:57):
when someone's given me grief out reacting to me, specif
and you know, we have to factor in the whole
equation of unseen things, usually that influence people's behavior, or
influences political behavior, or influences the news, or whatever it
might be. I was up on Tuesday. I was talking

(03:17):
to a friend about the Q ANDN phenomenon. He told
me he believes that Q was legitimate. At first, someone
on the inside leaking information through the Q drops, you know,
And I was willing to buy that it was possible.
I didn't know if I believed it for sure, but
I but I I contemplated that it might be possible.
And what I saw in the beginning from the Q

(03:39):
drop seemed I don't know, innocent enough, good enough in
the right direction. I don't know, what do you want
to say about it? But eventually it got hijacked Self
Appointed Interpreter's band claiming there were predictions embedded in the messages,
and the predictions, for the most part, didn't come true,
and the whole thing began to unravel. And I think

(03:59):
it's because you know, it was doomed because the uh,
the establishment, the left, whoever it is, wanted it to
be doomed. If it wasn't working for their narrative, they
had to stop it before it began working against their narrative.
And so the whole thing began to unravel. From there,

(04:20):
the vultures moved in and the movement became an easy
target and saw something that left to point and say, see,
those people were unhinged, and I can see how that
might be close to what really happened. Now, the Founding
Fathers they understood all this. They understood this kind of dynamic.
They understood the dangers of extremes. They sought the happy medium,

(04:43):
a balance. They recognized the dangers in the extremes of democracy,
aristocracy and theocratic influences as seen in Europe's past. But
as the saying goes, you don't throw the baby out
with the bath water. Even in those flawed systems, there
were elements were preserving. So the Founding Fathers did something extraordinary.

(05:03):
They blended the best of what they knew into a
new system, a government never tried before. The House of
Representatives gave the people a direct voice through democratic elections. Democracy.
The Senate, originally appointed by by the state legislatures, represented
the kind of a pseudo aristocracy. You know, seasoned statesmen
who understood the science of politics, chosen by their states

(05:25):
to guard against federal overreach and give the states a
kind of oversight over the government they had created with
the Constitution, and bring experience and the advantage of cooler
heads to the table. The presidency was created to execute
the laws written by Congress, to represent the United States abroad,
and while the President was given considerable power in foreign
affairs and matters essential to preserving the Union, his domestic

(05:49):
powers were deliberately limited. This was a safeguard to harness
the benefits of a strong executive while avoiding the dangers
of centralized rule. The judiciary two was carefully designed. Judges
were empowered to apply the law and delivered justice, but
they had no enforcement army and were not originally meant
to interpret or review laws as they do today. This

(06:13):
structure was meant to ensure the courts could function effectively
without threatening the balance of power. It was all about
a proper distribution of power, about ensuring no single branch
could dominate the others balance. Tyranny was prevented through checks
and balances. Each branch was kept in liign by the others,

(06:34):
by the states, and by the voice of the people
and particular mechanisms embedded in the system. In that balance,
the happy medium, liberty found its protection, and for a
time it worked. That carefully constructive system brought the United
States to the forefront of global liberty, influence, and prosperity.
But the system has been under attack since day one.

(06:57):
Flaws have been introduced extreme ideological political institutional the alls
crept in. What we now have is a distorted hybrid.
It doesn't function as originally intended, Yet the genius of
the original design still lingers just enough to keep the
full blown tyranny at bay. So the question before us

(07:19):
is this, do we restore the happy medium the founders
created to preserve liberty or do we continue down a
path that allows the extremes to take root and eventually
turn this republic into a tyranny against the people and
a threat to liberty around the world. Whichever choice we make,
we must be tirelessly involved to make sure it is

(07:41):
carried out without our guidance and informed participation, tyranny may
find a way to continue to erode our constitution, imprison
our liberty, and dismantle the balanced system that began our
story two hundred and fifty years ago. Now understand, when
I talk about this, I want you to understand that

(08:03):
how important it is that we get back to that
original system that we bring back. When I'm talking about
do you want to participate in the conversation nine five
to one, nine two two three five three two nine
five one ninety two two three five three two, And
then in Alan Mode nine five one nine two two

(08:29):
three five three two. Speaking of Alan Mode, I've got
him on the air with me. Alan. I just opened
the program with this discussion about balance. Uh, the how
our system was designed with checks and balances and the
best of different systems. It wasn't designed to be a democracy,

(08:52):
but there are some democratic principles. Was it designed to
be an aristocracy, but there's kind of an a pseudo
aristocracy with the states having the voice Senate, not that
that happened is happening anymore. And you know there's limitations
and the checks and balances, and not just between the branches,
but between the federal government the states, and the people
and all of that, and and it's important that we

(09:13):
recognize that we understand that, and then as an informed public,
maintain that we may have inherited it. But the fact is,
like even if you inherited a car, the car doesn't
just keep running, you still got to give it as
all changes but gas in it and never once while
give it a tune up or change out a part

(09:34):
or something. It is our responsibility, and I don't think
we fully understand that. It's a country. What's your thoughts?
Thank you for that, Doug.

Speaker 2 (09:44):
You did read that number the second time a little
too fast for me, but that's okay.

Speaker 1 (09:48):
Well I was, you know, doing that for the speed listeners. Yes,
and then I slowed it down the third time, see
for you know people are more like you.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
Well, it needed to be a little slower, but that's.

Speaker 1 (09:58):
Okay, all right, want to do it again. Nine.

Speaker 2 (10:02):
The show will be over by the time you get
that done.

Speaker 1 (10:04):
Nine five one nine two two three five three two.
It's easy, man, that's good. I like you believe what's
going on today at the federal government level, and that's
what that's what I believe. We're just talking about, not state,
not local at the federal government level. There are countless

(10:27):
things that are that are going on that the federal
government does that everyone is okay with, that is absolutely unconstitutional.
The federal government was not given these powers, not this position,
not this authority. It's taken it, and everybody just bows

(10:50):
down because they haven't taken your classes. They don't understand
what the contract says for me. The Institution is a document, yes,
but it's a contract, an active, living contract that is
not being followed, which means we can't really know how

(11:15):
better or worse our lives would be until we get
back to the Constitution and figure out the things that
are being done by the federal government. If needed, let's
make them constitutional. If not, let's get rid of them
in a deliberate way and get whatever they're.

Speaker 2 (11:33):
Doing being done by someone else. One of the great
reasons for studying the Constitution and really understanding what was
written back in the day was to really get a
sense of what was going on then and how they

(11:53):
fought for what they believed in. There's a reason why
the Constitutional Convention lasted over four months. These guys didn't
get together over a couple of beers one weekend and
you know, they really hash this out, and was it
Ben Franklin who after a while said we need to
go down the street and pray about this, just to

(12:15):
just to bring okay, you.

Speaker 1 (12:17):
Know, the life of course will deny that that ever happened,
but we have all kinds of records and evidence.

Speaker 2 (12:23):
Beside the point, learning about the original design makes it
possible to understand what is unconstitutional. And if you happen
to be, you know, my term elected employee, if you
happen to be an elected employee in DC and you
swear enough to protect and defend, and if you're president, protect,
defend and preserve well your oath breakers. Because they're not

(12:47):
talking about everything that's unconstitutional in the government, they actually
don't mind creating more. This is why this kind of education,
education that you so bring to the people, this needs
to get back into regular education. This needs to get
back into high school college, because we are not educated

(13:11):
to understand our duties as citizens to this contract. This
contract is not to take care of us. This contract
is for us to take care of so it can work.
The big thinking about the three branches, yes, the checks,

(13:32):
the balances. There's a term out there that you know
we have three equal branches of government.

Speaker 1 (13:38):
No, no, well they say three co equal, but yeah.

Speaker 2 (13:41):
It's not. The big power, of course, is with Congress,
House and Senate, because they're the only ones that can
constitutionally make laws. Great, that's a huge power. Executive executive
is the tend that was intended to be limited, especially internally,
and that person was to execute the laws, as you say,

(14:07):
and finally we get down to judicial. Judicial was the
weak cousin. Just just apply the laws, okay, just do
as you've been told. You've got to get to create
laws and you sure and the heck are not supposed
to interpret them and you and the one thing John

(14:28):
Marshall got right is no power enforcement. We're a republic.
How many of the political the elected employees, the political
officials out there talk about, oh, I want to save
the democracy. Well, you know, I wrote an article about that,
and you know in that in that article, I say democracy,

(14:53):
which one? There's at least seven different types of democracies.
So which one are you trying to save? Because it
ain't the US.

Speaker 1 (15:00):
And we're not supposed to be any of them, by
the way.

Speaker 2 (15:02):
Yeah, exactly by design, of course, since it is representatives
of each state that is involved in the creating the
Constitution and ultimately ratified it. And given that the document
they created, the contract they executed, created the federal government.

(15:26):
The federal government didn't exist without the ratification. Well, of course,
the states wanted to have a voice, and they gave
themselves the voice in the Senate. How I don't understand
how the seventeenth Amendment ever got ratified. Why would the
states deliberately give up their voice in the federal.

Speaker 1 (15:49):
Government because their ranks were filled with progressives?

Speaker 2 (15:55):
Okay, now I know.

Speaker 1 (15:59):
And if you the progressive, hey, you want to ever
have a chance to be on any committee again, you're
gonna join us, because we got the power.

Speaker 2 (16:09):
And that was a really and.

Speaker 1 (16:12):
That was the progressives. And when I say progressive, I
don't mean Democrats, No progressives are they inhabit both parties.

Speaker 2 (16:22):
The that was, you know, and that progressive error led
into what we got after the Great the Gang of
the Great Depression and all the things.

Speaker 1 (16:35):
There was a short reprieve for a decade with the
Calvin Coolidge Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Yeah, but you know,
and then then they got there one of their guys
in there, Hoover, he was a Republican. He sounded relatively conservative,
but most of his ideas were progressive. He was he
was a progressive with with the Republican label.

Speaker 2 (16:56):
Yes, and progressive is another way of saying unconstitutional.

Speaker 1 (17:01):
It's also another way of saying leaning towards the Marxists
but not willing to admit they are.

Speaker 2 (17:08):
That would make them a democratic socialist pretty close.

Speaker 1 (17:12):
Okay, Actually I think they're all just a bunch of
commedy bastards. That's just me.

Speaker 2 (17:16):
They just don't know it yet.

Speaker 1 (17:17):
They well, they do know it, they just don't want
to admit it. Creeping incrementalism. Man, you know, you you
gotta just inject a little bit at a time, otherwise
everybody might notice.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
Yeah, just you know, don't do this deal. For me,
one of the most important amendments to the Constitution is
the tenth because this tells me really what they meant.
And I'm glad they had these first ten. I know

(17:50):
Brady thinks they're kind of repetitive, but to me, the
first ten really drive home points in the Constitution. Just
in case you didn't get them, we're serious and I'll read.
And the tenth is very short, it's one sentence. The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

(18:13):
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the states respectively, or to the people. The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

Speaker 1 (18:24):
That could be even firms the enumeration doctrine right there.

Speaker 2 (18:28):
It's like, that's not really hard to understand. I don't
think there's a broad interpretation.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
Well, first of all, it's saying the powers are delegated,
which means the federal gomment don't have the powers unless
they're delegated. If they're not delegated, federal gomment don't have
those powers. Well exactly, and the federal Govermment don't have
those powers. Now there's an opportunity for the states to
have the power as long as they're not prohibited to
them by the Constitution.

Speaker 2 (18:54):
Right or the people. So to me, I really like
the tenth because hammers home that very specific point. Yeah,
federal government, you have nothing, nothing unless we the writers
of the Constitution, with the Constitution as amended, says you

(19:15):
have it. If we if the document, if the contract
doesn't say you have this power, you do not have
the power. And if you're going to abide by the contract,
then you leave that alone. And the federal government hasn't.
And because this idea that the government is going to

(19:36):
take care of us and help us and be kind
to us, well, that's just craziness. It's that's not liberty
or freedom, that is ultimately servitude. So those are some
of my thoughts.

Speaker 1 (19:56):
All right, right on, let's take a break when we
come back a lot more to talk about. How about uh,
how about how the left is building a revolution? How
about they're selling a lie? And what is it gonna
take to find the truth all that? When we come back,
don't go.

Speaker 3 (20:13):
Nowhere at a dent in your door, scratch in your fender,
or a cratch in your door and a dent in

(20:34):
your fender. If you need auto detailing, if you need
fire shooting decals on the side of your car, if
you need a rally stripe right down the middle of
your hardtop, I don't care what it is. The Patriots
at All Star Collision are the place you want to go.
They're the only place to go. Buy twenty two Railroad
Street in Corona, web address all star ci dot com
to see all that they do and what they're all about.

(20:55):
Phone number nine six one All Star Vision, the Kings
of Reck and Roll.

Speaker 1 (21:02):
Help me fight the good fight. This radio program is
funded by advertising dollars. So if you are a business,
add Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs to your business portfolio.
If you are a listener, become a patron of the
businesses advertising on this program. Without advertising, your weekend dose
of truth ends with more advertising. Constitution Radio with Douglas V.

(21:23):
Gibbs grows, and we will be on the way to
win the battle to restore the Republic. To learn more,
email us at Constitution Speaker at yahoo dot com or
visit Douglas V. Gibbs dot com. Repeal Democracy by Douglas VH.
Gibbs is finally available. Doug Lat's book examines the importance
of being a republic, how we can restore a republic,

(21:45):
Why democracy is so dangerous. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny
sincerely exercise for the good of its victims may be
the most oppressive. C. S. Lewis And that is the
very first page that you will see, right before chapter one.
Repeal Democracy. Repeal Democracy by Douglas Gibbs on sale now.

Speaker 4 (22:07):
If you've been waiting to go solar don't wait any longer.
Proposed legislation ending the thirty percent federal tax credit could
pass this summer and go into effect by December thirty first.
With utility rates rising year after year and summer hikes
with no end in sight, now is the time to
walk in fixed energy costs for years to come. As
Guard Energy is a local, family owned company that served

(22:28):
southern California since two thousand and eight with over four
thousand flawless installs and personalized service you can trust call
eight five to five seven six zero energy. That's eight
five to five seven six zero three six three seven
before waiting costs you thirty percent more. As Guard Energy local, trusted, provenally.

Speaker 1 (23:00):
Are the socialists you will decided. Your individual literies, personal freedoms,
and mental individuality will be added to our own. Resistance
is futile and Welcome back constitution Radio km ME T

(23:30):
fourteen ninety A. Am I almost cite the ship. I
guess you could say, I'm messing around with buttons, trying
to do certain things, and then boom, suddenly everything was gone.
Fortunately I knew how to get back fast enough that
nobody noticed until I told you welcome back. Uh, Constitutional

(23:51):
Radio Jamie T fourteen ninety am, I want to join
the program ninety five one, ninety two two three five
three two Allen, try you have that one to stab?

Speaker 2 (24:02):
Oh, you know, I don't like stabbing things. You want
me to just try to say.

Speaker 1 (24:07):
It, don't try to say it, say it to say that,
Ellen speed.

Speaker 2 (24:12):
Oh, well, I know it begins with nine five one.

Speaker 1 (24:18):
Three five three two.

Speaker 2 (24:20):
See look at that. I'm getting better all the time.
Thank you, Hey, I got I do have to say
one thing. I really like the intro that we just played,
not just for the gunfire but you, which you appreciate,
but it you have the voice saying resistance is futile. Well,

(24:40):
your enemy will always say that.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
When are you talking about the socialist Borg?

Speaker 2 (24:44):
Yeah, socialist Borg?

Speaker 1 (24:46):
Whereas now that's what the Borg say on Star Trek.

Speaker 2 (24:49):
Well, resistance is essential. No, it's nice to be reminded
that the board will tell you wrong.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
You know. You were mentioned in something earlier too about
how there's a lot wrong but people know. And I
found it fascinating because and I think I've gone through
this before. You ever heard of Aerosmith the rock band?
Totally totally all right. By the way, just the Tyler gang.
It's arrow a E R O, not a R R O.

(25:23):
W Right, Yeah, okay, anyway, Aerosmith, there's this is the
This is the lyrics. Now think about the lyrics a
second from the song Living on the Edge. There's something
wrong with the world today. I don't know what it is.
Something's wrong with their eyes. We're seeing things in a
different way, and God knows it ain't his. It sure

(25:45):
ain't no surprise. There's something wrong with the world today.
The light bulbs getting dim, there's meltdown in the sky.
If you could judge wise men by the color of
her skin, then mister, you're a better man than I.
Sounds like, uh, you know, the the anti white bunch
of you know, racist white people running around out there,
according to the left, judging people by the color of

(26:07):
their skin. Lets see, what's the name of the song,
Living on the Edge.

Speaker 2 (26:19):
It's uh great lyrics, Yeah, or.

Speaker 1 (26:24):
At least those first two stanzas you know, they they
nail it. And the reason why I like putting that
out there is it reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's words
and decloration of independence. Truth self evident. The truth is
self evident. I think we know right and wrong. I
think we are meant to know right and wrong, but

(26:49):
we choose not to. We choose to chase it. And
when it comes to you know, the left, progressive crazy
people are out there now, I think I think they
know that what they're doing is evil, but they believe
the ends justify the means. In other words, if we're

(27:12):
disruptor and we're evil now with our attacking ice agents
and creating violence in the streets and burn and stuff
or whatever, in the end we'll get something that's good,
even though what's on the horizon with that type of behavior,
it's not good. And you know, and when it comes
to border, it fascinates me because when Ronald Reagan was

(27:36):
President of the United States, he sought to secure the border.
The Democrats said, hey, we'll help. It's a good idea.
Of course, then once they got their side of the
deal with some a little bit of amnesty, then they
didn't help. President Reagan reluctantly agreed to to their to
their Hey, if you secure the border, we'll help you.

(27:57):
You know, you know it. We'll give we'll help you
secure of the border if you give these people amnesty.
But don't worry it'll be the only people get amnesty.
Approximately two point seven million legal aliens were granted amnesty
under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of nineteen eighty six,
a compromise to fix what was seen as a broken system,
but the Democrats failed to support Reagan's enforcement mechanisms once

(28:19):
amnesty was granted, which in the long run encouraged more
legal immigration and rond Reagan developed a practice of trust
but verify after being lied to by the Democrats. I'm
surprised he was shocked he was lied to to by them,
but the damage had been done. Nearly three million people
had been rewarded for breaking the law and hiding in
the shadows till the Democrats could work a deal that

(28:41):
would legalize the undocumented Democratic Party voters. Democrats took a
bloodbath for their port of policy after that, and by
the time you got to Bill Clinton, if you listen
to his nineteen ninety five Stay of the Unit address,
he sounds like Donald Trump today. The language here's a

(29:02):
little peace from that. Rightly disturbed by the large numbers
of illegal aliens entering our country, the jobs they hold
might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The
public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's
why our administration has moved aggressively to secure borders. Remember
this is Bill Clinton talking. We've moved aggressively to secure

(29:23):
borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards,
by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before,
by cracking down on illegal hiring will we will try
to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens
who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens
in the workforce. We are a nation of immigrants, but

(29:43):
we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong
and ultimately self defeating for a nation of immigrants to
permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we
have been that we have seen in recent years, and
we must do more to stop. Since the Democrats have
realized they don't have enough votes to win election in perpetuity,
so they changed back to being an off for the

(30:04):
open border, and as time has passed, their opinion on
the issue has become more radical. And while in the
past they disagreed with Republicans on the details of immigration policy,
both sides of the aisle recognized that they needed to
stand united and supporting the law enforcement officers carrying out
immigration law and other federal officers upholding federal law. Not anymore.

(30:26):
We've been seeing the Ice and Patrol agents, men and
women who put their lives on the line daily in
the crosshairs of this dangerous new movement. Fiery rhetoric escalated
into real world of violence. We just saw the one
recently where it was out there in what was a
camera reel at a weed farm and rocks being thrown

(30:47):
at the vehicles and even one guy with a firearm
launching shots at federal personnel. According to the Daily Wire,
shocking plot involving at least seven suspects aim to ambush
and kill ice officers and an attack to four to
before it could unfold. It happened not long ago. And

(31:08):
then you've got you know, the ambush, And then in
San Antonio we have a city council candidate openly calling
for violence against immigration agents. Tragically, a gunman in tactical
gear was killed after opening fire and border patrol officers
just recently in a story that even made mainstream headlines.
And so let's not pretend that these incidents existed a
vacuum for years now, certain political voices have been drawing

(31:33):
comparisons between Donald J. Trump and Adolf Hitler. They have
called MACA supporters Nazis, and especially of late, these same
voices have drawn comparisons between immigration enforcement and Nazi Germany
labels like Gestapo and concentration camps or just careless metaphors.
They were ideological molotov cocktails? Did they really believe if

(31:56):
there would be no fallout? So when elected official and
cable news pundits demonize federal officers as monsters, that dehumanizes
them in the public eye. And when people are dehumanized,
some will justify attacking their opponents violently. That's telling. What's
telling is that while the mainstream media express shock over

(32:17):
the folence, Oh where did that come from? Must be
Trump's fault, they fail to connect the dots. A vast
majority of Americans support tough immigration policies like mass deportation.
The public hasn't moved to the fringes. The conversation around
them has the loudest voice. The squeaky will, one might say,
is on the left, the far left, the radical left,

(32:38):
the extremists, and rather than engage with policy substance, they
have opted for moral outrage and incendiary language, and ultimately
their followers are following, are living up to that incendiary
language and operating in a violent manner. Political disagreement is healthy,
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with disagreement.

(32:59):
But when disagreement crosses into a crossing the line into philification,
when public figures shrug off threats against law enforcement as understandable,
when office holders try to bum rush the Secretary of
Department of Homeland Security or try to break into ICE facilities,
and when political figures call for violence against federal officers

(33:19):
or any law enforcement officials, that it poisons the well
of civil discourse and endangerous lives. Now, don't get me wrong,
I recognize when we were on the other side, Hey man,
keep your powder dry. I get that. But this this
isn't about stifling speech. It's all about freedom of speech,
but having a healthy political debate. It's about recognizing that

(33:43):
words have power, and some have used that power irresponsibly.
The brave men and women of ICE and of the
Border Patrol, they deserve our gratitude, not our scorn. They
are on the front lines protecting this country and executing
the laws of the United states, and if we fail
to protect them. If government officials continue to incite and
encourage violence against federal officers, it not only creates an

(34:05):
environment of disrespect for the rule of law, but ultimately
leads to the kind of violence that destroys civilizations. What
say you, sir, Well.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
Thank you for that. It's amazing that you have elected
employees at whatever level and they basically condone, support, encourage
actual physical violence.

Speaker 1 (34:37):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (34:38):
Okay, we're not talking about you know, what happens in
a boxing range. We're talking about what's happening out on
the street, and we're talking about agents of the federal
state or local governments. And they're encouraging people to attack

(34:58):
these people. Okay, how is that not a crime?

Speaker 1 (35:08):
Yes, they impeached Trump, claiming that he encouraged people to
respond the way some people did on January sixth, two
thousand and twenty one. Yeah, of course, he said go peacefully,
and the violence happened before his people even showed up.
But that's beside the point. You jail them without due process,
go after them, ruin their lives, whatever. But now they

(35:31):
have no problem with this type of violence of the
streets and for Americans and foreigners think about this, people
who are not citizens doing what they can to keep
the Federgram from executing the laws. If that isn't insurrection
by the people encouraging this, I don't know what is.

Speaker 2 (35:50):
It's definitely unconstitutional.

Speaker 1 (35:52):
Yes, the.

Speaker 2 (35:54):
Use of the term Nanzi. It's come out along with
Gestapo et cetera, and communism has and we've talked about
this before. Communism has been associated with being far left,
and there's this attitude that somehow being a Nazi or

(36:16):
a Fascist is on the complete other side of the
political spectrum, which makes it far right. And I don't
agree with that. It's just insight of communism communistic.

Speaker 1 (36:26):
They do the same thing, just in a different way.

Speaker 2 (36:29):
Well, Communism for me is central total central government control
and ownership generally speaking. When you get to the fascist
and the Nazis, it is total central government control, but
you have individuals owning means of production. The Nazis are
different from the Fascists because they went after religion, They

(36:51):
went after behavior, etc.

Speaker 1 (36:55):
Well, I mean communism went after religion, but they went
off after all religion. The Nazis specifically, we're attacking a
particular people religion.

Speaker 2 (37:05):
Or or or lifestyle lifestyle.

Speaker 1 (37:10):
But but nonetheless, the real difference between the two is
very minor. They share pretty much every aspect except for one.
When it comes to controlling the means of production, one
does it by ownership of the means of production, the
other one does it by heavy regulation against the means
of production. But either way, the means production is the target.

Speaker 2 (37:31):
Which is the fascist and the Nazis. So that's they're
far left, and just inside of far left. Far right
is not Republicans, it's not Nazis. It's anarchy. And the
fact that these terms are so misused and then people
latch onto them, and if somebody allegedly in a position

(37:57):
of authority, power or whatever says something, then all of
a sudden it's it's correct, And I'm just gonna reiterate it.
The Yes, this is a this is a country founded
by immigrants, legal immigrants, not gate crashers.

Speaker 1 (38:19):
Right, And well, I don't know, maybe the pilgrims weren't
exactly legal, but then again, there was no one here
to stop them. Beast beside the point.

Speaker 2 (38:27):
That, yeah, that's a little before the federal government, okay,
and no one said where's your passport?

Speaker 1 (38:34):
Oh, I do remember clearly a particular political cartoon of
a couple of Indians standing on the hill and one says,
what do you think as the mayflowers approach, the other
one says, oh, let's give them a second chance. I mean,
what could go wrong?

Speaker 2 (38:49):
Yeah, you can see it the And then of course
you get down to birthrights citizenship, which there's this idea
that if you happen to be born on a certain
piece of ground, the nearest citizen of the country, right,

(39:11):
and that was never intended. I have my grandfather's paperwork
from nineteen twenty one where he's applying for a visa
to bring his wife and first son into country, and
he has to swear he has no allegiance to any

(39:32):
foreign prince, potentate country, anybody, and that he's intending to
become a US citizen. Why would that be well, And that's.

Speaker 1 (39:45):
Just fitting in with the Fourteenth Amendments, requirement of the
subject of the jurisdiction they're of, and the and the
Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six. It's just falling
in line with that. You know, you want to be
in this country, You're not to have any foreign allegiance,
You're not going to be subject to a foreign power.
My wife when she I mean, she grew up here,
her parents came here when she was like six months old.

(40:07):
She's about as American as any of us, except for
the fact that her actual birthplace was Mexico. When she
went to do the oath to become assistance, she still
had to renounce her allegiance to Mexico. Because that's a
part of what the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship Clause and the
Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six is all about.

(40:28):
You could be a citizen, but you're not gonna have
allegiance to another country. You're not gonna be subject to
a foreign power.

Speaker 2 (40:34):
Right for me, I like the language of the Civil
Rights Act of eighteen sixty six a little better because
it says and not subject to a foreign power. That
is very clear. People in for the Fourteenth Amendment seem
to want to interpret what it means to be and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as in, well, I have

(40:59):
to obey the trap laws like everybody else, Therefore I'm
subject to the jurisdiction Therefore, No, that's not what it means.
It means you're subject to this power because you're not
subject to any foreign power.

Speaker 1 (41:14):
Well what well, what Trumbull and Howard said when they asked,
he said, what we mean is full jurisdiction. Well, what
would be meant by full jurisdiction just on the surface, Well,
that would include then you know, voting falling under you know,
the rights and privileges and immunities, things like that. Well,
obviously illegal aliens aren't subject to those things. They don't

(41:36):
have an access to the I'm supposed to have access
to those things. So if they mean full jurisdiction, then
then it's more than just being in the country and
be subject to the basic laws.

Speaker 2 (41:47):
Right anyway, I mean, that's the point is your parents
cannot give you something they don't have.

Speaker 1 (41:57):
This is true.

Speaker 2 (41:58):
And if they're not citizens of this country, regardless of
where you're born, you're not a citizen in this country.
And it's very clear you have diplomats in this country now,
they're here legally known, they're working here, they're working here
for another country. And if one of them has a

(42:23):
child in country, a child is not a citizen in
the United States. A child is a citizen of it's
a country their parents came from. The location is not
the issue. It is the citizenship of the parents, because

(42:44):
only the parents can give citizenship or pass it on
to their child. My thoughts, thank you all.

Speaker 1 (42:53):
Right, very good. Now, the audience here, I think thought
what you were saying very good. They were cheering. Did
you hear the.

Speaker 2 (42:59):
No at very very happy, very happy.

Speaker 1 (43:03):
My studio, folks, is not at the studio and right
now it's actually my living room. My office hasn't even
built it yet. Yeah, but we've got a guy here
working on our water system. So every time he, you know, gets,
you know, within a thousand feet of the window, the
dogs think that we're being invaded and start freaking out.

Speaker 5 (43:24):
Since we're talking about the violence against like the Ice
agents and stuff that they left.

Speaker 1 (43:29):
It was definitely worth talking.

Speaker 5 (43:30):
I mean, Laura Ingram had a great piece. It's about
forty seconds long. She's talking about the ten that got
caught in Texas shooting the Ice agents. This says it
all right here, it's about forty seconds long.

Speaker 1 (43:45):
Go ahead now.

Speaker 6 (43:46):
The complaint says they were all dressed in this black
military style clothing like make belief soldiers, some head body armor,
some covered in mud, some armed, some had a banner
found by one of the officers that read resist fascism
and this is the favorite fight the oligarchy. H Now,
where have we heard that before?

Speaker 4 (44:07):
This fascist administration didn't come from anywhere. They have planted
the seeds for years.

Speaker 1 (44:13):
We've got to defeat the oligarchs and the dictators that
are trying to take over our country.

Speaker 4 (44:19):
Do we have the guts to stand up to Trumpism.

Speaker 5 (44:23):
And oligarchy and authoritarianism?

Speaker 1 (44:26):
We say yes, you know, well, they're trying to set
up for revolution. That's what they want and the best way.
And they lie. But the thing about lies is lies
aren't consistent. One of the things I like to tell

(44:46):
people is I'm glad I'm an honest person because they
don't have to remember anything. When you're a liar, you
have to remember what the lie was so you can
cover up for that lie later when you tell a
different lie. But when you tell the truth, the truth
always truth. Lives are inherently plagued with inconsistency and hypocrisy
and violence, especially the ones about distancing especially, and right

(45:10):
now they've got these lives out there trying to distance
the Democratic Party from Marxism, and Marxism understand is about
a violent takeover Karl Marx's attitude was the way to
put Marx in place is through violent takeover. The Fabians
of the late eighteen hundreds said, well, you got to
do it slowly from within. So they taking the Fabian route.

(45:30):
But now they are so close they could taste it.
They're getting ready to take the Karl Marx route. And
they claim to be defenders of democracy, they claim to
be champions of the constitution. They say they're not Marxists,
but what they say and what they do are two
different things. And when you've got these people then on
top of that, inciting revolution, inciting violence against the rule

(45:56):
of law, the law enforcement whatever. Well, yeah, but they're
disappearing people, people, Doug, They're likely just stop. Well, no,
they're not disappearing people. They're removing people who have entered
the If you if someone broke into your house, would
you be screaming? They're disobearing people when the police show
up to take them out of your house. And the

(46:17):
thing is America is waking up. Most Americans support these
Trump's policies. And I mean, this Marxist master masquerade is
nothing new, but it's never been in the open like this.
The Democratic Party has spent years training the youth for this,
getting them ready to be good little revolutionaries, while at

(46:38):
the same time denying any connection to the Mars Marxist ideology.
But now while their policies are scream collectivism the whole time.
Now those children have grown up and have become radicals.
Now they believe they because this is what they were taught.
And they're coming out saying that you got Zoe ran Mom,
Donnie Right and his radical I'm talking about the New

(47:00):
York you know city mayoral candidate for the Democrats, the
socialist the Democratic Socialists whose radical proposal to seize citizens
property to house the homeless. And you got Michelle Wu.
You know that's you know in Boston, you know her
cozy ties to the CCP linked you know, Chinese Communist

(47:21):
Party linked organizations. The evidence is overwhelming. These aren't isolated incidents.
These are symptoms of a party infected with revolutionary fervor,
and their revolutionary fervor is becoming a violent revolution. And
when the facts get inconvenient, they suppress them, just like
you know when when regarding the news about the ice

(47:42):
raids in July alone, leftists didn't just ignore the facts.
They actively distorted them to push a narrative of oppression
and incite unrest, incite the violence. They don't want justice,
they want revolution. That's what they're up to. And then
we have the judicial hypocrisy, federal blocking Trump's order on
birthright citizenship. I'll move That flies and this just happened

(48:04):
right well, that flies in the face of the Supreme
Court's rejection of universal injunctions, getting the Supreme Court to
say no more innivers Well, when you're a revolutionary, you
don't care what the Supreme Court says. You don't care
what the law says. You're all about the revolution. The
left doesn't care about legal precedent. They care about power.
They care about the revolution, and they'll twist the Constitution

(48:25):
into a pretzel if they have to to get it.
The very fact that they scream the word democracy over
and over and over shows us they don't understand the Constitution,
that the system was designed to be a republic rather
than a democracy. And that's why the founding fathers viewed
pure democracy as being such a dangerous style of governance.
And the economic contradictions, the failure to understand basic market

(48:49):
economics it's piling up. They rail against capitalism while raking
in jaw dropping stock gains. They claim to fight for
the working class, yet under their way, jobs for immigrants
rose while jobs for Americans fell. Their policies punished productivity
a reward dependency. And let's not forget the cultural rote.
Less than forty percent of Democrats say they're proud to

(49:12):
be American. They're calling for revolution because they hate America,
and they've embraced the absurd hysteria of cultural appropriation. You know, well,
I can't call that the redskins because you know that's offensive.
Who did it offend? Not the Indians? The white liberal.
The white is saying, hey, don't get rid of our

(49:35):
few recognizable connections to the culture. They've weaponized identity politics.
They've turned victimhood into currency. Mamdani held by a large
swath of the left. Pretend and they're starting to support
them even more and more as the days go by.
Pretends to be oppressed in order to oppress, a tactic

(49:56):
straight right out of the revolutionary communist playbook, and the
hopes and desires of the Democrats who hide behind claims
that they are nothing like him. It is a hypocrisy.
It's coordinated collapse from planned parenthood, funding blocks, funding blocks
to USAID corruption scandals. The institutions they've been using to

(50:18):
prop up their narrative is crumbling. And now they're freaking
out what happens when you corner a dangerous animal because
even their their own experts have burned their last shreds
of credibility, and the animal is getting restless and ready
to fight, ready to use revolutionary violence. We are a

(50:39):
cross crosshold a crossroads, my friends. The lies are unraveling
and the violence is starting to show up more and more.
The soft socialism is hardening into communist tyranny, and the constitution,
the very foundation of our liberty, is under siege. It's
time for Americans get involved, not with violence. We're not
not talking about fighting back with violence, although you know,

(50:59):
if we have to, we can stand to our ground,
keep it powder dry, all that jest, but with truth, principle,
and constitutional resolve. The Founding Fathers didn't build this country
a Marxist theory and they called it communitarianism and utopianism.
They built it on individual liberty, limited government, moral responsibility,
a godly foundation based on biblical truths, and time tested republicanism.

(51:23):
Political principles. Democratic party may think they're true, that their
truth is somehow what the people want, but their truth
doesn't it. When truth exists, it doesn't have to be shouted,
it doesn't have to be violently inserted. It stands on
its own. Democrats are out of touch, woke, and weak,

(51:46):
and truth is simple something they just don't understand. With
about three and a half minutes left, sir, what's your thoughts?

Speaker 2 (51:54):
Thank you, Dick. I think you covered it pretty well
in the beginning. You talked about being a Some people
want to be a champion of democracy at the same
time they want to be a supporter of the constitution.
I don't see how you can do that, right, You can't.

Speaker 1 (52:16):
And that's that's like saying you're a vegetarian and I
love steak.

Speaker 2 (52:20):
Oh give me that beef burger right now, and it's
I'm a vegetarian because there's lettuce and tomato on it.
You have people who are taking positions that they do
not understand. Right, are not They're not correct, they're not valid.
They're wrong. You cannot and history.

Speaker 1 (52:41):
Reveals it over and over and over. So what do
you do when history reveals that you're wrong? You cover
up history and you throw down the statues.

Speaker 2 (52:49):
Oh of course the So for me, all of this
speaks to the necessity of individuals, individual citizens becoming educated, knowledgeable,
and civically involved, whether it's local, community, state, now, whatever

(53:15):
it is, begin your involvement. Find an issue, find the issues,
find people, and bring this back into our daily lives.
Because what happens in media and what happens in the
political spectrum, which I never see, and you know, I

(53:37):
have to blame Doug for this, this is all his fault.
What I don't see I learned. What I don't see
is that people who are in who are elected employees,
are saying, this is what we're going to do, this
is why we think we need to do it, and
this is why we understand that we constitutionally have the

(53:58):
power to do this. They never referred back to the
document that created their exist, their political existence, and I
find this absolutely troubling that they don't.

Speaker 1 (54:11):
They warp and twist.

Speaker 2 (54:12):
It, which is another way of saying they don't do it.
And the only reason they can get away with not
doing it or lying about it is because we the
people don't know.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
How many times, because we don't know what we don't know,
and we don't seek it out.

Speaker 2 (54:30):
Yeah, and that's why what you know, what you've started
so long ago, Doug, is so very very important. We
need we individually and yeah, I use the word we
specifically because it's we the people. And when they wrote it,
they didn't write I the only they wrote we the people,

(54:51):
and we the people need to protect and defend our
constitution and we're not doing that, which hopefully people who
listen to this show will begin the process. They'll find
out where you're teaching classes or how they can get
your classes online, start meeting the constitution.

Speaker 1 (55:12):
Start let's see in a minute. So let me say
this real quick, and I think we're starting to see
light at the end of the tunnel. Both John Brennan,
former CIA chief and James Comey, former FBI chief, light
to Congress during the Russia collision hoax, and now it's
been referred to the Department of Justice. I think we
might start seeing some traction. Plug yourself real.

Speaker 2 (55:34):
Quick, that ad F E D E ED dot us
and on Sunday nights five to seven pm on Patriot
Soapbox for the Republic.

Speaker 1 (55:42):
You know how we say goodbye to kick but God
Bless America, my friends, God Bless you. Douglas V. Gibbs
dot com. Douglas V. Gibbs dot com, see you next time.

(56:13):
The proceeding was a paid program, views and class